 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim.
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 14 Dec 12 - 02:51 PM Hacker Gary McKinnon will not face UK charges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Gurney Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:24 PM Bert, no idea what you are on about, but the header tells the story as it seems to be applied. The whole legal system is administered by people within it, so their whole future prosperity depends upon keeping crime going, getting criminals back on the street as soon as possible. Not conveyancers, of course. Is there any other explanation why Legal Aid doesn't have to be repaid if the defendant is found guilty? I get more cynical as I get older. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:33 PM It is partly because I am fed up with being victimized. I also have a personal vendetta against hackers, because of the hours that I have spent getting viruses off my computer and am still spending just keeping them off. As long as we let hackers go free we are just encouraging other criminals to keep hacking. Now I agree that the 60 years in prison that he was facing was too much; but surely he should be made to pay restitution for the damage that he caused? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Geoff the Duck Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:45 PM Actually - THERE IS NO VICTIM. He is an individual with Aspergers, who was obsessed with the idea that the US government was covering up evidence of UFOs, so hacked into US computers to look for proof. Presumably he didn't find any. He didn't do anything much beyond leaving some messages telling the computer administrators that their security was crap. He wasn't in the pay of "Enemies of the State" and as far as I am aware had no interest in anything other than his UFO conspiracy. He never passed information to third parties and nobody has any idea what he might have read. As a result of his hacking, the US Military had to get cyber-security holes patched, but if they had done a good job in the first place, he wouldn't have been able to get in. Instead of trying to prosecute him, they would have been more sensible to enlist him in testing their networks. Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:59 PM The victim is The US Government which is of course the US taxpayer. If you think so much of him, then you cough up the $800,000 for the damage that he caused. I know an individual with Asperger's who doesn't go around causing damage to other people's computers. So it is the victims fault that they didn't spend more time and money protecting their system? Kinda like a burglar blaming a homeowner for not having a better lock on their door. Here is hoping that you are not that homeowner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Dec 12 - 03:59 PM The decision seems to have been influenced by "the logistics of transferring sensitive evidence prepared for a court in the US to London for trial [and] the participation of US government witnesses in the trial." The US Justice Department seems happy to live with it; we must all now hope that Bert can somehow come to terms with his disappointment. Above all, this decision must have come as a huge relief for the McKinnon family. Three cheers for commons sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Richard Mellish Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:08 PM I'm with Geoff the Duck on this one. If it is possible for a hacker to get in to your system, then you should be grateful if the hacker who gets in first (a) does so for innocent reasons and (b) kindly alerts you. Bert referred to "$800,000 for the damage". What damage, other than damage to the dignity and reputations of the people who were responsible for IT security? No doubt money has had to be spent to plug the hole to prevent a malicious hack in future, but that is prevention, not repairing damage. Richard |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:23 PM I don't believe that anyone whose state of mind is on the autistic spectrum (which Aspergers people are, to varying degrees of severity) can or should be brought before any court, or undergo any type of prosecution without much deliberation, as they are often 'unfit to plead'. Many people don't understand the disability of Aspergers. My niece has it, so I know a little about it. In UK, anyone with mental incapacity or impairment is treated carefully if they offend. They must have an Appropriate Adult to represent them even during informal questioning by the Police. An Aspergers can appear normal, and they are usually extremely intelligent with high IQs, but are not 'socialised' and often don't understand the usual rules and norms of society. This lad was suicidal and disturbed by the threat of extradition, and meant no harm. My niece is often suicidal, but she manages to work, with suitable medication. I feel this was the right decision for this man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:46 PM Reports (mostly not in general public media) indicate that this hacker did cause significant damage, by deleting or corrupting files, and that significant recovery expenses were incurred. That likely is sufficient for US prosecution, assuming that appropriate charges are applied. Warrants for his arrest, in other countries with extradition treaties qith the US, remain effective, so the biggest effect of the Brit refusal to extradite is that he is "confined to the UK" ... "forever." The most puzzling aspect of the case. for those of us in the US, is that the refusal to extradite is based (apparently) solely on the contention that "he might harm himself" if extradited. It's easy to see that as an appropriate argument, if someone can come up with a way to evaluate the actual probability, (although still a little unusual in US law?) but the appearance is that the UK is really keeping him on the basis of "we just don't wanna let him go." The US may be "slightly puzzled" but this (and a couple of others similar) situation simply illustrates the absence of consistent, uniform, and fair agreement between nations for the custody and prosecution of those accused of violation of "national" standards of legal conduct vs illegal crimes. Improved international agreement on "what is a crime" likely would resolve the problem. The case has been only slightly "politicised" here (US), although that remains a possibility for the near future, and most in the US (at least the "rational" most) see it as merely a symptom of the lack of uniformity and mutual consent/agreement on the appropriate handling of "global crime" and international flights to avoid prosecution. It should be noted that the decision to "decline to extradite" by the UK is somewhat of a separate issue from the decision, most recently announced, that they "decline to prosecute;" but both are symptomatic of our seaparate and slightly different standards in such cases. Given that the Brits refuse extradition, the additional decision not to prosecute is a practical, and reasonable, decision so far as I'm concerned, although quite obviously I'm not a majority voice for the US. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 14 Dec 12 - 07:00 PM Eliza, If his mental condition is such that he should not be prosecuted then surely the 'Appropriate Adult' should be held accountable for allowing him to cause damage to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Dec 12 - 07:30 PM The "appropriate adult" is not accountable for past behaviour but to help safeguard the individual's interests through any judicial process. I think Eliza may be overstating the understanding that is extended in British courts to people with mental illness. The many mentally ill people in our prisons would suggest that such understanding is at best patchy. John, you are right about the reasoning behind the decision not to extradite, but I think wrong to suggest it was cynically applied. We have just had a case in which a politician forged expense claims on a colossal scale. Unquestionably she would have been jailed, but for the fact that by the time her case came to court she was reduced to such a wreck that she was deemed not fit to plead. A jury decided she had committed the offences, but she was not given a criminal conviction. Sentencing her to a two-year supervisory order judge in that case said: "There will inevitably be feelings among some that Mrs Moran has got away with it. What the court has done and has to do is to act in accordance with the law of the land and on the basis of the evidence that it hears. "The findings of the court were not convictions. Those findings enable me to make orders requiring her to undergo treatment for her mental health." Of course much of the popular hostility to the prospect of McKinnon's extradition was not driven primarily by concern for his health and wellbeing, but by the argument that an offence perpetrated in a UK bedroom should not be a matter for the US judiciary. On top of which the UK-US extradition treaty is widely perceived to be imbalanced in favour of the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,big Al Whittle Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:37 PM In England, we're comfortable with the idea that certain people are so bad that they can never be set free again - the Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Brady..... We don't understand 600 year prison sentences. 60 years for computer hacking seems immoderate. Well actually it seems completely bloody insane. I guess we just see things differently. If he's bad or bonkers, we're not tossing this bloke into a machine as nutty as the American legal system. It has not shown a sense of proportion in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:09 AM Of course, we could have him sent to Guantanamo - that'll teach the bastard to mess about with a democratic country!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Megan L Date: 15 Dec 12 - 04:02 AM The anti UK attacks from across the water are rather worrying |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: JohnInKansas Date: 15 Dec 12 - 04:25 AM Peter K - I had no intention of being cynical, and have a little difficulty seeing what you might have taken to be that way. Perhaps instead of ...the appearance is that the UK is really keeping him on the basis of "we just don't wanna let him go."" I might have said ... the appearance to some in the US who don't understand UK procedure may be that the UK is keeping him on the basis of "we just don't wanna let him go." My intent was to describe the sort of misunderstanding that separates some of us, not to assert an opinion. Apologies if I was unclear. An additional difference is described, but perhaps isn't as great as some assume. It appears from comments here that a defendant's "fitness to be tried" is generally determined as part of the decision whether to bring them to trial in the UK (although that could be peculiar to determining whether to extradite?). In the US, the court that tries the defendant must determine whether the defendant has inadequate or unusual mental capacity making trial inappropriate. The defendant, and/or his attorneys, are entitled to argue the point as part of the legal defense against the charges and this is usually done before the arguments about guilt/innocence can be presented. Ideally, the result would be the same in both places, and if brought to trial in the US the "defense" that he was incapable of understanding that he was commiting a crime might well have prevailed. He might additionally, here, have argued that he was "incapable of participating in his own defense" and the charges could have been dismissed or suspended pending a determination of whether he could reasonably be expected to become capable at a later time, or a "diversion" to some form of treatment could be ordered, among possible outcomes. It should also be known that the practice among US "news media" (a euphemism?) is to add up the maximum of all the individual sentences that could legally be imposed for all the charges proposed to be made, and assume that all the sentences would be served consecutively; but these babble bits have little bearing on what is most likely should there be a conviction and sentencing. While I'd like to be able offer some way of more accurately estimating the realistic and likely penalties, I'm afraid it confuses most of us in the US too much to venture down that path in any general way. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:17 AM cough up the $800,000 for the damage that he caused. There was no $800,000 worth of damage. That was the cost of patching the holes that should not have been there in the first place. People who know nothing of computer security, such as the US legal system and some on here apparently, should not be allowed to pass judgement on so called computer crime. DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 15 Dec 12 - 05:53 AM I too deplore the imprisonment of (basically) mentally ill people here in UK. I have visited them 'inside' and seen it all for myself. The majority of them were violent and difficult to assess or place. I knew of quite a few who were eventually sent to secure mental institutions for treatment, but 'eventually' isn't ideal, I know. And in spite of the UK's shortcomings, the principle remains with regard to offenders mentally unfit to plead. This lad wasn't violent or dangerous in a physical sense. It's a rather complicated case, but as I said earlier, I felt the correct decision was reached. With regard to Appropriate Adults, my friend was registered as one such, and his job, after a long training, was to attend at any of our County's Police Stations if the person arrested was suspected of being mentally inadequate or with learning difficulties, or unable to understand the charges etc. His powers were quite extensive. He could at any time stop an interview and insist on a psychiatrist or psychologist to be summoned. Even the Police had no power to override his final authority. A very good and just system IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM Does no-one else notice? The US was not prepared to have its evidence tested in an open courtroom outside the US. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done and the US was not prepared to be subjected to that standard. Worrying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:51 AM Sorry John, I did misunderstand. In McKinnon's case, of course, the issue was not whether he would understand the charges but whether imprisonment in the States might render him suicidal. UK courts, and I guess US courts too, do have to take into consideration the wellbeing of anyone they hand over to the state's "care." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Pete Jennings Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:19 AM Richard's point should not be overlooked or underestimated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:27 AM Phil Ochs Come, get out of the way, boys Quick, get out of the way You'd better watch what you say, boys Better watch what you say We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short So bring your daughters around to the port 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World We pick and choose as we please, boys Pick and choose as we please You'd best get down on your knees, boys Best get down on your knees We're hairy and horny and ready to shack And we don't care if you're yellow or black Just take off your clothes and lay down on your back 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World Our boots are needing a shine, boys Boots are needing a shine But our Coca-Cola is fine, boys Coca-Cola is fine We've got to protect all our citizens fair So we'll send a battalion for everyone there And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World And dump the reds in a pile, boys Dump the reds in a pile You'd better wipe off that smile, boys Better wipe off that smile We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck And we'll find you a leader that you can't elect Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World And clean the johns with a rag, boys Clean the johns with a rag If you like you can use your flag, boys If you like you can use your flag We've got too much money we're looking for toys And guns will be guns and boys will be boys But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World Please stay off of the grass, boys Please stay off of the grass Here's a kick in the ass, boys Here's a kick in the ass We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock We've done it before, so why all the shock We're the biggest and the toughest kids on the block And we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World And when we butchered your sons, boys When we butchered your sons Have a stick of our gum, boys Have a stick of our bubble gum We own half the world, oh say can you see And the name for our profits is democracy So, like it or not, you will have to be free 'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys We're the Cops of the World |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: The Sandman Date: 15 Dec 12 - 12:20 PM Bert, i think people like you should be punished, in fact i would put you in the stocks and make you do comuunity service,AND MAKE you help people with autism, and aspergers syndrome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM Eliza, thank you for your well thought out and responsible reply. I have read it three times now and you make a lot of sense. Good Soldier Schweik, you are silly. May you computer come down with every virus, malware and Trojan horse that is out there, and may you spend days clearing it all up;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 04:52 PM Perhaps we need to ensure that people with Asperger's get more care. My friend who has Asperger's has to self medicate because the only medication that he has found to help is not available to him legally. While I don't know the incidence of violence among Asperger's sufferers, it may be worth noting that Adam Lanza had Asperger's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:28 PM ""It is partly because I am fed up with being victimized. I also have a personal vendetta against hackers, because of the hours that I have spent getting viruses off my computer and am still spending just keeping them off."" I don't understand this rant Bert. I've run a succession of different PCs over 18 years, both at home and the IT system of the primary school where I used to work, and I've never once had to spend "hours getting viruses off my computer", or spend much time just keeping them off. A good antivirus and a good firewall (both free) do that for me, and the only thing that ever caused me "hours" of work was hard drive failures. So my question is:- What are you doing wrong, or not doing right? The answer might shed some light on how and why McKinnon was able to hack your government's computers, which should IMHO have had every protection known to science, but self evidently didn't. Maybe somebody needs to employ Gary McKinnon to teach the New World what we in the Old World already know. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: The Sandman Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:20 AM bert , it is you that is silly,your rant is unthinking garbage, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:28 PM Don, I have both a firewall and a couple of antivirus programs but a few months ago something snuck past and I had to rebuild to an earlier version. Which of course meant that I had to recreate a few files that were lost because I don't backup daily. This happened about three times in a row. I don't know where it came from or why it suddenly went away. I think that hackers who get caught should be made to pay restitution. Also when somebody buggers up my computer I consider that the crime is happening right here in my office and not where the hacker happens to be. I hope that you continue to be lucky with the protection that you have on your machine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:53 PM I know that argument is often postulated Bert, but if an American in the US hacked a computer system in (say) Uganda would you be as strong on the extradition principle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,Stim Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM For what it's worth, Asperger's and Autism do not render people mentally incompetent. However, years of posting on Mudcat may have that effect on some people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM Peter K, Why not, if that is where the criminal caused the damage. Also, I think that I said in an earlier thread that if the UK didn't want to extradite him, then they should prosecute him in the UK. But no, they just let the criminal go free, which only serves to encourage other crooks to emulate him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:15 PM It surprises me that so many posters above want to blame the victim. 'They should have had better security' 'She shouldn't have worn such a tight dress' Actually the government has very good security, but no system is 100% secure. We had a computer science teacher who worked on security at NORAD. He was brilliant and he could always break into the system. You only have the crook's word that their security 'sucks'. Of course he's going to say that, any thing to shift the blame, and a load of suckers fell for his line. So he got away with it. I think that he is a pretty smart guy and has played the system really well. He certainly has a lot of sympathizers; which is probably one of the reasons it was decided not to prosecute. Public opinion is a powerful weapon and he used his condition to garner sympathy from the public. As for 'looking for UFO cover ups' he is much too smart to do to believe in UFOs and smart enough to get people to believe that it was true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: MGM·Lion Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:23 AM A lot of that 'sympathy', Bert, was a consequence of your idiotically draconian laws. Just look at the absurdly disproportionate penalty in terms of length of sentence - up to 70 years! - that he would have been liable to if convicted of this offence over there... What government would agree to extradite one if its citizens and render them even theoretically liable to such a penalty for such an offence? It is surely one of those anti-humanitarian 'cruel or unreasonable punishment' get-outs. Extradition treaties are surely not to be based on such risks. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Dec 12 - 02:43 AM It surprises me that so many posters above want to blame the victim. Yes, it's true, Bert. People do want to blame the victim. But the victim in this case is not an innocent young girl in a tight dress which your ludicrous analogy suggests. If that was not so sick it would be laughable. The 'victim' is the US government. The analogy should be more like an imperialistic, corporate bully who thinks he can walk roughshod over the rights of everyone else. He is the one who imprisons people without trial and kills people who disagree with him. He is the one who has the arrogance to believe that he is right and everyone else is wrong. The only thing that amazes me about this case is that it is the bullies best, sycophantic friend, the British government, that has stood up to him. Oh, and before you go off on another about doing the time in the country that was harmed, just remember that in 1700-odd there was a set of criminals who set about harming the British government in a far more serious way than this. Should they have all been locked up in British jails? Or should their descendents now have to pay compensation? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:04 AM "We had a computer science teacher who worked on security at NORAD. He was brilliant and he could always break into the system." Nice to see a law abiding teacher. How long did he spend in jail? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:53 AM How long did he spend in jail? I don't get you. It was his job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:59 AM So why did he have to 'break into the system'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: GUEST,Backwoodsman Date: 17 Dec 12 - 04:00 AM That was me, BTW. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: MGM·Lion Date: 17 Dec 12 - 04:12 AM To test it & show that its security was not fit for purpose but needed enhancing, presumably, BWM. Why are you making such heavy weather of what seems so readily explicable? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Bert Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:22 AM Unfortunately Dave the gnome, the analogy is exact. The process is blame the victim, protect the criminal. It is just applied to a different crime. Sorry that you don't like it, but protecting one criminal legitimizes criminals of all kinds. No computer system is 100% secure because by the very act of making the computer available to legitimate users you are making it available to criminals who pretend to be legitimate users. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: MGM·Lion Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:34 AM Sorry ~~ but I say again that this particular criminal needed to be protected from a penal code that could have sent him down for 70 years for this particular offence ~~ disproportionate by any consideration. Whether, after all this lapse of time, he should nevertheless have been proceeded against under our laws, and the decision of our Crown Prosecution Service not to do so was justified, is a separate question on which I venture no opinion. But, I must repeat yet again, it was your grotesquely disproportionate enactments which saved him from having to face their possible consequences ~~ & quite right too: 'protection' from them was exactly what was needed. 'Sod the [supposed] victim' indeed, in this instance; till he/it has learned a bit more sense of what is fitting. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 AM So, all crimes are the same then, eh Bert? Hmmmmm. Well, at least we know what kind of reasoning we are dealing with here. Thanks for stopping us banging our heads on a brick wall before we go much further. No point in responding to such idiocy really is there? Have a good life and I hope you never get taken before a court for parking offenses... DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:41 AM BTW - Wasn't it you that started the thread about a word that means more than stupid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM "Always break into the system" nowhere contains any implication that the system to be broken into was one that the hacker was authorised to break into. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Protect the criminal - sod the victim. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:31 AM Since the US government was in a position, and by all accounts in the mood, to impose a sentence three and one half times longer than the mandatory UK sentence for cold blooded, premeditated murder, what the bloody hell did they expect the UK to do? Sorry Bert, but the high and mighty US writ doesn't run in Whitehall...Thank God! Don T. |
