So everyone will be fully conversant with my position: Gary M was a fool to hack government computers, and if he thought he would not get noticed, arrested, charged and (probably) convicted, then he must have been living in a dream world.

My main concern - as I have stressed before - is that if he is convicted of his crime, then the sentence *must only* reflect the nature of his crime. Giving him a sentence that far exceeds his crime just to send a warning to others (which is one of the big concrns being echoed in the UK) is equally wrong.

That’s my main point and my interest in this case.

But I want to be

And so, I think, would they, as they know full well if things had been a little different they too would have gone down that road.

This guy is a geek and gives geeks a bad name, he is also very irresponsible, and often in this world its the irresponsible people who do a lot of damage, regardless of their intentions.

Has anyone thought about the damage hes done to Ufology?????????

You probably shouldn’t get an Australian talking about the US justice system in the US, with the David Hicks debacle fresh in mind…

Regardless of what people may think of hackers (there’s a wide range, from those who are just malicious, to those who simply get a kick out of testing their computer skill), I’m with Nick on the severity of the punishment (keeping in mind my original comment about ‘damage’ caused). My worry is simply that the fanaticism over protecting Intelligence and the secrets of government doesn’t end up with a show trial to scare off other hackers. The punishment needs to fit the crime, though none of us really know the details of that…as you said, hopefully that will all be considered when McKinnon has his day in court, although Nick’s example of Matt Bevan doesn’t instill the greatest confidence.

Kind regards,
Greg

That should be the presumption; however, that certainly wasn’t the case with Matt Bevan.

Record shows that Bevan was certainly encouraged not to have a solicitor present during his interviews, and as a young kid at the time he was unsure but to his credit he got one.

I’ll tell you something really ironic too: (a) Matt’s legal people had to put a complaint in while the trial was going on because of massive interference on Matt’s home phone - it stopped after the complaint was made; and (b) Chinese Military Intelligence got the details of Matt’s newly assigned home phone number before it was actually up and running. All that is fact.

So, seems like the official world was not above doing a bit of its own hacking in this case.

Wonder if they got official permission or just (shock!) hacked? Hmmm….

Those are questions that get answered, if necessary, by an appeals court. The presumption should be that McKinnon will receive a fair trial, and not the other way around, as some of his defenders suggest.

Paul

http://freegary.org.uk/

Good points.

Re damage done (or not) to the systems by McKinnon: as I mentioned, this was the claim made against Bevan. However, all Bevan did was to access the passwords of people at Wright-Pat and find a way into the system and specifically read email exchanges on classified research into “anti-gravity” systems.

And for those who are of a skeptical mind, I am using the term anti-gravity as a general description, not to say that this was the actual term used in the documentation. It wasn’t. It was for more sophisticated. But that’s what it came down to.

Anyway, to the point: Bevan simply got the email passwords, logged on, read the info, and logged off.

Can that cause damage? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Bevan and McKinnon and their activities, I find it highly suspicious that serious charges were going to be levelled at Bevan re intent to cause massive damage to the systems, but were hastily withdrawn when the judge asked to see the hard evidence of this.

I have no idea if real damage was done, but it’s to the court’s credit that they actually asked for the evidence to be shown.

By the way, I know Bevan and interviewed him (and some of the official players in the story) for my “On the Trail of the Saucer Spies” book. The Bevan saga runs deeper than many will ever know.

The fact that you disagree with me on a computer hacker I don’t even know will hardly cause offense here! And I understand the boohoo comment: if you hack, you are going to pay the price and it’s a very stupid thing to do, particularly thinking you can get away with it.

However, as I have said before, I’m interested in the bigger picture: McKinnon was totally wrong to go hacking; but will his sentence merit the crime? Will anyone see the hard evidence that he did extensive damage to the systems (which is one of the main points of the case)? Or, like Bevan, will that claim be pulled when the judge asks to see the evidence? Or will the case collapse (as it did with Bevan) when the government refuses to show the judge the evidence? Or does the fact that the case is likely to go ahead in the US mean that things will be different to the situation with Bevan?

And of course there is the issue of what precisely both guys saw during their hacking activities. Don’t dismiss the possibility that McKinnon did actually see something significant.

Bevan certainly did, because the details are on file with Scotland Yard’s Computer Crimes Unit: he found data on what (in simplistic terms) could be termed “anti-gravity” research at Wright-Patterson AFB that involved the theoretical usage of super-heavy elements (yes, I know: shades of Lazar).

But as weird as it may sound, CCU were specifically asked by the US to find out how much info on this Bevan had found, whether he had downloaded and printed the data, or if he had just read it online.

So, I predict it may be an interesting time ahead.

I’m wondering how much of that alleged $700,000 damage was in fact the cost of upgrading the machines to fix the security holes that McKinnon exposed.

And if we want to look at comparative crimes, what sort of sentence should be imposed on government officials sanctioning the invasion of a sovereign country, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, based on faulty/falsified evidence (its either criminal negligence, or corruption, whichever way you look at it). If they were a corporation rather than a government they would be serving prison time already…

Kind regards,
Greg

I agree with Carlos. Here’s my thoughts on GM - “boo hoo”.

And no, he won’t be doing seventy years. That’s just fear-mongering being bandied about by (no offense) people who don’t understand the justice system, and it’s been pounced on by GM to build support.

Paul