NASA said to be investigating first allegation of a crime in space
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I was surprised that it was not mentioned in the BBC story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15_postal_covers_incide...
I assume that since most astronauts are Air Force personal, they committed insubordination, although were never tried for anything.
Curious, what are the job opportunities of ex-astronauts? I assume they're not the kind of openings to be found on linkedin.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/did-skylab-4s-astronau...
> in David Hitt’s 2008 book Homesteading Space, Gibson says that the three men simply failed to synchronize their radio response shifts, and that as a result, “one day we made a mistake and for a whole orbit we all had our radios off!” The press, he says, misconstrued this as a purposeful action. “There was no ‘strike in space’ by any stretch of the imagination,” Gibson says in the book. “What could we threaten to do, go live on the moon?” He says the same in his oral history, calling it a “myth.”
Here's just a partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_items_smuggled_into_sp...
Even Apollo 15 seems to have had another unlisted item, an aluminum figurine: https://newatlas.com/things-smuggled-space/45285/
What was special about the Apollo 15 postal covers, and relevant to the OP, was that the crew accepted monetary compensation to transport them without informing NASA officials. This was where the legality debate came into play.
As for "postal covers" [1], I had to look it up, too. I always thought that they brought collectable stamps.
[1] "essentially envelopes with printed decorative cachets". http://www.spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_apollo_covers.html
I don't have a firm opinion on the matter. I just remember feeling a bit sad when I first read the story as a high-school kid, thinking that the Apollo astronauts would need to supplement their NASA salary with the 1971 equivalent of eBay. That may not have been the case, though.
More anger == more ad revenue.
I went to the article https://www.foxnews.com/us/nasa-astronaut-identity-theft-ban...
But it seems that the comment section is not even open for this story.
Where are you getting your evidence from?
Not to mention prejudging the actions of a group of people over a future chat.
Her sexuality is mentioned in the first paragraph "after her estranged wife alleged she stole her identity and accessed her bank account without permission during a six-month mission aboard the International Space Station."
The oddities of space law are perfectly suited to Saturday morning banter. This case turns out to be extraordinarily mundane, the more you read about it. (Astronaut McClain says she was just checking to make sure that child-expense bills were being paid on time, and didn't do anything more. She's cooperating with the "investigation.")
But that doesn't stop swarms of casually curious people from giving the headline a look.
> She filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and her family lodged one with NASA’s Office of Inspector General, accusing Ms. McClain of identity theft and improper access to Ms. Worden’s private financial records.
The fact she was an astronaut put her in an unique vulnerable position in the divorce process, where there are thousands of additional administrative rules she must observe. Normally this would just be a personal issue between two adults or merely a police investigation.
The difference here is that she was basically stuck in the office for months. But that doesn’t make it OK.
Why bring the FTC and NASA Inspector General's Office... other than to inflict the maximum amount of punishment?
Without knowing any details of the incident, sometimes people keep crossing whatever lines are set until you get the law involved.
"Ms. Worden [the 'estranged spouse'] put her intelligence background to work, asking her bank about the locations of computers that had recently accessed her bank account using her login credentials. The bank got back to her with an answer: One was a computer network registered to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
That's why it's an investigation, not a conviction.
"Anne McClain acknowledges accessing the account from the ISS but denies any wrongdoing, the New York Times reports."
Space law is obviously the somewhat interesting story angle. Other than that it's certainly a complete non-story.
Also, if one does want to make sure a previously-authorized individual can no longer access something, the responsible thing is to change the locks ASAP, thus revoking that implicit authorization.
There's plenty of reasonable reasons for her to have access. Especially if she had access to the account previously in a shared role and only read the information instead of modified it somehow. But that of course depends on whether the individual made it clear it was now off limits because (for example) it is now a strictly personal account again or the divorce was finalized and there was zero financial connection which exists between them.
Plus things like how reasonable it would be to not say anything about it but expecting them to know better. Which is why the exact details of the arrangement needs to be clear.
1) she somehow got them illicitly (e.g. stealing them from Worden)
or
2) she previously had legitimate and authorized access to the account (e.g. while she and her spouse were not yet estranged / filing for divorce)
If #2, then I reckon this becomes a much harder case to prosecute, given that McClain was implicitly authorized to access the account (else, Worden would have changed the password or otherwise revoked that access). Unless, of course, there's documentation of Worden having told McClain not to access it (and yet still didn't change the password...).
Disclaimer: IANAL
Does that mean her training suggested a possible thing she should check? Or does it mean she somehow used her position or contacts within the intelligence community to get information which would not otherwise be provided?
I've never asked my bank for this type of information; I've no idea whether or not a bank would provide it (although it seems a reasonable request)... But if she used her official position to get information she would not otherwise be provided, that's a pretty clear ethics violation.
I'm not throwing stones here;I just wish the Times quote was clearer.
"If you take out the interesting aspect of the story it becomes uninteresting"
Human mind is funny.
So if a Canadian national were to commit a crime in space, they would be subject to Canadian law, and a Russian citizen to Russian law.
Space law also sets out provisions for extradition back on Earth, should a nation decide it wishes to prosecute a citizen of another nation for misconduct in space.
In case someone in the (former) Space Shuttle kills another person on purpose, I expect USA to prosecute him/her in spite the nationality of the murderer.
Perhaps there are special rules in the ISS because each module is from a different country??? (What happens if someone shots from the Russian module, the bullet goes to the European module and it kills someone in the American module?)
In this case, at least per the article, it'd just be prosecuted under the suspect's nation's laws.
If space law were modeled off international waters law, though, then I'd imagine any case law pertaining to crimes involving multiple ships of different nationalities (e.g. an American ship, a European ship, and a Russian ship are bridged together to exchange supplies, and someone shoots from the Russian ship, bounces the bullet off the European ship, and the bullet hits and kills someone on the American ship) would apply here.
> Let us suppose that an astronaut located in the module of State B shoots a weapon and injures another astronaut located in the module of State C: On which territory did the offense actually take place? In order to eliminate all these practical problems, the territoriality principle was again excluded, and instead the active nationality principle was adopted as the basic rule for criminal matters on the ISS.
The "active nationality principle", which is part of the space station agreement, the treaty governing the station, states that jurisdiction belongs to the state of which the perpetrator is a citizen. There is also a secondary "passive nationality principle" which applies if the perpetrator's state doesn't prosecute them, and allows the state of the victim, or which owns any property which was damaged, to take jurisidiction.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270646335_Criminal_...
> A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intr...
The American module group, where this alleged crime probably took place (as US astronauts use the laptops in their own area), is governed under the USA's laws.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Explorat...
But the nexus of the crime involves a US person, so the US has the authority to investigate independent of what or where or who allegedly was involved.
> As space tourism becomes a reality, so might the need to prosecute space crime
> Space law also sets out provisions for extradition
> Ms McClain has since returned to Earth.
Sounds like something out of a novel!
I ask that, since it appears there was no hacking involved here, so I assume this is an account she had access to from when they were together.
Imagine it was the keys to her personal apartment she had in her name during marriage. It would not be ok for her husband to enter there after they were divorced.
Of course, I'm old enough to remember when cereal box offers would say "Tape four quarters to a piece of cardboard and mail that in with your request as payment for this offer."
Because if it is actually a crime, me and my partner have been committing that crime on some of our accounts.
Personally, I don't find it to be criminal no. Like giving keys to my appartment to a friend when I'm away on vacation to check on my dog. Obviously, if they come in my house and steal things that's different, but if they were to come in for some seemingly reasonable reason and I didn't want them doing that anymore I should ask for the key back or change my lock.
A divorce can be a pretty nasty thing for all parties involved. Had you shared your bank account with your significant other in an informal way, such as giving them your user/password for it, but not actually made them an official account holder, and during the divorce if the partner signs in for something seemingly reasonable, like making sure there's enough money to pay the bills, I also don't find that criminal. You probably need to have a talk about this, and might want to change your password if you don't want this happening anymore. Again, would be very different if money was transferred out and stolen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06cnd-astronaut.html
Is there something in being an astronaut that triggers such behavior?
That aside, what laws govern space station citizens?
What do you mean? People are governed by the laws of their respective countries per signed treaties, as explained in the article.
"The five space agencies involved in the space station — from the United States, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada — have long-established procedures to handle any jurisdictional questions that arise when astronauts of various nations are orbiting Earth together."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/nasa-astronaut-anne-mc...
She could seek asylum in Russian part of ISS.
With apologies to Lt McClain, I would be interested to see this case go far enough for her to pursue a jurisdictional defense. I doubt it is serious enough for that though, but it would be good to get some precedent set before there is a serious crime out there.
If I'm a US citizen, and I visit RandomCountry A (or international waters, or Alpha Centauri) and then access a bank account belonging to a resident in US state X, and return to US state Y... the possible jurisdictions are pretty clear (either state X or Federal jurisdiction.. and maybe state Y depending upon facts).
Statute of limitations probably lapses if it's Alpha Centauri, though.