Slashdot Mirror
Kevin Mitnick Free Today
Well, today is the day Kevin Mitnick is supposed to be released from prison. But many people feel sites like this one aren't obsolete quite yet, because it's hard for ex-cons to make their way in society, and it may be especially hard for Kevin because he isn't allowed to use computers - and that's what he's good at, right? A 60 Minutes interview with Kevin is scheduled to run this Sunday. Hemos comments, "One wonders if having a microphone near violates his Draconian parole computer restriction orders." An interesting - and scary - thought.
Why did you say "that's what he's good at" with regard to computers?
What he's good at is "social engineering" which is simply a form of deceit. Lieing to people to get information out of them. He's also good at various forms of physical theft, i.e. hauling off technical manuals from the phone company, using stolen credit card numbers, etc.
None of this is the classic 'hacker skills' stuff that people in this community heap praise on. Instead, what Mitnick is good at is the stuff people here try to disassociate with the word 'hacker.' And yet some around here think he's some sort of hero.
Go figure.
Kevin Mitnick VIOLATED the rights and freedoms of other in this country. For that he goes to jail. It is a very simple formula, break the law and go to jail. It is not like the laws are 'evil' either. This man is a disgrace, and should be locked up.
$(1/50) contribution.
Rapists are in prison for a couple of years, and then when they get out, they are allowed to talk to women (or men whatever they did) when they get out too.
Now Kevin went to prison for cracking into some systems. What's the use of not allowing him to use a computer anymore?
As I hear (read) his special skill was social enigneering, so on that grounds he shouldn't be allowed to use a phone or even talk to people???
Comon, FBI, US law system, whoever made the terrible mistake of putting him in jail without a trial, get a clue. Let him use computers and networks, it's his job!
Catch him when (if) he ever does anything illegal, but not for using something I, and a lot of people are using legitimately for our job.
--
People using html in email should be shot.
Posted by Synsthe:
:) I'm expecting all the posts to be one sided only.
/should/ be next.
I haven't quite waded through the mire of posts on this topic yet, but I hope this gets a Score: 0, redundant, from all the others saying the same thing. This is slashdot though.
Anyway, on to the point. Who cares about "Draconian" parole regulations. If Kevin didn't want to have his life turned upside down, maybe the twit shouldn't have been out there doing as much illegally as he could on his computer.
He deserved whatever he got, and he deserves whatever parole regulations he's on. If more people like him were to get what they deserved, ie, jail time, perhaps the vast majority of script kiddies and their peers would wake up and realize that they could be next.
Correction,
--
Um, I doubt anyone really expects him to avoid
everything with an embedded processor. It's
fairly clear that the terms of his parole are
meant to keep him away from computing devices
that can be used to repeat his crimes.
50% of everything is above average.
There's a substantial difference between telling me that I left the door open and between coming into my house, rifling through my personal belongings and maybe copying down anything you find interesting (maybe you jot down my VISA numbers, maybe you make a copy of the tape that I made with the wild romp I had with my girlfriend last night)
If its the former I thank you and maybe buy you a beer. If its the latter I take out your knee caps with a tire iron to educate you on proper manners.
Mitnik did the latter, you can't even pretend he was doing it over a concern for somebodies security. He never told his victims what he found.
Far be it from me to dwell on silly things like facts, but Mitnick is only prevented from using or owning cell phones or computers without the consent of his parole officer.
You: 1, Strawman: 0.
I didn't see a claim that it wasn't intrusive, disruptive, or wrong, only that it was more properly categorized as trespassing or invasion of privacy, rather than theft or vandalism. It's that claim that I agree with.
No, just entering. But were their doors open? I'm not familiar with the details, but I'd guess he picked some weak locks in order to open the doors. I don't think that makes him responsible for the cost of better locks, but unless they were running a telnet daemon and had no root password, I couldn't consider it an open door.
Would he make an interestin (paper-based) Slashdot Interview?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
What about bringing down a whole company and sending the employees to the streets?
What about leaving people without the medical care they paid?
In an economic society, white-collar crimes can be crimes against life or life conditions.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Paper and pencil, telephone, tape recorder, sign language in video,...
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Err..., it didn't down on me that maybe he can do it over the phone.
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
You are correct. What makes this case so scary is that it's not even how much money a company loses, but really how pissed they are at the accused. KM didn't actually cause millions of dollars of damage, but he revealed extemely embarassing security holes, causing Sun to retaliate against him by saying that he caused a loss the maximum amount of money they could get away with before anybody called BS. And the prosocutor took them at their word.
That's scary. Especially since many of the times that I would consider breaking the law justifiable involve pissing off large corporations!
you might not see this, and you might not care, but my comment was based on the final sentancing based down by the judge after his conviction. i think his probation terms may have changed afterwards, though.
-
--bc
-----------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Your last comment bugs me the most so I'll start their:
/. shouldn't be interviewing >convicted felons.
>And, I'm sorry, but
Why not? That is a ridiculous. I thought the whole point of gaol was for rehabilitation (well that is the idea here in Australia anyway). Surely if he has been released then the courts believe he is ready to go back into society.
He seems perfect for a slashdot interview. He seems like an interesting person. Would have some intereresting 'insights' after serving 5 years in prison. Might actually be a deterent to those crackers out there to here how shit life in prison is. Didn't slashdot interview l0pht a while back? Surely Kevin is just as worth of an interview as they are.
Now to my second comment:
Sorry, Kevin, you're just going to have to go be
something other than an IT worker. That still leaves lots open. And plenty of non-menial jobs, too.
Whilst this is true, try and think of one where a computer isn't involved? Dcotor? scratch. Lawyer? scratch. Engineer? scratch. Mathemtician? scratch. Business? scratch. Secretary? scratch. Shop Assistant? scratch.
Come nearly every job these days require some computer interaction. Both my parents use computers and there job isn't at all IT related (Travel Agent and Nurse). My uncle uses a computer and he is in the army. For fsck sake my grandfather uses a computer and he is a farmer.
There really aren't going to be that many jobs available for him.
Benno
Incorrect. This usage is considerably older than Linux.
;-)
If you're going to flame, check your fscts first.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
It is my personal opinion, based upon the released information, that the feds, bunch of scaredy-ass obnoxious no-nothings at certain major corporations, and a corrupt and deliberately ignorant legal system conspired to heave-ho Mr. Mitnick down a major shaft.
I agree w/jmr, Goldstein, etc - it could happen to anyone. Furthermore, with current trend towards increasing the number of ways to run afoul of the law during the commission of everday life, I predict it will happen to everyone.
To the petulant fascist ninnies who seem to be whining "he broke the LAW! Screw up the rest of his life!" - a policy of marginalizing everyone who runs afoul of bad laws and bad law enforcement is ultra-foolish! Especially since there's no way left to vote with your feet on this planet. Which do you think is better for society - permanenently stigmatizing even the slightest of infractions (thus marginalizing the infractor), or respecting the premise of repaying one's debt to society? We all have to live together on the same planet - what is the logical outcome of marginalizing people like Mitnick?
I'm voting with my checkbook (again!) - my lunch money today goes to one of those Mitnick accounts as my stick-a-finger-in-the-eye-of-the-feds gesture de jour.
I limit it to lunch money because there's still plenty of evidence of Mitnick's ethical shortcoming (even though truth will never out because of the dishonesty of the prosecution), and I'm also sure there exist feds who are honest enough to focus their efforts on honest-to-badness social predators.
"And, I'm sorry, but /. shouldn't be interviewing convicted felons."
/. should be interviewing whomever /.ers want interviewed (who will agree to submit to it, of course) If the majority of people on /. want hitler interviewed, there should be made at least a token gesture in that direction.
I disagree...
and lastly, invoking an ancient usenet law concerning the introduction of hitler into any particular discussion, i now declare this thread dead.
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
A: If they steal info for profit
B: If they steal info but don't use it
C: Both
D: Neither
A large majority of about 73% voted "C" !
Tho it was not a scientific poll, this is pretty scary IMO.
Demanding punishment for theft is scary? Not in my book.
Theft is theft, whether's it through classic methods (shoplifting, breaking and entering, etc) or through more modern froms (cracking, computer/wire fraud). This "not for money" argument doesn't cut it with me and shouldn't cut it with the law.
Also, on good old Kevin, no matter how much people whine, he got off easy. He is no better than any run-of-the-mill burgler. Period.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
What looking for an orafice large enough to store a palm v?
Sorry I couldnt resist.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
Similar to Randy Schwarz's case with Intel?
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
This post dose kinda illistrate what people think of Unix, and computers and our cracker friend here...
People make it sound like he came close to causing the colapse of civilaisation as we know it... He is the Y2K bug incarnet... everyone thinks the world will end becouse of him but he's accually harmless.. Yet annoying... Just like the Y2K scare..
How many people have rooted Windows? Windows dosn't have a root account... That dosn't mean you can not take controll of Windows.. You just do it diffrently.. Thats probably why crackers call it "owning" not "rooting" becouse you CAN "own" a Windows computer.. just not "root" it..
Now add the minnor diffrence between "rooting" and "owning" to all the other strangeness of computers...
If they don't see a CRT, keyboard and mouse they think it's not a computer... They don't realise how often they themselfs come into contact with computers today...
They also don't realise how trival his hacks were vs the really extream efforts of corprate theafs.
People will pay security guards huge amounts of money to deliver some company secret. The kind of secrets he got with a simple phone call...
I don't actually exist.
OK, I'll take you up on that. I have a SERIOUS problem with how the judicial system treats violent criminals. They let them live.
I don't think that the point of Kevin's case has ever been whether he was guilty, wrong, or deserved to be punished. The point has always been that Kevin has been persecuted (Yes, I mean that in the literal sense) basically for being an embarrassment to the federal government. Let's look at what has happened to Kevin over the last 5 years. He has been incarcerated in maximum security federal penitentiaries. He has been housed with dangerous criminals who have committed REAL crimes (ie: violent crimes like rape and murder), he has been denied access to the evidence to be presented against him in court, he has been denied a diet that meets his health needs, and he has been denied proper and adequate medical care. He has been accused of causing outrageously inflated amounts of damages to companies that really suffered nothing more than humiliation at how poor their security was. Now he has finally been released after 5 years in prison without bail and without speedy trial and been told that he cannot get a job in the field that he knows best and would be best able to support himself in. Where exactly is the justice in our justice system? People who kill other people while driving drunk or rape other people get lighter sentences than Kevin did. Also, when was the last time you heard of a Wall Street white collar criminal (who probably cheated thousands of people out of millions of dollars) who spent a *single* hour in a maximum security federal prison? The only monetary damages that Kevin was truly guilty of was making free cellular phone calls. Does he deserve to deal with 5 years of humiliation and abuse at the hands of our justice system and to have this humiliation and abuse continued after he has served his time (more time than he deserved IMHO) over the price of some cellular phone calls? No matter how conscientious you are, I know that you have broken some law at some point in your life. How would you like to serve, oh lets say 6 months in a maximum security pen for fornication and jaywalking? Think about it before you come off with the lame "He got what he deserved" crap. I've heard it from too many people.
Frankly, I think mitnicks ban from computers etc. is probably the equivalent of capital punishment. Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation, not revenge.
why are they allowed to take it away from him ?
what would happen if he said no ?
that is impossible to avoid since many things
have some type of microchip in them.
If someone has to be stopped from stalking someone, he is not allowed to get near that person. So a logical(!?) thing to do when someone has to be stopped from doing something nasty with computers would be to disallow him from getting near computers. But as already said, that's tricky. So what should be done?
- No internet access?
- No alphanumeric keyboard access?
I think number 1 is reasonable, what do you think?
-Dirkjan
I really doubt that the circuitry in his microwave poses any real threat to the rest of the technological world.
.. click
[humor]
Are you kidding me? Look at what horrors can be wrought with a mere household microwave
here.
[/humor]
The dates are correct for me. Maybe it's your javascript?
Check out http://us.imdb.com/Details?0159784 (Internet Movie Database) for more info on Takedown... "post production" supposedly... So, the other artcle writer was right - "in the can" means physically, in the can... (the weird thing is, though... the "other recommendations" for this movie is the horrible-horror Scream... huh??)
ABC news reported this story as well, and
also had a poll asking whether hackers should go to jail if
A: If they steal info for profit
B: If they steal info but don't use it
C: Both
D: Neither
A large majority of about 73% voted "C" !
Tho it was not a scientific poll, this is pretty scary IMO.
(p.s. I submitted this as a story, but
the link to the poll is broken and I can't seem to find the correct one again (damn @#$&% ANCBNEWS CGI!!), so I am posting this like this. Sorry for the confusion.).
Does every just completely ignore the fact that the guy was a common thief. Not just intelletctual property but breaking and entering, stealing chips, selling chips.
how would he secure a server? he hasn't touched a computer for 5 years. I'm sure he's still a security expert, but 5 years is a long time in computer years.
Well I'm sure that he reads, and keeps up with the technology. What else would you do in jail? I wonder if he can still look at source code for operating systems and such. Paper form that is.
but it would be alot more interesting to interview him in a month or two and get his perspective on the changes that have taken place in the last 5 years.
Agreed, it would be interesting.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
This is not just a Linux site. That would be sites like Linux Today. Yes it is highly dominant in Linux advocates, but you see other views as well. This is supposed to be the site for nerds, and I do think Kevin qualifies as a nerd.
I would like to ask him a few questions, Like how he himself would secure a server. What OS is the most secure (in his opinion).
The people we interview are not always part of the community. Like that anti-online guy, and even Woz (although we would like him to be!).
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Perhaps his new vocation for the next few years should be launching law suits against the individuals and organizations he identifies in the statement he made upon being released from prison.
If Kevin actually did anything to jepordise anybody's security, he should have been charged with doing that. He was not.
He was convicted for lying to people on the telephone. I am still lost on how that can cause any "damages".
A portion of the DoJ alleged "damages" was posessing Sun Solaris source code. DoJ valuation, $8 million. Purchase price (for source code) $100. Educational institutions: free.
Everything else from the DoJ in this case is equally dishonest.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
He obtained a copy of the source code, but shared it with nobody.
BTW, you can get a copy of the source from Sun for $100 US, unless you are an educational institution, then it is free.
The DoJ valued this "theft" at close to $8 million. That is right, you can purchase it for $100, but if you have an "unauthorised" copy the value suddenly jumps to $8 mil.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Well, that is what you would do...
Consider this: What you are saying is that you equate copying with theft. Theft is the deprivation of goods or services from one individual by another. Copying something deprives no one of goods or services.
You could get me on trespassing - but I doubt invasion of privacy is a law (though I could be wrong - you could, however, sue me for emotional damages).
You see, the problem is with the law - the law was rewritten to make copying an article equivalent to theft. It is a case of a common law (that is, a law which harms the individual - theft in this case - murder is another) being rewritten as a statutory law, which is a law covering something that doesn't harm an individual (be that a person or a company), but rather causes a potential harm, or a monetary harm (jay-walking laws are statutory laws).
In my point of view, statutory laws are laws that are nothing more than props for our overtly capitalistic, uncommon-sense society, and many should be struck down, or reverted back to thier common law status.
I imagine you not only dislike KM, but you also feel that the WTO is a good thing, right?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Have you been to a fucking Circle-K or 7-Eleven lately? They ALL have PC's in them. I don't know of one single place that I shop at or rent from that DOESN'T have a PC somewhere.
Hell, go to a fucking construction site - chances are there will be a laptop somewhere around the contractor's truck. Talk to some truck drivers - ask them if they know anyone who is using a laptop "on the road".
KM is screwed in this regard. It doesn't really matter what the terms of his release say, or how we interpret them. It only matters how his parole officer and the court interprets them (and seeing how they wouldn't even let him have a WALKMAN in prison to listen to some tunes, I highly DOUBT that they will interpret the meaning of computers as being only a PERSONAL COMPUTER).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Construction - Hah! Never been to a construction site, I take it? Most everyone there has at least a cell phone (some large sites require it, to keep in contact, rather than use handheld radios), and many contractors use laptops. I imagine computers will become more common place on the construction site as things go on, for measuring, leveling, and general overall work for higher quality.
Janitorial Services - Maybe if it was cleaning in a prison or something. Most cleaning crews are hired to clean - tada! - office buildings. We all know that there aren't many computers in office buildings...
Assembly Lines - You have got to be joking! Given all of the automation and robotics used in assembly line, you are trying to convince me there aren't any computers or cell phones around?
The fact is, KM is screwed as far as jobs are concerned. Almost every job requires access to a computer or a cell phone of some type. Some places won't even hire you (like telemarketing) if you don't have at least a little computer experience.
I am not saying that what KM did shouldn't be punished - but I think he already HAS been punished by his near 5 YEARS in prison (with no computer contact). I guess the only way he could get a job would be if he worked on a Quaker farm - oops, I forgot - even some of those people are using technology like cell phones and PC's...
WAKE UP!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If you were able to pick the lock, copy all of my confidential things, didn't leave a trace (except maybe one fingerprint - and only one), and you never used any of the confidential information, then you told me to get better locks, showed me which ones to get, and gave back the copies (or destroyed them in my presence), then yes - I would congratulate you on such a job - because you would deserve it. I would then hire you as a security expert.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Someone makes a good point: "Personally I wouldn't want him working in my company, he's already demonstrated not only a complete lack of trustworthiness but a surplus of stupidity by violating the terms of his probation."
Yep, he's already proven untrustworthy -- would YOU trust source code he'd had his hands in? Don't tell me about how easily opensource software can be inspected. How many of you have actually inspected *every* line of *every* opensource program you use, huh? How many of you are good enough to recognise obfuscated code? And what about embedded code hidden in the hardware?
Speaking from experience working around manipulative people who have similar addictive personalities, I can tell you I sure as hell would never trust him. And anyone who does so is a fool.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
CNN Story
Ziff Davis Story
Wired Story
The world is a better place now that Kevin walks free and can tell his story. Best wishes Kevin. I have a feeling that the phrase "Free Kevin" will stand for a lot more than the Kevin Mitnick case and online rights/justice in the future.
But imagine if your hypothetical junkie served a prison sentence, then was released, but was not allowed to go into any shops. It's the same kind of thing. There are plenty of computers (e.g. wristwatch, or non-networked PC with no floppy drive, only a CDROM) from which Kevin could do no harm. This isn't about protecting the public, this is about making life unlivable for Kevin. If you think he should be punished more, then maybe he should have a longer prison sentence. But banning him from "using computers" stops him from getting on with his life in a harmless manner, which is what being "free" is all about.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
If you walk around my house without nicking/damaging anything, then you should not be called a thief.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I think it's fairly clear that Kevin got a ridiculously harsh sentence, in a country where murderers sometimes get less.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
"Kevin Mitnick has been imprisoned by the U.S. Government for: 4 years, 11 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 12 minutes, 55 seconds Kevin Mitnick will be released from prison in: 11 months, 30 days, 19 hours, 14 minutes, 8 seconds" Y2K bug still alive and well huh?
Well, just take a look at the source.. It's a complete mess. I quess it would show the "right amount of time" about 50% of time..
--
It has to work - rfc1925
Oh, and if the interview appears on Slashdot, someone from 2600 can print out the results for him (provided they don't show anything the authorities conclude is computer code... lest Kevin magically conjure a computer out of thin air with it.)
Kevin's restrictions are printed at 2600
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
If everyone has a gun, the crims will still pick the easiest target: whoever is easiest to shoot and kill before engaging in whatever criminal activity they're interested in. The only way I can think of that being armed will reduce your personal risk is if you are visibly armed, and most of the other potential targets are not. There's a pretty simple explanation for American muggers using guns when many other nation's muggers have knives at most...
Intolerant people should be shot.
Rape and murder are horrific acts that destroy one, or at most, a few lives. Totally and utterly.
High-level economic crimes can bankrupt thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people. Not quite the same level of destruction, but their lives are still ruined, and their are magnitudes more victims for a single act.
Intolerant people should be shot.
If I want to steal a wallet, and I know everybody I could steal one from has a gun. I simply wait until I find someone off by themselves, then I shoot first.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Oh, I agree, Mitnick was picked out and destroyed as an example "See, we are capable of prosecuting computer criminals!" I was commenting just on the previous post. Of all the things I think is wrong with the American "Justice" system, high-end economic crime is the only area that I think needs to have drastically increased punishment...
Intolerant people should be shot.
Yeah, I've heard that arguement before, and it seems sound, but real-world examples tend to contradict it. Even if one looks at the numbers on a per-capita basis, violent crime, especially involving firearms do not occur more often in unarmed nations. Quite the opposite in fact...
Intolerant people should be shot.
Sounds interesting. Any examples? I was thinking of Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. (Not really all that sure about the Aussies/Kiwis tho). We don't have very "draconian" laws here, many people in rural areas own rifles and/or shotguns, and while they are supposed to registered, many aren't, and noone's much concerned about it. Handguns and automatics (including almost all "semi"autos) are either banned or restricted. Noone much minds. Hunters still hunt, quite successfully, even to the point of being able to take down >1000 lb bears with straightforward rifles. Don't really see how everyone owning weapons is supposed to deter police abuse. I mean, you start waving a gun at a cop, he's going to drop you, and almost certainly going to be justified. About the only problem our mounties have is getting overzealous when busting up protests, (usually because some hotheaded politico told their c.o. to) but at least noones getting anally raped with plungers.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Now _this_ arguement I can accept. The arguement of an armed populace being safer is hard to swallow, but I do think that it's a good thing for the possibility of revolution to exist. (Especially in the States, which I feel is closer to a police state than most western nations.) The only real nit I can pick with this last post is that the 2nd was more about the populace defending itself in case of invasion than to bring down the American government. (not that that's neccessarily a bad idea) At the time, they didn't forsee a future where the U.S. wouldn't really be "the land of the free" anymore, and, unlike today, Britain sending in large numbers of troops into civilian centers was a plausible concept.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their networks?retool?
>>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
Uh in your example, he didn't tell them their house was on fire, he broke thru the back door and lit the place up himself and then left a trail of gas cans to his front door. The whole idea that its not his fault because the companies he cracked didn't have enough security is insane, thats like saying its ok to break into my house and copy my 1040's and my credit card bills because i didnt have enough locks on my door. did this really cause me any physical harm? no. but it scary as hell, and could have cost me alot of money by using my credit card number. Just because he didnt use the information he stole shouldn't make it any less of a crime.
I just checked KevinMitnick.com to see how many more hours/minutes till his release. According to the clock he has a whole YEAR! Poor guy.. ;)
Since when is posting an honest opinion flamebait? Just because the original poster's opinions do not agree with yours doesn't make it a flame. At least that post wasn't in all capital letters...
I'm not saying I agree with the original poster's statements, but that doesn't mean I won't read it. Plus, it seemed to me like the replies to that post were informative. That is, of course, my opinion.
the US constantly accuse governments like China in violation of human rights. I think blocking internet access is really a barbaric torture and is no better than crushing a man with a tank. After all, no physicall punishment can match the punishment of the mind.
^^
Let's see. White water. Lying under Oath. it's the new American way. Unless you consider the white house a jail cell,...
here here.
here's wishing kevin good luck in trying to survive and make a living without technology!
-DAVEO
Having read the Littman book on Kevin's story, the two questions that come to mind are:
1) Can anyone seperate the myth from factuality and tell me what he really was held in prison for?
2) Why was he painted by the media as being so dangerous?
How about not letting them near a GUI? :)
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
He has lost his rights.
Cruel and unusual punishment? Hah! You seem to forget that access to computers/the internet is a privlige, not a right. When 70% of the world has never touched a computer, let alone the internet, then perhaps it'll be put into perspective for you. (Statistic based on fact that 75% of the world is not in a finacial status in which they always know where their next meal is coming from)
If we lived in a world where everyone was wired, I guess it may be considered cruel and unusual. When 4.2 billion people don't have access, then it isn't cruel to take it away from another.
You lose privliges when you are convicted of a felony. You can't vote again. You can't own a firearm again.... And in the case of a computer criminal, the "firearm" is the computer. Therefore, it is only logical to take them away from their weapon as it is logical to take guns away from a convicted murder.
Now, time for me to go draw up an "IMPRISION MITNICK" banner..
-bugg
What most people in America don't realize is that if you're convicted of a felony, you get rights granted by the government. They revoke your civil rights. Kevin will have no rights except what he's told he can. Many felons have no 2nd Amendment rights, and it has little bearing on whether or not they were even considered violent criminals. Most felons have zero right to privacy (for those textualists out there, shut up, it's called the tenth amendment.) The same goes for the right to vote in many states. And the list goes on...
Yes, but this is often the case because the feds would have legally raped him even more than they have if his lawyer hadn't done so. They treated Mitnik guilty until proven innocent, which is not the way American jurisprudence was built to run.
This is the very reason why there's a 2nd Amendment. How much do you think the feds would abuse people if 100% of the population carried a 9mm? (And before you say there'd be too much killing and crime, put the word "criminals" in place of "feds.") Police are no different than plumbers. One protects those who can't or don't protect themselves, the other does plumbing for those who can't do it themselves.
Flames will be summarily ignored.
Your example doesn't follow. If everyone has a gun, then the criminals will know everyone has a gun. Thus, there aren't many easier targets. Yes, there would still be crime, but the incidence of violent crime would drop just a couple percent. :)
*chuckle* Very true, but consider the circumstances of most crimes like this. The thief is generally more interested in as little resistance as possible, and this generally does not include killing the victim first. Thieves who would do that are probably doing that already, so an armed society wouldn't change their tactics any (well, except that they'd have to be even more careful picking their targets.) The less confrontational thieves would doubtfully adopt the approach of killing their targets to insure zero resistance. Basically, my point was that an armed society would make crime much less appealing to the majority of those out there who prey on people weaker than themselves.
Yes, but you have to look at the nation itself in the context of the study. Most nations are smaller than the US, which always means that they are more manageable from a police standpoint. What they're managing is a populace that is completely, or nearly completely (and almost universally registered), disarmed, through draconian laws which give them almost complete power over the populace. Criminal sentences are usually very harsh, and though this all may sound good, you have to look at the other side of the coin: very little protection for people from police abuse of power, and most people are aware that, even if there aren't blatant abuses on these powers, many officers are still prone to act as if they are above the law. It's also good to look at the gross incidence of crime. Yes, violent crimes drop, but non-violent crimes more than make up for it in incidence. Would write more, but I gotta go. :)
I've heard it's getting that way in Aussieland, but I haven't talked to anyone there about it directly, so I can't say. Don't know anything about NZ, but the rest I'd tend to agree with. I think the best example I've heard about would be Singapore, but mostly second-hand stories, so I don't know exactly how draconian they are. :)
:) (In a nutshell, if it's not a power granted by the fed and state constitutions, it's forbidden to them. Like any socialistic program that's out there now)
The laws aren't really draconian, per se, but again, you've got to look at the context of the situation. In the US, the historical context of the right to bear arms stems from governmental abuses, which the right is supposed to help squelch. It was written to mean the commonly available armaments of the day, eg. rifles, knives, etc. What is commonly available now are rifles (hunting and assault), handguns, shotguns, and knives. Out of the commonly available armaments of the day, most people should have access to any and all of the above. What's the truth? Well, you can buy hunting rifles and some shotguns without registering the weapon. Most tactical and combat knives are banned, because they're concealed weapons. You have to register most handguns, and then you have to get a permit to carry them, unless you wear in an open holster. Assault rifles have been largely restricted, even though they are the most common military armament. The rationale is that the "public" welfare comes before individual rights, and unfortunately, many people have come to believe that. Contrary to that belief, the right of the individual comes far before the government or the "public" in the United States.
As for the point of protecting yourself from police abuse, I meant true police abuse, not just flashing it at them. That would get you shot. However, if a police officer is criminally violating your rights, it is your legal right and duty to resist with as much force as necessary (don't remember the various case citations off the top of my head.) If I felt my life was being threatened by a cop, I would have little problem doing what was necessary to stop him/her. Unfortunately, in comes police corruption, because I'd become a target even if I was fully within my rights. Unfortunately, I don't see change close on the horizon. It's a slow, steady buildup of people sick to death with the powermongers who have banded together under the umbrella of legitimacy in order to control those around them. This is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to stop, and that's why you see so much about gun control being hyped so as to seem necessary for the safety of all. When only the government has guns, you've got a police state.
Anyway, I'll cut this off, since I could rant all day about the illegitimacy of the US government.
That's actually not the case. Consider the Declaration of Independence. It was basically a long diatribe concerning the various things that the men who drafted it felt were injustices being wrought upon the Colonies. The political process under which the Colonies became free was about keeping such injustices from happening again. This intent led to what they felt were strict safeguards upon the liberties of the people of the Colonies. That was the reason the Constitution was drafted. They did it in sort of an inverse fashion. Instead of being a document protecting rights, it was a document meant to limit the government to nothing not specifically granted. Everything not specified in either federal of state constitutions is not any business of the government. Unfortunately, the couple broad phrases left in the federal Constitution left the door open for an abuse of powers (Commerce Clause being the big one.) The Bill of Rights should never have been put in, because it has been turned into a list of the only rights people are entitled too. However, I can't say that if it wasn't included things would have been better, since I don't know. You are right that the 2nd Amendment was a protection against foreign invasion. What army would want to invade a country where they're facing armed locals at every turn? They'd have to kill everyone, and the intent of most invading armies is to subjugate, rather than eradicate. However, it was also a check on the domestic government, because most were not naive enough to believe that the power inherent in any government would not tend to attract those easily corrupted. It is evident when examining various writings of the time that it was a protection against all governments, foreign and domestic. Also, I didn't mean to imply that it was to bring down the government. The legitimate place of the federal government would never put a citizen in a place where he would have to use force against a government agent. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world of legitimate government, as can be seen by the gross abuses and misconduct of many, many civil servants, as well as the general dissatisfaction of most Americans concerning the gov't (look at voter turnout as an indication of apathy at the least.) Building a bunker in Costa Rica's looking better and better. ;)
Is it too much to expect that people would actually read up on a topic before starting their ranting and raving?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr/cac70627.1.htm
Kevin is clearly allowed to use computer and computer equipment with the permission of his parole officer. Even Rob and Hemos seem to imply that he can't use *any* computer equipment, which is just blatantly untrue.
This guy does not deserve our sympathy. He committed a crime against society and was punished accordingly.
Sure he was held for a very long time without a trial, but didn't he waive his right to a speedy trial (please correct me if I'm wrong)?
Adam
How did they stop him from communicating with his friends? Haven't heard of pen and paper, have we?
Adam K
I know the snailmail address of everyone of my on-line friends. And since when is buying a typewriter such a burdon? I wrote a great deal of my papers in High School, and a handful from college, on a typewriter. It worked just fine
Adam
Then perhaps the thing to do is complain about how the judicial system treats violent criminal, which is something very few people have done in this forum. Instead, they take up arms when the government punishes a non-violent criminal, but a criminal none the less.
Adam
He never stole any chips. Please provide a reference for this claim that he stole chips. You must be mistaking him for another kevin.
Ungh
Mitnick is not a poor, helpless member of the computing community who got caught in the cogs of the unfeeling American Justice Machine. He is a criminal who used computers to commit crimes. He was a fairly poor one, based on my reading of the accounts of his exploits.
If he was imprisoned unjustly, or denied due process, that's a whole separate issue, and should be handled like any other case of that kind (of which there are sadly a great number).
I don't feel that Slashdot is the forum for an interview. What interest does his case hold to Slashdot, as opposed to all the other criminals around the country who were released at the same time?
...unless of course the Gestapo won't let him read material printed on paper either. I wouldn't put it past them either. Mitnick's sentence was longer than many people have served for deliberately killing a human being, his trial was pure prosecutorial showboating and vindictiveness, and all the people who are posting "he got what he deserved because he violated the almighty statutes" ought to be aware of that fact and shut up for shame.
Anyway, it seems to me that even if his terms of probation prohibit him from using a real computer he should still be allowed to use a WebTV.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
> An old aphorism hold here:
> If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
So whatever any statute says is all right by you, hey? I've got dead relatives in Europe who "did the crime" and "did the time"; the "crime" was being a Jew and the "time" was spent in a concentration camp. You can just guess where I invite you to stick your stupid little rhyme.
Please note that I refrained from using profanity in this post, which was a strain and more than you deserve.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
cell phones? A certain phrack editor stole
the source code to doom and released it in '95,
is that a worse crime? He didn't card things,
he didn't hurt anybody. He looked through a couple
networks. Microsoft has done more ACCOUNTABLE financial damage to companies this month than mitnick could have done in his entire life. And he didn't steal source code.. Oh wait, he stole source code that had illegal functionality (esn trapping, etc..) that an nsa spook had written. That was his real crime. Pissing off the G. The media (coughcoughUNINFORMEDSCRIBLLERJOHN_MARKOFF) was the reason kevin was considered such a danger. I know people during the beginning of the mitnick ordeal, before and afterwards, who were caught, sentenced, and served their time, and have been out for two years now.. including a friend who was arressted for everything from hacking govnerment sites (gotta love sunos 4.1.X), to carding, breaking into voicemails where morons would leave credit card numbers complaining about.. a person with prior felony convictions of thing like assault, larceny, b&e. Mitnick was a scapegoat. It's sad that a thug like ok simpson can get off after killing two people in cold blood, just because he has money.
So I guess mitnick's crimes were as follows :
Let's not all forget kevin poulson, one of the
reasons kevin went to jail. What kevin was associating with lewis depayne.. big whoop, president clinton associates with leaders of terrorist nations like israel and iran.
Kevin poulson was arrested for things from credit card fraud, auto theft, wire fraud, theft, hacking, etc.. but he set mitnick up and boom.. he's the media darling because he's skinny blonde and has a good complexion.
Instead of putting geeks in jail these efforts
should be used to giving geeks things to do..
like figuring out way to keep the real criminals
off the streets.. like my local state representative who isnt even going to get charged, though he hit somebody on a highway, killed them, and got off scott free.. claims he thought he hit a pole.
Next time kevin should just stab someone and make
sure he can hire johnny cochran.. looks like puff daddy won't go to jail.. yeah that happens a lot to me a lot too.. people are always throwing guns into my car.. it's so annoying. people stop throwing guns into my car when there's a shooting, throw them at the jew instead.
"And how can this be? For he is the
true true, But of how many of your on-line friends do you know the snailmail address? And that's not all. This guy is going to have to buy a typewriter to write a resume cause less and less companies accepts hand-written ones. and there are probably some other things he can't do now that he can't use a computer. This sentence is still similar to a dokter being forbidden to use metal tools.
I agree with you that you can live without a computer. People have done that for a long time and will keep on doing it for some time to come.)
But I still think that it's a draconian sentence. He should be forbidden to use computers for certain things such as systems administration, software development and stuff. Simply disallowing him to use computers is a draconian verdict of a bunch of people that think he can make power plants explode by looking at a library PC.
And you got your degree in Psychology where!?
LMAO
If anyone READ the articles and news stories, you would know that he is only restricted from any access to the internet by computer. He is not restricted from ANY computer use and it certainly doesn't include devices that are computer controlled. It also doesn't include devices that have electronic functions like crosswalks and appliances. These don't even contain computers. The just contain integrated circuits and store settings. They don't have CPUs, which is a requirement to be defined as a computer.
;-) LMAO
I can't believe how stupid the supposed geeks are that post to this site!
What a bunch of idiots!
The Federal Government made him a martyr when they put him in a Federal Prison in solitary confinement for 4 years prior to him even getting a hearing prior to any trial. He was subjected to treatment almost as bad as POWs in wartime 3rd world countries. He was denied due process. His charges were trumped up in order to make an example of him.
Yes he commited a crime and yes he deserved to be punished, but his punishment went WAY beyond what anyone should deserve for what he did. He was never a threat to society by any stretch of the imagination. This sets a scary standard for procecution of these types of cases. This is almost as rediculous as a 10 year sentence for MJ use.
If you don't care about Mitnick, then you are just too stupid to realize that you should! >;)
- 2 hours
If you see a negative date like that, then yes, it's my Communicator 4.7 on RH6.1 which is bugged (That would be new!)
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
It's just a negative date bug.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Agreed that the punishment would be significantly less than 4-5 yrs jail, but if parole was broken I would expect *some* jail time.
so by your logic, if I broke into your house, nosed around but didn't steal anything and informed you that your "security" wasn't good enough, you wouldn't charge me with breaking and entering?
SpamMan
And, what if, while you were busy WAVING your rights, the wind caught them and blew them away? You missed an i ;)
As stated earlier, this sounds pretty crazy to me - not using a computer (in an active or a passive way) in today's modern countries is simply non-feasible, unless he goes out to the country and start practicing Agriculture with his bare hands...
Any lawyers out there that could clarify this issue??
Can he write code on a piece of paper, have someone scan it in for him and give him the compilation output?
Can he use machinery that has a built-in CPU in it? (Coke Machines/ATMs/Cars...)
Make me wonder...
To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish. ---Euripides
That's "Your post" not "You're post".
Just a follow-up to Dylan_-'s comment, and a tip for those of you confused by contractions:
When you're using a contraction, do a sanity check by saying out the contracted words in the sentence. If the original poster would've said to himself "You are post", he would've realized his error.
And remember, "it's" is always a contraction (of "it is") -- the possessive is "its", without the apostrophe.
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
And /. should interview convicted felons - if the felon was KM and that convict was as unfairly prosecuted as he was. Actually, I don't think criminal conviction should even enter into the discussion of whether someone should be interviewed for /. since the only real criteria should be whether that person may have something to say that is interesting to /. readers.
I daresay everyone who reads /. uses a computer a majority of their day. We get so used to it we really miss having access to all the tools we are used to using, especially the Internet. I get almost all my news from the web and feel cut off from society if I can't logon somewhere pretty frequently. How do you think Mitnick is going to feel in this day of such widespread computer usage. It may not exactly be cruel and unusual punishment, but it is pretty damn close.
We are talking about someone who was ridden on a rail by the FBI and the justice system. He was guilty, but did nowhere near the damage he was charged with and convicted for.
What has happened to Lew DePayne?
What job can you possible get that you don't have to use a PC at????????
How about working in construction? Janatorial services? Assembly lines? etc,etc... All good, honest ways of making a living.
"The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
I don't really think you'll ever stop white collar crime since it is easy to do and difficult to police. Ever copy a program from work? It seems so easy and harmless, but the punishment is ridiculous if you get caught (I don't know what it is now but it used to be something like 1yr/$100000). The justice department wouldn't even allow a notebook computer to be brought into mitnick's cell -- he might write some world destroying virus (do these people know how to reformat?)! I really don't think our justice department knows how to punish computer criminals. What we need is independent, tech savvy people who are not related to a crime to determine an apt punishment.
On a sidenote (and slightly offtopic), rape once was punished by life imprisonment or death and murder by exile in many countries. Now drug offenders often spend more time in jail than rapists and sex offenders (in the US). I really think some priorities are out of wack - at least drug users get to choose to use (at least the first time). I bet most rape victims wish they had a choice. Also, the crimes are different. A rape victim often wants their assailant castrated. How often does a drug user want their dealer harmed? Usually only when they owe the user money. Anyhow, I really think the US needs to get specialists in each area to rewrite many laws without a religious or socialogical influence (ie, use varying religious and ideological people of different sexes rather than a group that's mostly christian white men). On this point, people who don't understand computers shouldn't be writing computer crime laws. Politicians and lawyers especially (CDA anyone?).
The way I've seen this from go is that rapists, after a good deal of counciling and their 8-10 sentence, are entitled to bring their penis outside of the jail cell - I don't see why Kevin should not be entitled to use computers.
Maybe this is a shortcited argument, but it's mine.
-Michael Path
infinite delta of the mind. http://www.deltamind.com
The terms of his parole may not be onerous or typical to you but does that make it effective? Often times the parole setup is what drives people back to crime and this is no exception. Just because our lame legal system does it, doesn't make it right.
Since I personally view Episode 1 as a crime against culture and humanity I see George Lucas as a more dangerous threat than Mitnick. After all Lucas stands to poison the minds of millions with his idiot tripe and make money in the deal. Considering the amount of attention paid to Lucas on Slashdot I would prefer an interview with someone who was involved with the technology beyond the level of providing a fantasy world for losers everywhere. At least Mitnick used the technology and the systems in interesting ways.
If the byline really is News for Nerds then I guess Kevin qualifies. Moreso than the deified Lucas. The amount of posts here show that it matters.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Hey and if the cops shot every fifth speeder they pulled over I bet more people would obey the speed laws.
-Spazimodo
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
Ok so the grammar check isn't implemented yet. But c'mon, over 10 misspellings in a single post... that's either bad keyboarding skills or someone who failed to even bother to check their work. MOTD: Girls turn 18 every day... and if that isn't a reason to celebrate, I don't know what is.
#1 Props for being a fellow Ricochet user.
#2 Use a fscking spell checker! You're post was beyond atrocious.
#3 You have a valid point that one cannot exist in our society without experiencing "computing-related" devices and processes. However this does not mean that this equates with an active interaction. Simply walking through a metal detector does not mean that I am controlling the embedded logic processor. This is the fine line that Kevin and others will have to face after these convictions.
Hell look at Poulsen, he's not doing so bad for himself. The only draconian restriction I see is that he cannot assimilate computer information... and that was his vice. I've heard that he is a changed man after this experience, so hopefully he will be able to live-up to the terms of his plea-bargain, and continue his life.
As someone who wrote HTML filtering software in a previous life... I endeavour to ensure that my post are not blocked by such fascist-ware. And yes I did quit because the whole concept of censorship made me sick on a daily basis.
(Seems like some people have a problem with part III, Article 6.5:
"Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women. "
And no US vs Europe flamewar here, thanks.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Yeah but those deep fryers sure look like they have computers in them to me! And the EPOS machines, and the stock control, and the fire alarm, and the shake machine, and the security system, and the....
You get the picture
Whether he was guilty or not is one issue, whether he should have been imprisoned is another, but my point is that banning someone from using computers in this age is just absurd - totally unworkable and unfair.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
MadMorf, I hope you consent to an agreement I just drafted. If you get caught jaywalking, you will allow yourself to be imprisoned for a year. When you get out of jail, you will not beallowed to be within 50 feet of a public street.
This shouldn't be a problem to you, because you do no evil, you will never have to worry about it.
Kevin Mitnick may not have been an ideal citizen, but that doesn't mean that he deserves whatever bad happens to him. Now that he's out of prison, they impose rules on him that make it almost impossible for him to earn a legitimate living. They may as well have said
"Kevin, you're a free man now. That means that you will have to work for your meals and housing expenses. However, you are not allowed to get a job. Have fun!"
They're just setting him up for failure. I thought one of the purposes of the American Justice System was to REFORM people like Kevin - people who may have strayed once in their lives, but are non-violent.
I'd rather my tax dollars were spent keeping violent career criminals locked up!
I don't think car theft is considered white collar crime.
white collar crime usually involves the word 'fraud'.
"Hello Sir, I'm inquiring about your Help Wanted ad in Sunday's Times."
...
"What is your corporate policy on hiring convicted felons?...not that I am one."
...
"Hmm-Ok. By the way, does the job require use of a computer?"
...
"Yes? Well I guess I'll have to get back to you. Bye."
This is not the same. I have not been convicted of a crime, however I can't just set up shop as a lawyer or a doctor - even if I was capable of it, I am not allowed to do it. Why? You need a license to practice these professions. An association of doctors/lawyers deems me qualified and gives me a license to practice, which they can take away whenever they want if I behave unprofessionally. This is a good thing because it helps prevent hacks and quacks.
What's the difference you ask? Let's say I carve my initials on someone during surgery, do some time, and eventually get released. It wouldn't be the government saying I can't be a doctor because I might be tempted to break the law. It would be the AMA saying I can't be a doctor because I'm not competant enough to be a doctor.
Not so with IT. Even High School kids are allowed (and frequently do) to perform IT services. You don't need a license.
Do we ban former getaway drivers from using cars? After all, it is possible to live without a car and if they don't like it, they should have thought of that before they committed their crime. But we don't because it has nothing to do with helping them reform. If letting Kevin near a computer is such a danger, then why are we even letting him use one in three years? He should be barred from computers for the rest of his life in that case. But the justice department just wants to fuck with him. They know that it will be difficult for anyone, let alone someone with questionable moral fibre, to legitamately
If I were kevin, I'd put a really big wad of foil in that microwave, and mail it to the judge. Better use a really long cord. Better yet, instead of foil, put a UPS in the microwave, cut a hole for the cord and voila! I'm not sure exactly what would happen, but I'm sure it wouldn't be good for anybody. :)
BTW, that reminds me, do the terms of his parole mention anything about purchasing/owning/operating explosives? I'm sure he learned some practical uses for them in prison.
Let's lock up everyone. Every last human being. The last guy makes sure everyone's cell is secure, then locks himself in one. We'll let evolution take it's course. Eventually, dogs will acquire intelligence and will run the planet. They'll be responsible for feeding us in prison, and building new prisons to hold our babies. If we're particularly attractive (If we are hairy and drool a lot) they may allow some of us to be kept as pets.
Anyway, it may not seem like a great idea, at first. However it will virtually eliminate crime, the socio-economic gap, Islam, war, homosexuality (one man and one woman per cell), and everything else that is "wrong" with our society.
The dogs will agree, it was for our own good.
But society prevents everyone else from owning guns as well. In practice, we don't have a second ammendment anymore.
I have to register my firearms? Next, I'll have to register to practice religion.
However, it dates back to the (English) Bill of Rights of 1689:
'That excessive bail ought not to be required,nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'
The Bill of Rights is substantially in force still, so I'll give up mentioning it, if other /.ers give up that mentioning that other historical document, the US constitution.
Yeah! Yeah! Get Kevin for an interview.
Let's even make him a prominent member of the Slashdot community.
I'll ask right here: is this the kind of guy we want as the Linux poster boy?
Cruel and unusual punishment in 1689 was vivisection, or other forms of slow torture until death.
Humane punishment was a quick merciful execution by hanging.
I'm not suggesting either of these for this particular creep, but do try to keep within a historical context, if you're going to dredge up history.
I guess if u were convicted for a sexual crime that would be the end your sex life!! They would also have to tie both hands behind your back just in case you decided to go solo...
The Mitnik order is ridiculous because it predates the modern age of ubiquitous computers, and assumes that all the things that a person can do on a computer are bad. Clearly this is not the case. A much more sensible order would be to ban him from using telnet, or from attempting remote access to a machine by any method other than a web browser. (this is just an example - it would need to be phrased properly in legalese. I know bad thhings are possible with a web browser.)
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
It kind of makes you wonder how the prosecution can argue that he caused millions of dollars in "damage" when not only did he not cause the companies "losses" by selling the information to others, but since he did everything electronically, how do they figure they can get away with saying that he broke something? When he was done the systems worked *exactly* the same way that they had when he got there, but if anything, he introduced the companies to security holes that they SHOULD patch before someone does actually come along and blackmail them for their source codes.
If they did mean personal computers, he is then allowed to use, say, a workstation? What about a dumb-terminal?
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
i agree. Granted he did break the law, he was incarcerated for years without a trial. this case, like many others, the punishment did not fit the crime. Mitnick was used as as example, but the number of hackers have grown rapidly since mitnick.
May the source be with you \0perator
huked on fonicks werked fer mei.....
He wouldn't be allowed into the UK because he has a criminal conviction for which he served more than 1 year.
Most European countries operate a similar policy, so he'd have a great deal of difficulty.
Of course, if he really wanted to enter the UK, he could always take up boxing...
Hehehe... Yeah... Kevin, go ahead and use that SGI ONYX 2... We don't mind, as long as you stay away from those Imacs... :)
How should we define it then..?
Kevin is not allowed to use any kind of computation device with an operating system that lets him manipulate data on either local machines or machines connected to it via any form of communication lines...
Is that it? =)
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
They maybe should have specified that it is Personal Computers that he is not suppoused to use... Maybe they even did, but the news sources forgot to include it...
I think most people understand what they meant...
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
Mitnick's probationary ban from computers ends three years from today, no? I predict he will be hired immediately as a security consultant once it's over, likely by one or more of the firms he cracked, and likely for mucho $$$. A similar thing happened to Phiber Optik once he was released from prison. Apart from the prosecution's (and the trial judge's) abominable rape of his right to a speedy trial, I really don't have much sympathy for the guy...
How will this condition be enforced? Any fairly bright person could find a way to hide a computer. I know what he will be doing.. first chance he gets.
Kevin did some very wrong things and he got what he deserved. He has proven throughout his life that he cannot use a computer without misusing it. The parole is appropriate as it integrates him with society before giving him access to the tool he cannot use properly. While playing the "what is a computer" game may be interesting for purposes of insurance and such, in this case, I think the traditional concept of computer extended to handheld wireless devices is sufficient. It is not that hard to figure out what the parole board is trying to prevent him from doing. Bottom line: he can clearly drive his car and cook in the microwave.
this is unlike linux and *BSD, which got audited over the years, so holes are showing up one by one, not a whole bunch, which might result in combination to an ever bigger vulnerability.
i know kevin downloaded the solaris source, but i don't have a clue if he published it to the cracker scene. if this would be the case kevin might have helped in open sourcing solaris, as sun could be pretty sure every hacker would have already looked at it.
ok, it was 4 years ago, but still a nice thought :)
Gee, thanks...
And maybe next time you can check your own ID for spelling errors...
Just a thought...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
Ok...So this guy contributed to Linux development.
Big Deal...So have thousands of other people who have NOT committed a crime and been caught...
As long as we continue to celebrate stupidity, that's what will people will continue to cultivate...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
Ok, admittedly I haven't read the case. I'm going to take a chance here and ask about it. Flame me, and you'll be ignored - I'm looking for information, not idiots.
I have heard (speaking with a few people, reading this or that, and talking with my husband) that this is what happened: He worked as a security professional or sysadmin. He cracked the machines of his employer (or maybe he was a freelancer, cracked and then did this), and took the information to the people who owned the machine. He said, basically, 'You have a problem here, I think you should fix it. Be glad I'm not a bad-guy and am here to help, not harm, or you'd be up shit creek'. He then got arrested and put in jail for it, just as if he HAD been the bad-guy and had taken down the system - not to mention the violation of a lot of his rights in the process.
Given the tone of the posts on this story, I must have something wrong. If that is what happened, I'd think the people here would be up in arms about him - it could happen to anyone who, say, ran Satan on their work machines to be sure they were safe, or who logged into one of their work machines with a hole, to find out if the hole was there and to fix it. If this isn't what happened, then what is? Does anyone have a non-biased version of the story? Where is the info?
Thanks,
-Elthia
You know something, you're right. I had the wrong person. :)
:) :P
That's when I learned that viewing a web page based in Oregon could be a crime. Among other random little weirdnesses of the law.
-Elthia
thanks
Yeah, I'm not a True Geek (TM) - I don't know Perl.
Yet.
As this glorious MadMorf Day comes to a close, I want to once again thank you, Madmorf--for being you--without which none of this would have been possible.
Every city, every borough, is reporting back with the inspiring news that this event--your event!--has been a resounding success. With such a virtuous, intelligent role model, on this day the hearts and minds (and souls!) of the entire Open Source Community have been greatly enlarged. I expect that we will see a lasting effect from this, and it is obvious that we are all better for it.
So, let no one in the future put forward false, unvirtuous idols! Let all remember the example of MadMorf and his Words of Wisdom!
Let freedom ring! and welcome back, Kevin.
I want to make a personal pledge, MadMorf, to do my best to celebrate you, and all that is MadMorf.
Hence,
I hereby declare that today is MAD MORF day, and instruct that this declamation should be carried from person to person, street corner to street corner, from forest to vale, until all of the Linux Nation knows and sings the sacred name.
I would just like to comment that althought what Kevin did was wrong the way he was treated by the American legal system was not much better. I believe that if had access to large sums of money that he would have been out on the street in a few weeks instead of 4+ years. I mean, at least he's not getting away with anything... like murder for example in another case where the defendant was able to offer up large sums of money for legal defense, Kevin wasn't. Just goes to show you what really drives the American Legal System.. a lot of FUD and MONEY.
I see you referenced a web site in your message. There is a handy new invention called a hyperlink that you can use with your reference. It involves a short piece of HTML code. Email me if you need help learning how to use it.
OK, off topic and bitter. Slightly more on topic, I do believe that white collar crime is underpunished, but I don't believe that it is the equivelent of murder or rape in the abstract. (Some of the more shocking examples are another story.)
...will work for Chick tracts...
Someone else would have and propably was using the same exploits as Mitnick. He was the guy who got caught and became the posteer boy for the (h)(cr)racker community. I think Kevin will make a buttload of money, whoring himself to the Enquirer and the news shows and ending up as a "Security Consultant".
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Erm... How is he going to read your questions without using a computer ? Do you want to put him back in jail or something ;-)
Doesn't that just show you how far we've come. The best ideas are still jotted on a legal pad IMHO.
If Kevin is interviewed. I would be most interested in hearing his views on the legal system and the state of criminal law dealing with computers. Mitnick is not an UberHacker like some would have us believe - he's just a guy who got caught breaking very arcane laws. What makes this case interesting is the precedents it sets for all the other people who get caught doing anything "illegal" on the net. Where does it go from here? I'm sure Kevin has an opinion on that one.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Maybe, but there is no way you'd ever get 4 or 5 years in jail for it. Maybe a year probation if you trashed the lock.
...how would he secure a server? he hasn't touched a computer for 5 years. I'm sure he's still a security expert, but 5 years is a long time in computer years. As much as I hate to burst your bubble, it's the general opinion that Mitnick wasn't really this dreaded security expert. He knew his way around VMS and DEC UNIX, but most of his exploits (ie adventures) were nothing but exploits (ie sploits...). Almost everything he did was based on social engineering (you wanna call him an expert at something, then choose that) and the Chaos Computer Club's loginout patch. Honestly, if he did still have criminal intent, keeping him away from tech wouldn't stop him, he could rob billions just with his landline phone... no high technology involved in a rob-the-old-folks telemarketing operation....
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
You know, he probably hasn't even heard of Slashdot, or know the implications of the Slashdot effect. :)
Keep in mind, he's been in prison for five years, 8 months of solitary confinement, and hasn't touched a computer in all that time either. Man, that would suck (especially since it wasn't a very timely trial).
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
He was guilty, so you can't argue that there was an innocent man sitting in jail before his trial.
Hello? Unless you don't live in America, you don't have an excuse to know that YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That means that, yes, Kevin was innocent these past five years until such time that he was PROVEN to be guilty.
You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
Naaahhhhh... Current practice in some countries. Not to mention being wrapped in a sheet, buried up to your knees in dirt, and stoned to death...(But that's for adultry).
Hidden Win2K Menu
There's an idea for employment! Kevin could work at the Kwik-E-Mart! Apu would just have him change the expiration dates on the lunch meats, and let Sonji run the register! Kevin gets to work, and the world is safe from his evil, dangerous, unrepentant, threat-to-the-American-way-of-life computer hacking! It's win-win!
Ethics. It's all we have.
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Hell, most of these nimrods act like they've never *touched* a computer anyhow, so...
:^)
What's in the laws is not always what's right.
Just because a prison sentence is typical does not mean it's unreasonable. Look at the many prisoners incarcerated for many years for minor and/or victimless drug crimes. It's better press for politicians to claim they're fighting crime by jacking up jail sentences, than to say they're working for reduced sentences because the current ones are outrageous. Unfortunately, this leads to longer and longer sentences, mandatory minimums, and policies like three-strikes, which don't seem to work. Use your favorite search engine for more info on the "war on drugs" and "mandatory sentencing".
I agree...but what is cruel and unusual punishment? According to who? I think prison is cruel punishment if I had that as a punishment. But they wouldn't listen to me....we should use Thailand as an example..you commit a crime..you rot in a hole in the ground and are virtually nothing more than maggot food....cruel? you bet....but crime is almost NIL in those countries. In the US, if you commit a felony..you get 3 meals, a warm bed, and cable. Not too shabby. In Burma, you MIGHT get 1 meal that week...and you only see daylight when they walk you to the execution wall. Tell you one thing though..if I knew that that would be my punishment..I might be a little more careful next time I cut someone off on the highway :)
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
"it may be especially hard for Kevin because he isn't allowed to use computers" Okay, now can someone please tell me just how the heck they're going to enforce this? I mean, what is someone going to follow him around every moment of his life to make sure he doesn't touch a computer? Give the guy a break, he's served his time, let him have back his freedom of using technology.
Let me also add that he asked HIS defense lawyers to hold back the trial so they could gather evidence, and his running from the feds didn't help either. I don't like the government one bit, but this time its his own fault.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Al Gore (who invented the internet, remember?) is always saying that he wants internet access to EVERYONE. Yet the same government wants to ban a very talented programmer from touching them.
kwsNI
>>Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their
networks?retool?
>By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
no, by that logic, a better analogy would be.....if i set someone's house on fire, then inform them that it was flammable, i should be charged with arson.
really, burning down a house isn't that good an analogy at all.....since, as far as i understand it, no actual damage was done in kevin's case other than to the pride of certain individuals.......
imo, under slightly different conditions (e.g. he'd been contracted -- ever heard of "mystery shopping"??) this guy's activities would be called "consulting".......but the fact is, he wasn't hired. he broke in to these systems, without the owners' saying "please, try and break in."
so, it might have been fun (and even construed as an unintended *favor* to the "victims"), but, in strict legal terms, he had no business doing what he did.
it's basic issue of "sovreignty".......i retain the right to exercise exclusive control over my own domain (domain, in the psychological sense). even if what someone does is meant as, or ends up unintentionally being, a *favor*, it still disempowers me because it is something to which i did not consent.......
----------
Computer programmers do it byte by byte.
Millions of dollars in damages?conduct that caused these companies to shut down their networks?retool?
By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
No, only if you set fire to it to prove how flammable it is:)
In reality, somewhere in between. Kevin didn't actually need to copy the secrets, and it doesn't seem that he wanted to simply let them know how bad their security was. On the other hand, he didn't do any harm. The companies would have had to spend millions on shutting down their networks if they discovered the security flaw through other means.
How did they know he was copying their information anyway? Is this one of those occasions where the real crime is getting caught?
I agree with you that Kevin Mitnick's cracking were of no great technical skill. But the
way the entire case was handled by the court
system and the media was and is outragous. They
went after him, they wanted to make an example out
of him. They made him the martyr that he is!
The fact is that : if you leave your front door
open, and someone walks in, is that considered
breaking and entering??
Kevin is the one who did what others could not or did not dare to do.
You've forgotten a category of people. The others who did not do it because it was wrong to do.
Some of us can think beyond "if I do that I would get punished, so I dare not do it" and develop a sense of what's right and what's wrong. Obviously there are other people who never reach that level of maturity. Their loss. Oh well.
his social engineering skills is astonishing
In case anybody reading this thread doesn't know what someone whose "social engineering skills are astonishing" is classified as in normal society here it is in more clear, mainstream language: Mitnick is a pathological liar.
I guess some people think that makes him a technical wizard. The rest of us think otherwise.
In fairness, we either need to ease up on the Mitnicks or come down harder on violent criminals.
Or, perhaps, we could come down harder on violent criminals, and continue to lock up pathological liars like Keven Mitnick.
Of course, maybe I can make some money selling "Lock Up Kevin" bumper stickers! I'm sure that not everyone loves him. It would have been nice if he and Patrick Naughton could have shared a cell for 30 years.
---------
---------
See who's a dork today! Check out dork.to
Equvicating punishment for murder and rape to playing around on someone else's computer mearly shows your level of respect for your own kind. But then again seeing that you are at one of the most expensive schools in the world explains it for all to see, you elitist piece of garbage.
If you think a rapist or murderer is being aptly punished with 5 years in a prison..
The scary thing here is that the judge, or whoever is responsible for these terms of parole, was convinced that Mitnick could somehow cause "millions of dollars of damage" or take over the world or something just by coming in contact with a computer. If the general public perceives hackers and "computer experts", who are mostly responsible for the advancements in communications we've seen, as this dangerous, then we are hindering ourselves. If people were not so ignorant about computers, Mitnick would not be suffering so much. This would hardly be an issue.
I was quite interested about this - I read Cyberpunk which has a pretty long buildup about Kevin's life ... but it never once mentioned his contributions to Linux. Is there anything on the net, where I can find a bit more about his contribution? ... I just wondered if he was a major inputter or just coded a few smalltime modules ... ?
I don't think he will get a passport while on parole.
--
M-x all-hail-emacs RET
Heh, imagine that. Of course, no one here has ever borrowed a friend's account (contrary to just about every AUP out there) or inhaled, either.
Hmmm, what's that rubbing noise I hear in the background...is everyone polishing their halos?
-Duketor (tim.meehan@utoronto.ca)
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
O.K. Maybe Janatorial Servces. I have friends and family who work in construction and assebly lines and they have to use a PC. Perhaps not all construction jobs or assebly line jobs require this but a lot do. I can see him not being alowed to own a persoal PC or access to the net but to say he can't use one at all... It just seems a little extreme considering the amount of jobs that require the use of them. My brother is a welder and he has to use a PC to get his work orders and mark them as complete....
I don't see how he can possible get a job at all. I worked as a Manger for a fast food restraunt while I was in college and had to use a PC with a modem in it to place orders for supplies and to file the reports to the main office. What job can you possible get that you don't have to use a PC at????????
I think this one is a little crazy. Someone very clueless came up with this one.
the terms of it are... Can someone post what the real consitions are? According to ZDnet's article he can use computer equipment with "the prior written consent of his probation officer." Although it is still restrictive, it is certainly a far cry from not being able to use an ATM or work in a bookstore. Will he get a job as a Sun SysAdmin? Probably not, but I doubt that the terms of probation will prevent that any more than his reputation alone would. --Neil
my biggest question is how exactly could he be a security consultant, I mean, the guys been away from computers for over 4 years, alot has changed...
It isn't just Mitnick. The Melissa author also stands ready to be keelhauled. There are lots of people eager to lock 'em up and throw away the key but look at what Mitnick did and what he got. Then look at some of the sentences violent criminals are getting. It seems like nearly any offense gets 3-5 years. That doesn't make sense. In fairness, we either need to ease up on the Mitnicks or come down harder on violent criminals.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
#2 Use a fscking spell checker! You're post was beyond atrocious
That's "Your post" not "You're post".
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
He got caught doing something illegal and he's being punished. If you don't want to be an ex-con then don't break the law, what a concept. There were legal ways for Mitnick to practice his 'inquisitive mind', he could have got a job as a security consultant. He could even have donated his services as a security consultant to non-profit organizations if getting payed for it was somehow morally reprehensible to him.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for him at all. Personally I wouldn't want him working in my company, he's already demonstrated not only a complete lack of trustworthiness but a surplus of stupidity by violating the terms of his probation.
Let him serve fries at McDonald's, don't complain about the results of his own stupidity.
I wonder if he can leave the US. Then I suppose that the US laws don't apply on him (but [FLAMEBAIT]ask the Cubans about Helms-Burton[/FLAMEBAIT]). At least in spirit, the goal is to keep this man off the US computers.
Maybe he could work with computers somewhere else [FLAMEBAIT]in the free world[/FLAMEBAIT]. But what if he is given a telnet to the US?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I kinda wanted to see the story with a fistfight between Mitnick and Shimomura and everyone on rollerblades and constantly saying "What is the Matrix?")
**>>BELCH
the terms of it are that he can't use computer equipment with any kind of modem or network connection, can't use PC's or coporate computing equipment, etc. the real problem here is ATM machines, which use modem/network connections to connect back to the bank. i feel for him; i couldn't live without my ATM card. *grin* --bc
the amazing bc
------------------------------------------
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
That sounds more like the strange case of Intel and Randal Schwartz. (Randal Schwartz is a big-time Perl hero and Intel is a large CPU manufacturer which employs at least one managers who has the strange ability to testify one week that he has examined pages of Perl and found security backdoors and then to testify two weeks later that he wouldn't recognize Perl from phonetic Swahili.)
Find more details here.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
"It was no game to the man who was trying to catch him, Federal Prosecutor Chris Painter. "Millions of dollars in damages...conduct that caused these companies to shut down their networks...retool....That's not a prankster," says Painter.
Is it really damages when a company was forced to do what they should have done all along, that is, secure their systems?
>ask him a few questions, Like how he himself would secure a server. What OS is the most secure (in his opinion).
how would he secure a server? he hasn't touched a computer for 5 years. I'm sure he's still a security expert, but 5 years is a long time in computer years.
im not sure what kind of isolation tank they had him in, but it would be alot more interesting to interview him in a month or two and get his perspective on the changes that have taken place in the last 5 years. (THAT could be enlightening)
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Lets face it computers are EVERYWHERE...
There is NO WAY he can NOT come into contact with one.
If he drives he has the cars onboard computer, cross the streat and the crosswalk is computer controlled.
lets look at the streat lights... Maby you had to deal with street lights that went out of sync.. only 5 seconds to cross the road before you got ran over.. or worse the walk sign says "walk" before the cross traffic gets a red or the cross traffic gets a green and the walk sight still says "walk"... also issues of a fast "green yellow red" switch time causing accadents as well as times when ALL LIGHTS are green.
Also many citys need to control the folow of traffic to prevent traffic jams.. It gets all complex and statistical and it's run by computer...
So when you push that big "WALK" button.. Yep.. now can Keven do that? No..
Walk into a store.. wops.. that security computer just scanned you to be shure your not walking out with stolen property (it dosn't know what direction your going).. computer....
Now he comes near a point of sale terminal.. Computer.....
TV Cable.... Apartment uses newer power indicator... UPS wants you to sign for a pacage..
It'll take a volation for people to recognise what this means...
If he can not come near a computer (if memory serves that was one of the requirements) he can not go outside...
I'm using a Ricochet modem.. it works by sending signals vea short distence relays.. thies relays are small computers mounted on telephone polls(with citys permition)... He can not come into my city becouse we have those relays...
Forget the Point of sell terminals for a moment... walk into a convence store and a bunch of the gadgets on sale are computers...
My grandmother is a bit of a ludite.. she REFUSES to have a computer in her home.. so Kevens safe there right? Door bell and TV... thats all but thats enough...
(Only one of the 2 TVs BTW.. The wide screen TV with all the neat features and digital cable box vs the older "solid state" TV).
Her Microwave uses a macanical timer so he dosn't have to worry about that but many use imbeded computer systems...
Even toys today use imbeded computers today...
Might as well say he can't come near indoor plumbing...
Now post 2 on this topic [a troll] also dose make an intresting point by example... People do not have any idea what this means... They see "Computer" and think Univac.. They forget the last 30 years of technology...
I mean... consider this... He may not be free long... He's going it sit infront of a streaming video recording computer (profesional TV camra) and talk into a audio sample computer (A digital mike).... and not even know it....
Finnaly I'd like to suggest that Keven saved them money... If he hadn't exploted the security defects someone else would have...
But what he did was wrong.. no one asked him to find defects.. he was basicly waisting his time and tallent...
Now what is he going to do? Sell his skill to someone who can use it? Like a REAL theaf?
Becouse he can't do anything else..
I don't actually exist.
Erm... How is he going to read your questions without using a computer ? Do you want to put him back in jail or something ;-)
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
...on the definition of a computer in his case. Is a Palm allowed? What about a digital watch? A calculator? WebTV? (With a keyboard and a Java telnet client...)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
What else would you do in jail?
Prepare your defense. I understand that this is what Mitnick spent most of his time on.
Hmm? I have a problem with judicial systems (or people for that matter) not realizing that killing is killing and really won't be anything other than a murder, no matter the side of the law and the circumstances.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
If the term used by the judge is "computer," that is sufficiently vague for someone to claim Mitnick has violated it by driving a car. Vague laws (or judgements or decisions) are very easy to abuse. I see things twisted every week to say what the person WANTS it to say because there's just a tiny ambiguity.
If the terms of his parole only dictate that he can't interact with "a computer" then that can be abused by someone to say that his using a microwave oven violates his parole. Ambiguity in law is a very, very bad thing.
I agree with e-gold - I would be freaked out too if man in black drags are running around signing arrest warrants.
I'll bet his lawyers will win an appeal stating that with our technology rich society, not having access to the net is somehow perceived as cuel and unusual punishment.
Oh please! You don't honestly believe that tripe you spit out do you? I mean amputation, vivasection, stoning, and burning all pale in compression to not being able to surf the net for nudie pics and get into IRC pissing contests.
The majority of the people in the USA (and the vast majority of the world) isn't even on the the Internet. Are they being punished? No. Are they're lives somehow less? Not a chance. Are they not able to function in society, hold adequate jobs, or raise families? OF COURSE THEY CAN!
If you believe that not having a cable modem running to you home somehow makes you less of a person you've been reading Wired and listening to Madison Avenue for too damn long.
People here are saying: "Computers are everywhere! He violates his parole just walking across the street." Only fools don't know what the court meant by "computer". The judge meant PCs, Macs, workstations, servers, etc. In general anything that can reasonably be used as a cracking device. Use common sense people! When you hear someone say they're going to use the computer do really stop and thing, "Gee. I wonder if they're going to be using the CD player, or maybe the washing machine? No wait I got it! The digital alarm clock!" Trying to excalate an embeded microcontroller to the same level as the machine each and every one of you are using this very moment is a gross overstatment.
Times like this make me ashamed of reading slashdot.
Sorry, but your sarcasm just doesn't work here. When bankers and traders break the law, they are routinely prohibited from working their profession for years after their release from prison. Doctors found to have been negligent can no longer practice medicine. Lawyers who commit crimes are disbarred. And this is a good thing.
Just because you can't imagine life without a computer doesn't mean that it's not possible. I have nothing against Mitnick, but he's certainly not a saint, and doesn't special treatment. Give the man a broom -- that is, if you can find one without a built-in computer.
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
The fact is that : if you leave your front door
open, and someone walks in, is that considered
breaking and entering??
Depending where you live, yes. In many jurisdictions today, the "breaking" element is treated only to mean crossing the "close," or the invisible border that represents the protectible property interest of the title-holder. Other jurisdictions still require the "breaking" element to require the tearing away or removal of a lock, or the like.
But guess what? It doesn't much matter what the crime is called, entering without permission is still a crime. Merely entering or remaining without authority, license or express invitaiton, constitutes criminal trespass in many states. In Florida, entering or remaining in a dwelling with intent to commit an offense therein constitutes burglary, a first degree felony. If someone dies during the felony, that alone can be grounds for first degree murder!
Is there any serious question whether the state proved to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes with which Mr. Mitnick was charged and convicted? If so, let's talk particulars, in view of the particular statutes, and stop this bullshit about whether any wrong has been done or whether a straw man charge can be laid at the feet of some hypothetical individual.
From the AP, I can't really see how in this day of internet connected everything, he cannot be around anything that will connect him. I'll bet his lawyers will win an appeal stating that with our technology rich society, not having access to the net is somehow perceived as cuel and unusual punishment.
Virtually nothing done by a modern state stands afoul of the Eighth Amendment. In view of judicial determinations that execution by an electric chair do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, this argument doesn't pass the giggle test.
Umm, people on parole are normally not allowed to leave their city without asking for permission. Obviously they have to stay in their country...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
That means Kevin cannot go to a college. That's a great reason to appeal. As of not being able to leave the country... maybe China, Cuba will strike a deal with him and he can work there as a Net Warior against the US?
I have no idea how much judicial review there is for parole-board actions, but if they are subject to injunction or appeal this may be a way to give the government a black eye. If Kevin is willing to try something like the word-processor thing and the government jumps on him, having them reversed on First Amendment grounds would look very bad for the parole board. It would also put legal handcuffs on future parole boards; once there's a decision saying that such tactics are an abuse of a parolee's civil rights, they can't even use the threat again.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The problem with that is that he'd have to write his decisions in longhand, and I'm sure that OSHA would have something to say about the ergonomics of his workstation and repetitive stress injuries resulting therefrom.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
In the can means that a film has been shot and is being held off for various reasons. The reference being to the physical film being stored in a film can. This can basically mean at any stage, but most likely pre-editing. Many movies are "in the can" because post-production is so costly and the time is spent soliciting money to get the film back on its feet.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Just days after Kevin Mitnick got sent back to jail for using an atm several strange events occured.....
A guy begging for a cup of coffee got a dollar instead from a friendly stranger. He was subsequently arrested and put to jail for life. Reason? He was a convicted bank robber no longer allowed to come near money.
Another guy was found just outside his house frozen to death in a snowstorm. Apperently the man was an ex-burglar who wasn't allowed to touch doors.
An old lady got the shock of her life when a woman fell on the street out of nowhere just in front of her. The woman was convicted of several traffic offenses and she was apperently using the roofs of buildings to get to her appartment cause she was no longer allowed to come near roads.
On a more positive note, the traffic in the newsgroup alt.people.armed-robbers is rapidly increasing. This is mainly attributed to the fact that more and more armed robbers may no longer come near people and as such must seek their social contacts elsewhere.
And I thought chopping of a thiefs hand was medieval......
It worries to see people paint Kevin Mitnick as some kind of hero. This guy knowingly broke the law, repeatedly. Slash dotters are known for their love of freedom. However, true freedom comes with responsibility. Responsibility for ones own actions. Living within the framework of the law is part of freedom. It is there to protect your rights. No countries laws are perfect. Infact they are often far from it. In this particular case you may disagree with the sentencing. That's up to you, but that is a seperate issue. Making a hero of Mitnick will only result in other gullable people following the same course of stupidity and beleiving they are "cool" when "fool" would be a better description. This bloke's life in now a mess but just remember who really messed it up. Himself. He thought he was invincible but he was caught!! I for one do not feel sorry for him.
P.S. You can learn a whole lot about computing, networking, security etc without having to infringe on the rights of others!
(That great crashing noise you just heard was me falling of my soap box)
It's gonna be a bitch to debug his code ;)
I feel that everyone is taking the "all computers" to an extreme. Judging by the rest of the sentence, "all computers" would actually suggest that they mean "all personal computers". He isn't very well going to crack the cash register at the Kwik-E-Mart, and I really doubt that the circuitry in his microwave poses any real threat to the rest of the technological world. Everyone simply needs to realize that this judgment was most likely passed down by a less techno-savvy individual than those of us who frequent /., and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem
What if Kevin moved to Europe ?
Is he allowed to leave the US at all and if so, what if he took up a job accross the atlantic, would the arms of the upholders of US law stretch that far ? I seriously can't imagine that to be the case. They're _craving_ for good people over here in Europe, and should one get lonely, there's always the 'net. These parole computer restriction orders seem like an exercise in futility for inhabitants of the global village that is the 'net.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
That's why his sentence was harsh, IMHO. I seriously worry about this free-market economy in which we are all a part when crimes are measured by the amount of financial harm done, rather than measured by how much humanity or society was in danger. It seems that for murder, (unless the trash press get ahold of it) you can expect to do your time and be out in 20 years, but here, we're denying basic rights way after this poor sod's got out of jail, simply because of the amount of money he allegedly cost a corporation, trying to fix holes in their computer security that shouldn't have been there in the first place!
My hangover's clearing now.... I needed that rant.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
From the AP, I can't really see how in this day of internet connected everything, he cannot be around anything that will connect him. I'll bet his lawyers will win an appeal stating that with our technology rich society, not having access to the net is somehow perceived as cuel and unusual punishment.
Never knock on Death's door:
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I dont know the specifics of the Kevin Mitnick case, and I wont even attempt to dispute the guilt of either the defense or the prosecution. I just want to know, why is punishment being extended beyond the time served? Why is it that American's (who I am one of) will stand by their rights and Constitution, but at the same time will deny those rights to others if they feel threatened by them? Yes Mitnick commited a crime and was found guilty, but once he serves the time, he should be free to live his life. I guess this is a wide spread problem as sexual offenders can never be truely free once convicted. The thing to think about though is, if you keep a computer hacker from computers for fear of future crimes, why are murderers allowed access to people?
For the lack of nothing better to say. Have a good day.
Okay, so as long as your evesdropping on your roommate's phone conversation is kept a secret, it's not intrusive, disruptive, or wrong. Sure.
The bottom line is, he broke the law. No social status should allow anyone to get off the hook.
As far as the punishment goes, I think it fit the crime. He broke in to a computerized system and nosed around. The punishment should, in my opinion, have something to do with limiting his access to computerized systems like the ones that he used to break the law in the first place.
I also agree that in this day, zero computer access/use is almost impossible. However, there are people in the world (and even in the US) who funcion very well without Internet access (an inconceivable notion to some /. readers ;)
On the other hand, if the assigned punishment was too harsh, what should it have been? I don't think there would be an easy way to regulate computer access on a daily basis or something.
Sometimes, it's better to give a little harder kick as a warning to discourage further actions.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
So, Mitnick is not to be allowed near a computer again. How about the DoJ not letting Microsoft go near a web browser ?
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
What is your opinion on Lewiz Depayne? Have you heard of Lew's online business? (Note to the reader: this site is REALLY Lew's business)
Well, I personally am not that interested in Mitnick himself, but the various factors surrounding his imprisonment and trial do interest me quite a bit.
He spent four years in jail without being convicted of a crime. This is partially because his lawyer was forced to waive his rights to a speedy trial. There were several million pages of evidence presented by the government, and Mitnick was given one part-time lawyer (whom the court refused to pay extra to give him more time to sift through the pile of evidence) and extremely limited access to a law library (and no access to computers). If he didn't waive his rights to a speedy trial, he'd have to waive his right to a fair trial. Forcing him to give up one or the other of his constitutional rights is obviously not something that should be allowed.
The damages claimed by the various companies also raises the issue of the financial cost of piracy, an issue discussed on slashdot in the past in other stories. Several companies claimed that since Mitnick obtained the source code to their operating systems and software, they had sustained a loss equal to the entire cost of development of the software and any future projected sales. This is obviously extremely innacurate (but common practice among the various anti-piracy groups). There's also the interesting fact that these millions of dollars of supposed losses were not reported to stockholders, as required under SEC regulations.
Finally, there's the issue of computer-use restrictions on parole. Many people, including myself, feel that these are wrong, and certainly counter-productive. Rather than keeping him from engaging in computer-related crime again, they will be more likely to remove his chances for employment and force him into crime to make money. His skills are computer-related, and even if he were to go for a job that wasn't directly computer-related, nearly all jobs these days use computers in one way or another.
Anyway, these, and some other assorted reasons, are why I, and I suspect many other slashdotters, care about Mitnick, despite the fact that he's a relatively uninteresting hax0r d00d in and of himself.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm no Mitnick expert, but didn't his lawyer waive his right to a speedy trial?
I think this is an excellent point of view. Lots of private information can be exploited for profit, but the acquisition of it is not necessarily theft.
By this logic, if I inform someone that their house is on fire, I should be charged with arson.
...as long as he doesn't use a computer to do it? I'm just curious since I remember seening a book containing a complete printout of the 2.2.5 linux kernel last time I was over in Border's. For a guy who had developed such a "penchant for cracking systems in search of proprietary source code," wouldn't it be just great to see some Mitnick-contributed code to the linux kernel? (Perhaps regarding security...) Afterall, the article clearly identifies Mitnick as a "Hacker"... (c: --Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Whether you consider him to be a script kiddie punk, or a political martyr, the fact remains that the man has been incarcerated longer than some who are sentenced for rape, kidnapping, agrravated assault, battery, grand theft auto...
Surely I wasn't the only one in this thread that remembers hearing WGO radio giving thier 'Mitnick
Manhunt Updates', and thought something like,
"What if that was me?".
*shiver*
Hey Kevin, let me buy you your first beer in four years. It's the least I can do.
Isn't that kind of like telling a con-man who used fake ID to con people that he may not use an ID or a razor blade, ever?
Or a B&E artist that he may not posess a crowbar, hammer, or any rope?
Or... a white-collar money launderer that he can't have any money?
Or... well, the list goes on.
The exception, of course, is guns... but we, as a society, prevent those who committed 'violent' crimes with guns from being allowed to legally posess guns, as they have demonstrated that they are a threat. A *violent, life-endangering threat*
Many things you might not consider today constitute theft under state law. In particular, Kevin's own analogy, "joyriding" is, at least here in Florida, theft. Likewise the use of computers in various ways to manipulation of information legally constitutes theft. As does the use or disclosure of trade secrets of another.
Not for years has the legal definition of theft been limited to the "taking and asportation of personal property of another with the intent to deprive permanently." Modern statutes have liberalized or deleted virtually every element of the crime, largely because of hypertechnical arguments used by criminals to avoid justice.
Many words have both common and legal meanings, that may differ. Such differences, even if present, do not factor into whether the man is a criminal. By his own words, he was "like James Bond." Great, so instead of being a mere thief, he committed a capital crime!
So, this "argument" is really down to p.r. or sophistry. Sure, it may not be Kevin-Theft, or Slashdot-Theft, whatever those words might mean but if it is Legal-Theft (read the statutes) guess what? He goes to jail and deals with his probation.
For my part, this man's conduct was both wrongful and illegal, whatever it might have been called. He has not manifest great insight or technical skill in his admittedly routine cracking. He has offered nothing of value to the society which he has harmed. And so, he has done nothing to justify the martyrdom status bestowed upon him, and reflects poorly upon us all.
In modern life, computers are _everywhere_. Even a digital watch has a 4bit computer, probably more powerful than an IBM 1130.
Telephones, TVs, elevators, cars, ATMs, POS, VCRs, CD players and the list goes on. Even fastfood joints use computerised cooking equipment. Oddly, an old reel-to-reel tape recorder has no computer, so Kevin could use one to reprogram credit card magnetic strips. So maybe he shouldn't use credit cards either. If he could even get one.
Now the Judge probably didn't mean to prohibit these devices, or even know that they could be considered computers. But Parole Officers have a bad reputation for capriciousness, especially with high-profile parolees they want to take down a peg-or-two. So Kevin will have to watch is back, perhaps worse than in prison.
-- Robert
Yes we all fuck up at some time in our life, but we don't all blatantly break the law like he did.
Trying to excuse his behaviour because he was addicted is like excusing a drunk from holding up a liquor store because he's an alcoholic. It just doesn't fit.
Adam
Why should we be interested in this guy? He's a cracker, and a pretty poor one at that.
He's the computer equivalent to the shaking junkie who sticks a gun in the face of a 7-Eleven clerk to get money for a fix, then waves to the security camera on the way out. He left a trail a mile wide, and couldn't stop his illegal activities even when he knew the authorities were after him.
Why is he being portrayed as some kind of Digital Martyr?
"Kevin Mitnick has been imprisoned by the U.S. Government for:
4 years, 11 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 12 minutes, 55 seconds
Kevin Mitnick will be released from prison in:
11 months, 30 days, 19 hours, 14 minutes, 8 seconds"
Y2K bug still alive and well huh?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
that Kevin won't be able to read...
ZDNet's got a Kevin Poulsen-written article on the Mitnick release here.
(Most of what I know of the Mitnick story comes from Jonathan Littman's book "The Fugitive Game" (which is about as Kevin sympathetic as "Takedown" is self-congradulatory), and the article sounds like Lewis DePayne's pretty Anti-Kevin now -- of course, he's got his own legal problems and probably wants to avoid some of the attention that a former accomplice might bring)
ABC News has (at least as of midnight thursday) a poll on whether hackers should go to jail on their front page. (Not many options though.) They've got the Associated Press story on it here.
Salon's got the same AP story here. (in case you want to look at different banner ads, I guess)
A decent summary of the Miramax flick is here. (interestingly, it lists the Project phase as "In the can" which sounds worse than "On the shelf" as the other articles mention-- which is too bad. I kinda wanted to see the story with a fistfight between Mitnick and Shimomura and everyone on rollerblades and constantly saying "What is the Matrix?")
-transiit
I seem to recall NTK (http://www.ntk.net) suggesting that with all these restrictions on using, associating with or learning about high-tech stuff, the only job Kevin will be able to get is a judge :-)
60M: Mister Mitnick, do you believe that your computer restriction orders will limit your hacking activities?
KM: SKREEEEEEEEAWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
GONNNNNNG GONNNNNG
KSSHHHHHHHHHHH
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
First off, I'm all in agreement with everyone who said that Kevin's treatment by the Justice System was a shambles. Alot of the system got trampled in the rush to prosecute, and I'm not happy with the way the whole thing went at all.
That said, I'm really tired of people bitching and moaning about how Kevin really didn't do anything, and how his sentance was soooooo long, and now he has all these nasty restrictions, etc...
Some facts and a reality check here, folks.
So please, stop with the bitching about the sentance length. It's not atypical, nor unreasonable.
Bottom line here, folks, is that Kevin broke the law bigtime. I don't condone how he was prosecuted, but he IS a criminal.
And, if you look at things in the big picture, white collar crime is seriously UNDERPUNISHED in the US. White collar crime is generally far more damaging to society that violent crime (whose affect is more focused), in that white collar undermines the economic system itself. A couple of years washing dishes in a minimum-security facility doesn't even come close to being either a deterent or reasonable punishment.
One last thing here. The terms of his parole are neither onerous, nor atypical. Yes, for most of us, living without a computer would be unpleasant, but it is VERY easy to live a life without coming into contact with computers (or at least, in ways that Kevin's parole stipulate he not use them - and the ATM argument is bogus. He should have no problem using an ATM, if I read the parole terms right). Sorry, Kevin, you're just going to have to go be something other than an IT worker. That still leaves lots open. And plenty of non-menial jobs, too.
An old aphorism hold here:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
I have no sympathy for Kevin himself. None at all. I'm still mad that prosecution handled itself the way it did, and I think they need to be taken to task for it, and heavily chastized. But I still don't feel for Kevin one iota.
And, I'm sorry, but /. shouldn't be interviewing convicted felons.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
... See subject.
60 minutes may not get the questions that we want to hear. Ok, so we'll find out on Sunday.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind