calnetalk.com

Block67 · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: Hacking & american fear

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7556374.stm

Being a "reformed hacker", I have been following this case with some interest.
The charges, by america, are :
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mckinnonIndict.htm
Whilst I have severe doubts as to what the americans are accusing Gary McKinnon of and the alledged disruption and destruction of systems and files, surely the americans would be better off seeing how he done it and sort out their security, instead of threatening him and making him a scapegoat?
On the charge sheet it says it took the americans 17 months of investigation (they ain't too bright). Gary is simply a computer nerd, other than that he wouldn't of got caught in the first place. As well as hacking software, there is plenty of software downloadable for changing mac and ip addresses, and for scrambling your pc location to other parts of the world. Almost anyone with basic computer knowledge could hack into american networks with the right software (I managed to back in the early nineties), and I very much doubt that security systems can keep up with the "professional hackers".
As for his alledged damage and the so called costs involved, that's just america covering up that they got hacked and they dont like it. Instead of punishing a scapegoat for their inadequacies, they should sack the prats in charge of their network security, as they obviously can do it right. What would of happened had a terrorist of hacked into their systems?
http://freegary.org.uk/
Anyway, should Gary be extradited and face decades in prison (as well as a huge fine)?
I think not.

Geddi · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject:

Hacking is a crime. If it were any other crime he was accused of would he also be expected to be extradited? For example, if it were him who stole into the main bank vault in New York and swapped a load of real gold for fake gold (as happened a short while ago)?

I wont tick any boxes on the survey Block as British and Terrorist are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

When you say you are an 'ex-hacker', were you convicted or were you one of the sucessful ones?
_________________
Democracy is dead.

Block67 · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject:

Ged: yes, hacking is a "crime" loosely speaking. If you go in and just have a nose around, then that doesn't warrant extradition, or a prison sentence of decades.
As for being so bl**dy picky about being mutually exclusive, just shows how your mind doesnt function within the realms of normality.

Geddi · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:

Hmm.. I seemed to have touched a nerve there. My apologies.

I did teach at eCalne, not just adults with learning disabilities, I also taught retired people, single mums, children in after-school clubs, as a topical TA in classrooms and some SBYW sessions, as well as the general public. Note that I have not been in this role for some months now. I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself by misquoting facts now, or by claiming things as so when they are not so.

Let me just correct you on one small item (while ignoring the numerous grammatical errors which seem to weave through your threads consistently) - HACKING IS A CRIME. It's not 'sort of' a crime. It's not 'kind of' a crime. Loosely speaking even, It IS a crime. Just as stealing from someone's shed is a crime, or stealing gold is a crime or driving over the speed limit is a crime and all the other things which are crimes! Hacking IS a crime.
_________________
Democracy is dead.

GTB · Bushton Bushwacker Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2206 Status:

Hacking is one of those things that has been glamorised over the years - a bit like poaching.

This person has apparently caused millions of dollars of damage in his actions and if this is true then yes he should be extradited. I think labelling him as a terrorist seems to be America's deranged view of all foreigners who has trodden on Uncle Sam's toes a little.

I would also like to think that our Government is doing all it can to ensure this British Citizen is going lawfully and not being leaned on by it's old "Friend".
_________________

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 4792 Status:

[quote="Block67"]Ged: yes, hacking is a "crime" loosely speaking. If you go in and just have a nose around, then that doesn't warrant extradition, or a prison sentence of decades.

nosing around in goverment computers should warrent the hacker to prison.however i also think that the goverment could learn from this and to make sure that it dosnt happen again.
as for hacking on the whole depends whats being hacked .if people are hacking into peoples bank accounts then yes it is a crime,if there hacking in to sites then no its not providing they do no damage
.

Geddi · Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:18 am Post subject:

Local Lass: In fact accessing any computer, or attempting to do so, in the knowledge that you have no rights to the data stored within, is a crime. What is done beyond that is a more serious crime. I don't want to get into a 'yes' - 'no' scenario, so here is a quote from the government website which illustrates exactly what constitutes 'hacking' or as it is more officially known -

Computer Misuse Act 1990.

It states, and I quote:

"Computer misuse offences
1 Unauthorised access to computer material

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;

(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and

(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a) any particular program or data;

(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
2 Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1 above (“the unauthorised access offence”) with intent—

(a) to commit an offence to which this section applies; or

(b) to facilitate the commission of such an offence (whether by himself or by any other person);

and the offence he intends to commit or facilitate is referred to below in this section as the further offence.

(2) This section applies to offences—

(a) for which the sentence is fixed by law; or

(b) for which a person of twenty-one years of age or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or, in England and Wales, might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the further offence is to be committed on the same occasion as the unauthorised access offence or on any future occasion.

(4) A person may be guilty of an offence under this section even though the facts are such that the commission of the further offence is impossible.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
3 Unauthorised modification of computer material

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing—

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

(3) The intent need not be directed at—

(a) any particular computer;

(b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

(6) For the purposes of the [1971 c. 48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both."

As you can see from this, a simple act of getting into a computer which is not yours is an offence. Trashing data within once you are in there is a further offence.

Block67 was correct when he states I was involved with eCalne, teaching computer and internet skills. As part of this role I made myself aware of certain aspects of the law regarding various parameters including hacking, data protection, etc.

What I can say about Block67's original post here is that is highlights, albeit accidentally, the change in the way even the UK government s looking at crimes and changing the manner in which they are dealt. Making an offense now come under anti-terrorism laws is a sneaky trick as anti-terrorism laws hold a different basis of minimal protection of rights of the individual.

Another point is that the UK legislation is coming up for revue as it is outdated. The WWW was only invented in 1989 (by a Brit!!!) and the law above came into play in 1990, as the name implies. Now, it's come up for it's 18th birthday and is looking for nice pressie and a trip to Amsterdam for a long weekend, and the UK govt equivilent is to upgrade and enhance the law to cover other aspects of problems with computers.

'Mail bombing' (sending massive amounts of email to crash a system) will become illegal, as will loads of other clever 'tricks'.
_________________
Democracy is dead.

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 4792 Status:

geddi the original poster asked weather this particular crime should warrent a prison sentance .and be extradited .my answer would be yes he should.

as to hacking on the whole like i said before it depends what it is .by law yes hacking is a crime but at the end of the day the same punishment can not be given to all.
there are different degrees in hacking a computer.

agent smith · Newbie Joined: 14 Jul 2008 Posts: 6 Status:

mmmmm, hacking. Big Grin

Nothing of interest on Geddi or Block67 pc's. :roll:

Hacking is only a crime if detected. :thumbl:

The original post question, my answer is no. The lad should be charged and sentenced in this country, NOT america.

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 4792 Status: