Quote by starlightcouple
And the word ' solo ' GnV ?
Napoleon ?
Read this article GnV and all shall become clearer to you. :notes:
Nope, sorry on me I'm afraid.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Gary Mckinnon
last reply
91 replies
3.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Strange old forum this one. Give an opinion and if it does not conform that is wrong.
Give a valid argument backed up with claims from other sources, and that don't conform either.
Get accused of finding things that back up my opinions, and it seems that also is not conforming.
To conform it seems, you must only have an opinion that others agree with, and can only show links that the majority agree with. Is it any wonder this site struggles as it does for people to take part on these forums?
I shall bear in mind the next time I fear of not conforming and dare to offer another view on things. Perish the thought that even when you find a link from a reliable source, that also does not conform.
Is it actually worth bothering , from someone that has muddled perceptions of reality, which is a case for not conforming with the rest on here. How dare anyone have an opinion, and dare to show a link that offers another view.
:smackbottom:
Give a valid argument backed up with claims from other sources, and that don't conform either.
Get accused of finding things that back up my opinions, and it seems that also is not conforming.
To conform it seems, you must only have an opinion that others agree with, and can only show links that the majority agree with. Is it any wonder this site struggles as it does for people to take part on these forums?
I shall bear in mind the next time I fear of not conforming and dare to offer another view on things. Perish the thought that even when you find a link from a reliable source, that also does not conform.
Is it actually worth bothering , from someone that has muddled perceptions of reality, which is a case for not conforming with the rest on here. How dare anyone have an opinion, and dare to show a link that offers another view.
:smackbottom: Quote by flower411
Cos I think English law should be able to stop injustice ...
Right, before I say anything, I'm just letting you all know that I've not read the whole thread yet. I'm a bit behind on all of your bickerings, so need to catch up ;-)
But... I thought I would point out at this stage that Human Rights law is English law. The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts. This is why people are able to raise human rights issues within the UK legal system (rather than having to go to the ECHR).
If you're interested in the wider picture... The UK has signed up to a number of international (UN) treaties on human rights, but none of these form part of domestic law (so you cannot bring a claim in the UK courts under any of those treaties). In addition, the UK has signed up to the European Convention (which is regional law, rather than international law). The Convention was implemented by the Council of Europe (which is not the same thing as the European Union) following WWII in order to safeguard and defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law. (And, in answer to your original question, flower - given the atrocities committed in WWII that form the backdrop to the Convention, I think it is most definitely a good thing). The UK was very instrumental in drafting the Convention, and (as I have already said), since 1998 we have had our own UK legislation to make human rights law a part of our domestic law. In fact, given that we have domestic law on human rights, the European Court will only hear a case once all domestic avenues have been exhausted.
As a general point, it may be helpful to explain that when people talk about "European law", this means a lot of different things. If we are talking about European law within the EU, then (without going into all of the details) there are different types of European legislation (all of which must have a legal basis in one of the Treaties). Key types include:
1. Directives - These do not have direct effect. They set out a particular result that each member state needs to achieve, but each state can determine how best to achieve that result. This means that each member state has some flexibility, but it is necessary to pass implementing legislation to give effect to the directive.
2. Regulations - These have direct effect, so do not require implementing legislation within each member state. This means that there is no fleixibility as to the means of achieving the result.
But, as I have explained above, the UK's Human Rights Act is underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights, not by EU law.
Quote by starlightcouple
But now that is not going to happen then the next order is for him to stand trial over here. There are three ways of dealing with this. Send him to the US to stand trial, and that is now not going to happen. Make him stand trial in the UK for his crimes, or if that is not going to happen then to drop all charges. My views have always been to extradite him to the US to face the charges, but then Ms May stopped that extradition. The next steps are to either get him to stand trial here or drop the charges, of which I do not want to see happen. As you are well aware my comments were a before the extradition had been stopped and my comments after. Obviously it seems you are not grasping the basics here GnV. Is that possibly a bit clearer for you?
It is not all that straightforward, Star. The UK courts may not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Also - do you really think it is in our interests to spend UK taxpayers' money on prosecuting a man for offences that are alleged under US law?
Quote by flower411
Star ...
Any attempts that people make to explain to you that many of your links do not actually support your views fall on deaf ears
I think I may have got him to accept that he was wrong on a couple of occasions
But he may have just been flirting with me, 'cos I'm a girl
:giggle:
Ok - I've now read the whole thread. Quite unsurprisingly, it went off topic pretty quickly! I thought the original question was about the use of human rights law, rather than a discussion on aspergers
Personally, I'm bloody impressed that McKinnon managed to hack NASA. I agree with a couple of threads earlier saying: (a) he is clearly way too clever to lose; and (b) if I were NASA, I'd be saying "thank you very much for pointing out the big gaping holes in our security system, as it would have been so much worse if someone with malicious intent had found them first".
Give him a pat on the back and a job in MI6!!
:bounce:
Personally, I'm bloody impressed that McKinnon managed to hack NASA. I agree with a couple of threads earlier saying: (a) he is clearly way too clever to lose; and (b) if I were NASA, I'd be saying "thank you very much for pointing out the big gaping holes in our security system, as it would have been so much worse if someone with malicious intent had found them first".
Give him a pat on the back and a job in MI6!!
:bounce:
Quote by Lilith
But now that is not going to happen then the next order is for him to stand trial over here. There are three ways of dealing with this. Send him to the US to stand trial, and that is now not going to happen. Make him stand trial in the UK for his crimes, or if that is not going to happen then to drop all charges. My views have always been to extradite him to the US to face the charges, but then Ms May stopped that extradition. The next steps are to either get him to stand trial here or drop the charges, of which I do not want to see happen. As you are well aware my comments were a before the extradition had been stopped and my comments after. Obviously it seems you are not grasping the basics here GnV. Is that possibly a bit clearer for you?
It is not all that straightforward, Star. The UK courts may not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Also - do you really think it is in our interests to spend UK taxpayers' money on prosecuting a man for offences that are alleged under US law?
That of course is a decision that the DPP will make in due course.
Is it worth spending the money on a man that broke the law, and was responsible for a major illegal hacking? I think that under the computers act of I think 1996, it could well be in the public interest, as because the extradition will now not be going ahead, to not deal with it under British law, in itself would be a gross miscarriage of justice, as he will then not be charged with any offense. Is that fair?
Quote by Lilith
Ok - I've now read the whole thread. Quite unsurprisingly, it went off topic pretty quickly! I thought the original question was about the use of human rights law, rather than a discussion on aspergers
Personally, I'm bloody impressed that McKinnon managed to hack NASA. I agree with a couple of threads earlier saying: (a) he is clearly way too clever to lose; and (b) if I were NASA, I'd be saying "thank you very much for pointing out the big gaping holes in our security system, as it would have been so much worse if someone with malicious intent had found them first".
Give him a pat on the back and a job in MI6!!
:bounce:
I wonder if people would be thinking the same if the tables were reversed Lilith? I imagine an American hacker hacking into NHS records looking for green monsters and then the Americans refused to extradite. I doubt we would be saying give him a job in the NHS.
I am also impressed at his seemingly amazing attributes in computer hacking, but the law does indeed say it is illegal. Would people find it so flippant had he got into your bank account? The law is clear and to let him off completely surely cannot be right? But then again as has been pointed out, Ms May has spouted off over the last few months about the hated human rights act, but how hypocritical of her now to use it when it suits her purpose.
Sexlightened
You couldn't make it up .... heard today that the password he guessed was "Password"
Sex God
When was the last time the US extradited saomeone to the UK on our request?
Sex God
But... I thought I would point out at this stage that Human Rights law is English law. The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts. This is why people are able to raise human rights issues within the UK legal system (rather than the having to go to the ECHR).
If you're interested in the wider picture... The UK has signed up to a number of international (UN) treaties on human rights, but none of these form part of domestic law (so you cannot bring a claim in the UK courts under any of those treaties). In addition, the UK has signed up to the European Convention (which is regional law, rather than international law). The Convention was implemented by the Council of Europe (which is not the same thing as the European Union) following WWII in order to safeguard and defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law. (And, in answer to your original question, flower - given the atrocities committed in WWII that form the backdrop to the Convention, I think it is most definitely a good thing). The UK was very instrumental in drafting the Convention, and (as I have already said), since 1998 we have had our own UK legislation to make human rights law a part of our domestic law. In fact, given that we have domestic law on human rights, the European Court will only hear a case once all domestic avenues have been exhausted.
I think I may have got him to accept that he was wrong on a couple of occasions
But he may have just been flirting with me, 'cos I'm a girl
I hope the latter quote about you being a girlie and stuff having its uses is true in this case cos I've tried explaining the former quote about a squillion bloody times and some people still don't get it. I hope you have more luck with it Lilith, I really bloody do!
Sexpert
Quote by Lilith
When was the last time the US extradited saomeone to the UK on our request?
The extradition treaty is not entirely reciprocal...
I don't know about the last time but they extradited somebody in July -
Personally I think that this was probably the wrong decision. If you read beyond the media coverage of the Gary Mckinnon case he is accused of causing a substantial amount of damage.
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.
The various arguments against his extradition rolled out by his legal team have been, he was making a political statement, the level of damage was trivial, the ease with which he broke into the systems, that he was just looking for UFO's and biased extradition treaty. When all of these arguments were refuted in the High Court eventually he was diagnosed with Aspergers.
If justice is to be seen the CPS should now look to prosecute the offences in the UK. Although that might be difficult as the CPS originally concluded 'there was no case in the UK', which I guess is why the extradition request proceeded in the first place.
Quote by flower411
You couldn't make it up .... heard today that the password he guessed was "Password"
It does make you wonder who should be on trial if that`s true !!
I can well believe it flower. In the 1984 Prestel fiasco, the password in to the BT Prestel system was understood to be "FRED". I have come across other equally insecure passwords.
The other recent issue is the hacking of people's voicemail. In many cases this has been made equally easy to hack as very few people change their password from the default "0000" or "1111" which came with the account.
Quote by GnV
You couldn't make it up .... heard today that the password he guessed was "Password"
It does make you wonder who should be on trial if that`s true !!
I can well believe it flower. In the 1984 Prestel fiasco, the password in to the BT Prestel system was understood to be "FRED". I have come across other equally insecure passwords.
The other recent issue is the hacking of people's voicemail. In many cases this has been made equally easy to hack as very few people change their password from the default "0000" or "1111" which came with the account.
Trouble is gnv that many software systems, no matter how advanced, rely on the lowest common denominator. Biometric systems are so much harder to circumvent.
But invariably it isn't through the front door where attacks take place.
Also shame on NASA having windows machines that are visible to the internet!! If that was really the case then the IT director should have been for the high jump
Sexpert
Quote by Lilith
.... Personally, I'm bloody impressed that McKinnon managed to hack NASA. I agree with a couple of threads earlier saying: (a) he is clearly way too clever to lose; and (b) if I were NASA, I'd be saying "thank you very much for pointing out the big gaping holes in our security system, as it would have been so much worse if someone with malicious intent had found them first".
....
He didn't just hack NASA and he had malicious intent ......
Sex God
Quote by Robert400andKay
When was the last time the US extradited saomeone to the UK on our request?
The extradition treaty is not entirely reciprocal...
I don't know about the last time but they extradited somebody in July -
Personally I think that this was probably the wrong decision. If you read beyond the media coverage of the Gary Mckinnon case he is accused of causing a substantial amount of damage.
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.
The various arguments against his extradition rolled out by his legal team have been, he was making a political statement, the level of damage was trivial, the ease with which he broke into the systems, that he was just looking for UFO's and biased extradition treaty. When all of these arguments were refuted in the High Court eventually he was diagnosed with Aspergers.
If justice is to be seen the CPS should now look to prosecute the offences in the UK. Although that might be difficult as the CPS originally concluded 'there was no case in the UK', which I guess is why the extradition request proceeded in the first place.
nicely balanced rob :thumbup:
Quote by GnV
You couldn't make it up .... heard today that the password he guessed was "Password"
It does make you wonder who should be on trial if that`s true !!
I can well believe it flower. In the 1984 Prestel fiasco, the password in to the BT Prestel system was understood to be "FRED". I have come across other equally insecure passwords.
The other recent issue is the hacking of people's voicemail. In many cases this has been made equally easy to hack as very few people change their password from the default "0000" or "1111" which came with the account.
Trouble is gnv that many software systems, no matter how advanced, rely on the lowest common denominator. Biometric systems are so much harder to circumvent.
But invariably it isn't through the front door where attacks take place.
Also shame on NASA having windows machines that are visible to the internet!! If that was really the case then the IT director should have been for the high jump
Quote by Suedehead
You couldn't make it up .... heard today that the password he guessed was "Password"
Quote by flower411
It does make you wonder who should be on trial if that`s true !!
Why?
Are you possible insinuating that because the password was that easy, it is the US that should be on trial? What really? How utterly ludicrous. Or so what if indeed the Americans were using Windows, and I have not heard that anywhere and is probably a Daily Mail comment with not a lot of truth in it.
That is like saying because someone left their window open and a burglar jumped through and robbed them, that it should be the home owner on trial because they are at fault for leaving the window open.
Seems this is all about your open dislike of the American Authorities, mentioned many times on this very forum.
Why should it make a damn of a difference what the password was? He committed an offense, and you asked yesterday where had he admitted it and I gave you a link where he had actually admitted the crime which was dismissed. The Americans have and had every right to ask for his extradition. Ms May used the very hated human rights laws when it suited her to do so.
As usual the criminal who commits the offense, gets the sympathy vote over the wronged and with this country's great justice system he will not be charged with anything. I am sure many other criminals will try and use the same excuses to get their cases acquitted. Or better still find a way of blaming the victim for not doing everything in their power to stop the criminal from committing the offense. No wonder this country is the way it is. :shock:
I am not a great lover of the way Americans do things, but in this case justice is certainly not going to be served in any way shape or form, as all charges I believe will be dropped. We shall see.
Quote by flower411
I`m not insinuating anything at all !!
Ok then your not insinuating, but just stating they should be on trial. Is there a difference? To insinuate is to suggest. Ok then you was suggesting.:rascal:
Quote by flower411
I`m stating outright that if somebody in charge of the security of sensitive US defence information doesn`t take the job seriously enough to make it difficult for people to get in they should be on trial. Otherwise, what would be the point of security?
It had security. It had a password. Because someone broke the law by not only getting the password, but more importantlyhacking into the site. Why is it that you seem to be failing to see that point? Also I have not seen any proof that there was a password called ' password '. Can anyone point me in that direction or is it another tabloid paper selling journalist telling porkies? I am sure millions of people out there use silly passwords that could be used easily. My former employer used the name of the company and then put a 1 next to it. So if a person had their money stolen from their accounts because they used an easy password, that the banks should do what exactly? Not give them their money back? Blame them for having an easy password. Really???
Quote by flower411
Are you suggesting that a security guard who leaves all the doors open should keep his job and get away scot free ?
I am not suggesting anything of the sort, the same as you were not insinuating anything. But show me a security guard that has left all the doors open and then a crime committed because of his actions and I will show you a computer hacker, who broke the law by going into someone else's account without their permission. That is against the law, leaving the doors wide open is not a crime as far as I know, and I cannot find a security guard that has, have you?
Quote by flower411
I confess that I had previously thought you were thick
Be very careful Mr Flower with the ' abusive ' comments that is mentioned in the AUP. Would hate to see any member with the currently inactive next to their name. :notes:
As my comments are obviously annoying some people, I shall move on and let you all agree on the same points.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
As my comments are obviously annoying some people,
Fuck me ...... next stop Syria
clue: It's to do with the bible
Quote by flower411
Star .....I owe you an apology ....
I confess that I had previously thought you were thick, but last night somebody told me you are just pretending, to wind people up.
So I`ll move on thanks.
That so reminds me of that famous quote about Churchill in the House of Commons all those years ago where he retorted to a female Member who accused him of being drunk.... It was on the lines ".... And Madam, you are ugly but at least in the morning I shall be sober"
Quote by flower411
As you have so eloquently described
"The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts."
Very legalese ....but that still says to me that the European Convection on Human Rights is now under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and is not English Law.
No. The Human Rights Act 1998 is UK law, because it is a statute passed through the Parliamentary process in this jurisdiction. So, it categorically is UK law. What I said was that the purpose of legislating on human rights within UK law was so that our courts are able to hear human rights cases and pass judgements on the basis of our own legislation. If we didn't have the Human Rights Act 1998, we would still (as a nation) have signed up to the Convention, so the protocols would still apply. But, the difference would be that people in the UK who have a complaint based on human rights violations would have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to have their case heard.
What we have is UK law that was based on a European Convention. But it is, no matter whether or not you like it, quite absolutely our legislation.
And, I'm not a pedant... I just like to get things right! :giggle:
Quote by flower411
I`d love to know the details of the reciprocal arrangement currently in place with the US regarding extradition of US citizens who have committed crimes on US soil .
In edit : of course when I said "committed" I meant people who been "accused" of crimes .
I'll look it up and explain it to you ;-)
Sexpert
Quote by flower411
I`d love to know the details of the reciprocal arrangement currently in place with the US regarding extradition of US citizens who have committed crimes on US soil .
In edit : of course when I said "committed" I meant people who been "accused" of crimes .
The arrangements are reciprocal at least according to the committee appointed to review exactly that question. Much of the controversy is around the phrases 'Probably cause' and 'Reasonable suspicion', which it was considered mean the same in the US and UK respectively.
They weren't for a brief period around 2003 when the Natwest three were extradited, but this doesn't apply to McKinnon.
Further to this statistically it would seem that the UK requests about one extradition for every 7 US request. This has been attributed to the fact that the UK is less likely to request extradition from the US.
Sexpert
I am really quite appalled that McKinnon gets away scot free. I don't see this as good justice.
Sex God
I haven't really followed this case, although I am aware of the basic facts (a guy gained access to 97 US government systems by hacking, allegedly looking for proof of UFO's. He wasn't extradited and now the DPP has said there is no case to answer).
Has he broken any UK Law?
Has he broken any UK Law?
Sex God
Has he broken any UK Law?
Yup! Section 1 1990 Computer Misuse Act Trev seems the only one really applicable. The attempt to circumvent the security is an offence here even if the computers were in another country. It's the attempt that's an offence. Two years jail and / or £5000 fine for the most serious offences. Was his a serious offence under the Act? Seems quite trivial. Fits the Section 1 criteria as the least serious offence laid out. Makes you wonder how extradition could even have been seriously entertained. Thought the offences had to be pretty equivalent as a clear breach of roughly equivalent law in both countries with some kind of sentencing parity so one wonders how he could have been facing decades in the US for so trivial a sentence here. Was always the point I guess, aspergers etc shouldn't even have had to come into it if that's all he could be done for her. I may be wrong though, but struggling to see what other offences he committed here?
1 Unauthorised access to computer material.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer F1 ;
(b) the access he intends to secure F2 is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;
(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.]
