McKinnon loses judicial review Gary McKinnon has lost a judicial review against his extradition to the United States on hacking charges. Lawyers for the Briton hoped his recent diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome would be enough to persuade judges to overturn previous rulings and allow McKinnon to be tried in the UK. But Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr …
This post has been deleted by its author
... is determining where the alleged (ok - he's admitted it, but hey) crime took place.
McKinnon himself was in the UK but the servers he wandered into were in the US... it could be argued that the crime took place in the US since that's where the impact was felt.
However, say you fire a high power rifle in Texas and accidentally kill someone in Mexico (it's hypothetical ok); where would you be tried? The US or Mexico? Under what law? You've not committed a crime in Texas by firing a rifle so would you not face trial at all despite being guilty of manslaughter over the border?
@Mark:
It's called "realpolitik". It stinks but there you go
@Charles:
Copyright infringement of this nature is civil and not criminal - the extradition treaty requires that the offence carry a term of more than 12 months imprisonment _in both countries_ for it to be covered. Not since Dickensian times have we had imprisonment for debt.
But hasn't the whole one sided nature of the 2003 Extradition treaty been changed with the 2006 ratification of the treaty by the US of A?
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
If this is right, can we drop the whole 'lapdog of the Americans' thing and simply look at the case from the point of view of whether or not he should be extradited.
Why do people bring their retarded politics in to this? Was Thatcher renowned for slapping down US demands? Will it be any different after an election? Of course not.
Don't forget a lot of politicians are also lawyers it's in their interest to make unclear laws that take many lawyers many years to interpret.
If the USA cannot protect its own mission-critical computers by at least making sure none operate with a default password, it is simply absurd for the UK, which presumaby believes itself to be relying on those same computers for its ultimate security (as an ally with a "special relationship"), to be seen[*] to protect (presumably by deterence) the USA's computers in preference to its own citizens. Or as the judges (used to?) say - he who comes to law must come with clean hands.
Until nu labour created a law of criminal trespass, if you found a stranger had come into your home through your unlocked door, no offence existed (damage excepted). Hacking is not necessarily spying, tho some some spying may involve computer hacks. My American friends will recall Jonathon Pollard.
[*] because the hyperreal trumps the real here
"But hasn't the whole one sided nature of the 2003 Extradition treaty been changed with the 2006 ratification of the treaty by the US of A?"
No. The problem of lack of judicial check remains.
"If this is right, can we drop the whole 'lapdog of the Americans' thing and simply look at the case from the point of view of whether or not he should be extradited."
And that's the other big problem, we can consider the evidence of this case (even if extradition Judges can't) and decide for ourselves if this case warrants extradition. However, the extradition treaty lets them extradite on one claimed offence, and prosecute on another!
Yes really, they can make up any charge simply to get the extradition, then discard that and nobody every gets to challenge the made up charge!
It was an Ashcroft - Blunkett treaty, given what we know about Ashcroft now it was incredibly stupid to remove the judicial check and add that clause. UK has a duty to ensure due process for it's citizens (it's a fundamental right), yet Blunkett signed a treaty that takes the judicial process out of the loop.
"Same as any other criminal that flees to a country with an extradition treaty".
FFS try to catch up.
He committed the crime here in the UK, breaching UK laws. He fessed up here. Therefore... bang him up here after a trial HERE. As opposed to shipping him off to a country that has torn up any professed commitment to fair trials and humane treatment of prisoners.
As long as Gitmo exists the US cannot be said to have a fair judicial system.
He's a prat and a criminal, no argument there. But the extradition treaty with the US and the US judicial system are an aberration and we should play no part.
I hate to poke holes in your argument and all, but actually most people in this country didn't even vote for our government once. IIRC, at the last election, they were voted for by circa 20% of the registered voters. The real problems are voter apathy and a lack of viable alternatives, what with Labour and the Tories being photocopies of each other, and the Lib Dems being unelectable. This is why we now have racists as MEPs.
Sure, McKinnon was in the UK when he alledgedly did his little hack trip. Problem is the result was "damages" incurred in the US. Legally, since his actions caused the damages in another country, that is the site of the "crime", even if his actions were judged leagl here. Consider the case of someone that sends a letterbomb from Ireland to the UK, it blows up upon being opened in the UK and the opener dies, then the UK would want to extradite the sender to face a murder charge in the UK even if the Irish didn't want to charge him with explosives offenses. Now, a lot of the posters here somehow think hacking US military/gubbermint systems is not a crime (gee, I bet they wouldn't say the same if someone was hacking their email accounts), but it is, and the servers hacked were mainly in the States, and the damages sustained (the cost of investigating where he'd hacked counts as damages) also happened in the States, therefore it is quite legal to have the US ask for his extradition to face trial in the States. Just because your political beliefs make it hard for you to swallow, doesn't mean you aren't going to have to open wide and suck it down!
"Time for Gary to get a reality check. Happy trails Gary." .... By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 31st July 2009 16:31 GMT
Now that there are multiple choice options/future mutual derivatives on that easily delivered product, AC, whose version and programs would you like to see Path Finding, Way Out in the Lead.
And with the likes of Crazy Horse Cheltenham or Fanny Fort Meade muddying the waters with Pathetic COIN and Apathetic Military Flounder Missions, it may be Best to Look Elsewhere and Eastward for a Better Beta ...... and travel that Journey Deep and Far Enough and you will eventually find yourself Almed and Armed with Eastern Magic in Western Circles.
And is this spooky relevant ....... and only the tip of a TitanIQ Networking ICeberg .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8179407.stm?
Is it not a known military fact that to know your enemy as a friend will destroy the enemy and create new stronger friendships with Treasure Stores of Civil and Paramilitary Bonds?
Progress.... to a Higher Level of ConFusion with SMARTer Peace Dividends..... http://tinyurl.com/ngbapx .... would appear to be an Alien Concept to the NeoCon Neanderthal Warrior Species .... Sub-Prime Movers and Shakers ...... Jittery Bugs in AI Hostile Environments ....... and ASP Kicking/Kicking ASP Territory for Irregular and Unconventional Anti-Access, Area Denial Asymmetric Strategy Programs.
You may like to consider IT a QuiTE SurReal Novel and NeuReal Great Game for Global Communications HQ from GCHQ for that is the Produce Purchased in Future IT Sales.
Just a thought:
If I am a British citizen I can be extradited to the USA and tried in the USA for crimes committed on a PC in the UK against a PC in the USA without proof. If, hypothetically, between 1998 and 2005 I downloaded and shared tens of thousands of mp3s on P2P networks and if, hypothetically, someone in the USA downloaded those files from me, does that therefore mean that I can be extradited by the RIAA for that? I hear the argument that copyright violation is civil law, not criminal law, but is that the case in the USA where Kevin Cogill got a year's probation for his "felony" of sharing Guns'n'Roses latest album prior to its release? Have we not now set a legal precedent that issues that are a civil matter in the UK but a criminal matter in the US can lead to extradition but this only works in one direction and does not require proof to be shared with the UK court?
Thanks for reminding me of the Computer Misuse Act (ONLY A UK ACT)
Now I might get extradited to North Korea
I got very pissed and had a computer in front of me (don't do this kids)
I ordered some VERY EXPENSIVE server hosting in North Korea for a guy that pissed me off
He owed me nearly £3k and swore at my wife and 2 year old son... so I ordered it for him as a gift.
Needless to say he called the police, and I was arrested. Fair Cop GUV, I did it
Still it's gonna cost the nasty shit £5k to clean up the mess I guess
I'll let you all know what happens in December when it goes to court
Any ship operating in the Gulf would've been in international waters at the time and thus under no specific jurisdiction. The international laws of the high seas would apply in this case, but there are few specific offenses applicable to the high seas, and I think ALL of them require either being physically aboard or physically attacking the ship in question.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
