Gary McKinnon extradition to US blocked by Theresa May

page: 9
56
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 



Oh why do you think they call it the "Criminal justice" system.


Indeed. But it must be a coincidence, a near miss on wording things.


But besides the point that he hacked in some computers and what not, and that it may be a criminal offense...What did he find? Or is that question not important.




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

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.


Errrm, the great woman you are talking about is the British government home secretary - that means she is a politician.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



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...


Each to their own Stu, personally I find her abhorrent. However I am happy she has made this decision regarding Gary McKinnon.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by alexoscarew
 


He's a script kiddie. Not a hacker. A script kiddie is to a hacker, as a mall cop is to a state patrolman.

He didn't hack anything, he used a script to search for usernames with default or blank passwords. That's something you could do right now. 15 year old kids have been doing that since computers were dialing up BBSs.

I know to some of you it's pedantic to argue this point, however it's really insulting to people with a modicum of IT experience or who are legitimate hackers, that are being equated with this kid who did nothing other than click run on a program he probably got from some script kiddie forum.

It is literally like equating a mall cop to a state trooper.

And to be really pedantic, crackers are the bad guys...the one's going after people's financial information. Somewhere some dimwit journalists couldn't seperate crackers from hackers and now everything thinks hackers are crackers.

Gary did nothing that shouldn't have been perfectly preventable with even a low-key security policy for the systems he accessed. As I said before, the network admin should have been at least fired if not blackballed for being totally incompetant, I mean blank or default passwords? Come on, first year Network IT classes. That's what bureaucracy gets you though, over paid , under working idiots in charge of important things.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

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.


Damn right. And now every mention of the kid's name includes the label "computer hacker". Kind of like referring to your local crack head as "chemist".



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


is it just my cynicism - or has this face set a precedent for the tactic " extradite me and i will kill my self " = walk away scott free ?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

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.


He is not a hacker! What he done, anyone could do with half a brain and the right script. And if he is telling the truth, and they are hiding something that could benafit mankind, then more people should do it, because this sort of information being hidden from us in a crime in itself, and if you disagree with that, then you are the type of person your government loves. Someone who is conditioned!



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
It's not pedanticism. It's an important and fundamental thing to inderstand.

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. Its not theft - nothing was taken. Its trespass, but under UK law thats not a criminal offence, its a civil offence.

He tried and located blank/default passwords that administrators were too dumbass to change. He didn't hack anything, he literally just gave the front doors a gentle push and found them unlocked.

The only reason the US wants him prosecuted is either
a) To save face.
b) He found something, but doesn't realise it.

Since this is a conspiracy forum, a) is too boring, so Im going to go with b.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

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.


Mmm. Having looked at the wording of section 1(1) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (as amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006) here in the UK, I'm not sure you are right about the absence of any criminal offence when accessing an unsecure computer network (as a matter of English law...):

www.legislation.gov.uk...



(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.

edit on 19-10-2012 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

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?


If you are really interested, there is a fairly lengthy Crown Prosecution Service evaluation (dated 26 February 2009) of the evidence at the link below:
cdn.ttgtmedia.com...

A summary of the evidence appears on the third page. (The first page is blank).

The Crown Prosecution Service document concluded that the evidence available at that time was insufficient to prosecute Gary McKinnon.

Hope this helps.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Thank you for the information.
What i got from that is there is not enough or no solid evidence to convict Gary with.
Only his admission of guilt,and that could have been given under duress or was a result of his condition with Asperger Syndrome.

Also $700,000 is what is being claimed as the amount of damage caused not millions like some are saying.

The I.T. department probably caused that amount of damage themselves just to make Gary look like a vandal and better hacker than he is so they dont look so incompetent.

So how the hell has this dragged on for so long?
edit on 20-10-2012 by xXSvenXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Three cheers for Gary!!!
Love you Gaz.


Just think ATS; what do you think will be next for our Gary?
I wonder if he will be appraoached by Hollywood?
They make enough # films, this would be amazing! What irony?
I can't wait. I am in such a good mood this week. I had a breakdown over my issues with aliens.
Soooo pleased for Gary and his family!
x



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
So maybe there will be a disclosure phase to this story? It does move the alien intelligence theme towards network control and away from WW2 plane technology. If all you have is a Nazi aircraft design from the 40's everything looks like a carbon fiber plane that requires the constant attention of a human intelligence to pilot.

Check out the UK links to Echelon from the 1960's and meditate on all the possible flight space that might be exposed today.

Nobody else seems to be posting about the elephant in the umm well you know what I mean.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
yes great news. why should we THE UK be bullied into court in a foreign country like the USA when
the crime was committed on British soil?
And if it was not for Gary the Americans may still be asleep at the wheel with all there computer
passwords set to default. I MEAN REALLY?
give the guy a job more like! oh no you cant can you he's ILL


I have been waiting for this verdict and Gary if your illegally looking at this post,NICE ONE MATE



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Has anyone seen this?



Go to around 2 minutes in....what do you make of it?
edit on 5/11/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join