Gary Mckinnon

15 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
I am really quite appalled that McKinnon gets away scot free. I don't see this as good justice.

Well Robert he it seems used the get out of jail card, as in the ' illness ' tag. He seems to be perfectly ok to me, but you are correct as in justice has certainly not been seen to be done in this case.
If justice was correct he should have at least stood trial on the computer misuse act that Neil has provided. Then let our courts decide his fete and not the CPS in some closed door deal.

15 Dec 2012

Thanks for that Neil.
I'm guessing that if he were prosecuted under that Law that he wouldn't have been imprisoned due to his Aspergers. The DPP then has to decide if the case is in the public interest and lets be honest this case has already been rattling around tying up courts for long enough; they probably decided that it was either going to be a waste of taxpayers money trying to pursue a maximum £5000 fine.
Maybe a good idea to get him employed by MI5 or MI6 now!

16 Dec 2012

4. Once the computers were accessible by Mr McKinnon, he deleted data including:
(1) Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions
(2) 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable
(3) Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 and thereafter left the network vulnerable to other intruders .

This is a paragraph from the extradition documents. A summary of the accusation is that Gary systematically gained access to and attacked US defense establishments.
Some how the media reports of his activities suggest he did no did no damage, was only looking for UFO's and would only really be prosecuted under the Computer misuse act.
Further down the same document -

34. ..... At the same time he has tended to overlook the fact that, if prosecuted and convicted, the equivalent domestic offences include the offence under section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

Given the severity of the accusations if he is enough of a 'Fruit Loop' to get out of jail he should at least be detained in a mental institution not employed by either of MI5 or 6.
I don't think that it is good justice when the outcome of this case is determined thru' the media by PR professionals ......

16 Dec 2012

Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.

Yes that is true GnV and I am all for innocent until proven guilty, but I think the evidence was pretty clear cut. Did he not actually admit to the hacking at interviews?

Quote by GnV
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Shame the UK do not adopt the same attitudes, for if we did Hooky and Abu what's his name would have been extradited a lot quicker, and not made the UK the laughing stock of the world.
Of course if he was innocent why not let the British courts make that decision, and not a bunch of limp wristed officials behind closed doors?
My own personnel view is that he knew what he was doing in the first place, knew the serious implications of his actions and yet continued, and then when caught people used his, what has he allegedly got? As far as I am aware he was never diagnosed with any actual illness such as Aspergers until AFTER he was arrested. Are people seriously suggesting that as a 46 year old man with ' problems ' he was never actually labeled as having Aspergers? Sounds an odd scenario to me.
I would have rather him stand trial under UK law no matter what the outcome, but certainly I did not want to see him ' let off ' for that is what has happened here in this case. The evidence is there certainly for a trial, and yet he has been freed.
I wonder if the law will afford the 1000's of others who tomorrow will be in a Crown Court up and down the land the same leniency as others facing convictions and trials.

16 Dec 2012

So what has changed GnV? What did Cameron know that the British public did not?

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Accusations that were reviewed extensively over 10 years by the High Court who concluded that there was a case to answer. Not an organisation known for being swayed by either political pressure or the machinations of the US justice system. For example this being the same High Court who have refused to extradite various terrorists and so on.

16 Dec 2012

I think the most important objective for the USA was to send the message "do not fuck with us" to the world hacking industry. Job done I reckon.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Accusations that were reviewed extensively over 10 years by the High Court who concluded that there was a case to answer. Not an organisation known for being swayed by either political pressure or the machinations of the US justice system. For example this being the same High Court who have refused to extradite various terrorists and so on.
BUT NO CONVICTION!
You could ask the Queen of Sheeba to review it for all it matters.
They are ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN FFS rolleyes

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Accusations that were reviewed extensively over 10 years by the High Court who concluded that there was a case to answer. Not an organisation known for being swayed by either political pressure or the machinations of the US justice system. For example this being the same High Court who have refused to extradite various terrorists and so on.
BUT NO CONVICTION!
You could ask the Queen of Sheeba to review it for all it matters.
They are ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN FFS rolleyes

It being a bit difficult to get a conviction or not as the case might be because of the accused's eventually successful attempts at dodging the trial.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Accusations that were reviewed extensively over 10 years by the High Court who concluded that there was a case to answer. Not an organisation known for being swayed by either political pressure or the machinations of the US justice system. For example this being the same High Court who have refused to extradite various terrorists and so on.
BUT NO CONVICTION!
You could ask the Queen of Sheeba to review it for all it matters.
They are ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN FFS rolleyes

It being a bit difficult to get a conviction or not as the case might be because of the accused's eventually successful attempts at dodging the trial.
But, he has not absconded in order to escape justice. This has been done within the rule of law and you should not condemn him when, within the law, he has not been convicted of anything.
The legal maxim 'innocent until proven guilty' works very well here.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Don't forget, these were 'accusations' and not proven.
The Americans would say/do anything to force an extradition.

Accusations that were reviewed extensively over 10 years by the High Court who concluded that there was a case to answer. Not an organisation known for being swayed by either political pressure or the machinations of the US justice system. For example this being the same High Court who have refused to extradite various terrorists and so on.
BUT NO CONVICTION!
You could ask the Queen of Sheeba to review it for all it matters.
They are ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN FFS rolleyes

It being a bit difficult to get a conviction or not as the case might be because of the accused's eventually successful attempts at dodging the trial.
But, he has not absconded in order to escape justice. This has been done within the rule of law and you should not condemn him when, within the law, he has not been convicted of anything.
The legal maxim 'innocent until proven guilty' works very well here.
Within the law is so far as Gary, his team and the media have swayed the opinion of the Home Secretary. As previously mentioned a trial and acquittal by the media. Is this really the way the law should work?

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
BUT NO CONVICTION!
You could ask the Queen of Sheeba to review it for all it matters.
They are ALLEGATIONS, UNPROVEN FFS

Of course they are allegations, is not every case that comes to court just that?
It is then up to the court, a Judge and a jury in many cases, to listen to the evidence and come to a decision on that persons guilt. No person is guilty when they enter a court unless they have pleaded guilty already of course.
How can anything be proved or not proved without a Judge and a court to determin that guilt GnV? It is as obvious to me as the night is dark that the ' establishment ' decided they were not going to extradite or to even send him to trial. So without that trial that many believe there was enough evidence to go to trial, that is all they will ever be....allegations, based purely in my opinion on the fact of he has Aspergers. Hence my comment earlier as to why it took 40 years to assess him?
But you are clever enough to know GnV, that many people never face trial as it is ' not in the public interest ' but are still as guilty as fuck. The CPS sometimes takes advice from the Home Secretary on a very limited number of cases. As mere members of the public we will never know the full truth but it is very clear that deals were done behind closed doors to keep this guy from being extradited or to face trial, for crimes that he has admitted too at some point early on after being arrested.
The British justice system stinks at the best of times, and sometimes people get off and sometimes people get found guilty when indeed they are innocent. It is not perfect but McKinnon is as guilty as the day is long. The problem the authorities would have had is proving he knew what he was doing, and did they really want to openly take a guy with Aspergers to court? They did not want to go forward on a case such as this with only the computer act as a means of finding him guilty, and a possible couple of grand fine. Too much bother? I think it could be something along those lines, but not guilty? No I think most think he was, even our very own PM alluded to such .
I can understand why the Americans will be pissed with this decision, and maybe one day we shall be asking of them what they are asking of us, and when the tables turned it will of course be a different story. I did not want this guy sent to the US, but I did expect him to answer to his ' alleged 'crimes in a proper court of law, as him being let off sends out all the wrong signals to every other person out there in a modern society. I still dismiss the ' he did not know what he was doing ' from his legal team as I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and more importantly the implications of his actions.

16 Dec 2012

But, just as importantly star, you should also consider that the US Military et al were as guilty as hell by having an 'open door' to such supposedly sensitive information with passwords no more secure than 'Fred' and 'password'!
If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be the idiotic morons who allowed it to happen in the first place.
Oh, yeah. They can't do that can they because they were Americans rolleyes

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
But, just as importantly star, you should also consider that the US Military et al were as guilty as hell by having an 'open door' to such supposedly sensitive information with passwords no more secure than 'Fred' and 'password'!

What a silly argument GnV and you know it. That is like a shopkeeper accidentally leaving his shop open after he has left in the evening, and someone walks in and steals all the fags and drinks, and then people blame the shopkeeper for not locking the door. Breaking the law is breaking the law GnV and making excuses for the people who break the law, is turning you into a softie Social worker. lol

Quote by GnV
If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be the idiotic morons who allowed it to happen in the first place.

That is a ridiculous argument and you know what silly basis do you think that makes an ounce of sense?

Quote by GnV
Oh, yeah. They can't do that can they because they were Americans

Did they have a password protection in force? Yes they did. Because it was an easy one why should that make any difference when someone finds it out and then goes into classified material. The computer act GnV does NOT make it ok to hack into someones computer and then use the excuse it is ok as they had an easy password.:doh:
GnV I am suprised in you as you usually debate with thought and time you are arguing like a novice teenager fresh out of 4th grade. :roll:

17 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
But, just as importantly star, you should also consider that the US Military et al were as guilty as hell by having an 'open door' to such supposedly sensitive information with passwords no more secure than 'Fred' and 'password'!

What a silly argument GnV and you know it. That is like a shopkeeper accidentally leaving his shop open after he has left in the evening, and someone walks in and steals all the fags and drinks, and then people blame the shopkeeper for not locking the door. Breaking the law is breaking the law GnV and making excuses for the people who break the law, is turning you into a softie Social worker. lol

Quote by GnV
If anyone should be prosecuted, it should be the idiotic morons who allowed it to happen in the first place.

That is a ridiculous argument and you know what silly basis do you think that makes an ounce of sense?

Quote by GnV
Oh, yeah. They can't do that can they because they were Americans

Did they have a password protection in force? Yes they did. Because it was an easy one why should that make any difference when someone finds it out and then goes into classified material. The computer act GnV does NOT make it ok to hack into someones computer and then use the excuse it is ok as they had an easy password.:doh:
GnV I am suprised in you as you usually debate with thought and time you are arguing like a novice teenager fresh out of 4th grade. :roll:
At yet again, not only do you completely fail to understand what is being said but continue to insult other posters with impunity :roll:
Now where is the I am not going to bite back emotion? :roll:
Oh here it is. innocent

17 Dec 2012

I'm afraid hackers and crackers alike don't do it to break the law, they do it because its there to be hacked or cracked
this needs to be taken into consideration other wise these smart arses would have all our bank account passwords
wink