Pegasus Research Consortium

Blow for Gary McKinnon as U.S. extradition deal deemed 'fair'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049330/Blow-Gary-McKinnon-U-S-extradition-deal-deemed-fair.html#ixzz1axXKn7pO

The controversial Extradition Act under which Gary McKinnon faces being sent for trial in the U.S. is not biased against British citizens, a review has concluded.

But the panel will rule that  this is not necessary and that the current system is fair. The findings will be a political headache for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who promised in opposition to change the Act and save Mr McKinnon from extradition.

Writing in the Daily Mail in 2009, Mr Clegg called the Anglo-American treaty 'lopsided' and said it 'gives more rights to Americans than British passport-holders'.  He added: 'I forced a debate on it .?.?. and warned the Government that the treaty would lead to an abuse of people's rights in this country. But they wouldn't listen.'

Critics of the Act say it is lopsided because British citizens are not given
the same legal protection as their American counterparts.

(My words)  What did Gary McKinnon see in his hacking that caused such a stir?  The fact that he did indeed hack DOD computers says something about our lack of cyber defense.   His actions really did stir up a hornets nest.  I have seen no real news of what he did find if anything.  Why are we hell bent on getting this guy back here?

Quote(My words)  What did Gary McKinnon see in his hacking that caused such a stir?  The fact that he did indeed hack DOD computers says something about our lack of cyber defense.   His actions really did stir up a hornets nest.  I have seen no real news of what he did find if anything.  Why are we hell bent on getting this guy back here?

Gary Mckinnon....

You say.."Why are we hell bent on getting this guy back here?"

Well its been 11 years now and he still isn't over here. We got Bin Ladin a lot faster  :P

You say... "The fact that he did indeed hack DOD computers says something about our lack of cyber defense. "

He didn't hack any computers... he got into NASA computers that had no password protection, like about 80% of peoples home and office computers. Besides any DoD secret computers are on a different net that we cannot even access from our internet without a DoD CAC card and originating from a .mil site. Those networks are NiPRNET (sensitive'confidental; SiPRNET (Secret) JWICS (Top Secret) and one only known as "The Global (Top Secret and above)  None of those are accessable from our internet. The whole thing is a red herring.

Now it is of course possible some insider put some secret stuff on his office computer, but if that was the case you would never hear about that, and that worker would be in Gitmo by now.

You say... "What did Gary McKinnon see in his hacking that caused such a stir? "

Well what he saw was one of our NAVY space cruisers and a list of 'non terrestrial officers'. Problem is he was so doped up on pot that he didn't remember any names, nor did he remember to screen capture what he saw or 'save file'. He also forgot that a computer has a cache that contains everything you saw on the internet that day in the 'temp internet cache"

So for all his trouble and 'hacking skills'  he got nothing

In Gary's OWN WORDS...

QuoteHis Bufora friends "were living in cloud cuckoo land", he says. "All those conspiracy theorists seemed more concerned with believing it than proving it." He wanted evidence. He did a few trial runs, successfully hacking into Oxford University's network, for example, and he found the whole business "incredibly exciting. And then it got more exciting when I started going to places where I really shouldn't be".

"Like where?" I ask.

"The US Space Command," he says.

And so, for the next seven years, on and off, Gary sat in his girlfriend's aunt's house, a joint in the ashtray and a can of Foster's next to the mouse pad, and he snooped. From time to time, some Nasa scientist sitting at his desk somewhere would see his cursor move for no apparent reason. On those occasions, Gary's connection would be abruptly cut. This would never fail to freak out the then-stoned Gary.

Quote"What was the most exciting thing you saw?" I ask.

"I found a list of officers' names," he claims, "under the heading 'Non-Terrestrial Officers'."

"Non-Terrestrial Officers?" I say.

"Yeah, I looked it up," says Gary, "and it's nowhere. It doesn't mean little green men. What I think it means is not earth-based. I found a list of 'fleet-to-fleet transfers', and a list of ship names. I looked them up. They weren't US navy ships. What I saw made me believe they have some kind of spaceship, off-planet."

"The Americans have a secret spaceship?" I ask.

"That's what this trickle of evidence has led me to believe."

"Some kind of other Mir that nobody knows about?"

"I guess so," says Gary.

"What were the ship names?"

"I can't remember," says Gary. "I was smoking a lot of dope at the time. Not good for the intellect."

QuoteAnd then my friend told me about Darpa. And so I started again."

Darpa is the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, an intriguing collection of brilliant military scientists, funded by the Pentagon. Darpa has been widely credited with inventing, among other things, the internet, the global positioning system, the computer mouse, and - somewhat more boneheadedly - FutureMAP, an online futures market designed to predict assassinations and bombings by encouraging investor speculation in such crimes. The US Senate once described FutureMAP as "an unbelievably stupid idea". Darpa has long been of interest to conspiracy theorists because it is semi-secretive, bizarre (they have put much effort into creating a team of telepathic spies) and occupies that murky world that lies between science and war.

Well there you have it... But you also have to figure in another factor. I visit military and non public NASA sites all the time, via the front door and get a lot of info. But Gary is not an American and was not on American soil. Many .mil sites cannot be accessed from outside (though today more of them have a public front page)

I WISH he had remembered the names of those ships, or the officers. I have been looking for those ships for years. As to the officers, just read my Navt Space Command thread... you will see names of Commanders there :P No hacking required, the information is FOIA fror AMERICANS, not necessarily for some punk kid smoking dope in a foreign country.

As to the officers, the 'non terrestrial' kind?

QuoteGeneral Kevin P. Chilton
                      Commander, Air Force Space Command

"The establishment of Space Command is a crucial milestone in
the evolution of military space operations. Space is a place--like
land, sea, and air--a theater of operations. And it was just a matter
of time until space was treated as such."
~ General James V. Hartinger, 1 September 1982

Beginning in the mid-1980s, concurrent with the development of space operations and space engineering curricula at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Navy began "coding" officers as space subspecialists. As space subspecialty codes were then assigned to particular officers' billets on numbered Fleet staffs and at commands ashore, the service began assigning Navy members with matching codes to those positions. More recently, the Navy has begun efforts to build a cadre of "space smart" officers, enlisted personnel and civilian employees.

The Naval Space Cadre is composed of active-duty and reserve Navy and Marine Corps officers and enlisted personnel, along with Navy civilian employees from a wide range of career fields who meet mandatory education, training and experience standards established for a particular certification level. The Navy Space Cadre is a distinct body of expertise horizontally and vertically integrated within Navy and Marine Corps active duty, reserves and civilian employee communities organized to operationalize space

Initial identification of the cadre began in mid-2001 with the standup of the Naval Space Cadre Working Group and culminated in a naval message (NAVADMIN 201/03 DTG211435Z JUL 03) announcing the first 700 officer members of the cadre. These officers were identified by the subspecialty codes of 6206, Space Systems Operations, and 5500, Space Systems Engineering or by the additional qualification designator of VS1, VS2, VS3 or VS4. Identification of enlisted and civilian cadre members is more challenging, as these groups do not have specif?ic space identifiers like the officers do.

Approximately 265 billets are currently identified as space billets. These jobs are in Navy, joint and National Security Space organizations. Space cadre members are currently assigned throughout the National Security Space arena, including the National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Space Architect, National Security Space Integration, MILSATCOM Joint Program Office, as well as in all Navy organizations that deal with space.

High Frontier
The Journal for Space and Missile Professionals
Summer 2004

So there ya go 700 officers with 265 space billits :D And you can order the subscription from the Air Force

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PkNPCEnJM

Here is one of those non public NASA file servers. All ya have to do is ask nicely and they will let you in to grab a file, like the Methane on Mars... 

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Life/NASA_Access_001.png)

See that warning? I don't understand why Gary supporters think he is a hero... He got caught with his pants down... he was stupid and on dope, and he got nothing.

In the end 11 years later, he is still in the UK. This has to be the longest extradition on record  :o. If he was really a threat, he would have had an accident a long time ago.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/General/afisna_2.gif)

Internet Presents Web of Security Issues
By Paul Stone
American Forces Press Service

QuoteWASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 1998 – In a briefing room deep in the Pentagon earlier this year, Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Walsh and Maj. Brad Ashley presented a series of briefings to top DoD leaders that raised more than just a few eyebrows.

Selected leaders were shown how it was possible to obtain their individual social security numbers, unlisted home phone numbers, and a host of other personal information about themselves and their families simply by cruising the Internet.

Walsh and Ashley, members of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, were not playing a joke on the leaders. Nor were they trying to be clever. Rather they were dramatically, and effectively demonstrating the ease of accessing and gathering personal and military data on the information highway information which, in the wrong hands, could translate into a vulnerability.

"You don't need a Ph.D. to do this," Walsh said about the ability to gather the information. "There's no rocket science in this capability. What's amazing is the ease and speed and the minimal know-how needed. The tools (of the Net) are designed for you to do this."

The concern over personal information on key DoD leaders began with a simple inquiry from one particular flag officer who said he was receiving a large number of unsolicited calls at home. In addition to having the general's unlisted number, the callers knew specifically who he was.

Beginning with that one inquiry, the Joint Staff set out to discover just how easy it is to collect data not only on military personnel, but the military in general. They used personal computers at home, used no privileged information not even a DoD phone book and did not use any on-line services that perform investigative searches for a fee.

In less than five minutes on the Net Ashley, starting with only the general's name, was able to extract his complete address, unlisted phone number, and using a map search engine, build a map and driving directions to his house.

Using the same techniques and Internet search engines, they visited various military and military-related Web sites to see how much and the types of data they could gather. What they discovered was too much about too much, and seemingly too little concern about the free flow of information vs. what the public needs to know.

For example, one Web site for a European-based installation provided more than enough information for a potential adversary to learn about its mission and to possibly craft an attack. Indeed, the Web site contained an aerial photograph of the buildings in which the communication capabilities and equipment were housed. By pointing and clicking on any of the buildings, a Web surfer would learn the name of the communications system housed in the building and its purpose.

Taking their quest for easily accessible information one step further, the Joint Staff decided to see how much information could be collected just by typing a military system acronym into an Internet search engine. While not everyone would be familiar with defense-related acronyms, many of them are now batted around the airwaves on talk shows and on the Internet in military-related chat rooms. They soon discovered how easy it was to obtain information on almost any topic, with one Web site hyper-linking them to another on the same topic.

What the Joint Staff was doing when they collected their information is commonly called "data mining" -- surfing the Net to collect bits of information on individuals, specific topics or organizations, and then trying to piece together a complete picture. Individuals do it, organizations do it and some companies do it for profit.

While the information they discovered presented legitimate concerns, it wasn't all negative. The Army's Ft. Belvoir, Va., home page was cited as one example of a Web site which served the needs of both the military and the public. It had the sort of information families or interested members of the public need and should get.

So what does all this mean? Is DoD creating individual and institutional security problems? In the rush to make information available to the internal audience, is too much being made available to the public and those who might want to inflict harm?

The Joint Staff doesn't pretend to have all the answers to these questions, but is encouraging users to think about these issues whenever they put information on the Internet; and they believe that, in some cases, DoD is it's own worst enemy.

Michael J. White, DoD's assistant director for security countermeasures, agrees with the Joint Staff analysis. Moreover, as a security expert, he is concerned DoD does indeed exceed what needs to be on the Internet.

"For fear of not telling our story well enough, we have told too much," he said. "Personally, I think there's too much out there and you need to stop and ask the question: Does this next paragraph really need to be there, or can I extract enough or abstract enough so that the intent is there without the specificity? And that is hard to do because we are pressed every day. So sometimes expediency gets ahead of pausing for a minute and thinking through the process: Does the data really need to be there? Is it going to hurt me tomorrow morning?

DoD's policy on releasing information to the public, as spelled out by Defense Secretary William Cohen in April 1997, requires DoD "to make available timely and accurate information so that the public, Congress and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy." The same statement requires that "information be withheld only when disclosure would adversely affect national security or threaten the men and women of the Armed Forces."

"On the one hand," Ashley said, "we have fast, cheap and easy global communication and coordination. On the other hand, we find ourselves protecting official information and essential elements of information against point-and-click aggregation. Clearly, this balancing act is a function of risk management. Full openness and full protection are equally bad answers. We have a serious education, training and awareness issue that needs to be addressed."

The Joint Staff repeatedly returns to the issue of "point- and-click aggregation" as a problem that is often overlooked when military personnel and organizations place data on the Internet. What they're referring to is the ability to collect bits of information from several different Web sites to compile a more complete picture of an individual, issue or organization with very little effort.

"The biggest mistake people make is they don't understand how easy it is to aggregate information," Walsh said.

The lesson from this is that even though what is posted on the Net is perfectly innocent in and by itself, when combined with other existing information, a larger and more complete picture might be put together that was neither intended nor desired.

A more obvious problem, yet still one not always considered when posting information on the Internet, is that the "www" in Web site addresses stands for "world wide" Web. Information posted may be intended only for an internal audience perhaps even a very small and very specific group of people. But on the Net, it's available to the world.

This, security experts agree, is an enormous change from the time when foreign intelligence gathering was extremely labor intensive and could only be done effectively on U.S. soil.

"If I'm a bad guy, I can sit back in the security of my homeland and spend years looking for a vulnerability before I decide to take a risk and commit resources," Ashley said. "I'm at absolutely no risk by doing that. I can pick out the most lucrative targets before hand, and may even just bookmark those targets for future use. We won't know something has been compromised until it's too late."

White agrees with the Joint Staff's concern.

"You can sit in Germany and have access to the United States just as easily as you can in Australia or the People's Republic of China or Chile," White said. "It doesn't matter where you are. You can go back and forth and in between and lose your identity on the net instantaneously. Those who seek to use the system feel comfortable they won't be discovered."

In addition to these issues, security experts see another recurring and disturbing problem. In the rush to take advantage of the Net's timeliness and distribution capabilities, military personnel are forgetting about or ignoring the For Official Use Only policies which previously made the information more difficult to obtain. Yet anyone using the Internet doesn't have to venture far into the array of military Web sites to come across one which states: "For Official Use Only."

If the information is For Official Use Only, security experts said Web site developers, managers and commanders must ask themselves whether the information should be there in the first place.

While officials are most concerned about the information being placed on military Web sites, they had similar warnings about individual or family Web sites. The Joint Staff recommends the same precautions should apply at home, especially as personnel move into high-ranking, key leadership positions.

At a time when the flow of information is beyond anyone's capability to either digest it or control its direction, it's not likely the problems brought forward recently by the Joint Staff will be solved any time soon. The first step, security experts said, is awareness the problems exist. Commanders have to understand not just the information capabilities of the World Wide Web, but the information vulnerabilities as well.

The second step, Walsh pointed out, is for commanders to become actively involved in the issue of what's being put on the Internet. Current DoD policies require that local commander, public affairs and security reviews prior to release of data on Web pages. But the flow of information is so great, these reviews may not be occurring and few are looking at the aggregation problem.

"I think it would be very appropriate for a public affairs officer to be the commander's lead representative," Walsh said. "But it's a commander's issue and it should go down command lines. This is certainly an operational security issue. Just like operational security is everybody's business, this ultimately is everyone's responsibility."

White concurred and recommends installations create "security-integrated product teams" which would be tasked to develop and implement guidelines for creating and monitoring Web sites on the installation.

"I think having a group come together before the (Web site development) process begins will remove an awful lot of pain in the long run," White said. "We need to step back one step and think before we begin any effort, because once it's done you can't undo it. That makes it very hard in a digital environment."

Although it's not possible to retrieve what's already on the World Wide Web, nor predict how it will influence future security issues, Walsh, Ashley and White believe it's not too late to make a difference. With a little more forethought and a lot more planning, it will be possible to better protect the next generation of warfighters, both on and off the battlefield, they said.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/websecurity/

Now granted, after years of research and getting insider contacts, I do know a thing or two on how to search and where to search... but the trick is knowing WHAT to search for.

Take that NASA server for example.  There are thousands of files there but I cannot browse them. I have to know which file I am looking for by name and author to request it. Yes publicly availbe in the US, but the public doesn't know what to ask for :D So... 'hidden in plain sight' as it were. NASA has hundreds of urls that don't just pop up on a google search

Now a few years back John and I had a 'visitor' from the DoD/AF-DIA. Spent 3 days 'chatting' with us. I am sure I posted that here somewhere already :P  But what was interesting is that after he left, he called back and said "I hope you don't think I was spying on you guys"

::) Nah never crossed our minds  ;D

Well a few days later something weird happened. Before when I did a google search I would maybe hit one good .mil reference in pages of common internet stuff and it may take days to get anything good... Well now all that has changed.

Here is a test in point...

Go and google "Airborne Laser"  look at your results (And you will find lots of cool stuff to boot :P )

Now here is a screen capture of my first page results... see any difference?

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Search_01.png)

So go in the front door, learn what to ask, who to ask and where to ask... You get a lot more in one day than Gary got in 7 years... and no storm troopers trying to mess up your day :P

@ Zorgon,  A million thanks for the detailed answer.  I remember you briefly telling me how to peruse the sites in a PM at the other place.  The answer you gave me in more detail will help me do more research and actually make it easier for me.

I know in law enforcement, we use our intranet which is not in any form hooked up to the internet.  That aspect however is still in danger of some employee without good sense putting something on a flash drive or portable hard drive and taking it home.

I was a COMSEC custodian in the early 70's but the internet for the public really did not exist.  We had to make sure we did not lose any pieces of our operation CEOI's.

Once again thanks for the answers.

QuoteGary hasnt been in any more trouble, just leave him where he is.

Well he still is on the loose isn't he?

::)

Quote from: spacemaverick on October 17, 2011, 12:08:57 AM
I know in law enforcement, we use our intranet which is not in any form hooked up to the internet.  That aspect however is still in danger of some employee without good sense putting something on a flash drive or portable hard drive and taking it home.

Yes and maybe we can get lucky that some Marine or NAVY person drops one in our laps :P

Thumb drives prohibited due to security concerns 

Quote4/15/2009  By Sgt. Judith Carver   , Marine Corps Base Quantico
MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va.  —

The use of a removable flash media storage device, which uses a universal serial bus connection, is prohibited on the Marine Corps enterprise network, according to Marine Administrative Message 647/08.

The MARADMIN, which came out last November, further includes the prohibited use of memory sticks, camera flash memory cards or any type of portable firmware-based storage device.

"Users should consult with the G-6 Information Assurance office if they have questions about these or other devices," said Richard Logsdon, the assistant chief of staff for G-6. "This policy applies to both the classified network and the unclassified network. Approved external hard drives are not subject to this prohibition."

Many users are unaware of why thumb drives are banned from government computers.

"The introduction of a banned device presents a threat to the network," said Logsdon.

The immediate discontinued use of removable flash media storage and memory devices was based on a credible and substantial threat to Marine Corps networks, according to the MARADMIN.

The MARADMIN has been out for five months now and employees are still using thumb drives.

"Between March 23 and 31 alone, 1,331 people across the Marine Corps used the banned devices, with 125 of those people located at Quantico," said Logsdon.

The Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Center enforces the MARADMIN.

"The Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Center has a very robust network security section that is charged with protecting the Marine Corps Enterprise Network," said Logsdon. "Activities that violate Marine Corps Enterprise Network policy quickly get the attention of that group who in turn communicates that information to the G-6 community."

People who violate the regulation will be penalized.

"At Quantico, the G-6 suspends access to the network for a minimum of 48 hours. The individual violating the policy is required to report to the G-6 to take additional Information Assurance training and to review the MARADMIN," said Logsdon. "The user's supervisor is also notified of the violation."

Personnel should be careful not to leave their computer "locked" when they take out their common access card. Logsdon explained, if a thumb drive was inserted while a person was still logged on, users "could be held accountable."

"Proper network security practice is to not only remove your common access card but to log out of your computer when it is unattended," said Logsdon. "This is especially important for those working in a common area where others have access to your computer."

"My advice is to log off and remove your common access card when leaving your computer unattended," said Logsdon.

The intent of the ban serves an important purpose.

"G-6, MCNOSC and Headquarters Marine Corps C4 understand that not allowing the use of thumb drives is very inconvenient. The inconvenience does not out weight the risk posed to the MCEN," said Logsdon. "All users have an obligation to comply with network regulations and to get the word out to their co-workers."

It's important to ensure that everyone in the work place is aware of the MARADMIN.
"If you see someone attempting to use a thumb drive or any other banned device you should stop them and remind them of the rules," said Logsdon. "If network users have questions they should contact their unit information systems coordinator or the G-6 help desk at 703-784-2111."

http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcbquantico/Pages/2009/Thumbdrivesprohibitedduetosecurityconcerns.aspx

IMMEDIATE DISCONTINUED USE OF REMOVABLE FLASH MEDIA STORAGE AND MEMORY DEVICES ON MARINE CORPS NETWORKS

Date Signed: 11/20/2008
MARADMIN  Active  Number: 647/08  2008 

R 182034ZNOV08
MARADMIN 647/08
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC C4//
SUBJ/IMMEDIATE DISCONTINUED USE OF REMOVABLE FLASH MEDIA STORAGE
/AND MEMORY DEVICES ON MARINE CORPS NETWORKS//
REF/A/MSGID:MCEN OPDIR 293-08/MCNOSC/-/-/NOTAL//
NARR/REF A IS THE MARINE CORPS NETWORK OPERATIONS AND SECURITY
CENTER (MCNOSC) OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVE (OPDIR) 293-08.//
POC/JOSEPH UCHYTIL/MAJOR/UNIT:HQMC C4 IA/-/TEL:703 693-3490
/EMAIL:JOSEPH.UCHYTIL@USMC.MIL//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1.  THIS IS A COORDINATED MESSAGE BETWEEN THE C4 AND
INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENTS AND IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH REF A.
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, USE OF ANY REMOVABLE
FLASH MEDIA STORAGE DEVICE WHICH USES A UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS (USB)
CONNECTION IS PROHIBITED ON THE MARINE CORPS ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(MCEN), BOTH NIPRNET AND SIPRNET, AS WELL AS THE MARINE CORPS
SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI) NETWORKS (JWICS AND
NSANET).   
2.  PROHIBITED DEVICES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:  FLASH/THUMB
DRIVES; MEMORY STICKS; CAMERA FLASH MEMORY CARDS; OR ANY PORTABLE
FIRMWARE BASED STORAGE DEVICE.  EXTERNAL HARD DISK DRIVES ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO THIS PROHIBITION.
3.  THIS ACTION IS PREDICATED ON A CREDIBLE AND SUBSTANTIAL THREAT
TO USMC NETWORKS.
4.  WAIVERS.  NO WAIVERS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS MARADMIN ARE
AUTHORIZED.
5. COMMANDS WILL ENSURE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POLICY WITHOUT
DELAY AND DISSEMINATE THROUGH THE WIDEST MEANS, INCLUDING POSTING ON
ORGANIZATIONAL BULLETIN BOARDS.
6. CANCELLATION CONTINGENCY.  THIS MARADMIN WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A SUBSEQUENT MARADMIN AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED
USE OF REMOVABLE FLASH MEDIA STORAGE DEVICES IS RELEASED.
7. RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY BGEN G. J. ALLEN, DIRECTOR, COMMAND,
CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS AND COMPUTERS.//

http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN647-08.aspx

Well...""Between March 23 and 31 alone, 1,331 people across the Marine Corps used the banned devices, with 125 of those people located at Quantico," said Logsdon."

... we could get lucky... :P but those 1,331 people were caught :P otherwise they wouldn't be a statistic  8)

Quote from: spacemaverick on October 16, 2011, 04:42:06 PM
What did Gary McKinnon see in his hacking that caused such a stir?  The fact that he did indeed hack DOD computers says something about our lack of cyber defense.   His actions really did stir up a hornets nest.  I have seen no real news of what he did find if anything.  Why are we hell bent on getting this guy back here?

You can probably guess what I think.... McKinnon saw exactly what he reported seeing.

• He saw lists of non-terrestrial officers (around 21mins into the video below) and folders containing raw and filtered NASA images (around 10mins) (just like Donna Hare said in the second video below)
• He saw lists regarding ship to ship and fleet to fleet transfers of materials that weren't Navy ships (22m20s).  Sorry Zorgon, they may not have been Navy ships but they might have been Space Command vessels I guess.  Gary also adds it was on NASA or Navy computers - sounds like space marines to me.  ;)
• He also saw a single image of a spacecraft that was clearly either Black ops (reverse engineered) or alien but claims he didn't save it!
• He may well have seen more that he has "chosen" to remain silent on in an effort to ensure his freedom

Unfortunately for us (but arguably fortunately for Gary), the Pentagon itself had e-security as good as the Brits and he couldn't hack them.  What would he have got his hands on then?

All of his claims tie in nicely with the Navy Space Command tip.  Gary McKinnon is telling the truth and the US authorities want to make an example of him.  If he does have more information then they are taking an enormous risk in my opinion.  I'm not convinced he's as much of a doped up idiot as Zorgon believes.  That doesn't mean I think he's a hero either Zorgon. :P


ETA:  I could probably tell you whether the non-terrestrial officers were Navy or Army by asking Gary whether he can remember their Rank.  Navy, Army and Air force have different designations for rank.  Publishing anything new though might make it worse for him so I'll let it go for now....

Quote from: Pimander on October 19, 2011, 12:05:02 AM
He saw lists regarding ship to ship and fleet to fleet transfers of materials that weren't Navy ships (22m20s).  Sorry Zorgon, they may not have been Navy ships but they might have been Space Command vessels I guess.  Gary also adds it was on NASA or Navy computers - sounds like space marines to me.  ;)

Not NAVY ships as in NAVY ships on the sea :P  Yeah Space Command ships NAVAL  and space marines are a chapter of the NAVY... the elite forces ;)

QuoteHe also saw a single image of a spacecraft that was clearly either Black ops (reverse engineered) or alien but claims he didn't save it!

Well ask him if it looked like this..

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/04images/Triangles/STS61C-31-2.JPG)

QuoteUnfortunately for us (but arguably fortunately for Gary), the Pentagon itself had e-security as good as the Brits and he couldn't hack them.  What would he have got his hands on then?

As I have already pointed out all the secret stuff isn't on our internet, so he couldn't have hacked it anyway... there is no connection between them save from a logon at a .mil IP address. Not to say some careless people copied stuff to their work comps :P

QuoteAll of his claims tie in nicely with the Navy Space Command tip.  Gary McKinnon is telling the truth and the US authorities want to make an example of him.  If he does have more information then they are taking an enormous risk in my opinion.  I'm not convinced he's as much of a doped up idiot as Zorgon believes.  That doesn't mean I think he's a hero either Zorgon. :P

Well I only base his dope habits on what HE tells us... I never met him. Sure he could be playing dumb to save his ass, but me.. I would have copied and sent that info to many places as security (insurance) As to rank of the officers, if they were army or air force he would not have had to specify they were not normal NAVY ships (my guess)

Now IF they ever get on with it and drag him to court, then all the juicy details would be brought up in court. :D But this is dragging on as long as Roswell and the JFK assassination... No one wonders WHY?

As for 'heros'... not to many hackers really get hired by the government. What if Gary was a North Korean, or a Chinese, or an Iranian?

Would we have the same sympathy then? Or would we be wanting a lynch mob?

I was once told I spend more time at .mil sites than most addicts spend at porn sites...  I tread very carefully and pay attention to what I SHOULD show... Just because its available to an American citizen, does not mean everyone in the world should have free access to that info. Not everyone out there has our best interests on their mind :)

No, it was definitely a "cigar shape craft".  In Gary's words (about 12m in the video I posted above):

Quote
    [Gary McKinnon:]  These folders were full of images in a proprietary NASA format, or in a format I'd never seen before: no jpegs or gifs. They were also 200 to 300 megabytes in size. And being on a 56K dial-up modem, there was no way I was going to download that at five minutes per megabyte.

    So what I did... The remote control program that gives you graphical control of the machine - I turned the resolution right down to, I think, 4-bit color and then on the desktop on the NASA machine, navigated to the folder, double-clicked on the first image. The application launches. The image comes up on the screen, but it's still very, very slow.

    And what I saw, or was hoping to see, was what she was describing as a saucer, very definite imagery. And what instead I saw I assume was the Earth. This was in shades of gray. You had the Earth's hemisphere taking up about 2/3 of the screen and then halfway between the top of the hemisphere and the bottom of the picture there was a classic sort of cigar-shaped object, but with golf-ball domes, geodesic domes, above, below, and this side [gesturing to the right], and I assume the other side as well. It had very slightly flattened cigar ends. No seams. No rivets. No telemetry antennae or anything like that. It looked... it just had a feeling of not being man-made. There was none of the signs of human manufacturing.

    [Kerry Cassidy]: So in essence it was a craft, is what you're saying?

    GM: Yeah. At first when I saw the top half I thought: Bollocks, it's just a boring satellite picture. But as more of the thing was revealed, it was obvious it wasn't like any satellite I'd ever seen. I've been space-mad since I was about 14, so I've seen lots of pictures of satellites.

SOURCE: Hacking the Pentagon : Gary McKinnon, London, England, June 2006 http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/gary_mckinnon_interview_transcript_en.html Video of interview in my previous post above.

So not a delta but a cigar craft with golf ball like geodesic domes.

I do agree with you about the dangers of who has access to info.  However, I think if Gary stands trial in the States he could get a long stretch and the case will drag on for more years.  I'd like to see the details that emerge but the outcome won't be a fair one.  Gary only wanted information of novel propulsion systems to free the world from energy dependency.  He hasn't done us any harm.  Does he deserve a 20 year stretch because the military didn't have a secure network?  I say no way!

ETA: Of course, he should have distributed every bit he found to safe places as insurance.  We only have his word that he didn't.

So if the NASA dude he was snooping on had a copy of the Whale Probe... he could have seen a "cigar shaped craft with a golf ball"

(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/409815-bigthumbnail.jpg)

I am curious though about one thing...

Why do Brits in general support Gary and many call him a hero? Would you all feel the same if he was an Iranian or a Chinese?

The reason I don't consider him a hero, but a buffoon... is because guys like him just bumbling along while on dope makes it harder for the real researchers to find things. Not only does it draw attention to security leaks that they tighten up, but they also move 'sensitive though public' files, making it harder.

I think they are just hanging him out to dry so others will set a message. When you look and listen to the comments on youtube, you would get the impression that most of them are high all the time. That doesn't make hero material, nor does it help the cause to legalize weed. :P

Most of us here would give our first born to get info like he claims he saw and fumbled... so yeah, I wanna take him out back to the wood shed to 'explain it' to him :P

Quote from: zorgon on October 21, 2011, 04:59:13 AM
So if the NASA dude he was snooping on had a copy of the Whale Probe... he could have seen a "cigar shaped craft with a golf ball"

Bloody Trekkies!  It was a real one Zorgon. :P  Mind you, I bet the Romulans are real.  If materialistic atheists have had the upper hand here, why not in space?

Quote from: zorgon on October 21, 2011, 04:59:13 AM
I am curious though about one thing...

Why do Brits in general support Gary and many call him a hero? Would you all feel the same if he was an Iranian or a Chinese?

We support him because he doesn't deserve to be the scape goat for some dumb ass at the DoD who thought it was OK to leave an unsecured network.  He's no hero but I do respect him for doing something more than most pot heads about his "crazy" beliefs.

If it was a Iranian or N Korean pot head I'd probably feel the same.  According to Gary there were lots of foreign nationals snooping.  They just picked on one they could get to easily due to our extradition agreement and "special relationship".

Quote from: zorgon on October 21, 2011, 04:59:13 AM
Most of us here would give our first born to get info like he claims he saw and fumbled... so yeah, I wanna take him out back to the wood shed to 'explain it' to him :P

I'll keep in private (see PM) some of my thoughts on his naive assumption he would just be able to pop back any time to get more info and save the rest later.   ::)

I can't honestly deny wanting to "explain it" to him properly too.  I bet he's had a few sleepless nights over the years to think about what he should have done if that's any consolation to you.

Here is an update on Gary's extradition.

Clegg breaks ranks to order new review into Gary extradition

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063492/Clegg-breaks-ranks-order-new-review-Gary-extradition.html#ixzz1eBtkPfKQ

The Deputy Prime minister has ordered a new review of the extradition.