PDA

View Full Version : Whats your view?



Rum_Pirate
07-31-2008, 07:38 AM
Compilation from somwhere else


What do you think about this? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532713.stm)

On the one hand he is a hacker who should be punished as an example to the hackers, fraudsters, spammers and virus writers who threaten us all daily.

On the other one can't have too much sympathy for the yanks who seem to want revenge for their security being shown up.

And of course there is the one-sided extradition 'treaty' with the virtual certainty that if the case was the other way round the UK would have no chance of extraditing an American.

Reportedly he could possibly get life if convicted. It's not as though he's murdered anyone. They should be grateful that he exposed the flaws in their rotten system before a more serious breach was made.

He says that he did it all for his interest in UFO,s but at the same time towards the end he did leave anti war messages on military screens.

He doesn't seen to be associated with any terrorist group.


Just don't know but I disagree with his extradition - he should stand trial in the UK.

Its getting to be a bit excessive this what with the BA executive likely to be extradited as well.

On balance I think that he is guilty but more of stupidity than malice (70 years if guilty in the states !!)


He deserves to go, but British government should have suspended the treaty until the Americans ratify it as originally agreed.

Meanwhile the Yanks refuse to co-operate over the ITN reporter (Nicholson?) who was shot dead by US soldiers in Irag.

Double standards seem to apply.


agree he should be punished for hacking BUT not 70 years.

HOWEVER the USA should also reward him for highlighting the flaws in their inadequate system, it could have been a vindictive terrorist organisation that hacked in.

The one sided extradition treaty should be suspended until the USA sign it (implement it) as well.

I also believe virus writers and pre-meditated virus spreaders should have their hands cut off and eyes poked out.
OR allow each and every person whose computer is affected to punch them once (wearing knuckle dusters). [a few millionpunches might sort them out].

ishmael
07-31-2008, 07:51 AM
Apparently, the guy was pretty innocent of malicious intent. He, was, from what I understand, hacking to look for information on UFOs and aliens, not to steal secrets.

In a better world he'd be prosecuted in British courts for being a hacker, nothing more. The extradition issue would be a non-issue if the Brits prosecuted him for being a bad boy. Some jail time might be in order, but more importantly would be recruiting him to point out holes in the systems. He sounds like a smart cookie.

two cents.

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2008, 08:48 AM
The authorities have warned that without his co-operation and a guilty plea the case could be treated as terrorism...So does this mean he could be Gitmo bound?

Given the USA's "alleged" use of torture on terrorism suspects, I am surprised the UK is willing to allow his extradition.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
07-31-2008, 08:52 AM
So does this mean he could be Gitmo bound?

Given the USA's "alleged" use of torture on terrorism suspects, I am surprised the UK is willing to allow his extradition.

You're surprised - the fookwit B. Liar passed into law some provisions for which he should have been boiled in oil.

p.s. I admire the use of "alleged" .

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2008, 09:02 AM
Until the USA can convincingly demonstrate that it no longer uses torture and will honor the writ of habeas corpus, civilized nations ought not allow the extradition of their criminally suspect citizens to the USA. Suspects should be tried in their own country.

George Roberts
07-31-2008, 09:31 AM
And everyone caught with their fingers in the cookie jar is only counting the cookies to ensure there are none missing.

Gonzalo
07-31-2008, 09:52 AM
Apparently, the guy was pretty innocent of malicious intent. He, was, from what I understand, hacking to look for information on UFOs and aliens, not to steal secrets. So, Jack, it's OK if I break into your house or car just to look for material on UFOs? Or maybe just to see if I can?

Nobody has the right to break into a private computer system for any reason whatsoever. Considering the amount of time, energy and money people spend protecting against and undoing the effects of hackers, virus writers, and spyware purveyors, and the losses they sustain, penalties for hacking, viruses, and spyware should be extremely harsh. I'm not usually a proponent of harsh sentences for non-violent crime, but computer crime is an exception.

Glen Longino
07-31-2008, 10:02 AM
Gonzalo, if you break into Jack's house or car or computer, you won't recieve life in prison.
I resent that hacking a government computer should be treated differently than hacking one of ours.

ishmael
07-31-2008, 10:09 AM
Gonzo, I said the guy ought to be prosecuted. Mucking about in government files, or anyone's files, no matter the reason, is serious business.

I don't think, from what I've read, that he's a Rosenberg.
The punishment should fit the crime, and he was on a lark. If we're smart we'll recruit him.

Gonzalo
07-31-2008, 10:19 AM
I resent that hacking a government computer should be treated differently than hacking one of ours. Breaking into the Pentagon to peruse military secrets, even if claiming it is for an innocent purpose, is quite different than breaking into Jack's house to look at his library. One is merely a crime against a private individual; the other is espionage. The same distinction applies if someone breaks into your computer vs. breaking into a Pentagon computer. It is a distinction I accept with no difficulty.