Forum Moderators: open
Computer hacker Gary McKinnon has signed a confession which reflects his "culpability" to avoid extradition to the US, his lawyer has said.Mr McKinnon who was born in Glasgow but lives in London, faces up to 70 years in prison if found guilty in the US of breaking into military computers.
The 42-year-old has signed a statement offering to plead guilty to a different charge under UK law.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it was considering the statement.
I think the US military computer security team should be sentenced to a year each if he is for creating such a vulnerable system.
This guy is sitting at his home hacking, it seems harsh just hope he isn't made an example.
I think there should be a big difference between just accessing illegally a system, or doing something more incriminating like trying to destroy it or sell the information.
Murderers, rapists and pedophiles don't get that!
They sure do go easy on murderers, rapists and pedophiles where you live.
Murders get 20 years in the UK, paedophiles get less. This guy could possibly get 70 years for hacking in the USA!
This guy could possibly get 70 years for hacking in the USA!
However, I suggest a foreign national, hacking into US military computers, who does not present well personally will probably get harsh treatment. I think consecutive is likely, though possibly not maximum per charge.
As per a recent post on other thread on 'government', America takes National Security seriously enough to curb the civil liberties of its own citizens, let alone oddball foreign nationals
Straw poll (assuming guilt)- where are you from, and what do we think should happen. In classic polling style, here's some options:
1) Are you from
a) UK
b) US
c) International
2) Do you think the guy should get
a) Slap on the wrist (UK Jurisdiction)
b) Harsh sentence (UK jurisdicton- I recall 5 years max being bandied about)
c) Light sentence (US Jurisdiction)
d) Heavy sentence (US Jurisdiction)
The US military said that Mr McKinnon left 300 computers at a US Navy weapons station unusable immediately after the 11 September 2001 attacks.
.... is just too serious not to set a *massive* example to mitigate the risk of someone else trying it.
1A, probably 2B.
Frankly, you shouldn't hack foreign states' military computers (unless you're a spy). I can see a reasonable argument for 2D, but it seems disproportionate to his intent and actions (as opposed to the implications of the crimes he was charged with).
US ratifies their side of the extradition treaty.
OTOH, man did commit a crime and walking free seems completely unreasonable to me.
The guy needs to know this is serious, however its clearly not deserving of 70 years life destroying seriousness.
Hacking is a crime under English law, he committed the crime in England, he should be tried under English law.He may have been in England when his fingers pushed the keys, but the computers he hacked were in the U.S., and the crime was committed against America.
Furthermore, he knew what he was doing and did it deliberately, as he left the following message on one of the computers he hacked: "I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
They sure do go easy on murderers, rapists and pedophiles where you live.
I don't want to start a political discussion about this issue here, but hey - you brought it up. And it's actually the other way round. While the sentences for murder in the US might be harsher - the clearance rate for murder in the US is only 62%. This means in 38 out of 100 murder cases there is no penalty at all. In comparison the clearance rate in Great Britain is 90%. In Germany its even 96%.
[gesis.org...]
Actually I fell safer knowing that 96% of all murderers are behind bars than have 62 percent electrocuted and 38% running around free.
I saw a FBI statistic once that showed the clearance rates a few decades ago in the US were a lot higher. But it seems while thinking about more severe penalties it was somehow forgotten that you have to catch the criminals first.
In my line of work it's not uncommon for me to hear that those convicted of (insert shocking crime here) didn't get sentenced as harshly as (insert way less shocking crime here). I normally let such proclamations pass since any comment I have to the contrary usually falls on deaf ears.
I find it interesting that my response compelled you to bring up a collateral issue citing statistics, the sources of which are unknown to me, using terms I don't know the definition to.
Maybe this time I've really learned my lesson. Anyone taking bets. :)
I normally let such proclamations pass since any comment I have to the contrary usually falls on deaf ears.I find it interesting that my response...
----------------
We tend to let people serving "Life Sentences" go after 20 years or so, assuming various people agree that the convict is no longer a danger to others.
The UK (and Europe generally) believes in rehabilitation over retribution (deterence is quite hard to quantify). We have a much lower prison population rate as a result (I imagine that can be easily verified as it must me a matter of record). Crime rates do NOT correlate strongly with the deterent aspect of long sentences (long sentences do not clearly lower the crime rate)
For multiple counts of violent crimes, the tarrif (minimum number of years to be served) can get quite high- certainly longer than someone's natural life- but for single counts 20 years is about the maximum you can expect to serve.
Those commiting serious crimes subsequent to being released from a Life Sentence tend not to be released again, as they have show they are a persistent threat to public safety.
I think in this case, its the National Security angle that puts 70 years into play. Hacking generally should not warrant it.
Generally, instances where White Collar criminals get longer sentences than anti-social or even low-level violent criminals is down to number of documented accounts of law-breaking they are charged with.
Paper trails are good evidence. Clapped out druggie eyewitnesses are not.
@The world in general
Clearly my last post wasn't making my point very well. I would edit it, but then nothing else would make sense. What I was trying to say is
Point 1) (off topic but responding to previous posters)
The situation is a bit more complicated than saying "murderers get X years". Criminal behaviour gets split into more granular levels, and sentences are handed out in relation to intent.
Point 2) (On Topic)
This hacker is not being treated as a hacker. He is being treated as a threat to US National Security. An actual threat, too, as he got into military computers and allegedly caused damage. If that cost lives (plural), would that make him as bad as a murderer?
Point 3)(Off Topic but responding to Lawman)
The perception that [Pedestrian Crime] is more harshly dealt with than [Horrendus Crime] can ofter be attributed to the fact when White Collar crime comes to light, its easy to prove and normally involves mutiple instances of the same crime. Remember The Firm and the mail-order fraud charges adding up to a REALLY LONG sentence?
He may have been in England when his fingers pushed the keys, but the computers he hacked were in the U.S., and the crime was committed against America.
Interesting this, If an american business man was convicted of supplying weapons, to say Pakistani terrorists, should he be deported to Pakistan, despite having never set foot there. The crime after all would be against the people of Pakistan, or should he be deported to India, if the weapons were used to kill people there. Would the American govt deport in this instance.
From what I hear America seems to be very reluctant to deport American nationals to any other country, and work very hard to make sure that they don't have to. At the same time they seem to be very keen that criminals in other countries are prosecuted by American law. As I say this is only an impression so if anyone has any other info I would love to hear it.
