Friday, July 07, 2006

Why bolt the gate when you can hang the person who notices it's open?...

I've been following this case for a few years, and this decisions really has demonstrated the utter spineless nature of the British Government. I think it's about time we dropped the G from GB, it's no longer fitting.

Now don't get me wrong, the man deserves to be sentenced for his crimes as he did illegally access those computers. What is completely ignored is the manner with which he did it - he didn't hack any code or do any actual damage to the system, he just typed in 'administrator' as the password on random terminals remotely. As the security was so pitifully lax, he gained root access immediately and went about his business snooping.

The claim is he caused $700,000 of damage to computers. Now, if you cause $5000 or more worth of damage on individual machines through illegal hacking activities apparently the sentence is far more severe. Coincidentally the US military are claiming $5000 worth of damage on each of the machines Gary accessed. Now these weren't especially built military machines, these were just standard office PCs. Go down to Future Shop in the states and find me a 5k computer and I will show you the most powerful gaming machine money can buy, with a 21" TFT Monitor and twin 256 MB SLi cards. It would probably respond to hand signals and make your breakfast for you.

More importantly it would probably slap you until you stopped being an incompetent retard and changed your password.

Just to be sure they also played the standard US Government "9/11 card" - you know the one, where they justify anything in the world by cheapening the loss of innocent life to excuse the loss of more innocent life. In this instance Gary allegedly crippled the system immediately after 9/11. Pretty serious stuff........well.....you know, if they could actually come up with any evidence that there was actually a systems failure let alone whether Gary Mckinnon caused it.

That's the thing you see. I have no objection at all to criminals being extradited. Gary is a criminal, there is an argument that suggests his crime took place on British soil but in my opinion the crime took place on an American target, so a standard extradition request I think could be jsutified. What I object to is the fact that they want to throw him in jail for the rest of his life and they have yet produce a single grain of evidence to support their wild claims of electronic apocalypse. That alone should be enough for the Home Office to block the extradition until such a time as evidence is produced.

I think the US Military are right to try and prosecute but instead of inflating the crimes out of all proportion, they should give him the sentence he deserves and sort out their woeful security - which incidentally Gary Mckinnon tried on several occasions to inform them of. Another worrying thing is that lots of other people were on the system with him, and I doubt they were as benign. Now I know we only have Gary's word for this but let's be honest - if he managed to get in with a downloaded script and guess at some passwords, it's going to be likely other people did too.

If you object to this, just ask yourself this question. If this was China or Russia or some other 'Bad Country', do you really think this extradition would have been granted?

Anyway, this is kind of the straw of lameness that broke the camel's back. Our government is nothing short of putrid, spineless filth. I can't believe I used to vote for them.

5 comments:

MJ said...

MATT!!!!
check this out...
http://www.venganza.org/

And reappear..haven't talked to you in a while..i am starting to miss ya!

MattJ said...

hehe, seen it my love! Am tempted by the merchandise. I particularly liek the explanation about carbon dating!

Olivia said...

Hence my apoliticalllll...ness...

Olivia said...

Actually, I laughed when I read he went around typing in "administrator".

Sheesh, *everyone* in an office uses that!

MattJ said...

Lol! I know, it's bloody hilarious. The frightening thing here is that the new extradition treaty is incredibly one sided. It allows a Judge to allow extradition if the US have a 'suspicion of guilt' of anyone in this country, with no evuidence required. If it's teh other way around we require a heavy body of evidence. Basically they can ask for whoever they want without any real need for evidence.

 
/* -----------GOOGLE ANALYTICS TRACKING CODE-------------- */ /*------------------END TRACKING CODE-------------------- */