Disturbing Hacker extradition

[rynnor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4758743.stm

I have been following this case for a few years now and although I'm no fan of hackers I'd have to say that I still do not understand the grounds for extradition other than because of our 'special' relationship with the US.

The UK Computer Misuse Act claims jurisdiction over anyone based in the UK who committs a crime on the net anywhere or where the person is outside the UK but the crime takes place here.

It seems harsh to pick on one guy when thousands are hacking US Government sites which are allegedly wide open with default passwords galore - instead of spending the money to tighten up security they seem to want to make an 'example' of a guy?

I dont like the precedant this sets for extradition when the 'criminal' was actually in the UK at the time of the alleged crimes and is covered by UK criminal laws.

 

[ECA]

I don't like this either, this guys going to get more time than a murdered. total bullshit.

Computer hacking should be treated like vandalism, and malicious hacking for extortion should just be treated as extortion.

 

[Chilly]

and breaking into top secret records of foreign governments should be treated as spying. Get over it, he did the crime, now he can fuck off to the USA to get tried as a spy - which he is.

Just because he doesnt understand what he did (maybe he does, but he's wrong somewhere inside) doesnt mean he didnt do it.

 

[nath]

He's not a spy, he's a hacker/vandal/nosey fuck. ECA is right, if he gets put away for longer than murderers do it's fucking absurd.

 

[rynnor]

and breaking into top secret records of foreign governments should be treated as spying.

Just because they are systems owned by the government doesnt make them full of secrets - most of the stufff on computers he got onto would be general organisational crap/accounts etc.

Ask yourself if top secrets would be on a system connected to the net unsecured with default passwords - I think the answer is no - plus you can only be a 'spy' if your working for a government - this guys a lone Ufo nut.

 

[Chilly]

Look, just because something isnt 100% secure doesnt mean its public information. I agree that he wasnt acting AS a spy, but in terms of what he actually did he certainly acted LIKE one.

I do agree he was just being a nosy ****, but I definitely think he went way too far and deserves a trial in the US. Yes, they were incompetent bastards in their security, but thats the way vast organisations work - some of it goes bad.

On a personal level I feel sorry for the guy, and hope that the US doesnt go too rough on him, but the home office has been assured by the US peeps that he wont be sent to guantanamo or other places they send terrorists to.

 

[ECA]

and breaking into top secret records of foreign governments should be treated as spying. Get over it, he did the crime, now he can fuck off to the USA to get tried as a spy - which he is.

Just because he doesnt understand what he did (maybe he does, but he's wrong somewhere inside) doesnt mean he didnt do it.

Spies don't get 70 years in jail :/

He should get whatever the punishment would be for nicking secret files which is like 10 years or something, certainly not the rest of his life.

 

[Chilly]

and who said hes going to get life?

 

[DaGaffer]

Spies don't get 70 years in jail :/

He should get whatever the punishment would be for nicking secret files which is like 10 years or something, certainly not the rest of his life.

Actually, spies in America have had a lot worse than that, even in peacetime. Anyway, just because he could get 70 years, doesn't mean he will.

 

[ECA]

Actually, spies in America have had a lot worse than that, even in peacetime. Anyway, just because he could get 70 years, doesn't mean he will.

Yes but he isnt a spy, just a thief.

You also cant compare a case now to one during the red scare era.

The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and sentenced to death under section 2 of the Espionage Act, 50 U.S. Code 32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information "relating to the national defense", by judge Irving Kaufman on April 5. The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations into "anti-American activities" by US citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, they denied the spying charges even as they faced the electric chair.

The couple were the only two American civilians to be executed for espionage-related activity during the Cold War. In imposing the death penalty, Judge Kaufman noted that he held them responsible not only for espionage but also for the deaths of the Korean War:

I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb [...] has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason.

Their case has been at the center of the controversy over communism in the United States ever since, with supporters steadfastly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of persecution typical of the "hysteria" of those times (see Red Scare, McCarthyism) and likening it to the witch hunts that marred Salem and medieval Europe (a comparison that provided the inspiration for Arthur Miller's critically acclaimed play, The Crucible).

 

[rynnor]

but the home office has been assured by the US peeps that he wont be sent to guantanamo or other places they send terrorists to.

But fundamentally, why is he being extradited when he has broken UK laws and is completely within our jurisdiction - the only reason is that he can be made an example of - do you really think a potential sentence of 80 years is fair?

Will we start extraditing murderers to the US if they murder a US citizen in this country so that they can get the death penalty?

 

[DaGaffer]

But fundamentally, why is he being extradited when he has broken UK laws and is completely within our jurisdiction - the only reason is that he can be made an example of - do you really think a potential sentence of 80 years is fair?

Will we start extraditing murderers to the US if they murder a US citizen in this country so that they can get the death penalty?

It's not the same; the crime was committed in America; its the location of the server that counts, not the location of the person doing the hack; that's been pretty well established now. So, using your analogy, if someone sent anthrax through the post from the UK to someone in the US and they died, they'd be tried in the US.

 

[Tom]

I don't recall the US wanting to extradite the women of Greenham Common when they trespassed on US property. But I could be wrong.

 

[rynnor]

It's not the same; the crime was committed in America; its the location of the server that counts, not the location of the person doing the hack; that's been pretty well established now.

No- under UK law your wrong - specifically the Computer Misuse Act 1990 counts the location of the person committing the crime if they are in the UK.

"4.-(1) Except as provided below in this section, it is immaterial for the purposes of any offence under section 1 or 3 above-
whether any act or other event proof of which is required for conviction of the offence occurred in the home country concerned; or
whether the accused was in the home country concerned at the time of any such act or event."

It is intended (and achieves) getting you either way - if your in the UK but hack the US your caught - if your in the US but hack the UK your caught.

If your at home in the UK - no matter what country your hack is in you count as breaking the Computer Misuse Act.

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't recall the US wanting to extradite the women of Greenham Common when they trespassed on US property. But I could be wrong.

Trespass isn't an extraditable offence.

 

[DaGaffer]

No- under UK law your wrong - specifically the Computer Misuse Act 1990 counts the location of the person committing the crime if they are in the UK.

"4.-(1) Except as provided below in this section, it is immaterial for the purposes of any offence under section 1 or 3 above-
whether any act or other event proof of which is required for conviction of the offence occurred in the home country concerned; or
whether the accused was in the home country concerned at the time of any such act or event."

It is intended (and achieves) getting you either way - if your in the UK but hack the US your caught - if your in the US but hack the UK your caught.

If your at home in the UK - no matter what country your hack is in you count as breaking the Computer Misuse Act.

Which would be fine, but that's not the law he's being prosecuted under. He's being prosecuted under US law. That's why they want him extradited, because they feel the UK law has no teeth, and tbh they're probably right.

 

[rynnor]

Its actually a hell of a lot harder to fight extradition now thanks to the new extradition treaty:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required."

They are no longer required to give evidence - they can just say you did something...

 

[Tom]

I don't understand why he doesn't just clear off to France. Can you imagine the French giving him up? hehe.

 

[Tom]

Trespass isn't an extraditable offence.

I was just making a rather trite point about the situation. Namely that a bunch of women invaded bases where US-owned Nuclear weapons were stored, and they got a bit of a slapped wrist. This guy has a sniff around some computers, doesn't really do much damage, and the US is so embarrased they want to lock him away with Sean Connery (ala The Rock)

 

[DaGaffer]

I was just making a rather trite point about the situation. Namely that a bunch of women invaded bases where US-owned Nuclear weapons were stored, and they got a bit of a slapped wrist. This guy has a sniff around some computers, doesn't really do much damage, and the US is so embarrased they want to lock him away with Sean Connery (ala The Rock)

Well according to the Septics he did quite a lot of damage and brought down some systems they were trying to use on 9/11 (I'm not passing any comment on whether this is bollocks or not). Of course the real issue here is to send out a message; US airbases are rarely attacked by "wimmin" and when they are its a threat that can be seen and dealt with; the US government knows that hackers are a wildcard that isn't going to go away(and that usually their techies aren't paid enough to be as good as hackers, and tend to have an imagination problem or they wouldn't be civil servants in the first place), so they play the "fear the penalties" card. Whether that would deter a hacker sat in say, Iran, or even Holland, is a moot point, but I think recent history shows American officialdom isn't too hot on psychology...

 

[JingleBells]

The US are claiming he is a huge hacker, even though all he did was show that the US admins had decided not to use passwords, thus making things significantly easier to access, hardly an uber hacker imo.

 

[Earl]

Sub7 imo

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm a spy trying to find out american dirty little secrets.

I get caught 'cause i'm not that good at what i do.

I go for the "i'm just a hackeer, oh noes, plz don't shoot me!" approach.

I'm not saying he's a spy, he's not a spy, he's a hacker, he's dumb, smart as f*ck or anything really...but there are possibilities.

 

[Athan]

1) Just because the Computer Misuse Act can be used to prosecute in the UK for such misuses against computers in other countries doesn't mean it WILL be the applied law in all such cases. In this case the US authorities clearly want to try him under their own laws and have the right to do so.

2) Just because he says he was only after UFO stuff and only found accounts that had default/no passwords doesn't mean that's what actually happened. The US isn't necessarily going to name specifics if it does actually involve matters of national security are they ? That will be done behind closed doors in court if the material (possibly, after all he may have found his way onto a system with such, but been too much of a noob to find it) he had access to was of this nature.

If what the guy says is the truth then he's obviously off his rocker, which means you shouldn't trust what he says, which means ....

-Ath