16 Oct 2012, 12:52 pm
Plodder wrote:
I don't think it is a valid excuse to say there was no malicious intent. Hacking is still hacking. If a burglar broke into your home, walked around and had a look, and then walked back out again without taking anything, you would still report them to the police on the grounds that they had committed the crime of breaking and entering. They may not have committed robbery, but breaking and entering is still a crime.
I don't know much about cyber laws but I expect hacking works the same way. Even if he didn't steal any files or delete anything (which, actually, they claim he did, but he denies it) then hacking is still hacking - and hacking the Pentagon's database is very foolish indeed. It's a huge big deal - much bigger than hacking, say, an online retailer, or a gaming website, or a private enterprise. So I don't think that "there was no malicious intent" is a valid excuse at all.
I don't think the reasoning that "he might kill himself if we extradite him" is a valid reason to prevent extradition, either. In my view the only valid reason would be if he had been assessed and declared to be mentally ret*d or unaware that what he did was wrong. Assuming he knows it was wrong, he ought to face up to the consequences. If every criminal were spared jail on the grounds that it might make them want to kill themselves, there would be nobody ever sent to jail. You will always be able to think of hypothetical reasons for not jailing somebody, won't you? Seems illogical to me.
I don't agree with the seeming implication here that we should all stand up for him just because he has Asperger's. I will never automatically stand up for somebody and take their side just because I supposedly have something in common with them. I will always analyse what they did and stand up against it if I consider it to be wrong.
The only valid reason for not extraditing him would be if he was not aware at the time of doing the hacking that what he was doing was wrong, and since we do not know him personally, we cannot know either way. All we can do is make assumptions - and they might be wrong. Perhaps he knew it was wrong, perhaps he didn't. Who knows?
Also I don't agree with the people saying "he did the Pentagon a favour." I bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was your website that had been broken into, would you?
I don't know much about cyber laws but I expect hacking works the same way. Even if he didn't steal any files or delete anything (which, actually, they claim he did, but he denies it) then hacking is still hacking - and hacking the Pentagon's database is very foolish indeed. It's a huge big deal - much bigger than hacking, say, an online retailer, or a gaming website, or a private enterprise. So I don't think that "there was no malicious intent" is a valid excuse at all.
I don't think the reasoning that "he might kill himself if we extradite him" is a valid reason to prevent extradition, either. In my view the only valid reason would be if he had been assessed and declared to be mentally ret*d or unaware that what he did was wrong. Assuming he knows it was wrong, he ought to face up to the consequences. If every criminal were spared jail on the grounds that it might make them want to kill themselves, there would be nobody ever sent to jail. You will always be able to think of hypothetical reasons for not jailing somebody, won't you? Seems illogical to me.
I don't agree with the seeming implication here that we should all stand up for him just because he has Asperger's. I will never automatically stand up for somebody and take their side just because I supposedly have something in common with them. I will always analyse what they did and stand up against it if I consider it to be wrong.
The only valid reason for not extraditing him would be if he was not aware at the time of doing the hacking that what he was doing was wrong, and since we do not know him personally, we cannot know either way. All we can do is make assumptions - and they might be wrong. Perhaps he knew it was wrong, perhaps he didn't. Who knows?
Also I don't agree with the people saying "he did the Pentagon a favour." I bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was your website that had been broken into, would you?
The difference between what you are saying about people breaking into ones house or website and the case in question, is that these are personnel spaces, especially a house. The Pentagon and NASA website systems are not, nobodies personal space was violated as far as I know.
An analogy can be drawn to phone hacking by the newspapers, people didn't really care when it was the "Cele-lbs/Politicians" getting hacked. They regularly use the press to promote themselves and project an image. As soon as a normal/average family had been affected then the mood changed to outrage.
I have no problems with people hacking into companies in order to gain information that they are hiding (e.g Banks fixing the LIBOR rate or companies fixing Gas prices). I do have a problem if the intent is malicious or criminal.
I hope you are not going to tell me that you believe America does not hack into anybodies phones/computers. (You can't be that deluded)
16 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm
16 Oct 2012, 1:52 pm
GetBusy wrote:
I hope you are not going to tell me that you believe America does not hack into anybodies phones/computers. (You can't be that deluded)
Em, no, I'm not. Why would I say that? Where did that come from all of a sudden?
This thread is not about the Pentagon hacking Gary McKinnon. It's about Gary McKinnon hacking the Pentagon.
I should think just about everybody knows that governments monitor the communications of the general public. Are you trying to say that, in your opinion, the fact that they do so justifies a member of the general public hacking the government?
In my opinion, it doesn't justify it - but everyone is feel to think what they like. Opinions won't change the law - and the law is precisely what Mr McKinnon has broken.
16 Oct 2012, 2:17 pm
16 Oct 2012, 2:28 pm
16 Oct 2012, 2:48 pm
Plodder wrote:
GetBusy wrote:
I hope you are not going to tell me that you believe America does not hack into anybodies phones/computers. (You can't be that deluded)
Em, no, I'm not. Why would I say that? Where did that come from all of a sudden?
This thread is not about the Pentagon hacking Gary McKinnon. It's about Gary McKinnon hacking the Pentagon.
I should think just about everybody knows that governments monitor the communications of the general public. Are you trying to say that, in your opinion, the fact that they do so justifies a member of the general public hacking the government?
In my opinion, it doesn't justify it - but everyone is feel to think what they like. Opinions won't change the law - and the law is precisely what Mr McKinnon has broken.
MONITOR !. Gary McKinnon Hacks and Governments monitor, Nice !. Do You work for the American Security Services PR Department ?.
Mr McKinnon has broken the law ?. This statement before a trail has even taken place !. It just proves the decision right. Am I correct in assuming you are an American ?.
The prejudice in that statement shows that he could never get a fair trial in America.
With more information being released about his ALLEGED activities, I do believe that he should face trail in this country. If his actions were politically motivated and the intentions were malicious then a jail sentence in this country should be served.
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
16 Oct 2012, 3:11 pm
GetBusy wrote:
Plodder wrote:
GetBusy wrote:
I hope you are not going to tell me that you believe America does not hack into anybodies phones/computers. (You can't be that deluded)
Em, no, I'm not. Why would I say that? Where did that come from all of a sudden?
This thread is not about the Pentagon hacking Gary McKinnon. It's about Gary McKinnon hacking the Pentagon.
I should think just about everybody knows that governments monitor the communications of the general public. Are you trying to say that, in your opinion, the fact that they do so justifies a member of the general public hacking the government?
In my opinion, it doesn't justify it - but everyone is feel to think what they like. Opinions won't change the law - and the law is precisely what Mr McKinnon has broken.
MONITOR !. Gary McKinnon Hacks and Governments monitor, Nice !. Do You work for the American Security Services PR Department ?.
Mr McKinnon has broken the law ?. This statement before a trail has even taken place !. It just proves the decision right. Am I correct in assuming you are an American ?.
The prejudice in that statement shows that he could never get a fair trial in America.
With more information being released about his ALLEGED activities, I do believe that he should face trail in this country. If his actions were politically motivated and the intentions were malicious then a jail sentence in this country should be served.
Do you really think the U.S. government has something called "American Security Services"? (I notice you capitalized it), or do you just wish they did because of the acronym.
You seem to be making an argument for abrogating the extradition treaty, not for why it shouldn't apply.
To extradite you do not have to prove guilt in advance, only that there is a basis for having a trial and that one can be conducted.
How can you not think he did not break the law? HE certainly thinks he did it.:
Quote:
Mr McKinnon, 46, admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19968973
They are just arguing over motivation and whether, as an Aspie, he can be responsible for his actions, not whether he actually did it.
That he broke the law is a fact, not a prejudice.
This part is particularly rich:
Quote:
The irony that May's most popular decision as home secretary was taken because of the Human Rights Act, which she has pledged to scrap, was not lost on her critics. But in a promised overhaul of the extradition laws that accompanied the decision, May indicated that future home secretaries would be stripped of the very power that she had used to save the computer hacker.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oc ... adited-may
16 Oct 2012, 3:26 pm
GetBusy wrote:
MONITOR !. Gary McKinnon Hacks and Governments monitor, Nice !. Do You work for the American Security Services PR Department ?.
Mr McKinnon has broken the law ?. This statement before a trail has even taken place !. It just proves the decision right. Am I correct in assuming you are an American ?.
The prejudice in that statement shows that he could never get a fair trial in America.
With more information being released about his ALLEGED activities, I do believe that he should face trail in this country. If his actions were politically motivated and the intentions were malicious then a jail sentence in this country should be served.
No, I am not an American. I am British.
Yes, it is correct to state that governments monitor people's communications. They are allowed to do it. It is not a crime. When they do it, it is not considered hacking.
I am not implying in any way that I agree that they should be allowed to do so, or that they don't abuse their power, or that we aren't in danger of turning into a Big Brother world. I am merely pointing out the laws as they currently stand. There are laws in place that mean that governments are allowed to do it to us, but we aren't allowed to do it to them. Whether or not we agree with those laws (I don't) doesn't alter the reality of their existence.
As for saying he broke the law. It seems you consider that was not the right thing to say. I wasn't passing judgement; just stating the situation as we know it. I suppose, if you're being pedantic, I should have said "alleged," but I am not a journalist or anyone who has any reason to be careful with their wording for legal reasons. Remember I am just someone posting on an Internet forum.
Since neither he nor his mother have denied that he actually did it, there is no apparent reason to believe that he didn't. At no point throughout this whole process has his mother begged that he not be extradited on the basis that "he didn't do it." Rather, her plea has always been on the basis that he has Asperger's and might become suicidal.
I don't see anything "prejudiced" about any of my opinions. I don't know where you got that accusation from.
I am merely analysing the facts (as they are stated in the press. There may, of course, be a lot more to this that they don't want us to hear about, and that we haven't been told). I can't see any reason why he should lie, and admit to doing something he didn't do - unless he's being used as a scrapegoat, and there's some sort of weird coverup going on due to someone in the Pentagon messing up.
16 Oct 2012, 3:51 pm
Pyrite wrote:
GetBusy wrote:
Plodder wrote:
GetBusy wrote:
I hope you are not going to tell me that you believe America does not hack into anybodies phones/computers. (You can't be that deluded)
Em, no, I'm not. Why would I say that? Where did that come from all of a sudden?
This thread is not about the Pentagon hacking Gary McKinnon. It's about Gary McKinnon hacking the Pentagon.
I should think just about everybody knows that governments monitor the communications of the general public. Are you trying to say that, in your opinion, the fact that they do so justifies a member of the general public hacking the government?
In my opinion, it doesn't justify it - but everyone is feel to think what they like. Opinions won't change the law - and the law is precisely what Mr McKinnon has broken.
MONITOR !. Gary McKinnon Hacks and Governments monitor, Nice !. Do You work for the American Security Services PR Department ?.
Mr McKinnon has broken the law ?. This statement before a trail has even taken place !. It just proves the decision right. Am I correct in assuming you are an American ?.
The prejudice in that statement shows that he could never get a fair trial in America.
With more information being released about his ALLEGED activities, I do believe that he should face trail in this country. If his actions were politically motivated and the intentions were malicious then a jail sentence in this country should be served.
Do you really think the U.S. government has something called "American Security Services"? (I notice you capitalized it), or do you just wish they did because of the acronym.
You seem to be making an argument for abrogating the extradition treaty, not for why it shouldn't apply.
To extradite you do not have to prove guilt in advance, only that there is a basis for having a trial and that one can be conducted.
How can you not think he did not break the law? HE certainly thinks he did it.:
Quote:
Mr McKinnon, 46, admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19968973
They are just arguing over motivation and whether, as an Aspie, he can be responsible for his actions, not whether he actually did it.
That he broke the law is a fact, not a prejudice.
This part is particularly rich:
Quote:
The irony that May's most popular decision as home secretary was taken because of the Human Rights Act, which she has pledged to scrap, was not lost on her critics. But in a promised overhaul of the extradition laws that accompanied the decision, May indicated that future home secretaries would be stripped of the very power that she had used to save the computer hacker.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oc ... adited-may
The only reason they went through the extradition process was because my government would not turn a blind eye to him being rendered.
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
16 Oct 2012, 4:05 pm
Missing the point as usual. 
lotuspuppy
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 995
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind
16 Oct 2012, 7:16 pm
16 Oct 2012, 8:26 pm
16 Oct 2012, 8:51 pm
Wow that is some serious conspiracy theorising you have going on there.
Are you sure the explanation isn't just that your national security is not as strong as they'd like you to think?
I very much doubt that Gary McKinnon works for the Secret Service. If he did, the UK government would not have allowed the incident to be splashed all over the papers and made public knowledge. I am sure they would have discussed the matter privately with the White House instead, and negotiated things.
If it were genuinely a case of a British spy who was attempting to steal weapons information from the US and was caught in the act, I am sure the US would have declared war on us by now due to our failure to hand him over.
16 Oct 2012, 11:27 pm
16 Oct 2012, 11:32 pm
anna-banana wrote:
:cheers:
this is great news.
shame for Babar Ahmad though for not being white/autistic/cuddly enough :/
this is great news.
shame for Babar Ahmad though for not being white/autistic/cuddly enough :/
Yea Duel Standards being applied. Got to agree with May, politicians should not be involved in the decision.
As for being a British spy. We haven't got any they are all working for other countries.
17 Oct 2012, 5:18 am
