"You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to "Examine and revoke the
unjust and one sided extradition law between the UK and USA which allows
for the extradition of BRITISH CITIZENS like Gary Mckinnon and the Nat West
three to the USA."

Thank you for your e-Petition which calls for an examination and revocation of the UK-US extradition treaty.

There is a perception that the UK-US extradition treaty is weighted in favour of the US. It was the previous arrangements, based on a treaty negotiated in 1972 that were unequal in that the UK required more from the US than they asked of the UK. The US was required to demonstrate a prima facie evidential case in support of extradition requests made to the UK, whereas the UK merely had to demonstrate ‘probable cause’. ‘Probable cause’ is a requirement of the US Bill of Rights, which it cannot amend.

Under present-day arrangements, the information that must be provided in a UK extradition request to the US is broadly comparable to that required in a US request to the UK. The UK is required to demonstrate “probable cause” in the US courts. In American law this is described as “facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime”

The US is required to demonstrate “reasonable suspicion” in UK courts. This has been defined in UK case law in the following terms, “circumstances of the case should be such that a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence”. Every extradition request made by the US to the UK must provide sufficient information that would persuade the District Judge in the UK to issue an arrest warrant if the conduct for which extradition is sought had occurred in this country.

The Government believes that the information required of each country is as balanced as is possible given the differences between the two legal systems.

Hmm..

The government uses a private, satellite based web service completely seperate from the world wide web to store things about ET's and such.

Trying to hack into it from the webwould only get the lesser goodies, but I commend him for at least trying.

The charges are trumped-up to extradite him. They claim $3K of damage to all the computers he logged onto WHICH HAD NO ADMIN PASSWORDS. This barely qualifies as hacking and has ZERO chance of causing damage alone. He claims he didn't do any damage and I believe him. It's pretty obvious his hacker skills were rudimentary at best and he didn't want to get caught. If he had damaged the computers to the tune of $3K (how much do computers cost these days??) they would probably have noticed their systems going belly-up all over and caught him after only a few, not nearly enough for an extradition. This is pure politics and that poor SOB is scared shatless - no doubt for good reason.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by wanderingwaldo]

The charges that were most interesting to me involved installation of a remote access program named "remote anywhere". The FOIA documents included comments from the online forum Slashdot. They are for the most part UNIX geeks that discuss world technical issues. My understanding of "remote anywhere" is limited to a less complex remote access product named "PC anywhere".

The only reason a hacker would choose to install PC anywhere is to get "native control" of desktop programs. You could theoretically use the host machine to write your message then authenticate it with the secret keys that are naively embedded in the host machines secure browsers and email packages. That is a very serious crime if it can be proven.

Remote anywhere is a much more complex package that has all kinds of file monitoring, and automatic job spawning features. It is just not the kind of package that could be efficiently uploaded and managed by an asperger with only a dial up connection on so many machines.

Should be interesting to get the response of the Slashdot herd now that it appears Gary will be victorious.

Originally posted by Genus
The government uses a private, satellite based web service completely seperate from the world wide web to store things about ET's and such.

Trying to hack into it from the webwould only get the lesser goodies, but I commend him for at least trying.

I highly doubt there's anyone good enough to get even the smallest thing out of that network. Military/government employees need keycards to access that network from outside of it.

I doubt they'd ever let it leave their view for any hacker to get a hold of.

Originally posted by fromunclexcommunicateThe only reason a hacker would choose to install PC anywhere is to get "native control" of desktop programs. You could theoretically use the host machine to write your message then authenticate it with the secret keys that are naively embedded in the host machines secure browsers and email packages. That is a very serious crime if it can be proven.

He's already admitted to that. I believe he said he used that to connect, then modified a script file he had found on the internet to scan for systems that didn't have a password.

The guy has said from day one that's he's not this big-time hacker that some people make him out to be. That he only knows the small basics of it. In soo many words he's been calling himself a script-kiddie.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by nightmare_david]

What I understand is that Mckinnon was granted an extension on his extradition to the U.S. It seems NASA is not comfertable with the evidence that is being scrutinised.

I'm surprised nobody has said (unless I missed it) that it's being put on hold because Obama is about to disclose to the world.

You know, like David Wilcock said would be happening soon

I'm serious. I'm surprised the DW people haven't tried using this to try and back up what DW said

Hi all,

If I were about hack and crack into military computers here or in another Country from here, I suppose the question might be, do I know that if caught I could go to jail for a long time.

As well as, Do I know if I'm caught by that other Country, my Government might be forced under extradition agreement to send me there for trial?

And do I know how ignorant I must be in even attempting let alone being successful in breaking into military computers of a world power?

I mean, this guy's got to do time if convicted. But perhaps that time should be served in his own Country?
Seems to me the US will set an example here. Though in other ways they should thank him for helping their security lockdown the backdoor to military computer secrets espionage by real terrorists.

Decoy

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
This topic makes me want to scream. I will pray fervently for Gary's mental state and clearly supportive people around him on every side.

It is so grotesque to see the government in the States and in UK doing this to this poor young man. If anything he is a world hero, and the two governments I mentioned which are ruled by unseen figures are the very definition of criminal.

May this man be protected and hidden from the TPTB.

*Applause!*

I feel exactly the same way. McKinnon's case is one of those that makes you gasp for air.

The ruthless way the US authorities and their lame Blairish underdogs handled this is only indicative there is actually something being consistently swept under the rug.
- "Oh, so this Mahmoud ISI chief guy you're lunching with sent a million dollars to Atta the other day?" - "Yeah, but nah... just let him go. He's not hiding in a cave like Alibaba so he's not the man we want."
- "But how about this British college student trespassing into NASA computers then?" - "Indeed, here's the pimpled face of the public enemy! In the name of Global Democracy and Human Rights, burn him, dismember him, extradite and put this frightfully dangerous Nazi terrorist computer wrecker to the stake!"

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Tussilago]