Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to the US
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I am surprised this went on for so long.
EDIT: My bad. UK, not England!
Edit: Apologies to bankers everywhere and their supporters, sarcasm turned off for the rest of the day.
That said, I was pretty harsh to the one that sold me a mortgage, her incompetence at completing the paperwork and delays nearly cost me the chance to buy my house. In general most of my interactions with bank staff have been poor or at least just adequate. I've never had a particularly "good" experience with one. I keep using them, because as you say, we need them. Well, we need bankers. Just perhaps not the ones we've got.
I'd be totally cool with a system that just went entirely by the numbers and I logged on the Internet to ask for a mortgage based on my credit score. Naturally we might need a more objective (and open) credit score system for that among a host of other things, but hey I can dream.
Also people blame banks in general as they don't feel they have learned there leasons, yet at the same time complain they can't borrow more money. We do need bankers, they also need us.
Remember bankers are people too, they also have the power to be as stupid as any other person. Just a bit more impacting upon mine and yours pockets compared to somebody logging into a insecure system over 10 years ago and hurting nobody else accept there pride.
i lived and worked in scotland for a couple of years.
I personally don't take offence at the anti-English banter.
But, I challenge you to engage in the same kind of banter with Asians, blacks, or homosexuals, etc, and let me know how that pans out for you.
Is there a material difference, apart from the fact that English people don't take offence? In my opinion, anti-English statements don't really offend because a sense of Englishness is felt much less by an Englishman compared to how a Scot would feel his/her Scottishness. We're just not a very nationalistic buch.
I do agree that most Scottish people have no problem with English folk. On a personal level, it is just "banter". The more distateful sentiments are aimed at England as a nation, as far as I have experienced.
Silly, and sometimes ignorant, but there we are, that's patriotism for you; the last refuge of the scoundrel, as an erudite Englishman once said - you should hear what he had to say about the benighted scots...
Having lived in a few places, I'd say people everywhere like to generalise about other nations and tell themselves they know what 'those people' are like, I've done it myself a few times, and I've always been wrong when I did.
The issue isn't banter, it's that in some cases historical context gives "banter" overtones of something far more serious.
The Scots didn't buy and sell the English as property as recently as 100 years ago (did you know Britain only abolished slavery in parts of Nigeria in 1936?), the English didn't have their behaviour outlawed in the way homosexuals have (and they still don't have equality in the UK though it's getting closer) and the English can't make any claim that given a particular level of intelligence or ability they are less likely to go to university and more likely to end up in prison the way that would be the case if they were black.
Being English in Scotland offers no genuine sacrifice, disadvantage or oppression and hasn't for a long long time if ever. The same isn't true of any of the minority groups you mention.
So banter is fine and if you're English in Scotland it is just banter.
If you're in another minority group with a more difficult history then you need to consider that banter often hides or raises the spectre of something worse which makes it a very different thing.
What I'm saying is that taking what often gets said between English and Scots and drawing a parallel to how they might be seen if directed towards the minority groups you mention isn't a valid comparison.
A history of discrimination can give certain remarks a very different meaning. Context is everything and centuries of oppression is quite some context and doesn't exist between the English and Scots (at least not in a way that the English can have any issue with).
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'm not sure historical context gives a perfect mechanism to categorize racism or banter, but it does give a lot of weight, certainly.
What it does mean is that you can't just assume that the same words or behaviour means the same thing when directed at different groups.
The specific example I was responding to said try saying some of the things a Scot might say to and Englishman to a black person and see how far you get. My response to that is you can say the same words in the same tone of voice but it doesn't mean the same thing as everything that came before and goes along with those words is different.
I'm not saying that Scots can't be genuinely prejudiced against English (in a small number of cases they are - there are arseholes in every society), I'm saying what is acceptable or unacceptable between Scots and English is not the same as what's acceptable between white people and black people.
To turn it the other way around, I'm sure it wouldn't take much to find something I could say to a Scot about their history which would be horribly insulting but wouldn't be remotely offensive to, say, an Asian.
Does the fact that the Asian man didn't find it insulting make it OK to say to the Scot?
You had better hope I don't start being offended, then! :)
And, yes, this argument also applies to Scots living in England, or any other similar situation.
In some cases it's a genuine dislike (and worth noting that it's one way or at least stronger in one direction - the English are largely indifferent to the Scots) but in most cases these days it's more a more casual comedy thing, similar to the way the English dislike the French - they don't really but it's fun to have a frenemy.
As with most prejudice it goes largely with education (or lack of). I'd suggest that anyone who had an opinion on McKinnon (or any similar case) would probably be open minded and informed enough not to really be biased.
Just a mild defence of my adopted home - I'm English living in Glasgow and have never seen or experienced any genuine anti-English racism.
But we'll see just how many Scots want shot of the English in a couple of years when we get the independence vote. Current polls suggest that they're not so anti-English that they want to go their own way...
I think this is totally accurate, but I worry this subtly is lost on some people, and especially kids. I'm English, and lived in Scotland between the age of 10 and 14, and the genuine anti-English victimization I received both at school and out and about was ridiculous. It never bothered me, perhaps because I don't really consider myself, "English" having (at that point) never lived there, but I remember being genuinely shocked. I expect it's much the same a French child would experience coming to school at that age in the UK.
Kids see their parents or comedians mock the English/French, but don't necessarily distinguish between, "banter" and genuine disdain. Hopefully those kids grow up to identify that difference, although some of the experiences I had would suggest this may not always be the case.
Had you been Scottish I think you'd have either been bullied for some other differentiating factor or the bullies would have bullied someone else.
But please don't make out that this only happens in Scotland. I'm Scottish but went to school in England and had a similar experience.
While banter between Scotland and England as countries has been going on for centuries, the idea that all (or even most) Scottish people would be happy to see an individual tormented just because he's English is, well, that's just you being a bigot.
Ah, the myth of the English handout, somewhere between massively unclear and nonsense.
Yes some of Scotland's current spending is subsidised by oil revenue which won't last for ever but when that money was flowing south during the 80s I don't recall the English complaining about it as unsustainable. The UK treasury would of course question that those revenues are entirely Scottish though I'm not clear on what grounds other than political expediency.
Stephanie Flanders of the BBC on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990 (also makes the point that taking oil out of the equation Scotland's subsidy isn't massively out of line with many parts of England).
The FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/252e0d4a-f294-11db-a454-000b5df106...
And the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotl...
In ten years time will Scotland need a subsidy? Possibly. Does it get one now? No.
It does exist, but it's rare.
Claiming to have lived and worked there doesn't lend this statement any extra authority.
To anyone who reads this from outside the UK - it's not the general English sentiment.
The problem I, and I think most people, have is twofold : 1 - There was and is no clear legal framework for intro-jurisdictional crimes like this. The law should be settled and clear before it is applied, otherwise people cannot asses whether their actions will break a law. 2 - The US criminal charges and punishments with which he is threatened appear to be grossly disproportionate to his actual actions. This wouldn't be an issue if he were guaranteed a fair trial, but the connection between the "victim" and the "prosecutor" (ie. both US gov) and statements made by the prosecution and US Government suggest that he may not get a fair trial.
I feel quite strongly about this, because if I were to ever commit such a crime for whatever reason, I would want to be prosecuted in the UK. Therefore, I should expect the UK to prosecute people in a similar situation.
There was a number of UK online gambling website owners arrested in the US for "selling" their services to US citizens. They were providing a service to UK citizens on UK (or at least non-US) servers and, at the time, didn't prevent people from signing up based on their IP (or other geographical information). The US felt it was their right to step in...
* I am not making an assertions on anyone's guilt, since they've never actually been proved in court.
The proper place to be prosecuted is the one in which the wider interests of justice and society are served. To that end the location of the victim and/or the perpetrator are both irrelevant.
It is a very nuanced question and perhaps varies a lot depending on the (alleged) crime. Garry's case is different to the gambling one you cite, he specifically chose and targeted a "victim" he knew to be in the US, the gambling websites didn't.
A parallel case may be where scammers in one country where the law doesn't prohibit it specifically target victims in another, remotely. In that case there would be no re-dress for the victims and justice and society would not benefit from your jurisdictional preference.
Until all countries have equal and fair laws, or there are definite and settled frameworks for jurisdiction, the cases will have to be judged on a case by case basis. Which is no good and leads to travesties like Garry's case. If you read my other comments, I am in favour of todays decision. But it's not a cut and dried case either way.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Gary should have been extradited but the grounds for not doing so should be different. Health is the stated reason and I don't intend to argue with it not knowing his precise medical details.
I would say that for this case that either venue is reasonable.
For the Richard O'Dwyer case and also the now complete Natwest bankers case there is from what I understand little reason to see the US as the appropriate jurisdiction. On the recent terrorist cases I haven't read much but it sounded as if in at least one case there were accusations of setting up training camps in the US making that reasonable cause for extradition but that perhaps for one or more of the others the US link was significantly weaker.
Indeed. It's no different to firing a rocket over an international border.
So..has there ever been any reprisals for the lack of security with the machines he hacked? My understanding was that he used 'off-the-shelf' tools to gain access because the servers weren't patched? In my mind that as negligent as the illegal access.
I can't even imagine how awful a world that expected punished victims for their crimes would be.
They don't get to be appallingly incompetent at their jobs because someone took advantage of it!
Edit: A perl script he had scanned for computers with default passwords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
- connected to the public internet, with a publicly routable address
- not firewalled
- running remote access software without a password
I strongly believe the strength of feeling shown by the US authorities here is primarily one of embarrassment. It is more comforting to believe you are facing a genius superhacker than it is to believe the people responsible for your network security are literally incompetent.
Also, while he was logged in to these machines he had notepad.exe-based conversations with other hackers - he was definitely not the only person who accessed these systems.
That House of Commons seems like a really funny business. Why are those people standing up after someone has spoken. Is it something like a +1 mechanism? Is anyone recording it? The whole scene seems like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
The houses actually run fairly well, and part of the reason why is traditions like this. I would happily take this over the American system for example, where there is no back and forward because people have to go to a microphone to talk...
It's worth noting that the chamber of the house isn't the only way to influence proceedings. Recent years have seen a return to prominence of many of the select committees comprised of backbench MPs selected independently of the party whips.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was front and centre during the phone hacking scandal and any bill put before parliament will have gone in front of a committee before it gets there.
I think their complaint isn't that they were struggling due to shear numbers, but due to the partisan speaker and deference to party leaders.
Where he's disliked it's largely by those in his own party who don't like one or more of his own political move from the right towards the centre (and not just since being speaker), his Labour supporting wife or in some cases either his more humble beginnings than some of his Conservative colleagues or his own apparent ego. To me much of the criticism seems to stem from personal and political divisions within the Conservative party as Bercow's performance.
You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party or another but I think you need to consider the criticisms in the light of who it's coming from.
I think thats the main problem. He/she acts as a moderator, and I struggle to think of any other forum where a moderator has such a glaring potential for the appearance bias (whether exerted or not). On the plus side he is elected, on the other-hand its by MPs and not the public.
Its not just an issue with the current speaker, similar allegations are levelled at most. Fewer with Betty perhaps, some say because she was a "mother figure" who was well liked and commanded respect, others say she was vicious if you spoke out about her and it wasn't worth it.
Generally speaking, it works.
In general they are more on their toes but you do occasionally catch a long distance shot (from above the main lobby entrance) of someone waking up particularly at the stupid late night debates they have.
It's the same law that doesn't allow the footage to be used for parody.
I imagine they would have to sign a contract to get the footage and would be bound by the draconian idea that men and women sitting two swords length apart across a chamber guarded by men in tights are not to be laughed at.
Quote: "That this House believes the procedure whereby honourable Members are required to wear a top hat or other suitable head covering during certain proceedings on the floor of the House should be ended; calls upon the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend ending the practice; and believes that this whole procedure brings the House into disrepute across the world."
[1] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-pape...
I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian?
Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.
This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition.
The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels.
So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.
EDIT: Apologies, forgot the part about Assange not being a British citizen.
In neither case is our (UK) government acting in a fair, impartial and democratic way. /sweeping statement
* McKinnon is a British citizen, Assange is not.
* If proven, Assange's crimes were in Sweden. IMO, the jurisdiction(s) McKinnon should be subject to is less clear - he was in the UK, but the targeted network was in the US.
* McKinnon was fighting extradition due to mental illness and protection of his human rights; Assange was fighting over EAW procedures/political extradition etc. (I can't remember the exact legal argument put forward).
* Assange is to be extradited with the EU. Very broadly speaking, this means that the legal systems and human rights protections are more closely aligned (for example, both the UK and Sweden are subject to EU law, and both have ratified the ECHR). This influences both political and public perception of the extradition.
* Various other political considerations (e.g. Assange's association with WikiLeaks).
* The crimes of which they are accused - I suspect that accessing the US government network is perceived by the public to be largely a victimless crime (in that it is not possible to say a specific person was harmed by the actions), but sexual assault obviously is not.
As far as I am aware, the courts reached effectively the same decision in both cases. The final decision is extradite or not is taken by the Home Secretary, so is to some extent a political decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
Apart from the normal reasons you don't hire thieves to guard your stuff[1], he is too mentally unstable to be trusted with anything. Remember, it was his mental instability that probably saved him from extradition.
[1] Yeah, it makes for great Hollywood stuff, but that's Hollywood.
What happens now?
What this will trigger is a discussion around the UK/US extradition treaty, but that's got nothing to do with Assange right now. If the US had actually issued an extradition request then it would be important.
The European Arrest Warrant process, which is what Assange is wanted under, is rather different and really not subject to the same kind of political wrangling, mainly because it's part of a raft of EU measures to ensure free trade and borders (if it helps you can think of the EAW as part of a trade: EU citizens get to live and work in any EU country without a permit or visa, but to balance that there needs to be a system to allow swift repatriation of criminal suspects).
There is very little scope for political wrangling with regards to European Arrest Warrants - the same can't be said for individual extradition treaties.
I think there's a general impression in the UK -- no doubt fueled by US TV shows -- that the American prison system is utterly barbaric and you might as well extradite someone to North Korea as the USA. It could well be a misapprehension, but I've not seen any American claim differently, so... what do you think?
Also, there was a feeling that there would be pressure brought to bear on the court by the US military, to find him guilty and impose a harsh sentence, in order to distract attention from their incompetence in securing their systems.
Regarding the American prison system: Doing some light searching, I've come up with dozens of articles detailing prisoner abuse in the UK (for instance: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/pris-j15.shtml). Frankly, I think a lot of the issues with American prisons are common in such institutions. Prison in America is no treat (just like it isn't in most nations), but I think the comparison to North Korea or any other 3rd world nation is kind of laughable to me (100% personal opinion).
I don't get the "distract attention from their incompetence". I know that the public is beginning to become keen to the idea of network security breaches as problems of national defense, and even just aware to the idea of computer security threats in general, but this really wasn't that big of a story here in the US. If they prosecuted this man right now, nobody but hardcore techies would really be paying attention. We're focused on other issues in America right now (see: election 2012) and they're taking up all the oxygen in the room.
It's not like the US military and this case of hacking have made the US military the butt of all jokes. In fact, the only articles about penetration of government servers that get real ink are related to: China, Anonymous/Lulzsec/Antisec/*sec and Iran.
Furthermore, the US military doesn't need to motivate anyone in this hacking case. The prosecutes for the government don't need to be leaned on, they are dogged enough in their own right.
My thought for why this thing is confusing to me:
I just feel like I am missing something here. A man who had full knowledge that the actions they were executing were serious crimes, left aggressive messages of a political nature on the servers he trespassed on, is some kind of cult hero? Why? What did he do? Is it because his antagonistic stance against US foreign policy matches with the politics of the IT community? Is it because there is great sympathy in the IT community for people who fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum?
His crime attacked the United States. Why -shouldn't- he be extradited? If an American circumvented security measures against servers on Downing Street and deleted information, would the US not extradite him for prosecution in the UK?
I don't know... every time the United States wants to extradite a hacker the only impetus can be pure Machiavellian evil?
Isn't it possible, or even likely, that someone committed a crime and the prosecutors want that person punished? Because it's the law? And because that is what happens when you commit a crime?
...and McKinnon did get the impression he might end up somewhere like that. If you stand a good chance of being beaten, raped, tortured and eventually killed, then how exactly is it less bad than being sent to a third world country? Better food? ;)
As for "cult hero", I've no idea where you got that from. People generally think he's a slightly pathetic character who did something a bit stupid by poking about in unsecured computer systems. A crime that possibly merits a £2000 fine and some community service (and firing the people responsible for securing those systems).
Instead, it's "extradite a hacker" to meet with Justice (American Style!). Can you not see why people would object to that?
[edit for spelling, and forgot a bit]
I guess this is probably the rub. When you trespass into your neighbors backyard to jump in their pool at night and you get caught, that could be a fine and community service. When you trespass on military property, let's say you hop a fence or sneak your way into a government building... That's kind of a big deal.
When you work your way into government servers and delete data... That's not just community service. That's kind of a big deal.
No, it's really not. If someone wandered onto an unsecured Government facility in the UK, they'd probably be picked up and questioned...and then released with a stern warning not to do it again.
> When you work your way into government servers and delete data
Did he delete data? I though he just poked around and left some messages? Anyway, he hardly worked his way into them; they were wide open. I just don't see it as a big deal.
Here's what I don't get about you though...you're a US taxpayer, right? That means you paid some people to secure those machines. And they completely failed in their job, right?
If you hire someone who then completely fails to do what you hired them to do, why don't you want them fired?
[edit: I missed this question before...]
> If an American circumvented security measures against servers on Downing Street and deleted information, would the US not extradite him for prosecution in the UK?
Nope, the extradition treaty is one-way. That's another thing that sticks in people's craw...