Asperger to be sent to jail for 70 years - Pentagon

Post Reply New Topic

I would hope that something like hacking into a non-password protected computer looking for evidence of aliens wouldnt be treated as seriously as doing the same for terrorist or espionage reasons, but clearly that is not the case in actuality.

The content of the law is not relevant to its application. Law works on general principals. Either people can be extradited to other nations to be tried under the other nation's legal system, for acts that they committed in their own nation, or not. The acts themselves are not relevant to deciding whether or not such a situation is desirable.

To me, looking for evidence of aliens in improperly protected computer systems is not a huge issue. A more pertinent issue would by why these computer systems were not better protected.

Again, the act itself is not relevant to the principal of extraditing people to nations they have never stepped foot within the jurisdiction of, for the purpose of trying them for acts committed outside that nation. Those nations that make images of animate creatures illegal, view it as very serious indeed. Why should you, a US citizen be held to their subjective cultural standards rather than the standards of a jurisdiction where you can participate in the political process and where you are a citizen? You should not be subjected to the legal jurisdiction of nations you have never entered nor have any political representation in and neither should McKinnon.

Which is why you should not be held accountable to such standards unless you choose to visit places where these laws apply. McKinnon might not be able to conceive of why it's a big deal that he hacked into US military computers. That's irrelevant either way. What is relevant is that nations should be protecting their legal jurisdiction and citizens by only extraditing people for acts physically committed within the jurisdiction to which the person is being extradited.


I would not. I would hope that the US has a sufficient justice system to address acts committed within its own jurisdiction.

Well, I've said before that if you disagree with the treaties, disagree with them. I understand that position. I just don't see how one could reasonably argue that the law wasn't correctly applied, as it was written, or that McKinnon is innocent. I'm a US citizen and I think there needs to be more flexibility with sentencing in these instances. He's clearly not a terrorist, and it's ridiculous to lock him up for (probably) the rest of his life. (Note to the conservatives here: That's your tax dollars at work.)

It doesn't really matter why he hacked. I am sure he must know right from wrong. He must be aware of that level of hacking, into a foreign government's classified regions, as having serious consequences. Actually, it's a threat to national security, nothing less. What he did is a threat to national security. It's that serious and you cannot rationalize it into being harmless. If he hadn't gotten caught, no one knows for sure what he would have done with the information or what his next move would've been.


I trust the legalese to do the right thing in this case. They know the specifics, I will trust their judgment over mine in this matter. If they think he should be extradited, and won't block it, I trust their judgment.

You cannot put blame soley on system failure, the hacker has responsibility in it too. It is a serious issue because he had access to classified information. People who have access to such information have to obtain security clearance by going through back ground checks. Their character is scrutinized. This guy is a complete unknown.


Maybe in matters of national security, and violating classified information, extradition should be an option open to all, an international agreement between various nations. I don't know the specifics of this case, but if the law allows McKinnon to be extradited, he should be.



Something tells me, he, living in the UK, knew it was a big deal. He was obsessed with something and he decided he would access what was illegal and forbidden to find out more. If I were obsessed with finding out classified information and hacked to obtain it, I would be subject to the same penalties regardless of what the information was.
Non classified information can be treated differently. The penalties aren't as strict. If he accessed non classified material, he might not be subject to extradition.


I'm not sure how much of an issue that is. What does it matter, anyway? His actions were putting citizens of the US in potential danger. He can come here and face the consequences.

US has sufficient jurisdiction but might escort someone who has been charged in another country to that location.
That is what this is about. McKinnon will have to come here, the place where his crime was actually committed (the system he hacked into is a site registered in the US) and due to the classified nature of the information his hacking led him access to, it is worth the trouble of extraditing him.

He was certainly brave -and reckless too, being so slack - in wanting to leak out proofs of what he believed was suppressed technology that he professes he thought/thinks should not be the preserve of a military when it could greatly benefit humankind ...

that all sounds fair enough - but then he should probably of thought about how to save the files too if that was his intention..

..and by totally neglecting that like a chronic stoner, like he says he was, it's clear he was closer to the fool than some arch villian that he's being touted up as being.

I think a) Potentially he really DID find something that would be very challenging for how we accept the world as being, tech or whatever and they really want to be sure he can never blab

the B2 bomber uses high voltage electrostatoc charges on it's wing tips to lower it's overall weight, significantly - another term for that is anti gravity..

There was a big article last week by an ex skunkworks and Boeing guy who predicts Obama is going to slowly set about release of this knowledge/technology; that such already stuff exists buried in black budget programmes ...out into the public sphere *shrug* it's not sci fi

b) he really irked some officials by telling them on their own private computer systems that he thought the war was criminal - they want to get him badly. He really bruised the military's ego and credibility

c) he's receiving basically the full wrath of the law to ward off any other would be bedroom hackers

The appalling conditions in American jails and delays in cases coming to trial, combined with the plea bargain system, basically add up to torturing confessions out of people. No-one should be in an American jail, not even Americans. I've been in a jail here in New Zealand (drunk and disorderly) and it wasn't a picnic, but at least I had a cell to myself and adequate supervision.

He broke the law IN THE UK, so he shouldn't be extradited.

It was you who raised the seriousness of the act for which one was extradited. If why he hacked is not relevant, then why is hacking into military computers deemed worse than hacking into Mom and Pop Smith's computer? The reason it is more serious is because of the likely intent and the harm that can arise from that intent. Clearly someone looking for aliens is not in the realm of what we normally consider to be espionage and terrorism, and breaking into military computers is deemed serious because it would be a real problem if terrorists and people engaged in espionage hack into such computers. The law was intended to make provision for serious acts of terrorism and espionage, not to prevent sorry sacks looking for proof of aliens.

If you believe that, then you believe he was right in doing what he did, since he believes he was right and must be correct about that if he knows right from wrong.

Illegal and morally wrong are not necessarily mutually inclusive properties.

So what? Robbing a bank has serious consequences, that does not mean one should be extradited to a nation they have never stepped foot in when they rob a bank in their own country. This is true even if the bank is merely a branch of a bank owned and operated from some other nation.

The threat to security was not McKinnon's acts, but the rather shameful lack of security that made his accomplishment so absurdly easy. If the threat to security is what merits punishment, then no extradition is needed. Simply prosecute the American citizens who so negligently failed at their duties and tasks such that what McKinnon did was doable.

None of which entails that it is desirable to extradite him. The UK knows computers exist, knows that people can break into each others computers, and is quite capable of having legislative means of ensuring persons physically in the UK, breaking into computers anywhere in the world are held accountable by and within the UK.
That seems utterly naive to me. It misses the point entirely. Either you believe that it is ok for say you yourself to extradited to a country you have never stepped foot in, to be held to account by their judiciary in accordance with their cultural/social notions of what constitutes right and wrong, or you believe people should only be accountable to their legal jurisdictions of nations in which they have been physically present at some time. I believe the latter. The content of why one might be extradited is utterly irrelevant.

I have never claimed McKinnon should not be held accountable by the UK within the UK for acts he committed within the UK.

Evidently, rather than harming the security of the US, he has given the US the opportunity to learn of and address some gaping holes in its security. He has done US security more good than harm. But that is irrelevant. In my view he has committed acts within the UK as a UK citizen and should be dealt with by the UK legal system.

He is not a complete unknown now. After all, we are currently discussing him on an international forum. The fact is that whatever he did, he did it in the UK without stepping foot within the US's legal jurisdiction. He should remain outside the US's jurisdiction and be dealt with within the jurisdiction the acts were committed in, (and in which he has political representation-the very thing that most democratic nation's assert necessary to legitimate authority).

No way. Do you really think everyone should be accountable to Iran's national security interests? How about China's, or North Korea's?

I am unsure what profit there is in discussing the issue between the two of us then, because I strongly oppose the law allowing for such a thing, and am much less interested in the detail of McKinnon's case than I am opposed to such extradition. In essence you are discussing McKinnon and I am discussing my opposition to an extradition treaty that happens to be likely to be applied to McKinnon. There is some cross over, but in essence are probably not having the same discussion.


It is irrelevant whether or not he knew it was "big deal". Murder is a big deal, but that does not mean anyone committing murder in the UK should expect to be exported to the US's justice system.

None of which justifies treaties allowing a person to be extradited from one nation to another nation( to be tried within the second nation's legal system,) in which they have not set foot and have no political representation.

Many things are big deals, but this person's actual acts and intent was not really that big of a deal at all (that he succeeded in getting access is a big deal, but that is the fault of those responsible for keeping unauthorized people out). I find the logic of extending what could have happened if he had X, Y, Z intent but ignoring his actual intent rather illogical. He did not use the information to do any particular damage to US security. Either his intent matters and we accept this was a silly obsession out of control, or the intent of some other possible but not actual computer hacker should not result in guilt by association. He did nothing particularly harmful with the information. The intent of some hypothetical person who might have used the information for nefarious purposes is somehow more relevant to you than this person's actual intent and actions?

He should not be subject to extradition no matter what the content of the information. Equally if he accessed non classified material illegally while physically in the US, and returned to the UK, he ought to be subject to possible extradition. No one who has no political voice or participation in the US, and who has not voluntarily been physically present within the US's jurisdiction, should ever, for any reason, be subject to extradition to the US.

I do not see any actual danger that he put a single US citizen in. If it is about "putting US citizens in potential danger" then those who actually put US citizens in danger is not some sad sack who accessed information in hopes of proving contact with alien life-forms, but who did nothing dangerous with that information, but rather, those who allowed the information to be so easily accessed.

In fact, McKinnon has made US citizens safer. Otherwise the first anyone knew of these significant and dangerous gaps in security, might have been after information accessed by someone else was used for catastrophic purposes. It's not about any danger McKinnon put so much as a single US citizen in, because he did not put any US citizens in danger. The lax security in place did, and he has revealed that lax security, thus enhancing the security of every US citizen.

Why should it send one of its own citizens off to some other country they have not stepped foot in rather than protect its own jurisdiction and authority as a nation-state?

He has never been to the US so the US is not the place where he could have committed any crime.

While he may not physically done so, his presence and actions were in violation. I don't know enough on the subject to have an opinion, to be honest... but I do know that generally in terms of electronic crimes it is considered an extension of self provided the host government is willing to work with the violated government. Curious situation, need to read more.


M.

First, you have to prove that he has a guilty mind:

If he truly thought he wasn't harming anyone (no empathy; so he will assume everyone will see it his way), and the information was for his own ends (special interest), Asperger's is a valid reason to escape criminal prosecution. The precedents are already down for this above.

Then, you have to prove criminal intent:

The above applies here too.

It's a waste of money for US taxpayers to pursue this case.

If an aspie can't follow the laws, then they can't be in the real world. They should be in a institution or something. I didn't make the rule, I was told that by my therapist when I was 17. He told me "If you are going to be out in the real world, you have to take responsibility for your actions, if you cannot then you can't live out in the real world." No wonder people with MR get locked away when they commit crimes and are innocent of it, especially mentally ill people.

Luckily, it's not up for you to decide.

Do we send the individual with Asperger's to jail for commandeering a bus, and pretending to be a bus driver? Harming no one along the way, and doing the exact same actions as the employed bus driver does. No, we don't, because there was no criminal intent and a guilty mind. If he killed someone due to dangerous driving (but he didn't intend to kill said person), then he can be charged in criminal law, but it won't be the same as a regular felony (manslaughter compared to murder).

That's flipping ridiculous... I've read stories about murderers getting about 17 years. This is supposed to be a 'life sentence'. I know what he did was stupid, but 70 years?

They still get arrested and charged. Why? Because the rule in society is if you are going to be out in the real world, you have to be responsible for your actions. I'm sorry but that's what I have been told. Because I do want to be in the real world and live a normal life, I will damn well follow the laws, doesn't matter if it be harmless. A crime is a crime. No excuse for my AS. I wouldn't go to Spokane and break into the house that was in Benny & Joon. Sure it's harmless because I am not harming the owner or anyone else but shall the owner not press charges against me if she caught me? Shall the police not arrest me or keep me in jail after finding out I have AS? Hey I have a Benny & Joon obsession so I broke into the house just to see what the inside looked like for real. I have AS please let me go free, please don't lock me in jail, boo hoo hoo. I did no harm. Hey the owner goes into her own house so I did the exact same thing she does when I went into her house.

Yes they do, but they are exonerated in court. Which means they aren't found guilty of the crime due to the AS. It's a fact, and as I said, the precedents have already been set.

You may break into a house that was used in a movie you like, but if you are capable of realizing that what you're doing won't be appreciated by others (i.e., you know the consequence), you won't be able to use AS as a reason. As you have empathy and insight. However, your punishment will be less if you only broke in to see and experience being in the house itself, then if you went in to steal property.

Some people with AS have no empathy and insight (the majority of, actually).

I think you don't understand the UK-Definition of "Treason". In England Treason is defined via the Treason Act 1356, made in 25th year of the reign of late King Edward II. It defines treason, besides adultery with the queen consort or the wife of heir of the throne and some other offences like, by raising arms against the king, his judges or servants or by giving comfort to the King's enemies.

This is hardly the case here.

---

The law in Scotland is quite similar, but there are some other offences, like the forgery of the Great Seal, treason, whilst in England it is an offence dealt by other laws.

You rule for extradition of your own citizens within the EU. So a German could be put by German authorities to trail in the UK - and vice-versa. This is not a real problem: even we still have no unified EU-Code here, the ideas regarding sentencing are quite the same, even they still under the control of the national law maker. Also: It is an agreement based on mutuality.

The UK-agreement with the USA is of an much different nature:

1) Sentencing in the USA is regularly much harder than in Europe:
People stay in the USA often three to four times longer in prison than in Europe for the same crime and sentencing is differently calculated: Based on the Roman Law (the Common Law follows here the Roman Law), if a crime consist of different single crimes (e.g. driving without licence, owing a weapon, taking hostages and stealing from a bank) the maximal penalty is in Europe the penalty given by the law for the most severe crime. It the USA they just add those single crimes up.

2) The USA does not extradite their citizens to the UK, but the UK to the USA. This not what I would call a real "mutual agreement".



Immigration is less the problem, but leaving the UK.

---

But I strongly assume that UK-courts will here not have the last word. Almost certainly this case will go to Strasbourg to the European Court of Human Right. The rejected his appeal for measurements according to Art. 39 of the Rules of the Court for a stop of his extradition as an "interim measure". The court did not decided in main issue of the legality of the UK-Law in this respect.