US Govt Pursue UK hacker

**Don Corleone** · 05-10-2006, 20:00

So the guy basically found a DoD website that posted national secrets for anybody that cared to look, Legio? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't that be the real shock of this story, not that the DoD was actually going after him? What's more, if that's the case, why do they refer to him as a 'hacker'? Just accessing a network PoP makes you a user. 'Hacking' implies that you have taken some step to defeat privacy/security protocols, no?

He himself admits that he was looking to steal secrets and that he thwarted security measures to do so. The fact that he claims he wasn't motivated by profit has no bearing. He caused some very real damage and who knows what his actual intentions were. For all we know, he's an agent of the PRC and he was indeed highly motivated by profit.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 05-10-2006, 20:16

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So the guy basically found a DoD website that posted national secrets for anybody that cared to look, Legio? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't that be the real shock of this story, not that the DoD was actually going after him? What's more, if that's the case, why do they refer to him as a 'hacker'? Just accessing a network PoP makes you a user. 'Hacking' implies that you have taken some step to defeat privacy/security protocols, no?

So how come they can't mention a single security protocol that they had? And since they seem to not have had any proper security it's very embarassing to them and they obviously know very little about computers so they call him a hacker. You can call someone terrorist if you don't like what they think, even if they've never used any violence. That doesn't make them guilty of being terrorists. It's when they beyond reasonable doubt plan or carry out such actions that they become terrorists. The problem in this case is that since there are no security protocols there's nothing in his communication that differs it enough from normal usage that you can formulate it into a general law. Only if you use passwords and accept any request message but respond to unauthorized with an access denied and question for password response message, can you clearly differ between when it's hacking and not hacking, in a way that can easily be formulated into a law.

**Don Corleone** · 05-10-2006, 20:29

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

So how come they can't mention a single security protocol that they had? And since they seem to not have had any proper security it's very embarassing to them and they obviously know very little about computers so they call him a hacker. You can call someone terrorist if you don't like what they think, even if they've never used any violence. That doesn't make them guilty of being terrorists. It's when they beyond reasonable doubt plan or carry out such actions that they become terrorists. The problem in this case is that since there are no security protocols there's nothing in his communication that differs it enough from normal usage that you can formulate it into a general law. Only if you use passwords and accept any request message but respond to unauthorized with an access denied and question for password response message, can you clearly differ between when it's hacking and not hacking, in a way that can easily be formulated into a law.

You're not making any sense. He claims to have hacked into the system, admits he knew exactly what he was doing and that he was accessing systems he didn't have authorization to access, and you claim it's okay because 1) the DoD won't list their security protocols to the beeb and 2) he didn't have terrorist intentions?

Sorry man, no matter how much you want the 'free electronic frontier' and a free world for hackers as long as they don't have a political motive, it's still wrong, it's still illegal, and as your friend is about to find out, it's still punishable.

**English assassin** · 05-11-2006, 10:23

The judges comments:

"I readily accept the probable sentence is likely to be appreciably harsher in the US than in comparable circumstances it would in the UK," the judge told the court. "But it must be obvious to any defendant that if you choose to commit a crime in a foreign country, you run the risk of being prosecuted in that country."

That's the beginning and end of it IMHO.

**Haudegen** · 05-11-2006, 11:03

I´m just happy to live in a country where the constitution protects me from being delivered to non-european courts.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 05-11-2006, 12:08

But it must be obvious to any defendant that if you choose to commit a crime in a foreign country, you run the risk of being prosecuted in that country

Was it commited in a foreign country? The question of international jurisdiction is always interesting, even more so with the advent of new technology. Where was this crime commited?
If you mug an American tourist in London, you obviously get trialed in the UK. But what if you plunder his bank account over the internet, from London, without the victim ever having set foot in Britain?

His acts are a criminal act within the UK as well. If it wasn't, I would see no reason whatsoever to not extradite him indeed. But as it stands, A UK law was broken in UK territory, and I believe extradition should be applied under the principle of subsidiarity, that is, if British legal means for prosecution are either exhausted or non-existent.

Mr McKinnon was originally tracked down and arrested under the Computer Misuse Act by the UK National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) in 2002, and later that year was also indicted by the United States government

**Louis VI the Fat** · 05-11-2006, 12:10

Originally Posted by Haudegen

I´m just happy to live in a country where the constitution protects me from being delivered to non-european courts.

Really? French law doesn't, which I fully support.

**Haudegen** · 05-11-2006, 12:24

Yes, Sir! Look:

Article 16 [Citizenship; extradition]

(1) No German may be deprived of his citizenship. Citizenship may be lost only pursuant to a law, and against the will of the person affected only if he does not become stateless as a result.
(2) No German may be extradited to a foreign country. A different regulation to cover extradition to a Member State of the European Union or to an international court of law may be laid down by law, provided that constitutional principles are observed.

IMHO it´s a good thing. After all one of the reasons for having a nation is that it protects the individual from other nations. Exceptions are only made for our very good friends in the EU.