Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Reporter Refuses To Testify Against Crackers
The first paragraph of the Media Notes column in today's Washington Post says, "Reporter Adam Penenburg is quitting Forbes magazine to protect Slut Puppy and Master Pimp." This pair is accused of having defaced the New York Times Web site. Penenburg wrote about them, and now Federal prosecutors want him to testify against them or at least affirm the truth of what he wrote, which Penenburg feels could open him up to further questions. It's a murky situation. What would you do if you were in it? What do you think Slashdot should do if faced with that kind of choice?
Well, sort of. Giving up your job isn't exactly good. But it's good to see that he's prepared to stand by his convictions.
It does of course raise the question of confidentiality of journalistic sources - at what point does a journo HAVE to reveal his sources?
IANAL, so I'm not going to even guess.
--
Peter
While the law does not provide any "confidentiality" between a reporter and a witness, many reporters act as if it does. I've had a little journalism training, and the basic idea is a journalist has a moral obligation to protect his or her sources, even if that means jail time for "contempt of court."
I think it's his moral obligation to protect the hackers unless he believes them to be a danger. Many reporters have spent time in prison for practicing this kind of integrity.
Matthew Miller,
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Jeez I wonder if the Crackers even care that he quit his hob to protect them.
(read before moderating) I think Slashdot would testify. Why? Because I think they've already caved to Microsoft.
That's a big accusation, where did I get it from? Well, if you'll recall we never heard anything more about the Slashdot vs MS thing. Surely MS would have responded by now. But even more damning is this: About a week ago I was reading at -1. There's some troll at that level who keeps cut 'n' pasting various texts (porn stories, howto's, etc). In one story I found he had posted an entire MSDN "Q article". When I refreshed the page, that post was GONE.
So Slashdot is removing (MS only?) copyrighted materials. Fine, that's their right, after all reproduction of copyrighted material is against the law. My point is not that they shouldn't have done it (although I don't like it). My point is that Slashdot HAS bowed to "the man" before and would therefore probably do it again.
And, either way, I think we'd ALL appreciate an update on the MS story....
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
If they trusted him not to testify against them, then he should not testify against them, it's that simple. He entered into a deal, and it would be morally wrong to testify against them. He couldn't be trusted by anybody to be tipped off if tipping him off meant jail time.
Besides, this will get him an even bigger media position. The media loves people who are in media, and this will shoot him right into it.
We're all different.
Eh...
Congratulations to the reported for having the integrity to protect his source. The media may be a festering pile of scabs, but there are a few respectable and honorable persons left in the business.
I'd be curious to see Slashdot interview him.
---
seumas.com
Does anyone know if the two crackers are on trial? The article doesnt say. Of course, I dont know what kind of treatment they would expect, after talking to a reporter.
"See, we're famous. OOPS, they caught us, wonder how?"
I remember a case from a while back where a reporter was actually jailed for obstruction of justice because he was protecting a confidential source. While this story is now making headlines and generating positive publicity for Penenburg, he is able to be principled. Let's see what happens when he is threatened with jail time, though.
I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether Slashdot should go to the same length to protect sources (presumably ACs) who indulge in criminal behavior. Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
This, my friends, is the best journalism we can ask for. America's Bill of Rights claims the right of the freedom of the press, and I firmly beleive this extends to protecting ANY source, regardless of any crimes or grimes they may have committed. Whether it's a high profile web site defacement, attempting to force a small web writer to reveal the source of a major crack, or protecting the source of a serial killer interview, the right to protect a source should not be violated. The failure of Justice to see this would spell the end for true to life, hardcore reporting. Who wants to speak out when their reporter could be forced to snitch on him/her?
I laud that reporters ideals. People like that are the ones who truly deserve medals and laurels in todays world.
Since I beleive Slashdot has a decent amount of journalistic integrity, I sincerely hope they give those on the shadier side of life the protection they deserve. And post their responses, so we can comment on them, and send neat little ascii character "F$-K YOU" signs to the bastards. (Maybe we can even re-route all the first post messages to THEIR website? HMM...)
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
I have to feel that the writer's actions are to be respected, and admired for his professionalism. In a world of sensationalism and shoddy news, I find something like excelent. One of the cardnal rules are to not reveal your sources. cheers! -- Ignore any spelling errors if they occure. I haven't slept in a long long time.
-- Don't overthrow the government, just think about it.
As a former journalist, I used to wonder if this would ever happen to me. Never did, but I did have laws on my side. Tennessee as what's known as a Shield Law, which protects journalists from having to testify. The basis goes like this- if reporters turn in everyone who talks to them- no one will talk to them, and the public goes uninformed. So shield them from talking to police/authorities. All of this started in the early 70s with investigative reporting about drugs in Louisville Kentucky, and a reported who refused to reveal his source.
Tennessee's shield law has never been successfully challanged, and a reported has never been drug in to court and forced to reveal his/her sources. I don't know if there is a law like that in this case. Probably not, as most of the laws protection would evaporate if you quit the news organization.
The reporter should not testify. There's more at stake than corporate ire. A newswriter with integrety is admired in this day and age. It's pretty rare. The paper may not like it, but the reporter is doing the right thing. It always costs to do the right thing, but a new job shouldn't be too far off. Like they say, a good writer can always find work.
Linux Guy/Wandering Bard/Resident Kilt Wearing Whisky Swiller
If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's people who live in their own idealistic little worlds and think that protest actions and their lofty goals make a damn bit of difference in this world.
I've got news for them: if they're not rich or running the government, they can take their principles and shove 'em for all the good it's going to do anyone. These kiddies are going to get busted no matter what happens (just ask Kevin Mitnick), and the only person who's going to gain anything by this is the lucky bastard who gets his job.
If Slashdot were in the same situation? Hell, it wouldn't just be acceptable for them to comply, it would be inexcusable for them not to. I've lived in China for several years now, and I think I've seen enough to say that I can really see the benefits of taking a stronger stand towards the criminal element than we do here in the States. The destructive ("hacker") proportion of the Chinese computer-using population is far lower than in the States, not even mentioning the drug-dealing and drug-using populations, and the violent criminals, and all the rest.
If you have this choice, you have one simple decision to make: your lofty goals which won't win anyone anything except another five minutes to cause mayhem and destroy others' lives and livelihoods, or the simple duty of building society, which carries its own rewards.
And this Forbes idiot chose wrong.
I've worked at a number of major market newspapers and the policy has been the same at all of them.
We won't do anything without a subpoena. We will fight all subpoenas even if the request is harmless just to be consistent.
Once in court, we will only testify to things we put in print. We will not, under any circumstances, turn over reporter's notes or unpublished photographs. Folks I know have gone to jail for contempt.
Journalists protecting sources have repeatedly been protected by the court system and that is how it should be. If subjects knew that everything they said could be turned over to the police, no one would talk to reporters. Thus, the courts have found that in order to have a free press, it is necessary for journalists to have the same sort of confidentiality protection that doctors and priests have.
At a time when journalists are taking hits for their ethics, I'm glad to see Penenburg putting his job on the line for the Right Thing.
InitZero
It is also illegal for government employees to attempt to find out who an anonymous source is.
This is *very* good laws, as people are more likely to go to the press when they have less reason to fear they will get in trouble for it. Which leads to more bad guys having their dirty business being exposed.
Surely the New York Times should understand his position...
This is kind of like 3DFX opensourcing their drivers, while still suing people for related breach of copywright on the drivers. Why do companies think that political schizophrenia is acceptable to their cherished 'market'.
"There can be no justice where law is absolute." - Plato
Is there something like a press association that could pay for his legal counsel ?
That would be seem to be the way to remove any possibility of his employer having a vested interest.
I assume that he claims to be a 'press professional', and therefore would claim to uphold standards of ethics and rights that an association would put forward. This is what happens with other professions, such as engineering.
The association would be in the best position to represent him, and part of their existance would be to ensure the standards and ethics of its members.
If he is being asked to testify about the validity of his information -- i.e. that he did not invent the story, then there's a slight problem - this would be like an engineering consultant being asked to testify that he followed known standards and approachs in a design issue. In this case, the court has every right to question his working _practices_, but not to question his working _material_ (there's an important different there - the concern with the process of his work, not with its product).
The court should have no place in questioning his sources, and he should stand firm on that, and his assocation should back him. But if he did not follow accepted codes of practice - that's a different matter.
Basically: it doesn't matter what you say, you should be allowed to say it - but, that doesn't give you the right to lie and misrepresent.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
"The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say."
It's not going to get you guys in any trouble if you did testify, and it's certainly not like someone *has* to post with their login...
But I guess then it'd be a personal decision type thing.
I say way to go. If more human beings showed the conviction that he possesses for this situation, we'd all be better off. It's rare anymore that you see anyone stand up for what they believe in, let alone a lowly journalist. Looks like we could all learn a lesson from this.
I hope the Crackers are busted. Maybe the journo hopes they're busted too. The important thing to protect is that the journalist takes no part in busting them.
Sentient readers can probably see why, but you appear not to. It's not a "Slashdot are geeks, Crackers are geeks, Slashdot supports Crackers" false syllogism, and it's nothing to do with condoning the actions of Crackers or these two in particular. Simply, if journos can't use anonymous sources, pretty soon journalism will simply become the recycling of press releases.
A reporter does not and should not reveal annonymous sources. Yeah, that's an easy thing to say, but there's other considerations. Sure, this guy could just go into court and say, "Yes, what I wrote is true." When asked to identify the people he is talking about, he could simply refuse on the grounds that he would be revealing a source. One problem arrises. A big problem. These two crackers broke the law. Once that's an issue, all bets are off. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to protecting people who've broken the law, and by refusing to name these two crackers, I would think Mr. Journalism here is opening himself up to a charge of contempt. Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
:0
----------
Anyone else think it's funny how a comment with a zero score looks like this
/Sig/
They are fools if they trusted him. Anyone that puts their lives(AKA freedom) on the line just so that someone else can make some money deserves whatever they get. You can bet that they did not get a cut of the paycheck that he got for the story.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
The important thing to protect is that the journalist takes no part in busting them.
And why the hell not?
Sentient readers can probably see why, but you appear not to.
Oh, gee, thanks, let's start the discourse off on a reasonable level here.
it's nothing to do with condoning the actions of Crackers or these two in particular.
Well, let's see: hackers want attention. Journalists give them attention. Hackers don't want to get busted. Journalists don't get them busted.
Hm. In your world, it sure seems to me like journalists are condoning their actions. It's goddamned symbiosis if you ask me.
Simply, if journos can't use anonymous sources, pretty soon journalism will simply become the recycling of press releases.
Oh, what, and it's not already? Journalism is already a goes-to-the-highest-bidder event, and it makes me ill that it has to sacrifice an orderly society and law and order to the mere appearance that it still has any objectivity left. These people are shutting down real businesses and costing people real money all because they don't want to admit that they're just as dirty as the people they're protecting.
I`m from the u.k. though, so i may not know what i`m talking about re. usa law.
but would have *have* to say anything to anyone?
The first thing to do, then, is to check the appropriate state Shield Laws to see what protection they may apply. (As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.) Even if the law does not provide protection, is is a fairly long and well-established tradition among journalists to protect their sources. Part of this is a moral obligation, part is the practical consideration that if a reporter burns one source, word will get out, and that reporter will find it increasingly difficult to work with other sources who want confidentiality.
If the law does not provide protection, it is a tough choice for the reporter or publisher to make; but the reality is that the percentage of incidents when a reporter or publisher actually is jailed or otherwise punished is quite small, though more than -0-.
How can you actually sit there and claim that China has the right idea when it comes to society?
Easily.
When it is illegal to speak against the government, you can damn well be sure that Chinese "journalists" will roll every time the police say so.
You know what the difference between the US government and the Chinese government is? The Chinese government is straight up about it. The press pretends to be objective about the little things, but anything important? The press will be there, pro-America, because that's what the people want to hear. Anything else and the paper doesn't sell. That simple.
When all you spew forth is government propoganda drek and have no opinion of your own, you don't deserve to be called a journalist.
Have you read the New York Times editorial page recently? Those works of fiction make the editorials in the China Daily seem like goddamn encyclopedia entries.
Our basic freedom here is that we are allowed to have a bloody opinion. We can say that our government is a piece of shit, and right or not we won't be killed for it.
Unless you happen be of the wrong race, or in the wrong place, or say it at the wrong time, or with the wrong people. Same as anywhere.
When the Chinese "officials" raid your home after you do something that big brother doesn't like, we'll see if you are singing the same tune, or if you actually want someone in your corner sticking up for their "lofty goals", eh?
You know why I'm not worried about this? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to do anything stupid. That easy. Only the stupid and the foolish get busted. Anyone intelligent and clever will be doing the busting himself soon enough.
It's a fucking meritocracy compared to the US where everything depends on how much you've got in your bank account.
It may be noble, but it certainly leaves him open to accusations of making up his stories and sources, doesn't it?
It's not as simple as you portray.
It's very easy to make a logical case for strong, even totalitarian government. In theory it can deliver many things that are often considered worthwhile goals, like efficient organization, reduced crime, and long-range planning.
Unfortunately, other worthwhile goals like individual freedom and diversity are sacrificed when you go down that road, and more often than not it's a road that you cannot easily leave.
That's why you're misguided in supporting the status quo in its headlong rush towards total population control. Those easy wins against crime which you so appreciate do not come free, and in due course, you will regret choosing to cut down those messy rain forests to make way for efficient modern living and industrialization, to make an analogy.
Individual lofty goals may seen incongruous and ineffective against power politics, but they're the only things that stand between our current relative freedoms and the state-corporate totalitarianism that's just over the next hill. I'm just glad that there are still people around with the personal integrity to continue the fight for lofty intangibles like freedom of the press, despite the odds against.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Do you think Slut Puppy and Master Pimp had to register with the nytimes before defacing it?
The New York Times on the Web is free of charge for hackers worldwide.......
In Sweden, as far as I know, journalists are bound to silence by law. They may not reveal their sources if the sources have requested to be anonymous.
That is to make sure that the truth can be told without the sources having to worry that their identity is revealed.
I.e. A person working for the government can go to a journalist and tell about how bad the situation at work is, without having to worry about the government knowing who it was that complained. And not risking complications.
If he is not willing to stand by what he already wrote he should quit journalism.
There have been cases of journalists getting involved enough in the hacking community to think of them in terms like co-conspirator. I'm not saying this is the case, but, if it isn't why not stand by what he already wrote?
As is.
Even though I have my reservations regarding the press (I have been misrepresented and ridiculed in a Belgian IT mag, presumably because I had made some unpleasant statements about what I think is their prime sponsor, Microsoft), it is good to see some decent reporters are still out there. The press must be able to function and present all sides of the facts, without fear of repression. The little freedom of press we have remaining (see the dictatorsship of the large press agencies) must be fiercely protected, in the hope that one day the courageous individuals that keep it up will make honest journalism it the rule, rather than the exception, once again. As far as I'm concerned, the protection of sources should be a fundamental right.
While the law does not provide any "confidentiality" between a reporter and a witness
Doesn't the law allow a journalist to protect his source?
I remember watching on Law & Order an issue like this arose where a biker who wrote stories on a BBS claimed to be a journalist to avoid having to testify in a murder case. While L&O is not a consummate source of legal information I would think it reasonably accurate.
Can anyone clarify the rights of a journalist?"
In the case of Andover it is in the intrest of shareholders to LAY OFF...
Andover isn't Forbes...
Slashdot and other websites must remain indupendent if Andover is to continue....
If Andover pressured CmdrTaco to turn tell the corts who posted a message CmdrTaco (and staff) would most likely quit.. Why? Becouse at that point it's not CmdrTacos Slashdot...
People like you fear this allready... if it were ever proven true Slashdot would die and CmdrTaco wouldn't want to be part of it.
But thats not where the story ends...
Scoop of FreshMeat wouldn't stick around eather.
He also operates under the idea that HE runs FreshMeat not Andover and if that were to change he'd walk.
This gose for vertually all the websites Andover aquired...
There are far to many compeating websites that wouldn't give up sources. Quite a few would make a big deal if Slashdot had.
I think Slashdot should stand on princaple and Andover stockholders would stand behind it.
If Andover didn't stand behind it.... there would be no Andover...
It is as simple as that
I don't actually exist.
(As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.)
What is with the notion that an "internet reporter" is any different than a meatspace reporter?
The so-called "internet reporters" are physical people, not some sentient piece of software. As physical poeple, this makes them physical reporters, therefor the law should apply equally, qed. Or are we now assigning different laws to people of different professions, or who use different tools for the same profession?
Must we subscribe to the same flawed logic that allows a company (whome we won't mention *cough* Amazaon *cough*) to patent obvious activities, simply because they are being conducted on the net instead of in meatspace?
We do not need special laws for the internet, nor do we need special court cases and trials. Existing law is more than sufficient, perhaps even too much. We certainly do not need to keep adding feces to the pile.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Being a close friend with a long time journalist I think Mr. Penenburg is doing the proper thing,.. mostly. I don't think he should reveal his sources or go down any path that may eventually lead in him revealing his sources. However, I think he should at least confirm that his story was an accurate account, if in fact it was. Isn't journalism supposed to be about telling the truth? What would the problem be if he just confirmed the accuracy in his story? If that would indeed result in the opening for further questions couldn't he refuse to answer those questions? Would the "underworld of computer hackers" feel betrayed if he just confirmed that he was telling an accurate account in his article? I also have to say it take guts to quit your job based on beliefs like these. Especially know how long it takes some journalist to get work. I think Mr. Penenburg is doing a very noble thing.
> I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether
> Slashdot should go to the same length to protect
> sources
> Slashdot is now part of a public corporation
> and some would argue that it would be unethical
> for it to jeopardize the interests of its
> shareholders
Well first of all.. slashdot is a web page, a part of an organization, not a journalist. When publishing stories the individuals who write the stories act as journalists.
It is the journalists themselves who generally follow such a "code of ethics" as not divulging sources. As in this case...the journalist is leaving his job rather than giving up his source.
As for being a public corp. Is it ethical to "jepordize the interests of shareholders" if NOT doing so requires an unethical act? I tend to think that this idea of "The interests of the shareholders" usurping all other metrics of morality is absurd.
Whether or not it is ethical or unethical for a journalist to protect his sources is certainly open to debate (this journalist obviously has strong convictions about the issue). However, 'the interests of shareholders' has nothing to do with it. Its a completely tangental issue.
I would argue that doing something unethical to protect the interests of shareholders is just as unethical as if there were no shareholders.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The reporter got paid well no doupt.
But the crackers most likely just wanted to tell the story.
Crackers often have a message and deface websites with it.
"What message is that?" you ask? Dammed if I know.. Crackers are uniquely unable to communicate.
Back on BBSes crackers would post what they are thinking. Why they crack.
Yet having read such posts I make no clame to understand,
Occasionally a cracker finds a reporter who is willing to lissen.
The reporter wants a story and the craker wants his story told.
So far the reporter ends up with an agenda so the story ends up being "Evil hacker.. bad bad" instead of what the cracker accually said.
The crackers got what the wanted out of the reporter. Part of that was for the reporter to not reveale who they are.
I don't actually exist.
It's not like they are accused of murder or spying or something.
No, they are accused of something far worse: being smarter than corporate AmeriCa and the government, and rubbing their collective nose in it.
Remember meatnik? He did more time than many rapists and murderers, and while he cracked a lot of systems and was privy to a lot of confidential information, he never actually stole a single penny. In addition, contrary to official Corporate Myth,[1] he never even caused any damage -- he simply revealed security flaws (which needed to be fixed regardless) in an inappropriate manner in order to feed his own information fetish.
I suspect that these crackers could expect the same level of justice, i.e. none to speak of.
[1]In the typical fashion of our times, lawyers and accountants are cooking up numbers claiming absurd damages because now they have to fix their broken security, as if leaving a safe unlocked and open, on a busy public street (or even an open private driveway) would be acceptable practice under any circumstance. "If the messanger is an annoying punk, shoot him" seems to be our credo these days.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
article that adam penenberg (sp?) is being asked to verify is here:
As a Journalism graduate who ended up writing code, I have seen the lack of trust given the writing community by the coding community from both sides. I feel much of the criticism is warranted.
On the journo side of things, a journalist is taught that he can NEVER reveal sources. Besides in Forbes case, apparently, quiting a job on ethical grounds is seen as a rite of passage for newspapermen and magazine writers. It is a badge of honor.
Adam Penenburg is doing the right thing. He is doing what is slowly disappearing in the journalism community: He is ignoring the fear of unemployment (remember- coders have a much easier time finding jobs than writers) and standing up for his sources. He should be applauded for keeping true to his ethics.
"These are the days that must happen to you." -Walt Whitman
Cmdr Taco would say. We got our news from an Anonymous Coward and because it was anonymous we have no way in knowing who it was. "But Mr. Taco.... You interviewed your source at his house."
"Oh Right... Well... uhh...Hey The Who are going back on Tour!".
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
--
Irina Romanov
Irina Romanov
Forbes is a private, family run and held company. They have no stockholders to answer to.
From the article, it sounds like Forbes made a reasonable compromise (just testify whether the story was accurate or not). Nothing that would endanger the sources. If the prosecuters ask other questions, he'd have to remind them of the deal they'd made, but with the magazine backing him I don't think the prosecution would push that very far.
Open Source Reporting is definitely the way to go. When reporters open their sources to the general public for review, they can receive careful scrutiny under the "many eyes" philosophy. If we continue to dilly dally around with Closed Source Reporting, we will continue to see the same problems with security, reliability, and dependability that we've been seeing. News reporting is no longer as simple as it used to be, back in the days when a brief summary of the local town meeting and a list of the day's hangings was enough to fill a web page. No, we face a whole new category of reporting problems when we attempt to tackle large-scale news reporting. The only effective way to manage this problem is to promote Open Sources.
You can't seem to tell the difference between the ideal and the implementation. Even if all of your accusations are true, these have no bearing journalism as an ideal. First of all, journalists are not one whole entity. Journalists are individuals - maybe most have sold out, but some have not. It does no good for your arguments to tar them with the same brush.
And if this are as bad as you say, It is your duty to remind journalists of their non-adherence to their ideal. Tearing the ideal down just seems to me that you don't understand the balance of power in the American institutions.
It is one thing to criticise American institutions for not living up to their ideals, it is quite another to criticize it for not implementing your ideal, American or not that you happen to be. Let the Americans decide what they want. If you hate it so much, you are free to leave - I've never heard of the US government clamp down on its citizens leaving emigrating - I have, on the other heard of lots of people who cannot leave their own country, and have to do it illegally.
Lawyers being the bane of the earth that they are are granted Lawyer-Client priveledge, so why can't a decent, hardworking reporter use this?
On the same subject Lawyers *are* required to contact the authorities if their client has threatened to commit another crime...
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Hes not being asked to give away his sources. Hes bieng asked to come forth and testify that everything is true. On that note I would go forth. Say it is all true, and then simply take the 5th on anything else. There gonna force him into court anyway. Hes gotten a decent deal to say simply wether its true or he lied (yeah right hes gonna say that). He doesnt have to give real names, he doesnt have to give addresses. Not really alot of integrity to comprimise there is there? Did you lie? No, ok, no more questions.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
I say fry 'em. The Chinese have the right idea.
Remember meatnik? He did more time than many rapists and murderers, and while he cracked a lot of systems and was privy to a lot of confidential information, he never actually stole a single penny. In addition, contrary to official Corporate Myth,[1] he never even caused any damage -- he simply revealed security flaws (which needed to be fixed regardless) in an inappropriate manner in order to feed his own information fetish
Mitnick was a repeat repeat offender. He violated many laws other than "cracking." He served a couple years for cloning cell phones, a crime that he pleaded guilty to, by the way. The thing that made him dangerous was the fact that they kept cathing him and yet he just continued to break the law. So yeah... he's guilty of being a moron more than anything, but he's hardly the poor little vicitmized hacker that some would make him out to be
Journalists with integrity aren't quite as rare yet as honest lawyers or honest politicians. I tend to be pretty cynical about the journalistic profession but you really have to be pretty dedicated to put up with the crap that they do -- the job is even more of a shit job than teaching is. While there are a lot out there who are uninformed or go for for the sensational stories, there are just as many who at least try to get it right.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>But the crackers most likely just wanted to tell the story.
> Crackers often have a message and deface websites with it.
I get that part. Many criminals(and others for that matter) want an "outlet" for expression. Somehow that just doesn't rationalize the idiocy of committing a crime and then identifying yourself and telling someone about it.
Supposedly the reporter "hepled" the crackers by listening and then telling their story. Are the crackers going to help the reporter stay out of jail?
>The crackers got what the wanted out of the reporter.
> Part of that was for the reporter to not reveale who they are.
Who's the real idiot here? Is it the cracker for revealing himself or the reporter for letting the cracker hide behind him?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I disagree; shareholders represent a third party that trusts the company's management to protect their investment. If I hand you walk up to you on the street and put $1000 in your hand, saying: "I entrust you with this money in the hope that you will do the best you can to ensure that I receive at least $1000 in return," and you accept, you have an ethical obligation to protect that money that must be considered alongside conflicting ethical imperatives.
Let's say that you return home and read that a non-profit organization that you support is in dire need of money; is it ethical to give part of the $1000 as a donation ("a corporation is not in the business of giving charitable contributions"--it is unethical to give somebody else's money to a charity that you support, even though giving charity is, itself, an ethical act). As indicated in this example, the fact that you are using other people's money as working capital modifies the normal "code" of ethics.
A public corporation, when established, is deliberately given the status of an individual separate from its founders. While the founders may have a controlling interest, they must recognize that they make up only a percentage of the entire organization and have an obligation to those who they presumably represent.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Ok I see you rpoint....I guess then it comes down to this:
It is not always ethical to commit acts that are, in and of themselves, ehtical or moral things.
It is ALWAYS unethical to commit immoral or unethical acts.
It is widely held (or at least commonly acknowledged that some people believe this) that it is unethical for a journalist to give up his sources.
That instantly makes "shareholders" a tangental issue. It is unethical, whether it causes shareholders to lose money or not. It should be treated as if there is no option.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Some (many?) states have shield laws that protect journalists to a degree. In federal court, there's no protection.
The majority of the time the journalists are protected by the judge by tradition and respect for the press, but they certainly have the ability to compel a journalist to testify if they want to.
Law and Order is about NY City/State courts, so there is probably a good journalistic protection at both levels given the history of journalism in NYC.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
When did this go from being primarily a discussion forum to becoming primarily a metadiscussion forum? This question belies the self-serving, self-centeredness of the Slashdot crew.
* mild mannered physics grad student by day *
* mild mannered physics grad student by day *
* daring code hacker by night *
http://www.silent-tristero.com
This seems to me to be a breach of his duties to his reader . . .
"Is what you wrote true?"
"I won't say."
I fail to see any legitimate interest of anyone being protected by this.
You are supposed to report it, legally. Not doing so makes you accomplice.
Of course, I wouldn't talk either, as for this 'defacement' these kids would be treated like hardened criminals, when really it's a harmless prank.
You know what the difference between the US government and the Chinese government is? The Chinese government is straight up about it.
So where the Nazis. However my ancestors on the fathers side (most of them Polish and all of them Jews) with the very exception of my father and a cousin of his got killed in concentration camps. I don't think that they appreciated the German governments being straight up.Have you read the New York Times editorial page recently? Those works of fiction make the editorials in the China Daily seem like goddamn encyclopedia entries.
Yeah right! Thatswhy it's the EDITORIAL page. Just for starters: An editorial is actually BIASED and has everey right to be. Now if the editors bias (or even worse, the publishers -) sneeks into the contents part of a paper then there's a serious problem. But you're welcome to go back to read USA Today or the National Enquirer where the bias in editorials is certainly the least of your worries.You know why I'm not worried about this? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to do anything stupid. That easy. Only the stupid and the foolish get busted. Anyone intelligent and clever will be doing the busting himself soon enough.
This statement makes you sou sound like the ideal candidate for the Secret Police...ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
At the very least, why can't he do that? If he wrote wasn't true, then knowing that, why was he allowed to publish? What happened to taking responsibility for his actions? Oh wait, he is taking responsibility, he's running away...
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
These people are shutting down real businesses and costing people real money
So get a police force, not a journalist.
If you confuse journalism and policing, pretty soon everyone is playing Sherlock and no-one writes journalism any more. You still don't seem to get it -- there are often long-term issues more important than single short-term issues, even if those issues are themselves quite serious.
Here in the UK, a current topic is that of Jack Straw's RIP Bill. If you look at this one way, it's an Orwellian invasion of on-line privacy. If you present it in another, it's the "Pedophile and Terrorist Tracking Bill", which of course no right-thinking person could be against. So, is it worth sacrificing a large number of basic freedoms for a one-issue campaign, no matter how worthy ?
If the reporter wants to continue to be a reporter, he is not an idiot for protecting his sources. This is every bit as much about protecting his own career as it is about protecting the crackers. If you knew that a reporter would reveal his sources, would you talk to him? Probably not. And most other people wouldn't either. I think the editor of the Washington Post either went to jail or nearly did during Watergate to protect sources that Woodward and Berstein had.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
This is a mirror of the NYT crack. Go look at the source code. You'll see that the crackers revealed a lot of personal information- phone numbers, social security info, etc- of journalists who they think crossed them. Do you think that those same people are going to forgive him just because the FBI said "jump"?
If I were him, I'd be freaked out.
"It's OK, my sheet's got a hole in it!"
Back in '95 the University of Minnesota school paper was ordered to give up unpublished incriminating photos of an assult on campus. The editor in chief believed that the press should not become an extension of law enforcement and should be trusted by the public. The editor faced contempt of court charges, but in the end the courts sideded with her. See the full story
What we are talking about here is freedom of speach, our single most important civil right. Though it is sad that journalists and news agencies are not afforded the same confidentiality protections as attorneys,it is paramount that they act as if they did. Journalists and their publishers must stand up to the courts even if it means jail time, it is the price they pay for jounalistic integrity, and the ability to do their jobs. Slashdot is no different, if people are afraid to post to Slashdot then there is no freedom of speach, and there is no Slashdot. Of course Slashdot could change their format, and limit their postings to non controversial subjects, to protect their investors, but if they wish to continue as an open forum, then they have to accept the consequences, and so do their investors. Remember, news papers are also public corporations.
>If the reporter wants to continue to be a
;-) I guess it takes all types.
> reporter, he is not an idiot for protecting his
> sources. This is every bit as much about
> protecting his own career as it is about
> protecting the crackers.
Perhaps I'm just not cut out to be a reporter. The very idea of protecting a criminal from going to jail, risking going to jail myself, in order for me to make money, in order to advance my own career, seems ludicrous, almost criminal in itself.
If the suckers had revealed themselves to me, I'd be more likely to turn them over to the appropriate agency, screw the story, these guys should be in jail! Of course, knowing this, they would not reveal themselves to me, and I would have a very limited career as a reporter.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Journalistic integrity is a newspaper's bread and butter. How much do you suppose those shares would be worth if the newspaper started selling out its sources? Pretty soon, you'd have no product. A policy of protecting sources is in the best interests of the shareholders.
OoO
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
You are the most cynical person I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. I hope I don't turn out like you, because it's simply disgraceful.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"
"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"
"Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly."
So when shareholders and customers are involved ethics go out the window? This seems somewhat contradictory.
[and whats with the "Funny" moderation? I must be missing something.]
Rick B.
Look at the situation. The government wants him to testify "that his story is true". So they just want him to come in course and testify,"Yup, the story I wrote is true," and then the prosecutor will say, "Thank you Mr. Penenburg. You may step down now."
????!
Is it just me or does anyone else think that this is a highly unlikely scenario? Does anyone else think it far more likely once they have him on the stand that they will be throwing other questions at him? I suspect that Mr. P's mind is running along the same tracks as mine.
As to the Lawyer Thing:
Forbes hires a lawyer. Since Forbes is paying him, the lawyer will in a case where the best interests of Mr. P and Forbes differ, the lawyer will act in the interests of
- Mr. Penenburg, or
- Forbes who pays the bills
Yeah, I thought so too. Mr. Penenburg would be a imbecile not to have a lawyer of his own.Most seriously, the government; They made a mockery of "due process". I do agree that Kevin must be pretty retarded for not stopping after getting caught, canned, and released so much, but, if the government wanted to lock his ass up for a few years, least they could've done is come up with a way to do it without violating the Bill of Rights
I would be interested in reading how Kevins's rights were violated. Contrary to the cracker-public opinion, Kevin didn't just sit in jail for a number of years awaiting his trial... he plead guilty to the cell phone fraud stuff and was serving that sentence.. somthing like 3-4 years if memory serves me. I also read quite a bit about how bad Kevin's laywer was... so he might have played a part in the whole mess. The governmet was interested in locking him up for crimes committed and nothing else as far as I can tell.
Without turning this into a CPM/JP vs. attrition rant (like the post right before this-- the one who was too embarassed to sign his real name), if you actually _read_ Penenberg's writing's, you'll see that yes, he does have a personal animosity towards Ms. Meinel. Whether or not that position is justified is a different question, one that has been beaten to death years ago. The bottom line is that (to the best of my knowledge), the Shield Law should protect Mr. Penenberg, although I must confess, I don't think I could ever be a reporter, and be able to sleep at night, knowing I'm giving up my job to help an unremorseful criminal who probabaly doesn't give a !#^! about me. But maybe I'm just too good of a person.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
OK, lets say we're at Microsoft, and we know there's this guy called Charlie Brown who, by himself, has invented an incredible new OS and processor. In two weeks, Brown is going to release this system for $300, and it will be 10x faster than a 1GHz Athlon. MS predicts that it will devestate their business, and make their stock price drop by 80% over the next year.
Is it ethical for Microsoft to kill Charlie Brown?
I would start by getting me a lawyer. If I was in the same situation Adam Penenburg is in, trying not to be a narc but at the same time upholding his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and press, I would make all commentary between the goverment and myself public by posting it on the net. This would give me a better chance at staying out of jail. Its one of those 'could happen to anyone' situations.
I would try to politely explain to the goverment that I am not a narc and that I have done nothing illegal. If they wish to make trouble for me they will have to face the public problems associated with that.
What do you think Slashdot should do if faced with that kind of choice?
First delete all logs, using one of those permanent RMs that overwrite the bits on the drive several times. Then post everything the government threatens on this website. With enough people backing you up I doubt the government could force you to give up logs or information you don't really have.
Unfortunately the government knows Adam has information about Slut Puppy and Master Pimp. But I can't understand why our almighty government likes locking teenagers up. This seems like more of a problem, to me, than trying to fix the system, implement IPV6, etc. There are ways to prevent cracking. Unfortunately for Joe Citizen, and apparently NY Times, most of those involved learning and being creative. None of which are including with your standards Windoze installation.
While working as a systems and network admin for the last 5 years I have come to understand a few things about computers and what happens when people use them. They break. Sometimes they break because of malicious cracking. But the best thing to do in these situations is to always fix the problem and prevent it from happening again. Placing blame never fixxes any problems. It merely shows us who caused them. Great. There are many more just like him and they all think its kewl. So just get your shit fixxed and as unbreakable as possible. And before ya know it you'll be a good sys admin too.
OR Go the route of our super inefficient government and blame everyone, then spend the time and resources tracking them down, then throw them all in prison so they can buttfuck eachother for all of eternity. Before you know it nothing will work, because all the smart people are locked up. I have yet to see Joe Politician run Linux.
"A journalist has a constitutional right to the privelege not to disclose his sources of information recieved in confidential relationship, but when such confidence is in conflict with the public's overriding need to know, it must yield to the interest of Justice. The State need not affirmatively demonstrate proof of compelling need, or lack of an alternative method of obtaining the information sought, where the crime involved, and likelyhood of repetition of such crimes constitute a compelling need."
State v Knops, 49 Wis 2d 647, 183 N.W. 2d 93
This case stemmed from the fatal bombing of the Army Math reasearch Center at UW Madison in 1970. Knops, the editor of the local underground newspaper, published communiques from the alleged bombers and refused to turn them over, eventually serving nearly a year.
So, does web page defacement present the same kind of "compelling need" as the first recorded use of a fertilizer and fueloil truckbomb?
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
It's nice and easy to say they will bend over because they are a corporation and have shareholders.
You apparently don't know that many many newspapers, incorporated newspapers in fact, have refused to bend over. Reporters have gone to jail and the newspapers have paid the legal fees to get them out. All while having shareholders to answer to.
Here's another way to think of it. Slashdot's value to Andover would plummet if all ACs knew that Andover owuld not shield them. Indeed, it is not impossible that shareholders would sue for not defending their sources.
--
Infuriate left and right
(should be) What do you think Slashdot should do if defaced with that kind of choice?
erll, rbrm og yjru str esyvjomh upi. ejst fprd yjsy dsu snpiy ytiyj smf vpmbovtopm/ ;pdy/
o fpm
t esny yo hry omyp s htrsy frnsyr snpiy oy. niy yjr tsvr od s;trsfu
--------------------------------------------------
As a reporter he should be able to keep his sources safe. I wouldn't testify! Talk about stabbing your friends in the back!
WURD!!
Not that I mind being modded up, but I do not see the humor in the post--and it was MINE! Moderator, please let me in on my own joke.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
I do wonder why they want him to simply testify that his story is true. If a federal criminal courtroom works the way an english one does, the right to cross-examine accrues to the party opposing the one calling the witness. So where they get his article "read in" to the oral testimony (as otherwise it's inadmissible hearsay) it allows the defence to cross-examine and have a crack at his journalistic credibility. Not pleasant for friend journo, but damaging to the prosecution.
Maybe they're hoping to get him on the stand as a hostile witness, which allows the party calling the witness to question him as though cross-examining, with leading questions. In the course of which, of course, they destroy his credibility with the jury, since if the prosecution case has to rest on someone who plainly doesn't want to give evidence, the jury aren't going to like it.
And this is before the public-relations disaster incurred by hauling a journalist onto the stand in (real or virtual) irons.
No, what they're after is disclosure of his sources, and against that I believe (without for one minute knowing, since I ain't licensed to practice in any US jurisdiction, let alone a federal court) there is some protection in federal law.
He either needs a lawyer or to resign himself to journalistic martyrdom.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
As NMerriam puts it, there are rights but they aren't secured in all jurisdictions. Here in the UK there's some limited protection for journalists who don't want to divulge, but the main protection is the practical protection of not wanting to annoy several thousand professional dirt-diggers
IANAUSQL, but I had understood that there was some jurisprudence to the effect that a journalist wasn't a compellable witness in relation to his sources of newsgathering, on the grounds that making it difficult for the press to gather news (by reducing the willingness of sources to talk to the press) amounted to a breach of the First Amendment.
I've commented elsewhere under this heading about the forensic disadvantages of compelling a journalist to take the stand and swear as to the truth of a story without demanding he divulge his sources.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
What about the following theoretical scenario:
Microsoft responds by giving computers with its OS away for free. It's sole purpose, with such an action, is to kill Charlie Brown's company, potentially at great expense to itself. Is that behavior unethical?
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
The above is a troll however touches on one thing.. the correct use of the term Hacker... he is incorrect...
Hacker means [doing something for the enjoyment]... this is the usage that predates computers and has extended well byond the computer field for many years.
Using Hacker for computer expert dates to the 1960s using Hacker for techno vandal dates to the late 1970s.
The confusion started when a cracker was couught in the late 1970s and it made it to the news. The news media reported him being a computer hacker becouse he infact was just that. He and many like him at his time wanted to learn more about how computer security worked. At that time it was belived security by obscurity was GOOD so this information was hard to come by.
Computer hackers being the beasts of cureosity they are elected to discover this secret by cracking the security.
One was cought...
Once the news reported him as being a computer hacker a public unfamilure with the term hacker believed it ment computer vandal.
From then on when the news talked about computer vandals they inncorectly call them hackers.
Thuss the incorrect use today...
I don't actually exist.