Quote Originally Posted by IAN 2411 View Post
I think that if a person in the UK can hack into NASA computers then NASA and their security is a bunch of dumb shits. Their security must be second rate for it to happen and if it cost $800,000 to put right then there are a lot of thieving people fixing computers in the States. I expect $500,000 was spent on cleaning the porn off the hard drives, before they could find the problem.
This must be the special relationship that the Americans are always talking about. We will extradite UK citizens to the states but the UK can fuck off. We don’t have Blair and Brown being shagged by Bush any more there is a new regime. I think people around the world ought to see what the UK people think of the one sided special relationship.

Be well IAN 2411
It is very hard (hence expensive) to clean a compromised machine fully: the recommended way is to wipe every machine potentially affected and reinstall from original untainted media and very carefully checked backups. Well over a decade ago I fixed one downed server (not a security problem in that case, filesystem corruption, but a similar cure) which was billed internally at around $500 - many machines across multiple sites and organisations, throw in additional security needs and law enforcement capturing all the details in hopes of prosecuting the culprit, I'm sure it's easy to rack up that sort of bill.

As for one-sided ... for the US to arrest and send someone to a UK court, there must be "probable cause", which is the same standard required for them to bring someone before their own courts; for the UK to arrest and send someone to a US court, there must be "reasonable suspicion", which is the standard required for our own police. In addition, the US courts will only accept the charges in the first place if they find probable cause exists - otherwise, it never reaches the extradition stage anyway. Of course, whichever standard you choose to apply, how can McKinnon's own confession not meet it when combined with the relevant logs identifying him as the culprit?!

The idea that the process is "too short" or "not enough court hearings" ... in the context of a case which has been dragged out, by McKinnon's own choice, for the better part of a decade now, via seven different courts, yet despite having admitted his guilt years ago, he remains at liberty in the UK now? Letting him drag the process out to this extent is a travesty.

The sixty years? The equivalent crime against UK government computers actually carries a maximum sentence under UK law of life imprisonment. McKinnon was, however, offered a plea bargain which would have meant a sentence of 37-46 months, the majority of that served in UK rather than US prisons, with early release somewhere between half and two thirds of the way through that, i.e. less than three years. He turned that offer down, presumably on the basis he thought he could filibuster his way out of punishment for his crimes. Sadly, so far it looks as if he has been right in that.