Gary McKinnon Protest - Sunday, 28th September

Post Reply New Topic

Much my thought. How secure is their security? Not at all, by all accounts.

To those who shout that AS should not be used as an excuse for crimes, consider this... many autistic people are quite capable of getting caught up in crime without ever intending to do so, and can face criminal prosecution for it. Aspects of autism can make it extremely difficult to deal with the authorities on this level., and the authorities themselves do not make it at all easy for those with Autism. It is also quite easy to commit crimes without being aware of the fact a crime is being committed, even for NTs. I've been caught in that trap before. Through misrepresentation, an ability to understand certain social signs, and bare-faced lying on the part of officials....

Even if AS should not be used as an "excuse", it should certainly be taken into account when considering the motivation for crimes, the background and activities of the crime, and the punishment FOR the crime. Some of the figures for sentences that are being thrown around are completely ludicrous and bear no relevance at all to the crime or the claimed damage caused.

And NO nation that operates anything like Guantanamo bay, and Rendition, can EVER lay claim to giving people.. especially foreign nationals.. a fair trial. We KNOW this is not the case, and it is an insult to common intelligence for anyone to claim otherwise.

Nope its not an an legitimate excuse for criminal behavior the fact is he did something wrong and he needs to pay for his crimes. I am sorry this guy is no better than the bishops that protected pedophile priests.

He may or may not have committed a crime.. and as there has been no trial, that is still open. That does not change the fact that the sentence threatened bears no realistic relation to the crime accused. And do you really consider his crime to be anything like comparable to the abuse of children? Is there any part of it that even comes close? Computer crime = child molestation? Bear in mind that were he guilty of trafficking child pornography or actual pedophilia he would be threatened with a much lower sentence, and would be tried HERE anyway.

technically he should be tried by the US since he committed a crime against the US. Extradition laws apply. Even if the crime was committed in England the crime was not against England. and to be honest I fail to see the link between AS and hacking multiple government websites. He wanted to hack government websites, he knew he was hacking government websites, he knew what he was doing was illegal, and yes he should be tried based on those things. Do I think he should receive a life sentence? no. Do I think he should serve his sentence in the US? no

ideally the US and Great Britain would jointly consider the evidence and his mental peculiarities and make a decision based on that.

But I do not agree with making a case that he did not know what he was doing was illegal because of his AS. I do agree that he deserves a shortened sentence because of his AS, or that he should receive special accommodations (such as isolation from a general prison population).

Assuming that they do not charge him. I would presume that any terrorist organization would just need to use hackers with disabilities to avoid being charged.

From what I can gather of the case, he didn't actually have to engage in any real hacking at all. He barely compromised security because there was no security to compromise.

What is the actual crime he stands accused of?

I said he was no better than a pedophile I said nothing in terms of him being one. I was speaking about his character or to be more accurate the lack of character. What he did was commit a crime against the United States of America thus he should be tired by the United States Legal system. Further more I find it appalling that anyone especially people here wish to protect him just because he has AS so what he made his choices and accepted the risks he has free will and used it.

Lack of character? How do you make such a judgement of someone? And how does that lead you to make any sort of comparison between him and a pedophile, or a protector of pedophiles, or anything of that sort?

while I agree with your basic statement. Your point was lost to the general population in correlating hacking with pedophilia. And I do not think it has to do with character, since that is too vague of a word to mean anything.

Logically he made a conscious choice to engage (solely and without encouragement) in an illegal act and therefore the laws apply to him. As they should apply to all people, disabled or not. So he should be tried. Now in sentencing, THAT is where the influence of his AS may be taken into consideration.

I do not condone allowing people to commit illegal acts under the justification that according to their disability they "do not know any better". They should be tried and the disability should come into play during consideration of length of time of the sentence.

Laws are to protect an entire society from the faulty choices of individuals, who (most of the time) do not consider the repercussions of their actions.

Due to the spectrum nature of Autism, it cannot always be as clear cut as "he knew what he was doing". Did he really truly understand the implications of entering US government computers? Given what he was looking for, I suspect not.

Here is another news story about Friday's demonstration, including citations from the autistic self-advocates Roderick Cobley, of the London Autistic Rights Movement, and Nadine Stavonina-de Montagnac, of the Birmingham Autistic Rights Movement:
Hacker's Mum appeals to Prime Minister

he wanted proof of aliens. he thought he could find the proof in top secret government files. So he compromised government security to find proof of aliens.

if he knew where to look and how to get it, he knew what he was doing.

And if, as he claims, the computers were unsecured.. then can they be considered "Top Secret" ? I could have a website with Top Secret written on it. Doesnt make it so.

Because he needs protecting from ignorant people like you, who may potentially make up a jury - if indeed a jury trial were to go ahead and if he weren't just put up in front of a judge or secret military tribunal.

You say "...What he did was commit a crime..." and I have to correct you on that. As things stand at today's date, he didn't.

Have you never heard of the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

In your own mind, and that of many other Americans on discussion boards, you've already tried and convicted McKinnon in your own minds.

*That's* why it's not possible for McKinnon to get a fair trial in the US. Because of people like you.

You've inadvertently provided supporting proof as to why the man you have already tried and convicted in your own mind should not be tried in your country, because you and all those of your fellow compatriots who are spouting such vitriol are proving it's not possible for him to obtain a fair trial in the US.

Criminal law 101 for you: A person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

As such, McKinnon is currently *alleged* to have to committed a crime.

You are aware, aren't you, of defamation laws, in particular libel? In English law terms, by saying McKinnon's committed a crime when he's actually not be tried or convicted, not been found guilty of any crime, you've possibly/probably just breached an English civil law. Maybe Gary's legal advisors should apply for your extradition to answer allegations here? After all, you may be sitting at a computer in the US, but your potentially defamatory/libellous statement has been published here in the UK, over the internet, as I'm reading it here on my computer in the UK. Maybe Gary's legal team should be asking the UK authorities to get the US authorities to haul your ass over here and throw the book at you?*

Do you now see how easy it is to do something in one country over the internet, while sitting in your home country, and you don't have the slightest clue how, legally speaking, *really wrong* your actions are? It's legally - and also morally - wrong of you to say he's committed a crime when he hasn't been tried and convicted and found guilty.

You've just demonstrated it yourself how easily done it can be. You're walking, surfing, typing proof that Aspies can carry out actions without the slightest idea of the legal consequences of those actions. Well done. You've just provided the proof for the people you're arguing against to shoot down your arguments. Again, well done.





*NB: There is a difference between criminal and civil law, and while I don't know the ins and outs of the extradition treaty, it is one-sided, i.e. the US has powers to request and/or enforce extradition from the UK that aren't reciprocal, plus, I don't know whether it applies to breaches of civil law, but I kind of guess not, whereas it definitely applies to the breaking of criminal laws. I think, therefore, philosopherBoi, you're probably safe even though what you just wrote is potentially libellous.

*** PLEASE NOTE: This is an ongoing legal case so you ought to be very, very, very careful what you say as you could get yourself into legal hot water. ***

*** PLEASE NOTE: Gary McKinnon has not been tried or convicted of any crime whatsoever. It's therefore inaccurate - and potentially libellous - to say that he has committed a crime or that he's a criminal or anything of the kind. ***

*** PLEASE NOTE: The principle of innocent until proven guilty. ***

But as with the difference between murder and manslaughter, motivation and intention come into play, surely?

Murder is pre-meditated, whereas manslaughter isn't intentional.

I'm not a qualified lawyer, but I do have a bit of a legal background, and I'm trying to explain my understanding of the situation in ways that other non-legal people can understand.

What seems to be happening is that the US authorities are determined to plough ahead with a prosecution on the basis of the hacking equivalent of murder [cyber-terrorism and all that], whereas the more appropriate allegations to make would be computer equivalent of manslaughter or even 'lesser crimes' something along the lines of the computer equivalent of 'death by reckless driving' or whatever because whatever he did or didn't do, there was apparently no intention to commit cyber-terrorism [he was, allegedly, a bit of a stoner and looking for UFOs, by all accounts].

So it's not just a matter of possible sentencing at the end of a trial, if he is tried and found guilty, there's a major problem with the whole basis of the case. The premise is totally, totally wrong.

Again, to draw analogies, there's a big difference in what someone *knows* they're doing wrong... there was a bit of a debate on WrongPlanet recently about some small child that shot himself at a gun fair. If the father pointed the gun and shot the child, then yes, of course, that would be murder. But the child had the gun, so could a case be made for something like that be some kind of manslaughter on the part of the father or the gun fair organisers or the gun owner? Because they obviously didn't intend for the child to accidentally shoot himself and die, but that's what happened, so are they culpable in any way? Or would it be some kind of lesser case of negligence or recklessness, again, because the intention wasn't there? Some people might argue that whoever put the gun in the hands of that child should have the book thrown at them, but other people here were definitely saying that there is training and safety precautions in place at these kind of events, they couldn't necessarily have *known* the consequences of their actions and it was just a tragic accident.

he should be tried for what he did (which was break into a secure government network). He should not be tried for any underlying intentions that he probably did not have such as terrorist activity, money or whatnot.

I think he should be tried in the same way we prosecute teenage wonder hackers who decide one day to hack, or attempt to hack, FBI/CIA/GOV/MILITARY, etc. networks. Because that's basically what he did. He was screwing around and hacked multiple networks. He should be treated like he was screwing around and hacked multiple networks.

In the US that is a criminal offense. One that we prosecute people for, including minors. Of course minors and I presume people who may have an impaired capacity usually get light sentences, fines, and/or placed on a watchlist.

he should get the same.

not life imprisonment, but not scot-free.