Free Gary McKinnon

Post Reply New Topic

i know this wasnt aimed at me but when my wireless internet picked up someone elses signal i asked a PC programmer "is this illegal" i was told it wasnt but the person is responsible for preventing that hacking. Should be the case with the US personally.

I am not too happy with the way his lawyers have used his AS in the case. Having followed this case since I became aware of it about 3 years ago (before his diagnosis), I do strongly believe that it should have never got this far in the first place. IMO, aspie or not, he was caught out and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Before anyone uses his AS as a defence, consider the following.

Does this mean that Aspies should be banned from using the internet, or even locked up? I don't care for the sound of that.

There are some other points to consider.

(a) He commited, and subsequently admitted to the offence in 2002, and the extradition treaty did not exist. It was passed in secret in 2003, and the US government are using it in retrospect. AFAIK, this has never been done in either the UK or the US before. In addition, the treaty was meant to extradite terrorists. They now equate the hacking government computers with suicide bombing. Any crime against the government = terrorism. Obviouslly the post 9/11 meaning of the word 'terrorist' has been redefined by the Bush administration et al., as they can now label anything they like as terrorism, as opposed to the pre 9/11 definition of terrorism, which was previouslly classified as 'the use of criminal violence for political ends'. At this rate anything the government disapprove of will be classified as terrorism as even peace activists in the US have been known to be placed on terror watch lists. What next, any 'concientious objectors' who refuse to answer any military draft in the future could be labelled as "terrorists", whereas one time they were labelled as "deserters". We are living in Orwellian times.

(b) While he has admitted to entering the systems and posting messages, they have trumped up the charges, accusing him of damaging $750,000 worth of computers - a charge in which he strongly denies. Despite them having no evidence for the extra charges, they changed the law during the extradition treaty so they do not require any. Therefore, technically, the US government could demand that they hand you, me or any other British citizen to be extradited to the US without having to provide a shred of evidence! Ergo, this sets a dangerous precedent.

Aspergers or no, to treat a computer nerd like a suicide bomber sounds draconian, crazy and against the logic of a civilised society. That, however, is exactly what is happening. Remember after the 9/11 attacks, the words of the infallible President was:


That was not said off the cuff. Presidential speeches are scripted beforehand and the above statement became policy, and should things continue this way, eventually it will become set in stone in law.

If it is true that he just used remote desktop to connect to a few machines which still had the default passwords or no passwords at all then I personally don't consider this even "hacking" or cracking; it's just normal use. He did not impersonate anyonej

If we needed prior written permission to contact any computer online then the internet would not function, so there is an implicit rule that any services a computer is offering (http, ftp, ssh, ... remote desktop) also gives anyone the right to access these services.

If anything his actions seem to be just naive misbehaviour.

Also, he did the things he did while in GB. If what he did is a crime in GB he should be prosecuted in GB. If it's not a crime then he should not be extradited.

Notice that it might be that there is a problem to separate metaphor and reality: The metaphor for "hacking" is often "trespassing" or "breaking and entering". But to "trespass" or "enter" one needs to be physically there; which you are not.

In reality we do not "visit" this website, we don't really "go to a webpage". In reality we instruct our computer system to contact another computer and to send a particular request. It's the job of the other computer to make sure to send the right response to the right request.

What he did is similar to calling people on the phone, asking them questions and giving them instructions which are then answered and executed without anyone verifying his access rights...

I read on another forum he tried to cover his tracks when he did it so it's obvious he did know what he was doing was wrong or he wouldn't even tried and hide it or make it look like no one hacked into the system.

Many acts can be "wrong" and still not illegal.

Like telling a lie, usually we know it's wrong to lie but we consider lying only illegal in some cases, not in every situation. Still, people try to cover their lies even when they are not illegal lies.

Also, not all crimes are equal: something like what Gary did I would consider more of a misdemeanour then a felony.

This is a new kind of situation: What is proper behavior when one finds a computer which is not secured? I once found a computer where the user was unaware that his webserver was offering his whole C:... I looked around until I found his adress and then I send him a email to warn him; A few days later the the webserver was gone.

In any case. even if it was illegal, he was in GB while he did it, not in the USA. So unless GB became the 51ste state without me knowing, I don't understand why he is not prosecuted in GB?

This guy's smart enough to know how to hack computers owned by the US gov, yet he's not smart enough to know the consequences of doing it? Yeaaahh ok. He actively disregarded the privacy of the people who owned the computers, and he also actively disregarded the law. The only thing that makes you not know right from wrong, is a mental illness that distorts your reality that much. And sorry, rationalizations don't count.

My break and enter metaphor pretty much explains what I'm saying. Would you let it slide if a dude invaded your house just cuz he was curious to see how the inside of your house looks like? That's a straight up invasion of your privacy, whether or not he took or busted anything.

Correct. Crimes against the global G0ds are terrorism. If he had done that to you, me, or any other ordinary bod, no one would care, except he did it to Uncle Sam. That's the difference.

Nah terrorism is when whiney ethnic (pelestinians chechens and who else)/ideological (ecoterrorist , marxist , homophobic femminist etc) groups put sock masks and go fight in underground warfare
also the perfect diplomatic ad-hominem.

Theres in realityabout 10-20% chance he will face any serious charges unless theres stuff we don't know about.
and frankly since the law is only as just and absolute as the thug imposing it judging what he did from what I kow I think hes a pretty cool guy and I don't support anything against him

Terrorism (as with torture, abuse, human rights, cruel and unusual punishment etc.) is defined however our masters wish to deem so. They can pick, choose and ignore whatever they like according to their whims, as no one cares enough to challenge them.

I would agree with you if the used passwords to impersonate someone else (identity theft) but as far as I can tell from the media he has not done this. He's clearly more a script-kiddy without a clue then the "super hacker" some make him out to be. What he was abel to do was mostly "luck" and has next to nothing to do with being "smart".

To what extent is a computer user/owner responsible for the security of their own computer? Leaving remote desktop on like this is just plain wrong.

I would add to that, that it is in the very nature of obsession that it can often only be supplanted by another obsession, which may be worse. It is quite reasonable to believe that the self control required to refrain from hunting the X Files would have involved some other illegal and much more harmful obsession

Firstly it is controversial as to whether he actually hacked rather than merely accessed these machines. Secondly, many very intelligent people lack the ability to magically divine the future. Why would being smart enough to hack a computer give one magical insight into the future? You do you realize this legislation, contrary to long standing tenets of natural justice within the UK justice system, is being enacted against this individual retrospectively? In other words the law that applied when his acts were committed did not allow the consequences this person is facing.

If he disobeyed any law that applied to him at the time the acts were committed, then he should be charged with those crimes in the UK. These computers did not belong to private citizens or private entities, so privacy is actually not an issue.


Evidence please?


Privacy is an attribute of individual-humans, its necessity arises from human dignity. Public entities do not need and cannot actually enjoy privacy. The closest they get is secrecy, and the rights and wrongs of what should and should not be secret in respect of public, tax payer funded, legislatively recognized and state owned/controlled entities is far from uncontested or incontestable.

Asperger or not, that dude doesn't belong in prison for such a trivial reason indeed. US officials claim tracking him down has cost money. Yeah big deal, the federal goverment deficit is now over one trillion dollars, $1000+ billion.

Who are they kidding?

Free Gary McKinnon!

I deal with government computers, the first screen that comes up is a warning, it states the law, and something like ten years and $10,000 fine per illegal access.

He did not just access, he went in, then went looking around. It sounds like he was there seven times.

If you hit continue, the next screen is a password. I have never seen one without.

It is like our bases, they have signs, warnings, often, deadly force used beyond this point.

There is nothing but a fence and a sign, it is not hard to get in, but it is unlikely you will get out.

"Trespassers will be shot" skips crime, trial, and moves on to landfill.

We have bases where we test the new stuff, and keep finding people with 1200 mm telephoto lenses who claim to be looking for UFOs, on a hill overlooking the base. They are spies, they did not enter the base in person, just with a long lens. They are still spies. They may be self employed spies, they may be working for someone. They have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to get some pictures, and we do not want those pictures to exist. Spies have no legal rights, they can be taken out and shot.

While it is true they did not break the letter of the law, did not enter the base, and there is no evidence they were working for anyone else, they still can be shot.

England has the same system, James Bond is real, he does not bring people in for trial, he hunts them down and kills them.

This is nothing Bush thought up, all countries have been doing it for as far back as there are records.

Before WWII, the Japanese Consul in Seattle was very active in the camera club, took beautiful pictures of the navel shipyard. I am sure the same happened at Pearl Harbor.

Spies are people who do no damage, no harm, just gather information, they still get shot.

"Trespassers will be shot"

You CAN'T trespass from halve way around the world.

Gary should be tried for what he did in the UK, he was inside the UK jurisdiction when he did what he did.

If his action are a crime by UK law when he did it, then he should be punished as the law demands. If his actions are not a crime by UK law then he should be free.

He can not have broken any USA law because he was not under USA jurisdiction at the time.

USA law end at its borders: Whatever laws they see fit to have, they may make for themselves. However, don't attempt to force them unto everyone in the world.

Imagine the precedent this sets? It would mean that Iran had the right to demanding the extradition of that cartoonist from Denmark because he broke Iranian law. It's absurd.

The internet is not a place; Your not entering another country just by ordering your computer to sent bits to another computer in another country.

This whole case makes no sense.

I don't even want to go into the whole James Bond angle... if a government employs assassins then we can ignore the law, order and right /wrong. Etc. This is the road to anarchy or chaos.

US law was broken in the US, it is a public conveyance, like the mail, and if he mailed antrax from England, he would still be commiting the crime in the US.

Shipping drugs from South America, is a crime in the US, and ask the Ochoas what happens.

Just having a Swiss bank account is a crime, for Americans who do not report it.

The whole idea of INTERPOL is going after people who live in one country and commit crimes in another.

Using the mails, phone, or Internet to commit crimes has a long history of prosocution.

Your defense is like standing in France and throwing rocks at people in Belgium.
Your defense would allow cyber attacks from anywhere to be a local matter.
Pirates work in International Waters, they still get hunted down and hung.