Slashdot Mirror
Mitnick Ordered Off Lecture Circuit
jpowell writes: "CNN had a story about Kevin Mitnick being ordered off of the lecture circuits. The federal probation office has said that he can no longer write or speak about technology issues." Normally I don't post Mitnick stories here, but, well, huh?
So, vote much?
He's not profiting from his crimes you fucking dimwit! He's profiting from his knowledge. Knowledge is not a crime! Fucking moron. Why do so many idiots here think that after someone serves their sentence for a crime, that they should continue to be prosecuted and have any opportunity to improve their life taken away from them? You seem to think that just because he committed a crime, he should have no opportunity to earn more than minimum wage forevermore. This is fucking bullshit! He served his time. He should have the same rights as the rest of us! He didn't kill anyone. He didn't rape or assault anyone. He just hacked into a computer. He copied some data. He didn't harm the companies financially, and certainly not to the extent that they originally claimed (and later retracted). Yet everyone wants to treat him like he's a sexual and/or violent offender and segregate him from society while taking away his ability to improve his life and lifestyle. That is why our country is turning into a fucking police state. Everyone is so fucking self-righteous. Until it's their head on the block because they pissed off the wrong person.
We warned you, this is what you get for letting Kevin play Wolfenstein...we warned you it would make him a bad citizen.
Well, he's not allowed to profit directly from his crime. So it all he did was tell war stories about his breakins, that might be stoppable. but if he's commenting about other issues such as current computer crime, I don't see how they can stop that. G. Gordon Liddy, famous convicted Watergate Burglar, cashed in on his notoriety and made a good living on the lecture circuit in later years, so I think there's plenty of precedent for what Mitnick is doing. Note: I am not a lawyer, but I'ved watched people play them on TV!
Seriously, I'm sick of people thinking any controversial opinion is a troll, and not just someone who doesn't follow the /. crowd. Anyway, in response...
Now here's the question. If he were anyone else, people wouldn't take him seriously. Don't even try to put Mitnick in the same class as a rapist or serial killer, btw!
No of course he's not in the same league as a rapist or serial killer, but the law is still the same - you can't profit from your crimes, which I think is a good thing. This isn't the sort of thing where you should pick and choose who it applies to - a crime is still wrong, whether it is a little wrong or a big wrong.
And what, you're saying he's only taken seriously because he's a criminal? Surely that just implies that his only selling point is that he was caught which surely isn't a plus point either?
I'm glad I live in a free country, not in the US.
I'm not in favor of malicious hacking, or destructive behavior in general, but I am favor of some sense of justice in a justice system. What Kevin did was unethical and wrong, but should he really have spent more time in jail than many people convicted of armed robbery, rape, or murder?
Yep, if I get really angry with someone and ALMOST beat them to death, I would probably serve less time than Mitnick has. So, whatever you do, don't mess with korporate amerika!
Justice in amerika depends less on what is done and more on who is doing what to whom.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I've always wondered that too. Convicted felons often have trouble finding legitimate steady work because either a) companies don't want criminals working for them or b) they are prohibited from working in a particular field because of their crime (computers, health care, working with children, etc.). So what do they end up doing? MAYBE get a job at McDonalds if they are lucky but even then Mitnick is screwed since they have computerized cash registers. ;-) How can someone prohibited from working with computers of any kind continue to work at ALL in today's society? He'd need to find some old stingy luddite to work for and do everything on pencil and paper without using a calculator. It's simply ridiculous that they can do this.
but all he really was was a hacker who got caught doing something illegal.
OK smart guy you tell me what he did that was wrong. Did he steal the only copy of the source code to solaris? Did he use stolen credit card numbers for ill-gotten gains? WHAT DID HE DO?
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
id Congress pass a law? No, a judge ruled. Even so, if you read the article, you would note that the article said "Under a plea agreement, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access." Do you know what a plea agreement means? It means he agreed to it. He could have gone to trial, but he agreed. And now he is complaining.
Which part says he gives up his right to Free Speech?
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
2) Aquiring skills, using them to commit a crime, doing time, then coming out and making money off of the _crime itself_.
Ok now explain how Mitnick is doing this? (or where you just talking out your ass?)
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Ever hear of Robert Tappan Morris? He is a criminal, he was in jail for the Internet Worm.
But also, as soon as he was released, he started a company dealing with computer security, which became a multi-million startup based on first-hand experience with computer security of its staff. Then he was admitted into a graduate CS program, and as of last fall he is an MIT professor.
His Daddy also works for the NSA (how do you think he knew enough about the flaws in sendmail etc... that made the WORM work?)
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
and specifically prohibited him from speaking about computers.
Where is your source for this info?
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
the tobacco is the freedom to decide what you want to do with your body rather than the gov't deciding.
While I agreed with the vast majority of your post, this part I'm not so sure about. I'd be perfectly content to let anybody who smokes do so freely, but the problem is that whenever they're smoking when I'm around they're directly hurting me with their secondhand smoke. With your alcohol example, I'm not getting hurt as a direct result of anyone's drinking. With tobacco, that's not the case. I'm still not sure what I would do about this if I had any power in government, though. I'm 100% for freedom, but not getting cancer is nice, too.
Time in prison? Oh yes, the months and months without a trial, without information about a trial, without offers of a trial, without any legal rights. It was either the plea bargin or spend the rest of his life in prison without being convicted.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
I agree that Mitnick engauged in criminal activity. But he also did his time in prison for it.
Not letting him use computers is (I guess) understandable, because of the amount of damage he caused. But not letting him talk about computers? Come on, that's just spite.
--
Four-digit slashdot ID. Recognize.
Mitnick's parole officer.
Steve Jackson Games defective warrent and subsequent thuggery.
Elian Gonzales defective warrent and thuggery in light of parties represented by counsel, awaiting a scheduled hearing, situation under federal court injunction... but hey, let's storm the house anyway.
DMCA
Napster demand letters, and all other instances where private interests hijack government processes beyond the normal protections accorded by tort law.
This is all bad, bad, stuff. It hurts everyone on aggregate. Even if you only care for money, this kind of stuff should be alarming. Russia isn't poor because Marx was a lousy economist. Russia is poor because as soon as you got ahead (if you were not part of the protected few), some goons showed up and confiscated what you had and packed you off to Siberia. And if you allow enough of these goons to breed, you get a mafia when the state collapses. Reform now, or regret it later.
I wrote parts of this stuff
In all honesty, I don't see what is wrong with this. Yes he did the crime. He's gone through the system. The weakest link in a network is often the least talked about. People are the weak link. If he can impress upon people that social engineering is what they need to look out for, then kudos.
Maybe people will finally listen if the infamous Mitnick tells them that THEY are the problem with security.
Bear in mind that the rights granted to a corporation by the government (which is a dumb idea anyway, imho) do come with strings attached.
But yes, we should definately change both of those things.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Do you really believe this? I agree that in order to solve high level problems, some skill in analytical thinking is necessary, but grouping all sysadmins into the "babysitter" role is a little shortsighted. If you think your function is somehow more pertinent than your sysadmin's, you are fooling yourself.
I've run into assholes with the same high-minded opinion of themselves in almost every gig I've been in, and the only thing they consistently have in common is that they get fired at the end of the development cycle, and the sysadmin is left to sort out the mess they've made. Not what I'd call babysitting. Not by a long shot.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Is there any way to reprimand/punish the government for breaking laws? I thought that you weren't supposed to send people to prison for saying things (something about an amendment or some such?)... seems that threatening him for talking is incredibly illegal, no? Shouldn't the government parties responsible go to prison or something?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
So how is it that Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer, is permitted to lecture at universities (by tape from his death-row cell) but Mitnick, a completely non-violent criminal, is not? He must be playing this wrong. As things stand, since Mitnick just looked around and didn't damage anything, this is seen as serving his own personal interest. He needs a *cause*, like Angela Davis or (insert long list of media-lionized malefactors here), then he could literally get away with murder. It's been done before.
Not for August, but through August. That is about $5000.00 a month. Only about $60,000 a year, not likely to make him wealthy.
Please read the article.
Troy Roberts
I think the probation department is on very thin ice. It is one thing to prevent him from using the tools of his crime. It is another to remove his freedom of speech.
I do not believe that people should profit greatly from criminal activity, but they are talking about $20,000. Hardly an extreme sum of money. Plus Kevin was lecturing to help prevent electronic intrusion. Educating people about the dangers and how to avoid them. This seems a very rehabilitated thing to do.
I feel the probation department are just being unreasonable in this case. I hope Kevin gets a good lawyer and is able to correct this injustice. He has paid for his crime and should be allowed to continue with his life.
Troy Roberts
I get tired hearing about this ex con. To compare him (like some /.ers are doing) to men who founded this country and moved Civil Rights forward. he's a con. He hasn't done anything to deserve the Sainthood that kids on here are giving him. There are thousands of guys like him.
"Weren't we always told that it was the Republicans that ran fascist Presidential administrations?"
Let's not forget about FDR here. Now I won't critize his administration - I wasn't a gleam in my Father's (who was but a small boy then) eye then. I can easily see how the hard times required hard measures. But through his creation of the OSS (later CIA) and secrecy levels above Top Secret (i.e. for the Manhatten Project, Magic, etc...), the additional power he vested in the FBI and other acts of that nature, it could easily be argued that he ran the most facist government in United States history. Of course, FDR can also take the award for the most liberal presidency in U.S. history. So no, I don't think Republicans always ran the most facist administrations.
(Although if you wanted my honest opinion on who ran the most facist, I'd have to vote for Lincoln - and I'm a branded Yankee.)
So I think this all goes to the old saying, "Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it," (and by extention, "He who controls the past controls the present." Can any discussion of politics take place on /. without quoting Orwell?)
-"Zow"
"Let's see Miranda's gone, Fair Use is gone, Free Speech is gone, the Right to Bear Arms is gone (flame away!), and I'm guessing the next thing will either be that we have to billet soldiers in our houses or that the government will be able to search whatever it wants whenever it wants."
Seems they're one step ahead of you already. From what I've been able to piece together after weeks of trying to ignore the whole Elian matter, I'm fairly sure that nobody ever issued a warrant to search the home of Juan Gonzales. That didn't stop an insane amount of officers invading his home to get Elian. Hmm... I wonder which Constitutional right will fall next...
Yes, OJ may have been acquited, and that's the breaks, if he did do it.
The alternative to people getting off every now and then is even more people who didn't commit any crimes being sent to prison.
Take a look at Japan. 99% conviction rates? While there isn't much crime and I'm sure their law enforcement is much more efficient than it is here, that number still looks a bit freaky. I suppose what I'm saying, is would you rather feel safe from crimals who might steal your stuff or would you rather feel safe from the government imprisoning you on the off chance you might have committed a crime?
That comment has little bearing here. Whether or not OJ comitted the murders was *not* left up to you to decide, it was left to a theoretically unbiased jury, with the stipulation that OJ was to be presumed innocent until *proven* guilty. They were obviously not convinced, so he got off.
This is the cost of a justice system which is supposedly there for the people. The ironic thing is that this same respect for civil rights doesn't apply to people like Mitnick...
It's supposed to aid in rehabilitation of a criminal. Isn't talking about the things you did as an addict one of the "twelve steps?"
-Buffy
The sensible thing to do would be to turn his back on that country he lives in, since there it seems to be perfectly normal to take the 1st Amendment Rights away from someone after he has served his time in prison. He could speak freely in other countries of the world.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I'm not against victim's rights as a concept, but only in carefully limited situations. I'm strictly against awarding any rights to the dead if those rights come into conflict with the rights of the living. Moreover, it seems likely that you are appealing to victims' rights to justify limitations of the rights of criminals even after criminals have "done their time." In other words, you wish to continue punishing (by limiting freedom) a person even after they have made what society considers restitution. This is a very dangerous idea, and it deserves more careful analysis, rather than appeals to "respect."
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual. If Mitnick chooses to describe how he defeated the security on a particular site through his limited technical knowhow and superior social engineering skills, he's not besmirching the memory of someone's dead relative, or airing facts which will bring back horrific memories to a victim.
Both of these examples (besmirching dead people, bringing back bad memories) are not sufficient justification for limiting free speech rights of any individual. In the case of the first example, dead people's rights should never outweigh the rights of the living.
In the second, it would seem that this argument could apply equally well to speech by non-criminals: person A harms person B, person C talks about the facts of the case bringing back bad memories for B. C can speak, but A cannot?
The interpretation of the First Amendment is clear: you cannot ban speech solely because you do not like the speaker or their message. By the argument above, I could be prohibited from talking about the holocaust, because it brings back horrific memories in the victims, even if I were talking about how bad the holocaust was and how we should never let it happen again.
Now, the biases in favor of free speech become less one-sided in the case of commercial speech, which has fewer protections. In addition, the somewhat ill-defined right to privacy comes into play, when discussing individuals, even if everything being said is factual. This requires the evaluation of "newsworthiness" and such. However, to reiterate, this should not apply to dead people.
Again, I don't disagree with the concepts of victims' rights, but I think they should be carefully limited, balanced against more fundamental rights, and absolutely not used as extensions of punishment of criminals beyond the sentence they have already received.
I am not cluless it is my ****OPINION****
:)
How dare you presume to say that I can't state my opinion if it offends you.
He didn't say you can't state your opinion. He insulted you and stated his opinion, which is that your opinions are stupid. With which opinion I agree.
My
I'd be perfectly content to let anybody who smokes do so freely, but the problem is that whenever they're smoking when I'm around they're directly hurting me with their secondhand smoke.
I wrestle with this issue myself... And what it almost comes down to in my mind is "Do I want the government involved?" Despite the fact that the cigarette smoke irritates me and potentially causes cancer (as some secondhand smoke studies have supported), I would rather that the proprieter of the establishment being smoked in made that decision. I ask that people not smoke in my house/dorm room, and I ask them not to smoke in my car. I appreciate it greatly when restaurants do more than put up an imaginary line between the "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections (such as a divider or even separate rooms), and I find myself frequenting those restaurants more often... I guess maybe that's voting with my wallet. :-)
In short, at least for me, it comes down to being willing to put up with some inconvenience on my part to avoid government intervention. That's a choice we all have to make, I guess, and not everyone may see this issue the same as I do.
Guys like you always have a lot to whine about, but never a plan. You talk about rights, but don't actually make a suggestion. Do you think Mitnick should be allowed to profit from his crimes? You don't really know how the world works or what's going on, so you should either devote your life to making sure you know how things are and enter politics, or sit back and let the people who know how run things.
I'm sorry my post evoked such hostility in you. Perhaps it was slightly offtopic, but it was in fact in response to the post I replied to, not directly to the Mitnick article. I did make plenty of suggestions regarding the topic I discussed... I was discussing making fellow citizens more aware of the importance of rights and personal freedoms, and I suggested a method that I feel is an effective way to do so.
To answer the question you asked (rather rudely, I might add), however, I do not think that this represents Kevin being "allowed to profit from his crimes". Perhaps if we allow an (IMHO) overly loose interpretation of what his crimes were and how directly this profit must descend from them.
I am also quite impressed with what you could infer from my knowledge and personality from one short post on Slashdot. Despite the fact that your post leads me to believe that you have no idea how the world works, or even how to sign up for a username and log into Slashdot, I will trust that I just caught you in a bad mood thos morning and you are truly a nice person. Please forgive me if I don't "sit back and let the people who know how run things", however, as that does not a free country make. If the "people who know how" think that rude anonymous posts to Slashdot make more impression than my post, so be it. I don't share their opinions.
The first step in `banning' someone is to disallow them speaking about something; the rest includes disallowing him to be speak in public at all, and disallowing him to be in the same room with more than one person simultaneously, except members of his immediate family.
-rozzin.
Okay, ya got me. But I meant they don't expect to lose money. :) They do anyway, though. :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
But when you think of all the stupid cases like the woman who baked her cat in her micro wave oven (wanting to dry it off) and won millions, you can't really...stop wishing that the 1st amendment didn't apply to urban legends, and we could lock people up for them? I feel that way sometimes too.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What are you talking about? The government is quartering soldiers in my kitchen right now! ;)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Um...no. Farmers do not expect to lose money. They accept they might lose money...but if farming really cost more to put in they to take out, all the farmers would soon be completely bankrupt.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
But this is a dumb argument. His notoriety is from how he was treated, not what he did. Should Rodney King be prohibited from speaking about what happened to him, despite the fact he was in fact breaking the law? If so, that means once you get arrested, the government can treat you however it wants, as long as they tacked 'fifteen years probabation' onto the end of the sentence.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
And I'd be amazed if most of the construction jobs on that list don't want you to have a cell phone, or be able to at least use on of the job. Certainly if you're a fore-hire one, trying to get into the business.
Oh, and I think some of the interesting jobs on that list are 'Envelope stuffer for direct mailer' , and 'newspaper delievery boy' and 'Child care'. First of all, exactly 23 people on the planet earn enough money to live on on the first two jobs, and he's a convicted criminal, it's kinda hard for him to work with child care.
As for a minister...that takes 4 years of seminary, or whatever, to get a position at most places.
And living on a waiter salary, or any salary in the service industry, is always fun...and the apparent intent of his parole, to make him live near minimun wage.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This comment was totally uncalled for.
Having a job unrelated to computers does not make you a slime-ball.
Having computer-related skills is certainly admirable but not having them, again, does not make them scum.
I admire the work of many people. Do you not think that working as a doctor in the third-world w/o the aid of computers is admirable?
Perhaps you didn't mean that or were just unclear?
Deal is, I am no Kevin Mitnik fan. I have always felt the guy was a weenie who would be better off creating and exposed to exploiting. That being said I have to ask the question. Doesn't this court order seem excessive?
I understand the court's power to limit a criminal's activity. However, are there any guidelines that say how far is too far? It seems a bit much when the guy can't even talk about computers in public. I can understand him being stopped cold from writing up procedures on how to crack systems. Yet, the gag order seems to be a bit over the top.
I guess being a sysadmin I never understood the cracker mentality. If you see a weakness in my site or network security schemes send me an email but don't go trudging all over my damn system as root screwing around with files and such. It just ain't right no matter what the beleagured excuse is.
ACK
For better or worse, a convicted felon loses
about half of the constitutional rights enjoyed
by regular citizens. The lost rights including
voting, the right to bear arms, some free speech,
the right of free association, some rights to
privacy. They keep some like fair trial,
uncruel punishment, etc. The state can and does
gradually restore some rights over time.
This becomes more of an issue as US prison populations soar to over 1% actively incarcerated
and 4% formerly incarcerated. Some ethnic groups
have as many as 20% ex-felons, or a large class
with restricted political rights. Could cause
friction in the future.
And that brings up another topic
Until the drug dealer is convicted those "ill gotten gains" aren't. Whatever happened to presumed innocent in this country? Between the "drug war", the stupid "i'm not responsible for my actions" lawsuits and touchy feely policies this country is turning into a cesspool of corruption.
Now I feel better.
Does that mean he can't earn living?
Let's say a plumber used a length of pipe to bash someone in the head. After he is released from prison, His parole officer tells him he can't go back to being a plumber, he has to flip burgers for minimum wage. Meanwhile his plumbing skills are wasted. Obviously an absurd situation, yet that is exactly what's happening here.
How is Mitnick supposed to become a functional contributing member of society if the government won't let him practice the trade he knows? It sounds to me like there are people in the "justice" system who are so focused on making an example out of him they forgot the JUSTICE part.
How many other cases can you site where the INS got involved in a "child custody" issue? How many other times have federal agents with body armor and sub-machineguns been sent in to resolve a "child custody" issue.
Why is it that both the INS and DOJ claimed to have had no warrant because they felt that they didn't need one until monday? On monday this warrant magically appears.
I don't have a problem with the boy being sent home, but I do have a problem with the fedcops sending a hundred yahoos with 9mm sub-machineguns every time Janet Reno wants to win a dick measuring contest.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Since when does the government need anything more then a warrent signed by a judge? A court order was ignored by those citizens, and the remafication were inforced. Just like Citizen Mitnick broke the laws of land, the ramifications are being enforced.
Point 1. There was no warrant at the time of the raid.
Point 2. Janet Reno is not a judge. She has NO legal authority to give anyone a "deadline".
It was a case of "You don't say NO to us! We'll send the gestapo if you do."
No judge ordered that action be taken.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
As much as I hate to do it, I'm going to quote Chairman Mao. "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The federal government has all of the guns and the best guns. And are more than willing to use them.
I also hate to bring this up here, but, look at what happened in Miami last week-end. The federal government had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to do what they did, but they had 150 men with HK MP5 sub-machineguns so who could have stopped them?
Remember that el lamo movie "hackers"? Do you think that our current DOJ would hesistate to send in men in ninja suits with machineguns just to show off how tough they are if Mitnick doesn't comply?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There is another interesting point to this story besides the blantant stripping of Mitnick's First Amendment Rights. CNN felt the need to call him "infamous" in its headline, so by the time most readers get to the first paragraph, they're already assuming he is getting what he deserves. Why does the mainstream media feel the need to demonize him? Because it represents the interests supposedly victimized by Mitnick's activities: big business.
--
Wage Slave Journal
The argument here is that the restriction on his speech is not reasonable and constitutes a greater punishment. Seems right to me.
--
Wage Slave Journal
Of course he could. I mean, the man can build a modem out of a toaster; reprogramming the audience's Palm Pilots with his Infrared Hacker Vision would be a walk in the park.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
Whatever secrets that he stole (e.g. credit card numbers, internal documents) are ill-gotten. But information about security systems was not ill-gotten, just ill-used.
Hmm.. I wonder if one could, though, make a case that his knowledge of the "justice system" is ill-gotten? (He committed a crime in order to learn how the government would react.) Now that would be truly perverted. I love it!
What are the topics of his talks?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Uhhm, RTM did not go to jail. Morris was sentenced to three years probation, 40 hours of community service, and a $100 fine.
The point of probation is that it is supposed to ensure the criminal doesn't go back to their evil ways by monitoring their behaviour and keeping them away from some temptation. Therefore, the limits set by parole boards are NOT set for punitive reasons. Neither is prison supposed to be punitive, it is supposed to rehabilitate. Commonly prison is also considered to be a deterrent to others, though it doesn't seem to work. (But then neither does the rehabilitaton). What I am saying is that although detention and parole are in practice punitive, that is not the direct intention.
This is silly - a number of criminals return from prison to make money telling people how to stop them from committing the same crime again. I'd think that a number of companies would be more than willing to hire Mitnick as a security consultant. Under the terms of his probation, he can't do that. But ordering him to stop *talking* about his experiences smacks of the "silence" orders issued to Eastern Bloc "citizens."
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Going offtopic, but... Point 1. There was no warrant at the time of the raid.
None was needed. Custody of the child was given to the father. Technically, that makes the Miami family kidnappers. INS was enforcing the law. Second of all, a warrant for what? They weren't searching for any evidence or arresting anyone. They were executing a court order.
Point 2. Janet Reno is not a judge. She has NO legal authority to give anyone a "deadline".
She was being lennant by not raiding that house the minute custody was transferred. The Miami family refused to hand back Elian, and earned themselves a raid.
George Lee
As he can no longer talk about technology issues then shouldn't the government burn everything they learnned from him on hacking?
CNN [Mitnick schools feds on hacking 101]
I don't actually exist.
I've known people who were planning to move over 10 years ago.
Inslightful people who were expecting quite a bit worse to have allready happend by now..
I don't actually exist.
According to the terms of his probation the guy can't use a cell phone. How can he be a taxi driver? I've been taking taxis for 10 years, and I've never in my life seen a taxi without a computerized fare system.
By the way, have you noticed how many bars and restaurants nowadays use computers in order to simplify the work process and billing? Do you think a baker still uses a notepad for book keeping? 99% of the people in the jobs you mention use computers all the time - when they program their VCR, when they use the dish washer. When they're driving their new car with electronic injection and LCD panel. When they collect money from the ATM. When they call someone on their cell phone.
Computers are entering into every aspect of our lives, just like telephones, cars, paper and the wheel have in the past. You may not always need to be familiar with how the computer works in order to use it, but the only thing that proves is that the computer was well designed. Would you be able to do the job you do and live the life you do without using a computer? Hell no, you wouldn't be posting on /. for one thing.
But that's not the point here. The point is that no one should be kept from expressing their opinion with threats of imprisonment. No one should be held indefinitely without trial. No one should be subjected to an unfair trial (Mitnick wan't allowed to look at the evidence against him). All these basic human rights were trodden on by the government of the 'land of the free'.
Does Mitnick have a way of appealing this ruling limiting his free speech? Can he sue the government for keeping him in prison without trial and without access to the evidence against him?
The U.S. claims to uphold the Human Rights Declaration, but is unwilling to have that commitment tested in an international court. Why? Because it would find that many of the current U.S. government policies are in direct violation with international law and the Declaration of Human Rights.
It's truly painful to see the U.S. slowly turn into a police state at the request of its voters. It seems the courts are no longer there to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and keep the people free from oppression - they exist to cast out the socially unaccepted and the poor, to lock them up for years or kill them using any means necessary (mandatory sentencing, imprisonment without trial, 3 strikes rule, death penalty, etc) while the rich get to go into therapy or to the Betty Ford clinic.
Together the rising power of multinationals as a major political force without democratic controls and the increasingly fascist environment in the U.S. (and elsewhere) make me pessimistic about the near future. Maybe we need a strong leader :).
I know that convicts are no longer allowed to have any type of firearm in posession.
I guess that would include firecrackers too
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
A felon has as much right as anyone else in the world to profit, right? Especially if, in profiting, they can live righteously and not fall back into bad ways, right? Now it is morally suspect if he's profiting from his crimes...
/.?
You're right; without his notoriety, people would pay less attention to him, especially about security. However, without his notoriety, he wouldn't even have the skillset necessary to talk about security! How can one talk intelligently about social engineering without being active in it? In this case, he socially engineered the wrong people, and paid some time in prison and in his lifestyle for it. Wasn't that his punishment? Not being able to watch TV, use a cell phone, browse pr0n or read
Now it seems petty and punative. Of course, having never seen a lecture of his, I don't know how apropos it is, nor do I see the whole story... but then, neither do you, right?
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
That's where the issue becomes much, much uglier. Honestly, I can't tell you where that line is drawn, any more than I can tell you where the line is between art and pornography.
(A) If a convicted rapist tried to publish a book about how much fun it was to rape women, that should be stopped.
(B) If a convicted burgler made an instructional video on how to burgler-proof your home, that should be allowed.
Just about everything in the middle is up to interpretation. My interpretation of the Mitnick story is that it falls into category (B).
Should Kevin Mitnick have gone to jail?
IMHO, yes.
Should Kevin Mitnick be on probation?
IMHO, yes.
Should Kevin Mitnick be prevented from leading a productive life because of the mistakes he made in the past, after he has served his time for them?
IMHO, no.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
- Rob Cottrell
Just a suggestion.
Hell, we re-elected Marion Barry here in D.C. :(
Bitch set me up!
BilldaCat
You are right! He COULD do that! I propose a restraining order:
Mitnick must keep 500 yards away from Technology, Science, and Religion at all times for the time of his probation.
We would not want him to discover a way to break quantum encryption, discover a new particle, or prove the existence of God, now that he knows how to get our credit card numbers.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Yes, his father was a big shot in the NSA during the Internet Worm, which of course embarassed the whole family.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Unless of course they think that he is advocating actions for which he was put into custody.
I didn't even know Mitnick was giving lectures, but does anyone know *what* exactly he is talking about? Security? IP Laws? Security Laws? Has anyone seen a transcipt of his speech anywhere around?
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
Let him go flip burgers, or sweep and mop floors,
or somethign along those lines. *shrug* If he wanted to wanted to work with computers, he would have been working with them before instead of breaking into other peoples'.
akma
Anyone who is shocked and apalled by this is clearly ignorant of the laws of our country.
Convicted criminals are not allowed to make money from their crimes, which exactly what Mitnick is doing. Whether or not you think he was wrongly convicted is not important. You don't get to personally second-guess every court decision you disagree with, thankfully.
While this law may remove some of Mitnicks free speech, one gives up certain rights the momment he commits a crime.
Mitnick is not free from punishment just because he is on probation. He is still serving a sentence for a crime and is subject to the conditions of that sentence, which include some restriction of his free speech.
The alternative is that any criminal can profit from his crime, which I don't expect many would support. You can't go around applying the law arbitrarily however you feel like it.
It may seem at first rather harsh to restrict Mitnick in this way, but it is only analogous to restricting an axe murderer from using axes. The easiest way to prevent a specific crime is to remove the tools necessary to carry it out.
It may be hard for many here to believe, but it is not so difficult to get a job with decent pay that has nothing to do with computers.
If you must make a martyr out of Mitnick, at least be honest about it. Otherwise, you just make him look like an idiot.
When will Slashdotters realize that even trampling on the rights of SCUM like Mitnick is not at all OK and hurts us all?
When such a statement is true... which is to say, never.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
IANAF (I Am Not A Felon), but I know that (in my home state at least) a felony is a crime that carries >= 1 year prison sentance and a misdemeanor is a crime that carries 1 year prison time. It's just all terminology.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
I once thought that Free Speech was a cornerstone of the American Society, I was wrong.
...
But when you think of all the stupid cases like the woman who baked her cat in her micro wave oven (wanting to dry it off) and won millions, you can't really be surprised.
Give US judges a clue
--
gdon
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite.
You're right but isn't Mitnick supposed to _already_ have paid for is crime ? Five years in jail aren't enough ? Shouldnt he be allowed to find a (legal) place in society using his skills ?
--
gdon
Maybe so, but why should you also in that case be prohibited from *talking* about trucks???
He didn't go underground until AFTER his probation. Are you the least bit familiar with the story?
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
But he's not ON parole. He's free (as it were.) His sentence is over and done with. He's on probation, which is an entirely different animal.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Point well taken.
While i was mainly reacting to people complaining that he wouldn't be able to get a job because he can't touch computers, i do see how the judge seems to be overly harsh (while being uninformed).
or cough up phlegm?
I don't know if anyone else is concerned about this, since my comments are filtered at 4+, but what concerns me is not whether or not Mitnick profits from his computer related offenses, but whether his first amendment rights are being violated. It seems to me that there is no compelling reason to constrict his speech, when the Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that speech that may run counter to society's best interests is still protected. While convicted criminals do give up some rights, such as the right to vote or bear arms, I don't see any reason to strip them of the right to free speech. I don't really see any compelling reason to revoke their voting rights, either, but that's a different argument entirely. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this, or perhaps a more valid legal opinion?
I wonder if this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
-- Juan
Flamebait? I guess someone out there has a distaste for democracy.
All the moderation system here does is encourage people to post popular opinions, to toe the line like good little germans. It doesn't discourage anyone from posting trolls or spam or otherwise goofing off. The people who like doing those things don't give a rat's ass about their karma level, just like the P-Killers on Ultima Online. Instead the system creates a situation where people are more likely to post what they think other people will like hearing instead of what they themselves truly believe. This kind of behaviour, when taken just a little farther, starts to resemble that of a cult. I don't think slashdot is a cult and I certainly don't want to see it become one.
If someone doesn't agree with me, why can't they post something to refute what I said instead of marking my post as if it were a troll? A genuine response would be welcomed. But instead some coward marks my post as flamebait because he or she can't refute what I've said.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
We are, today in this country, an evil and cruel society which tries to punish criminals instead of reform them.
What's so right about reforming the man who killed your brother? I just don't get it. There's no inherent rightness in reforming criminals.
The quote you use fits perfectly with the idea of removing criminals from society: "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured." Every time a criminal harms me, steals my money, in any way affects my life, then my rights are not secured. Once you can show me how a criminal can undo the past and make it so that his actions didn't happen, then maybe I'll start worrying about how a criminal is treated.
You're really broadening the sense of "computer". In your sense a bicycle is a computer. A comb is a computer. A bed is a computer. But in the common sense, none of these things are computers. They are machines.
And from personal experience, no pace makers do not have computers. They have signal generators and counters.
Actually a sense of justice would indicate that the people who owned the CC numbers he stole each have the opportunity to kick him in the balls one after another. Let's see, 20,000 boots to the scrotum? Can you say "mush nuts."
Err, there's no relevant comparison there. Mitnick agreed to not act as an advisor or consultant in the computer field for three years. If he's going around giving "advice" about computer security, etc. then he's in violation of his agreement.
Except there isn't a more famous felon in the IT field.
Bill Gates. *rim shot*
I didn't say that there were no tradesmen who made less than programmers. I said that my cousin who works in construction, is part of the union, and has no higher education makes more than a programmer. A programmer is not the same as a computer scientist or software engineer. A programmer is the guy who get's handed a list of pieces of code to write and writes them.
Look dude, a "programmer" doesn't make shit for a living. My cousin, who has no advanced education, works construction in Las Vegas. He will make more in his life than any "programmer". Programmer's are no more special than any other assembly line worker. If you just want to be a programmer, buy a book and do it. A CS degree does not make you a programmer.
What kind of an asscrack are you? If you are too prideful to do a job because you consider it below you then you are truly one of the most worthless people on the planet. You can have pride in doing any job. Do your job well and have pride in what you do and it doesn't matter if you scrape the shit off monkey's asses for a living. You will succeed and have a happy life.
Is the reason you post to slashdot so prolifically that you have alienated all your peers? Because you are "too good" or have too much "pride" to be with them? Don't they drive fancy enough cars for you? Don't they have the rolex watches? No big titted bimbos hanging on their everyword?
Yesterday I defened what you had to say. Now today I see that you truly are a turd and it appears that you do deserve most of the shit people give you. What a fuck wit.
The status obsessed loser is afraid he's going to lose his precious karma.
If you compare the number of black male drug users to the number of black males in prison for drug charges, it's pretty obvious SOMETHING weird is going on.
in light of the last sentence maybe someone else would make a better proxy :)
This is what you would expect from the former Soviet Union. Mouth off and the sole employer in the country will just not employ you. Anyone that simply says he committed a crime and that is what you get. Come on, that sorta short sighted rationalization allows clear tryannical behavior to continue. They are making an example of him. We see the type of fear tactics that are being employed and I would love to publish as a proxy for Kevin. It is clear that the message it was is feared and we should not allow them to silence the messenger.
"That's right, he was a criminal, pure and simple. "
I don't think that it's that simple. Do you have the faith in our judicial sytem required to believe that Mitnick's conviction was based entirely on *undisputed* facts and that his punishment is in *no way* unfair?
I certainly don't. Too many politics involved. Seriously.
Not that I have any answers, either.
-nme!
"The judge has every right to do stop him from making money off it."
I'd like to see something to back this statement up. I think that if you sit down and think for a minute you'll see that 'profiting from one's notoriety' is a pretty well established way of getting rich in America. Mitnick would hardly be doing something new (If this story's even accurate, which I doubt is the case).
"Grow up, or move to a small deserted island where you don't have to worry about big, bad corporations picking on your interests."
Was this supposed to be a supporting point to your argument? Good advice? It looks more like an inflammatory attack than anything else. It underlines the fact that your post is just a short, rather nonsensical rant. As opposed to a serious attempt to make a point about the news item in question, of course.
-nme!
OJ wasn't convicted. Mitnick was. What that says about their respective status w/r/t Guilt and also about the process that spit them out in these states I'll leave as an exercise to the philosophers.
-nme!
I've heard the theory that he already is working for the Feds posited. THis was before his release. Just a theory I heard from a cracker dude. Makes some sense, though.
-nme!
Your post was really, umm.. sane. Specifically the 'show case' part. Aren't there other 'Hackers' who have gone on to use their notoriety to secure high-paying jobs? I can't name names because I let my 2600 subscription lapse.
I can come up with three scenarios:
1) Kevin did some truly amazing things and the Feds are truly scared.
2)Kevin is being used as a news item.
3)Kevin is now a secret agent.
I'm leaning towards #2.
-nme!
he deserves the scorn and ignominy of being a felon.
Maybe we should brand Mitnick's forhead with a big CH for computer hacker. Look man, if you don't give ex-cons a second chance WE (the people) have to pay for their livelyhood thru the welfare system. He is not a violent criminal, and he payed/is paying his time, let him live his life.
Hey could be a stagehand on broadway and make 300,000 bucks a year.
Your example used is a bad one. Driving is classified in the United States as a privilege,
not as a right. So suspending ones driver's license is a *whole* lot different from suspending First Amendment *rights*. Perhaps it is legal under probation to revoke rights, but in this case, even if it is somehow legal, it is far from right. Preventing him from having access to equipment that *could* be used for his crimes is one thing (though still questionable) But not allowing him to speak on what he wishes? That is just too extreme.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Does anybody know the status of an ex-convict? Can that person vote? I was under the impression that by breaking a law, certain rights were forfeit. And remember, probation means that an ex-convict is still under watch and presumably punitive measures. Which is why I ask about rights in general, specifically voting rights.
I think this stems from the government wanting to keep kevin on parole or in jail for the rest of his life.
Kevin peed in the cornflakes of the two groups that control everything, first by showing the corporations just how shoddy their security was then embarassing the government by not being easy to catch.
The expectation, even stated by the judge I believe, is that kevin will never be able to get a job above minimum wage for the period he's on parole. A person cannot get by these days on minimum wage. You can hardly get a place to live in a bad part of the country for 5.75/hr much less feed and clothe yourself. Their intent is to make kevin have no other choice but to violate his parole to be able to survive.
But kevin is not that dull, and managed to find a way to support himself without violating parole. Now the government wants to take that away. If they enforce this then kevin will probably find another job and the government will find something wrong with it too.
And as for you people who think that this is kevin profiting from his crimes... Shimomura and Markoff have been making a ton of profit from Mitnick's crimes. And now some big movie theater is making a movie and going to be raking in the cash. Mitnick is not speaking on his exploits, he's educating people about the importance of network/computer security... Something much more helpful to society as a whole than having him flip burgers.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Rapist: I raped person, and want to make money from the story of the crime.
Mitnick: I cracked into systems, and want to make money off my knowledge of computer security.
See the difference?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Huh? Who has more money? Whose friends spent 5 million in a PRIMARY election in NY to squash McCain. Who is Bill G. Kissing up to?
You are in dreamland if you think Gore has taken bigger payoffs.
War is necrophilia.
Wake up and smell the opression. What we enjoy in the US is the ilusion of freedom. You are only allowed to exercise freedoms if they don't compete with the desires of those in power. Mitnick is feeling the brunt of this. They can deny his freedom saying that he is profiting from his crimes. MS can deny you your freedom of speech by suing you into giving up MSSucks.com and get you Host to pull your site. You have freedom of religion as long as your flavor of Christianity doesn't encroach on the authority of the great god "Government". You can travel to any country they feel like letting you go. They won't sieze your property unless they feel like it and you are guilty it just remains to be seen what of.
GET SMART AND START PREPARING !At least Tacl Bell has 39 cent bean burritos on Wednesdays.
Legally, no U.S. citizen has a right to privacy.
Wrong on both counts. US corps don't have citizenship, they do have legal status as an entity seperate from the owners, and have their own special rights and responcibilities but nothing approaching citizenship.
Based centuries of case law US citizens do have the right to privacy in certian circumstances. Basically if an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as in their own home) then the government has to obtain court order to spy on them. Private citizens (and corporations for that matter) have more leeway in spying on you but it's still illegal to invade the privacy of a person's home.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Not true, at least as far as it applies to computer systems. If a user as a "reasonable expectation of privacy" it is a crime to violate that privacy. For example you have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the email account you get from your ISP (unless the TOS include bits about sysadmins reading your email every night) and therefore it would be a crime for the sysadmins at your ISP to go through and your read your email, likewise the police would need a court order to legally read your email. Your work email is a different story and case law has been ruling that employees don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the email systems owned and operated by their employer.
Furthermore, how exactly are you defining the corporation's "special rights and responsibilities" as seperate from those of individual citizens? Which one of the items in the Bill of Rights is specifically denied to corporations? Speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, due process?
Well for starters corporations can't vote. They are an entity for legal purposes (they pay taxes, can sue, can be sued etc...) but don't enjoy the normal rights of private citizens, as mentioned they don't vote, they aren't counted as citizens in the census. Public corporations have their freedom of speech restricted by SEC rules before an IPO, their finances are open to public scrutiny and last time I check my bank statement. wasn't public knowledge.
As far as additional responsibilities a corporation, well actually the management of a corporation, is legally bound to act in the best interest of the shareholders, that is to seek maxium profits. In in extreme cases the management (ie the personification of the corporation) can be fine/imprisoned for essentially doing a really bad job, though they would likely just be fired unless they broke other laws in the proccess.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
This is pretty low. I know rtm and (slightly) his father, rhm. rtm is smart enough to find holes in sendmail on his own, and his father (who is now retired, BTW) is not the sort that would leak NSA information, even to his son. Have you ever read his report on breaking into 4.2BSD TCP/IP, written BEFORE his father went to work at NSA? (The funniest part of that research was the machine at Bell Labs named ucbvax, used to exploit a backdoor.)
-Tom Duff
Getting caught :)
More than I did before... It means a bit more to me now :)
WTF?
Granted the guy is a convited felon on parole, but the point of parole is to keep people from commiting more crimes. Not making them poor. If he can make a living without using a phone, or an ATM or a computer (I'd be dead in a week) More power to him!
Even if you disagree with what Mitnick stands for, he has paid his price due to society for his crimes and this kind of *punishment* or whatever it is meant to be should not be tolerated.
Additionally, it is unconstitutional for that the judge "prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access." Should a convict be denied books because something he read once applies to his crime? I think not.
I, for one, voice my support for Kevin Mitnick in this. He may have done things wrong in the past, but he had paid his due to society and should be left alone.
Um...Then what is it supposed to be, congratulatory? Sheesh. I don't agree with what they're doing, but statements like these make no sense.
Have you never taken a position with a probationary period? A period of time wherein you had to prove your ability to fulfill the requirements of the job description? Mitnick is on probation, which is supposed to be a period of time wherein he has to prove that he can be a productive member of society. He is attempting to contribute and make a living at the same time, and he is being slapped down.
Yes, he is on probation for committing a crime, whether or not we agree with that definition... but why is he being further punished for pursuing an avenue of profit, both for himself and those he would speak to, when it does not fit into the class of endeavours prohibited to him by the terms of his probation?
Inquiring minds want to know.
--
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
Okay. Mitnick is on FEDERAL PROBATION.
However, probation and parole are very similar. If he were convicted on California he would be on parole now, not probation.
The point I was trying to make is that he has lost some of his Constitutional rights temporarily and probably lost some of his rights (ie. owning a firearm) permanently.
Frankly, Federal probation is oftentimes more restrictive than a state's parole.
Bottom line:
- His rights are restricted
And as far as someone saying that he has already served his time.. Well, if he violates his probation he goes back to jail.
You make the call.
Delivery Driver - some pagers and communication devices which store and sort data
Taxi Driver - as above, plus GPS systems, computerized trip meters
Bus Driver - electronic communications systems, newer buses may have onboard computers for various purposes
Waiter - been in a restaurant lately? computerized order-taking/POS systems like SQUIRREL have been around for several years now
Bellhop - been in a hotel lately? guest databases, communication systems, even locks on doors
Host at a restaurant - see waiter
Been on a farm or ranch lately? Operated any heavy equipment? Lots of onboard computers in new equipment. Even custodial/maintenance staff are having to use equipment with onboard computers, or electronic communications devices.
Your rudeness does nothing to reinforce your argument. Also it is clear that you have never had a real job, or really paid any attention to the world around you.
This was not a release, he is still on probation. I assume that, especially since he needs to check in with his probation officer, it is probably specified that he cannot leave the country until his sentence is over.
Walt
"Now it is my belief that anyone who engages in any criminal acts should not be praised for what they did, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to make any money from it. After all, look at the outrage when a serial killer or murderer writes a book and publishes it. But when it's Kevin Mitnick, "information hero", /.ers are full of
outrage when he's not allowed to make money from his infamy."
I agree that Kevin needed to be punished for his crimes. But it is not right to compare him to serial killers. He has something to add to socity and should be permited to do that.
Kevin will go back to working in the computer field when he has competed his probation (he has said that himself)
It does not appear to me that they are forbiding him from lecuring because he is a threat or because of the "son of sam laws" but simply to punish him more.
Think about this a minute. Kevin is trying to make himself productive the only way he (legaly) knows how to. If you forbid ex-crimminals from becoming productive citizens what do you think they are going to do? He is not going to work at a meanial job very long before he starts looking at ways to make money though more questionable means.
I think the whole idea of not allowing him access to computers after his release was kind of silly in the first place. This will just make his resolve to get back into the tech field stronger.
Kevin was not a great hacker but now he has a reputation as one because of his crimminal convicion. People tend to rise to greatness because they feel driven to. Kevin has that drive now. Give him a chance
AdFuel
"than see him leech welfare money off of the government"
He will not be getting any welfare money. It is boilerplate in probations instructions that full time employment be maintain.
". . . U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access. She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage."
This indicates that an 'economic punishment' was intended as part of the ruling. This is 'cruel and unusual' in that full-time minumum wage is still proverty level income.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
How restricted his rights are while on probation, varies from state to state as per their seperate laws regarding treatment of felons. CA for example, allows felons to vote a relatively short amount of time after they're off probation.
I'm interested to know how much Mitnick's speaking rights are restricted by each state - this may have something to do with their legally being able to deny his first amendment right of speech in the states he's speaking.
CA is generally more lax about this sort of thing than other states, and if the above is true, then Mitnick could possibly be allowed to speak in CA without the feds being able to stop him legally.
Any criminal lawyers in the crowd (ok, so maybe that was phrased wrong, hehe)?
-Cheesewhiz
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
I wasn't speaking of "property" in the sense of owning a PC, walkman, clothing or money. I meant in the sense that they can't own land (which is often called "property").
Maybe you'll return to Minagua, You could go unnoticed in such a place. -FZ
Not only do they lose the right to bear arms, and in most states the right to vote; but they also lose the right to own property. (ex. Walt Disney didn't own Disneyland due to being court marshalled earlier in his life)
Aren't there a number of convicted felons working as motivational speakers right now? I seem to remember some guy coming to my high school to talk about getting his life together after being in prison. I don't think he did that on his own time.
Maybe you'll return to Minagua, You could go unnoticed in such a place. -FZ
Now that has got to be the most sane advice I have ever seen on /. I think I'll join you. I suggest that the rest of us who'd be just as content to sit on the fence (read /.) jump the hell off and get into the mud. We can complain all we want in an online forum like this, granted there is some notariety with the Slashdot name, but no one *Important* cares. I doubt that my Senators, Bill Roth and Joe Biden, have /. accounts or even know we exist. The point is if we want to make an impression on our *ELECTED representatives*, we must bring it to them. They got a lot of people to look after and can't monitor everything. If there is an issue the house or senate can work, you need to get in touch. Hit up the Congressional website to find your rep's and senators. And if they don't consider your issues as a problem, find a possible replacement for them next election year. Otherwise, run yourself and put it to them. They gotta come back home to campaign sometime!
Bob
man i guess i shouldn't have posted anonymous coward. I could have gotten to points as I made this comment a while ago.
I understand that he was a criminal, but the government must have thought they held him long enough for his crime, because they released him. However, I DO NOT LIKE our government telling people what they can think or say. He STILL has 1st amendment rights protect and is entitled to make a living. He does not hurt anyone by giving lectures and it may keep him out of trouble. Besides, we could all stand to learn from him how to prevent the sort of activity he served time for.
Like it or not in a free society, especially our media heavy society, interesting people get attention. So let him speak his mind and unless he breaks the law again. LEAVE HIM ALONE!
--Scott 8-}
Interesting precedent. If Markoff and Shimomura were convicted of entrapment, would that mean that they would have to pay back the million bucks they got for Takedown?
Reading through this thread, I'm really surprised that so many slashdot readers are not familiar with the details of Mitnick's case. If you read the trial documents, you will see that what he was charged with was *lying on the telephone*.
That's right, the Master Hacker's uber-leet k-rad tactic consisted primarily of calling up the help desk and saying, "Hi this is Bob. I forgot my password, could you remind me again?"
He then used the passwords to get onto internal servers and download source code. As far as anyone knows, he never redistributed the source or used it for personal gain.
Yes, he misrepresented himself and took source code that was not available to the public. He downloaded the source to Solaris and some cell phone switching software. If he had instead enrolled in any community college, Sun would have sold him a student source code license for $100. If he had waited until now, he could have downloaded the source for free!
And for this he gets five years in prison? He agreed to the plea bargain because he was still in jail two years after his sentence was up and it looked like the government was planning on keeping him in jail indefinitely until he admitted to something, anything.
I'm not in favor of malicious hacking, or destructive behavior in general, but I am favor of some sense of justice in a justice system. What Kevin did was unethical and wrong, but should he really have spent more time in jail than many people convicted of armed robbery, rape, or murder?
Considering that the text file with the CC numbers was posted to usenet repeatedly around that time, by your logic male sopranos should be making a comeback in opera companies, right?
He was never found to have used any of those credit card numbers.
"Never" means "sometimes."
> What exactly is the differnece between a computer science major and pogrammer?
;-)
One deals in mostly theory, the other mostly in implementation
> If you drive a car, you enter into a contract that you agree to provide blood, urine or breath to test for the presence of alcohol.
_ONLY_ if you have a driver's license and the government owns your "vehicle" via the Manafactor's Statement of Origin.
And yes you can travel without a driver's license !
I don't have one, and have never been given a ticket for "driving without a license"
It's best to do your own research. Search for "Right To Travel"
I've provided 2 links to get you started.
http://www.ptialaska.net/~sw ampy/interest/travel_2.html
http://members.aol.com/TruthZone1/trav el.htm
Cheers
A musician/athlete whatever is busted for drugs and is ordered by the court to participate in public awareness programs, Mitnick strikes out on his own to educate about computer security (albeit admittedly for profit) and gets shut down? I don't have any really strong feelings about this, but it hardly seems consistent.
There are many forms of employment that have nothing to do with "computers". Assuming he still remembers how to drive, he could get a job as a bus driver. Or go work for the DOT -- there's no computer in a weed wacker. Or even go work in a processing plant (food, furnature, "waste", etc.) Screw it; join the "Peace Corp" or something.
The problem is he has no intention to find anything else to do. He has every intention to return to the computer industry once he's off probation. No self-respecting company in the computer industry would hire such a character aside from a publicity stunt. Everything he knew back then is almost worthless today -- and being sequestered from technology for most of a decade doesn't make things any brighter.
And excuss me, but "interviewed by telephone"? Isn't that a violation of his probation? He knows (now) what he did was wrong... gee, five years in a federal prison to realize that? You couldn't figure that out during the years you were being chased by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies?
NO. Humans have the capacity to learn. Computer geeks have little motivation to approach anything that doesn't have a keyboard or joystick growing out of it.
My "training" is in engineering. (B.S. in Textile Engineering and a B.S. in "environmental science" [humanities degree; I'll explain it in boring detail if you want to hear it.] both from NCSU) During high school and college, I worked as a "Temp. Highway worker" for the NC Dept. of Transportation in the "Landscape" department -- there aren't many computers on the side of the road. If they'd pay more than 15k$/yr, I'd still be doing that.
After graduation, I worked at NCSU as a "Research Programmer" (translation: general computer grunt) for 8 months writing programs to collect and process various data, control a pair of "slot" cars on a race track as a control system demo, etc. [That was fun, but never work as part of a research grant...] Then I went to work for an ISP for 4+ years. Now I work for a company who makes network modeling and planning software.
As the saying goes, a college degree only proves you can be trained. Most people are employed in fields that have little if anything to do with their degree(s).
Heh, by that token, he cannot even wear a watch -- or walk past a payphone for that matter.
:-)
UPS -- Walking right up to UPS, he'd be a box pusher (or "loader" to be more accurate.) In 10 years, maybe they'd let him drive a truck. The clipboard wouldn't be a problem, but the cell phone is expressly prohibited.
Taxi -- Taxi's use "CB" radio and cellular systems. The only hardware passable as a computer is the rate meter. See the above wrist watch comment.
Waiter -- Who said he'd be running the register? At my favorite Chinese stop, there's one dude who handles all the money. At my favorite Mexican place, almost none of the waiters touch the register. [Define normal?]
Host -- Hosts generally never touch any money; at least at the places I go, they never do.
Car wash -- Heh, most car washes don't even have people
Porter -- some yes, some no. The parking at the Raleigh convention center is 100% paper. You hand the dude 4$ and he hands you a ticket. But, most places are more advanced than that.
Farm hand -- as long as he's not around the computer components. I.e. driving a tractor, herding the cows, mending fences (assuming it's not an electric fence), filling salt licks, etc. You know, manual labor...
Yes, is selection is limited, but it's not zero. Maybe the restrictions are to prevent him from working for any part of the government?
Convicted felons are not allowed to run for federal office or vote in federal races. Local governments can do what ever they want. (Would you actually elect a convicted felon?)
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons? You break the law; you pay the price.
Is the law descriminating against black males? No. Is the effect of the law descriminating against black males? Yes, but there is a fuzzy line. Does this make it right to repeal the law so "more black people can vote"? In my opinion, that's no better than NC's shoe-string zoning of the 12th (or was it the 10th) Congressional District -- which I will add was deamed unconstitutional.
(Next, someone will say the wealthy [white folk] can hire an expensive team of crack lawyers and evad the law -- which is (sadly) true.)
I'd bet it's a standard operating proceedure that he's not allowed to leave the country. Most of the (admittedly few) parole/probation sentences I've ever seen had some sort of ''don't leave town'' provision.
And then there are the people they "lojack" to their house.
There are no laws that say men in prison can't write articles for a newspaper. I don't see how this is any different.
I sure hope you're not serious for 2 reasons:
/. telling what their ideas are , so why can't someone, who has commited a crime, and has served his sentence talk about his ideas, whether or not he receives money for it.
1 - He is serving you, me and everybody else by letting us know how we can protect ourselves from people with his skills. It is not good to live in ignorance by thinking that if you don't hear about it, it does not excist. And yes their might be people who are going to use it, but don't forget the people who are already using it, and don't et caught and are actualy making money out of it (Banks will not admit it, but they do loose a lot of money this way).
2 - How about the most fundamental law in almost every western society : FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We let nazi's talk about their ideas, we have people even in
Think smart and you should see the right email address
Most buses have a computerized sign that tells what route it's on...
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
Good lord! Slashdot-terminal is Michael Copeland!
It doesn't matter whether Mitnick is a criminal or not. It also doesn't matter whether he makes money out of this or not. The point is that the US government violates the right to free speech.
I do see the need for intervention in some cases. For instance, right-extremist speeches are IMHO a good thing to forbid. In general when speeches are offending I can see why people would want to forbid them.
However, this action is directly against Mitnick not against the things he's saying. I don't mind a carthief giving lectures on beer or books. I don't even mind him writing books on cars. I would mind him stealing my car, but that's something entirely different. He should get punished for that, but it's no reason to forbid his book.
I don't think the government finds Mitnick's speeches offending, so there's no reason to forbid them. The fact that they do should scare everybody who cares about his freedom.
Maybe we quit the free kevin thing too early...
Yet his speaking about technology does not seem to be granting him "access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access" so it would not seem to be a violation of his probation. However, I do not know the full extent of his plea bargain and IANAL.
I wonder if he is even allowed to have ABS or EFI on his vehicle. Those are little computers after all.
But the punishment shall be inversely proportionate to the amount of money or influence the transgressor has to utilize in their defense.
How is he supposed to make a living?
flipping burgers?
- passion
Mitnick, who served nearly five years in prison, said probation officials have instructed him to find employment in a field totally unrelated to computers
What job these days doesnt have at least some interaction with a computer of some sort AND who would hire him ?
What does the Federal Government expect him to do ?
Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
Is this supposed to stop him from passing on techniques to others
Maybe that's what they claim, though in actuality probably most anything he did can be found on Bugtraq or whatever. Though personally I don't follow security issues farther than making sure the machines I admin are secure.
but doesn't this conflict with his constitutional rights to free speech?
I think possibly the fact that he's on parole or probation or whatever may mean that he has to give up that right in some respects.
OK, it's fairly well established in the US that you are not supposed to profit from your crimes (ie selling a book detailing the events, etc). However, how far does this go? For instance, Mitnik probably learned quite a bit about computer security while cracking; can he later get a job doing computer security stuff? Or how about this: he found holes in such-and-such a product while cracking, but the company could never figure out how he did it. Could he sell his services to the company and help them fix the holes he found while cracking their stuff? I'm really curious how far these rules extend.
> On closer reading, the article seems to suggest that this originates with the judge.
No it doesn't!!
It says the Judge prohibited him from using hardware that can allow net access. It says that the request (or 'order') to quit the talk circuit originated from the federal probation department.
On the one hand I think it's not right to limit someone's speech this way. On the other hand I'm all in favour of rulings that prevent individuals from profiting from their crimes... Are there any clauses in his sentence that prevent him from profiting from movie/book deals? How would/do they apply to stuff like this?
From what I remember reading, Mitnick was lecturing on how he used social enginering to talk people into giving him the passwords. Isn't it a good thing that other security type people know how it is done, so that it can be pervented through trainging?
-tschak
Mitnick says "Probation is not supposed to be punitive". Well what exactly is probation supposed to be ?
My understanding is that any convicted criminal on probation gives up certain rights and freedoms that the rest of society continues to enjoy. For example, if you have your driving license suspended, the law is entitled to tell you not to drive (or teach driving I suppose). When Mitnick's probation is over, I would support his right to do whatever he wants, but till then, expecting him not to be able to lecture on the intricacies of his crimes and related topics seems fairly legit...
Computers are just too dang common for us to force someone not to use them. Hell, even convicted drunk drivers are only forbidden to drive after certain hours of the day so that they can still hold down a job. There's a very strong precedent in the American legal system of not letting the law prevent someone from using their skills to earn a living.
_ ____________
If someone signs a non-compete contract for example, the contract can actually be invalidated if it keeps someone from using their skills to earn a living.
What's next?
Someone found guilty of libel is forbidden to use any writing impliments?
Convicted prostitutes are forced to wear chastity belts?
A person who tries to run from the cops is forbidden to wear shoes?
Jon Katz is forbidden to post on slashdot?
We can only hope.
_______________________________________________
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Actually, since over half of my work experience has been as sysadmin as opposed to programmer, im speaking from both sides of the fence.
I don't really see the utility of labeling me as an asshole, or calling me high-minded. I'm simply expressing my perception of the situation. The majority of jobs out there require degrees. For those that dont, degrees help in other ways.
It's currently the case that anyone that puts "linux" on a resumé can get a job doing entry level sysadmin work. Problem is, to advance past that you need to have demonstrated amazing talent and assertiveness. Finally, regardless of how good you are, typically not having a degree will close doors for you near the top. That may not be relevant to everyone, but I think alot of people are selling themselves short without realizing it.
I see lots of friends my age bailing on school so they can get a double-minimum wage job doing T/S or entry level admin work, but then they don't really get promoted significantly from that. The company knows they dont have a degree and in reality can't necessarily do alot better. This is especially true in parts of the country without large established technology companies and the corresponding geniune lack of qualified labor.
I personally view programming and system admin as different flavors of the same problem: making computers solve problems. Any decent sysadmin should be a magnificent programmer, so as to better write system tools. Any decent programmer should be a brilliant sysadmin so as to better understand their programming environment, and the non-program related factors in program execution and health.
Do you think most programmers fit this description ? Certainly not. Do you think most sysadmins fit this description ? Certainly not. One issue though is that I'd say its slightly easier to go from programmer to administrator than it is from administrator to programmer. I'll leave it to you to argue the point, but essentially being a good sysadmin means doing alot of reading and spending alot of time with your nose to the wheel. You can become a good programmer doing the same things, but you miss something without the broad perspective you get with a computer science background. Also, on a more practical level, I think companies are alot more willing to hire sysadmins without degrees then they are programmers without degrees. If you're a programmer with a degree, sliding into adminstration isn't necessarily all that difficult. If you're an administrator with no degree, I'm not sure it's as easy.
At any rate, do you think most sysadmins that take jobs working 24/hour on-call shifts making 40k/year are going to be going anywhere anytime soon ? Especially if they've written off getting a formal background in the theory and practice of computer science ?
In conclusion, obviously not all sysadmins are babysitters, and not all of them need a college degree. I'd argue that many admins that go right into the tech sector and pass up on a university education are doing so because they think their hot shit based on their ability to use autoconf and gcc. Thats the way I felt when I was in highschool; luckily I went through a university program and had my eyes opened a bit.
I know alot of systems people and only a few of them make it big without degrees. Those are the sort of people that do well regardless of industry or environment. There aren't many of them.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I can't see how or why they would do this other than to prevent him from telling someone else how he did it. The only other thing they could posibly do (since they can't monitor his thoughts) would be to prevent him from even seeing anything having to do with technology. This would mean no TV, radio, car, microwave, or anything else that has come about through technological inovations.
-- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
Or he could have infused their minds with his nam-shub, like the crazy Sumerian god he is.
Dan
Now the probation board seem to believe, not entirely unreasonably, that the best way for Mitnick to avoid offending habits is to stay away from computers.
They're probably right but it ain't going to happen that way.
He is not being forbidden from talking/programming in perpetuity. He is being prevented from doing so for the next 3 years as a condition of his parole. These are very different things. He could become one of the good guys, but only once his parole is over.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Why are the fed so worried about Metnik making a few bucks telling people they need to get better at security. I didnt see the feds get worked up, with Kevin Poulson when he went to work for ZD ? Mind you I dont think mass murders should be writing books telling us why and how they commited their crimes .But to me this sounds like a case of the goverment,getting pissed off at Metnik becuse he found a way to make a living with out flipping burgers at burger king .
Who cares if he commited crimes using "technology". Whether they want him to talk about it or not its still his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. It's not even just a contitutional right. It's the FIRST ONE LISTED out of any of them. This is because the original writers of the constitution thought it was the most important. People cannot just go around honoring the constitution whenever they feel like it. I hope KM appeals this and tells each and every news outlet that he can find. It's outrageous to think that somebody decided "He can't lecture on this." Probation or not he can't have his right to free speech curtailed, it just will not work that way. Pisses me off........
>> However, are there any guidelines that say how far is too far? The Bill of Rights springs to mind. lol
"No man treats a motorcar as foolishly as he treats another human being. When the car will not go, he does not attribute its annoying behaviour to sin; he does not say, "You are a wicked motorcar, and I shall not give you any more petrol until you go." He attempts to find out what is wrong and to set it right. An analogous way of treating human beings is, however, considered to be contrary to the truths of our holy religion. And this applies even in the treatment of little children. Many children have bad habits which are perpetuated by punishment but will probably pass away of themselves if left unnoticed. Nevertheless, nurses, with very few exceptions, consider it right to inflict punishment, although by so doing they run the risk of causing insanity. When insanity has been caused it is cited in courts of law as a proof of the harmfulness of the habit, not of the punishment. (I am alluding to a recent prosecution for obscenity in the State of New York.) Reforms in education have come very largely through the study of the insane and feeble-minded, because they have not been held morally responsible for their failures and have therefore been treated more scientifically than normal children. Until very recently it was held that, if a boy could not learn his lesson, the proper cure was caning or flogging. This view is nearly extinct in the treatment of children, but it survives in the criminal law. It is evident that a man with a propensity to crime must be stopped, but so must a man who has hydrophobia and wants to bite people, although nobody considers him morally responsible. A man who is suffering from plague has to be imprisoned until he is cured, although nobody thinks him wicked. The same thing should be done with a man who suffers from a propensity to commit forgery; but there should be no more idea of guilt in the one case than in the other. And this is only common sense, though it is a form of common sense to which Christian ethics and metaphysics are opposed." - Bertrand Russell
This sentence is false.
As a note, IMHO, Bush is the lesser of two evils. If I remember right, not only has Gore taken bigger payoffs (for lack of a better term) from large corporate interests, there's rumors that the Chinese are also supporting him. And from some of the noises he's been making, I have every reason to believe he'll roll over at the sight of a green bill. Remember, the DMCA was rushed through when Clinton was president.
-RickHunter
Whilst there are jobs in the world which don't require computer literacy, they are rapidly disappearing and the ones which remain pay minimum wage.
What is this, the Code of Hammarabi? No, I as an individual probably won't forgive anyone who cuts off my finger, unless they had a really good reason. Would you be satisfied if we cut off is finger? Or, granted that he's probably insane, maybe the finger-eater ought to be put down like a wild dog.
None of this is relavent. What you're describing is psychotic behavior, while Mitnick was merely criminal. Now, maybe you want to attack our legal and penile system, but that's a different tack.
Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
Having incarcerated him, and eventually released him, US citizens are required, I think, to treat him as another citizen. Otherwise prison is just another spiteful vengence nations take on their criminals. If it isn't, then the US has to treat Mitnick as reformed, and to do anything else is less than honest or fair.
The only real justifying analogy I can think of is to treat Mitnick like a sex offender, as if cracking were a compulsion that no one could be sure Mitnick would be able to control. Compell him to announce his conviction record publicly. Except there isn't a more famous felon in the IT field.
Yes, Mitnick was a criminal. But a nation that brands him for the rest of his life that way, cannot make any claims to a legitimate justice system.
Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
Church of Emacs?! Ummm, anyway... Being put on probation, while a lot better than serving prison time, is still part of his sentence. He was given a deal, since he's not a violent criminal. But people on probation are not meant to have the same rights as everyone else as long as they're still serving that part of their sentence. After his time's up, he can work on computers and benefit society all he wants--and he absolutely has a lot to offer. Till then (especially since he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong) he's got to serve his time.
It's kinda like the 'consent to search' rule. If a cop stops you and says "I'm going to search you now. If I find anything illegal on you, it'll be used against you in a court of law.... OK? He's not asking if you understand that what he's doing is legal.
He's asking you for Consent to search. If you go "OK", back then an otherwise illegal search becomes legal because it was 'voluntary'.
Same thing with "asking" Mitnick to shutup.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
These sorts of actions are quite common. Here in Canada there was a big fuss over criminals being allowed to publish, and profit, from books that they had written about their experiences. Mitnick being forced off the lecture circuit in just another example of that sort of thing. Already Mitnick isn't even allowed to use such basic technology as cellphones, bank machines, etc. Let alone computers. This sort of action seems designed to do one thing, distroy his life. These days more and more people are crying out for "kill the basterd" sentencing. This is just another example of this trend.
Now it is my belief that anyone who engages in any criminal acts should not be praised for what they did, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to make any money from it. After all, look at the outrage when a serial killer or murderer writes a book and publishes it. But when it's Kevin Mitnick, "information hero", /.ers are full of outrage when he's not allowed to make money from his infamy.
And when exactly do you draw the line? Should we not allow criminals to write books about their experiences? Those books may be very insightfull, interesting, valuable. But those criminals will profit from them. So what should we do? Force them to not write those books? Take away any money they make from them? Give them a fair share? Mitnick is making quite a lot of money from his lectures. But why should his punishment preclude that sort of activity? Again he is providing insightfull, interesting etc. lectures. After all if he's being payed so much they've got to be good!
Actions such as these can only serve to prevent criminals from getting their lives back. These lectures provide Mitnick a source of money and the ability to do something good with his experiences. Why shouldn't we allow this?
The Internet Worm is a lot more fuzzy. Robert Morris could arguably not have intended the damage that he caused by his programmign mistakes. Basically border-line criminal negligence causing death vs. first-degree murder. Mitnick did intend to break in and cause trouble, it's far harder to justify stealing passwords. OTOH in both cases the "criminal" can still become a productive member of society. Robert Morris has, IMO it's only a matter of time before Mitnick does.
Well, your mostly right...
Delivery Driver
seen ups lately? they carry electronic clipboards and cellular phones. according to the us government, he could somehow hack this, and is not allowed to use them.
Taxi Driver
computers in the cab, see above.
Waiter
when is the last time you saw a normal cash register? even fast food places use computers for registers now.
Host at a restaurant
See above
Car wash attendent
most car washes are computer controlled.
Car lot porter
Dealerships use computers, especially for inventory, something a porter would have to work with.
Dairy worker (milk cows)
heh, milkers have been computerized since the early 80's. Don't look at me, its the gov't that disallows ALL use of computers.
Just take that into account when you say that he could just work for minimum wage. He's not allowed a cellphone, computer, or any device which could access the internet. Regardless of whether the machines DO access, if they could is all that matters.
So I'm assuming Kevin is now going around lecturing and talking about the gross injustices done to him in the supposed name of justice, and by Shimoda as well. I think he's got every right. Shimoda made a lot of money making exaggerations, and according to Kevin, false statements. If Kevin lectures a group the way he talked on the 2600.com interview where he takes responsibility for the things he did do, then I don't see the problem.
I see this issue more as government censorship than anything else.
Listen to the Off The Hook archives at 2600.com if you want.
and if the news is even semi-accurate... There are now 1.8 MILLION Americans incarcerated in the U.S.
Let Freedom Ring!
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
Isn't this a direct violation of his first ammendment rights. I mean I know felons can't generally get guns which is similar. But I always thought there was something about the 1st ammendment which we prided ourselves in. If some guy is sitting on death row can write a book there is really something messed up about Mitnick not being able to speak or write about technology.
My dad make arounf 45K a year as a mechanic, and has been doing it for 20+ years, he is also the one of the best mechanics I know. As oppsosed to me I make around 50+ a year as a coder, and Im not the best the coder I know.. by far. I when I realize how much I make in the tech industry as a developer.. I try to be humble, and realize that alot of people are making less and consider themselves very successful, it is all a matter of perspective.
Here is my opinion on the Mitnick subject.
-Nathan
Sorry that was a typo on my part.
Mitnick, who served nearly five years in prison, said probation officials have instructed
him to find employment in a field totally unrelated to computers
ARRRRGH. He did not serve time! He spent 4-5 years detained without trial and severley limited access. heathen, shameless, incredible, makes me want to sign up with the local militia...
The worst part is this is common knowledge, easy basic stuff, *why* does CNN make basic, prejudiciary, slimy mistakes like this? the rest of the article is pretty on, but these little things!
ooo... *bad* man, mommy...
MITNICK IS NOT ON PAROLE!
he is on probation, with credit for time served pursant to these conditions.
parole is something different entirely.
as far as it goes, Mitnick served something like six months in minimum, which *completed* his time in. if he violates probabtion, they take away his time served and plop him back in Lombardo.
Good that she's woken up to the real world without her life being destroyed, and hopefully she'll make much wiser decisions in the future.
This week is sexual abuse awareness week... Looks like some slashdotters could be more aware. You're not REALLY suggesting that it was her fault she got raped by four men, are you? Because she was drunk?
There are tons of posts here talking about how this court desicion violates Mitnick's first amendment rights. I was under the impression that when you were convicted of a crime, your rights were forfeit for the duration of your sentance/probation. Given this, I'm pretty sure that it is completely legal for the courts the pass this sort of judgement. I doubt that Kevin Mitnick will have much ground to fight this ruling on.
Having said this, I should also note that I don't agree with the court's decision and that I feel it is very heavy-handed as well as being short-sighted. But what do I know?
I doubt a TV could be used to hack... no telnet, and i doubt you could install a *nix on it.... even if the (obviously dipshit, seeing as how she looked at internet access) judge meant WebTV, it's doubtful. but maybe the folks at NetBSD.org are working on it ;)
"There is no spoon."
Notice also that (according to the news I've been reading) the judge has said outright that she's trying to prevent him from being able to earn anything above minimum wage or do anything other than manual labor. I really think he ought to sue her for cruel and unusual punishment.
Its not so much that he's a criminal, but its the fact that he is being denied constitutional rights, although the courts have indicated that certain of these rights are not available to convicted felons (ex: the right to bear arms). However The right to free speach should **NEVER** have been abridged in this case. He is not inciting criminal activity, he is infact educating people on how to stop criminal activity similar to the crime(s) he committed.
What seems to have been forgotten is that IIRC, Mitnick was no great shakes as a "hacker". He was in fact a "social engineer". This is a polite way of saying "dumpster diving conman". Yeah, law enforcement has little to be proud of over this episode but neither does Mitnick. Now having said that what about the restrictions on him. There may be first amendment grounds there but it should be remembered that the ability of probationers to associate with specified people can be restricted although trying to apply that to non-felonious members of the general public is stretching the principle near to breaking.
This is clearly a violation of 1st Amendment rights, at least as far as I understand them. Sometimes the government walks the line on this, but this is way over the line. Allowing the man to speak about how to protect yourself and your company (presumably) from people like who he used to be is better than any jail time or fine, IMO.
Just my $0.02.
-Aerowolf
If a convicted rapist decided to write a book on how to spot rapists and prevent the crimes they would commit, that would certainly be legal. I haven't heard him lecture, but if he is giving advice on how to protect yourself from cybercrimes, then it should be perfectly legit. It does indeed sound like the judge is trying to make his probation punitive.
What if you don't want to break that law? Is it immoral to go about your business normally and also in compliance with an "immoral" law?
For instance, I believe that laws on mary-wana are extreme (though I wouldn't want it to be entirely unregulated anymore than I would support that for alcohol or tobacco). But I don't drink, smoke or even take pain killers much when I need them. So I have no interest whatsoever in using, possessing or having used around me a nasty smoky substance which also happens to be a drug. By your sig, it is actaully more immoral for me to live my life as I would choose regardless of drug laws than to go out and committ a crime just to do it? seems sketchy.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Regardless, the whole minimum wage comment makes me think there are only two possibilities. (1) The article is fairly well biased towared Mitnick, or (2) The justice department's not too bright.
Borogrove
Your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. -- Shakespeare
Perhaps this law was extended to non-violent criminals like mitnick. If so, it seems sensible to me. Fine, talk all you want (free speech) you just can't get rich off a previous crime (regulation of commerce)
Since you'd tend to spend less time in jail for hacking, than murder, it might actually be an apealing way to make a million for some script kiddies out there. They'd just have to fake orgasms till parole, then blow some of the book royalties on preparation.h ^?^?^?^?^?^?^?^? Preparation-H.
Amazing, isn't it? The more time passes, the more poinient the classics become.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
...don't do the crime. he broke the law, he went to court, he lost, now he's on probation and must adhere to the terms of that probation.
not that i think the gov handled the case properly -- i don't. but he has to live with the consequences, eh?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The Government only censors when they feel threatened. They are scared. Who knows why? Kevin was only speaking about how to protect yourself on the internet. In 1798, Congress passed the sedition act, which prohibited people from speaking out against the government. It turns out the Federalists didn't want to lose office, so they tried to eliminate the competition. This was clearly a violation of the First Amendment and was repealed. During World War I, a similar act was passed, but in 1919, it was also overturned. Why is Kevin Mitnick any different? Him speaking won't hurt the welfare of the United States, yet, they are either scared of him, or they simply hate him. This, like the sedition and Espionage Acts, are a violation of rights, and history shows that unfair acts like this will be overturned in court. As far as I know, he still has his rights, doesn't he?
Message Sent using Microsoft Internet Exploiter 5.5.
Today is the closing of a parenthesis opened before this sig, before this story, before this existence that is me (as if
"Government officials could not be reached for comment after business hours Thursday."
In my experience, business hours at the Govt. end at 3:30 or 4 PM, unless your a contractor. Try calling at 7 AM.
Unfortunately, when you are a felon, you forfit a number of your rights. Felons cannot carry guns, in many places felons cannot vote. As much as I think this one is a vindictive and out of line penalty, it is not prohibited by the terms of his parole. The question becomes one of a general application of this penalty. Fer instance, if Billy Clinton becomes convicted of the felony offence of perjury in his testamony on the Paula Jones case, will he be prohibited from speaking on any lecture circuits? Somehow I doubt it. America should have only a single class of citizen, thus if you are not going to prohibit others, then Mitnick should also not be prohibited, in that I agree with you.
The "other" Kevin, Kevin Poulsen, I beleive was the first cracker to be banned from computers after his release from prison. First off, Poulsen was actually convicted. Second off, Kevin wasn't banned from using a television or cell phones. But then again, this was a few years ago, and you couldn't really access stocks through a cell phone.
At any rate, to my point. Poulsen made his living by writing articles for Ziff-Davis. Technical articles. Using a typewriter. A strange twist of irony, but no one prevented him from learning about the technology he wasn't allowed to use, and then writing about it. Now he's fairly famous as a writer, and I've seen his articles on ZDNet and in Wired.
I also know an ex-convict hacker in IRC. He is banned from using any computers unless it's at work, and also banned from associating himself with hackers of any kind. Like most hackers I've known, he's a nice guy, and will give good advice on computer security when asked.
The best person to get security advice from is someone who knows about it. Someone who can think around the system, think of ways to defeat it, will do better to secure that same system than someone who sits in an office reading the manual on how to secure a system.
Personally, I think they should let him give lectures all he wants, as long as he's not telling people HOW to crack, or encouraging such behaviour. If the state is so worried about it, then have his parolle officer or someone Kevin doesn't know sit in on his meetings. If he's being bad, THEN ban him from doing it.
It does sound to me like this judge is more interested in having Kevin earn less than she does, more than she's interested in keeping him from committing more crimes. This, in my mind, is stilted justice, especially when the guy spent 4+ years in prision without a trial or a bail hearing. Crime committed or no, that is no way to handle it.
Can they actually (legally) prevent him - I can understand to a certain extent the restrictions on his using technology, but to actually prevent him from talking about it to others? Is this supposed to stop him from passing on techniques to others - if so, wouldn't it be easier to require him not to incite others to follow his example? I'm not from the US, but doesn't this conflict with his constitutional rights to free speech?
I was aware of all the tech related restrictions, but SPEAKING about tech related subjects is off limits as well?
I would imagine that since these are public speaking engagements, it wouldn't be too hard to determine whether or not he was inciting people to commit crimes or anything like that.
Has anyone got any transcripts from any of these speeches? I'd be interested to find out what he's talking about.
Long and the short of it, I think the prosecutors are really scared of him because they don't understand him or his crimes.
I'm just waiting for someone to get arrested for making lock picks out of ice, and being refused the right to be in the presence of water. *sigh*
Of course, this requires that an employer trust him to actually report all the holes found, rather than keep them secret for later use. His crimes may hurt his credibility then. But he certainly has skills. If I trusted him, I'd hire him.
By reading the source, maybe?
I think you might be a little too paranoid if you see the NSA involved here...
Mitnick is one of those EVIL "ELITE HACKERS!" He should be PUNISHED for his crimes, no matter how minor or inconsequential because, after all, he is different! We politicians used to give him wedgies in school! We should do them now in real life, by making him grovel to us. We should really screw up his life! He needs to know who's boss! All of those damned geeks need to know that we'll beat them down with our "justice" any day.
/sarchasm
..|.,
Eh...
Probation is not supposed to be punitive. It is supposed to help the offender - get a job, avoid crime, etc. etc. depending on circumstances.
This is yet another example of the growing tendency of the state to trample our basic rights. Kevin has served his time and should be able to earn a living any way he sees fit. We have to ask ourselves why Kevin's punishment is so extreme relative to his crimes? For example, how many people convicted of DUI are ordered to never drive a car? This insanity needs to stop.
umm.. wasn't his sentence for 5 years? cus i'm pretty sure that it was, but i could be wrong.. anyway, if it was for 5 years, then he has served his time. he wasn't let out early, his sentence was completed, therefore it's not parole.. i don't know how long probation lasts for him, but he's getting the shaft up the ass that's for sure. the damn government is using him as an example to all the other computer geniouses who think they can get away with hacking and cracking...- -----
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. You just can't have your life, liberty, or property taken away without due process of law.
Really. I'm not kidding.
This power is limited by the fact that Congress can't make certain laws (e.g. anti-freedom of expression) to be duely processed in the first place.
I'm not a lawyer. I have, however, actually read the Consitution all the way through. It helps. Sometimes. ;)
-- PondScum, SamThe
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
It is neither ! Mitnick was convicted of commiting a crime. He should not profit from his crime. Agreed. But why shouldn't he profit by passing on his knowledge legally, in a way that allows people to build safer and more secure systems.
The scary thing about this whole thing is that, having released Mitnick from prison, they are creating a virtual prison by severely circumscribing the things he can do to make a living. They are virtually forcing him to reoffend, or die of frustration ! OK, I believe in punishing people for their crimes. But to continue to torment this man in this way, is pure state sponsored vindictiveness.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Did Congress pass a law? No, a judge ruled. Even so, if you read the article, you would note that the article said "Under a plea agreement, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access." Do you know what a plea agreement means? It means he agreed to it. He could have gone to trial, but he agreed. And now he is complaining.
Mitnick, like the rest of us, has first amendment rights that are protected. But like all of us they are not unlimitied and absolute. They can be restricted when we enter into a contract (which includes a plea bargain).
I do think Mitnick was made an example of, but he's out now and he agreed to the terms.
As far as the fourth amendment, no one stripped Mitnick's constitutional rights except him! He agreed to the terms.
The conditions of his probabtion said that he basically couldn't do anything with computers and specifically prohibited him from speaking about computers. That part of his probabtion says he voluntarily gives up his right to speech about computer issues.
Yeah, that's exactly the same thing - they were going to kill him in the town square.
Look, I said I think they used him as an example, and I do think he got shafted in some areas. I just don't think this is one of them.
Here is a snippet from:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM 1998
CA No. 97-50365
D.C. No. CR-95-00603-MRP-1
KEVIN DAVID MITNICK,
PETITIONER,
-VS.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RESPONDENT.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
This is what he agreed to.
see snippet from his terms of probation
Well it depends. A felony is not a black and white thing, there are shades of gray involved also. I would want to know what a person was convicted of before making any judgement.
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons? You break the law; you pay the price.
No, it isn't everyone's fault. It's the fault of bad laws. Drug laws exspecially. You can become a felon by being convicted of possessing mushrooms (or any Sced. 1 drug). Sure you pay the price, but why is the price for the above mentioned possession a felony?
The real issue is that there is nothing inherently felonous about mushroom (or cocaine) possession. They are arbitrarily assigned felonies. If there were any logic or reason behind them being felonies then it would be a felony to possess tobacco (which is far more dangerous than any illegal drug).
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
Well, if the lore I have heard is true (e.g. Mitnick spent 4 years in a federal pen w/o trial - no habeus corpus), if I were him I would give about a rat's ass what was legal in the eyes of the feds. Obviously they intended, and still intend to destroy him - gratuitously and completely.
He should be looking to relocate to a country hostile to US Federal interests where his skills would be valued. Osama Bin Ladin's ... uh, could it be called a company? ... comes to mind.
I'm sure there are any number of terrorist organizations world wide, who, having been put in a position similar to Mitnick's wrt employment, would be willing to hire him, and screw the feds.
I mean, if they have said you are a terrorist (and evidently a fairly good/dangerous one), fukkin put it on your resume! Besides, if Mitnick can get Bin Ladin's ICBM working, we're rid of those miserable fucks in DC that much sooner, anyhow, right?
"The Internet is made of cats."
I just had to get off my lurking butt to mention that G.Gordon Liddy, Monica Lewinsky (though she wasn't criminal), Tanya Harding, and several other examples of generally revolting individuals have profited from their "real-life stories" or the "lecture circuit". So why is Kevin Mitnick being singled out? What I see as the main difference here is the fear factor. Kevin Mitnick and "hackers" in general, scare the shit out of judges and law enforcement because they do not understand the technology, how it was misused, or how to defend themselves. This fear leads to an unreasonable hatred of any computer-savvy individuals with criminal intent. And it's reflected in the judge's comments.
The right to vote varies from state to state. Fifteen states allow felons to vote, and one, Massachusetts, even allows prisoners to vote. In others, there's a movement afoot to repeal the laws disenfranchising felons because it affects a dispropotionate number of black males.
circa75.com
I'm speaking from experience.
Obnoxious geeks who act disrespectful towards all the other dumb fucks in federal prison get beat down. I can't speak for the state joints, which can be more violent, but if you keep to yourself in a federal prison (maximum security aside) the odds of getting smacked in the face with a telephone handset are pretty low.
circa75.com
On closer reading, the article seems to suggest that this originates with the judge. It would be interesting to know whether she issued some kind of judgement or just let it be known that she was displeased. If it's the latter, he has some legal recourse because it's her own dumb fault for not specifically including lecturing as a prohibited activity. It's my understanding that unless the feds violate you, the conditions of release are somewhat binding.
circa75.com
things I personally see going wrong in society.
:-)
Nobody here would agree that the squelching of free speech is anything but wrong and an enormous step backwards for our country/government.
Having said that, society, driven by it's finite moral spectrum, will stomp on individual speech or expression whenever any mass disapproval arises. Too often the misguided rationale of protection of society, especially children, is used as an excuse to lessen another's expression to 'tolerable social limits'. All one has to do is look at anything containing a parental warning or the abundant disclaimers adorning seemingly everything nowadays to see the grip we and our government have around our very necks.
I say these things because I fall on the opposite end of the scale from most. I extoll and cherish open and free expression. If those around me wish to say vulgar or inappropriate things, so be it. I have no problem with anyone expressing themselves...I draw the line at expression one's self physically through agression towards another living thing though.
What I feel most of society misses though, is that it is up to the individual to decide for themselves whether or not what they're hearing is worth listening to. I don't plan on 'protecting' my children (when I have them) from anything; rather I'll educate them to listen, interpret, understand and evaluate what they see and hear.
This extends to: If Mitnick wants to make millions of the fame and knowledge of his actions, so be it. Certainly the industry can learn something from his exploits...but I also feel that any murderer or rapist should be allowed to do the same. If they wish to do lectures once they're paroled or write books from the slammer let them. Let them be as grotesque and unrepentant as they wish. Only then, when society is able see the true nature of these people and inhumanities, will it be able to make an educated decision on how to improve the prison system. As it stands now, Dahmer and Bundy are only freaks at a side show...our reactions to them are based on censored information. We have no idea how far away from the status-quo they truly are. When society learns to not place value in trviality or shock value, and begins thinking thoughtful and long-term on issues, we will finally make it somewhere as a PEOPLE.
I don't believe in sheltering anyone or anything. No matter how sheltered you may be, you will eventually find hideousness. Your 'education' as a sentient, understanding human will protect you against misunderstanding and reactionism.
The world is vast and contains wonders of all types. It is up to the individual to decide how they feel about them.
sedawkgrep
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
Not letting him think about technology would be the logical next step, followed by the ruling that "technology" is everything outside of an empty room.
Nope, you can't write on your killings. Something about the victim's family's rights. I've seen this on multiple news magazine shows.
Scum? It's not like he killed someone. Yeah, he caused a lot of money to be lost by some big names, but he lost 5 years of his life. He has said he has seen the error of his ways, let him become a functional member of society again. If you do lot let non-violent felons integrate back into society they will continue down that path that landed them in prison in the first place. It costs about 40K a year to keep people in prison. That is tax money I would rather spend on education.
IANAL either but...
I think what you are talking about is that you can't write a book about your crimes that landed you in prison in the first place. For example it would be illegal for a killer to write a book/script detailing his murders. I don't see how they can stop Mitnick from speaking. As long as he isn't saying "this is how I hacked into Novell..."
(Picks up the dead horse, dusts it off, flogs it a bit.)
Rapists can't write books about their crimes and sell them.
John Smith, convicted rapist, said of the order: "I'm no longer permitted to speak about sex or violence issues."
Criminals still have free speech rights. Talking about computers != selling a book about his crimes. I should stop here, but I just can't resist a few of these arguments, so for the sake of getting modded down, here goes.
It's not about free speech. Mitinick would not be well known at all if he lacked a criminal record. He wouldn't have the enclaves of fervent followers proclaiming "Free Kevin", and nobody would give a damn what some drop out loser said about security.
Loser dropouts don't get free speech? Or people who "shouldn't" be famous don't get free speech?
This is just another example of the government using its power to trample the rights of people they don't like. What? He's making money? But we thought we'd handled that! Anyways, this has all been said better in the Criminals Shouldn't Be Lauded thread, so go check it out.
Noone is praising Mitnick for what he did, and noone's making you go to his speaking engagements. People are paying him money voluntarily, because they want to hear what he has to say.
From what I understand, the probation prohibits his going anywhere near anywhere where he might have Internet access. However, from what I also understand, at our current level of technology, a podium, a microphone, and perhaps a whiteboard / overhead projector does not yet allow internet access.
Which means that the Feds are stomping on his First Amendment rights...
i thought the point of servering a jail sentence was to be rehabilitated, so why cant this kevin guy use computers or even talk about technology.
lose != loose
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it? Probably that you didn't read the article. He wants to make lectures about how to prevent intrusion into sites. This has nothing to do with his criminal activities, except that both are made possible by the same thing. He is a freaking guru concerning security and intrusion. While cracking is the 'bad way/path'. Giving this lectures is the good path.... If a master burglar (hope this is the guy breaking into buildings) starts working for a company which is into making buildings secure. Then there is nothing wrong with it, cause who else knows more about the topic???? The same holds for giving lectures on how to make your house less prone to get broken into... so I think it's that you are completly missing the point... and another thing. He did his fcking jail-time and paid for his "criminal" behavior, so give the guy a chance to get a life.... remo
Ryan
What the US Government has done to Mitnick is a joke compared to what they've done to Jonathan Pollard. He was working for the US Navy and found out that the US was supplying Iraq with chemical weapons technology to use in it's war against Iran. He passed this info on to Israel along with other intel on the military capabilities of Arab states that Israel was at war with. Normally, spying for an ally gets you a sentance of 4 years. The US gave him a life sentance. He spent the first 10 years of it 3 stories underground in solitary confinement. He and his lawyers have been denied access to the secret evidence that was used to sentance him for over 15 years. Over 15 years in jail and he still hasn't gotten to see the classified secret evidence that was used to sentance him. For more info see the Free Jonathan Pollard web site at, http://www.jonathanpollard.org
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
"Well, you see, out in the big wide world there are these things called jobs, and they involve a wide variety of tasks, many of which don't involve computers. I know it's hard to grasp when you're a 16 year old computer geek with no social life, but it's true."
I don't know where you've been, in the last 10 years, and more so in the future, all jobs will in some way involve computers.
There will be no such thing as a computer-related job. All jobs will be computer-related.
ps-And if it ain't computer-related, geeks like us will find a way to make it so. We'll replace any menial tasks with robots and add to the growing number of disgruntled proletariat.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
which part of the bill of rights offends you. the part about no cruel and unusual punishement, the part about due process, the part about double-jeopardy, or just that so many obviously criminal people hide behind it in order to offend you with their lives?
---
It's so easy to call others scum eh? Makes you feel superior over those lesser worms surrounding you. It's hard to feel sympathy for the sympathy-less.
He even could say something like 'This is how I cracked Novell'. We have something called free speech in this country. Also, it could prove beneficial: by showing specific security holes, he could help to educate sysadmins.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Knowledge may not be a crime, but mis-use of that knowledge is. If I know how to make a bomb, that is not a crime. If I then make a bomb and blow up your house, that is a crime.
So, would you like it if I used knowledge on, say lock picking to enter your house illegally? I wouldn't steal anything, I'd just look around, watch your TV, whatever? That would be a crime too.
Mitnick is a criminal. He should not profit from his crimes.
"Information wants to be paid"
He could go work for the Amish....
"Information wants to be paid"
He'll end up like Darwin, banished and ridiculed ... What the FUCK are you on about?
"Information wants to be paid"
Hey! That money should be going to the criminal's victims. Poor emotionally traumatized Sun should be compensated...
It seems that Mr. Mitnick is going to remain the punchbag of the US authorities for some time to come.
Having spent several years in prison without trial, then being told that you cannot access that which has made your livlihood up to that point (not to mention the tuna fish debarcle), he's still not getting a break. And he even tries to help out the Government!
Some thanks he was given.
Mechanic? I hope your not using this as an example - You may have noticed . . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Now if only the Colleges would consider teaching them. I've programmed for 20 years, and have yet to have two people agree on what they mean when talking about 'object-oriented programming', and so on.
I took Calculus because I *enjoyed* it - not because my degree required it (it didn't), but these idiots coming out of the Comp Sci programs don't know the *tools*. They know 'Design Methodology', and 'Object Oriented Design Theory', and 'CASE Systems Analysis' but they will screw up any actual design they touch.
I'm pretty sure they all eventually go to work for Microsoft. That is BTW, not a slam - merely an indication that most of MS's office suite and bloatware share the design features these young 'Computer Science' people try to insert in software.
This is of course, only my limited experience.
Pug
Of course, this is way Off-Topic for this thread - grin
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Mitnick is free earlier than the court wants because he agreed to comply with restrictions in exchange for being out of jail. In two years, he no longer has to obey those restrictions.
If he simply stayed in jail for his full sentence, he could walk out and do what he pleases, day one.
sarcasm mode on
Okay, so the point of probation is to hinder the rehabilitation of a recovering criminal.
sarcasm mode off
My other first post is car post.
Why shouldn't we mere peasents be able to read and discuss the Constitution?
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
WTF? Kevin is being denied the first ammendment, hello? The man should be allowed to speak. If the govt. is able to keep Kevin from speaking what will they do next? It is all a little to commie for me.
Also, Kevin ripped off some software, stole a few cpu cycles... had some laughs. Big f-ing deal. Did anyone die? Did anyone loose money... I mean real money not the bull shit the companies said... Oh we lost 3 million because this hacker stole our software...NO.
The courts have a right to put the man on probation, but not the right to keep him from speaking.
Government sucks, plain and simple...all it can do is fuck shit up.
An interesting thought except for one thing...
As a felon who is not yet through with the probation and other terms of his sentence, (even though we all know that he only pled guilty to stop the circus) he legally could not leave the country without very specific permissions from all sorts of authorities. Essentially, he has to "do his time" and the only remedy is to make a legal challenge to the "cruel and unusual" punnishment - I think that his sentence qualifies as both:
Cruel - If the only marketable skills he has are technology dependant, he essentially is barred from the vast majority of ways to make a living. The sentencing is in effect preventing him from making any kind of positive contribution to society.
Unusual - There are no specific sentencing laws that state this is the penalty for the crimes he pled guilty to. The restrictions were handed down solely at the discression of the judge, and some could even make the case that the guidelines are arbitrary and capricious - certainly, restrictions that prevent someone from earning a livable wage are unusual.
There's My 2 cents for the day.
The Digital Sorceress
You're obviously right about the voting (though the argument could be made that they do so with lobbying funds/pacs and have significantly more voice than the voter)- and the whole line of argument in so far as I should not have made the blanket statement that they are "citizens" in the exact same sense as an individual citizen. However, my real point was that as courtroom entities they are treated with the same respect as individual citizens which I, personally, think is problematic. As regards public corporations, yes these things are also obvious but a private company like, say, Cargill has no such restrictions or responsibilities and is still possesses "citizen-esque" (let me get away with that one?) rights. As to the privacy which was my main point - laws based upon "reasonable expectation" are easily altered and confabulated as societal outlooks change. Constitutional rights are less so. But ultimately, mea culpa on my hasty word choice.
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual
Legally, U.S. corporations do have citizenship.
Legally, no U.S. citizen has a right to privacy.
Perhaps we as a citizenry should give serious thought to changing both of those things.
An expectation of privacy and the legal right to privacy are not at all the same thing. Even given the the provisions in the ninth amendment, every day we see a total lack of legal privacy protection in the U.S.
As to there being limits placed upon a corporation's legal rights, that's obviously true of the individual as well. Furthermore, how exactly are you defining the corporation's "special rights and responsibilities" as seperate from those of individual citizens? Which one of the items in the Bill of Rights is specifically denied to corporations? Speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, due process?
this is violating his civil rights! i didnt read through any other replies so i dont know if anyones made this point. VIOLATION OF THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!
Like I said, I don't think they should be able to stop him from giving lectures, not because of First Amendment reasons, but rather because they are expanding what his limitations are during his probation beyond the scope of what the judge originally intended. Of course, I've never read the conditions of his probation, so it may actually cover that as well.
Instead of 5 years of prison and 3 years of probation (or whatever it was they gave him), they could have given him 8 years of prison. He wouldn't be able to go and give lecures then, so this is not a First Amendment issue.
If they tried to prevent him from speaking at all about the case to the media, then it would be a First Amendment issue.
Um...Then what is it supposed to be, congratulatory? Sheesh. I don't agree with what they're doing, but statements like these make no sense.
If they really understood what Kevin did and how he did it, he would not be barred from owning a television set or wireless phone.
The onerous and ridiculous restrictions placed on Kevin's behavior simply emphasize the fact that this trial is a "show case" and not an attempt to implement justice. Kevin's case is of such high profile that the prosecutors simply can't resist using his case to "send a message" to other "would be super-hackers".
The problem is that such over-reaction and asinine behavior on the part of prosecutors in the long run does not promote respect for the law. It erodes respect for the law, because the law is shown to be completely ignorant of, and detached from, reality.
The whole deal reminds me of an old movie I watched where a POW was busted by the evil Stalinist prison guards for having some wire in his possession.... obviously he was building a radio so he could listen to the BBC!!!
mtoal
Not to be overly rude or anything, but he should've thought about that consequence before he did his cracking et al. If i were a truck driver, and i abused my "privilege" of driving the rig (for instance, by driving through/over cars in a traffic jam, by driving into buildings, cool things like that), then i shouldn't be able to drive a truck for a LONG time.
There is a big difference between not being allowed to drive a truck and not being allowed to talk about trucks.
Josh Sisk
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Why am I a hypocrite if don't believe that?
I don't think criminals should be lauded, but I think this smacks of the gov trying to keep Mitnick quiet. I could see them telling Mitnick he could not accept pay for his lectures, but from the article, it seems like they have told him he can not lecture, or write about technology-related issues. I wonder if his case counts as a technology-related issue.
from the article: Mitnick, 36, said he has been trying to educate others about protecting themselves against cyberspace intrusions.
"This is good for the public and good for me because I feel productive," Mitnick said. "I recognize the errors of my past and I want to be productive."
I don't think having a famous and skilled computer criminal talking to computer security experts is a bad thing... Just as I wouldn't feel bad about a famous and skilled jewel thief explaining to museum security administrators how he stole jewels.
Josh Sisk
No, he couldn't possibly be a freedom fighter since he is in the United States of America where freedom chimes from every street corner. Black people in the US have it real good, the fact that about a 1/3rd of young black men are in the prison system is obviously a total fluke. The fact that they are arrested more often, convicted more often, given longer sentences than the rest of the population probably is just another fluke but I'm too lazy to do the stats myself. Obviously he's a criminal, the fact that he was a member of the Black Panther Party and an award winning left wing (not "liberal") journalist was probably just to cover his being a criminal. All the people that demonstrate for his release (along with other political prisoners like AIM activist Leonard Peltier) are just deluded fools. Smart people like youself know that .38 and .44 calibre weapons are pretty much interchangable and obviously Mumia did it. All the witness who admitted to lying for the police are just backtracking to gain the attention they so desperately crave. Although Amensty International and even the mainstream media in all the countries outside the US has huge doubts about the trial and his guilt, it's good to hear that an anonymous coward like youself knows better.
I may be wrong, but isn't it a stated part of our goal in the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? No matter what you think of Mitnick, he is legally a criminal.
The problem becomes one of rehab policy. I just can't understand any sort of thinking that says that a person with valuable and useful skills should be denied the right to even speak of those skills. (The argument about serial killers and rapists doesn't apply - rape and murder are not useful skills in a civilized society.)
This has to be a violation of the 4th amendment by any sort of common sense interpretation... uh, common sense...judicial system...technophobia...
Never mind.
Hey Mitnick, can you say "Would you like fries with that?"
I usually do not answer Anonymous Cowards, but what the hell...
Where in the Bill of Rights (Mr. Expert) does it say his 1st Amendment Right is revoked for a conviction? Sounds like you are spouting shinola all of the sudden, huh?
Further, the risk of him going to Syria (figuratively; probably to the highest non-domestic bidder) is a real one, so interesting you should bring it up. Can you imagine alienating a miscreant with this level of proven ability for mayhem?
BTW, grow some balls, Anonymous Coward.
-L
Well, there are actually a few distinctions, so I will pass on the hypocrite label that you are waving around threateningly.
An offender who is still in jail has lost their rights (in a de facto sense), and should not be able to make money from their crimes. Furthermore, an injunction should be put into place if there are human victims to effect their ability to do so when released.
I do not think that Mitnick should be able to indict his victims by name now either (EVIL corporations though they be), but to lecture on the generalities of security seems a valid use for this once misguided person. Hell, there are much worse criminals out there making money right now, and maybe they have no incentive to try to benefit any group but themselves. Why not leave available a rehabilitation carrot to go with the stick?
-L
Wow, I was reading the related articles on CNN and noticed that Mitnick had made an informational appearance before Congress as recently as March 2000. Now, the government is curtailing his ability to do the same for others (who are admittedly paying him).
Imagine the kiss they owe him after a screwing like that!
-L
Yes, Kevin Mitnick is a convicted criminal. But not letting him lecture on how to stop his own ilk accomplishes less than nothing. Companies and organizations cannot benefit from his knowledge, an opportunity lost.
Moreover, there are people in similar situations who present a good reason to let him lecture. Remember Michael Milken, junk bond king? Now lectures with a positive message, and has for a few years. One can objectively say he has contributed to society. I do not think I like this idea of once a criminal, always a criminal. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in my view.
-L
May I ask how he is supposed to do business without the use of computers? Cash registers, payroll, inventory, etc. all use computers these days ,unless [of course] he wants to do all of this by hand.
Does he have the right to purchase computer equipment while not using it?
It is also little bit difficult to open a bakeshop without the capital.
As for the Law school he would still need to get funding. The government will not give him financial aid. I'm also guessing that all reports would have to typed on a 1970s (or less) typewriter or pay someone to type it for you.
I'm not painting myself as someone who didn't have it relatively easy -- my college education was paid for by scholarships in part, but mostly by my extremely hard-working parents. Neither one of them made very much money at the time, and my tuition was a good piece of their income. After recently graduating, I make more than either one of them by a large margin. My fiance and I make more than my parents ever did, and we don't have a house and 2 kids. And your guess is wrong: I do know someone with one of those jobs: my father. He's been a blue-collar worker since he graduated from high school. And let me tell you first-hand: he works harder than you ever will. Yes, I have it easy. But I, unlike you, realize that people make sacrifices for it to be so.
I'm not sure what level of education you have, plan to have, or how it's being funded, but here's a little reality check for you. A whole lot more goes into someone's career pick than choice. Your upbringing, social status, and finances play a large part in where you end up in life. If you're dealt a shitty hand, it's much more difficult than saying "I adamently [sic] refuse to sit in this little job." Maybe that little job doesn't have honor (like what you do does), but unfortunately that's what's necessary to pay the bills. And let me tell you, people doing 40-50+ years of work they hate to support their families carries a great deal of honor in my book. Certainly more honor than someone like you who says, "I'm not going to wind up in a prideless little job like you."
If you have so much insight, why don't you go outside and look around and see that "these people" with "those jobs" make it possible for you to live your life the way you do. You don't have to honor them or go pat them on the back, but judging and looking down on them as lesser people with no pride makes you look like a fucking asshole.
By the way, if you ever find yourself in need of any cyanide, drop me a line.
No, it's not really surprising, and that's why it's so bad.
It really comes down to an issue of almost laughable government oppression. They even stated that they hoped he'd never make more than minimum wage! Since when does the government actively attempt to punish sucess?
As I recall, everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (supposedly, that is) So I guess it could be illegal right with that statement.
(Oh wait... income taxes... but that's a different story.)
Ah yes, income taxes.... taxes are another thing that I'm fundamentally against. Since when can somebody (the government) charge somebody (the citizens) for a service that they never requested? IT'S ALL SCREWED UP!!!!!!!!
The other possibility is the 'profiting from illegal acts' law.
Using computers is not profiting from cracking computers, it's profiting from using computer skills that you happened to use for cracking. There's a big difference. Also, talking about cracking is to other people's benefit, not really the cracker, and so I think it shouldn't be covered by this 'profiting from illegal acts' law.
Dumbasses. I've hated the "government" all my life because of really really STUPID decisions like these. I'm not even going to bother to explain why this is a stupid decision, because if you don't understand it, I think you're a dumbass too. (not intended as a flame, just frank honesty) I'm waiting for the day when somebody steps forward and either: a) makes an open source country :) or... b) cleans this shit up that people call the free USA. I have always hated politics, but I'm actually thinking of going into it because there is so much shit to clean up. Damn politicians....
well, he could be a floor crew wallah or stagehand at Bradley Center & make 8-11 bucks an hour and never touch a network device. have to push a mop, pick up trash and get his fingers smashed a lot, tho... have to move to Milwaukee, too...
you'd be amazed how many jobs don't require the use or proximity of network devices. there is something called "labor pool", for people who can't get a regular job. they come pick you up at home, at about 5AM, take you to the job site where you do manual labor, drive you home at the end of the day, and pay you daily in cash. you will probably have to live in a rooming house. you won't need an ATM card because you'll never have enough pay left over to have a bank account. the last time I checked, nobody needed a network device to ride a mop. that said, I agree that these terms are abusive and vindictive. it would be better for all concerned to make good use of Mitnick's knowledge and experience toward better security and practices.
Excellent summary. When I mentioned Mitnick's story to a neigbor about a year ago, he did not believe me. "They can't hold him without a trial, that's against the Constitution". Two days later I saw him again. "I checked your story, and it's true. I can't believe this is happening in the USA".
Redundant maybe, but: Mitnick never "served his time", he entered a plea bargain. I don't think he had any other choice after being held for more than 4 years without a trial.
Also, for those of you he think he's such an evil person, I suggest you either read "Takedown" by Shimomura/Markoff and/or "Cyberpunk" by Hafner/Markoff. Neither of these books paint Mitnick in a very favorable light, but at least they're a bit more objective than the usual rhetoric. Yes, the guy did wrong and he should be punished, but 5 years is way out of proportion IMHO. The way he was treated is something you would expect in a dictatorship, not in the land of the "free"
Then maybe the US is not such a free country as most Americans like to believe. Take for example the fact that Mitnick has lost the right to free speech...
I guess Constitutional rights only go so and so far...
MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.
Tell that to the janitors in Silicon Valley.
[ I haven't had the time to read all of the other replies, so I hope this isn't redundant, but here's what I need to say. ]
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
It's neither. I am for the Constitution. I am for my Bill of Rights.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As you see it's not as simple as agreeing or disagreeing with a criminal's actions. Do I condone a murder's criminal activity? No. Do they have the right to write a book describing their crimes or how to be a murder yourself? Yes. Do others have the right to read this book? Yes. Do others have the right to act out this book? Of course not.
So does Kevin Mitnick have the right to become a speaker? Of course. Denying this would deny him his First Amendment Rights of Free Speech. Denying this would deny others their First Amendment Rights to Peacefully Assemble.
But more importantly denying a criminal's rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" after he has served his time would be the worst violation, for these right's are "unalienable."
In conclusion, if you are an American or if you believe in the Bill of Rights, you must help fight for Kevin Minick's rights. It doesn't matter if you agree, disagree, or are indifferent towards his actions. The rights to Freedom of Speech, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the most important rights a person has. Without these we cease to be human. Violating one person's "unalienable" rights eventually violates everyone.
I wonder if he's allowed to use a spoon to eat his wheaties. That's technology. And how about riding in cars? Since he can't talk about technology any more, how can he flag a taxi? Hell, he wouldn't even be able to ride a bike! The bottom line is that in this day and age, you can't have nothing to do with technology - it's too important to every day life. Looks like the Justice department has dumped yet another load of BS on poor Kevin.
--Baelmix
>Yeah, he caused a lot of money to be lost by some big name
No, he probably didn't. For some reason the cost of computer crime not only includes the damage done (usually minor esp. if u have backups) but also the time for employees to fix the original hole and time to help track down the cracker.
Its as if i walked into an unlocked building stole $5 and theycharged me for putting better locks on the doors and the forensic evidence to track me down.
Hell all the cost overruns in these buisnesses that year were probably blamed on mitnick
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Mitnick's latest misadventure is just the opening shot on a new front in the Feds' war on your civil and human rights.
Prosecutors and judges have long employed parole as a means of disposing of inconvenient or troublesome individuals. The public generally sees parole as a "slap on the wrist," when in fact it allows the government to impose pretty much any arbitrary infringment on a convicted person's civil rights. Parole boards often don't have to answer to the courts, and are given broad discretion in determining which behaviors violate the terms of a given person's parole.
So, the Feds don't like Mitnick making money as a speaker? Suddenly the parole board determines that talking about his crime is a violation of his parole, and PRESTO! his First Amendment rights vanish. He'll have to spend thousands of dollars--which the terms of his parole conveniently insure he won't have--just to get a hearing, and final resolution of the matter might take the remainder of his parole term.
From now on, all the Feds have to do to silence you is trump up a few charges, threaten you with prison if you're convicted and huge legal bills regardless, and "allow" you to sign a plea agreement that gives them de facto authority to disregard your civil rights at will.
Expect to see parole terms greatly lengthened in the future, with 20 years or even lifetime parole instead of (or in addition to!) jail sentences.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
"For this relatively minor crime, he served 5 years of hard time in a federal prison full of rapists and murderers..."
I guess this sums up quite clearly who the laws were written to protect. Corporate America has far too much power to do anyone any good.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Democracy doesn't work!" I have to agree with Homer on this one.
Life sucks, and then you die.
Nope. B'way is heavily computerized. (and local one types don't make that kind of money....)
I'm not going to be surprised at all if Mitnick brings this to the supreme court and of course wins. I guess now they can apparently bend our rights granted by the supreme law of the land.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
Aren't you being a little elitist in saying that garbage sweeping is below the level of someone who knows how to use a computer? I drive a forklift at a loading dock during the summer...am i violating my class for doing so? So sorry if i am.
letting this guy know that he doesn't have First Amendment rights any longer... He doesn't have the right to vote, bear arms or anything else either, and this shouldn't come as a shock to him, and I'm not really sure why it should come as a shock to us here in informatation land. I followed his story for a long time at 2600, and any where else, I understand the case, and I am active in pursuing solutions for many of the problems his case brings up, but I have to tell you, since he's gotten out and I've been able to read his words, I've been turned off. This guy needs to come to some grip on reality. Only you can provent disinformation.
I am usually the first person to step up and say we should not treat Kevin Mitnick with kid gloves, but this government action goes too far. Kevin should be allowed to speak about computers and security. He just shouldn't be allowed to write a book (or speak) about the crimes he was convicted of and receive monetary reward.
Their are people that climb buildings just to see if they can do it. They push the limits of climbing. It is technically illegal (although I don't know if it is a felony) and they could be arrested for doing it. Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to lecture about safe climbing afterward? Absolutely not!
The feds should back off of Mitnick on this one and go harass someone else.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
After parole, is it possible that Kevin Mitnick could leave the country to seek employment in another country? With all his knowledge he might be a valuable asset to some country's Department of Defense. Or maybe even our own.
While cracking into a computer *is* a crime, and should come with punishment, Mitnick did his time, and should be permitted to get on with his life. It's a crime in itself that he is not permitted to use his skills to earn a living. It is the same old story where it's assumed that a criminal who had done his/her time will do the crime again in a second. I dont' know much about Mitnick, or what he actually did, but I for one would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. As for forbidding him from speaking on the lecture circuit, isn't that a violation of the first amendment?
The judge can set the appropriate punishment (within the bounds of the law), and that obviously is going to infringe some constitutional right - otherwise there would be no punishment.
Reading this, I'm going to ask myself when the first Americans will show up here in Europe, asking for political asylum.
What made Mitnick such an infamous celebrity was John Markoff of the New York Times. Markoff has made a lot of money by selling the drama of "Kevin Mitnick the Uberhacker", and so most of the nation see him as some kind of evil genious, while most teenaged hackers and crackers have the mistaken impression that he is some kind of guru.
The truth is that some people (like Congress) wanted to hear him speak because he is well known for breaking into a wide variety of systems, and former hackers usually make very effective security consultants. Others want to see him speak because he has become a poster child for human rights abuse my the Federal criminal justice system. Personally, I am interested in what he has to say for both reasons.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
yeah but, no, he didn't. Parole is early release with conditions in exchange for jail time that you should be serving.
I am not an asshole. and your wrong. If I get caught speeding, I am breaking the law. Do I forfeit my rights to free speech? I dont think so. and what about that guy in Michigan that got arrested for yelling cuss words when he fell out of a canoe? Free speech? And if I cross the road not in a crosswalk, I am breaking the law, do I forfeit my rights to an attorney?
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances "
"Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
and you are a coward.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
I told you the constitution has been suspended. This is just one example. Freedom of speech? ha.. 1st amendment? ha..
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Where in the constitution does it say it is ok for the federal government to break down the door of someone who has (not yet) committed any crimes?
I hate to tell you this, but kidnapping is a crime.
The constitution (read it sometime!) also bars "cruel and unusual punishment". A good constitutional lawyer could argue that barring somebody from making a (legal) living at the most profitable occupation they are qualified to do is both cruel AND unusual.
Mitnick agreed to the terms of the plea bargain. He could have simply served the time in prison instead of agreeing to probation. I really doubt that anyone could argue thet being deprived of a job due to being in prison is "cruel" or "unusual".
Should B.J. Clinton be barred from making money on the lecture circuit, on the grounds that he has committed perjury, and he shouldn't be allowed to profit by it?
If a judge feels that the only reason he was getting paid was that he had commited purjury, then yes.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
Actually, bankruptcy is a fairly accurate definition of the result of about 90% of family farming over the last 50 years. And I can't help but mention that this is mostly a result of the action of large corporations -- as in the case of Kevin Mitnick.
I have to wonder if anyone who is calling Mitnick a criminal have glanced over the details of the Case?
Kevin was held under provisions of anti-terrorist law. The idea -- backed by exorbitant damage claims that the corporations withdrew once it came down to actually backing them up -- was that, simply by sitting down at a computer, Kevin was likely to cause as much or more damage than a terrorist setting off a bomb. The idea was also that, as a back-clad anti-social computer geek, aka "Hacker," he had the general psychological profile of a terrorist.
It seems clear that, yes, Kevin was not exactly psychologically normal and that his obsession with hacking systems was unhealthy and, as well, followed a criminal pattern. But the conclusion that he had the same psychoses and intent as a terrorist, and that he could cause as much harm, seems to me rather ludicrous. It's the effect of people -- like the judge in the case -- who would rather hate and fear technology than have to learn about it, and large corporations that exploiting public fear as a good opportunity for making an example of poor Kevin.
As far as I'm concerned we'd better spend our fears wondering what the corporations are doing. The idea that Kevin can't say what he wants is, simply, preposterous -- what I was taught in high school civics was that you stop someone from enciting an angry crowd to burn down a building. You don't stop someone -- even a convicted arsonist -- from taking about how to burn buildings.
At least, not in a free society. To hear a judge declare that she expects Kevin to earn no more than minimum wage is chilling. The Founding Fathers imagined an America filled with farmers -- and included a property requirement with the vote! -- on the presumption that being a citizen required the ability to support oneself, and that wage slavery restricted the flow of free public opinions.
Did I say free society? In the same week that our Royal President -- who might be named George instead of Bill -- choose to arrest 500 people for peacefully protesting in D.C., and to extract a boy from a private Miami home with the barrel of a M-31 assault rifle, our judiciary sees fit to deny Kevin the ability to gain property or have an opinion.
There are those, no doubt, who see Kevin's case as simply a matter of 'a criminal' who is 'facing the consequences.' There are those who see the plight of America's farms as simply a case of 'economic progress.' This misses simple facts -- that, for instance, most of California's chicken comes from two plants in polluted central Los Angeles, costs more now that before these plants lowered prices to put farmers out of business, and is of questionable quality.
I know that to many /.ers Kevin Mitnick is some kind of hero who fought the Evil Empire of the government, but all he really was was a hacker who got caught doing something illegal. That's right, he was a criminal, pure and simple.
Now it is my belief that anyone who engages in any criminal acts should not be praised for what they did, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to make any money from it. After all, look at the outrage when a serial killer or murderer writes a book and publishes it. But when it's Kevin Mitnick, "information hero", /.ers are full of outrage when he's not allowed to make money from his infamy.
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Well, the original Son of Sam Law (the one in New York) was struck down by the courts on First Amendment grounds. None of the other states' copycat laws or the modified New York one have been tested in court, so it's doubtful if they could be enforced.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The point is that he served his time. They should not be able to prohibit him from speaking about his experience and about computer security. Five years has not invalidated his knowledge since much of the technology has not changed all that much. It's been improved certainly, but his knowledge is still quite useful, especially in an industry that claims that there is a severe lack of skilled workers. He should have no problem finding a job once he's allowed to use computers again.
He knows (now) what he did was wrong... gee, five years in a federal prison to realize that?
I don't condone what he did, but I can't blame him for attempting to evade capture. When you consider that the companies involved were lying through their teeth about the damages (which they later retracted), the government was wanting to make an example out of him, which implies an overly harsh sentence, and the fact that he would be severely mistreated during his time in prison, I would do the same thing. There was no justice done here. It was a stunt pulled by the government. They wanted someone to crucify as an example. They threw justice out the window and used every trick they could come up with to try to destroy his life. Kevin is a criminal. What he did was wrong. The difference between him and the people who prosecuted him is that he was convicted for his crime and served his sentence. They seem to be above the law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As far as I'm concerned, he did his time and should be free to talk about it now. They've already managed to take away any possibility of him getting a good job doing what he is best at. They should at least let him make money somehow. Not to mention that taking away his freedom to speak to others is just plain wrong. Looks like it's time to break out the "Free Kevin" stickers and signs again.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why should he be forced to work at such jobs if he can do something more profitable? He served his time in prison. He's still serving his probation with no access to computers. He's not profitting from his crimes. Any fruits of his crimes were confiscated long ago. He's now using his knowledge to earn a living. Just like many of us do every day. Now the government wants to criminalize that as well. I'm sick of seeing people who have not committed a sexual or violent crime being persecuted as if they could snap and start killing people at any moment. Why should he be restricted to a minimum wage job and lifestyle, despite his ability to earn a better living without violating his probation or committing a crime? That is definitely an unusual, if not cruel(which is debateable), punishment.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The difference is that OJ got off by having a good lawyer even though the evidence was pretty heavily against him. In the Davidian case, the evidence was heavily in their favor and it became pretty obvious that the government was way out of line. The facts of the case supported that view.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I fully realize the differences in the kinds of crimes I mentioned. I was getting at a point though. The point being that we should care how convicted felons are treated because they are not just "felons", they're people. They may have broken a law, but that alone doesn't make them bad people. There are many bad laws on the books. The fact that you broke one doesn't make you unworthy of life, or even of a decent life. It doesn't mean you can't still be a productive member of society. It certainly doesn't mean you should have your rights taken away from you after you've served your sentence, and certain rights should not be taken from you even during your sentence. (i.e. voting, speech, freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, etc.)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Once you can show me how a criminal can undo the past and make it so that his actions didn't happen, then maybe I'll start worrying about how a criminal is treated.
So, you believe that any offense by a criminal means that we should no longer care about how they are treated? Death penalty for anyone that steals from you then? Why should we care? They trespassed, stole something, got caught speeding, etc. We should just write them off and get them out of society for good then? Even when they are kids? They were considered children by our government when they committed the crime, yet somehow the committing of that crime makes them adults that can be tried as such? What about their treatment before they're convicted? People are generally considered guilty until proven innocent anymore. God forbid you ever get accused of something.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
(Would you actually elect a convicted felon?)
Yes, actually. It would depend on the person, the crime, and whether I think he/she's a better person now. Considering that many candidates for major elections are unconvicted felons, I'd rather vote for the one that has served his time and recognizes the consequences of his actions rather than the one that appears to be above the law and has never been held accountable for his actions.
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons?
It's been shown that minorities are far more likely (something like 6 times) than non-minorities to be tried as adults, convicted, and sentenced to adult facilities. If the legal system is so skewed, and I believe it is, then it is certainly not right to further persecute these people after they've done their time.
Is the law descriminating against black males? No.
I think you're wrong about this.
Does this make it right to repeal the law so "more black people can vote"?
That's not the real reason the law should be repealed. It should never have been passed in the first place. If a person has served his time, he should not be considered a second or third class citizen, and certainly should not be prohibited from voting. That's one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. They are effectively being excluded from the democratic process. They cannot effectively have a voice in opposing the government that convicted them, even though they don't agree with the laws they were accused of breaking. Drug laws are the most perfect example. The "war on drugs" has done more to take away our rights and more to divide the country into haves and have-nots than any other single policy. The rich can do drugs to their hearts content. They have good lawyers. The poor? Not a chance. They rot in prison for years for a petty offense. Zero tolerance policies, extreme punishments, persecution after the sentence has been served, removal of fundamental rights even after the sentence has been served, unequal treatment by courts depending on race and financial status. These are just some of the many unjustices that occur frequently in our "justice" system. They just keep getting worse too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes, I noticed that you meant real property (land). That's where you're just plain wrong, as I pointed out.
Are you trolling, or are you really that misinformed.
.
Felons can most certainly own property, including real property. A blanket prohibition on property would include money . .
They can also own real property; as an attorney, I have met several (including in california) who do.
Disney didn't own Disneyland becuase it was owned by the Disney Corporation, not because of any criminal history (I have no idea whether or not he was courtmartialed.)
hawk, esq.
I think what you are talking about is that you can't write a book about your crimes that landed you in prison in the first place. For example it would be illegal for a killer to write a book/script detailing his murders.
Bzzzzzzzzz
Wrong answer Skippy
What you are talking about is the "Son of Sam Law" which was enacted after book companies offered the SoS book deals. The original law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 on free speech grounds.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
I am glad, however, to see you acknowledge its religious motivations. The enlightenment was much more concerned with science, and advocated a kind of sterling rationalism with an obsession on the "natural rights of man" rather than Christian compassion. How the englightenment got "natural rights" from their Deist, clockmaker god, is beyond me.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Mention a loser like Mitnick and watch the /. community jump to his defense
...; then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak. If we say nothing now, we can only expect to be the next target of government overzealousness. Besides, the Constitution doesn't have a clause that says "this document only applies to people who aren't 'losers'"; its protections apply to all.
Just because he's a loser doesn't mean we should stand by and say nothing when his Constitutional rights are being trampled. Abuses almost always start against the people who are the "losers" of society. Problem is, that category of "losers", or criminals, starts to expand pretty quickly to include everyone. I seem to remember a saying about Nazi Germany, along these lines: first they came for the Jews, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew; then they came for the Catholics but I was silent, I wasn't Catholic;
he is making money off of his crime
It's somewhat difficult to prove that, though. He's not profiting from the crime so much as his expertise; there's a significant distinction there. If he were lecturing about his exploits, then I would agree with you. But lecturing on general computer security issues is not the same - he's not talking about his crimes. His overall expertise is what makes him the money. Granted, his notoriety from the crimes has no doubt made him more in demand to speak; but nonetheless the profit is made from his expertise, not his crimes.
And beyond that distinction, I think a lot of us take issue with the idea that the government is screwing Mitnick after he's served his time by trying to deny him the right to work. Not only that, but deny him the right to work in a way that is benefiting society by telling them how to avoid similar problems in the future. It's absurd.
. If Mitnick had cracked and ripped off another individual, rather than a corporation, there wouldn't be near as much uproar
Bullshit. There sure would be as much of an uproar. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with who Mitnick chose to crack, it's about government abuse of power. The reason for the uproar is that it could just as easily happen to anyone.
I mean as soon as he's able. I mean think about it, only US law is holding him back. Go become a citazen of another country. I'm sure some country would like to have him.
It's sad to say but it's not just the US - all the nations are rescricting rights of there people. Of course we just bitch about it, and hardly ever do much. But that's changing, people get tired of opression pretty quick. We need more 'mainstream anarchists' or 'true reformers' to turn things around before a company decides to overtly buy us out.
Gore and Bush are waiting for *your dollars still! You still have time to buy a cacnditate!! Hurry operators are standing by!!! Buy our way out of the antitrust case billy! You *can buy your own president, even if you aren't chinese.
( Look I just got on the FBI blacklist )
The saddest part is that NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE. I find myself often having to explain to people in detail why things like this (and the bust-in on Elian, and Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and a hundred other things) are so terrible, and when I'm done they say "Well, they're criminals, right?" It seems most people don't hear a word I say...
It scares me that people think it's OK for federal paramilitary troops (in the case of the BATF, under the Dept. of the Treasury... What's up with that?) to storm the residences and private properties of US Citizens because "they're wierd" or "they might have had guns". Last time I checked, both of those were legal.
Sure, maybe it's not so bad yet... But if we give away these freedoms one by one it won't be long until there aren't many left to give. Just because some rights violation doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean it's OK. When one does, you won't have a leg to stand on if you didn't defend your fellow citizens when their rights were infringed.
I like to use alcohol as an example to drinkers who think firearms should be outlawed... (I believe firmly in the right to bear arms, but I am a non-drinker) I present them with this situation:
At this point, the person to whom I am speaking almost invariably begins to cry bloody murder, saying it's an unfair comparison and "a drink doesn't hurt anybody" and a hundred other things. Is it because alcohol isn't dangerous, or because drinkers are more responsible than firearm owners? No. It's because alcohol affects them personally, and the firearms issue does not. The point is not that alcohol is terrible and should be outlawed (I think outlawing alcohol would be an infringement of rights), but that you have to consider others' rights as well as your own. Just because you don't want to have a firearm (whether for self-defense, hunting, shooting sports, defense against tyranny, or what) doesn't necessarily mean your fellow citizens should not have that choice.
I choose alcohol and firearms because they are both well-known issues, but it can be applied to almost any pair of rights. Many people are offended by sidewalk evangelists and think sidewalk evangelism should be outlawed... Compare that to the legality of tobacco, or right to display a confederate flag or anarchy symbol. I don't want to smell cigarette smoke or look at a confederate flag; the average citizen probably doesn't want to promote anarchy. However, the flag and the anarchy symbol are both freedoms of speech the same as sidewalk evangelism, and the tobacco is the freedom to decide what you want to do with your body rather than the gov't deciding.
I realize that most of these issues are not direct parallels, and many people won't have a problem with either side or will have a problem with both sides, but you get the point. (I hope so, anyway, not everyone does) As a responsible citizen, you have to consider the rights of other citizens, too.
Not everyone who I talk to understands this, but every so often a light will dawn behind their eyes, and I know I've helped someone realize the importance of personal rights and not losing ANY of them. It isn't enough not to lose the ones that are most important to ourselves, we must protect the rights of EVERYONE.
I guess this has sort of turned into a ramble, but it scares me how unconcerned the average citizen is for their personal rights. Once they're all gone, it will be impossible to get them back. The only option is to keep them in the first place.
But then again, I'm probably preaching to the choir for many readers of /., as I see a lot of "defend your rights" posts. Just remember to tell your friends.
Ethan
OJ wasn't ordered off the talkshow circuit. To me, the message is clear: killing your wife isn't that bad a thing to do; breaking into a computer is far, far more evil. :-p
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
There are a number of examples of people convicted of computer crime who turn around and become leading experts in computer security, providing irreplaceable services to the rest of the computer industry. I really don't see what the rest of the world gains by telling someone like that, "No, you can't talk about computers".
Not at all. I know that convicted felons no longer have the right to vote or to own firearms. Since the right to own firearms is in the second amendment, it's obvious that felons do have a restricted set of rights, extending even to constitutional rights.
However, whether that extends to the first amendment rights to free speech is unknown to me.
Eric
And you think this is right? When the felon has done his prison time he should be integrated into society as a full member. The penal system is there to punish people, but also to reintegrate them successfully into society after the punishment has been carried out.
If you lock the felon out of normal society, how can society expect the felon to behave like a good member of society?
And yes, I would vote for a convicted felon if I believed in them, and yes it would depend on the crime they had committed and the circumstances around it.
In fact, in my country a man was elected to parliament while he was still in prison. It's also not illegal to escape from prison, provided you do not harm anyone or anything, and return your prison clothes and other prison owned items to their owners.
They fear him. They cannot see that his knowledge will only make technology better.
How much can he contribute to the world if he's stuck saying, "Would you like fries with that?" - for 8 hours a day.
He'll end up like Darwin, banished and ridiculed until WE open our minds to the greater good... or at least seeing things for what they are.
Just my $.02
It almost seems as if the judge involved, and the government, want to punish Mitnick, not just assess him for damages and to minimize future damages. It seems, I dunno, petty, and I quote this from the article, though it is now hearsay twice over...
She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage.
Isn't that just wrong? Mitnick arguably has skills and contributions to society he can make, and paying him decently is a good way to get it out of him as an economic exchange of goods. Yet by desiring Mitnick to be earn minimum wage, the system expects Mitnick to contribute minimally to our society.
WTF? I don't curse, so I'm glad for TLAs...
I wonder if he has the training or background to legitimately work in the security field; if he does, props to him! If the government thinks he's going to take advantage of the situation unfairly, then auditing his work is even better; security through rigor!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
So I'm not an expert and I may have or be getting things wrong. Oops. Not my intention.
However, I am trying to muddy the waters, a bit. The point of my thread is that crime, legality, and wrong is not black and white. Lots of things that are wrong are not crimes. Lots of things that are crimes are not wrong. Lots of things that aren't legal are still done.
UCITA and DMCA are both legislation that makes lots of fair use and common sense actions wrong. If they become law, they also become crimes. Yet the actions themselves aren't bad or immoral, just not sanctioned by Big Corporation.
I'm not trying to stir outrage, but I was trying to bring up examples that are ambiguous depending on context, location, and temporal placement.
Which you have pointed out very well.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
There are no legally licensed or provided DVD players under Linux. Not that I know of, at least. That may be different, now, but if that is the case, any viewing of DVDs under Linux violates several new laws and statutes; that of reverse engineering and obtainging the CSS keys, for example, or viewing DVDs in a way that the owners of the copyright have not allowed.
Breaking an encryption scheme, IE reverse engineering it(not the encrypted material, but the scheme itself) is illegal, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or whatever it's called. Look at DeCSS and all the software that revealed the censorware black lists!
Again, having an mp3 means using software to process and store and listen to your music in a way not sanctioned by the copyright holders, just like the DVD thing
Linking to a website is a crime that 2600 is currently fighting.
Driving 70mph is just violation of speeding limits in the US.
These aren't *wrong*, in a moral sense, but they violate some laws, statutes, (and in some cases, proposals) etc. that seriously limit us. Some more important than others...
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
In theory, if Mitnick gave lectures about securing sites against intruders, I don't think it's any different from a convicted burglar telling people how to make their homes more burglar-proof.
I seem to remember some guy coming to my high school to talk about getting his life together after being in prison.
In at lest some cases, this kind of thing is mandatory. I've seen it done for drunk drivers - as part of their sentence, they have to perform community service, where the service is to speak to groups about how bad it is to drive drunk.
Having known a few people who have gone through the California and Washington prison system and hearing the stories, this is kind of a naive statement.
True, from what I've heard, Mitnick's social skills are a bit retarded, but that just takes some maturity - perhaps being on the lecture circuit would've actually made him a better communicator in the long run, and we may not find out now.
But in prison Kevin could've been a submissive, respectful lamb and still gotten his ass reamed from here to Bangkok. There is no justice inside those bars, man, regular social rules DO NOT apply. Don't make those kind of assumptions.
========
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
And that's the truth.
Poor guy.
Is he saying, "beware of this kind of attack," or is it "[snicker-snicker] O.K., now, don't ever try this [snicker-snicker] ... and if you do, don't get caught, and CERTIANLY, don't tell them where you heard about this ..."
Maybe that's overstating my point, but the fact is, his lectures are the best example of the proof of his rehabilitation, right? from the tone of the few words he said in the news article, it sounds like he's BEGGING to do something and get caught .... I'm not sure, though ...
It just seems that what he's preaching about may tell volumes about the "potential harm" he may still be ... if he's lecturing about how to bang together two brings to make music, no harm .... if he's lecturing about work-arounds, to intrusion-detection architectures, harm ....
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
He *HAS* finished serving his time. He is on PROBATION, *NOT* Parole.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. Why does our justice system put so much emphasis on punishment and not enough emphasis on problem solving? I don't know much about the Mitnick case, but I assume he broke into some computers or something. Why was he thrown in jail? If the goal of the justice system was to simply solve the problem, they would have banned him from using computers for some period of time (perhaps the rest of his life) and left it at that. He would have remained out in society to fend for himself instead of sitting around in jail at the tax payers expence. Jail should be reserved for people who must be physically removed from society. Should Mitnick violate the court's order (use a computer), then he would have to be incarcerated. I also see setting out to ruin a person's life because of a crime as punishment. Why not give a person every chance to become a productive member of society, short of repeating their crimes. Would this not be for the benifit of all society?
There is so much wrong with what you write, I don't even know where to begin.
First you say that it's inherently right to reform a criminal if you can find a way to reform a criminal. That's circular and not a valid argument. Sure the principle that a good person contributing to society is better than not having that person is sound. But you are speaking about a hypotheical reform. Until you can give a proven, unfailing method of reform then there is no point in trying to reform an recidivist thug.
Second you say that you wouldn't mind a hypothetical murderer being hypothetically reformed and then returned to society. Well this isn't a hypothetical world. This is the real world, people commit crimes and don't reform. Society has an obligation to protect it's members. Without having some kind of deterrent (and given the number of repeat offenders we aren't deterring people now) society is failing it's members.
Third you imply that people somehow are automatically liable for what other people decide that are liable for. It's not an Joe Famous' concern if some wacko out there decides that they are going to kill themselves if Joe Famous doesn't play the role of the Big Wonker in some movie.
Finally you go into the wrongly accused argument. Yes people are wrongly accused and it's horrible. But nowhere did I say we should just kill everybody for every little thing. Obviously you have to take into account what the crime was. But you are under no obligation to nuture some asshole into being a good person. That's my point. In societies we join together for the benefits. Having some goat molester steal your money, ruin your business, or break down your personal sense of security isn't a benefit and there needs to be a way for that to be corrected. If this can't be done, then there is no reason to try and help the "poor" criminal. People are not animals, they make their decisions knowing that there are going to be an expending circle of effects. If you get a hammer and nail and nail yourself to a tree is it societies job to ensure that you don't suffer any scars or pain from that?
Watching DVDs under Linux is a crime.
No.
Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime.
No.
Having an mp3 is a crime.
No.
Linking to a website is a crime.
No.
Driving 70mph is a crime.
No.
Cruel and unusual punishments are covered by the eighth amendment, not fourth. And the stripping of constitutional rights isn't a cruel and unusual punishment; it's a due process violation covered by the fifth amendment.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Cool, that means you can probably answer my question: what exactly is the difference between a Felony and a Crime?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
And just like arrested drug dealers are not allowed to use their "alleged" ill-gotten wealth to hire high priced lawyers to defend themselves with, Mitnick has ill-gotten information in his brain, so he's not allowed to use it in any way to better himself.
Ok, no trucks then.
But how about cars? Motorcycles? Go-carts?
For the equivilent punishment that Kevin got, you would be prevented from doing that also.
How about teaching Drivers Ed?
Aparently, they don't even want the 'truck driver' even TALKING about anything motorized.
Later
Erik Z
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Amazing how important it is, drunk drivers kill someone and they don't usually lose their license for 3 years.
Mention a loser like Mitnick and watch the /. community jump to his defense. Whoa, one more reason for the outside world to take this community seriously.
/..
As for his speaking about his cracking "skills", he is making money off of his crime. I don't give a flying rat's ass how you try to justify or generalize what he is doing, he is making money off of his reputation which stems directly from his cracking experiences. The judge has every right to do stop him from making money off it.
If a serial rapist and murderer were to lecture on a circuit about "the effectiveness of various methods of self-defense for women" I'd find it in equally bad taste. In both cases a crime was perpetrated, and a victim/victim's families get pissed that the perpetrator is making money off his notoriety. And frankly, I'm sick of all the bullshit "Screw The Corporations" attitude that's present here in this messageboard. If Mitnick had cracked and ripped off another individual, rather than a corporation, there wouldn't be near as much uproar. Grow up, or move to a small deserted island where you don't have to worry about big, bad corporations picking on your interests.
You can argue that there are different degrees of evil, that corporations have different rights than individuals, or Mitnick is really a loser with a Heart of Gold underneath, but nothing changes the fact that Mitnick is trying to profit from his notoriety. And that's how Uncle Sam views this case.
Knee-jerk libertarians and pissed-off-at-the-world 16 year-olds. Sometimes it's hard to tell who's who here on
telnet://bbs.ufies.org
Trade Wars Lives
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
you'd be amazed how many jobs don't require the use or proximity of network devices. there is something called "labor pool", for people who can't get a regular job. they come pick you up at home, at about 5AM, take you to the job site where you do manual labor, drive you home at the end of the day, and pay you daily in cash. you will probably have to live in a rooming house. you won't need an ATM card because you'll never have enough pay left over to have a bank account. the last time I checked, nobody needed a network device to ride a mop. that said, I agree that these terms are abusive and vindictive. it would be better for all concerned to make good use of Mitnick's knowledge and experience toward better security and practices.
Hopefully he isn't working within 50 feet of an office building, or anything else. Isn't there a proximity to technology restriction on him?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Hell, it beats more incarceration!
Not in his case it doesn't. At least when incarcerated he was fed, housed, clothed, now that he's out he's not allowed near computerized cash registers, computers, palm devices, cell phones, and a myriad of other technology. The man can't even work on a construction site because the foreman carries an electronic pager and cellphone. He CAN NOT make a living in modern society at all. He may as well become a petty pick pocekt for all of the options they've left him. The man can not even FLIP BURGERS for dog's sake!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
"The FBI has ammended the terms of Kevin Mitnik's probation. Now he is allowed to use computers of any kind, so long as he doesn't do anything with them except play Daikatana. Civil rights activists are up in arms."
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
> You know what if they streamlined the currirulum dumped all the fucking calculus shit
> and all of the massive stupid things like physics in collegiate level course work and just started to teach programming for CS
> I would almost bet more and more people would be able to get degrees and start coding and get a better life
Do you even have a degree? Comp Sci != Programmer !
At one time I thought: "why do i need to take this "fucking calculas shit" when as a comp sci programmer I'll never use it.
Guess what.
Today I'm working on splines - specifically a 3D Studio Max Exporter as part of our game tools. I need to know the length of a spline. Guess what? I needed to numerical evalulate an integeral in 3 variables.
As a 3d graphics programmer I'm glad for all those "useless" math and physics class undergrads were forced to take. It's called: Learning HOW to solve problems.
Sure most of the stuff they teach probably isn't need to be a good programmer, but don't confuse the 2 issues.
Cheers
That's a distinctly interesting comment that the judge made. If that is her *intent* -- namely, that it is a specific goal that he be restricted to minimum-wage jobs -- this seems to be a fairly backhanded method, especially if this was not specified in the plea agreement.
Does anybody have the actual plea agreement text? I'd be curious to know whether adding additional conditions is allowed...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Correct! If he belongs to the Church of Emacs, the government would find him in violation of his probation, therefore freedom of religion does not apply to him either. As a matter of fact, he has no freedom. He is well versed technologically. From my experiences, those in power who do not have a clue about modern technology tend to fear it, and fear those who do have a clue. They see it as a cancer and must remove it. I see this as the Government's first wave of Technochemotherapy.
I agree, Kevin was a bad boy. He served his punishment, and was released. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1. If computing consumes most of Mr. Mitnick's time...he is being robbed of life.
2. It is quite obvious that his civil liberties have been shamelessly stripped from him.
3. Pursuit of Happiness. It means that we don't have to sit in a cave, eating bats, and being warmed by open fire. We can pursue ventures to improve our lives. A representative democracy does not dictate how we may, and how we may not pursue such ventures.
Geeks are human too!
But the right to free speech is not something we should be able to take away from anyone in our society, not if we want it to remain a free one. A person who is IN prison gives up a lot of rights, but they can still speak their mind. They can still debate the justice of their imprisonment. If Mitnick cannot even discuss computers, he can no longer meaningfully discuss his own case. He can no longer speak in his own defense. That's one right we DARE not violate, not for anyone, in prison, on parole, or otherwise. Or else any of us could be thrown in jail, and never allowed to protest.
I thought the law was more generic than that. Something along the lines of being illegal to profit by selling your story (including books, movie scripts, etc). I think it would be a stretch to include his lectures, but I suppose it depends upon how his lectures were presented.
Has anyone heard one of his lectures? Does he discuss his story, does he describe abuses of power by gov't, does he discuss technology in general, or is it as described "educate others about protecting themselves against cyberspace intrusions"? If it's any of the last three, then I can't see how they can legally restrict him on this.
This sounds more like the government being upset that he found a source of income greater than what the judge expected "she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage". Either way, this one's bound to end up in court.
I didn't realize that minimum wage/poverty was also part of Mitnick's sentence.
This Judge has overstepped the bounds of democracy and judicial fairness. I've always found that when stupid people feel threatened, they often blame the ones with the answers. This blame-game gives them a reason for their existence. I wonder who the Judge is really protecting? Is society better served by keeping Kevin silent, or is he making those who would like to keep him silent look stupid.
My suggestion... Kevin should bake bread for the next two years. Mixing the dough is a lot of fun. There are all sorts of bread styles and yeast combinations. If all goes well he could open a bake shop.
If he doesn't like that, he could always go to law school, earn a lot of money suing people and then start a foundation that protects our rights, since no one else seems to be doing it.
Did I leave my keys here?
I do think that the requirement to stop speaking is a bit bizarre (I wish the story had more info. on exactly what he was speaking about and why the parole officer doesn't want him speaking -- I wonder if he's violating movement restrictions while traveling to speak engagements).
But I have no sympathy at all for Mitnick, and I really have no faith in his contrition about what he did (what is this, the 2nd or 3rd time he's said "never again"?)
huh? by definition when you are convicted of a crime you lose numerous rights and such restriction can extend to any parole (which is a conditional alleviation of imprisonment -- Mitnick could, after all, simply elect to stay in jail). And yes there are certain cases where such restrictions might interfere with religious practices. When and if they are paroled, for example, the convicted Branch Davidian folks will probably be barred from associating with each other which certainly would hinder their ability to practice their religious beliefs. It's hard to feel sympath for scum like Mitnick.
I'm curious to hear your rationale for dropping mathematics from a computer science curriculum.
You have several massive gaps in your reasoning
1) Computer Science programs dont churn out programmers, they churn out computer scientists.
If you want to learn to program, buy a book, or go to DeVry. If you want to learn to analyze problems and model solutions to them using computers, then perhaps having a computer science degree and knowing how to use various programming tools available to you is the call.
2) Computer science was originally just "applied mathmatics", and for salary reasons im sure lots of math departments wish it were still that way. You simply cannot be a relevant computer scientist without a large understanding of various types of mid-level mathematics. I went through this same argument yesterday in a curiculum meeting. Some computer engineering senior was trying to suggest that discrete math isn't important to a computer engineers degree. Things like logic, set theory, graph theory, and proof methods are the foundation of _everything_ we do today. If you think the internet is broken and shitty _now_, let me tell you what it'd be like without basic graph theory. OSPF _is_ Dijkstra's algorithm. Ever hear of a chip with an "n" layer process ? Software doing that layout models the circuit as a graph, and then figures out the embedded planarity. You can mathematically prove a circuit can't be made with fewer layers.
I remember when I was a jackass highschool kid that figured "i'll just get my degree so people will beleive how smart I am". I'm glad I bothered to go to school. I was an idiot. People that dismiss getting a higher education because they know how to install linux, are also idiots. Idiots that I won't hire.
There are a class of programmers that dont need lots of mathematical understanding. VB programmers, or some random perl scripters. Application programmers, basically. If you want to write "pay me $15 for this shitty peice fo windows shareware I wrote in a weekend" sorts of software for the rest of your life, by all means, get "C++ / MFC For Dummies!" and go on your merry way.
If you want to take the "i'll just do networking and admin" route, you're going to find out one of two things.
1) Either you'll learn to program through lots of scripting tools, and eventually you'll realize you need to look up some theory on computational complexity, if nothing else.
2) You'll basically a machine babysitter that never gets promoted and never gets rid of that pager.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
"Sigh... what the Hell is happening to the United States?"
They're showing you that capitalism can go into excactly the same traps as Communism, Fascism and every other "evil governmental ideology" you people have been mindlessly bashing and ranting over the years. It's supposed to show you that its _people_ doing the bad things, not THINGS. So responsibility and change have to go down to the level of people and individuals, you and me.
I'm beginning to find all this hilarious, especially considering all the "Geek Rights" posts we have gotten today (28.april)! I'm glad I don't live in the US!
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
However, I will say that a country that starts telling people, even convicted criminals, that they cannot speak in public is an order of magnitude closer to hell than it should be.
In short, this is the most bogus thing I've heard all week. The judge should crawl back into whatever stinkhole they grow fascists in these days, and keep her slimy little sadistic punishments for something useful...like, er... the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
=P
Free music from Jack Merlot.
There's a fundamental difference between the "crimes" you mention above. When a person takes what rightfully belongs to someone else, whoever was the victim has actually suffered a loss. However, when the only crime that same person has committed is driving their motor vehicle faster than some number on a sign, there is no victim. (Of course, having said that, there will always be people who respond with something like, "by exceeding the number that engineers have determined is the maximum safe speed for a given roadway, you're putting others in greater danger, and by doing so, society as a whole is your victim, because someone could potentially suffer a loss." To these people I'm tempted to point out that highway fatalities have steadily fallen ever since the "national speed limit" was repealed, and point out how "traffic tickets" generate a lot of revenue for the issuing agency. However, it's been my experience that most people who take the "speed limits are for obeying" stance have been very strongly programmed with their implanted beliefs (i.e. 55 Saves Lives), and it's pointless to argue with them. but I digress...) Under the system of common law passed down to us from England and in generally used until prohibition (i think) someone had to appear and say "Yes, the defendant caused me injury."
Many, if not most, of the 1.8 million people who are currently held in American jails are really no more than political prisoners, people whose only "crime" is having broken some "law" that was passed by a group of politicians who decided our standard of living could be closer to Utopia if we only removed those people from society at large. It cannot be argued that drug dealers and consumers should be grouped in the same class (criminals) as a murderer, rapist, or child molester (dealers only exist to supply a demand, the act of fulfilling a demand in and of itself cannot be considered a crime).
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
See now.... this is just weird... it's also a frightening precidend(sp?). What is to come after this, those convicted of tax fraud are not allowed to talk about money, or car thiefs are not allowed to talk about cars.... The implications of this are scary. Convicted criminals should not have their first ammendmant rights stripped of them. I have no real opinion about whether or not Mitnick should have been encarcerated... I dont care... but this ruling/decision is something that people should be up in arms about.
It sounds to me like a similar law that made it illegal for certain criminals to make money off of their crimes by selling books... I don't know whether or not to agree with that... but to keep someone from giving lectures is just wrong.
Dave
Participate in the Common Linking Experiment
-- Henry David Thoreau
IANAL, but IIRCC Mitnik is on probation. If that is the case, then he can be restricted. Hell, it beats more incarceration!
Now, if he is just a convicted felon, then that means absolutely nothing! You see, if someone is a convicted felon and they have served the sentence, then they are free citizens...so I think this is a probationary issue..
This is total bullocks.
When a sex offender is convicted of sex crimes, they don't castrate the convict and brainwash him from ever having any sexual thoughts again.
But when a cracker is convicted, they can no longer go near technology (total hypocracy, let us not forget all the convicted sex offenders who are found teaching at schools etc by the evening news) and now they cant even TALK about technology!
The fellows involved in watergate are free to talk about their stories and make major amounts of cash, but Mitnick can't say cellphone without violating his probation?
If this government miscontrol of the technological revolution continues, they are going to end up with a REAL revolution on their hands. Let us hope some people with the ability to think are elected before the U.S. totaly goes to hell.
NightHawk
Tyranny = Government choosing how much power to give the people.
Mitnick do not serve any time. he was *detained*, without trial, access to the courts and very limited counsel for almost four years. that alone is worthy of some enormous outrage; he was and remains a U.S. citizen.
Mitnick finally knuckled under and took his lumps without due process, or a 'speedy' trial, and gave up the right to seek redress. I might have too, after four years of treatment worthy of the very best tin-pot dictatorship. Anyway, he got 'time served'. he never went to prison for his crimes. it is in no way equivalent, morally, ethically, or legally.
Mitnick's just some guy, nothing super special, but it's his *heinous* treatment at the hands of the authorities that is and should be causing all the outrage.
Carl
This is FUD gone too far in my opinion...Let the man speak.
From what I've been able to piece together after weeks of trying to ignore the whole Elian matter, I'm fairly sure that nobody ever issued a warrant to search the home of Juan Gonzales. That didn't stop an insane amount of officers invading his home to get Elian.
They had a warrent. If you're going to criticise the government, do it on the truth. There's no need assume the worst and then treat it as fact.
I also can't see anything insane about the number of men used. The more their physical force alone was intimidating, the less chance of them actually needing to use their guns. A lesson from the "Boston Massacre", perhaps.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Ok...long/short rant. Here goes nothing:
Smokers: The studies that so many people wave around screaming about when i'm on the 16th Street Mall having a cigarette are what I like to call "bullshit/propaganda" studies. While they are true to the extent that yes...second hand smoke can kill you. They can be false in the sense that they lead people to believe that if you're sitting next to a smoker and you accidentally inhale some of the second hand smoke - this is going to be a signifigant factore in whether or not you develop cancer down the line. Smoking may very well become a controlled substance down the line (i mean "heroin" controlled) and i can't say that i like it. Public opinion is one thing. But to tell me that I don't have the right to light up in my own home, or on the street for that matter, because some SUV driving dudley-do-right with 8 kids misread a study that showed people who live with smokers their whole lives have an increased risk of cancer...that makes me wanna fucking vomit!
Ok - on to Elian...i think i'm on a roll. The original poster (or one generation down) mentioned Mitnick, Elian, and Waco all in the same sentance...i'm sorry, but that was misinformed to say the least. Mitnick is a criminal, in the sense of "one who has been convicted of a crime." Just because I believe in freedom of speech and that the government is a bunch of morons when it comes to matters of technology - don't think i'm going to defend mitnick's jail time. He broke the law, and for that, he should have gone to jail. While i can't say i agree with the length of his incarceration or his post-time sensuring. I can most certainly argue that "yes! this guy broke alot of laws....most of them just laws." As far as this being in comparison to Elian and Waco? Jesus people - Reno was in a bad position as far as Elain was concerned. Damned if she did. Damned if she didn't. Elian is an illegal immigrant. Kidnapped from joint custody by his mother, he found himself in Miami where people bought him lots of shit because he was the boy of the hour and treat a father who wants his son like a villain. I suppose everyone's forgetting the facts of the case here. 1: That Elian WAS an illegal immigrant. 2: He had been in the custody of the Miami family for more than 5 months (wtf??) 3: That Lorenzo (i think), the great uncle, had been in direct violation of the law for 8-9 days prior to the INS seizure of the boy. Reno was right to take him, in the night, as quickly as possible. I'm sorry folks, but only in a perfect world would the father have been able to just stroll up to the door with some INS officials and ask for the kid back without getting SOMEONE hurt. I didn't agree with what happened in Waco (especially with some of the new evidence) - but with Elian, Reno was right.
BTW - just so we're clear on what i think: Reno = good job. Mitnick = they violated his 1st amendment rights but he had to serve the time. Guns = Somewhat legal (not AK-47's). Alcohol = legal (this is a morality issue). Cigarettes = Legal, let's teach our kids that it's not cool...not just tell them it's evil. Waco = EVERYONE fucked that one up! SUV's = Hrm...polution makes you dumb (slashdot), and SUV's produce INSANE amounts of polution. If you drive an SUV...you're harming me....will all the militant non-smokers who drive SUV's please step forward!!!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Mechanized manual labor and birthrate reduction (similar to China's controversial [in the U.S.] one-child policy). That way, anyone who didn't have the skills or desire necessary for a "good" (whatever that means) job could kick back and be an artist, poet, playwright, or civic volunteer, and live off government money. For the first time in history, the wealthy couldn't complain about the poor getting a "free ride", since their own prosperity is derived from the labor of robots, and "work" would no longer be a mandatory ordeal.
The arts would flourish, life would be better for most people, and the stress and grueling pace of modern life would all but disappear.
In theory.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Well,
Slashdot has done it. They posted a Mitnick story, and not just any story, but one off of a major news site. Now, to date, I don't know of a single story that has come out about Kevin that he hasn't actually released a "corrected" version that points out all of the inaccuracies of the original story.
Let's post that too when it comes out.
-fp
Since the judge did not expect him to be able to earn more than minimum wage, then they wanted to punish him in that manner.
They have drunk drivers lecture to others on the EVILS of drunk driving. They have spousal abusers speak about spousal abuse. Why not have a hacker talk on preventing hacking?
He did give this type of lecture to government agencies, but that was free.
It's because he can make money at it!
Fight Spammers!
Always wondered about that law. How do you prove in this case that Mitnick is profiting from his crime, and not his general computer expertise?
It's clear cut if a murderer writes a book about his reasons, the actual murder, his feelings, etc. surrounding the event, and then publishes it, but how do you prove that Mitnick isn't making money just because people want to hear his opinions?
While a relationship between his fame/infamy and his conviction certainly might exist, it's not provable.
Ammendment 1: Free Speech
Ammendment 4: No Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Hmm... I'd say the stripping of constitutional rights constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Is Mitnick no longer free to practice a religion, or lack thereof, of his choosing? Didn't think so.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Absolutely. This kind of bullshit is only allowed because the issue is related to computers. I mean, when's the last time you heard about a car thief who got out of prison and wasn't allowed to drive (or talk about cars)?
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
From the article:
Under a plea agreement, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer prohibited Mitnick for three years after his release from any access to computers, cellular telephones, televisions or any equipment that can be used for Internet access.
She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage.
than any other felon who wants to profit, either in fame or fortune, from his crimes. Rapists can't write books about their crimes and sell them. It's come up over and over in the courts, and each time the victims trouce the "free-speech" arguments put forth by the felon.
It's not about free speech. Mitinick would not be well known at all if he lacked a criminal record. He wouldn't have the enclaves of fervent followers proclaiming "Free Kevin", and nobody would give a damn what some drop out loser said about security.
If Mitinick wanted to be a Toastmasters guru, he should have been a little wiser about his leisure activities in the early 90s. He had been on probation before, and still jerked the legal system around. This time there's no sympathy for the guy. And rightly so. He had more than a second chance, and now it's time to pay up.
No sig is worth reading.
Why doesn't the government just employ him if they don't allow him to get a job in the private sector doing what he's qualified to do?
v er...
Here's some sad-ass reality. The Government has always specialized in marginalizing citizens. It does this with gag orders, imprisonment, and deportation. It's no better than any other government it claims to be. Torture is torture, whether you're hanging from a ceiling fan being jabbed with a cattle prod, being sodomized by the cops, or being demonized by the press and being told that you cannot use technology to survive.
And yes, being forced to work in some mindless wage-slave job when you're qualified for much better is a form or torture. You gotta degree? Try flipping burgers and see if you don't have something to rant about.
Regardless of cuplability, if there's one "employer" Mr. Mitnick could feel comfortable with, it would be the Federal Government...because regardless of what bad things anyone has done, nobody, with the possible exception of Pol Pot, has ever done anything which would make the federal government blink.
Regardless of what they feed the press about outrage and damages, you can bet the Fedz have their own 3133t group that does the same kind of stuff (internationally) that they jail everyone for--and if they're not jailing them, they're paying them to lure/bait people who might not have otherwise even tried it. Be it smoking/dealing/shooting/cracking/phreaking/whate
In this land of the Free to be incarcerated we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that since the United States is really not at war on foreign soil, the United States is at war with its people. It always has been, but in the past it was easier demonizing and rallying support (remember Paul Robeson?) against even popular, eloquent, and correct people. In short, the citizens of the United States have the full attention of a government/buracracy capable of monitoring/manipulating governments around the world. It's adventurous geek season and Uncle Sugar has a whole pack of slavering hounds and a double-aught legal system on his shoulder.
As a citizen of the United States, I wonder what it's going to take before people stop being cattle and realize who's holding the bolt-gun, the prod, and the bit.
How will history remember us for our complacency as we're all quietly emasculated, barcoded, and more thoroughly enslaved than we are today? Will anyone really even bother when the best they can manage after 12 useless years of "consumerism" training camps (public schools--know them for what they are) is something along the lines of "Uh, the porn used to be better."?
"So what did you do before you became a fry-cook?"
BTW...this makes up for not posting for a while. It's so freakin' low on the list nobody's going to read it anyway.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Mitnick really needs to get out of this country to a place where there is free speech. From there, he could launch his lecture circuit and be a practitioner of a field that he knows better than most, making some coin in the process.
The problem? Because of his parole/probation status, my guess is he cannot leave the country. And since there is no longer freedom of speech for him here...
-L
Well he is allowed to think it, see this article he is doing a tech briefing in court. So as long as it's good for the government, he can talk the talk. Maybe he can cut a deal with the DoJ and get a Palm Pilot© too huh? :-)
The gag order is perfectly leagl. The people posting here don't seem to understand what probation is. Mitnick is not an "ex-con". He has not finished paying off his debt to society. Probation is an extention of a prison sentence. Therefore the judge can restrict anything that is restriced in prison. Prisoners do not have the freedom to say whatever they want, so neither does Mitnick.
Anti-government posters have also mentioned the Elian raid. But what no one seems to remember that Elian isn't an american citizen. He is not protected by the constitution. You can't violate rights that someone doesn't have.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
This is not the same thing as profiting from the crimes for which he was inprisoned. If he was going around writing books, screenplays, or giving lectures on what and how he did the things he did, then yes...that would be the same. However, he's lecuring on how to IMPROVE the information infrastructures to PREVENT people from doing the things he did.
The court could/should consider that his speaking engagements are an act of attrition.
If his probation officer/panel insist that he has to get a job in an unrelated field, even though his probation is up in two years, it's wrong.
Just because most criminals don't have the skills to get a job past flipping burgers, doesn't mean that we should penalize Mitnick because he does.
Let me make it clear that I think Mitnick is a wanker, and deserved _most_ of what he got (not all,) but limiting his freedom to speak in such a fashion is wrong, and I belive, unconstitutional.
-buffy
The guy needs to make money somehow! I'd much rather see him do one of the few things he knows to do, something as generally harmless as talking to crowds, than see him leech welfare money off of the government. Almost every other job *requires* some type of computer contact, even janitorial work. If he was talking about _how_ to break intp pentagon computers, then I'd see a problem. But come on....
This isn't about a persons right to profit from their crime, its about free speech!
Mitnick is on the lecture circuit, and even if he were doing it for free, they would still try to shut him up.
My suggestion to Mitnick: Stay on the lecture circuit, but donate the proifits to a charity which provides for the legal defense of people charged with technology related crimes. (Or some other good cause, related to this issue).
Any attempt to shut him up then would be a clean violation of his right to free speech.
Reality has a liberal bias
By my logic, if you beat the shit out of someone, not only do you pay the medical bills, you help rehabilitate him afterwards!
Which it seems what Mitnick is doing; is this incorrect logic?
BTW, I don't believe in punishment, in the abstract sense. It's only the inflictment of pain on another, and that's just pointless. His punishment, btw, is the ban from using computers, TVs, cell phones, technology, etc. It isn't from speaking, or making a living, or making money!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Not to be overly rude or anything, but he should've thought about that consequence before he did his cracking et al.
If i were a truck driver, and i abused my "privilege" of driving the rig (for instance, by driving through/over cars in a traffic jam, by driving into buildings, cool things like that), then i shouldn't be able to drive a truck for a LONG time.
It's more inherently 'right' to reform a criminal rather than 'throw them away' because, assuming you can come up with a way to do it, if a criminal can be reformed to a point where they will not commit the crime again and become a functioning member of society, you have one more functioning member and one less drain on the public good.
If hypothetical criminal killed my brother but was somehow reformed such that he'd never kill again, I'd have no problem with him being released back into society at large. In fact, I'd rather that than have him stay locked away for the rest of his life. Whether he's locked up, out and about, or fried in the chair my brother would still be dead.. the idea that the perpetrator should die in order to somehow make up for his crime is stupid beyond belief. It doesn't do anything but assuage your skewed sense of what's fair in the world. The dead person is dead, and giving him company doesn't do a thing. Keeping the criminal in jail all his life costs me a great deal of money and puts the criminal in an arguably much worse position than my dead brother. My brother died and was dead, all over in at most a week or two if the criminal really drew it out. He's being, most likely, mentally and physically tortured and raped all the rest of his life, the whole time knowing he can never get away from it.. that seems a bit uneven.
And if affecting a person's life negatively in any way makes a person not elligable for basic human rights, then i doubt there's a single person left on earth who can claim them. It's impossible to exist at all without messing up Someone's life.. even if you died right now you'd be negatively effecting the lives of all the people who care about you, so you can't even die without screwing someone over.
And that's not even taking into account people who are wrongly imprisoned. What happens if the guy who killed my brother gets away because the cops arrest some Other guy who looks guilty but, in reality, isn't? It's nice to think that the justice system would find him innocent if he truly is, but it doesn't work that way. Obviously 'reforming' a person who has nothing to reform isn't a perfect solution.. but if i get jailed for a murder i didn't commit, i'd expect it would be considerably easier for me to get through the reform system and get out than the current system, wherein i'm either put to death for nothing or spend the rest of my life in a living hell for not having a good defense attorney.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher), but according to my worldview at least, there is.
Say Joe Criminal kills your brother, and gets caught. Which is better:
- Joe rots in prison for the rest of his life or gets the death penalty.
- Joe is released but has been totally reformed and never commits a crime again.
Well, to me, scenario 2 is obviously better. Everyone should have their fundamental rights, even people who have violated the rights of others. The fact that Joe has killed your brother does not him from being a person, and every person deserves their rights. This is a natural consequence of the concept that all people are equal.IIRC, the ethical motive behind prisons is to stop criminals from committing even more crimes. Not for revenge, which you seem to imply in your post ("undo the past"). Vengeful feelings have no place in ethics.
IMHO, the real problem is that you can't be sure that the criminal has really been reformed. But yes, reforming Joe is intrinsically right.
There is a difference between these:
1) Aquiring skills, using them to commit a crime, doing time, and coming out and using those skills constructively.
2) Aquiring skills, using them to commit a crime, doing time, then coming out and making money off of the _crime itself_.
What next, he can't even THINK about technology?
Ya, but he served his friggin' time in jail, and now he should be able to live a life... think about it, car thieves and the like have been known to turn around and put their skills to good use by working for security companies and alarm installers, so why can't kevin work as security for a big company, or teach people what's behind the technology so that people actually understand how it works, instead of just being mindless drones and using it... i mean COME ON!!- ---------
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
It's the clearly black and white and short sighted opinion that just seems too unreal to be someone's actual thought...
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
That's a hot-point; making a statement that judges the viewer for being a hypocrite over an issue that is not clear. Criminals are not always bad people, and criminals are not always fairly judged. There is no difference between most criminals and most people, given that both belong to the set of people called humans. Maybe there are things wrong with criminals that make them so, but that's a different philosophical argument entirely. Then there's the case of making money of his crimes; he isn't, I don't think. He isn't selling the secrets he found, or the using the market to his advantage, from breaking into the corporations he did. Those were his crimes.
BTW, crime is not wrong, crime is just public mass opinion. DeCSS is a crime. Watching DVDs under Linux is a crime. Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime. Having an mp3 is a crime. Linking to a website is a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Driving 70mph is a crime. Changing lanes within 20 feet of a traffic signal is a crime.
You're still going to use the line a crime is still wrong, whether it is a little wrong or a big wrong? Life, crime, and people are all shades of grey, not absolutes...
And what, you're saying he's only taken seriously because he's a criminal?
No; he's being taken seriously because he has the skills. Him being a criminal and him being caught are two separate issues. His being a criminal is only a matter of judgement from the legal system, not on his skills. His being caught is a matter of him not being as good as the A-Team, and not on his skillset of security!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Kevin made most of his "expliots" through crafty SOCIAL engineering (read: lying) rather that clever computer hacking - he could convince sys admins to give out sensitive passwordsetc (and even tried his wiles on the police who were arresting him - see his 60 Minutes interview). Given all that, I suspect we are hearing a little more of Kevin's "engieering" in this latest controversy, so I take what I hear with a grain of salt.
BUT, having the government tell you that you cannot speak publicly (or publish) smacks of the worst of South African Appartied-era Ban laws or internal exile in the old Soviet union. I find this quite ironic comming from the "home of the free."
I say let him talk - but remember the Son of Sam Laws - its illegal to profit from a crime. Therefore let hime talk but confiscate that 20k and give it to some charity.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
And the women on trial for being witches in Salem "voluntarily confessed" to being witches and provided the names of several other witches. They would've done ANYTHING to abate the cruel treatment and torture of the "gov't". The Mitnick case was no different. It was and remains a WITCH HUNT. They want Mitnick's head impaled on a stick to set an example to any wannabe h4xx0rz out there. But so long as rapists and murders are getting their trial, and completing their jail time, and being release all in less time than Mitnick was merely waiting for a trial, I maintain that he... that all us... got shafted royally, wrongly, undeservingly, and unjustly. Because it sets a dangerous precedent for the "justice" system to do the same thing with impunity to any one of us for any reason. Maybe some guy in Syria ftp'd your GPL'd crypto utility from some FTP site, used it to hide assassanation plans, and Feds want to make an example of you? You didn't stand up to defend Mitnick. Who will be left to defend you... you terrorist pig.
Feds had been preparing their case and collecting evidence, hiring many lawyers, doing legal research, and coaching their "expert witnesses" for many months prior to Mitnick's actual arrest.
Then they say, you wanna be tried *now* (giving Mitnick no time to prepare his own defense) or forever waive any speedy tial date. Hmmm. Now or whatever Feds decide; maybe 20 years to trial or infinity, but Mitnick remains in jail until whenever. Yah. That's Mitnick's own fault.
When will Slashdotters realize that even trampling on the rights of SCUM like Mitnick is not at all OK and hurts us all?
You don't have to support h4xx0rin6 to support Mitnick.
Free Kevin! He's still being shafted by the gov't.
Too late! Remember the Secret Service busting into Steve Jackson Games with an open-ended unsigned warrant? Haven't noticed the Supreme Court ruling that no reason is needed to stop and search a car? The 4th is gone already. The 5th has become an admittance of guilt (why do you have to claim a right anyway?). Mitnicks case is a great example of the 6th and 7th being trampled on. His probation is iffy on 8th amendment grounds. The 9th is universally ignored and the lawyers seem to have forgotten the last phrase of the 10th. Yea, we still have the third though!
Gods I hope a bunch of these Reagan/Bush appointees die before another Republican is elected pres.... not that it matters much with the new left looking so much like the old right these days.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
For this relatively minor crime, he served 5 years of hard time in a federal prison full of rapists and murderers, almost all of which was served prior to sentencing. His parole forbids him from using any form of computer or including cell phone, which is almost impossible in modern society. Now his right to free speech is being scaled back as an additional condition of his parole.
This news, on top of the Elian raid, the bombing of Sudanese and Afghani Asprin factories, the Waco debacle, and Ruby Ridge leaves me asking myself: Weren't we always told that it was the Republicans that ran fascist Presidential administrations?
When the BATF stormtroopers were using war tactics (sleep deprivation via loud music, etc.) against the religious nuts in Waco, the Davidians hung a bedsheet banner out their window for the press that said "Rodney King: Now we understand." The Mitnick case seems to draw certain parallels. Through the unfair treatment this "infamous" scipt kiddie, the hacker community is getting a good lesson about what it is like to be a black man in America. When powers of enforcement see you as fitting a dangerous profile, you can expect to be treated unfairly.
The loss of rights like "fair use" already had me angry, but this is the last straw for me. This week, I intend to get off the fence finally join the EFF... and while I'm at it, the ACLU, Amnesty International, and maybe even the Libertarian Party. I'm also going to write snail mail to each of my Senators, Rod Grams(R) and Paul Welstone(D) of Minnesota, expressing my concern about the need to curtail Federal power. For my next vacation, I will visit D.C. to persoanlly lobby whatever Reps are willing to talk to me. In the upcoming elections, I will loudly support any legitimate candidate (regardless of party) who shares the concerns of geeks, and fights for our rights. I will also be a noisy pest to those who back the DMCA or the various enforcement excesses of recent years. I hope that many of you will do likewise.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
B. The defendant shall not be employed in or perform services for any entity angaged in the computer, computer software, or telecommunications business and shall not be employed in any capacity wherein he has access to computers or computer related equipment or software;
And this one is even more explicit:
D. The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
Mitnick agreed to these terms and that is why he is out of jail. He wasn't even a good hacker, the good ones aren't the ones that get caught. Just look at mafiaboy, who was responsible for at least some of the DOS attacks, he got caught because he bragged about it on IRC. Mitnick got caught because he took stupid risks and thought he was better than the people tracing him. He was wrong. He agreed to these conditions and he should abide by them. Enigma
Enigma
Nobody thought he was innocent. Nobody claimed he was innocent. He committed a crime and deserved to be punished. What everbody was outraged about is the way his case was manipulated. The was he wasn't given access to the evidence against him. The way he spent months in solitary confinement like he was a murderer or something. The way the companies he was accused of hacking were claiming millions in damages, yet they couldn't show that any actual harm was done, nor did they report the losses on their SEC filings as they are required to do if they actually suffered the losses (so they later retracted their damage claims). Now, on top of serving five years and now probation with absolutely no access to computers, they are trying to take away his right to free speech. I'd say that this has gone well beyond punishment. It's become a vendetta against him by the government.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Greetings Mr Mitnick.
You have been living two lives in the last years. One as Prisoner #1024, and the other under an alias as Kevin Mitnick a well known cyber-terrorist.
One of these persons has a future, the other does not.
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Nothing is ever black and white, clear cut, or so well defined.
Criminals, unfortunately, are people to. And people have every capability to become criminals. Mitnick is a criminal, fine, everyone agrees.
Mitnick can be productive to society. That's true too. It's not just about praise or fame; it's economics. If he can produce a service to our society we want, we exchange with him a fair service or amount of goods. In this case, he can speak expertly on hacking and cracking, something most are ignorant of. In this case, it seems a service worthy of being performed!
Now here's the question. If he were anyone else, people wouldn't take him seriously. Don't even try to put Mitnick in the same class as a rapist or serial killer, btw!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Of course, with the number of extreme, byzantine and intrusive laws in this country, anyone can be a criminal. It's all a matter of selective enforcement.
Of course, the Federal government may indeed get away with this, considering recent Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment (the fact that this ruling came down now is suspicious, I'm guessing that when he takes them to court they'll assert "secondary effects," "Why someone who listens to his words might become a double-plus ungood crimethinking computer hacker! That means that we can forbid him to speak.")
Let's see Miranda's gone, Fair Use is gone, Free Speech is gone, the Right to Bear Arms is gone (flame away!), and I'm guessing the next thing will either be that we have to billet soldiers in our houses or that the government will be able to search whatever it wants whenever it wants.
Oh by the way, I'm sure the Mitnick haters will show up in force to say, "Way to go Feds, get 'im." I just want you people to think of something, do you really want a government in place that can sentence someone, and then after they've served their sentence can continue to persecute them outside normal legal channels?
Well, I may just have to get a government job, I'm practically working for the government as it is (the company I work for has close ties to the U.N.), so it might not be that big a step. Then I'll be able to persecute any of my subjects as I please, without fear of restraint, right? Why are people so intent on making Federal bureacrats into feudal lords?
Sigh... what the Hell is happening to the United States?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
> When and if they are paroled, for example, the convicted Branch
> Davidian folks will probably be barred from associating with
> each other which
> certainly would hinder their ability to practice their
> religious beliefs.
Don't stupid Americans learn what they're talking about before speaking? I'm American too, but I'm tired of the rest of the world laughing at us because of stupid people like this guy. The Branch Davidians were by and large acquitted of everything. There, I said it. Let me repeat: the Branch Davidians were acquitted. As in, not guilty of the lying and made up, false and manufactured, untrue charges which Janet Reno made up. I believe a couple guys had relatively minor weapons charges, but everyone else was acquitted of everything else. They were charged, for example, with murder of the federal thugs--er, agents--who stormed their home, but a jury acquitted them, saying that they were within their rights to protect themselves. Years later, and people are still falling sway to the FUD spread by the DoJ to cover their asses. No, no one was being molested inside the Branch Davidian compound, because the Age of Consent in Texas was low and because Koresh was commonlaw-husband to some of the under-18 girls he was supposedly with since parental consent was given. But so what, since THE ATF AND FBI HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS. I repeat, they were acquitted, of all but minor charges which wouldn't warrant a restrictive parole. If I recall correctly, only 2 went to federal prison. And, yes, I'm sure you weren't just referring to those 2, that you were under the mistaken impression that all the Branch Davidians went to jail for murder or one of the other misconceptions about the case. It just ticks me off since, as freedom-loving Americans, we should stand up more when something like Waco happens. Those people had their rights unlawfully infringed by agencies which had no jurisdiction (2/3 of the affidavit for search warrant was about alleged child abuse). The Treasury Department's own investigation into the causes of the debacle concluded that the ATF was there not to go after illegal weapons, but "to enforce the morals of our society." And I thought that we were supposed to be in a free country, where people could have different religions and moralities...
> It's hard to feel sympath for scum like Mitnick
It's easy. His crimes were minor. He caused no serious damage to any network--no damage at all, if you discount a little lost peace of mind on behalf of a few stupid sysadmins who should have been running a more secure environment anyway. You obviously have either never read the specifics of the case, or have zero appreciation for civil rights. His rights were violated, he was held without his right to a speedy trial, he was blackmailed by the prosecutor into accepting continuance after continuance just to be kept out of maximum security general population where he'd be beaten and raped, and now they aren't letting him make money the only way he can earn a living. I can understand the restriction against him using computers, but a restriction against him talking about technology on the lecture circuit is a clear violation of his rights--he still has a First Amendment right, that doesn't go away. That is the most sacred and fundamental right in this country, friend. "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured." -- Thomas Paine, 1791
Even convicted felons need to have basic, fundamental rights, or else you may as well keep them in prison. We are, today in this country, an evil and cruel society which tries to punish criminals instead of reform them. That's not how it's supposed to be. There's no excuse for sending a 12 year old kid to prison for life without parole; by definition a child is unable to fully understand the ramifications of his actions. Do you know why prisons in this country are traditionally called "penitentiaries"? Because the modern American prison system was founded on the Enlightenment idea that criminals could be reformed, if only you could make them penitent about their crimes. It was a great new idea that, instead of throwing people away when they "broke", you should try to "fix" them. It was a very humane and even Christian in the true sense of the word idea (remember Jesus with the stoning of the adulteress?). But now people would rather lock their fellow man up for life from the age of 12 than to try to make that person a functioning member of society again. It's a very sick and twisted paradigm, which most of the Western world is abhorred by. It's even contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for Mitnick specifically, the only reason they want him off the lecture circuit is because he's portraying the people who kept him in jail as what they really are: the real criminals here. Personally, I wish that prosecutor and judge harm enough for them to realize what they've done. What goes around, comes around. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
2. Your restrictions while on supervised release are specified at the time of sentencing, and to amend them (technically) requires a violation hearing in front of a judge.
3. I say technically because the US Office of Probation (note that their name hasn't been updated to reflect the new laws) tends to do whatever they want. I'm speaking from experience -- i'm 6 months into a 36 month supervised release period, and I've ended up with a parole officer who's busting my balls. He's "not thrilled" that I'm sitting here at a pre-ipo internet startup coding my ass off and making more than he is, but he's got no choice because the judge specifically stated that I could continue working with computers, with certain restrictions.
So the fact that they're fucking with mitnick is no reflection on his rights, the conditions of his supervised release, or anything like that. They're probably just being petty and playing games with him because he's high-profile.
and i've never met the guy, but the way he got his ass kicked in prison makes me think he's might be obnoxious and disrespectful. that doesn't help with the feds. has anyone here met him?
circa75.com
Thank goodness the Feds have taken this step. I mean, who knows what nefarious deeds such a SuperHacker could perpetrate while speaking to a room full of computer people? I bet he could reprogram all of their Palm Pilots with his Infrared Hacker Vision!
"It's that guy!"
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.