Reply to: Gary McKinnon to not face charges

[SueEllen]

Yep - he's probably stuck in the UK now.

Looking at this again, I am surprised he wasn't charged under the Computer Misuse Act, but I guess when the act was written (1990), there was little provision for actions done solely in the UK against non-UK assets.

If convicted, at worst he would have got a very short prison sentance, but more likely, a suspended sentance or community service.

I think that probably sums up all the fuss - not what he did, or whether he should have been prosecuted in the US, but the proportionality of the punishment to the "crime", with the US taking a much harder line and wanting to lock him up for a lot longer.

He would plead not guilty, get a jury trial and if he was convicted he then the crown in turn would appeal all through the courts all the way to the European court arguing that he did/didn't get a fair trial.

Even before the Human Rights Act if newspaper editors etc published too much about a case the trial would have to be stopped and the publishers of the stories could be charged.

[OwlHoot]

only until the 21st.

he will be back to make the last post of 2012

Yes, banning AtW on New Year's Eve would be cruel and unusual punishment

[centurian]

If he goes abroad he could still be extradited to the states.

Yep - he's probably stuck in the UK now.

Looking at this again, I am surprised he wasn't charged under the Computer Misuse Act, but I guess when the act was written (1990), there was little provision for actions done solely in the UK against non-UK assets.

If convicted, at worst he would have got a very short prison sentance, but more likely, a suspended sentance or community service.

I think that probably sums up all the fuss - not what he did, or whether he should have been prosecuted in the US, but the proportionality of the punishment to the "crime", with the US taking a much harder line and wanting to lock him up for a lot longer.

[BrilloPad]

Makes me wonder....if they don't want to prosecute him and the home secretary won't allow him to be removed...then the guy is free to hack into US computers! So would it not be prudent to bar him from using a computer with access to the internet?

If he goes abroad he could still be extradited to the states.

[BrilloPad]

He's proper banned.

only until the 21st.

he will be back to make the last post of 2012

[mudskipper]

He's proper banned.

[Cliphead]

Where's Alexei calling for his head?

I would have thought this would have distracted him from chasing up his sofa

[lilelvis2000]

Makes me wonder....if they don't want to prosecute him and the home secretary won't allow him to be removed...then the guy is free to hack into US computers! So would it not be prudent to bar him from using a computer with access to the internet?

[BrilloPad]

Played the i'm a poor suicidal autiser card.

That right . Have a go at the disabled. Fookwit.

[mudskipper]

BBC News - Hacker Gary McKinnon will not face UK charges

Lucky lad eh?

WHS

[centurian]

Good. Regardless of whether this particular bloke should have been extradited, this treaty should be largely ignored until it is revised to be completely equitable. Some say it is equitable like this bloke:

The treaty huff was a complete (although very successful) smokescreen. He would have been extradicted even if the clauses had been 100% fully equitable. They had more than enough evidence to extradicte him, even under the old treaty.

[lilelvis2000]

The conspirators will wonder why his extradition was blocked the day after another chap with the identical condition (and with a identical medical diagnosis) was removed.

This does being questions into how strong the law is in the area of hacking. Or did the CPS just look the other way? Maybe some truths about the Police cock-ups would come out.

[xoggoth]

BTW, anyone know, what the figures should be if the treaty was equitable, assuming the US has a population 5 time ours? According to these "FAQs" :

FAQs on the US-UK Extradition Relationship | Embassy of the United States

•The Baker panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is therefore not disproportionate

That looks to me like total bollux. They have 5 times as many potential offenders but they also have 1/5 of the individuals/companies that they could offend against and who would lodge a complaint. 5 x 1/5 = 1 By my reckoning an equitable treaty would see about the same number extradited from each. I could be wrong, any statisticians with a different view?

[xoggoth]

Good. Regardless of whether this particular bloke should have been extradited, this treaty should be largely ignored until it is revised to be completely equitable. Some say it is equitable like this bloke:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-treaty-us-uk

but if that is so, why is there is an extra clause in the treaty protecting US citizens that does not apply to UK citizens? Surely an equitable treaty would impose the same conditions on both sides? Others say it is equitable in practice because the US authorities do actually supply equivalent information but depending on the good will of the complainants is hardly legal justice.

[sbakoola]

it was dragged out for 10 years, he should have been done for breaking and entering and not stealing anything which is what he did with their computer data.