Hacker to be extradited to america

faceless · admin Joined: 25 Apr 2006

"The authorities have warned that without his co-operation and a guilty plea the case could be treated as terrorism and he could face a long jail sentence."

How the hell could it be considered terrorism when not a single normal citizen was put at risk? I hope he gets a good lawyer over there who can make a mockery of the prosecutors.

At worst I think the charge should be petty vandalism/breaking and entering. What he did was no worse than break a window and take a look about - it's not as if he left anyone in fear.. If anyone's really to blame it is the security contractor. Their ineptitude allowed this to happen - he's just a patsy with a recognised mental condition.

major.tom · Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject:

This reminds me of the people charged with terrorism for placing lite-brite signs of cartoon figures giving the finger.

Unfortunately, given the extradition agreement between the U.K. and the U.S., I can't say this result is unexpected. If I remember correctly, the agreement is very one-sided in that the U.S. can request anyone be extradited and the U.K. gov't must comply, but there is no reciprocity.

The claim that this constitutes "Terrorism" because it targeted gov't computers is utterly absurd. Terrorism targets people, not governments. Acts of sabotage or snooping against governments is called espionage if conducted on behalf of another government. Otherwise, it's a simple case of electronic b&e (breaking and entering).

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of acts of terrorism are conducted by governments and not individuals or small groups. If his stated target is true (ie. little green men) then this hacker could not be further from OBL.

SpursFan1902 · Pitch Queen Joined: 24 May 2007 Location: Sunshine State

I would agree except for the fact that it was a government's system that was hacked. Like it or not, a government, any government, is not the same as a person and there just have to be harsher consequences for "a simple case of B&E". Anyway, isn't that what Wikipedia is for...researching little green men and such?

major.tom · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:46 am Post subject:

Obviously I don't know all the details of this case. But for justice to be done, the charge has to be in line with the actual (not remotely possible) harm done.

Did he sell the information he found? (larceny)
Did he give it to terrorist groups? (support of terror)
Did he attempt to blackmail the gov't? (extortion, not to mention stupidity)
Did he use it to enrich himself on the stock market? (insider trading)
Or did he hide it under his mattress or ignore it because it didn't point him to the UFO landing strips?

I'm pretty sure electronic snooping carries pretty stiff fines in the U.S., something like $10,000 per incident. So it's not a slap on the wrist to start there.

(Sorry if I sound a bit too worked up. This War on Terror is messing with my mojo.)