Re: Armchair Defence Solicitors
All of those who've commented that McKinnon is blameless because of the poor security at the Pentagon have clearly lost the plot. You've seen one too many TV drama in which some slick solicitor blames the victim in an attempt to confuse the issue. Blaming the victim completely ignores the obvious issues of right, wrong and personal responsibility. It is of necessity that each person in an ordered society exercise adequate judgment about what's right and what's wrong and to self-impose such behavioural controls as to not cause harm to others.
Your sleazy ilk try this all the time in rape trials - "She was askin' for it, she was. Lookin' all female and alluring like that, and tryin' to look pretty on top of it all, She shoulda known that my client was a man of modest success wif wimmen and likely to crack at the sight of one sittin' alone in her flat like that. She shoulda known that if he was able to peek through her windows and see her stretched out on her sofa beguiling as she was, she had to have known he'd crack." Or in breaking and entering cases - "Obviously, the plaintiff wasn't really tryin' to keep others out of his house 'cause he hadn't installed any but the most common of locks on his doors, why it was practically an invitation to come in, I tell ya. If he'd really wanted to keep people out, he'd have put in an alarm system, or hired security, or kept guard dogs, wouldn't you think?" Or the ever-popular 'honeypot' defence for theft - "Ladies and gentlemen, how could the plaintiff expect his car not to be stolen? He bought the most stolen car in the land, in the most popular colour and with the most popular accessories. Why those chrome wheels my client's accused of taking were the single most stolen item from cars in the tri-city area for the past five years running. Then he had the gall to keep it in plain sight in his drive. It was as though he was taunting the lads in the neighbourhood."
Whatever screwball excuses you come up with to explain away his behaviour or obfuscate his actions are naught but red herrings drawn across the trail in a poor attempt to disguise the fact that he broke into computers that weren't his and caused problems. He admits to such; he acknowledges that what he did wasn't legal; he knew right from wrong at the time and did wrong in spite of it. Now he's created a cottage industry dedicated to saving his hocks from the fire of punishment. In spite of his mouthpiece's eloquent defences with regard to jurisdictional issues and his motivations, it comes down to a rather simple question - did he do it?
All of you standing in defence of him, no matter what your country of residence, need to ask yourself - would I defend him so passionately if it was my system he broke into?