It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Oh why do you think they call it the "Criminal justice" system.
Originally posted by Echtelion
WOW!
That's awesome! Such a great woman this lawyer is to stand up to all those corrupts lizards... I mean British politicians!
THis seems like McKinnon can now play the card of disclosure... I hope this paves the way for an all-out historical exposure of the "non-human" infiltration of the US military.
People are going to think I am odd for this, but there is something alluring about Theresa May.... She could block my extradition any time...
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by r2d246
Thing is, he doesn't have "skills".. He "hacked" into an unsecured part of the US Government network by using default passwords. Nothing rocket sciency about that.
Originally posted by alexoscarew
Mc Kinnon knew enough to hack into the US military systems and should have been extradited years ago for the crime. What signal does this send to other hackers, who, we've heard this week, could bring the planet to a standstill. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Originally posted by BMorris
Gary McKinnon didn't hack anything.
Heres an analogy.
What he did was the equivalent of someone walking up to your front door, giving it a gentle push, and finding it unlocked then walking inside and rummaging through your socks drawer. This wouldn't be a criminal offence. It's not breaking and entering - nothing was broken or forced open.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer or to enable any such access to be secured;
(b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
Originally posted by xXSvenXx
Apart from Gary admitting guilt can the legal system even prove beyond doubt that it was Gary doing to snooping?
I mean all they have is an admission of guilt from an Asperger's syndrome sufferer.
That admission of guilt should not be accepted in any court of law because of his illness.
And an I.P. address that anyone could have been using.
So where is the proof that he committed any crime?
Originally posted by xXSvenXx
Originally posted by xXSvenXx
Apart from Gary admitting guilt can the legal system even prove beyond doubt that it was Gary doing to snooping?
I mean all they have is an admission of guilt from an Asperger's syndrome sufferer.
That admission of guilt should not be accepted in any court of law because of his illness.
And an I.P. address that anyone could have been using.
So where is the proof that he committed any crime?
Anyone got an answer for my question?