McKinnon to be extradited

[Sysman]

IIRC he connected up using RemotelyAnywhere using phone numbers from a list on a bulletin board. That's really all there is to it.

No password cracking required. Definitely nothing fancy like elevation of privileges.

According to this Wiki entry:

In an interview televised on the BBC's Click programme, McKinnon claimed that he was able to get into the military's networks simply by using a Perl script that searched for blank passwords; in other words his report suggests that there were computers on these networks with the default passwords active.

And yes, it also mentions his use of RemotelyAnywhere.

Script Kiddie stuff. He really shouldn't have left insults there. That's always bound to wind folks up.

[AlfredJPruffock]

When asked how his exploits were first discovered, McKinnon answered that he had miscalculated the timezone — he was using remote-control software to operate a Windows computer while its user was sitting in front of it.

Agree with you Sysman - hardly the hallmark of a criminal mastermind - who dont tend to leave calling cards either.

More of a curious eccentric whom shares the same view as former NASA atronaut Edgar Mitchell - that NASA is concealing evidence regarding UFOs.

[AlfredJPruffock]

LABOUR SELL OUT



During a highly-charged debate, a floundering Home Secretary Alan Johnson faced criticism from all sides over the decision to let Mr McKinnon be taken to the U.S. for trial on charges of computer hacking, where he faces a sentence of up to 60 years.


When it came to a vote, however, 74 Labour MPs who had previously signed Commons motions backing Mr McKinnon or demanding a review of extradition agreements with the U.S. failed to go against the party line. Fifty-nine voted with the Government and 15 abstained.

Tory justice spokesman David Burrowes, Mr McKinnon's MP in Enfield Southgate, said: 'It's a sad day for Parliament.


'There's rank hypocrisy on the part of MPs who on the one hand express concern for Gary and about the extradition treaty but on the other hand are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.'

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said he was 'astonished' by the new 'Johnson doctrine' that there was an equality of treatment by the U.S. and the UK over extradition.

In the past, ministers had confessed there was an imbalance but had tried to justify it on other grounds, he said.

Mr Huhne said it was 'simply ludicrous' that the Government was 'prepared to afford our American counterparts such greater protections than it does our own citizens'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0NI3WhAQK





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0NI28p5Rp

[Incognito]

It amazes me how many of you buy into the PR from his legal team. And you lot are meant to be working in IT.

http://educate-yourself.org/pnl/nerd...h13jul05.shtml

He wasn't some idiot who didn't understand what he was doing, he knew fine well what he was doing and how to cover his tracks when on the systems. He got caught because he'd registered his e-mail address with the site he'd downloaded the remoteanywhere software from.

He'd been doing this for years. He was a hacker, whether or not he had any destructive intention is entirely irrelevant.

Why can't people take responsibility for their actions? This whole 'oh it's not his fault' culture is what pervades right down to the core of British values thanks to New Labour and it stinks.

He did the crime, let him do the time. Let him be tried in the US, we already have a precedent for this type of case, R v Governor of Brixton Prison ex p Levin [1997]

The applicant’s keyboard was connected electronically with the Citibank computer in…[the US]; as he pressed the keys his actions, as he intended, recorded or stored information for all practical purposes simultaneously on the magnetic disk in the [US] computer. That is where the instrument was created and where the act constituting the offence was done

The Americans don't want him tried over here (a) because they know how completely crap our Computer Misuse Act is and that even if found guilty (highly unlikely) he'd most probably get an xbox and a pat on the head and told not to do it again.

105.
Some industry bodies seemed to believe that CMA offences were not tackled because of the difficulty of getting a conviction. APACS suggested that CMA prosecutions were so complex that they should be tried specially, as is often proposed for Fraud cases. The CBI suggested that criminals “ are being acquitted due to a jury’ s lack of understanding of computer issues” and there was an “ inability to secure a conviction under the current computer misuse legislation”.

106.
BT told us that they had identified 54 hackers in the last 18 months and “ had worked with the police to a successful conclusion” . However, they had not used the CMA, finding it simpler to use s42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, “ Fraudulent Use of Telecommunications System” . The normal result was a caution for the miscreant where they voluntarily signed over their computer equipment. BT quoted a figure of a 40% reduction in ‘port scans’ over the 18-month period.

107.
It is clear from the evidence presented to us that a root cause of the discontent with the CMA is that the police are failing to meet expectations in the investigation of computer crime. This is an area that has recently been addressed by the ‘EURIM-IPPR E-Crime Study’ , which is intended to feed into the Home Office policy formulation process that will result in the publication of an e-Crime strategy later this year. We recommend that the Home Office consider the recent EURIM recommendations within their May 2004 ‘Supplying the Skills for Justice’ paper and ensure that policies are developed that will address the need for effective policing of computer crime.

Link

or (b) they don't want to have any sensitive information disclosed in a UK court.

[RichardCranium]

whether or not he had any destructive intention is entirely irrelevant.

The consideration of intent is the difference between a humane justice system and a dictatorial revenge system.

He did not steal millions of dollars.

He was not trying to take down the US government.

He was not selling their secrets.

He should not be punished as if he were.

[Zippy]

I was brainwashed about freedom of speech, the true value of services and other leftie opinions, so on that basis I'm out.

[Cyberman]

It amazes me how many of you buy into the PR from his legal team. And you lot are meant to be working in IT.

http://educate-yourself.org/pnl/nerd...h13jul05.shtml

He wasn't some idiot who didn't understand what he was doing, he knew fine well what he was doing and how to cover his tracks when on the systems. He got caught because he'd registered his e-mail address with the site he'd downloaded the remoteanywhere software from.

He'd been doing this for years. He was a hacker, whether or not he had any destructive intention is entirely irrelevant.

Why can't people take responsibility for their actions? This whole 'oh it's not his fault' culture is what pervades right down to the core of British values thanks to New Labour and it stinks.

He did the crime, let him do the time. Let him be tried in the US, we already have a precedent for this type of case, R v Governor of Brixton Prison ex p Levin [1997]



The Americans don't want him tried over here (a) because they know how completely crap our Computer Misuse Act is and that even if found guilty (highly unlikely) he'd most probably get an xbox and a pat on the head and told not to do it again.



Link

or (b) they don't want to have any sensitive information disclosed in a UK court.

Good heavens.... somebody else who has some commonsense and agrees with me.

[minestrone]

Why can't people take responsibility for their actions? This whole 'oh it's not his fault' culture is what pervades right down to the core of British values thanks to New Labour and it stinks.

Well, he never caused a riot and pissed all over Manchester for a day and a half.

[sunnysan]

Eh?

Well what strikes me as quite strange is the urgency to get Samantha Orobator released from jail who IIRC

a) Is Nigerian with indefinate leave to remain in the UK.
b) Has been caught and convicted for possessing heroin in the country where she committed the offence.
c) She got knocked up so she could improve her legal position(Although in all honesty she may have been raped)

So why is there a major diplomatic effort to free her, as well as the usual contingent of charities and human rights lawyers and usual do gooders pleading human rights violations when..

an accused BRITISH CITIZEN is seemingly thrown to the wolves for trial in a foreign country with an absolute inverterbrate response from UK representatives.

It is not really about who is guilty or innocent or what they have done but it does smack of incoherency of policy and double standards for the UK govt and their expedient application of foreign policy.

[minestrone]

Absolute ******* disgrace.

The only way I can describe it.

Again, I describe this as an absolute ******* disgrace.

That trumped up ****** postman running the home office should be put in a cell.

Sorry for the french but this election can not come soon enough.