History > 2008 > UK > Politics > House of Lords (I)

Cybercrime:

'World's most dangerous hacker'

to be extradited to US

Wednesday July 30 2008
Guardian.co.uk
Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Wednesday July 30 2008.
It was last updated
at 12:14 on July 30 2008.

A British man who hacked into computers at the Pentagon will face trial in the US after the law lords ruled that he should be extradited.

At the House of Lords this morning, Gary McKinnon, 42, was told that his appeal against extradition would not be granted.

McKinnon, an unemployed computer systems administrator from north London, invaded computer systems belonging to the US military in 2001 – shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He said he was merely searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life, but American officials labelled him the world's most dangerous hacker and accused him of deleting important files and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage.

According to prosecutors, McKinnon scanned more than 73,000 US government computers and hacked into 97 machines belonging to the US army, navy, air force and Nasa.

His lawyers have fought vigorously against the extradition, arguing that McKinnon could face up to 60 years in prison as a result of his actions, and could even be classed as an "enemy combatant" and interned at Guantánamo Bay. Instead they argued that he should face prosecution under Britain's more lenient computer crime laws because he carried out the hacking from his bedroom in London.

But the law lords today rejected that argument. "The difference between the American system and our own is not perhaps so stark as the appellant's argument suggests," said Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in his ruling.

"It is difficult to think of anything other than the threat of unlawful action which could fairly be said so to imperil the integrity of the extradition process as to require the accused to be discharged irrespective of the strength of the case against him."

In a statement, McKinnon's legal team said it would be taking the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

"Gary McKinnon is neither a terrorist nor a terrorist sympathiser," the statement said. "His case could have been properly dealt with by our own prosecuting authorities. Instead, we believe that the British government declined to prosecute him to enable the US government to make an example of him.

"American officials involved in this case have stated that they want to see him 'fry'. The consequences he faces if extradited are both disproportionate and intolerable and we will be making an immediate application to the European Court to prevent his removal."

Cybercrime: 'World's most dangerous hacker' to be extradited to US, G, 30.7.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/30/gary.mckinnon

Crisis Lords meetings

over sleaze allegations

· Lord Hoyle's contact with arms lobbyist on agenda
· Privileges committee to discuss possible inquiry

Monday March 31 2008
The Guardian
David Leigh and Rob Evans
This article appeared in the Guardian
on Monday March 31 2008 on p2 of the Top stories section.
It was last updated at 00:03 on March 31 2008.

Crisis meetings are to take place in the House of Lords today over a series of sleaze allegations against peers, the Guardian can disclose. These include accusations that cash has been taken from lobbyists, passes handed out to commercial interests and expenses improperly claimed.

A special meeting has been called of the full Lords privileges committee, on which all the peers' party leaders sit. It is due to discuss whether an official inquiry can go ahead into Doug Hoyle's alleged receipt of cash from an arms company lobbyist.

A subcommittee led by Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, was originally scheduled to meet on Tuesday to try to question Lord Hoyle about a complaint suggesting he could have breached the peers' code of conduct.

The Guardian revealed last year that Hoyle, a former Warrington MP and Labour frontbencher, secured a personal introduction for the lobbyist to Paul Drayson, then the arms procurement minister.

But sources close to the privileges committee, whose members include Lady Ashton, Labour leader of the Lords, say there are doubts about whether the subcommittee is capable of conducting the unprecedented inquiry without support.

The increase in allegations is also causing resentment among some peers, who are unaccustomed to being in the firing-line. Unlike the Commons, which has a professional standards commissioner, the Lords does not have an effective means of dealing with ethics complaints.

Three peers apologised this year for not declaring, during a military debate, that they were paid by arms suppliers. Another Labour peer, Jack Cunningham, faces the prospect of an investigation as to whether he should have declared a £36,000 payment from the City of London corporation.

A public register of interests for research assistants, as already exists in the Commons, was promised last year after disclosures that Westminster passes were being handed out by peers to commercial interests. But it has not yet been organised.

Ashton has also called a separate private meeting of peers for later today, to warn that generous peers' expenses are bound to face reform. One senior peer said yesterday: "The present system leads to duplicity and fudge."

Peers do not receive a salary but can claim tax-free expenses for first-class travel to London, plus up to £308 without receipts for daily subsistence and "office costs". Some peers have been accused of routinely claiming the maximum for merely "clocking in", or using the money to subsidise their London flats.

The Hoyle case arose out of freedom of information litigation by the Guardian, which passed the evidence to Lord Woolf. Ministry of Defence documents disclosed that Hoyle had facilitated an introduction in June 2005 between the arms company lobbyist Michael Wood and Lord Drayson.

The meeting took place in the Lords tea-room, and Wood was able to follow it up with a personal call to the minister, who was responsible for ordering millions of pounds of military equipment.

But according to the MoD documents, Hoyle never disclosed to Drayson that he was taking money to arrange the meeting, as the code of conduct requires. Hoyle now says he "does not know" whether he made any declaration, and Drayson, who has left the government, has so far chosen to remain publicly silent.

According to the Lords code of conduct, introduced in 2002, the privileges subcommittee is the body officially created to investigate disputed complaints. But the present test case is the first in which the committee has been called on to do so.

Its members also include Dick Marsh, the 80-year-old former transport minister in Harold Wilson's government; Betty Lockwood, 84, who chaired the Equal Opportunities Commission for eight years from 1975; the Liberal Democrat academic Trevor Smith, 70, and the hereditary Conservative peer Earl Ferrers, 80.

    Crisis Lords meetings over sleaze allegations, G, 31.3.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/31/lords

4.45pm GMT

Government suffers Lords defeats

on Northern Rock bill

Thursday February 21 2008
Guardian.co.uk
Haroon Siddique and agencies
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk
on Thursday February 21 2008.
It was last updated at 16:55 on February 21 2008.

Government hopes that legislation to nationalise Northern Rock would pass swiftly through parliament were dealt a blow today as it suffered a series of defeats in the House of Lords.

A Liberal Democrat amendment for a provision requiring the Bank of England to carry out an audit of the bank within three months of it coming into public ownership - and thereafter at least annually - was passed by 154 votes to 142 after winning support from the Tories.

The Liberal Democrats then reciprocated, helping vote through – by a majority of 31 - a Conservative amendment to bring the bank, when nationalised, within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

Peers then backed a Tory move to require the Office of Fair Trading to report regularly to parliament on the effect of the nationalisation of Northern Rock on competitiveness in the banking sector, amid concerns it would give the ailing bank an unfair advantage. The opposition won by 158 votes to 137.

The defeats came as a setback to the government as it tries to push through the legislation by the end of the day.

The bill went through the Commons in a single sitting on Tuesday but the defeats in the Lords raised the prospect of a "ping-pong" battle between the two houses delaying its passage.

Liberal Democrat frontbencher Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay said there were "important reasons" for an independent audit by a firm of auditors not associated with the previous regime.

"There are very serious concerns now in the City about the last interim report - the last published report - we have seen from Northern Rock on June 30 last year," he said.

"I think it would be a gross dereliction of duty if we did not insist on this."

Tory attempts to limit operation of the banking (special provisions) bill to a month, rather than a year and to exclude building societies from its provisions were both defeated.

Following assurances from the government about their plans for transparency, the Liberal Democrats withdrew amendments that would have required the Treasury to put quarterly reports before parliament on the current exposure of the taxpayer,

But Lord Newby, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the Treasury in the Lords, warned that he may return to the issue at a later stage.

Government suffers Lords defeats on Northern Rock bill, G, 21.2.2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/21/economy.alistairdarling