Talk:Gary McKinnon: Difference between revisions
m update my signatures to reflect new signature |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
You know "I am solo, I will continue to disrupt". Says it all ~~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.128.223.68|193.128.223.68]] ([[User talk:193.128.223.68|talk]]) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
You know "I am solo, I will continue to disrupt". Says it all ~~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.128.223.68|193.128.223.68]] ([[User talk:193.128.223.68|talk]]) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I've read the figure £700000 is a consequence of the amount of damage needed to be caused for extradition. So it's probably more likely that he did little or no damage, and the US is just making up damages to get him extradited. I'd also imagine that they want him extradited to save face. He's broken into their top computer systems because their security was insanely lax, and some people are trying to save their jobs by making him out to be a hacking prodigy. |
|||
== Scottish... == |
== Scottish... == |
Revision as of 19:47, 9 October 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gary McKinnon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Questions
Anyone know what the law involved in the US is? Zetetic Apparatchik 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Was this guy on NPR? If so, when? -Hoekenheef 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
hack to crack and back to hack
re user editing hack to crack. That may be correct usage, but as it's a quote and the word is "hack" in the quote I've changed it back.... to hack. -- Hakluyt bean 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (aka Dr Seuss)
Risk of Bias?
This line: Especially considering his claims of other crackers being on the same machine, who have so far failed to leak the alleged documentation. This is a smart point, but equally one reason might be to avoid the risk of arrest? I'm also a bit uneasy with black hat, or anyway uneasy with the cumulative effect of recent changes. There's a legal attempt to paint Mckinnon in a negative light (understandably). But, we shouldn't do much more than suggest it. Because that wouldn't be understandable. Despite what he apparently admits to, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. -- Hakluyt bean 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm... good point on the "black hat" part. I'm going to edit that slightly. --SheeEttin 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- In process of editing, I have hit an edit conflict with someone. I'm keeping my text, but here is theirs:
...British Grey hat hacker...
- If you'd like to dispute this, whoever you are, please feel free to speak up. --SheeEttin 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Most likely Black Hat?
Well, we do KNOW this... he's a hacker. We can't be sure if he's truly a grey hat or black hat hacker. Evidence shows and he also makes it quite clear that he did not intentionally harm the machines he accessed. He apparently did NOT financially profit from the access and the Govt. makes no such claims against him. Also, he says his intentions were for the greater good. That's typical of a grey hat. Of course, it's too early to claim that until more evidence is released, but it's also way too early to say he's a likely black hat as well. I think it's safe to say he's most likely grey hat, but for the sake of NPOV, we should go with "he's likely Grey hat OR Black hat". Cowicide 20:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I bet the $700000 was just what the IT guy charged when he fixed the government's computers. "Ooh, this not be cheap." Drumnbach 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally dont find it credible that the US government left their computer sensitive military systems online withoput basic password protection. Perhaps a group of 12 reasonable but computer illiterate people might believe it but to 12 reasonable computer literate people it sounds less credible than the alleged UFO cover up. Of course if McKinnon had been white hat he would have set up a UK security company and immediately let the US gov know there was a flaw in their system and made sure he got well paid for his work. The day of the grey hat may be passing, SqueakBox 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
MOst of the US claims are that he was a very talented hacker, who caused huge amounts of damge - deleting files, changing passwords. What's more, most of his messages left were very "anti USA" and "anti war", claiming he was "going to continue to disrupt".
He's basically admitted he went on to the US Navy, Pentagon web sites, to disrupt. From his comments, it was a very anti USA, anti war front - mentioning September 11th in his own comments left.
The US authorities claim he did 700k damage, by deleting files, and changing passwords. And he went on solely to disrupt the system.
McKinnon claims he went on merely to look about, and look for UFOs.
To me the evidence suggests that the US authorities are probably closer to the truth, and he's merely trying to garner public sympathy and support.
You know "I am solo, I will continue to disrupt". Says it all ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read the figure £700000 is a consequence of the amount of damage needed to be caused for extradition. So it's probably more likely that he did little or no damage, and the US is just making up damages to get him extradited. I'd also imagine that they want him extradited to save face. He's broken into their top computer systems because their security was insanely lax, and some people are trying to save their jobs by making him out to be a hacking prodigy.
Scottish...
Only, I note he has an English accent. Naturally if he considers himself Scottish rather than simply being born in Scotland that would be a fair self-description, but his legal predicament depends on his being British, rather than Scottish. On the basis of the article at the moment you could call the UK Prime Minister Scottish...
The term 'Scottish hacker' is additionally misleading unless he was part of some particularly 'Scottish' hacking scene, and I'm not aware that he was, and even then I'm not sure of the significance. By contrast if he was say Welsh,and belonged to a Welsh-language scene, then that would be interesting. Hakluyt bean 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I changed it. Re Scottishness, 'born in Glasgow' covers it. Hakluyt bean 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Mispelt word under Statements of the Media
There was a spelling mistake on the word "goal" (was before gaol) so I changed it :) but I didn't log in :( sorry --Wakimakirolls 20:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- "...by trying to impose an exemplary goal sentence"? The word "gaol" would, in some parts of the world, be spelled "jail". I've changed it back, but the sentence still doesn't make sense, though - no pun intended. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it sounds like a paraphrase of a quote, I'm leaving it "gaol", but if it's not McKinnon's own words, then "prison" would make more sense. In the meantime I think many English speakers (American, Canadian, and non-native) may not recognize this word, so I thought it would be helpful to link to the gaol wiki so people know it's not a typo. --enharmonix 18:48 22 August 2006 (UTC-6:00)
I dont think English speakers should have too many problems with this word and as it is an American prison he is facing it seems appropriate. TVGH 00:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You misspelt misspelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.99.139 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Article
There is an interesting article about mckinnon in the december issue of details magazine. Sometimesseespeople 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Badly written paragraph
Gary McKinnon also claims that the USA is trying to make him a scapegoat by trying to impose an exemplary gaol (jail) sentence on him (up to 70 years) extraditing him to the USA for trial. His lawyer also claims he could end up in the notorious Guantanamo Bay used to hold 'terrorist' suspects. His supporters claim that making him a scapegoat will not fend off other hackers as most think they will not get caught.[1]
This paragraph repeats what is said elsewhere, is dubiously written and that is not a true source for this info. Now can I delete it? --84.68.162.114 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me and I would like to see it kept, SqueakBox 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hack or Crack (again)
I see an anonymous user has changed "hack" to "crack" widely. Doesn't WP have a policy on which word to use? I forget ... richi 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I really think "hack" is more appropriate - it's by far more widely recognized. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant, the words have different meanings. Cracking involves guess work or brute force attacks, hacking involves exploitation or manipulation of code and process. From what I have read McKinnon claims to have mainly used used cracking techniques. --Delta-NC (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The way this man is being treated is a disgrace to British and US justice
I listened to the play and I was horrified by the way the US seem to just be able to make up a case against what was a perfectly harmless activitiy which turned into an obsession. If the security was as suggested in the BBC play, and I've no reason to doubt it, then its the security equivalent of leaving the keys in the door and hoping the burglars have the decency to wipe their feet as they come in.
The people who ought to be in the dock are the US security people who allowed all these hackers, not the stupid hackers who saw the open invitation and walked in the door.
But the worst thing about this case is the total denial of basic human rights - like a right to a fair trial - a right upon which US independance was founded. How odd it is that now it is the US who are trying to extradite people from Britain with no evidence, without the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers, when this was one of the fundamental grumbles of the US settlers, who rejected the idea that the British could extradite Americans to Britain so that they would not suffer the leniency of American juries who refused to convict under draconian laws.
The US: the story of democracy to Empire, of freedom to repression of rights to the denial of rights in little over a few hundred years.
As for the British law being written in Americanize, god save the American Demo-Crazy!
88.111.81.92 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The people who ought to be in the dock are the US security people who allowed all these hackers, not the stupid hackers who saw the open invitation and walked in the door." So, if somebody leaves their car door open, and somebody steals it, that person should not be prosecuted? Your premise is so out of touch, insane, and foolish it is laughable. Wikipedia, however, is not a discussion forum, and therefore I will stop with the knowledge that you are a complete and utter raving lunatic. I am ashamed that there are people like you running around the streets of the world without medication. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be illegal to look around an unlocked car, because that is classed as trespassing (86.169.125.18 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
- The original analogy about keys in the door is misplaced, I think. It's more like, leaving the keys in the door, someone comes to see you, but you're not in, so they curiously open the door, have a peek around, and then leave. Or, for the car example, they have a look inside your Lamborghini which you left open, out of curiosity, but then walk away leaving it untouched. The potential prison sentences faced in the US are absurd. This man should not be extradited. Also, I know, wikipedia is not a forum. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the analogy that should be used, based on his own words , it that he came to the door, with a set of master keys in his pocket that he tried on different locks until he found the ones that opened the doors he wanted (perl hacking script). Then, he looked inside(viewed system though multiple accounts), and in one instance left a sarcastic note (hacked message left) letting them know he had been there without permission and that he might return. Then, on the way out, he destroyed some of the locks so that other could not return (deleting user accounts). But again, I agree with Jatkins that he didnt "steal" in the physical sense. He just went where he wasnt allowed, and wipped his feet on the carpet on the way out. While it is a crime in the US, it is not the same as theft. But, like Jatkins, I return to NPOV. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- The original analogy about keys in the door is misplaced, I think. It's more like, leaving the keys in the door, someone comes to see you, but you're not in, so they curiously open the door, have a peek around, and then leave. Or, for the car example, they have a look inside your Lamborghini which you left open, out of curiosity, but then walk away leaving it untouched. The potential prison sentences faced in the US are absurd. This man should not be extradited. Also, I know, wikipedia is not a forum. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- In the interest of preventing disinformation, I feel it's necessary to point out that he didn't "steal" anything. Now back to NPOV... --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all he didn't just walk in an open door. He falsely presented himself as someone who was allowed in to get access. A better analogy would be he manufactured a key to allow him to enter your locked home. Second, you can indeed steal information, which is all computers hold, and it can be much more valuable than a Lamborghini. To equate stealing information from a computer to stealing information from a car is a bad analogy. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
And by the way I came here because I was wondering whether there was any evidence to back up his claim that all he was interested in were UFO's. Was he known as a UFO conspiracy theorist or was it just some harmless-sounding defense his lawyer cooked up? 75.5.100.86 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah here we go, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm
- The appellant’s alleged criminality
- 11. Using his home computer the appellant, through the internet, identified US Government network computers with an open Microsoft Windows connection and from those extracted the identities of certain administrative accounts and associated passwords. Having gained access to those accounts he installed unauthorised remote access and administrative software called “remotely anywhere” that enabled him to access and alter data upon the American computers at any time and without detection by virtue of the programme masquerading as a Windows operating system. Once “remotely anywhere” was installed, he then installed software facilitating both further compromises to the computers and also the concealment of his own activities. Using this software he was able to scan over 73,000 US Government computers for other computers and networks susceptible to similar compromise. He was thus able to lever himself from network to network and into a number of significant Government computers in different parts of the USA.
- 12. The 97 computers the appellant accessed were: 53 army computers, including computers based in Virginia and Washington that control the army’s military district of Washington network and are used in furtherance of national defence and security; 26 navy computers, including US Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey, which was responsible for replenishing munitions and supplies for the deployed Atlantic fleet; 16 NASA computers; one Department of Defense computer; and one US Air Force computer.
- 13. Having gained access to these computers the appellant deleted data from them including critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army’s Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions; 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing these computers to reboot and become inoperable; and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships, deletion of these files rendering the Base’s entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 and thereafter leaving the network vulnerable to other intruders.
- 14. The appellant also copied data and files onto his own computers, including operating system files containing account names and encrypted passwords from 22 computers comprising: 189 files from US Army computers, 35 files from US Navy computers (including some 950 passwords from server computers at Naval Weapons Station Earle); and six files from NASA computers.
- 15. The appellant’s conduct was alleged to be intentional and calculated to influence the US Government by intimidation and coercion. It damaged computers by impairing their integrity, availability and operation of programmes, systems, information and data, rendering them unreliable. The cost of repair was alleged to total over $700,000.
- 16. Analysis of the appellant’s home computer confirmed these allegations. During his interviews under caution, moreover, he admitted responsibility (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading:
- “US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”
The allegations are a lot worse than just peeking your head in, do include stealing and more, and he admits the not-at-all-innocent note at the end there. I assume this parliament stuff is public domain or something? 75.5.100.86 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- The excerpt is copyrighted - House of Lords judgments are subject to the standard Parliamentary copyright licence http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm and (although this is not legal advice) I would therefore think can be quoted provided correct attribution is provided. LeContexte (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Appeal
If the extradition is not stayed, McKinnon will suffer 60 years imprisonment for terrorism charges. McKinnon lawyer, David Pannick, Queen's Counsel, silk Barristers in England and Wales, argued that McKinnon faced 8-10 years in jail if he contested the charges, but only 37-46 months if he co-operated, and the courts could deny extradition if there was an abuse of process: "If the United States wish to use the processes of English courts to secure the extradition of an alleged offender then they must play by our rules." McKinnon would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, in case of dismissal of appeal. The law lords will render judgment in 3 weeks.scmagazineuk.com, NASA hacker appeals to House of Lords to overturn extradition--Florentino floro (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
New online petition
There is a new petition against Gary McKinnon's extradiction, but the petitiononline website is blocked by wiki's spam filter. It is at http[colon slash slash]www[dot]petitiononline.com/AAA12345/petition.html. Skip1337 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The Hacker's Handbook
In a November 2007 interview with Project Camelot McKinnon states that he was inspired by The Hacker's Handbook (time: 0:20:00). We could mention this in the article. __meco (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Photo
What's the point of that blurry, out-of-focus picture that doesn't even show the guy's face properly?
Delete it and put up a proper picture of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.79.218 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
National Autistic Society campaign
I've been e-mailed recently by the National Autistic Society of their recent spam-campaign -- entitled 'Help stop Gary McKinnon's extradition' -- to get everybody to write to the Attorney General of Scotland. I have doubts of it's effectiveness and quite frankly, of his innocence (as an autistic, I personally would bask in the attention of such a crime) as it can't excuse his actions.
I will now post the e-mail in it's original continent here.
(snip)
On another note, I fully intend to contact the Attorney General -- with a supporting argument for ignoring the NAS' comments and going ahead with Gary McKinnon's extradition. It fills me with a sort of military-lust and fantasism, that the bastard Aspie-fake traitors who denied to take part in my causes in the past will get their just deserve, constituting my vengeance's satisfaction.
Of course, that won't go known to the Attorney General.
Indeed, feel free to contact me about this if you wish: chris.gillon@gmail.com
Thanks, Chris Gillon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.184.105 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the email addresses and spam email. There is no good reason to include it here, and just gives it more publicity. 92.9.48.51 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Advantage of Trial in the UK
I'm not sure how this is an advantage in the UK, as juries in the US can employ jury nullification. It seems the be the same thing; a jury can acquit even if they find the defendant violated the law. There's a good summary of it on this very site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The advantage is he is close to his family in a country he knows (legal terminology for instance is very different in the US) and a country where the prison sentences tend ton be much shorter. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is also the issue of cost, and the Mckinnons are not wealthy. There is the cost of accomidation during the trial. Then the cost of flights to and from the US. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)]]
- And a country that doesn't keep ilegal prisons that keep people without trail and torture and rape them. Echofloripa (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure that is the objection.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]]
There is no advantage. Under UK law, he would be tried under computer crimes (basically 12-18 months max). The US has much stricter, computer terrorism laws - where he could conceivabely get 10 years.
It's nothing to do with justice, autism, extradition. It's just a man wanting to be tried in a softer criminal system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. A lot of people feel safe behind their computer and like to act "hard", and just like Gary McKinnon, they reveal how weak they really are when facing real world consequences. 92.9.48.51 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree that there is no advantage to a UK trial. Yes, jury nullification is the same in the UK as it is in the US. However, he would be more likely to receive such nullification if he is tried in the UK, if only to make a point with the US Government. In addition, as mentioned, the sentence range is shorter for the same crime in the UK. Furthermore, prisons are more dangerous and violent in the US due to policy and method of incarceration in the US being focused on punishment, rather than rehabilitation.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Disclosing of Documents
This section "NASA documents" is really confusing and a lot of errors: itś a forum and not news articles, and this phrase doesn't make sense: "This is consistent with NASA employees browsing internet articles about Gary McKinnon, the records of which are public domain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It does make sense. That it is in keeping with what some people do, and that records of what they do and that records of that activity are availible to the public to look at.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]]
SOLO v I'll be needing KY
What is this all about? Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the article?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]
No, I mean SOLO v I'll be needing KY, as I headlined this section. See opening of article. Rothorpe (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC):
- Ahh I see, the version of the page I looked at did not have this part.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]
Additions
Changed various bits. Sounded a bit like the "free gary mckinnon" web site, than a encyclopedia page, reporting fact.
I noticed Gary's own message, to the US authorities has been deleted - rather bizarre, seeing as it's one of the only, documented, piece's of evidence, released on the case.
Have reposted, and properly cited anyway. The only reason I can see that's it's not on here, or taken down, is censorship by people biased towards the case. It's documented, cited evidence.
Also posted the US authorities retort, to McKinnon's claims that he didn't actually do much more than look at Alien pictures. Just stating this, and not showing the actual US opinion to the contrary, is almost painting a POV as fact.
Deleted lots of rubbish, about other cases, in the "media statements" point. As far as I can tell, someone has just found similar cases, and then tried to somehow link it to "media statements", to maybe affect the fairness of the article. As in, trying to comment that the US justice system isn't fair, by insinuation. None of it cited. McKinnon may not have even said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good work. There do seem to be some folks determined to turn this into a Garry McKinnon support page. It could be family, friends, or a few fellow nutjobs, but it must stop. 92.9.48.51 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heaven forbid Wikipedians exercising any compassion or humanity.Chump Manbea (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Citation Reviews
This page has seemed to wax back and forth between support and anti positions, which is outside the purview of this talk page. as such, I would like to begin a review of the citations utilized and the style of the article to create NPOV on the page. I have added NPOV banners and appropriate Citation banners to the article to facilitate discussion. Removing them until a thorough discussion has taken place and a consensus reached will lead to reversion. I wish to begin the discussion on citations, with the citation below being the initial point of discussion.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/07/31/boulden.uk.mckinnon.latest.cnn
Please post responses here and keep things on NPOV and citation topics, no about personal feelings either way.
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) In response to NSH001 request for specific issues, I would begin with citation 27 http://www.londontv.net/latestnews.html; The citation itself is the work of Pro-McKinnon group who's sole purpose is to rally support. While each individual site attached to the site may have some attribution value, only a few have actual third party credible news citations behind the quotes. If a claim is to be made for the statements related to section attached to citation 27, each should be individually cited according to the name of the person and avoid the use of this site as a citable source. Your thoughts? IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC) The section lacks citation for its phrasing
"The charge that he perpetrated "the biggest military hack of all time" is ridiculed by McKinnon who characterises himself as a "bumbling computer nerd" who undestructively accessed open, unsecured machines while under the influence of cannabis and beer, and that the destruction claims were manufactured by embarrassed US authorities after the fact in order to meet a dollar amount requisite to seek an extradition, in order to make him a poster child and intimidate any snoopers, especially those interested in the alien technology subjects he believed the public had a moral right to be aware of." IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A review of this section shows that no citation is forthcoming. I would therefore submit it for removal until one is issued.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NPOVmeans presenting all significant points of view in the case; the significant viewpoints are those of the US authorities, the British authorities, McKinnon's supporters, the Tories etc and not taking sides. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- All POV are appropriate, however using theme as direct sources and as authoritative is the question. His supporters should be mentioned, however support by a significant or notable individual should be cited directly, not through a supports site. Support sites that are a conduit or have a bias opinion should be included in the external links section. I have placed a citation needed next to this line so they can be cited by name and quote to ensure fairness and maintain NPOV.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- The ref you removed led to a site that didnt confirm the ref statement; if it had confirmed it I would have been happy to see it used for a statement that is unlikely not to be true but isnt obviously refable using google; NPOV isnt against biased opinion, merely against biased opinion being used to prevent an opinion (such as those held by his supporters) as fact or correct or right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, heres what we can do: we can take the individual supporters statements on their confirmed cites or on reputable third party cites and cite them individually. This avoids using the cite directly as a source, but confirms the material. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to get everyones opinion on the following link as a citation source. It is a CNN report that also describes the case in brief. NSH001, SqueakBox, Your thoughts?
- Ok, heres what we can do: we can take the individual supporters statements on their confirmed cites or on reputable third party cites and cite them individually. This avoids using the cite directly as a source, but confirms the material. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- The ref you removed led to a site that didnt confirm the ref statement; if it had confirmed it I would have been happy to see it used for a statement that is unlikely not to be true but isnt obviously refable using google; NPOV isnt against biased opinion, merely against biased opinion being used to prevent an opinion (such as those held by his supporters) as fact or correct or right. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- All POV are appropriate, however using theme as direct sources and as authoritative is the question. His supporters should be mentioned, however support by a significant or notable individual should be cited directly, not through a supports site. Support sites that are a conduit or have a bias opinion should be included in the external links section. I have placed a citation needed next to this line so they can be cited by name and quote to ensure fairness and maintain NPOV.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/07/31/black.uk.hacker.update.cnn
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Lead Article WP:LEAD Standards
As was mentioned by NSH001 in the edit summary just before this section was started, the lead paragraph will need to be reworked to comply with WP:LEAD and to make it more concise. It may make sense to keep appellate details in appeals section, and keep the lead confined to the general intro, being primarily he is a Glasgow Born, British subject/citizen facing extradition for what has been claimed to be the largest military hack of all times. We should be sure to source the last statement in quotes to ensure WP:NPOV. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't say anything about making it more concise, but WP:LEAD says it has to be a summary of the whole article. I am not in a hurry to change it, since the article is nowhere near decent shape yet. The obvious problems with the lead are that it makes no mention of McKinnon's POV, nor of this case's role in highlighting the one-sided nature of the UK-US extradition treaty. There is too much detail on the appeals, which should be moved to the appeals section, and expanded there, and just summarised in the lead. Overall, I expect the resulting size of the lead to be about the same, possibly slightly bigger. --NSH001 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with the assessment that the article has a long way to go and a summary may be a bit off at this point, but with regard to your description of the UK-US extradition treaty, wouldnt that be best left dealt with in its own article in its description? This case does raise several issues in case law both in the US and in the UK that should be reviewed such as extradition, probable cause on hacking cases, disability and diagnosis in the justice system, and government discretion. I would submit however that unless the issue is raised and found to be a credible argument in the case both in the UK or the US, that it is a detail without third party attribution as it would lead to a pro/con argument. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, which is why I added the 2003 Act as a "See also". However the one-sided nature of the treaty is part of the reason why his support is so widespread including even the leader of the Tories FFS, not to mention the Daily Mail, a newspaper I despise for its racist attitude to refugees and asylum-seekers, and not normally given to supporting "leftie" causes. Once this is brought out in the body of the article (with sources), it can be mentioned in the lead. --NSH001 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- As to the act, wouldn't there be a conflict with WP:Biography if we went to far into detail around external factors as the article continues to develop, or does the immediacy and relevance of the treaty overrule such concerns. Also, could you review the citations in the section above and offer your opinion. Thanks IlliniGradResearch (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- We do need to keep to the point inthe article which is a bio. We could cnsider an article on this treaty. I dont agree that pro-McKinnon is a leftie cause. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, the article deals with so many issues we lose sight of the fact it is a Bio article. I would like to submit it may be best to create a separate page for the case given it is both notable, and so is the person. The case and the treaty issues are so large and the support for the case in the UK should allow for the Bio article to be condensed and reduce editing that could come from NPOV sources, while offering a new page for insight into the case and its issues in a way that complies with wiki policy and practice. I would like everyones thoughts on this, and how it should be done and titled. If a consensus can be built to create a separate page for the extradition case, we should discuss how to implement and title it so that it can pass initial muster with new article admin's and avoid deletion. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- We do need to keep to the point inthe article which is a bio. We could cnsider an article on this treaty. I dont agree that pro-McKinnon is a leftie cause. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- As to the act, wouldn't there be a conflict with WP:Biography if we went to far into detail around external factors as the article continues to develop, or does the immediacy and relevance of the treaty overrule such concerns. Also, could you review the citations in the section above and offer your opinion. Thanks IlliniGradResearch (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, which is why I added the 2003 Act as a "See also". However the one-sided nature of the treaty is part of the reason why his support is so widespread including even the leader of the Tories FFS, not to mention the Daily Mail, a newspaper I despise for its racist attitude to refugees and asylum-seekers, and not normally given to supporting "leftie" causes. Once this is brought out in the body of the article (with sources), it can be mentioned in the lead. --NSH001 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with the assessment that the article has a long way to go and a summary may be a bit off at this point, but with regard to your description of the UK-US extradition treaty, wouldnt that be best left dealt with in its own article in its description? This case does raise several issues in case law both in the US and in the UK that should be reviewed such as extradition, probable cause on hacking cases, disability and diagnosis in the justice system, and government discretion. I would submit however that unless the issue is raised and found to be a credible argument in the case both in the UK or the US, that it is a detail without third party attribution as it would lead to a pro/con argument. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
McKinnon hacking case relies on hearsay - internal CPS document
There's an interesting Computer Weekly article about the poor quality of evidence against McKinnon here: "McKinnon hacking case relies on hearsay - internal CPS document." The article is written almost entirely in paraphrase, so it would have to be paraphrased further to avoid copyright issues, which makes its use as a source for Wikipedia difficult although probably doable. Anybody know if it's possible to access to the original CPS and DPP documents and court transcripts? (And it would be a real coup to get those smoking guns onto Wikileaks).--Farry (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the above section, the case details themselves might be best discussed in a separate article from the full bio. However, the position that evidence is weak is a moot point given he has admitted freely that he hacked the computers and left the message. What might be at dispute is the level of alleged damage he did and if it is worthy of an extradition level offense of the magnitude of which he has been charged. Please offer your thoughts on creating a separate article for the case and its details.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Lopsided extradition treaty
The major issue related to this case that's been raised in Parliament by the Conservatives and others, is that the extradition treaty is lopsided. This has been mentioned in a number of news reports. I gather that in order to extradite somebody from the UK to the USA, the USA merely has to show that there's a good case to answer. But to extradite somebody from the USA to the UK, the evidence has to be tested first in a US court. If the US court then judges the evidence to be bad (as did the UK court that originally declined to charge McKinnon in the UK) then that would block the extradition. So if the situation had been reversed, a US hacker in the same situation would NOT be extradited to the UK. It's an important enough issue to rate an entry in Wikipedia, although I'm not sure if it would best fit in this article, or in a separate article about the extradition treaty.--Farry (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree complete the treaty should be a separate article and may be best in with a split article with the bio in its own article, and the case in another, with the treaty and its issues as a part of the text. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the article about the treaty Extradition Act 2003? Bluewave (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct, it is there already. That being the case, and the face the McKinnon case is highlighted there, it should be enough to simply split the case from the bio of the person to keep the two clean and relatively POV free. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- Biography articles without infoboxes
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Computer Security articles
- High-importance Computer Security articles
- C-Class Computer Security articles of High-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer Security articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles