Jump to content

Talk:Gary McKinnon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ebricca (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 30 March 2018 (→recent events.. what happened after 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal: Add Assange's page to see also section

As well as add McKinnon's to Assange's S.A. section.

Vandalism

Just removed some vandalism calling Aspergers syndrome bs syndrome. Maybe this should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.24.103.94 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Anyone know what the law involved in the US is? Zetetic Apparatchik 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among others, there is 18 USC 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The text of the statute is available here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 Ometecuhtli2001 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was this guy on NPR? If so, when? -Hoekenheef 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Gary McKinnon (section)Was the real secret star wars project was film in space by 2 people at the same time Gary McKinnon LACROSSE radar satellite operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office LACROSSE radar satellite operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office of the Director of National Intelligence LACROSSE radar satellite operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office of Naval Research :) :) :) http://m.space.com/29184-secret-spy-satellite-lacrosse-5-revealed.html http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/KA_DZZ_06.jpg 

others that have film space footage Nanosail_bydantowitz1.jpg?resize=195,174

www.spacesafetymagazine.com195 × 174Search by image Image captured by Ron Dantowitz using the 640 mm aperture Ritchey-Chretien telescope of the Clay Center Observatory on August 19, 2011 (Credits: Ron http://www.clayobservatory.org/about/staff/ his image http://i1.wp.com/www.spacesafetymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Nanosail-D_20110524_newset1ta1.jpg?resize=600%2C331 http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2014/30/a889a6114e2596c70ae14d25a0793be96b9f3370.jpg I now have conformation from others my footage is the same as what they film how amazing https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/w_TQWpD7mH-KnogXZS6XeLo8eA3gSTpguRKmzmj_vepogxz6SEZbn8m4mAvlnt-TbsX0d7pFZapfHyUpTT1iHQ=w426-h240-n From: 

Gerry Gilmore gilastcamacuk 
Sent: 
Sat 2/10/07 2:37 AM 
To: 
john lenard santamonicajohn 
Hi John, 
thank you for the moon images: once again they show that you are an 
excellent photographer. 
There are of course many satellites in orbit, only a few of which are 
anything to do with JPL, but these are readily seen by 
astro-photographers like yourself all over the world. 
You should just enjoy the excellence of your images, and make them 
available as widely as is possible, through the public web-sites, 
magazines, etc, so you can get the credit you deserve for your skills. 
best regards 
Gerry 
text©2008 by John Lenard Walson. All Rights Reserved. 

Sent:Gerry Gilmore gilastcamacuk 
Thu 1/18/07 3:37 AM 
To: 
john lenard (santamonicajohn@hotmail.com) 

Hello again, 

and again my congratulations on your superb astrophotography 

You are clearly getting some images at almost the diffraction limit of 
your telescope. In the very sharpest images there are hints of diffraction 
rings visible on the edges of the satellites. That is of course the 
absolute limit of optical performance, and is only rarely attained. 
You might also be interested in a journal produced by the 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory - which is the group which has built some of the 
things you are seeing. Much of what they do is what used to be the 
Star wars project, which no doubt involves some of your objects. They 
don't talk about the military satellites, 
of course, but there are many dicussions of earth surveillance, and 
related issues. It is distributed only to academic organisations, so 
you may need to get your local library to borrow it, but you 
may be able to get this (for free) from 
Subscription Coordinator 

Gerry 
Professor of Experimental Astronomy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.81.204 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hm... good point on the "black hat" part. I'm going to edit that slightly. --SheeEttin 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, I changed it. Re Scottishness, 'born in Glasgow' covers it. Hakluyt bean 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You misspelt misspelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.99.139 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

There is an interesting article about mckinnon in the december issue of details magazine. Sometimesseespeople 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks fine to me and I would like to see it kept, SqueakBox 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I really think "hack" is more appropriate - it's by far more widely recognized. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For him to get 60 years, the sentences would have to be consecutive. The changes of that happening to a first-time non-violent offendor are only slightly higher than the chances of a UFO landing on his lawn. The article should point this out; Wikipedia should not be repeating the paranoid/emotionally-manipulative bogus claims being made by KcKinnon and his suporters, as it currently does, without also providing the other side of the story - along with links to the appropriate US legal code sections on sentencing recommendations to back it up. I used to know where those were, back when I was involved in filing a 'friend of the court' brief in the Robert Morris case, but do not have time to research that now. Noel (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. Before 2020, if you can. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, April 3, 2015 (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)]][reply]
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)[reply]
Not sure that is the objection.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Juries in the UK can also use jury nullification. It's just that the judge doesn't actually tell the jury that it is an option. How a UK jury arrives at its verdict is between the 12 constituent members and noone else (in fact the members are forbidden from discussing it outside of the jury room (in theory) in perpetuity). Should the 12 members decide that the defendant is guilty but the law itself is wrong, they are perfectly entitled to return a 'not guilty' verdict. The judge may note that the verdict is 'perverse', but is otherwise bound to accept it. I believe that there is a plaque on the wall of the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) enshrining this right. This comes from an episode that worked the other way around. The judge demanded a 'guilty' verdict without allowing the jury to hear the defence case, the jury decided to acquit. See this episode for more on this - and here. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You would be right - except that most UK jury members are unaware of their right of jury nullification. The judge certainly does not point it out and the respective counsels are not permitted to instruct the jury (that is the sole perogative of the judge). 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to say here, that I served on a jury in England a few years back, and we were actually told of our right to nullification, although that actual term was not used. It was not from the judge, but another guy (the bailiff maybe?), who was the one who told us about how things work before we go in. He told us we could make a verdict based on any reason we wanted, and made it clear using a number of examples such as he had a bad haircut or the law is wrong. Somethingack (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I get this right, you were told by a bailiff that you could determine a persons innocence or guilt by their haircut? MrZoolook (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)]][reply]

SOLO v I'll be needing KY

What is this all about? Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the article?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

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):[reply]

Ahh I see, the version of the page I looked at did not have this part.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]][reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Heaven forbid Wikipedians exercising any compassion or humanity.Chump Manbea (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are important, but not for Wikipedia. I try to be a compassionate person, and I support McKinnon's request to be tried in the UK. But I came to read the Wikipedia article because I wanted to hear the facts. I'm in a better situation to make a decision about something, and justify my own position, if I've heard both sides of the argument. 82.32.31.166 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/07/31/black.uk.hacker.update.cnn

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Isn't the article about the treaty Extradition Act 2003? Bluewave (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

New news, I think.

This may be of value to the article. [2]. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have used it to reference an update to the article now. __meco (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


alleged value

source #18 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm states "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." the article that points to this source mentions 800,000. Gcbwiki (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense claims

from the article "claim[s] he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours,"

that does not make much sense from a technical perspective with only this data. it's like saying "someone stole my piano from the living room, leaving my hidden safe in the study room open for others to steal". it's idiotic and should be pointed as so. not repeated ipsis literis.

Then it's followed by another one that makes even less sense! "deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable". how deleting log of war readiness makes 300 computers inoperable? Gcbwiki (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By overreaction?
I'm assuming that once they realised there was at least one hacker in the system they simply shut down the power losing everything, in which case damages were caused by their own hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.169.220 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'By overreaction'. It seems the chain of events that led to McKinnon being investigated and accused of various offences was actually long drawn out. When browsing the Files of an Pentagon Computer McKinnon was noticed by another Computer user from an American University who asked him what he was doing Logged on to that Computer. The Computer user then contacted the American Authorities who began an investigation that eventually led to Mr McKinnons arrest. This was stated by McKinnons mother who was being interviewed by 'Coast2Coast.am' Radio Show in the U.S. She also stated that McKinnons real interest was not U.F.O.s but 'Free Energy' machines, (which was presumably why he was browsing technical Files).Johnwrd (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section is way too long

We should make it more concise and move other material, where relevant, lower down. See WP:LEAD#Length. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage of the Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis

The reference to the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome says that he was diagnosed with this condition in 2008. However, it has been mentioned in news on Radio Four in May 2010. The news said something to the effect of because he had Asperger's syndrome, he might commit suicide if tried and found guilty. I did not think this was very good reporting, as depression is NOT the same as Asperger's syndrome. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnston

In January 2010 Justice Mitting granted McKinnon a Judicial Review into the decision of Alan Johnston then Home Secretary’s decision to allow McKinnon’s extradition.

I'm pretty sure Alan Johnson was Home Secretary, and Alan Johnston is the journalist... --81.2.66.148 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a member of hacking group codezero?

I was reading around the subject, and stumbled onto this:

http://cd.textfiles.com/thegreatunsorted/zines_and_groups/zines_a-l/crh004.txt

It's a 'zine by the hacking group codezero, with some articles by 'so1o'. Does anyone know if it's the same guy? Somethingack (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger syndrome, not autism

As stated in the article itself, Gary McKinnon has been diagnosed with the autism SPECTRUM CONDITION Asperger syndrome, not with autism per se. Persons with autism, as a population, have partially overlapping but much more severe issues to deal with that do people with Asperger syndrome, and this persistent public confusion of the broad diagnosis of Asperger syndrome with the more specific diagnosis of autism devalues the challenges and successes of people who really do have autism. The word and wikipedia link "autism" in the introductory paragraph ought to be the word and wikipedia link "Asperger syndrome".

Matthew Belmonte (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas and Questions

First let me say that I don't have an opinion on wether Gary McKinnon is guilty or not. If what he says he was doing is true then I personally have no problem with that. If he did anything it was to point out the security issues with the U.S. governemnt's computer systems.

My thoughts are this. McKinnon stated in an interview posted on youtube that his actions could be witnessed by someone sitting at the machine while he was hacking it. What is the difference between him hacking into the computer from the U.K. and him sitting at the machine itself? Let's say he was physically caught at the machine in the U.S. and somehow returned to the U.K. After he returned, the U.S. governement decided to extradite him back to the U.S. to stand trial for charges of breaking into a government computer. Would there be an issue then? His own words say that there was no difference of him sitting at home hacking into the computer and him sitting at the actual machine itself. He should be subject to the laws of the country that the machine is in. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhatzman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

I would like to propose a new section on 'Early Life' here is some initial content for comment:

Born and raised in Glasgow, McKinnon got his first computer when he was 17 years old; he went on to become a hairdresser for a while before friends convinced him to get a qualification in computers.[1] After completing a course he started doing contract work in the computing field.[1] Horation12 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. LENR

Hi, it seems that recent events suggest that Mckinnon's allegation of a free energy cover up should be investigated as he may have discovered this years earlier including possible classified DoD and NASA work on LENR.

If so then this could prove once and for all that LENR really did work all along but had been ignored by the scientific community under huge pressure from "Big Oil".

This has massive implications for the UK Government who holds over 3000 classified patents of which 10% could relate to new energy sources or improvements to existing ones.

To add motives of hacking

In an interview he says that his motives were humanitarian. "We all rely on fossil fuel that leads to wars, pollution and even pensioners are dying in UK because they cannot afford heating." - he says. His suspicion that alternative energy sources are suppressed was his motive and evidence of UFO.

The article in general is more about legal case than a person. Either rename WP entry to Gary McKinnon's legal case or add proper topics. 1V13NA5 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

BLP concern re diagnoses

I've moving the "asperger'd diagnosis" section here for discussion now:

In August 2008, McKinnon was diagnosed by three experts (Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Professor Jeremy Turk and Professor Thomas Bernie) as having an autism spectrum disorder[failed verification] along with clinical depression.[3][4] The Labour MP Denis MacShane, implied in July 2009 that the late diagnosis of McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome was a sham[5] and for likening his case to that of Ernest Saunders's apparent Alzheimer's disease,[6] MacShane was criticised for his insensitivity by Michael White[5] in The Guardian, and John Scott, chairman of the Howard League for Penal Reform in Scotland, in The Herald found his comments disgraceful.[6]

McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, stated that he was suicidal and that he would not survive a U.S. prison incarceration.[7] She has received support from psychiatrist Professor Jeremy Turk of St George's Hospital, London, who said that suicide was now an “almost certain inevitability”.[8] On 10 November 2009, Janis Sharp gave evidence before the Select Committee for Home Affairs of the UK Parliament.[9] The Committee backed calls for the extradition to be halted because of McKinnon’s “precarious state of mental health” and called for a comprehensive review of the extradition treaty.[10]

{[reflist-talk}}

This seems to be mostly speculation about his health; Baron-Cohen never seems to have met with McKinnon but made an armchair claim about McKinnon. A lot of this seemed to be posturing. I don't think this should be in Wikipedia. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
  1. ^ a b BBC (31 July 2009). "Profile: Gary McKinnon". BBC.
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNsah-0vpY
  3. ^ "Gary McKinnon profile: Autistic 'hacker' who started writing computer programs at 14". The Daily Telegraph. London. 23 January 2009.
  4. ^ "Gary McKinnon 'no choice' but to refuse medical test". BBC News. 19 July 2012. Retrieved 17 Oct 2012.
  5. ^ a b Michael White "Gary McKinnon case: Trying him in UK is the compelling resolution", theguardian.com, 16 July 2009
  6. ^ a b John Scott "Let's not creep into another misuse of legal powers", The Herald, 20 July 2009
  7. ^ Hirsch, Afua; Gabbatt, Adam (27 November 2009). "Gary McKinnon's mother brands extradition of her son 'disgusting'". guardian.co.uk. London, UK. Retrieved 27 November 2009.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Hope, Christopher; Porter, Andrew (27 November 2008). "Gary McKinnon extradition: suicide 'almost inevitable' psychiatrist warns". The Telegraph. London, UK. Retrieved 27 November 2008.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ "Home Affairs Committee Archives". UK Parliament. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
  10. ^ "MPs want hacker transfer halted". BBC News. 2009-11-12. Retrieved 30 June 2010.

Proofs are proofs

Thank you for thinking to archive this information for future use. Yet another decategorization of the article based on the subject’s Asperger’s syndrome has happened in the last 24 hours. In reviewing your references, citations and source links to such notable news sources as The Telegraph (which stated in its news report of November 27, 2009 that “McKinnon … is known to suffer Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism”), The Guardian (which stated in its news report of November 27, 2009 that “McKinnon … has Asperger’s syndrome”), BBC News (which stated in its news report of November 12, 2009 that “McKinnon … has Asperger’s syndrome”), BBC News (which stated in its news report of July 31, 2009 that “McKinnon, … was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome - a form of autism”), and The Guardian (which stated in its news report of July 16, 2009 that “Labour MP Denis MacShane was wrong to hint that [McKinnon’s] late diagnosis with Asperger’s Syndrome (a form of autism) in 2008 should be treated as suspicious”), I consider the consistency in the reporting of the subject’s diagnosis to be remarkable apart from the “three experts” reference. Seldom do notable subjects have such a wealth of factual statements as has this subject. Even other, less emphatic, news reports have continued these statements of fact since the subject’s diagnosis became well known in 2008 and 2009. The notion that U.K. courts have weighed in on the matter of his diagnosis suggests strongly that there is something there, there. At the very least, a reference or two about the courts’ examination of the subject’s diagnosis should be as significantly included in the WP article as it had been in governmental and judicial proceedings. I support strongly replacing the archived references, citations and source links to the article as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I will recategorize the article based on the subject’s apparent Asperger’s syndrome within the article’s Talk page.24.11.116.253 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor layout edit

Change current == References == section to: 

== Further reading ==
* {{Cite court
|litigants=McKinnon v Government of the United States of America and another
|vol=
|reporter=
|opinion=
|pinpoint=
|court=House of Lords
|date=30 July 2008
|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm
}}
* [http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/the-autistic-hacker/0 The Autistic Hacker: Gary McKinnon hacked thousands of government computers] by David Kushner,  July 2011 [[IEEE Spectrum]]

and change current == Note == to == References == . 118.93.64.118 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong category

Remove Category:Unidentified flying objects per WP:CAT. 118.93.64.118 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ RobTalk 19:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary McKinnon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent events.. what happened after 2012

The thing is there is very little in the article about what happened after the 2012 denial of extradition by Theresa May.
there is his twitter feed [3] and youtube feed [4]
and also a reference to his business [5]
which he both seems to have been able to start in 2014 when he was allowed to use computers again.
A longer Interview from 2015 [6]
There is a reference in the interview to a book he was writing at the time which i was unfortunately unable to find which should have come out in 2016
His mother seems to have written a book as well about him which is also not mentioned in the article
Saving Gary McKinnon: A Mother's Story – May 13, 2014 [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebricca (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_McKinnon&oldid=833219675"