Expert Challenges UFO Hacker's $700k Bill

Like the government ever going to see any of that money from the "damages" he did anyway. :rolleyes:
 
jaegertech said:
A message this poor misunderstood fellow left on a machine: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year...I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.”
Click to expand...

That would certainly indicate his intent to cause harm vs. the often reported "just looking for UFO evidence." I'll let the courts handle it.

jaegertech said:
He accessed 93 computers over two years.
He rejected a plea bargain.
He has conveniently been diagnosed with Asperger's after his extradition order was issued and confirmed, allowing him to challenge his extradition on medical/humanitarian grounds.
Click to expand...

Plea bargains used to be thrown out in this country because we inherited much of the British Common Law system (read George Tuckers notes on Blackstone's commentaries). The idea was that if you were innocent, the only reason you would plea bargain was if you were forced/tortured/threatened/etc. Otherwise, if you were truly guilty and they could prove it, they wouldn't offer you a bargain in the first place. In fact, it would be a violation of their duties to do so (offer a plea bargain to someone they could prove was guilty...the iffy though...)

jaegertech said:
If you piss off the Federal government while breaking laws AND refuse to cooperate once you've been caught red-handed, you pretty much deserve whatever you get.
Click to expand...

Pissing off governments and breaking laws are generally the same thing. If you manage to piss them off and not break a law, they will make is illegal ASAP. Corrupt governments will make it retroactive (common law forbid this practice). There is a difference between mala prohibita and mala in se, but I'll let you read up on that one.

There are a great number of innocent people who are in jail because they have built a case against themselves merely by "cooperating" with the authorities. Around here if you take the firearms safety class for a concealed weapon permit, the instructors will tell you that in the unlikely event you have to use a deadly force, when the police arrive, say nothing! Look at it from the officers perspective. They have just shown up, you have a gun and someone else is dead or seriously wounded. There is nothing you can say that will help you out, it can only hurt you. The officer doesn't know if you are telling the truth and this was legitimate self defense. For all they know it is murder. If you are innocent, keep your mouth shut and we'll sort things out later. You never know how your words could be interpreted by a jury of your peers. It appears this guy's non-cooperation goes way beyond that though.

I always like to take these stories with a grain of salt. How many stories have you read/heard about that got so much of it wrong? Especially when you know the subject being discussed. Simply amazing some of the stuff that gets printed. Furthermore, prosecutors know that they can convict you in the press and you have no recourse. Again, opening your mouth can only hurt you. It wouldn't be the first time a prosecutor tried to ramp up the pressure on someone by going to the press, particularly if they are offering a plea bargain and you aren't biting.

Most likely this guy is a jerk, but lets not toss out the protections of our law (what little is left) just to get the bad guys. Ever wonder why there are so many popular TV shows where the police/prosecutors are asshats, but you are pressured into liking them because they got the bad guy? Especially when they make the bad guy out to be a truly horrible human being. Just remember when you get mixed up in something, regardless if you are innocent or not, they won't be putting on the kid gloves just because it is you. You will get treated just like that "bad guy."
 
Ualdayan said:
I believe what the guy is saying is that if you leave your door wide open, then somebody comes in, walks around, then leaves without breaking or removing anything, can you claim damages of $300,000 because now you feel unsafe so you have to buy a new house and move? Then add on another $50,000 in damages for an ultrasecure new security system at your new home.

The first guy in the article is saying that it is unfair to claim damages when the only damage is that you had to install security. That somebody who breaks down your door and ransacks your home shouldn't be on equal footing with somebody who walks in your unlocked and open door and doesn't break anything.

He isn't going to get anywhere with his argument though. Europeans think the above sounds unfair. Here in America we believe more like the 2nd guy in the article who said:

'Professor Eugene Spafford, founder of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Indiana's Purdue University, said the victim of a cybercrime should not take the blame. If someone broke a door to rob a store, he said, it was usual to charge them the cost of the door.'
Click to expand...

Yea I agree with the hackers expert here. Damages should be limited to the audit of what he had access too, not the cleanup of their network that was broken before he came in.

Mind you I think they should nail the guy with everything they can. Padding the charges though isn't the answer.
 
All this arguing is really bizarre.

"Look, had numbnuts NOT broken into government computers...NONE of this would be an issue.

Correct?"

Actually no. Am I missing something? The network was poorly secured before this guy showed up. That was already a problem, correct?

Adding security is fixing a preexisting problem.

Auditing the network is also dealing with a preexisting condition. They don't only need to audit the systems he accessed, they need to audit all the f/cking systems because they didn't have any security in place.

He needs to face up to the fact he broke into their systems, and there are laws against that. If he caused any damages he needs to face up to that, but from the sounds of it he didn't do anything. They're trying to claim he created a problem that existed before he showed up.
 
I haven't read all the posts, but I'll just comment, that when the researcher that found debolds voting machine files on their public ftp site and downloaded them, it did help debold to say that she "hacked" them to the state of California. The reason why is they, debold, are responsible for having a minimum level of security. The same holds true for government, especially sites that need to be secure.

Security in general is a big problem, one deterrent is to penalize people, but the reality is that there are systems that should be protected form people that don't care about fines and want to cause damage. That over-rides the argument that some pedestrian "hacker" should be taught a lesson. I don't know the intent of this particular person, but we need to be careful what we let our government get away with, it's been to much lately IMO.
 
By the way, please don't let me ever leave my home / condo / apartment / business / vehicle unlocked around all you guys that think this is "okay." :eek:

Ironically, we live in a country where someone who breaks into your home (even if they don't take anything) can be legally shot in the head...on the spot. The sad part is, I know for a fact that 98% of the people defending this guy would shit their pants if he broke into their house (but didn't take anything) looking through your stuff for UFOs. Would you want to hang out with, or be friends with, someone that doesn't have a problem with that?

Think about it, even though you had to clean up after the guy that broke into your home, you had to change your locks, take time off of work to go through your entire house checking for missing items, put a lock on your credit and other financial information because he had access to all of it, get new cards issued, go through your family photos, private and intimate belongings....so on and so forth....You'd still defend this guy...even after he says "fuck you, they can't do shit to me" ?

I doubt it.
 
I assume being embarrassed is not classified as damages?
 
gunderwood said:
I doubt society is going to be able to have an intelligent discussion anytime soon on this topic...but I'll try anyways. The problem is making the analogies as tight as possible.

There certainly is such a thing as criminal trespassing, whether it is property (land) or a computer. When you use someone else's property in a manor they do not wish you too or without reasonable expectation that you have permission to use it, you're trespassing in the general sense. When you do it intentionally or with the intent of harming or promoting damage in some manor, it is now criminal trespassing.

Let's look at a land example. If you have ever been out hunting or hiking you should realize how difficult it can be to know exactly who's property you are on at times. GPS doesn't always work in the thickest of forests and property lines are not always clearly marked. In general, when these cases occur, society has determined that as long as you don't have criminal intent, it is unreasonable for the owner to chase you off with a shotgun or for the police to arrest you. You will be asked to leave the property ASAP and if you don't comply, then you are criminally trespassing. Also, when the property lines are clearly marked every 100ft or so with no trespassing signs (different states have different legal requirements) you are criminally trespassing. It was reasonable for you to know that you did not have permission to use the property, even if you only wanted to pass through or observe; i.e. no intention of causing harm.

Society hasn't really settled this question when it pertains to computers. In some cases it is clear, others it isn't. It is reasonable to assume that when I send a HTTP request to hardocp.com that I am allowed access to the information returned. What about an unsecured Wi-Fi access point? Unsecured FTP server? In some situations, it is obvious that the owner of the Wi-Fi didn't intend for me to access it, but there also those who leave access points open with the intention of sharing them. The problem is we don't have a universal, clear and agreed upon means of communicating to every passerby the intentions of the owner. If you look back at the land example, my state requires no trespassing signs and/or clear property boundaries (such as a fence). In the physical world, those things communicate the intentions of the owner to anyone who passes by. Some computer systems display the electronic equivalent of a no trespassing sign, others do not.

If the government can prove he had reasonable knowledge that this was a computer system he shouldn't have accessed (shouldn't be too hard) then he is guilty of criminal trespassing. If the hacker’s lawyer can prove that he didn’t know he wasn’t suppose to have access (should be near impossible) then he is guilty of trespassing, but not criminally so.

Another issue is that he installed(?) a remote application onto their servers. If you think through the land example, clearly he was criminally trespassing when he did this. You wouldn't like it if anyone made a copy of your house key to let themselves in while you aren't paying attention; regardless of their intentions. Adding your own application to access a server is clearly acknowledgement that you know you aren't suppose to be here.

However, the question needs answered as to what the limits of liability for criminal trespassing are. In the physical world, the fines/jail time are fairly limited so long as you don't cause damage or have the intent of causing damage. Ignoring no trespassing signs to take a hike through someone’s land, while illegal, doesn't open you up to the same liability as burning down their forest. Clearly the hacker didn't want to harm the governments computers (he may have inadvertently, just like hiking though someone's land might), but it wasn't his intent to cause harm. His intent was to misuse the governments’ property, but not necessarily to cause it harm. His legal liability should be less than the hacker who wants to get secrets for financial gain or to harm the government. Very different from being curious what is over there (probably the reason our hiker took the hike and ignored the signs...). Notice that regardless if you knew or not, whether your intentions were criminal or not, you are still liable for damages, but they are fairly limited.

Someone is sure to argue that accessing information you aren't intended to have is less like misuse and more like stealing and to a certain degree they are correct. Much in the same way we consider misusing your car as stealing it. There is a big difference between misusing an automobile and misusing land (reference the hiker who ignored the no trespassing signs). The hiker is guilty of criminal trespassing, but not stealing, while the auto-thief is. Why? One of the traditional interpretations of the requirements for something to be considered property is whether or not another’s use of it deprives you of the use. This applies to both land and the car. If someone builds a skyscraper on your land, you can't farm it at the same time. Clearly, if an auto-thief steals your car, you can not use it at the same time. However, the hiker is not guilty of stealing because while he may have misused your land (property), he did not deny your ability to use it too, unlike the auto-thief.

It should be apparent that this is the big problem with information/IP. Surely, misusing information could be construed as trespassing, but is it possible to truly steal something if you are not denied the use of it either? It is possible to create scenarios on both sides that would indicate this as stealing or not stealing. The real discussion is that the computer has created an anomaly in how society views/handles information/IP property because the marginal cost of a copy is now zero (we haven't really settled if IP can even be property yet). To answer this society really need to have a philosophical debate about the requirements of property and make sure we are applying them consistently across the board...good luck with that. This is the reason my state requires owners of land to post no trespassing signs before I can be guilty of criminal trespassing. They recognized that there was a disconnect. Someone could misuse another’s property unintentionally. So, in the absence of clear boundaries, they made it a requirement to post those signs. If there are no signs or clear boundaries, I am still trespassing on another’s land (regardless of intentions), but I am not criminally trespassing until I have reasonable knowledge that I shouldn't be there.

Keeping with the same example, it should be pretty obvious what the trespassers limits of liability are (criminal or otherwise; if it is criminal then they face additional state imposed penalties). If they cut your fence to get in, they are liable for the cost to fix it and any damages due to it being broken (such as your cattle getting out). However, they would not be liable for “upgrades” to your fence. If you wanted to build a 10ft concrete fence with surveillance capabilities in place of the basic post/wire fence you had, that is your cost, not the trespassers.

I think this hacker is liable for cleaning up his mess by restoring the servers to the government’s original state. E.g. no remote access software, but not for them to upgrade their security. We don’t have all the information, so perhaps they are only charging him for that. Given the way our government works, $700k isn’t out of the question…in fact he may be getting off cheap!
Click to expand...

Topic covered enough said /\. I know it's long but sometimes valid thought takes more than a sentence so give it a read.
 
I couldn't help myself...
"Mess with the best, die like the rest."

So did this guy find anything at all? If not he got royally screwed for nothing lol.
 
Rogue said:
WTF
Click to expand...

His analogy of the way supporters of the hacker are saying hes innocent and that it is actually all the governments fault.

Supporters say lack of protection is a valid excuse for breaking into other peoples computers (committing a crime) and that it is actually their fault for not properly protecting themselves.

His analogy is that if someone shoots you (committing a crime) and you aren't wearing a vest it is your fault for not properly protecting yourself.
 
Steve said:
exactly.
Hopefully this guy never leaves his car or house unlocked...:eek:
Click to expand...

Steve, have you ever read exactly what damage he did? I haven't done a thorough search, but the 2 or 3 articles I just went through, including this one, have no information at all. If the 700k in damages is actually the cost to secure the installation, then he didn't really cause any damage at all.

If that's what the costs are for, then this is more like someone walking into your house that has a broken lock the cost to buy/install locks isn't damage, it's maintenance.

Maybe he really caused damage, but until I see that evidence, I'm not inclined to buy into the damage claims. That doesn't make him innocent, but it might mean that this isn't the serious crime that the government number implies.

The fact that so many hardened data centers were breached does seem to imply that security was lackluster at best. perhaps we should be thankful that the hacker was looking for little green men instead of important national secrets.

If he actually caused actual damage, then that's a different story....just because my doors have faultly locks doesn't mean I"m responsible if you walk in and punch holes the wall.
 
The Gonz said:
Different scales of importance yet a total lack of security to protect that importance?

I agree with the hacker here sorry.

You broke nothing, stole nothing yet are being fined to pay for something the government should have done anyways?

Should the hacker be punished? Of course.

Should he be forced to pay for the governments mistakes? Not on your life.
Click to expand...

I concur. How many times have you been told that if the police can prove you didn't lock up your car then you can't have the insurance company pay for your negligence.
 
Uncle said:
I concur. How many times have you been told that if the police can prove you didn't lock up your car then you can't have the insurance company pay for your negligence.
Click to expand...

I've never been told this. Hell, I'm not sure how the police could prove that, unless they were, in fact, responsible for the theft of the car or at least witnessed the break-in at close range.
 
The hacker did find crew names, ship names and manifests of an off world navy that he released on the internet. That part has been lost in the reporting of the story over time.

So I think that is the main damage that he caused.

If you take that info and put it with this info

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...to-Mars-and-meeting-Martian-extraterrestrials

Watch the Robert Dean & Arthur Neumann: September 25, 2009 - European Exopolitics Summit video.

If people would stop arguing and look at the bigger picture, some just might wake up..

I see it as funny how this is 3 pages now and no one even touched on what he really did.
 
Steve said:
You are correct.



Ummm, no. (please see above quoted post)
Click to expand...

You guys realize he didn't hack anything? He logged into computers with BLANK passwords. BLANK PASSWORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of him logging into these systems or not they need to be audited. He shouldn't be responsible of them dealing with the huge god damn mess that existed before he touched anything.

If he actually caused any damage make him pay. 'Hacking' into a system is one thing, and he'll get to go to jail for it or whatever. Everything else they're talking about is a huge joke.
 
nilepez said:
I've never been told this. Hell, I'm not sure how the police could prove that, unless they were, in fact, responsible for the theft of the car or at least witnessed the break-in at close range.
Click to expand...

Couple of ways I can think of, No broken window, no scratches on paint , no punched in lock, no busted steering column or punched out key lock on the column, shall I go on.
 
Atomic_GreenDoGG said:
The hacker did find crew names, ship names and manifests of an off world navy that he released on the internet. That part has been lost in the reporting of the story over time.

So I think that is the main damage that he caused.

If you take that info and put it with this info

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...to-Mars-and-meeting-Martian-extraterrestrials

Watch the Robert Dean & Arthur Neumann: September 25, 2009 - European Exopolitics Summit video.

If people would stop arguing and look at the bigger picture, some just might wake up..

I see it as funny how this is 3 pages now and no one even touched on what he really did.
Click to expand...

You're being watched by big brother now. Hope you're happy.


JK
 
bexamous said:
You guys realize he didn't hack anything? He logged into computers with BLANK passwords. BLANK PASSWORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of him logging into these systems or not they need to be audited. He shouldn't be responsible of them dealing with the huge god damn mess that existed before he touched anything.

If he actually caused any damage make him pay. 'Hacking' into a system is one thing, and he'll get to go to jail for it or whatever. Everything else they're talking about is a huge joke.
Click to expand...

Entering a computer system you dont have permission to enter is a crime.

He is trying to get out of serving jail time for the crime he commited. He's using his "medical" condition as an excuse. Right now he is probably scared shitless and will say/do anything to avoid punishment.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
I gotta side with the hacker here. Unless his actions directly caused some loss of data or physical damage to hardware this is just stupid. If anything they should be happy they didn't have to pay a security consultant to find out their security blows.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Atomic_GreenDoGG said:
I see it as funny how this is 3 pages now and no one even touched on what he really did.
Click to expand...

The reason people can't stand the guy is because they HAVE been following him for the last 7 years right here on the [H]. What started out as comical (the UFO stuff) is now downright retarded.

The guy has given dozens of interviews with dozens of version of his story, every single time the story changes.

At first he was a 1337 hax0r. Then he used a perl script. Then he was high and accidentally did it. Then he used shareware.

First it was "Fuck the USA, they can't do shit to me." Then it was "The U.S. will send me to Guantanamo." Then it was a human rights violation. Then it was "I have Asperger's"

According to the charges, McKinnon deleted hundreds of users, thousands of files and complete hard drives on machines containing sensitive government projects (which he has admitted to).

This is all old hat, the guy was offered a deal 5 years ago and turned it down. Now he is getting the book thrown at him and has lost every appeal he has filed.

All the people saying "he didn't do any harm" haven't bothered to even read what McKinnon HIMSELF claims to have done. :rolleyes:


All this and we didn't even get a picture of the UFO or anything out of this guy. :p
 
Last edited:
Arrg Steve! Why must you taunt us with your news edits!

Anyway, yeah this guy's a douche.

All the analogies about him "just walking in a house and not touching anything" don't account for the fact that he still trespassed and not only accessed classified data but told everyone about said classified data.

Check this horrible analogy:

Oh hey, the random guy off the street didn't touch or break anything during his trek through your unlocked house(which you should've locked, shame on you) but he DID take pics of all those letters to/from your mistress and showed em to everyone. Oh noez! Your wife found out and now you're beating on the guy's door with a baseball bat in tow!

But wait!

He's actually in a church and claimed sanctuary! How are you gonna get him out of there to give him what's coming to him? You can't just walk into the church and start wailing on him! And you can't go in and drag him out. Think think! Oh snap, you're friends with the bishop! He'll get him out! Oh no, some of the clergy is protesting the breach of sanctuary.

OK OK no prob, just lean on the Bishop a bit more, you've been buds for years! Wait now your friends are protesting. "Why does that bat have jagged rusty nails sticking out of it? He didn't do something so bad to deserve THAT severe a punishment. Also its your fault for not locking your door."

But then you go: "But it's cost me so much! My wife, my family will never trust me again! He has to pay for that too!" Alright! Some of em bought it! But their urging for you to put down your nailbat and pick up a normal one. So you're back at the church door trying to get him out of there and suddenly its years later and he still hasn't gotten whats coming to him.

Also he's a GIANT douche. :p
 
The real reason the USA wants to extradite him, is to be able to interrogate him on USA soil, maybe even try some water boarding to get him to cough up some info simple and clear. This guy has knowledge that can help in the security of their systems, and of course where he tripped around. Then put him somewhere and forget about him.
 
Hmm never thought about it that way Uncle. It seems so obvious when you actually think about it though. They most likely are going to interrogate him once they finally get hands on him.
 
Does it really matter if he is a lying douche bag? Justice is about punishing people for what they have done, not who they are.
 
mstersmith1 said:
Obama needs another tool bag to fuck the country up. I think you should go help.
Click to expand...

Tool bag? If you are going to attempt a witty retort and a play on words, at least use the proper words and analogies that aren't shit out of a retards tantrum.

Monkey God said:
So your straw man argument is cool, but mine isn't?
Must be part of that whole anti-American bigotry thing going on.
Click to expand...

He didn't use a straw man argument. Stop using terms you don't understand, like "straw man" and "bigotry".

Monkey God said:
You posted the Team America shit crap, so dont play coy.
Click to expand...

He was making a point of your seething fanatical replies. You are just responding with hyperbole and ignorance.

Steve said:
Look, had numbnuts NOT broken into government computers...NONE of this would be an issue.

Correct?
Click to expand...

Well shit, better string him up in the trees and lets get target practice going, because god damnit that boy done did something he ain't 'sposed to do and pointing that out means any punishment is ok. Woooweee!

*fires guns in the air*

LodeRunner said:
Unless I passed over something while reading the article the damages they want paid are the cost of the audit. Not any upgrades, or cleanup, but just the audit.


Gunderwood: a well written post.
Click to expand...

Audits should be a natural part of preventative security. Not only used when a nerd breaks in to snoop for UFOs. This does nothing but point out the disgraceful negligence of the government.

Steve said:
You are correct.



Ummm, no. (please see above quoted post)
Click to expand...

Audits are something that should be scheduled routinely. Stop making excuses to justify unacceptable punishment.

Steve said:
By the way, please don't let me ever leave my home / condo / apartment / business / vehicle unlocked around all you guys that think this is "okay." :eek:

Ironically, we live in a country where someone who breaks into your home (even if they don't take anything) can be legally shot in the head...on the spot. The sad part is, I know for a fact that 98% of the people defending this guy would shit their pants if he broke into their house (but didn't take anything) looking through your stuff for UFOs. Would you want to hang out with, or be friends with, someone that doesn't have a problem with that?

Think about it, even though you had to clean up after the guy that broke into your home, you had to change your locks, take time off of work to go through your entire house checking for missing items, put a lock on your credit and other financial information because he had access to all of it, get new cards issued, go through your family photos, private and intimate belongings....so on and so forth....You'd still defend this guy...even after he says "fuck you, they can't do shit to me" ?

I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is shit. A home invader can injure or kill you, in addition to being able to deprive you of property, hence why you are allowed to kill them (though that depends on the state hint: there are more states and laws than just Texas). You can't say the same for a guy looking at files on a server. Well, you can, but that calls into question you level of intellect.

Uncle said:
Couple of ways I can think of, No broken window, no scratches on paint , no punched in lock, no busted steering column or punched out key lock on the column, shall I go on.
Click to expand...

Have you never had a locksmith open your car with that balloon tool and a metal rod?

BoogerBomb said:
Entering a computer system you dont have permission to enter is a crime.

He is trying to get out of serving jail time for the crime he commited. He's using his "medical" condition as an excuse. Right now he is probably scared shitless and will say/do anything to avoid punishment.
Click to expand...

No shit. He didn't say it wasn't a crime. What he said was the guy simply logged in and looked around. Its called a correction to the fanatics screaming in this thread about how he is a dirty hacker and needs extreme punishments. The fact of the matter is this is the government's fault for being negligent. They are lucky this guy's actions amounted to not much more than a security consultant.

Steve said:
The reason people can't stand the guy is because they HAVE been following him for the last 7 years right here on the [H]. What started out as comical (the UFO stuff) is now downright retarded.

The guy has given dozens of interviews with dozens of version of his story, every single time the story changes.

At first he was a 1337 hax0r. Then he used a perl script. Then he was high and accidentally did it. Then he used shareware.

First it was "Fuck the USA, they can't do shit to me." Then it was "The U.S. will send me to Guantanamo." Then it was a human rights violation. Then it was "I have Asperger's"

According to the charges, McKinnon deleted hundreds of users, thousands of files and complete hard drives on machines containing sensitive government projects (which he has admitted to).

This is all old hat, the guy was offered a deal 5 years ago and turned it down. Now he is getting the book thrown at him and has lost every appeal he has filed.

All the people saying "he didn't do any harm" haven't bothered to even read what McKinnon HIMSELF claims to have done. :rolleyes:


All this and we didn't even get a picture of the UFO or anything out of this guy. :p
Click to expand...
So you want him extra ruined with excessive and unacceptable punishments that shouldn't even apply to him, simply because you don't like him? All the while completely ignoring the Governments extreme negligence and responsibility for such despicable levels of security? Good thing you aren't a lawmaker or a judge.

Jakalwarrior said:
Does it really matter if he is a lying douche bag? Justice is about punishing people for what they have done, not who they are.
Click to expand...

Except when you have a stereotypical American mentality.
 
Kristoff, PLEASE show us where you have proof that all McKinnon did was "log in and look around" because that is a direct contradiction of what the UFO hacker has stated on the record. Unless you are going to assert that YOU know the facts better than the person that committed the crime.

According to McKinnon himself he deleted hundreds of users and thousands of files to "cover his tracks" and even deleted whole hard drives. Those hard drives contained complete research projects and irreplaceable data. I know that is okay with you but most people find it unacceptable.

Speaking of unacceptable, your repeated use of the term "unacceptable punishment" is simply your opinion. The shitbag was offered a deal for 4 years with credit for time served. He passed on the deal and gave years of interviews repeatedly admitting to the charges against him.

If by "stereotypical American mentality" you mean that people should be held accountable for their actions, yeah...most of us have that.
 
Dont bother aruging with Kristoff. He doesn't make points, hes not interested in discussing facts, only beating you down with sheer volume of verbage.

Kristoff casts *Wall of Text* - crits for 120,938,391,012 points of damage.
 
Monkey God said:
Dont bother aruging with Kristoff. He doesn't make points, hes not interested in discussing facts, only beating you down with sheer volume of verbage.

Kristoff casts *Wall of Text* - crits for 120,938,391,012 points of damage.
Click to expand...

Meh. He is jelous. I would be too if I was not an American. This hacker is getting what he deserves, fuck him. I like what some earlier said about water boarding him. Should be amusing.
 
Uncle said:
The real reason the USA wants to extradite him, is to be able to interrogate him on USA soil, maybe even try some water boarding to get him to cough up some info simple and clear. This guy has knowledge that can help in the security of their systems, and of course where he tripped around. Then put him somewhere and forget about him.
Click to expand...

I thought he walked into unsecured systems? What sort of expert knowledge do they expect to get from him exactly?

And yeah, I bet the goons at the CIA cant wait to waterboard this "hacker" nerd guy.
Really? Grow up. :rolleyes:
 
mstersmith1 said:
Meh. He is jelous. I would be too if I was not an American. This hacker is getting what he deserves, fuck him. I like what some earlier said about water boarding him. Should be amusing.
Click to expand...

You're not helping our image.
 
I agree with the hacker. Any fines being justified as a result of the hacker's little joy ride should only be incurred, within reason, to damages he's caused.
Security counter measures being implemented should not be charged to him with one small exception; if for any reason the changes implemented are EXCLUSIVELY tied to preventing him [and only him] from doing the same thing, with significant reason to believe he would repeat the attack, then yes he should have to pay the cost. But most likely this is not the case, and as such, I do not believe the government should charge the hacker for their own network upgrades.
 
Heh....I have to admit this tread is entertaining:



McKinnon Defenders: McKinnon didn't harm anything, he should only be charged for what he did...not security upgrades after the fact.


McKinnon: I deleted hundreds of users, thousands of files, I even deleted whole drives with sensitive projects to cover my tracks.


U.S. Government: If you don't make us extradite you we'll give you 4 years, credit for the time you've served you'll be eligible for parole in 24 months.


KcKinnon: Fuck the U.S., they can't do shit to me! They'll put me in GitMo. Human rights violations! I haz TEH ASSBURGERS!!!


U.S. Government: Have it your way, here's your fine for actual damages...oh yeah, and you now face the max penalty.


McKinnon Defenders: The U.S. sucks! UNFAIR! Unacceptable punishment!!


The rest of us: :rolleyes::D:p:rolleyes:
 
Uncle said:
Couple of ways I can think of, No broken window, no scratches on paint , no punched in lock, no busted steering column or punched out key lock on the column, shall I go on.
Click to expand...

I thought the car was stolen. Regardless, who's to say the thieves didn't have lots of keys for each model of car? It's not like the keys are unique. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some sort of tool that could change the type of key that it is.

Maybe the thief used a slim jim to get into the car.

The rest is beyond the scope of the post I responded to. They didn't say the car was unlocked with the keys in the ignition, just that it was unlocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top