Re: biggest military hacker to be extradited ..

[Maverick <Sun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> __/ [ Maverick ] on Thursday 19 April 2007 00:14 \__
>
>
> > Mark Kent wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> > >
> > >
> > > > __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 18 April 2007 08:47 \__
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Winston Eisenhart <whe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mark K wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, not sure it was /in/ the UK, but I'm sure that HMG has been
> > > > > > > involved in it, and I'm disgusted that they would even consider it,
> > > > > > > but the issue wasn't in the UK, this time...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 2003 Extradition Act allowed McKinnon to be extradited to the US.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6521255.stm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite him for
> > > > > > trial."
> > > > > > --------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you misread the thread?  This was never in question.  The suggestion
> > > > > was that the UK was also involved in torture, something I also believe
> > > > > to be correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > My original point is that the 2003 extradition act was enacted in order
> > > > > to "combat terrorism", that McKinnon is in no way a terrorist, that the
> > > > > US has not enacted its part of the treaty because many US government
> > > > > figures are worried that terrorists in the US might be extradited back
> > > > > to the UK to stand trial for their crimes, etc. etc.
> > > >
> > > > The US is not a victim here. At the end of the day, it seems like McKinnon
> > > > is a scapegoat, a victim.
> > > >
> > > > "Piracy figures are inflated say criminologists"
> > > > http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35580
> > > >
> > > > How much did these clowns say that his intrusion cost? And how much of
> > > > that is to do with the fact that they turned a mole into a hill, for the
> > > > gentleman changed a few wallpapers on PCs whose admin password was still
> > > > set to its defaults?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they should start torturing people who P2P, or people who pirate
> > > > Vista while Microsoft conveniently turns a blind eye...
> > > >
> > > > Why do we still have 100-150 million Windows zombies out there? Who is
> > > > taking care of /real/ crime?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm quite sure that there are many red faces in the US military because
> > > of this, and knowing how large-organisation politics works, it will be
> > > very important for them to be able to blame someone else.  They cannot
> > > blame Windows because /they/ chose it, however, some foreign guy who
> > > they can extradite using "anti-terrorist" will help, since they can slam
> > > him into jail for years, and save their careers.
> > >
> > > It's the worst kind of corruption, in my view.
> >
> > I've seen this stuff happen a lot.  It is called the "Good ol' Boys Club".
>
>
> Apple blamed Microsoft for their iPod malware, but the scapegoat here is just
> some guy whom they try to stick the "sophisticated malovalent hacker" label
> onto, not some large company. They found a defenceless 'kid'.

Yeup.  They sure did.  I hope that his lawyer points out the 
passwordless accounts that Gary logged into.  That alone should put the 
onus on any of the U.S. gov. to prove he hacked into it.  They'd also 
have to find what tools he used to hack in, according to their claims, 
and prove it by looking at his computer.  But I just don't trust any 
government, as it is all too easy for them to plant the incriminating 
evidence on his computer and claim he is a hacker.  No different than 
planting a bit of cocaine on an accused drugger by the police.