June 2005 Archives

The Extradition Act 2003 is causing some disquiet amongst Members of Parliament, from across the political spectrum.

The colourful Tory MP Boris Johnson has an Early Day Motion which has now attaracted the signatures of 48 [update 26th January 2006: now 140] Members of Parliament. An Early Day Motion is not binding on the Government, but it does publicly demonstrate a level of concern about this issue.

EDM 241

"EXTRADITION ACT 2003

26.05.2005

Johnson, Boris

That this House urges the Government to defer approving the extradition to the United States of any British subjects until such time as the United States Senate ratifies the Extradition Treaty of March 2003; further calls upon the Government to amend the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 and replace it with a new Order which requires the United States to supply prima facie evidence to accompany its extradition requests to the United Kingdom, as the UK has to do in relation to an extradition from the US; and further calls upon the Government to amend the Extradition Act 2003 to reflect the terms of Article 7 of the European Convention of Extradition on Place of Commission."

The Extradition Act 2003, where no prima facie evidence needs to be presented to a Uk Court, for extradition to a Part 2 Category 2 country i.e. one with an allegedly similar legal system to that of the United Kingdom, has some other pending cases, where extradition is being sought by the United States authorities.

We have already mentioned the case of Babar Ahmad - you can read the Bow Street Magistrates' Court judgement here (.pdf)

There is another pending case which may also set a legal precedent, which could affect Gary McKinnon's case.

This is the case of the so called Enron NatWest Three.

According to The Times

Various print and tv media people are busy trying to contact Gary McKinnon. Most seem sympathetic, but you never can tell how an interview with the media will actually end up on the printed page or on the screen, once the "editors" have done their stuff.

Gary is currently working through the list of journalists and tv documentary makers who have been trying to contact him.

Contacting Gary is, of course more difficult than it should be, due to his bail conditions which prevent him from using email.

He is even being asked for (unpaid) expert commentary on things that he does not profess any special knowledge of, such as the security of the proposed UK National Identity Card and centralised biometric database

Either contact him via his solictor's legal office at Kaim Todner, or you can email us and we will pass on your interview requests.

Gary McKinnon has met today with his legal solicitors Kaim Todner, and has been given printouts of the various bits of correspondence and messages of support which have been forwarded to him via their office.

What is still missing is a written copy of the Bail Conditions.

Apart from the £5000 bail, and the restriction on applying for a Passport or travel document, which are fair enough conditions to ensure his appearance at the next extradition hearing, there is also the controversial ban on using the Internet.

He also has to sign in to a Police Station every day, and to sleep at his home address, although there is no curfew, per se.

It does appear that the District Judge Christopher Pratt said that Gary was banned from using "any computer connected to the internet".

Presumably the Judge does not understand that nowadays, in the 21st century, every Mobile Phone and Plain Old Telephone System landline, is part of a "computer connected to the internet". Was it really his intention to impose such a draconian bail condition ?

Gary has had literally years since his first arrest, when he could have abused his unrestricted access to the internet or to the phone system, but obviously, he has not done so. What possible bearing does this bail condition have on the forthcoming extradition hearing ?

For an IT worker this also makes finding a job almost impossible, and it hampers his attempts to gather support for his legal defence. Since the prosecution are not similarly constrained from using the internet, this "inequality of arms" could be construed as breaching Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, as enacted by the UK Human Rights Act 1998.

As with the people currently under Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Orders, if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in further alleged serious crimes, then the authorities can apply for a phone and or internet tap warrant signed by the Home Secretary. Banning someone from using the Internet or a Phone would be counterproductive, in terms of any intelligence gathering.

If such a warrant is already in place, on Gary's exisiting mobile phones and internet accounts, in order to see if he complies with the bail conditions, then he might as well be allowed to make use of them, knowing for sure that they are being monitored, and that, say, legally priviliged correspondence between him and his lawyers is safeguarded under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

If his phones and internet accounts are being monitored , but without a warrant signed by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, then whoever is doing this monitoring, even if they work for the UK Police or secret services, is breaking the law, and faces up to 2 years in jail.

There are fewer legal safeguards under RIPA concerning Communications Data i.e. traffic analysis, itemised phone bills, who emails who, which websites have been visited etc.

It looks as if the US Army has still been having problems with computer intrusions via NIPRNET:

Army rebuilds network defenses after hacks
CIO responds with enterprise consolidation initiative

BY Frank Tiboni
Published on Jun. 13, 2005
Federal Computer Week

The Army has spent millions of dollars in the past year and a half to rebuild networks at major U.S. bases after hackers penetrated its systems, Army and industry officials said.

The incidents at the bases were serious enough that Army information technology officials pulled the plug on the connection to the Defense Department's Non-classified IP Router Network (NIPRNET)."

The comment "Interesting blog though. Real black helicopter conspiracy stuff." has got us thinking about popular "Black Helicopter" and "UFO" conspiracy theories, cults and religions.

<BLACK HELICOPTERS>
It is well known, that as part of the tightening up of security procedures following the surprise attacks of September 11th 2001, the US Government and Military has removed quite a lot of information from their public websites which perhaps they should never have published in the first place e.g. detailed plans of Nuclear Power Stations etc.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that some data formerly available on the NIPRNET (Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network) has now been re-classified and requires a higher level of military security clearance to access it, probably on the SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network).

It is not inconceivable, that if Gary McKinnon is extradited to the USA to face the current list of charges, if his lawyers have not been careful to get a promise that the "principle of speciality applies, i.e. that "an individual may only be tried for the offences cited in the extradition request, on the basis of the definition of the offences applicable at that time", he might be facing espionage charges, for accessing wghat used to be unclassified data, but which has now been re-classified as secret data in the intervening three and a half years.

Even if extra espionage charges are not forthcoming, any references to what is today militarliy secret data, might be enough for the US civil court to impose reporting restrictions and for the trial to be held in camera, behind closed doors.

This is almost certainly what would happen in a British court (another practical reason not to extradite Gary to the USA)

Alternatively, the need for specially security vetted lawyers and judges, for the court to have access to what is now Secret or Top Secret information (even though it used to be publically available) might be enough some behind the scenes puppet master to get President Bush to rubber stamp an Executive Order declaring Gary McKinnon an "enemy combatant" and handing him over to a Military Tribunal, a free holiday in sunny Guantanamo Bay, or free flights on "Extraordinary Rendition" airways to have a personal interview with the third world military and secret police graduates of the "School of the Americas" / "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" which Gary is also alleged to have been interested in.
</BLACK HELICOPTERS>

Errr.. hang on a second, this is all quite plausible !

The Independent on Sunday reports:

Focus: Is he the most dangerous hacker on earth, or a net nerd who struck unlucky?

It is the key question dividing experts, as US prosecutors seek Gary McKinnon's extradition. Tim Luckhurst reports
12 June 2005

US prosecutors say Gary McKinnon is the biggest military computer hacker of all time, a malicious and highly sophisticated cyber-criminal who committed a grave intrusion into vital systems "when we, as a nation, had to summon all of our defences against further attack".

Vital systems ? Connected directly or indirectly to the Internet ?

The Guardian reports:

"Pentagon's pursuit of 'scapegoat' hacker hides real threat from the web

Criminal gangs taking over from amateur hobbyists

Owen Bowcott
Saturday June 11, 2005
The Guardian

Gary McKinnon is deemed to be so deviously manipulative at the keyboard that he has been banned from using the internet. He is not even allowed a passport. The peculiar bail conditions imposed this week on the 39-year-old computer systems administrator from Wood Green, north London, suggest that the law enforcement community stands in awe of his technological prowess.

Until his next court appearance, due on July 27, the tousle-haired programmer, who is fighting extradition to the United States, has been ordered to stay away from any computer connected to the web.

The ignorance about censoring sensitive information from Adobe .pdf files is a continual source of amazement - these people should know better ! Score another one for "bloggers" versus the "mainstream media".

US Military Hacked Systems IP’s:

Gary McKinnon appeared at Bow Street Magistrates Court on Wednesday 8th June 2005. His next extradition hearing is set for July 27th.

He was released on £5000 bail and is restricted from applying for a passport or from using the internet.

These are ridiculous bail conditions, as he has made no attempt to flee the country in the over two and a half years that he has had full internet access, since his original arrest and release without charge.

He is being represented by solicitor Karen Todner from the firm of Kaim Todner

Another Extradition to the USA - Gary McKinnon - alleged to have "hacked" over 90 US Military systems"

Gary McKinnon is finally facing an extradition hearing to the USA at Bow Street Magistrates Court today.

Gary McKinnon was indicted by the US authorities in November 2002 (.pdf) for allegedly gaining unauthorised access to over 90 US Military computer systems, including some at the the supposedly competent National Security Agency, the US Army, the US Airforce and the US Navy, where an e-mail system was allegedly damaged. Further minor breaches of NASA and some private sector and low security local government computers are also alleged.

As with the case of Babar Ahmad, also a British IT worker, there are a number of questions that should be asked about this attempt to extradite someone to the USA:

• Why has the legal process taken so long from November 2002, when Gary McKinnon was first arrested, and a US Grand Jury produced an indictment, for the Extradition proceedings take the next step ? Could the US Presidential election campaign have had anything to do with this delay ? Were the proceedings delayed to prevent embarassing accounts of US Military incompetence under the watch of President Bush from surfacing in court ?

• Given that all the alleged offences took place from a home computer located in London in the United Kingdom, and that they are serious enough to attract the maximum penalties under the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990, why is Gary McKinnon not being tried here in the UK ?

• Exactly as has been argued in the Babar Ahmad case, given the xenophobic paranoia of the US authorities, what written assurance is there that Gary McKinnon, once in the power of the US Authorities, will not be handed over to a Military Tribunal, especially, as unlike Babar Ahmad, he is accused of "attacks" directly on actual US Military systems.

• We have been informed that Gary McKinnon was not only "looking for evidence of X-Files type UFO conspiracies", but also investigating the alleged activities of the US Military training of Third World secret police and military personnel in torture and interrogation techniques at the notorious School of the Americas/ Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. In the light of this, what written assurance is there that Gary McKinnon will not be declared a "enemy combatant" and sent to the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp or subjected to "extraordinary rendition" i.e. outsourced torture in a compliant police state allied country, possibly at the hands of School of the Americas trainees ?

• Given the extraordinary lapses in computer security which an allegation of unauthorised access to sensitive military systems on this scale implies, why have no senior US Military personnel been court martialled ?

Where are the extraditions and prosecutions of all the foreigners, including citizens of the United States of America, who are attacking the United Kingdom's computer systems ? There have been none to date.