Your arguement falls flat on its face LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix the individual admitted to hacking into the Department of Defense Computer system.

Having at one time had access to different aspects of the military internet - I can safely state that to go where the individual alledgely stated to have gone requires a password. If he didn't have a password granted by the administrator of the site, one would have to agree that his access was in violation of the law.



Now here is the internet page that is open to all to view.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

Now there are several links on that site that if you click on requires the individual to have the correct access authorization and is password protected.

Now back to the article and the hackers quotes.

Mr McKinnon has admitted that he spent almost two years exploring these networks but has said he was motivated by a search for what he called "suppressed technology".
Now searching the sites is acceptable - just look at the information available that does not require a password to access, one can find out all kinds of information. Now his admittance of exploring networks could mean something beyond the completely innocent search of internet web pages... All this information one can gather without logging into the system - because its free access information.

In a recent BBC interview, Mr McKinnon said he had got close to getting pictorial evidence of technologies that could be of huge benefit to everyone but the US government was not releasing.
This is where he does himself in. Those sites require some type of password to access from outside. That he admits to being close means that he cracked the security that was in place. If I shut and lock my door, even though it is a paper door, breaking that door is still against the law.

In numerous interviews about the case, Mr McKinnon has resisted attempts to portray him as a hacking mastermind. By contrast he said he was a "bumbling hacker" that exploited the lax security policies of the US military.
Again he does himself in with this admittance of wrong doing. Lax security policies - ie the paper door, still requires someone to knowly continue .

Speaking after the hearing ended, he said: "My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on with no password showed there was no security to begin with."
and finally he shows a major contradiction in his statements. If your the network expert you should be able to figure out the contradiction in his statements from the article.

Evidently his arguement was not convincing enough for an English judge hearing the matter in the English Courts.