Actually given the utterly lackadaisical security on the systems he 'hacked' into - go on, have a guess what the admin password on the first system he connected to was - you might be able to make an argument that he assumed they couldn't possibly be actual government systems...

Did he think they were systems he actually did have permission to be on, though?

If we all had to explicitly check permission for every server we visited on the internet, pretty much all internet systems would be unusable. However I think it's a fair assumption in general that requiring a password implies lack of 'default permission'. There are a number of examples where this isn't true but there are many less of those than there were 10 years ago.

That fact that he even had to enter a password (regardless of how obvious it was) should have indicated he needed permission to be there.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You have to be a special kind of moron to hack into a USA military computer and not expect any consequences for your actions. Regardless of whether the password was a lengthy string of random characters to US military standards, or just “password”, the implication was clear: keep out. To go past that gate keeping barrier indicates intent to perform some kind of action that the sever’s owners do not want you to do. You only have to watch the TV to realise that there is a lot of paranoia and a lot of aggressive retribution at play in the US industrial military complex. They will come after you with, and I use a phrase that I’ve heard many times on the telly, “extreme prejudice”.

I think that the incident happened prior to the World Trade Centre incident, so the US paranoia was much lower. He was looking for alien stuff so the intent was not really there, apart from trying to find it. As to any damage he was a plonker for that.

Or, possibly, have Asperger syndrome?

OK I'll rephrase, the issue of McKinnon breaking into the computer systems is not in dispute - what is in dispute is whether he had criminal intentions as the Americans claim he did.

To me there is no dispute. He intended to break in, and he did (easily). It make no difference if he was looking for UFO's of anything else.

Well no offence lev, but you're not the Computer Misuse Act and there's a longstanding principle in English Law that states a person must have criminal intent (mens rea)*.

*There are, of course, strict liability offences in English law, but none apply here.

I think his intention was alien information not damage. Hence I doubt that he had criminal intent, hence the lack of charges.

Section 1: "unauthorised access to computer material, punishable by 6 months' imprisonment or a fine "not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" (currently £5000)"

In effect, trespass is a crime even if you don't break in and rob or vandalise the place. If I walk uninvited into a poorly secured building on private property, take a few pictures and leave a post-it note saying "JJ was 'ere" then I think that's trespass? More over, it would be easy for someone to misunderstand my motivation - especially if it was military property.

At least, that's my reading of it. Although I remember reading somewhere that it's OK to proceed unless there's a specific message not to. I always put words to the effect of "Private! Keep Out! Authorised personnel only" on the logins for our systems.

That was what I was thinking. The only legitimate reason for entering a password when trying to access a remote box is because you think you have permission to be there. He clearly didn't have permission, and I find it hard to believe he thought he did.

It's a bit like a burglar saying because you'd forgotten to lock your door, you'd effectively given him permission to be in your house.
That just doesn't wash with me. No permission was given and the intent was there on his part.

I accept the permission but the intent is much harder to prove.