Putting Gary McKinnon On Trial Will Only Shame America.

This is a plea for common sense. Gary McKinnon is a British citizen facing extradition to the United States for hacking. He was looking for UFO evidence. It can hardly be called hacking when the systems he accessed did not even have passwords, despite this US prosecutors accuse him of "biggest military computer hack of all time".


Not a terrorist

Gary McKinnon has aspergers. His fight against extradition has exposed to the British public that Blair signed an unfair one way only extradition treaty. His trial in the US will however be a further blight on the American Judicial System.

Mr. McKinnon is not James Bond. He is not a virus writer. He was not out to sell Army information to hostile Foreign nations. He did not engage in torture. He was not behind 9/11. He was looking for evidence of little green men.

He did not break any systems. He did not remotely format hard discs or destroy data, yet US Prosecutors are charging him with for $$millions in damages, for PCs left online and without any password. He faces decades in jail for gaining access to unsecured PCs.

Surely if there is any "criminal damage" it was caused by the neglect of US Government IT managers, whose failure allowed a man, from England, to remotely access these "top secret" computers, without a password. Perhaps those pointing the finger should be the ones facing prosecution?

It is known that on occasion virus writers get a job with anti virus software houses. If these computers were so difficult to hack into without a password, then rather than prosecute him, reward him with a job. How many more PCs are left unsecure on the Government network? Isn't it better for someone like Mckinnon to find them as opposed to Iran?

Yes, under the unfair one way treaty with the US, the DofJ has a right to prosecute him, but within that right the US needs to consider whether it is within the public interest to prosecute him.

Mckinnon is not a threat to the US National Security, and the extradition treaty should not be used to cover up for IT staff who failed to do their job.

The treaty was signed on the back of anti-terrorism. Gary is not a terrorist.

Despite this, the Prosecution allege his conduct was intentional and calculated to affect them by "intimidation and coercion". Really, an autistic man can intimidate the largest military in the World?

This is not what the extradition treaty should be used for.

That's what the wise people (that don't seem to exist anymore) used to do.

it looks as though he will face 30 years in prison for supposedly $millions of damages.

http://freegary.org.uk/

he should still do some time, though...(and get psychological help)

Accessing computers that the Government left unsecured?

... while I go into the store to get a snack it doesn't give you the right to rifle through my stuff. It can mitigate the charges but it doesn't negate them.

analogy, would you want to include on that persons charge sheet the cost of a new car and new locks given that you did not even use the existing locks on the old car?

:sarcasm: