Free Gary McKinnon

only wish I could vote for you! - hope you at least manage to unseat him. Is anyone taking on Alan Johnson? There's another idiot the country could well do without - he doesn't even look like he believes anything he says himself!

Just heard the news. Good luck Janice. I'd vote for you.

He deserves everything he get's !

He thought he was a smart arse doing what he did. Didn't he think he'd get caught lol.

SERVES HIM RIGHT !

Hi Janis,

I wish you well in your election campaign.

Gary's extradition case should have been thrown out a long time ago.

Warm regards,
Billy Dunn

If you HACK into someone else's computer, email etc, you are invading a person's/organisation's privacy and should expect to face the consequences. McKinnon shouldn't have done it. He was caught-TOUGH! Then starts crying. Send him to the U.S. and let them put the jerk away!

Patricia

Sounds like you too are yet another victim of the information wars. What must be considered is that the simple lack of critical information can lead us down the garden path. Hidden and concealed information can result in disastorous incidence. Sometimes all is required is a single missleading word to incite rage and motivate people to do things that they would not normally do - against innocent people - humanity itself.

Information = Power;

My question to you is how have you equated

1. Unsubstanciated allegations = Guilt without Trial?
2. Pro human rights = Soft on crime?

PS - Expecting an answer...

Elle

Who's Patricia ?

Arthur - see comments on "Ian Norris loses his UK Supreme Court appeal against Extradition to the USA" regarding Patricia.

steve smith - FYI(for your information)

1.There was no HACK involved. The US Military webspace was open to the general public due to a mistake made by the administrator not configuring installed windows systems. No password was set for the administrators account. Which gives access to everyone without the need for a password.
2.There was many people on the .mil network that accessed this way. People from all over the world walked the directory trees on the us military network. It has become a joke to the geek crowd - such as myself. The only reason he was caught and not any of the rest of us - is because he left a note to the administrators alerting them about the lax security. The IP of the sender was then tracked to Gary.
3.I agree with you, if a wrong is commited, there should be justice. You, however, missed the whole point of this site. It is to obtain rightful justice so that Gary McKinnon and his family and friends can recieve due closure on this matter. Not a bogus 60 year sentence in Guantanamo Bay but a standard sentence as per precident for the type of crime involved - ie: no personal gain/ no malicious HACK ( And personally - I feel the last 8 years ahould be time served )

Elle

"no malicious HACK"?

He trashed the network at Naval Weapons Station Earle, just 12 days after 9-11.

Later he said "I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest level".

@ Socrates - who exactly are you quoting the word "malicious" from ? Nobody else has used that word in this comment thread.

Given how open to the world the New Jersey Naval systems systems allegedly were, it is going to be hard to prove "beyond reasonable doubt", in a proper court that only Gary and not any of the dozens or hundreds of other people who were also exploiting the same inept lack of security from within the UA and from, China, Russia and the rest of the world.

Tellingly, none of the self proclaimed experts from the USA who have commentated negatively on Gary's case, have ever dared to deny just how negligently vulnerable these systems were, for the several years before Gary's arrest in 2002.

Gary's alleged note, left on the desktop of a single worksation, is hardly in the same league as even the stupidest web server defacements of US Military systems, which preceded and followed his arerest.

Any US Military people who feel threatened by the content of that alleged message, should face a Court Martial for cowardice.

Socrates - Are you one of those people who believe everything you hear on your TV...And blend that together with no legal knowledge...And what you get is a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately most are sheep - believe anything without question.

FACT :: Any allegations are not legit until proven in a court of law.
FACT :: The OPEN ACCESS prior to and during and post 911 can determine true motives by a Judge in a court of law.

Elle

How could they blame Gary for hacking !

why they just go after "who ever" left their accounts with blank passwords!!??
any why only blame one side?

Election 2010

This is what David Cameron said last year - will he keep his word if the Conservatives get in i wonder?

"Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who has come out in support of Mr McKinnon and called on the extradition treaty between the US and Britain to be reviewed. "Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial," he said. "If he has questions to answer, there is a clear argument to be made that he should answer to them in a British court."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne claimed the American government would not "hang one of their citizens out to dry in the same way".

"The [UK] government must ensure that the US-UK Extradition Treaty is repealed and that its replacement treats US and British citizens equally," he said

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/tories-argue-for-mckinnon-extradition-halt-10015588/

Prominent psychiatrist says Gary McKinnon is not guilty of a crime.

"Does McKinnon Need a Doctor or Prison?

I wish I could tell you that I had the answers to this dilemma. I do believe that Asperger Syndrome is a developmental disorder, worthy of diagnosis and treatment. There is a lot of suffering among those in this population, including their loved ones. And there are psychological treatments that alleviate some of this suffering, with inspiring new research breaking ground daily. So I would hate to see people continue to suffer simply because this diagnosis is part of a political debate."

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2009/obsessed-should-a-computer-hacker-with-asperger-syndrome-go-to-prison/

Indeed, here in Canada, a real criminal guilty of a violent crime, simply needs to claim insanity, and they are excused. Political debate is definitely the issue here. Personally - I find the inconsistencies in law an insane paradox. ie:: It is ok for a country to kill people for oil en mass - but it is not ok for a person to kill a neighbour for oil. Where is the logic here? Who is the criminal here? How is intent different?

Elle

As a computer security specialist i have followed this case quite closely. Frankly i am amazed this case has gone on for so long over such a benign incident labelled as a "hack". When you consider the actual facts it is no more than an act of voyuerism, neive maybe but never a "hack". A Hack is where somebody breaches or cracks code to subvert security to gain entry. The Systems had no passwords, and no IP security controls at all! Everyone knows this is an act of red faced revenge by the US mil.

Its laughable (not for gary)how all the money wasted on Lawyers,lawlords and Foreign office staff could have probably paid to fix the Security issues exposed by Gary and many others. Lets be absolutely clear that this was not a sophisticated breach of security comparable to online ID theft or even phishing attacks and complex botnets, this was just somebody logging into a server with no Security and having a snoop arround. As far as im aware current Law prohibits this tpye of activity now unless you are an approved PEN tester with relevant non disclosure waivers, but i wasnt aware it was law at the time of gary's alledged hack but Im not conversant with US Law or policy regarding computer security. As has been stated most of this is hearsay as the only peice of evidence to tie gary down was the IP address he was using at the time. To make further accusations requires a chain of forensic evidence from untampered timestamped system logs which judging by the laxed Public domain security is unlikey to have happened after the incident.Common sense needs to be applied here but it doesnt seem to be at all. Computer hacks have varying outcomes and impact and the punishment needs to be proportional to the crime as in any other trial. This would never happen if Gary was to be trialled in the US regardless of what is said in public, if that was the case why not have a uk trial with the US representatives giving evidence? this whole episode screams of scapegoat public hanging.

"Straw introduced the current treaty during his time as home secretary."

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2010/04/27/lib-dems-aim-to-halt-mckinnon-extradition-40088767/

This is the way legislation is passed.
1. One person introduces the bill that was funded.
2. Ten people vote it in without research or debate.
3. The new law adversely effects all.

Perfect example of how the system does not work. We need open government so that everyone who chooses can vote on bills and also check where the money comes from and goes to.

Elle

Gary was breaking the law in the US. Although he was in the UK, the system he was accessing without authorisation was in the US and therefore that is where the law states he should be trailed.

Secondly Gary knew exactly what he was doing, you don't gain an understanding of breaking system security overnight. He thought he was safe behind his computer, unfortunately for him he wasn't and must pay the consequences.

Have a nice flight.

@ Chris - Which part of the the United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act 1990 do you think does not apply to Gary's case ?

Gary has always been willing to face a fair trial and even a prison sentence here in the United Kingdom.

Remember, that despite all the years of legal proceedings so far, no Court has actually cross-examined any of the alleged evidence or witnesses against him, it has all been about general points of law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-07-15b.317.1

"Alan Johnson (Home Secretary; Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle, Labour)

"No, I will take an intervention later.

The US and the UK have different legal systems. I am sure that there are no hon. Members who think that we could put the two legal systems together and-hey presto!-get similar definitions. However, what we ask for in demonstrating reasonable suspicion is as follows: the

"circumstances of the case being such that a reasonable man"-

this language is not gender-friendly-

"acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence".

That is what we in this country apply.

The US asks in its legal terminology for "probable cause"-this dates back to the constitution, so it has always been the case and was not developed as part of the treaty-which is defined as

"facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime".

Those two definitions are about as close as they can be in any two different legal systems."
---

Funny how such a common sense explanation is so widely disregarded because it does not fit your agenda.

Eyes4Lies::

Here is the legal definition for you.

uncorroborated [ˌʌnkəˈrɒbəˌreɪtɪd]
adj
(of evidence, a statement, etc.) lacking confirmation or evidence

Adj. 1uncorroborated - unsupported by other evidence
unsubstantiated
unsupported - not sustained or maintained by nonmaterial aid; "unsupported accusations"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncorroborated

@ "Eyes4Lies" when you are arrested in the USA because of allegations made by the United Kingdom authorities, will you voluntarily give up your US Constitutional right to have any exaggerated allegations presented as prima facie evidence to be cross examined by your lawyers and thrown out in a US Court, before you are extradited and sent for trial in the United Kingdom ?

No ? Didn't think so.

The reverse is what the appalling Extradition Act 2003 inflicts on UK citizens or residents through the force of law.

Alan Johnson's inept, arrogant and rude performance in the Commons that day was summed up by John Gummer

Not only did the Home Secretary come to the debate unprepared; he came believing that hectoring and rudeness were suitable responses to what is a serious issue for many people around the country.

Your question is what is exaggerated. If the UK presented probable cause for something I did to the people or government of the United Kingdom, I would willingly accept what is going to happen anyway.

I read the entire debate and totally disagree with the hon John Gummer summary of the debate. The Home Secretary was well prepared for the debate and maintained appropriate control among excessively obtrusive opponents who did not want common sense explanations read into the record and constantly tried to interrupt the Home Secretary.

You read what happened to the NatWest3 and see the similarity between what you are claiming will happen to Gary and what they claimed would happen to them. The truth is always far from the exaggeration. But truth is not in your agenda or your interests...is it?

@ "Eyes4Lies" - you still do not appear to understand.

If the UK presented probable cause for something I did to the people or government of the United Kingdom, I would willingly accept what is going to happen anyway.

That means that the UK authorities have to present some actual evidence or witnesses, to a US court, where your lawyers can challenge it. It is obviously not the full weight of evidence as would be presented at a trial.

No such evidence whatsoever is now presented by the US authorities under the Extradition Act 2003, so there is no opportunity to even question the allegations about the alleged amount of financial damage in Gary's case.

All that the UK Extradition Hearings are allowed to consider are questions about the identity of the person who has been mistakenly arrested, if the alleged crimes might incur the death penalty and if the paperwork has been correctly filled in.
None of the High Court or House of Lords or Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights appeals have been allowed to cross examine any of the facts of the case, only the wider general points of law.

I do not believe that you would simply hand yourself over to be extradited by a foreign government without first challenging their evidence and allegations.

Why would you betray US sovereignty to the political whims of incompetent, corrupt or hostile foreign legal systems ?

Why do you expect us in the United Kingdom to do so ?

@fg,

I do understand and more than you know. Your interpretation of "Probable Cause" is wrong. The probable burden only required documentation of the facts, no witnesses, no physical evidence need be presented. Only a swearing of the truth by a duly appointed officer of the court.

I do not appreciate you insinuation that the US legal system is hostile, corrupt or incompetent. I on the other hand have similar opinions of the UK courts that coddles criminals and maintains an embarrassingly poor conviction rate. If I was going to commit an international crime, I would definitely choose the UK. Talk about soft on crime. You guys must just accept that victims are to blame for what happens to them all the time.

The treaty is fair and equitable. Gary's case is a political pawn that will be sacrificed soon after the election.

In one week, I am sure you will realize this to be a fact.

The other notion that I got from the debate was that the opposition kept harping on the point that the Home Secretary needed to review the treaty to satisfy the "Layperson" who doesn't really understand the equity is not in the semantics of the treaty? The equity is in the interpretation of the legal definitions based on the individual legal system's requirements.

So does this mean he needs to satisfy those citizens who do not take the time to understand the meanings behind the legal definitions? Or, is he saying that the UK citizens are incapable of understanding? I wonder...

@ Eyes4Lies - the Probable Cause affidavits in the USA sworn by say, FBI investigating officers go online almost immediately, unless the case is sealed.That is a normal kind of prima facie evidence.

Your lawyers are allowed to challenge these before a Judge who can decide whether or not to give any weight to each of the often multiple alleged offences.

That is what used to happen in the UK under the previous Extradition Act 1989.

Under the the Extradition Act 2003 there is now no opportunity to do this.

Even if a higher appeal court does get to read any such sworn statements in private etc., they must ignore them in their Judgments, because as the Act is deliberately worded, they are not allowed to examine the alleged facts of the case, only the paperwork of the Extradition request, which they are meant to trust implicitly.

Similarly the former "appeals to the Home Secretary" have been deliberately abolished under the Extradition Act 2003.

The conviction rate under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is extremely high, it is just that such cases are far, far less common than say, murders.

The same is true for prosecutions and convictions of US based computer hackers.

No US based computer hacker has ever been extradited to a foreign country, even though lots of them are attacking the United Kingdom and the rest of the world every day.

Unless the US government drops its extradition request, the case of Gary McKinnon will continue to grind on after the UK General Election, regardless of who wins.

There is no chance of any new or amended legislation regarding the Extradition Act 2003 before the Judicial Review hearing on 25th and 26th of May.

Shame on me for defending my views in this matter? Talk about barbaric.

To be so arrogant must take a lot of practice. It has been explained to you people time and time again that the United States definition of Probable Cause is equal to/synonymous with the United Kingdoms definition of Reasonable Suspicion. I truly don't understand why that is so hard for you to grasp. Is it more of the same arrogance that you believe every legal system in the world should adhere to the UK definitions? Totally Pompous and Stubborn Arrogance!

Your knowledge of this case stems from the half truths of this website and your own bias interpretation of the cherry picked facts that fit your perception of this case.

I have read the reports and I have seen the evidence. I know what Gary did and it was malicious in nature and disruptive in its affect. There is a Navy Base and an Army Base that suffered this disruption he claims was an accident...twice.

You can take away the 90 or so computers that he accessed which had no password or a poor password. But he must answer for the computers that he accessed with stolen passwords and disabled the operating systems. He know what he did and he knows what his intent was when he did it.

Computer evidence is clear and irrefutable. You can try to convoluted or discredit the proof, but it is still there for a jury to review and judge for themselves.

@ "Eyes4Lies" - You are at least as guilty as anyone else who has left comments here of "cherry picking" and of arrogance and pomposity.

I have read the reports and I have seen the evidence.

Why should anyone believe that you have somehow actually "seen the evidence" which may be presented in a Court ?

You are simply wrong in your false claim that

the United States definition of Probable Cause is equal to/synonymous with the United Kingdoms definition of Reasonable Suspicion

The fact that these are not identical was even admitted by the Labour Ministers during the several debates in Parliament where the Opposition parties failed to amend the Extradition Act 2003.

You are also repeating your imprecise and misleading weasel words "stolen passwords".
Anybody who knows how Microsoft NTLM hashed credentials are meant to work and how they are attacked in practice should know better. There is no legal concept of "ownership of Passwords", which is why the Computer Misuse Act 1990 etc. have specific offences for "unauthorised access" to computer systems.

imprecise and misleading weasel words "stolen passwords".

Oh, I am sorry, I should have said, he stole the SAM file containing the NT Hash of the passwords. He then cracked the NT hash so he could use those passwords to further his criminal acts. Whether they are considered "Stolen Passwords" or he "used" passwords without authorization all comes down to one issue that your supports ignore. Gary did gain unauthorized access to US Computers and caused intentional damage to the operating system with the intent to disable the computer; thus depriving the users of these computers their use until the systems are restored.

Since we are splitting hairs here, the only difference between Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause in both legal systems is that Reasonable Suspicion allows for acts that have not yet been committed. Probable Cause assumes the act was already committed. Since we know that Gary was arrested after the criminal act occurred it is obvious that he is being extradited with sufficient "Probable Cause" to make a reasonable person believe he committed these criminal offenses.

@ "Eyes4lies" - if you want to discuss a case involving computer technology and the law, you have to be very precise, especially given your unsubstantiated claims to have somehow "seen the evidence" and to have been writing a "thesis".

You cannot "steal" a SAM file either, you can only copy it and then only if you already have complete control of the computer.

There are other methods of obtaining Microsoft NT hashed credentials, but unless they involve possession of some physical media they are not "stealing" either.

The UK Theft Act 1968 section 1 defines theft or "stealing" as:

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;

Probably all the equivalent US statutes dealing with pre-internet physical goods or money have similar definitions.

There would have been no need to pass, say, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to punish "reverse engineering" of commercial electronic media goods for sale (obviously not applicable in this case) if copying digital data could ever be prosecuted as "stealing" or theft.

Gary has not been accused of "stealing" anything whatsoever.

As has been mentioned on this blog many times in the past, the most difficult part of any computer crime prosecution is proving criminal intent, beyond reasonable doubt, but you

"Reasonable Suspicion" and "Probable Cause" are standards of how detailed any evidence needs to be. I would be happy if prima facie evidence according to either such standard had actually been presented before a UK Court, where it could have been cross examined.

This is what used to happen under the previous Extradition Act 1989.

However this has simply not happened because of the Extradition Act 2003, which was applied retrospectively to Gary's case
(he was arrested in 2002).

To eyes4lies and others whom seem to think Gary is guilty! firstly there is so much "secrecy" around the american Deep underground military bases (DUMB) that garys case is " laughable" to the extreme, it should never have been so accelerated into a pompmous governmental "farce", which one day may be made into a film! Particularly when truth comes out about the secret co-operation between US covert groups and Aliens in these DUMB! Lets not forget people like Phil-schneider and british Ufologist Anthony dodds. Phil a geologist whom helped build these underground-bases was "killed" for telling the truth about aliens underground! . Anthony dodds was threatened in los-angeles by Men-in-black (Alien-human-hybrids!) for talking upon an south-antarctica alien base! Read all on the NET! I also am a Ufologist whom has encountered over a number of years three-seperate alien-craft, two at twenty-ft away and one at eighty-ft away. I like gary shall do my utmost to expose the alien-cover-up, and there are many many like me, more so than the so called pros of hacking justice! Im PRO Gary and if he ends up deported there will be more than his "tiny" tribute to exposing the truth, brought into the open, an army on the NET will have something to say! There are im afraid a lot of humans whom dismiss UFOs/aliens because "they" are afraid of the Truth!

The provisions of the Magna Carta reveal, among other things, the famous chapter 39 from which habeas corpus, prohibition of torture, trial by jury, and the rule of law are derived:

Chapter 39: No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers [in other words] by the law of [from] the land. Chapter 40: To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.

Trial by jury in all cases, our English ancestors deemed (as Story correctly tells us), "the great protection of their civil and political liberties, and watched with an unceasing jealousy and solicitude." "Nullus liber homo capiatur nec imprisonetur aut exulet, aut aliquo modo, destruator, etc.; nisi per legae judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrea." Magna Carta [1225, 1297]

In response the Levellers fought for “the right, freedome, safety, and well-being of every particular man, woman, and child in England.” They argued that Parliament may not act against the fundamental law of the land as expressed in the Magna Carta. It became “the Englishman’s legall birthright and inheritance.” “Free-Born John” Lilburne based his arguments on the Magna Carta; he said “the liberty of the whole English nation” is in clause 39.