Kudos to AVSIM for their forensic work on this criminal act and the pending litigation against this individual. I hope the just outcome in this case with serve as a reminder to those who practice this type of crime that you can and will be caught and will suffer the consequences.

Whilst it is indeed true that there may be some stumbling blocks in the way of the CPS going for it, one has to bear in mind that for much of the time, whether they do decide to go for it rests on the establishment of legal precedents, and whom it suits to make such a prosecution stick. This probably weighs in AVSIM's favour in the current climes, since the UK has recently set up a well publicised 'cyber crime' department, and whilst that department is more geared toward defending against economic attacks against the UK, they will no doubt be keen to 'get a few scalps under their belt', to reinforce their validity, so they will certainly be on the side of 'going for it'.Evidence of that current will is apparent enough in the repeatedly failed attempts of Gary McKinnon to avoid extradition to the US, to answer for his criminal hacking attempts on numerous US Government systems. McKinnon has variously attempted to proffer defences of being under the influence of cannabis, being affected by Asperger's Syndrome and numerous other excuses, but it is not cutting any ice with the authorities, who, quite understandably, do not want such extremely questionable mitigations to be a precedent for getting away with cyber crime. McKinnon may have pulled the wool over a few gullible celebrity's eyes in garnering support for his cause - who to be honest probably saw it as an opportunity to get their names in the papers - largely by his lawyers trying to paint him as a 'poor little boy' and the US as 'a big nasty man', but frankly, it's a ridiculously desperate defence, as he is nothing of the sort, and is deservedly going to end up behind bars whether he likes it or not, although probably for a lot less than the 70 year jail term he is being threatened with.We can expect a similar approach from the authorities when it comes to commercial hacking, since the law is invariably going to be on the side of business, and not likely to fall for 'sob story' excuses or anything of that nature, providing there is a reasonable amount of evidence against a suspect.Al

What purpose did the obscuration achieve? Either this was reported to the Metropolitan Police or it wasn't.

:(

I don't know Al, I would really like to think the Met and CPS will take this case seriously but I don't think they will.Consider this: - Avsim is a non-profit organisation, privately owned in the US and providing a service to hobbyists around the world. - Nobody was physically harmed in the attack on Avsim. - No money or property was stolen. - No fraud took place. - Apart from rendering several hard drives unuseable no physical damage was done to anything.The result of the crime was a non-profit hobby-focussed organisation in a foreign country was taken offline for several weeks resulting in inconvenience to flight simulation enthusiasts worldwide. As much as it saddens me to say, this is exactly how any Crown Prosecutor is going to see this. The so-called "Cyber Crimes" division of the police are more interested in online fraud than protecting people playing computer games. The McKinnon case is not a good example of the resolve of British Justice to persue hackers because McKinnon hacked into the Pentagon's computers and the US Government has leaned very heavily on the UK to extradite him to face trial in the US. Realistically we cannot put Avsim on the same level as the Pentagon! If we are going to start throwing high profile cases around then consider this country recently released a convicted terrorist and mass murderer, consider the extremely lenient sentences given in the "Baby P" case - if those aren't damning indictments of British "justice" then I don't know what is.Is there really a precedant for a case like this? I don't know. I think talk of a custodial sentence is pie in the sky - the best we can hope for here is whoever responsibel receives some sort of Internet banning order, and is perhaps black-balled by UK ISPs. Of course if he receives a criminal conviction it will make getting a decent job very difficult.This is why I think it might be a better idea for Avsim to persue this as a civil action - if the evidence is there and is solid then I think at the very least Tom should be able to sue this guy to recover the costs for the data recovery services.Anyway, I am glad Tom isn't taking this laying down and is going after those responsible, and I wish him every success.Nick

I don't know Al, I would really like to think the Met and CPS will take this case seriously but I don't think they will.Consider this: - Avsim is a non-profit organisation, privately owned in the US and providing a service to hobbyists around the world. - Nobody was physically harmed in the attack on Avsim. - No money or property was stolen. - No fraud took place. - Apart from rendering several hard drives unuseable no physical damage was done to anything.The result of the crime was a non-profit hobby-focussed organisation in a foreign country was taken offline for several weeks resulting in inconvenience to flight simulation enthusiasts worldwide. As much as it saddens me to say, this is exactly how any Crown Prosecutor is going to see this. The so-called "Cyber Crimes" division of the police are more interested in online fraud than protecting people playing computer games. The McKinnon case is not a good example of the resolve of British Justice to persue hackers because McKinnon hacked into the Pentagon's computers and the US Government has leaned very heavily on the UK to extradite him to face trial in the US. Realistically we cannot put Avsim on the same level as the Pentagon! If we are going to start throwing high profile cases around then consider this country recently released a convicted terrorist and mass murderer, consider the extremely lenient sentences given in the "Baby P" case - if those aren't damning indictments of British "justice" then I don't know what is.Is there really a precedant for a case like this? I don't know. I think talk of a custodial sentence is pie in the sky - the best we can hope for here is whoever responsibel receives some sort of Internet banning order, and is perhaps black-balled by UK ISPs. Of course if he receives a criminal conviction it will make getting a decent job very difficult.This is why I think it might be a better idea for Avsim to persue this as a civil action - if the evidence is there and is solid then I think at the very least Tom should be able to sue this guy to recover the costs for the data recovery services.Anyway, I am glad Tom isn't taking this laying down and is going after those responsible, and I wish him every success.Nick

I'm afraid I agree with most of that analysis. Further, I suspect AVSIM has weakened its case by only going to the police only after negotiating with the accused. The defence could ague that this was an attempt at blackmail - "pay up or we'll tell the police" - and seek to have the case thrown out as an abuse of process. Criminal courts are not to be used to settle private grievances. This is in addition to the quality and admissibility of the evidence, and the need for witness from the US to attend court in the UK to give their evidence. Hearings often don't go ahead on the day they are listed and are frequently adjourned - sometimes for weeks - adding to the difficulties. These problems would only be overcome if the UK police re-investigated the alleged offence and gave the evidence themselves. I doubt that the police will think this a good use of ther scarce resources.As I said before, I hope AVSIM will be successful but have serious doubts.

I'm afraid I agree with most of that analysis. Further, I suspect AVSIM has weakened its case by only going to the police only after negotiating with the accused. The defence could ague that this was an attempt at blackmail - "pay up or we'll tell the police" - and seek to have the case thrown out as an abuse of process. Criminal courts are not to be used to settle private grievances. This is in addition to the quality and admissibility of the evidence, and the need for witness from the US to attend court in the UK to give their evidence. Hearings often don't go ahead on the day they are listed and are frequently adjourned - sometimes for weeks - adding to the difficulties. These problems would only be overcome if the UK police re-investigated the alleged offence and gave the evidence themselves. I doubt that the police will think this a good use of ther scarce resources.As I said before, I hope AVSIM will be successful but have serious doubts.

Why the negativity? For someone who is not privy to all the facts you seem really sure nothing will come of all this. The only one who knows all the facts for sure is Tom A. and he seems pretty confident therefore I choose to believe that whoever hacked AVSIM will get what's rightfully coming to them.

Whilst I think it is great news that there is some evidence helping you toward the alleged hacker, don't forget that passing this evidence to the Met is only half of it - as Al points out, you've got the CPS who decide whether to go ahead and prosecute the case, but as Al doesn't mention, not only do the CPS decide to prosecute a case on its prospect of winning, they also have to consider the public interest - and, much as it pains me to say it, I don't see a public interest for the UK in this case - public interest is as much about seeing justice done as it is about "value for the taxpayer". <soapbox>At the risk of sounding conspiratist, Gary's case is more about the Pentagon saving face from a frankly woeful and laughable lack of security that allowed him to do what he was alleged to have done. Much of his time in the courts has been spent appealing the original extradition request - and remember, this came some time after the original charges under the UK Computer misuse act were laid; and as he (doesn't unreasonably) argues, the offence took place on British soil, and so should face trial and prosecution under UK law.</soapbox>Were it to have been that Avsim was based in the UK, then perhaps there may have been more chance, but as it stands, I am not convinced that the CPS will bring this to answer. Though, I wish Tom and team the best of (dare I say, British :( ) luck on this...

I don't know Al, I would really like to think the Met and CPS will take this case seriously but I don't think they will.Consider this: - Avsim is a non-profit organisation, privately owned in the US and providing a service to hobbyists around the world. - Nobody was physically harmed in the attack on Avsim. - No money or property was stolen. - No fraud took place. - Apart from rendering several hard drives unuseable no physical damage was done to anything.Nick

In considering those points I reckon..Whether non profit or profit-making is not really relevant to if you can have a crime comitted against you. A crime is a crime when perpetrated on you whether you are raving capaitalist or St Francis of Assisi.No one was physically harmed during attack, but there is no doubt that many were psychologically harmed - especially Tom Allensworth, who for a time was convinced that many long years of hard work had gone up in smoke. And it's not difficult to prove that such a thing is harmful, based on the outpouring of annoyance and sympathy from people worldwide. On a personal note, since I had uploaded freeware files onto AVSIM that I had no back ups of, I was ###### to learn they might be gone, and that I did regard as personally damaging. Given that there are many thousands of people who were in the same boat as me, the CPS would not be short of affidavits from people confirming that scenario if they asked for them!Money was not actually stolen, but the ability to make money from advertising revenue was taken away, which amounts to pretty much the same thing, since money AVSIM would have had, was not generated, and the money gained from advertising, and through the sales generated from the adverts on AVSIM was also lost, which again is commercially damaging, and it would not be hard to prove that. Additionally, the intellectual property of files lost from the hack means that what AVSIM had, it no longer has, thus the action of the hacker removed that property, which is the definition of theft. Not to mention the notion that well-known web addresses have a Dollar value - look at how much the Pirate Bay web name was sold for - and if you damage something with a Dollar value, then you have taken money away.Don't know the ins and outs of stuff, but I think I'm right in saying some fraud did actually take place in order to gain access to passwords.No physical damage done - yes I agree on that one.Some of that is of course arguable, but I would tend to think that with most worldwide commerce now being conducted via the web, it is well in the public interest to make that commercial world more secure, thus, probably in the public interest to take the case forward, if only as a warning to others who might perpetrate such actions, which is often what cases are prosecuted for.Al

Why the negativity? For someone who is not privy to all the facts you seem really sure nothing will come of all this. The only one who knows all the facts for sure is Tom A. and he seems pretty confident therefore I choose to believe that whoever hacked AVSIM will get what's rightfully coming to them.

No offence but yes, the hack on Avsim was devastating and unprovoked, but nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution will laugh at this case because they have bigger fish to fry. Undoubtedly there are hundreds of scrupulous cyber criminals with more sinister motives out there - e.g. siphoning people's already dwindled bank accounts or hacking into the Pentagon, for example. I have studied journalism and law, and believe me, a case like this will not exactly stagger the attention of the SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency). FS is classed as a video game simulation and that won't exactly blare sirens. Avsim is a great website, but it is a non-profit organisation and the damage and consequence of such an attack was minimal - albeit some inconvenience for flight simulator users. This will probably be the conclusion of the matter. How can Tom be confident of British law, coming from America? US law does not apply in the UK, and America realised this when Scotland released the Lockerbie Bomber, hands tied. Tom will need a lot of luck to prosecute the person.

Why the negativity? For someone who is not privy to all the facts you seem really sure nothing will come of all this. The only one who knows all the facts for sure is Tom A. and he seems pretty confident therefore I choose to believe that whoever hacked AVSIM will get what's rightfully coming to them.

I'm not being negative, but I am being realistic in pointing out the facts that the police and CPS are likely to take into account. Although there is prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act establishing that in court is a different matter.

Why the negativity? For someone who is not privy to all the facts you seem really sure nothing will come of all this. The only one who knows all the facts for sure is Tom A. and he seems pretty confident therefore I choose to believe that whoever hacked AVSIM will get what's rightfully coming to them.

Absolutely Sir!You go for it and don't be put off by all the home grow Perry Mason's.If you take there advice we should all roll over and let criminals do as they please.(actually its getting like that anyway in the UK)PS Tom if you called the Met police the london constabulary SO WHAT! if an offence has been committed I am sure the MET will be able to work out (by themselves as well )who the hell they are.The world is full midergly,mudgerly,nitpickerous irritants.Andy UKand not always so proud these daysPS I know london should have capital LLLLL

Absolutely Sir!You go for it and don't be put off by all the home grow Perry Mason's.If you take there advice we should all roll over and let criminals do as they please.(actually its getting like that anyway in the UK)PS Tom if you called the Met police the london constabulary SO WHAT! if an offence has been committed I am sure the MET will be able to work out (by themselves as well )who the hell they are.The world is full midergly,mudgerly,nitpickerous irritants.Andy UKand not always so proud these daysPS I know london should have capital LLLLL

What a pity - this discussion was proceding in a civilised fashion without any need for insults.

I don't think anyone is being negative here, I just think we should be very careful before we let ourselves get carried away.It's Tom's decision how he wants to persue this matter - I can only imagine if I were him I would also try to get the authorities to throw the book at the spiteful individual who carried out the attack on Avsim. Whilst I will be delighted to see a criminal conviction brought against the person responsible, please don't be shocked or surprised if the CPS show little or no interest in persuing the matter.If the criminal case doesn't go any further I hope Tom persues it as a civil action - which I think is a much more appropriate way to deal with this matter and is much more likely to result in a positive outcome for Tom and Avsim.

Personally, I assume Tom is a pretty smart guy and that he's likely gotten some legal advice regarding how to proceed on this matter. :( But, maybe the brilliant legal minds on this forum who aren't actually privy to most of the specifics of this situation know better...Tom, If you can get the guy, go get him.

I'm not being negative, but I am being realistic in pointing out the facts that the police and CPS are likely to take into account. Although there is prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act establishing that in court is a different matter.

I wanted to point out that I think that anybody (in any situation not just this one) can't be really realistic unless they have all the facts on this case and are very familiar with the specific issues - the one who does know all this for sure, in this case, is Tom A. and he appears to be confident the issue will be resolved in some form. I see no reason to doubt what he has said. Anyway how could you know this for sure: 'Although there is prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act establishing that in court is a different matter.' You don't know the full situation in this case, you don't know what evidence was presented and how conclusive it was - I know there's criticism of IT law enforcement world-wide but with the absence of the above mentioned information your statement is somewhat of a general speculation (I don't mean to offend it just appears so to me).As for the Metropolitan Police being referred to as the 'Police Constabulary of London' issue:Apart from being Bulgarian I am also a Londoner and I can confirm what Chock has already said - its just a 'fancy' way to refer to the London Metropolitan Police. Its a little old fashioned (although this could also be 'legal speak') but in my opinion is a little more flattering and official than simply referring to them as the 'MET' - also the 'met' (unless you specifically say the London Met Police) could be a number of things. For example London Metropolitan University is referred to as the 'MET' sometimes (the London Met to be precise) - I know because I graduated and post graduated from here (funny enough IT Law was part of my studies). Could also be the 'MET' Office - weather forecasts and meteorological conditions.Anyway I really don't think its worth nit-picking over what precisely to call the London Police Authorities.