How Cisco & The Justice Department Conspired To Try To Destroy One Man's Life For Daring To Sue Cisco

from the shameful dept

Whenever we talk about the very serious risks and likely abuses of new laws favored by the entertainment industry -- such as PROTECT IP and the felony streaming bill, S.978, supporters of those bills insist that we're crazy for suggesting that the laws will be abused or that there will be any unintended consequences. We're told, over and over and over again that these laws are designed for and targeted only at the "worst of the worst." They're targeted at "rogue" actors, who must be stopped.

And yet, we've seen all too often how US officials have abused other such laws to attack and protect certain US companies from competition. A whole bunch of you have been sending over this incredibly frightening example of the Justice Department conspiring with Cisco to effectively try to destroy a former exec's life for daring to file an antitrust claim against Cisco, due to Cisco's desire to block competitors from servicing some of its products. Unfortunately, I actually found the version of the story at the Ars Technica link above a bit confusing (and it buries many of the key points). A much better way to understand just what Cisco and some federal prosecutors appear to have done is to read the ruling, embedded below, from a Canadian judge, who explains the whole thing clearly and bashes Cisco and the US Justice Department for its incredible overreach, for no reason other than to try to destroy the life of Peter Adekeye.

Adekeye, born in Nigeria, but a UK citizen, had apparently been a quite successful Cisco exec in both the UK and the US for many years. In 2005, he left Cisco and started a couple of companies himself, including one, Multiven, that offered to help provide maintenance services for various Cisco equipment. Apparently, Cisco tried to force customers into purchasing maintenance contracts only from them by denying third parties, such as Multiven, access to various bug reports and fixes. Because of this, Multiven sued Cisco, claiming antitrust violations. Cisco then countersued, including suing Adekeye directly, claiming that Adekeye had accessed Cisco's internal network illegally over 90 times. Adekeye does not appear to deny accessing Cisco's internal systems, but notes that he was given the login information from a Cisco employee, which he believed meant he was now authorized to use the system. It sounds like he used this access to get some of the info that Cisco had been denying Multiven. As part of its "hardball" litigation strategy, Cisco also sought to get the federal government to file criminal charges against Adekeye based on the exact same issue.

Separate from all of this, Adekeye had been dealing with attempts to get a work visa to be in the US for Multiven. The court ruling documents the incredibly ridiculous bureaucratic nightmare that Adekeye went through over the period of a few years in an attempt to seek proper visas to work in the US. At no time does it appear that Adekeye violated the various visas he did have. In fact, it sounds as though Adekeye bent over backwards (and then some) to always comply with US immigration and visa rules, even when it resulted in absolutely ridiculous circumstances, such as when he wasn't allowed back into the US, even though he'd been granted his H-1B visa. That story is crazy, but tangential to the point here -- though I suggest reading the ruling to get a sense of the ridiculousness of US immigration and visa policy.

In part because he was unable to get back into the US, Adekeye moved to Switzerland where a new Multiven office was opened, and continued his efforts to get his immigration status cleared up. As part of the ongoing legal dispute, Cisco wanted to depose Adekeye. Adekeye applied for permission to enter the US to do that... but was denied, and he was told if he went anyway, it could harm his chances of getting his visa status fixed. And Cisco used this to their advantage:

Notwithstanding this entirely reasonable explanation for his inability to attend a U.S. deposition, Cisco had the unmitigated gall to commence contempt proceedings for the applicant's "failure" to attend a U.S. deposition. It was, of course, unsuccessful, but it speaks volumes for Cisco's duplicity.

Eventually, all of the parties agreed to handle the deposition in Vancouver. It was outside the US, but close to Cisco's offices here in Silicon Valley. There was a separate (again tangential) issue involving the belief (which may not have been accurate, apparently) that a US deposition could happen in Canada without having to alert Canadian officials. It was at this deposition hearing in Vancouver on May 19th of last year that things got crazy. Cisco, knowing full well where Adekeye was and why he was in Vancouver -- and that he had tried and failed to get to the US -- apparently told the US Attorneys, who they'd been pushing to file criminal charges, about Adekeye's presence in Vancouver. The Justice Department then filed its criminal charges -- once again totally abusing the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA) to make Adekeye's actions sound much worse than they actually were, and had a warrant issued for Adekeye's arrest.

They then sought rather extraordinary efforts from the Canadian government to arrest Adekeye immediately. Part of that, according to the Canadian judge who issued this ruling, appeared to involve a US Attorney leaving out key information, making blatantly false insinuations about other facts, and in some cases, what appears to just be lying:

The affidavit made no mention of the fact that United States immigration authorities had refused the applicant entry to the United States. No mention was made that the applicant had no criminal record. No mention was made that the United States Federal Court had ordered a deposition in Vancouver, presided over by a "special master" at which six or more United States lawyers would be present. No mention was made that the criminal complaint "mirrored" a counterclaim brought by Cisco in the main action in which the applicant was seeking large damages in an antitrust suit.

Sinister inferences were suggested, leading to an inference that the applicant would be a flight risk. The affidavit stated that the applicant "is a Nigerian citizen who claims to have citizenship from the United Kingdom", and that he possibly had British citizenship, and that he was in Canada on a Nigerian passport. The latter reference invited an inference he might flee to Nigeria, a country from which extradition was highly unlikely. In fact, U.S. authorities well knew and had a duty to disclose to the issuing judge that the applicant was a citizen of the United Kingdom and possessed a British passport, on which passport he had entered Canada. They also knew and had a duty to disclose that he had been a resident of England, but was currently residing with his wife and child in Switzerland, and that he had travelled from Switzerland to Canada for purposes of the deposition.

What happened then was somewhat astounding. In the middle of the deposition, RCMP officials walked into the room, interrupted the deposition in progress and arrested Adekeye in the middle of the proceedings. The beginning of this is on videotape. Adekeye, his lawyers, and the "special master" clearly have no idea what's going on, but what's notable is that, while people repeatedly ask for the recording to be turned off, Cisco's lawyers immediately say that the recording should be left on. It appears they knew exactly what was going on and wanted the humiliating arrest on the deposition tape. You can see the video below. As the judge in this ruling notes, the police's actions "could be compared to entering a courtroom and arresting a person during the course of his or her testimony. It is simply not done in a civilized jurisdiction that is bound by the rule of law." Believe it or not, the situation then gets even worse and even more egregious. Adekeye was, in fact, arrested -- and the charges could have resulted in almost 500 years in jail, all for accessing a Cisco network with a password given to him by a Cisco employee. As you can see, he was removed from the deposition, much to the confusion of the special master appointed by the US court. After being arrested, he asked for bail, and Richard Cheng, an Assistant US Attorney for the Justice Department, sent a letter that was chock full of false and misleading information, which the judge in this case goes through step by step. It falsely implies that Adekeye did not really have British citizenship and that he did not really live in Switzerland. It stated that he used his Nigerian passport to enter the US under an E visa, which was not true. It claimed that the US had denied all of Adekeye's attempts to obtain a visa to visit the US since 2007, which as the ruling now notes "is simply not true." It also falsely stated that Adekeye had fled from law enforcement in the past. Again, the ruling noted "this statement was completely untrue."

And yet, federal officials continued to seek extradition. Even then, months after the arrest, the civil suit between Cisco and Multiven were settled, in a manner that everyone agrees was a "win" for Multiven, with Cisco changing its policy. So the key matter over which this highly questionable criminal charge was brought was settled. And yet, the feds continued to push forward. It was only in May of this year, a year after his arrest, that this new ruling came out and freed Adekeye to leave Canada and go back home.

Honestly, the whole story is really terrifying and makes me depressed to think that my government would do something like this. However, it should seriously call into question whether or not new laws like S.978 and the PROTECT IP Act should be allowed. It seems clear that the Justice Department has no problem using very questionable means to act as the private bullies of certain large companies. It should also call into question some of the recent efforts by other US Attorneys from the Justice Department, such as the efforts in coordination with Homeland Security/ICE to seize domains on questionable evidence, the attempt to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK over very questionable charges and, of course, the recent charges against Aaron Swartz.

All of these cases have key factors in common. They involve what at best should be minor civil issues between private parties in court -- but in which, due to the presence of certain large industry interests, the Justice Department steps in and starts throwing its considerable weight around, including insane possible punishment, all because of dubious and often extremely misleading claims from these private interests. It's possible that the Justice Department officials here are simply incompetent (and honestly, that's an only slightly more comforting idea than the alternative) and unable to realize they're being manipulated by companies seeking to stamp out competition. But it's certainly demonstrating a really horrifying pattern of questionable behavior by the Justice Department and US Attorneys not to focus on real criminal behavior, but to abuse the criminal justice system to take vindictive action against potential competitors for big US industry players.

Filed Under: antitrust, canada, extradition, immigration, justice department, peter adekeye, prosecution
Companies: cisco

How The US Gov't's Bogus Extradition Attempt Of Richard O'Dwyer Is Destroying Lives For No Reason

from the are-these-people-proud-of-themselves? dept

We've been covering the absolutely ridiculous attempt by the US government (mainly ICE and the Justice Department) to extradite former TVShack admin Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright charges. This is absolutely shameful for a variety of reasons, including the fact that sites quite similar to O'Dwyer's have been found to be perfectly legal in the UK, and the US appears to be using highly dubious claims in its reasoning for extradition. Even worse, the Justice Department and ICE are clamped up tight on this one, refusing to make any on-the-record comments about this attempt to take a kid, who doesn't appear to have done anything against the law, and drag him across the ocean against his will to put him on trial for criminal charges.

TorrentFreak has the (admittedly, extremely biased) thoughts from O'Dwyer's mother on the whole situation. It's really heart-breaking to think that the US government can be so actively destroying this family, despite an incredibly weak case.

As the ICE agents left they shook his hand and said “Don’t worry Richard you won’t be going to America”. Actually “going to America” had never entered Richard’s head! The same day Richard closed down the website himself.

On attending with Richard to answer bail in May this year when we expected he would either be charged or questioned further, he was told by the Police that the criminal investigation in the UK had been dropped. He was then told that he was going to be rearrested as they now had a Warrant for his Extradition to the US!

[....]

I am most concerned about Richard being in jail in America with no access to his family or friends. Given the current economic climate along with the distance it would not be feasible for anyone to be able to visit him if he were in jail in the US. The idea of having to spend around £1500 or more in air fares and hotels etc. in order to visit my son for one hour in a US jail is ridiculous and prohibitive. This is in total breach of his Human Rights, rights which other non – British subjects are afforded in the UK even some who have allegedly committed serious crimes

[....]

From a personal perspective this trauma has totally taken over my life. I hold a responsible senior position as a Specialist Nurse for Terminally ill children. My job requires me to advise other professionals and parents regarding strong medications for children.

I need to concentrate on my job and to be able to function at a high level. Since this nightmare came into our family I have been unable to work due to being off sick due to the stress. My concentration and level of functioning have been greatly affected to the degree that I would not be safe to do my job.

You really should read the whole thing.

And, really, who is this helping? At all? TVShack didn't host any of the content. It's still very much out there, and tons of others are linking to that very same content, much of which you can find with a simple Google search. So destroying this family doesn't stop or even slow down the infringement. It does raise serious questions about the US/UK extradition procedures, which seem to (contrary to the official claims) totally ignore the fact that similar sites have been found legal in the UK already.

When this case first came to light, I reached out to folks at both the Justice Department and Homeland Security to get comments, and both refused, pointing me only to press releases about domain seizures. Frankly, anyone involved in this case should be sickened and ashamed of themselves right now. This is not some criminal mastermind. This was a kid who built a simple website, which didn't host any infringing content, and is now being railroaded and destroyed by a system because a few folks in Hollywood say so. The fact that ICE now doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's doing this at the behest of a few entertainment industry giants, who don't want to adapt to the changing marketplace, just makes the whole thing even more disgusting.

This has nothing to do with protecting "rightsholders." Such rightsholders could go after those uploading content themselves if they wanted to. This seems to be a case where the existing administration is trying to destroy this family for no good reason at all, other than Hollywood told them to do it. Sickening.

Filed Under: copyright, doj, extradition, ice, jurisdiction, richard o'dwyer

Homeland Security Working Hard To Make Sure No One Wants To Use .com Or .net Domains

from the are-they-insane? dept

Remember Erik Barnett? He's the deputy director of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit, who seems to have a way with words. He's the guy who admitted that Homeland Security was censoring websites because entertainment companies asked them to. He's also the guy who lied about whether or not anyone was challenging domain seizures when he knew those challenges were underway.

Now he's out trying to defend the ridiculously short-sighted decision by the US government try to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK, for running the site TVshack, despite it almost certainly being legal in the UK. According to Barnett, none of that seems to matter, because O'Dwyer was using a .net.

"The jurisdiction we have over these sites right now really is the use of the domain name registry system in the United States. That's the key."

The only necessary "nexus to the US" is a .com or .net web address for which Verisign acts as the official registry operator, he said.

That's the key, but it's also ridiculous and stupidly self-damaging for the US. On a jurisdictional basis, there are a variety of different factors that people use to determine what the proper jurisdiction is, and relying solely on the registry, thus making all .com and .net (among other) domains US property, is simply ridiculous. Almost anyone thinking about it would realize that if a site is run by someone in the UK and hosted on servers in the UK, it's silly and counter-factual to claim that it's really US property.

Of course, the end result of this will be to drive more and more foreigners away from using US domain names. None of this will do anything to stop infringement, which Barnett seems to think is his job. But it will harm American companies (the ones he claims he's trying to help) by getting foreign internet users to stay away from them due to the liability that some hotshot in the Justice Department suddenly decides he or she wants to pull someone from their home and ship them to the US to face criminal charges on something that may have been completely legal where they're from.

Filed Under: domains, erik barnett, extradition, homeland security, ice, nexus

Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?

from the insanity dept

We already mentioned the attempt by the US to extradite Richard O'Dwyer, a UK student who ran TVShack.net and TVShack.cc, both of which were seized by ICE. Unfortunately, most of the press reports out of the UK lacked details, and I wasn't even entirely sure that an actual attempt at extradition had been made, or if there was just fear on the part of the O'Dwyer family. After some digging, however, it appears that this is absolutely the case. The Justice Department, out of the Southern District of NY -- the same DOJ offices that have been involved in the ICE seizures -- and ICE, via the US embassy in London, made the request to extradite O'Dwyer. I've now heard that from three separate sources. I also called the folks in the press office at the US Attorneys' office in SDNY to see if they were willing to respond to questions about the attempted extradition, and the answer is they don't want to talk about it at all. I believe the two quotes were "there is nothing in the public record we can comment on" and "there is no additional guidance we can give you," though they did offer to send me the press release they sent out when they helped seize the TVShack domains. Helpful.

Now, let's be entirely clear here. Dwyer has not violated UK law. Pretty much everyone agrees on this. In our initial post, we discussed a few similar cases in the UK that showed such site administrators were not liable. UK legal experts have been saying that what O'Dwyer did is legal in the UK as it matches up almost entirely with previous cases where people doing nearly identical things were found to have not violated the law.

So this is a massive jurisdictional and sovereign disaster waiting to happen. Basically, the US appears to be claiming that if you do anything on the internet, you're subject to US laws. That's crazy and is going to come back to haunt US law enforcement. Do they not realize that this is the same thing that other countries have tried to do to US citizens? The US even passed a law, the SPEECH Act, to make it clear that US citizens were not subject to the liability of other national laws, just because such things happen on the internet. To then turn around and pretend the opposite is true for everyone else is just massive hypocrisy.

Separate from all that, it's highly questionable if O'Dwyer is even violating US criminal copyright law, because there is no such thing as contributory criminal infringement (there is for civil copyright law, but it's nowhere to be found in criminal law).

Effectively, it appears that the US government wants to seize someone and drag them across the ocean to face federal charges for doing something that was (a) perfectly legal in his home country and (b) probably legal in the US. Do they not see how that might create some issues?

Honestly, this seems like the latest in a long series of massive screwups by ICE and the DOJ in the Southern District of NY, who appear to have rushed into the whole "copyright enforcement online" arena without bothering to understand the technical, legal and political issues involved. What they've done here is create an international incident, for which there will undoubtedly be ramifications. I've heard that while O'Dwyer is fighting the extradition, many suggest that it's effectively a done deal, that the UK government has agreed to the extradition without any scrutiny of the actual charges. I'm embarrassed that my country would make such a request in the first place, and shocked that the UK would merrily go along with it, sans scrutiny. It's gone beyond exporting our IP laws through treaties and diplomatic pressure to the absolutely ridiculous stance that the US government can (1) make up their version of copyright law and then (2) automatically apply those made up laws around the globe.

Filed Under: copyright, doj, extradition, ice, jurisdiction, richard o'dwyer

US Trying To Extradite UK TVShack Admin Over Questionable Copyright Charges?

from the copyright-gone-mad dept

In the latest example of US copyright interests gone mad, there are reports that there's an attempt to extradite the admin of TVShack from the UK to the US to face criminal copyright infringement charges. This is ridiculous on all sorts of levels. First, TVShack.net was one of the very first domains seized a year ago. TVShack did not host any content and was merely a linking site, which raised questions (as with other seizures) about whether or not it actually violated US copyright law. Also, TVShack has gone through a few different versions and (potentially) owners/admins. However, one of the admins, Richard O'Dwyer, a computer science student, was recently arrested. It's not clear if anyone even knows which instance of TVShack he's accused of running.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK."

Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.

Filed Under: copyright, extradition, links, tvshack, uk, us

Congressional Research Service Notes That There Are Serious Challenges To Charging Assange

from the ain't-so-easy dept

While a lot of the rhetoric from the US government -- concerning Wikileaks and Julian Assange and whether or not any law was violated -- has been overwrought and full of hyperbole, it appears that the Congressional Research Service (which tends to do a damn good job most of the time) has put out a nice simple report detailing the specific legal issues and laws that might apply here (pdf), and more or less summarizes that the US government would be breaking new ground in charging Assange, and may have difficulties in succeeding. While the report notes you could probably stretch the law to cover what Wikileaks did, it warns:

[The] statutes described in the previous section have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship. To the extent that the investigation implicates any foreign nationals whose conduct occurred entirely overseas, any resulting prosecution may carry foreign policy implications.....

The report does note that there has been at least one case it's aware of where a foreign national was charged under the Espionage Act for activities done outside of the US. But, it is quite rare, and beyond a single district court ruling saying this okay, the history and language of the Espionage Act suggest it was not designed for this purpose.

The report also delves into the hurdles to having Assange extradited to the US (something the US is apparently already discussing with the Swedish government), pointing out that no current US treaty "lists espionage as an extraditable offense."

But the biggest hurdle is noted towards the end of the report, in highlighting the rather serious Constitutional issues associated with attempting to try Assange for anything in the US, with a lot of focus on the ruling in the Pentagon Papers case:

Where First Amendment rights are implicated, it is the government's burden to show that its interest is sufficiently compelling to justify enforcement. Whether the government has a compelling need to punish disclosures of classified information turns on whether the disclosure has the potential of causing damage to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States. Actual damage need not be proved, but potential damage must be more than merely speculative and incidental. On the other hand, the Court has stated that "state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." And it has described the constitutional purpose behind the guarantee of press freedom as the protection of "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

[...]

[If] national security interests were not sufficient to outweigh the First Amendment principles implicated in the prior restraint of pure speech related to the public interest, as in the Pentagon Papers case, it is difficult to discern an obvious rationale for finding that punishing that same speech after it has already been disseminated nevertheless tilts the balance in favor of the government's interest in protecting sensitive information.

The publication of truthful information that is lawfully acquired enjoys considerable First Amendment protection. The Court has not resolved the question "whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well." (The Pentagon Papers Court did not consider whether the newspapers' receipt of the classified document was in itself unlawful, although it appeared to accept that the documents had been unlawfully taken from the government by their source).

The Court has established that "routine newsgathering" is presumptively lawful acquisition, the fruits of which may be published without fear of government retribution.

There are definitely plenty of loopholes whereby the government can try to file charges against Assange, but in reading through the document it would likely be a pretty tough sell. You can read through the entire document after the jump.

Filed Under: espionage, extradition, julian assange, wikileaks
Companies: congressional research service, wikileaks

US Officials Finally Going After Online Organized Criminals In Other Countries

from the it's-a-start dept

It's no secret that Eastern Europe has become the center of an awful lot of organized crime online. Various phishing and scam rings tend to work from a variety of different Eastern European countries without much fear of law enforcement or prosecution. Most of the enforcement in the US to date has been on the few unfortunate Americans who got involved in such scams -- but such targets were almost always small-time scammers compared to the big players across the ocean. However, there are some signs that's starting to change. Forbes details the first case of a foreign cybercriminal being extradited to the US, noting that greater cooperation between foreign governments and the US means that we should be seeing more of this. However, the article also notes that this is only one small attempt, and officials haven't really been able to do any damage to some of the bigger organized crime groups online. Still, given how little the US gov't had been able to do to actually go after the real criminals, it is a good sign that at least they're looking for ways to reach across boundaries to find them.

Filed Under: cybercrime, eastern europe, extradition, organized crime, us

UK Hacker Loses Extradition Appeal Yet Again

from the time-to-come-stateside dept

While the US gov't clearly overplayed its claims that Gary McKinnon was the "world's biggest hacker" after having him arrested for breaking into US military computers, that doesn't mean that McKinnon hasn't overreacted back in response. The US offered him a plea bargain deal that seemed fairly reasonable, given what he did -- and he flipped out about it. Now he's lost his latest appeal against extradition, and it looks like he may finally get sent to the US in the next few weeks to stand trial, for breaking into US military computers, supposedly while high and looking for info on alien encounters.

Filed Under: extradition, gary mckinnon, hacking, uk, us

UK Guy Who Hacked Into US Military Computers Overplays His Hand; Loses Extradition Appeal

from the give-it-up dept

From the very beginning it had seemed like the US was overhyping the fact that they had tracked down UK-based Gary McKinnon, as the guy who had hacked into various military computer systems. They claimed he had caused millions of dollars of damages, and even called him "the world's biggest hacker." Of course, the details suggest he was more like a big idiot. He got high, decided that the US was hiding secrets on aliens, and hacked into a military computer system to try to find the details -- and then (according to his own explanation) hit the wrong button and thought "oh, bloody hell." So, he clearly did something wrong: he broke into US military computer systems. He clearly deserves to be punished for it, but he's definitely overplayed his hand as well in response.

For years, he's been fighting attempts by the US to extradite him, including bogus claims about how the US government would declare him a terrorist and send him to Gitmo. He's now lost his latest attempt to prevent extradition, but is already planning to appeal again -- once again, with his lawyers screaming Gitmo.

However, as Kevin Poulsen (who knows a thing or two about getting arrested for malicious hacking) reports at Wired News, McKinnon is totally blowing things out of proportion. The US offered him a plea deal, where he would get 6 months to a year in minimum security prison, and then get sent back to the UK. Of course, rather than accepting what seems like a pretty reasonable deal (from a guy who admitted to being in the wrong), McKinnon used this to claim that the US was trying to extort him. Now, since he refused to accept the plea bargain, and has lost the attempt to stop extradition, he may face a much harsher sentence. Poulsen sums up the situation nicely:

According to his lawyers, the United States offered McKinnon a deal of six months to a year in U.S. federal custody, followed by repatriation by the U.K., where he'd be eligible for parole after six months. McKinnon turned it down, then went running to the U.K. courts whining that the big bad Americans were trying to extort him into pleading guilty. Duh. That's what a plea bargain is, slick.

And six to 12 months is quite a bargain indeed. It's minimum security camp time: We're talking ping-pong tables and a sunny running track. Now he's looking at the same kind of sentence U.S. hackers get -- measured in years, not months, and based on the financial losses a jury finds him responsible for.

Filed Under: extradition, gary mckinnon, malicious hacking, plea bargain