What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
108 Comments
- duality, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43$700,000 is peanuts compared to the kind of damage a real terrorist would have done with such weaknesses, I imagine. I actually find it more damning that they these vulnerabilities exist at all, because it means that someone would have found them sooner or later. A "40-year-old computer nerd" is still preferable to a cracker in league with the Taliban.
I'm not saying I agree with what this guy did, but embarrassment and a mere 6-figure repair bill are a small price to pay if it prevents a rehash of 9/11. It is possible that good can come from this guy's meddling. - gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40guys most of the system had no passwords, he didn't destroy any data, he even left messages on there desktops telling them to use passwords, he actually did them a service of providing awareness that there system is not secure in "times of war",
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42While he should be punished if found guilty of the crimes he's accused of,
the (pre-Bush) American concept of Justice would call for:
1) A fair trial. Military tribunals are for battlefield combat situations.
2) If found guilty, A punishment appropriate to his crime. While it is a serious crime that he's accused of, and security precaustions would warrant not allowing him (if guilty) access to a computer, it seems unreasonable that his potential jailing would warrant a terrorist isolation facility designed for interrogating and isolating prisoners of war. (Or, as is being investigated, torturing them in utter defiance of everything America stands for.)
Portraying everyone from Movie Downloaders to Demonstrating Vegetarians "Terrorists" has done more damage to our nations credibility than any Al-Queda member could really dream of.
We won't win the war on terror by abandoning the principals that made this country great. - Elleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Actually the UK does have a constitution. It's just not one single document, it's made up of a lot of documents over a long history (primarily starting with the magna carta). And sorry to burst your bubble, but a constitution doesn't protect you from anything, the Weimar Republic (Germany 1919-1933) had a constitution specifically modelled on the US constitution and it didn't prevent the Nazi party's rise to power and subsequent abuse.
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36Ha ha what a load of tosh, trust me chap we have a lot more rights than you do after that bill got pushed throught over night after Sept 11th.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23They're already trying to strip him of his british citizenship through the high court. Poor guy.
- tigertiger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Why were critical defense systems even connected to the internet at all?
I'm skeptical the damage was as bad as they claim. - amoeba, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16There's a good interview with him here, he doesn't sound so evil
http://www.spy.org.uk/freegary/2005/07/gary_mckinnon_interviewed_by_j.html
and more info here:
http://www.freegary.org.uk/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12So, let me get this right. This guy "hacked" into WINDOWS machines which had been "secured" using default "admin" and "pass" credentials OVER DIAL UP FROM THE UK and the feds think he's a terrorist?
I think he's a ***** genius. Surely he should be rewarded for such a feat? - snugsoho, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@ kazsymonds:
Would that be the bill that conveniently no one bothered to read before hand? - Stockwell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@ budyfarr
Seems like you want to compare pears with apples... comparing a hacker to a pedofile is a very simple way of putting things, but nevertheless completely incorrect.
And besides don't you put your criminals in jails in the US? Oh no, that's right, most jails are packed full with blacks, hispanics, etc.
What he did is indeed illegal, but to go and put him in Guantanamo is an undemocratic act, he's no terrorist.
How the US is reacting now is like a big villain and crook.
And besides if you hook someting up to the internet it will get hacked sooner or later. - raremage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13He's also described as a '40 year old computer nerd,' which implies a level of innocence and naivete.
Once you're 40, you really need to be ready to accept the consequences of your actions. - ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Picture Of Him:
http://www.spy.org.uk/freegary/Bow_Street_Magistrates_Gary_McKinnon_24_Nov_2005_600-thumb.jpg - Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The point is he *might*. To extradite someone in the UK, you must guarentee there will be no capital punishment charge, and that there will be a fair trial in the eye's of the UK judicial system. These are the most important aspects of the UKs extradition procedures. The length of sentence given for committing a crime in a host nation is not part of the considerations. If they wanted to lock him up for 30 years for stealing a chocolate bar, then that's what will happen.
The point is that Guantanemo's mere existance, and President Bush's ability to detain people there at will, without a fair trial, for indefinite amounts of time, violates the guarentees the UK must be given to commence an extradition.
The lawyer is actually making a pretty smart play, and if he gets a judge who (like Cherie Blair) is not a fan of Guantenemo, may well rule that he can't be extradited.
If the US really want him, they will have to have a signed order which guarentees his rights. As the article said, they only hinted at that, but have never given it to him. - kakos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think we saw different movies. Though fairly unrealistic, Wargames is easily the one of the most realistic hacking movies out there. At least it had the decency to not show hacking as flying through pillars of data in some pseudo-video game environment.
- oceandead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's a good thing he didn't download any music or movies as well. Then he'd be in really deep *****.
- Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10And the fact that the european rights law apply. Well done for your ignorance.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6America is one big Gbay already, Guantanamo is your reflection.
- raremage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Jeez, folks, it's BS rhetoric from the guys attorney - he's trying to leverage bad press about Guantanomo as a supposed reason the guy shouldn't be extradited.
Was his transgression that serious? Who knows. It almost definitely exposed some weaknesses that have hopefully been fixed. But think about it - if you're the pentagon brass, you can't let this guy go unpunished, and it has to be a strong punishment, or it completely invites others to try the same thing.
I always wondered why DOD would hire the folks that hacked them - it basically was like hanging a 'help wanted' sign out, and the application process was to break in to the system. - Genius16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5buddyfar: your statement was not very thought out and stricken will ill comparison.
what he is saying up there, is apparently this hacker is rather smart. (though in my opinion, he got caught... which makes him a dumb ass. dont open the door if you cant shut it) and his knowledge of it security is of allot of value to the military. apparently so, because he was able to pwn their defenses. this man is more an asset than a criminal. and comparing someone of his technical level to a common child rapist is just unjust.
the best way to "fight fire" is "with fire"
the best way to defend from network based attacks is to have someone working for you that invents those network attacks.
this man did something wrong. he did not do something criminal.
besides, if large companies looked at the situation the way you do, we wouldn't have the security we have today. many security auditors and security experts are former "criminals", by your apparent definition of the word. - Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I fail to see how UK law is a "ruse", or the fact that Guantenemo *does* detain people without fair trials is anything but fact.
The lawyer is making a perfectly valid claim. The only reason it will fail is if the judge does not believe there is any chance of him being sent to Guantanemo. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11He'll at worst be extradited and tried like any other international criminal. He won't end up in Guantanamo. This is pure sensationalism on the part of his lawyer in a pathetic attempt to sway the public to their side by pointing toward one of America's PR nightmares. The worst part is that idiots around the world will fall for this tripe lock, stock, and barrel.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8That used to be the unoffical way the DoD delt with hackers. If you were good enought to hack their system, you either A. Took the job they offered you or B. Got your ass thrown in prison.
- timalmond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4zelig,
Please cite where you have evidence that the WMDs were moved out of the country, or where the invasion was approved by anyone but the US themselves. Was it from the same people who pulled the "Saddam has WMDs" "intelligence" out of their asses? - chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4careful, i think you just became a terrorist.
- pfunked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That makes me wonder, the whole concept of DOD hiring hackers, is it just urban legend? Anyone have references or records of a hacker actually hired in this way?
- therealjimshady, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Who is trying to strip him of his citizenship? Where is your proof that they're doing this? An article, a news broadcast, anything? Or are you just making this up?
- gxp7891, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So i went looking for the indictment. Found it here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/usmck1102vaind.pdf
Noticed that the IP addresses of the computers he allegedly hacked were blacked out in the PDF. On a hunch tried a little cut and paste job, and voila, all IP addresses that he allegedly attacked are visible. Who is willing to try and see if RemotelyAnywhere is still installed on these machines?
Amon the many:
160.145.40.25
160.145.18.111
160.145.30.89
160.145.33.52
160.145.214.25
128.190.84.39
128.190.130.16
128.190.178.21
128.190.224.22 - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes, but regardless, he is not the kind of "terrorist" that we think of. Guantanamo is supposed to be for the REAL terrorists, you know, like the ones who crash planes into towers. Simply put, he had no intent to kill.
Why should he get life? He has endangered nobody nor killed anyone, so I do not see why he should get more than the highest sentence for a white collar crime. - splasho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lawyers should represent the interests of the people they are representing, in the US and in Britain.
- neoknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Aids was not the main focus of my comment, i guess you can hear what the iraqis have to say themselves
http://us.cnn.com/time/photoessays/2006/iraqi_voices/?cnn=yes - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Lewisham:
"a) computer crime is almost always tried in the nation where the damage was caused:
That's true, but is this a mere "computer crime?" The cases I've read regarding such crimes involve private hacking and theft, not hacking that affects public institutions and national security. The US isn't going for pecuniary damages or even mere prison time. It's clear they consider this fellow a national security threat that could land him in far worse trouble than prison. As far as I know, the government doesn't put foreign nationals who infiltrate American military computers into a mere prison. So the question of extradition here seems quite different from a simple "computer crime" case.
"It makes it a lot easier to extradite people, and unless you violate certain freedoms (like fair trial/no capital punishment) you can get shipped out"
Well, yes, but that's a big "unless." US military tribunals are usually secret, and judging by the Gitmo example, foreign nationals aren't offered meaningful access to a lawyer, witnesses, evidence, and one wonders whether he would ever even see a trial. Perhaps they'd just like to interrogate him for a while. If this weren't going before a military tribunal, there would be no question that extradition would be appropriate, but that's not the case here. Judging by the US government's past actions toward similarly situated defendants, I think there's reason to worry about how much protection under the Act he would be afforded. - jeb00d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's important to note that this was an argument put forth by his attorney, not a US government attorney. It seems to me this is a bit of a weak argument, and considering the scrutiny the DOJ is under because of Gitmo and the NSA surveillance program they would never put someone who's not in Al Quaeda in Gitmo at this point.
Of course there seems to be no limit to the stupidity of some people in charge in DC right now. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If anything Americans should thank him for revealing the exploit. This sounds like the administration in charge of security wants nothing more than revenge for embarrasing them.
- prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WOW how messed up is this. The US needs to hire his ass.
- Stockwell, on 10/12/2007, -16/+18They should give the guy a job instead of throwing him in prison !!!
Sjeez, do we all have to bow for the mighty "*****" Georgie?
Let's hope the House of Lords has a decent backbone and will prevent this form happening. - GarethAyres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"He downloaded a program that searched for computers that used the Windows operating system, scanned addresses and pinpointed administrator user names that had no passwords. Basically, what Gary was looking for - and found time and again - were network administrators within high levels of the US government and military establishments who hadn't bothered to give themselves passwords. That's how he got in."
He broke the law, he should be punished, simple as im afraid. BUT, is the above quote is accurate then every admin and computer user who he 'cracked' should also be punished and fired if not given written warnings. The thought of a nuclear power having computer systems with easily crackable passwords scares me a lot. - opinionist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4the story and the discussion (if the media cares) shouldn't be able the hacker but the obviously pitiful security surrounding the U.S. Government's most critical data / networks.
forget the Taliban as the threat; has anyone mentioned China? they have state controlled hackers exploring and exploiting U.S. corporate; government; and military systems.
when our lovely Rumsfeld is / was / supposed to have transformed the U.S. military into a 21st century force; did he forget about 21st century cyber warfare / terrorism?
R - prthealien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Britain shouldn't let the US extradite him. The UN Convention Against Torture does not permit a country to extradite a suspect to another state where he is likely to be tortured.
- eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Drahknon,
You claim that the statement "Bush has given more money for African AIDS than any president in history" is "simply not true" by providing proof that Bush did indeed give more money for African AIDS than any president in history.
I think you need more practice. - Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I totally agree that he has a valid case for staying in the UK, read my comments a little bit further up :)
I was just pointing out why he wasn't being tried in Britain first :D - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Should they be thanking him for exposing the security flaws so that somebody with more malicious intent didn't find the hole?
- joxrox22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3WTF. This guy saved the world in my POV. He exposed a secuirty hole. What if the Taliban or Al-Queda or any ***** that wears hatred on his turban hacked into that U.S. military defense network instead? Give this guy a job and pat him on the back. Start him off on a 1million dollar salary per year for saving American asses.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not that this guy is a saint, but if he's going to be sent to Guantanamo, then he may as well kill himself before they get him. None of the international treaties dealing with captives and prisoners are valid at Guantanamo Bay, and the US can pretty much do whatever they please with this guy, just like they do with others there and did at Abu Ghraib, with complete disregard to any human rights treaties.
This, from a country which berates China on human rights 'abuses', sets up a torture camp in Cuba, a country which it vilifies, and conducts 'interrogations' the likes of which the Taliban would shudder at.
Is it any surprise that the rest of the world hates us for our hypocrisy and arrogance? - Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Drahkhon
As far as I understand from my Law and IT classes:
a) computer crime is almost always tried in the nation where the damage was caused
b) as you mentioned, there is a special act between the UK/US. It makes it a lot easier to extradite people, and unless you violate certain freedoms (like fair trial/no capital punishment) you can get shipped out
c) he probably could well be tried in the UK, aside from point a), and the fact that the US prosecutors will probably try to wring him for a harsher sentence in the US than the UK. Which is why they are trying extradition first.
This is just what I understood, IANAL and my understanding of things is not always so amazing :) - Wenham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hourigan: We are protected by UK law both in the Court room and in the High Court then after that the European Court, so sorry mate your comment is just plan wrong. While is it fair to say post 9/11 & 7/7 Human rights issues in the UK have been under pressure, compared to the US laws (I am thinking of the Patriot II act) we are in good shape to fight for basic human rights, like not being locked up without charge with no access to legal representation then shipped off to "friendly" countries to be tortured for "information" by their intelligence agencies who then sale this illegally gained, unreliable "information" to the client country who then use it as a basis to do the same to other people that are being labelled as "Terrorists" this week.
As for the Blair/House of Lords comment I think you should know that pretty much any ruling the House of Lords makes can be overturned by the House of Commons under the Parliament Act. The House of Lords doesn't really do much or have much power but that's a different story... - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, wait a minute. Is it true that he could be sent to Gitmo? Yes, this is true.
The question no one is asking is why he isn't being tried in Britain? Even under the Extradition Act treaty of 2003, it's virtually certain he would be tried in a US military court, where he would not be afforded the sorts of rights provided for in the Act. - elamr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You would think that instead of Guantanamo the govt would want to keep him in a federal prison and employ him to do nothing but try and penetrate the system to find more holes.
This man is obviously talented. I read another article in which he described how he got in... very interesting. If he was a terrorist/spy then we would have sold all his techniques to Al-queda or some other country. Even if he was a terrorist why not use your more talkative enemies to understand the techniques of the enemy at large.
Sounds like some government manager's pride is hurt. - WebUrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This whole nightmare could have been avoided if those agencies would have followed an information health and safety check as mentioned here:
http://digg.com/security/Due_diligence-British_computer_hacker_succeeded_because_of_lax_IT_security
All security shortcomings in those agencies' security posture that the U.S. government's own NIST agency has pointed out here at CASEScontact.org:
http://casescontact.org/euist_view.php?newsID=3827
http://casescontact.org/euist_view.php?newsID=3830 - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@zelig:
Your Africa aid claim is simply not true... but good job in parroting the Republican talking point.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/rice/20050627.htm
From the report:
"The Bush Administration has significantly increased aid to Africa, but that increase falls far short of what the President has claimed. U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) has not "tripled" or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms)." -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 