Slashdot Mirror

Denying someone the right to vote based on your definition of their intelligence violates their rights. We have had it in the US in the past (mainly to try to deny black people the right to vote since we were providing them with sub-standard educations) and congress banned the practice in the 60's.

Mitnick vs. Markoff

I'm trying to come up some understanding of why Markoff would want to treat Mitnick in the manner that Mitnick says he was treated. I feel like I already know that Mitnick was treated poorly by the government, and that the punishment didn't fit the crime. What is more interesting is the attitude the two main characters of this story have towards each other.

Anyways, to the point I was trying to make. I was trying to dig up some of the articles Mitnick was referencing in his response. I ran across Mitnick's site, and Markoff's site.

It basically comes down to who's word to you trust, a convicted felon, or a reporter whos job it is to report the truth.

Here is Mitnick and Markoff battling it out on each other's web pages: http://www.takedown.com/bio/index.
html and http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-release.html

[Round One]
Mitnick re 1994 NYT article:
Mr. Markoff labeled me, without justification, reason, or supporting evidence, as "cyberspace's most wanted," and as "one of the nation's most wanted computer criminals."

Markoff:
1981 Mitnick arrested for burglary.
1982 Mitnick gets 1 year probation.
1982 Mitnick arrested for hacking USC computers. 6 Months juvenile prison.
1987 Mitnick arrested. 3 years probation.
1988 Mitnick arrested. Convicted felony. 1 year sentence.
1994 $1Mil reward issued by CA DMV for Mitnick's arrest.

[Round Two]
Mitnick re 1994 NYT article:
" But to suggest without reason or proof, as did Mr. Markoff and the prosecutors in this case, that I had committed any type of fraud whatsoever, is simply untrue, and unsupported by the evidence.

Markoff:
1989 "Kevin pleaded guilty to one count of computer fraud and one count of possessing illegal long-distance access codes. "

Anyways, now that Mitnick is out, what else is there? How about these other computer intrusion cases at the department of
justice.

He's being criticised because he calls anyone who disagrees with him a terrorist, and backed up this quote which he made in a testimony to the Senate Committee and hasn't taken it back since.

"We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS)
December 6, 2001

Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been the Senate's most resolute critic of the administration's antiterror proposals, quickly took on Mr. Ashcroft over his testimony that criticism of the administration "gives ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." He asked the attorney general if the series of Senate hearings culminating in today's session was somehow aiding the enemy. Mr. Ashcroft blandly replied that he welcomed the Senate hearings as proper oversight. "We need reasoned discourse as opposed to fear-mongering," he said. "This is the place where reasoning and discourse take place."

Ashcroft Defends Antiterror Plan and Says Criticism May Aid Foes

We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft

Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS)
December 6, 2001

Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been the Senate's most resolute critic of the administration's antiterror proposals, quickly took on Mr. Ashcroft over his testimony that criticism of the administration "gives ammunition to America's ene
mies, and pause to America's friends." He asked the attorney general if the series of Senate hearings culminating in today's session was somehow aiding the enemy. Mr. Ashcroft blandly replied that he welcomed the Senate hearings as proper oversight. "We need reasoned discourse as opposed to fear-mongering," he said. "This is the place where reasoning and discourse take place."

Ashcroft Defends Antiterror Plan and Says Criticism May Aid Foes

Nate

From the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act:
The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.

That sounds like a great idea, as long as it means eliminating things that are used for terrorist attacks only!

Using properitary software without a proper license is illegal. How many of us can honestly say that we have never used a pirated copy of anything? Not many.

So what would happen if strong crypto was made unavailiable/illegal? The ones that need strong crypto would still use strong crypto (including the terrorists (if they actually did)) and the only ones who wouldn't use strong crypto are normal people trying to live a normal life (but a less secure one now that crypto is insecure).
They can't stop people from using something, they can only make lives more difficult for us. And because the data they might be interested in would still not be encrypted the way they want, there is no point in the whole idea.

I hope the government would try to understand that before doing something they will regret later on (unless they use terror as an excuse for being able to monitor people for their own purposes).