Slashdot Mirror
Kevin Mitnick Answers
Kevin:
I wish to make a correction to a story that was posted about my interview with Yahoo Internet Life magazine several months ago. The author misquoted a statement of mine that I wish to clarify for the entire Slashdot readership.
I had never recommended that the Federal Government establish a DNA database to track our identities or our locations. I explained to the journalist that I believed the government would use DNA as a means of authentication in the future. Of course, many Slashdot readers flamed me for something I never said, or that was taken out of context by the writer. Consider who I am and what I been through. Do you really believe that I would advocate such a thing? Absolutely not!
1) John Markoff (Score:5, Interesting)
by Memophage
Since 1995, we've been subjected to numerous articles, three books, and (for those who have managed to download a copy) a movie mostly based on information written about you by John Markoff. I've heard you rant about his demonizing writings, the damage they did to your reputation (particularly the '95 NYT article), and your inability to refute his assertions at the time since you were trying to avoid arrest. What are the pieces of misinformation that you'd most like to refute, and how much damage do you think the actions of this one reporter has done to your life?
Kevin:
John Markoff had first libeled me in his book, Cyperpunk, which he co-authored with his former wife, Katie Hafner. In and around 1990, Markoff and Hafner contacted me to request my participation for a book about three hackers, including myself. In considering their request, I asked about their budget to compensate me for my time and/or life story rights. Both Markoff and Hafner were unwilling to compensate me as a source, because it was unethical. I explained that it was unethical for me to give them my story for free. We were at an impasse.
Sometime later, Markoff or Hafner gave me an ultimatum to cooperate, or any statement made by any source would be reported as fact. As it turned out, that's exactly what Markoff and Hafner did. Markoff or Hafner interviewed other phone phreaker or hackers, including my co-conspirator, Steven Rhoades and Lenny Dicicco. One or both of these individuals had falsely claimed that I hacked into NORAD in 1983, coincidentally the year Wargames was released. I never attempted to compromise NORAD or any other military installations. Rather than verify the authenticity of their claims with the alleged victims, Markoff and Hafner just wrote their statements as fact.
When published in the early 90's, the book portrayed me as ultimate "Darkside Hacker." I truly believed that both Markoff and Hafner had acted with malice, because I refused to interview or cooperate unless I was paid. The authors made substantial efforts to cast me in the most unfavorable light, supported by false statements, presumably to get even with me and to increase interest in the "story."
Several months after Markoff's book was published, a movie producer phoned with great news: Hollywood was interested in making a movie about the Darkside Hacker depicted in Cyberpunk. I pointed out that the story was full of inaccuracies and untruths about me, but he was still very excited about the project. I accepted $5,000 for a two-year option, against an additional $45,000 if they were able to get a production deal and move forward. When the option expired, the production company asked for a six-month extension. By this time, I was gainfully employed, and so had little motivation for seeing a movie produced that showed me in such an unfavorable and false light. I refused to go along with the extension. That killed the movie deal for everyone, including Markoff and Hafner, who had probably expected to make a great deal of money from the project. Here was one more reason for John Markoff to be vindictive toward me.
I'd never met Mr. Markoff until February 17, 1995, at my second court appearance in Raleigh, and yet Mr. Markoff has literally become a millionaire by virtue of his libelous and defamatory reporting -- and I use the word "reporting" loosely -- about me in the New York Times and in his 1991 book Cyberpunk.
On July 4th, 1994, an article written by Mr. Markoff was published on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold. Included in that article were numerous un-sourced allegations about me that were stated as fact, which even a minimal process of fact-checking would have revealed as being untrue or unproven.
In that same defamatory article, Mr. Markoff falsely claimed that I had wiretapped the FBI (I hadn't), that I had broken into the computers at NORAD (which aren't even connected to any network on the outside), and that I was a computer "vandal" despite the fact that I never intentionally damaged any data I've ever accessed. Mr. Markoff even claimed that I foreshadowed the movie, War Games, when a simple call to the screenwriter of that movie would have revealed that he had never heard of me when he wrote his script.
Many of the same rumors were repeated in Markoff's subsequent New York Times stories of my arrest. Among the same false claims made in his 1994 article, Markoff had accused me of planting a false news story claiming that Security Pacific Bank lost millions of dollars when they withdrew a job offer. This claim is also false. Markoff's exaggerations about me were so egregious that one of the alleged victims in this case, the internet service provider The Well, demanded that Mr. Markoff issue a retraction for Mr. Markoff's overstatement of the damages claimed by him to have been caused by me.
I've learned a great many things in the past decade. I've learned that an unethical reporter for the New York Times who had a vendetta against me, had the power to destroy my life, based on his publication of repeated inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. I'll remind the reader that Mr. Markoff has failed to acknowledge a pre-existing relationship with me and with Tsutomu Shimomura since the publication of his false and defamatory article about me on July 4, 1994. Mr. Markoff has been hiding from the truth in this regard for over eight years.
I have stated repeatedly, that the crimes I committed were wrong, and that I deserved to be punished. I served nearly five years in prison as a result. As I said on the day I was released from Lompoc, I offered to plead guilty to the crimes I committed shortly after my arrest. Sadly, Mr. Markoff demonstrates no such sense of responsibility as he continues to insist his lies about me and my life, qualify as "reporting."
I sincerely believe that the Justice Department would not have labeled me a computer terrorist, and treated me as such, if it hadn't been for Markoff's false and defamatory reporting.
2) What were you thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
by caferace
During your escapades which eventually landed you in hot water, you used the EFF account at The WELL to hide the files you stole from T. Shimomura. I'm still trying to figure out why the heck you did that. A simple "last" would have shown you that that was an active account, and you could have guessed that the user was probably technically savvy enough to notice the sudden spike in disk usage. Was that just an act of hacker hubris, or were you just not paying attention? Ultimately, it's what led to your downfall (FBI monitoring your keystrokes, live tracing of IPs) so I am well and truly curious.
Kevin:
I wasn't the only person who had access to Mr. Shimomura's computer systems and was storing information on The Well. Interestingly enough, the government never investigated the existence of any co-conspirators, once I was arrested. Kevin Mitnick was the only fish they wanted to fry.
Any accounts that were used by me had been dormant for at least three months. I changed the password to the account and shared it with other hackers. I overlooked checking cron for any scheduled scripts that were looking for disk hogs. We were discovered after a user was notified via a cron process that complained about our excessive disk usage. At the time, we didn't really care because the Well only contained a backup of the information we had stored. The same files were mirrored on several sites in the Netherlands, among others, that Shimomura and the FBI had never found. (No, I don't have any copies.)
While accessing the Well, I was carefree because my location was masked through many other computer systems and the cellular telecommunications network. I could have taken precautions by installing a covert backdoor to avoid the typical UNIX accounting and logging, but I didn't bother.
To avoid any traps and traces, I routinely compromised the local exchange carriers and cellular providers to gain access to their switches. Even if my connection was identified, I routed my data calls in a certain way that was very difficult to track in a reasonable amount of time. In one report, Shimomura had claimed that he and the FBI were unsuccessful at tracing any calls to the point of origin, but were only able to identify the cellular carrier.
As for avoiding detection, I underestimated the speed of the pursuit and that the FBI had been sharing confidential information, such as trap and trace data with Shimomura. Instead of tracing inbound calls, the cellular carrier did a terminating number search in their billing database searching for known Netcom POP dialups. As expected, the carrier identified the cell site and the MIN (mobile identification number) I was presently using. Since I changed my number on at least a daily basis, the cellular engineers monitored the cell site for anyone initiating data calls. Shimomura, Markoff, and the cellular provider's engineers used a Cellscope 2000 to trace the cellular radio signal to its origin (my location.)
Since I had just relocated to Raleigh within the last two weeks prior to my arrest, I was not vigilant in checking the dialup lines I used for caller line identification (trap and trace). Within hours of my arrest, I accessed the DMS switch only to notice that CLI (Caller Line Identification) had been put on the dialup hunt group assigned to Netcom in Research Triangle Park. I immediately started to investigate the extent of the surveillance and the party responsible for initiating the trap request. I found that an unidentified individual had accessed an account I was using at escape.com, from the Well's subnet. As I started to track down any logging of my activity, the U.S. Marshal Service and the FBI knocked on my door.
3) How Do You Plan on Getting Up to Speed? (Score:5, Interesting)by bloxnet
I have read a bit about you, so I know that you were no slouch back in the days prior to your incarceration and release...but if you have actually stuck with the limits of your probation how are you planning to jump into consulting again?
Don't get me wrong, but you can only advise people on social engineering and easy passwords for so long ... what kind of knowledge did you already have on PKI, VPNs, Firewalls, IDSes? There seems to be so much that has changed that just a cursory understanding of the principles behind these technologies does not seem sufficient to serve as a consultant (or at least one I would pay for).
Since so much has changed radically in the last few years, how have you kept up or do you plan to keep up at the moment? I can't see just reading a book on the latest OS specs and administrative tasks and being able to consult on them without hands on experience, and in your case you have quite a few years of language, os, security, and other operational technology advances to get up to speed with, etc.
So basically....what's you game plan to get back to a modern day equivalent of the proficiency you had several years ago?
Kevin:
There's a widespread misconception that I only used social engineering attacks to compromise my targets. Not so. I do admit, however, that social engineering was extremely effective in reaching my goals without resorting to using a technical exploit. I would look for the weakest link in the chain that was the least risk and cost to me. This involves looking at the big picture, rather than focusing on a single access point. For instance, if an attacker can walk into the server room without much chance of detection, that's all she wrote.
You are correct that security technologies have evolved in the last decade. I haven't been living in a vacuum, even though the Bureau of Prisons made efforts to restrict my reading material. I've kept up with the many trends in the industry and have been able to use computers for the last year prior to the expiration of my supervised release, as long as I didn't access the Internet. I have plenty of previous experience working with security technologies such as firewalls, operating systems, configuration and patch management. As far as PKI and IDSes, I've kept up with the technology by reading until the time I was finally permitted to use computers in January, 2002. Of course, I still have a lot to learn since security technologies are evolving rapidly, but I have no doubt that I'll be up to speed in no time.
As you know, security is not a product that can be purchased off the shelf, but consists of policies, people, processes, and technology.
4) Social Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
by dr_dank
I read your book and attended H2K2 last summer (I look forward to seeing you speak at the next one). I meant to ask this question to the Social Engineering panel:
Do you have any stories about Social Engineering gone awry? That is, a situation where the mark saw right through your ruse and you just couldn't pull it off.
Kevin:
Not really.
If the target was uncooperative, or skeptical, I would backpedal out of the request to avoid generating suspicion, and move on to the next person.
On one occasion, I was challenged by a friend of mine to get his Sprint Foncard number. He said he would buy me dinner if I could get it. I couldn't pass up a good meal so I phoned customer service and pretended to be from the IT department. I asked the rep if she was having any difficulties with her computer. She wasn't. I asked her the name of the system she uses to access customer accounts, to verify I was working with the right service center. She gave it to me. Immediately thereafter, I called back and got a new service rep. I told her my computer was down and I was trying to bring up a customer account. She brought it up on her terminal. I asked her for the customer's Foncard number? She started asking me a million questions? What was your name again? Who do you work for? What address are you at? You get the idea. Since I did not exercise any due diligence in my research, I just made up names and locations. It didn't work. She told me she was going to report my call to security!
Since I had her name, I briefed a friend of mine on the situation and asked him to pose as the "security investigator" so he could take a report. He called back customer service and was transferred to the woman. The "security investigator" said he received a report that unauthorized people were calling to obtain proprietary customer information. After getting the details of the "suspicious" call, the investigator asked what information the caller was after. She said the customer's Foncard number. The "investigator" asked for the number. She gave it to him. Whoops! Case closed!
5) Big question (Score:5, Funny)
by GMontag
What is the password to my PayPal account? I forgot it a while back.
Kevin:
It's guym0nt4g. Hope that helps!
6) What's it like? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Pii
Slashdot has no shortage of technological "Rock Stars" (Linus, ESR, RMS, Bruce Perins, etc), but most of them didn't attain their fame as a result of being prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law ... You are a notable exception. What's it like being a rock star, and how great is it that you'll now be able to fully capitalize on your fame in the financial sense? Would you be in as promising a position today had you not run afoul of the law?
Kevin:
A rock star? That's funny. My senior editor at Wiley had said the same thing when I was at the RSA security conference last year. I don't feel like a rock star, at least my bank account doesn't reflect it. Maybe I should partner up with Eminem?
The truth of the matter is I never was a hacker out for fame or prestige. I have to thank two reporters (John Markoff, New York Times and John Johnson, LA Times) and overzealous Federal prosecutors for over sensationalizing the Mitnick case.
Soon after my arrest in February 1995, my attorney told me that Federal prosecutors were demanding that I participate in a CIA debriefing because of national security interests. I laughed out loud, asking him to repeat the request. He did. After I agreed to the ridiculous demand, they immediately lost interest. It appears that the prosecutors were hoping to try the first hacking-spy case. It must have been extremely disappointing for the Justice Department, once they realized the true facts of the case in comparison with my larger-than-life reputation. Nonetheless, I was treated worse than a person accused of industrial espionage, in large part because of the appearance that I was a "computer terrorist", although the government never pointed to any facts that supported this hypothesis.
On a positive point, my case has received world-wide attention, in large part, because of hyperbole and the total disregard of my constitutional and statutory rights as the accused. More specifically, I was held in solitary confinement for eight months, in order to prevent a possible nuclear strike being initiated by me from a prison payphone, and was held for an unprecedented four and one-half years without a bailing hearing.
I can honestly say that I paid a heavy price for trespassing into global networks and copying source code. I plan to capitalize on my knowledge and talent by helping businesses mitigate their security risks. Of course, having name recognition can help attract potential clients. One of my initial goals is to turn my image around from the most notorious hacker in the world, into a positive one.
7) Question about Trust (Score:5, Interesting)
by Neck_of_the_Woods
I realize that you may have put your cracking days behind you but can you really address the question of trust in the computer security industry? How has your move into the security industry been received by the establishment, and how have you been dealing with the obvious question of you being trusted in the very area you manipulated?
Kevin:
My career in the information security profession has been met with much enthusiasm and good wishes. Of course, there are people that believe that hiring reformed hackers is out of the question. I don't agree with that blanket assessment. In fact, many retired or former hackers have legitimate careers in the security professional to assist businesses with risk mitigation.
The issue of trust has been a difficult challenge for me to face. Many people have bought into "The Myth of Kevin Mitnick" that was fueled by John Markoff's reporting in the New York Times. I have been wrongly accused of computer-related crimes that never happened, let alone committed by me. I strongly believe these myths have caused people to form opinions about me that are not based solely in fact.
As described below, I was never accused of abusing a position of trust, profiting from any illegal activity, or intentionally destroying information or computer systems. I illegally hacked into networks to look at, or copy software to advance my goals in finding security vulnerabilities. What I did was wrong, and I regret it. At the same time, I would not place myself into the same category as a convicted industrial spy or embezzler. I believe that actions speak louder than words. Therefore, I've taken my knowledge, experience, and background and used it to assist government and businesses in their efforts to shore up their defenses.
Although I've turned over a new leaf, my critics will surely speak up and discourage others from retaining my services. It's interesting to note that a conflict of interest may affect the judgment of some of my colleagues who work in the same industry. I believe that former non-malicious (no intent to cause harm) hackers can be extremely valuable in helping businesses identify their weaknesses in technologies and procedures.
This question is really a question of balance. Does the prospective employee (former hacker) bring enough knowledge, experience, or skills that outweighs the risks associated with hiring that person? You have to closely examine the background, values, beliefs, goals, and attitude, to gauge the risk to the business. In some cases, the person can be hired to perform a service that is a low risk or even risk free. I firmly believe that once a person has paid their debt to society for past transgressions, that individual should be free to pursue legitimate employment opportunities that benefit society.
People are human, and they make mistakes. We all have to learn to accept this fact and forgive our brothers and sisters.
8) still possible (Score:5, Interesting)
by adamruck
Given the state of technology today, and some of the recent new laws passed, do you think that the path that you took would still be possible today?
Kevin:
I believe you're asking whether I could accomplish the same hacking feats that I did many years ago, in light of the advancement in security technology and the new laws giving law enforcement officials broad surveillance powers.
First of all, I've learned my lesson, so taking the path I did before, is personally out of the question for me. My illegal hacking days are far behind me.
Breaking into systems and networks is much easier today than it was a decade ago. I spent many hours (improperly) acquiring and examining source code to find security vulnerabilities. Once I found a vulnerability, I would code an exploit for it. After a while, it became a very time consuming process.
Back in my hacking days, I compromised CERT, several software manufacturers that developed operating systems I favored, and a selected group of "security researchers" that reported security vulnerabilities. My goal at the time was to have knowledge of all the security holes.
In today's world, anyone with an Internet connection can obtain "security assessment" tools and/or published proof-of-concept exploit code. This information can be used by an attacker to compromise his or her targets without even knowing how the tool works or the bug is exploited.
There is more than one way to skin a cat: systems and networks can be compromised by exploiting other weaknesses other than security bugs. The target may have limited physical security, personnel security, or trusted insiders that can be deceived or bribed to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
Unfortunately, too many organizations are lulled into a false sense of security when they acquire and implement typical security technologies, such as firewalls and antivirus software. Although these technologies are essential in mitigating risk, in my personal experience, I have combined technical attacks with social engineering to compromise my targets. It's a lethal combination. No technology in the world can stop people from being manipulated and deceived. As the site http://www.sqlsecurity.com posts, "there is no patch for stupidity."
Almost a decade after my arrest, computer systems and networks are still being successfully attacked on a daily basis. The saying, "The more things change, the more things stay the same" comes to mind.
The new laws such as the Patriot Act certainly gives law enforcement officials more surveillance powers, but it won't eliminate computer crime or hacking. The truth of the matter is the hacker mind does not consider the consequences when doing an illegal act, but gauges the risk of getting caught.
New Federal statutes certainly increase the risk (more surveillance without judicial review) of hackers being identified, but the more sophisticated ones will utilize new technologies, such as widespread open wireless networks, to stay under the government's radar.
The new amendment to existing Federal law making certain hacking offenses punishable by life in prison, without the possibility of parole, is ludicrous. More specifically, any person who recklessly or intentional causes serious bodily injury or death using a computer that affects interstate commerce, can be subject to this punishment. I don't understand why using a computer as a tool of the offense is such an aggravating circumstance. Should it matter whether it's a gun, motor vehicle, knife, hammer, or poison? The harm is still the same? Isn't it? If a person recklessly kills or serious injures another while driving, shouldn't that person be locked up for the rest of their life? In California, it's called involuntary manslaughter.
It appears the hyperbole of cyber terrorism has created a sense of fear surrounding using the computer as a tool to commit a crime. Unfortunately, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) has, in my opinion, been exploited by the Justice Department to advance their agenda of gaining more power and larger budgets.
9) What do you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
by PhysicsGenius
I've heard that you've expressed regret over the actions that landed you in jail and I think I even heard you say that you think you were in the wrong. So how do you respond to the hundreds of wannabes who hacked sites "in your honor" and wore "Free Kevin" shirts at the risk of repelling girls? Do you owe them anything, even a little guidance towards the straight and narrow?
Kevin:
I do regret over my past actions involving my computer hacking activities. What I did was wrong, against the law, and I deserved to be punished.
However, the punishment in my case was extremely harsh and did not fit the crime. I equate my illegal actions not to a person who molests children or burglarizes a house (I heard these specious analogies before), but to a person who illegally copies software.
The difference in my case is the software was proprietary. I was not an industrial spy, nor did I ever attempt to profit or damage any systems or information that I had illegally accessed. The government falsely claimed I had caused millions of dollars of loss, in an effort to demonize me in the press and the court. The truth of the matter is I regretfully did cause losses, but nowhere near a million dollars. The theory the government used to reach those numbers was to use the same formula for traditional theft or fraud cases. When a person steals money or property, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines use the value of the property lost, damaged, or destroyed as the loss amount. This formula works well with tangible property, but when the property at issue is information, or in my case source code, does the same formula reflect the true intended or actual loss? The government requested that my victims provide their research and development costs as the value of the information I either copied, or reviewed online (source code). Federal prosecutors simply added up all the R&D costs associated with the source code I had accessed, and used that number (approx $300 million) as the loss, even though it was never alleged that I intended to use or disclosed any source code. Interestingly enough, none of my victims had reported any losses attributable to my activities to their shareholders, as required by securities laws. Unfortunately, due to media hyperbole, the unknowing public believes I had caused these tremendous losses.
To this day, I believe this "formula" was used to further the government's agenda to turn me into the poster boy for computer hacking. Although I had committed socially unacceptable acts through my hacking, I've been turned into this mythological Lex Luthor type character that can destroy the world. As I write these words, I think back to the publicity campaign for libelous book Takedown: He could have crippled the world. Only one man could stop him: Shimomura. Oh Please!
- First and foremost, I really can't start a nuclear war from a prison payphone, as prosecutors alleged, which resulted in my being placed in solitary confinement for eight months.
- I served over four and one-half years in a Federal detention center prior to trial or settling the charges against me.
- I'm the only person in United States history that was held without an initial bail hearing.
- My residence was searched with a blank search warrant at the time of my arrest in Raleigh.
- A government informant, Ron Austin, was working at my attorney's office at the same time he was representing me.
The Free Kevin campaign was initiated by a group of people who realized that Federal prosecutors and the Federal judiciary had turned a blind eye to my constitutional rights and statutory law that protects any person accused of a crime. To my amazement, some people believe my treatment was justified. With that in mind, I must remind you that our forefathers have fought and died in wars to preserve our freedoms and inalienable rights that we hold dear to our hearts. These inalienable rights also include constitutional and procedural due process that every person accused of a crime. Would my detractors have a change of heart if they or their family and friends were treated in the same fashion? I would assume so. I spent over four and one-half years in prison as a presumed innocent man, because Federal prosecutors were very adept at manipulating the technically-challenged judge who presided over the case. For instance, one prosecutor argued that my attorney should not be able to review the electronic evidence with me on a laptop computer, because I could somehow break into the Bureau of Prisons computers and release myself from custody, or write a virus/worm that would somehow leak out from the computer and wreak havoc upon the free world. I was astonished that the judge bought into these scenarios, even when my attorney pointed out the laptop did not have modem or network capability.
As to the question, I never advocated or condoned anyone hacking or damaging any computer system or network, in an effort to bring attention to my cause. I released a similar statement at the time of the major hacks into Yahoo and the New York Times.
I don't encourage, and in fact, discourage anyone from doing any illegal activity that affects other's property rights. However, I do advocate hacking in the sense that it does not amount to illegal or unethical behavior. Since the cost of computing is significantly lower nowadays, one activity may involve setting up a LAN with different computing platforms and attacking those systems in order to find vulnerabilities. Furthermore, a group of people sharing similar interests may participate in finding vulnerabilities on each other's systems to invoke a challenge, without violating anyone's property rights.
As a young teenager in high school, my family could not afford to purchase any computer-related equipment to learn on. I'd hang out at Radio Shack and local universities, spending hours and hours learning on their computer systems. Perhaps I would have gone down a different path if I had legitimate access to technology as young people have today.
10) How about.... (Score:5, Interesting)
by Psx29
What is the first thing that you have done with access to the internet?
Kevin:
I've been spending a lot of time emailing people that have written me in the past couple of weeks. I have to admit, it was a lot easier to have family and friends helping me with email, because it's unmanageable at the moment. I intend to use the Internet as a means to help grow Defensive Thinking into a prominent security services company. The Internet, of course, is a powerful tool to communicate messages to potential clients.
At the same time, I plan to explore the new features of the Internet that did not exist in 1995. As we all know, the Net is a new medium for communication, association, and research. I intend to use the Net to its full potential to advance my professional and personal agendas.
Is I wish Woz Gave me a new TiBook :)
Seriously
Kevin if your reading this by chance it is good to know your back. I am sorry you have become such an icon to script kiddies, but I remember how pissed I was when I heard what happened.
Best of Luck with your new life...oh yeah and your girlfriend is hot!
---
and the shuttle orbiter crashes. Coincidence? I think not.
WANT
TO
PLAY
A GAME?
The public has the right to know.
Ñ'
This guy is a loser, a vandal, and a criminal. While I don't condone how the government treated him on certain occasions (though not others), I don't see why he should be held up as some kind of celebrity, martyr, or whatever. If anything, he's pathetic. I simply don't get Slashdot's fascination with this guy.
5 -- Easier than getting a real CS degree
4 -- On top of 15 minutes of fame, you may also get 15 years of jailtime at no extra cost if you act now!
3 -- Opportunity to be featured in Jon Katz's new book about "Hacking in America: The Paradigm Shift Toward Increased Justice After 9/11"
2 -- Something to do while you're busy not trying to find a job
1 -- j00 c4n 7yp3 31gh7y w0rd5 4 m1nu7e 1n h4x0r-5p34k
By Eric Krout, Founder of *nix.org
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Mr Bitter, I think your original post being modded up to a 5 would have resulted in you having a hypomanic episode. We're only thinking of your health!
I realize that I am feeding a troll here, but are you saying that you would prefer that /. not interview him? You don't think that an interview with a well known computer criminal is worth reading? Maybe we should put you in charge of the "Good Taste Commission" and you can decide who is worthy of an interview.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The Mouse would probably like to thank him for stopping to push at least one of its buttons. Angry mice not nice, ya?
So, you call someone, and pretend to be someone they trust in order to get information that you're not supposed to have.
Hey, I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but that statement is a bit much.
-(())
Hey Kevin,
What browser are you using?
Do you notice any difference between now and back then?
We don't.
Hey Kevin, isn't this really the best thing that ever happened to you?
Most geeks lead lives of quiet desperation. Woz hasn't given me a PowerBook. Slashdot hasn't interviewed me. I don't get to go on tech tv.
Really, if you hadn't been busted, where would you be? You'd be among us, commenting on some other guy's interview, one of the teeming useless irrelevant masses.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Kevin Mitnick knows how Slashdot works. His response to Question 1 is largely a consolidation from the unpublished first chapter of his book: Kevin Mitnick's 'lost' bio
Kevin, the non-talker on IRC, remember the uiuc network? how about bluesky.com?
I sure bet you do.
Your friend,
(undisclosed)
This was marked as insightful because?
I might be overstating the obvious here but...
All of what you've said about markoff's libelous reporting is fine & dandy... But, do you have any way to prove it?
If you do, coroborating witnesses, documents, your location as to when these events were supposed to occur, go sue him for those millions of dollars he made from his fiction fantasy novels about your life!
I found that an unidentified individual had accessed an account I was using at escape.com, from the Well's subnet.
This lead to the termination of a lot of "suspect" accounts on well.com of which mine was one. Pretty much anyone who had touched that shithole escape in any form (that could be proven) was given walking papers.
--- I do not moderate.
Misspelling "illiterate."
Bishop to B 6. Check mate, I think.
Have you emailed Strong Bad yet?
* I served over four and one-half years in a Federal detention center prior to trial or settling the charges against me.
* I'm the only person in United States history that was held without an initial bail hearing.
* My residence was searched with a blank search warrant at the time of my arrest in Raleigh.
Ok, explain to me exactly WHY you aren't filing suit versus the Federal Government for gross violation of your constitutional rights ?
Don't be a pussy, Mitnick. Fight for your rights.
Why didn't he sue the heck out of this Markoff guy, if he was writing nonsense? Could have made him a handsome amount of money.
And selling the rights to a movie which is falsely portraying you for a mere $5000? Incredibly stupid!
For being the canary in the mine.
How many of us suddenly found better ways to satisfy our curiosities when Kevin hit the front page?
I'm not saying there are a bunch of former criminal crackers here, just that there are certianly a bunch of us who took relatively harmless, goodwilled, but less than legitimate routes to find things out. Especially when we and the internet were all much younger.
Kevin, you were a cage of canaries. Again I thank you.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
This is flamebait, why is it modded up? Mitnik was not a script kiddie, he was the exact opposite. In fact, the very notion of script kiddies didn't exist at the time.
/syle
Did you read his responses? He does not advocate illegal activity. He advocates learning about computer security by hacking your own computers or getting together with friends and, with permission, hacking each others'. Had he had his own computer network to learn on as a child, he may not have felt the need to turn to illegal means to satisfy his curiosity.
We don't lock up people based on how much damage THEY think they can do, we lock them up based on how much damage WE think they can do.
Actually, no. We lock up people based on what they HAVE done, not what you think they can do.
Well, that's how things are supposed to work.
It seems to me that script kiddies were a large portion of the people that hacked web sites and left huge "Free Kevin! 1 4m 4 13370 bur1770! pr0p5 70 71mmy 4nd my m0m!" messages as proof of their accomplishment. I think that's what the original poster was suggesting. Script kiddies made up a lot of the 'fan' base.
There are plenty of con men with better tactics who didn't write code. The juiciest pasts of the "social engineering" stories are better found elsewhere.
Seriously, you must be high - you're comparing Kevin Mitnick to Saddam Hussein? Christ, you think he held a gun to Taco's head and demanded to be interviewed?
I'm the only person in United States history that was held without an initial bail hearing.
No, Kevin, you are not. Haven't you been paying attention to the news lately? Ashcroft has disappeared hundreds of people, who are being held without charges and without any right to see attorneys. Most are immigrants (and in many of their cases, their families don't even know where they are), but at least two are US citizens. None of these folks are getting bail hearings.
Welcome back!
Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
What it means to abuse a position of trust, would be something like gaining employment somewhere to commit crimes against your employer. Such as a security professional getting a job at a company and then installing backdoors for himself on the company's systems.
Mr. Mitnick never did anything remotely similar.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You're quite wrong. People are not locked up based on
how much damage they can do. They're locked up,
theoretically, based on how much damage they *did*.
As for the calculation of the damage that Mr. Mitnick
did, he alleges not that he should have been allowed to
determine the value, but rather that "WE" got it wrong.
Clearly he is not disinterested in this assessment, but
it's certainly plausible that he's right.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
And, of course, is it Copylefted? ;-)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I sincerely believe that the Justice Department would not have labeled me a computer terrorist, and treated me as such, if it hadn't been for Markoff's false and defamatory reporting.
If you truely believe that you can sue, given that thousands of greedy lawyers are willingly to help. You aren't suing for money, you sue for justice and tell the world about it.
But how does it feel to be the only old school hacker with a 6 digit /. User ID?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I intend to use the Net to its full potential to advance my professional and personal agendas.
Translation: I'm surfing pr0n all day, baby!
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
We don't lock up people based on how much damage THEY think they can do, we lock them up based on how much damage WE think they can do
What? We lock people up because we have convicted them of crimes, or because they are awaiting trial, which is guaranteed by the Constitution to be "speedy and public". Mitnick was locked up for 4.5 years before his trial, something that is unheard of.
What you're talking about is straight out of "Minority Report", locking people up for "precrime".
Now, given Mitnick's career, he's basically a con man, and I certainly wouldn't trust him even now. Just the same, even con men have rights.
What is the password to my PayPal account? I forgot it a while back.
Yeah, we all had a cute chuckle when someone posted this in the original "Ask Kevin" story. And it was rightfully modded 5, Funny. But considering that slashdot only submits 10 of the top rated questions to interviewees, I would really like to see no more Funny comments taking up an important slot. If you'll remember, there were tons of Interesting and Insightful questions rated with a score of 5 that were presented as possible questions for Mitnick. It annoys me that some truly important question was dropped to make room for the PayPal joke.
My request for the editors is to either (a) don't include Funny comments in the 10 questions you submit to an interviewee or (b) bump up the number of questions to 20 or something. If anyone else agrees with me, I encourage you to reply to this thread so the editors take note.
GMD
watch this
His treatment was far beyond what was reasonable for a non-violent, repeat criminal suspected of theft.
The calculation of the value stolen is silly. We laugh when software companies these days equate a copied program to a direct monetary loss. Can you imagine if someone copied NFL-2003 and was charged with the full development costs, plus the yearly publicity costs of the NFL, etc... It's ridiculous, and yet this is the math that contributed to him being considered a terrorist. Nobody panics when someone "steals" access to files that would have cost $2000 in total to have printed and delivered. They knew this and inflated the figures, thinking that $300 million would be much more impressive.
Also, eight months in solitary confinement!? For what? Did he attack the other prisoners? Getting eight months in solitary is fairly difficult for even violent criminals, yet they did this based on the ridiculous idea that he could call in a nuclear strike? What do they do to any other criminal who has potential connections on the outside? Why treat him differently than a Mafia Don who might still be in charge? If they can manage to keep phone access away from some people without putting them in solitary, why can't they manage it with Kevin?
They called him a terrorist and it justified doing pretty much anything they could want to do. He was one of the first to be persecuted this way, beyond any rational comparison to his crimes, but he won't be last.
As one of the people whose credit card numbers Kevin Mitnick stole from Netcom in the mid-1990's, I'm sick of hearing about this guy. He's a felon, he was punished, now put him to work in a Taco Bell and let's forget about him. He doesn't deserve this hero worship that techies are heaping onto him -- he was a bad guy, and people should realize that what he did was wrong.
However, it's gratifying that he wrote this:
First of all, I've learned my lesson, so taking the path I did before, is personally out of the question for me. My illegal hacking days are far behind me.
I'll take that as an apology. I think I'm ready to stop hating Kevin Mitnick the person. I'll just focus on hating the hero worship surrounding him, which I don't think he has any control over.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
This is all interesting information, but it doesn't sound like he really learned anything. He still advocates illegal activity and seems oblivious to the basic idea of penal theory.
How many times must the guy say "I did the wrong thing and deserved to be punished for it" until you think he learned something? I thought he brought up some very good points about how he was denied his consitutional rights. There is nothing in the consitution which gives a judge the right to trample someone's right just because he or she is ignorant about the specifics of the case.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
First off, where is he advocating illegal activity? Not one place in the interview does Kevin express that he would like someone to go out and do something illegal. In fact, he is advocating not committing computer crime, and gives alternative legal methods if you still care to learn about hacking.
Secondly, what country do I live in again? The basic premise of justice is that an illegal action can be counterbalanced by restitution. The subtle concept here is that the penal system does not exist to punish, but rather it exists to rehabilitate. (Its supposed to at any rate, YMWV). So we shouldn't be locking up people based on what others think or worry about, we should be locking them up based on what damage they have actually caused. The reason Kevin is a hero, is not because he was a hacker, it is because he survived an ordeal that should never have happened in this country. And in so doing, he and others have brought to our attention just how out of control the justice system in this country is at the moment.
Why has a large majority of population of the United States suddenly forgotten our government, our law, is based on a constitution? Why all of a sudden is it OK to ignore laws in some cases, enforce them in others, and blow them way out of proportion in yet others? Is there some type of Moore's Law in relation to repeating history?
The moment our laws reflect our fears rather then the facts will be the moment in which we are all doomed. Like money, laws are not tangible things. Laws are based on the faith of the people. The more the justice system fails to follow procedure and law, the less faith citizens will have in those laws. If citizens lose faith in the justice system, justice and laws will no longer have any power.
It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
That was, in fact, funny. It's just that your knee is jerking too much for you to notice that this joke is a satire not about Columbia or Mitnick, but about the new state of paranoia and witch-hunting going on in the USA since 9/11.
So you don't have to start crying about someone making light of this National Tragedy.
So if I recklessly beat somebody on yahoo poker, and they get so depressed they kill themselves and yahoo stock goes down from the bad press, I can be locked up FOREVER? That seems a little harsh
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
And the "notion of script kiddies" existed 15 years before his 1994 attack on Shimomura, although not under that name. Most obvious were the software-protection breakers who used recipes to copy stuff and toss it around -- mostly games.
Actually it is interesting. Kevin's response to a funny question tells us a lot about him, he's got a sense of humor and it's much like ours. Contrast that to Shatner, or some of the other interview subjects.
Slashdot doesn't really send ten questions, just the questions of ten people. They should either send about 2500 words (of the top of my head) and let it be any number of actual questions so the short funny ones don't "waste" anything, ditto with the other (serious) short obvious ones that will be answered with essentially a form letter. Or, get serious about the limit of ten questions, one per comment, and start ignoring multi-question comments.
First and foremost, I really can't start a nuclear war from a prison payphone...
But give me a public payphone...
Social engineering isn't lying, it's persuasion. But hey, just because you discovered computers and the Internet in 1997 doesn't mean you don't know everything about everything!
Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but can some tell me if there are civil suits coming out of this? If there was such libelous "reporting", is the reporter being sued? Are there existing complaints in the system over the constutional rights violations in regards to the search and seizure, and other judicary events? If not, why not? Presumably, in the land of a billion lawyers, this should be in full litigation?
No reputable journalist would pay someone to get their story. No reputable journalist would pay someone for access to check those facts. If Mitnick refused to review Markoff's information, how can he complain about Markoff's assertions, when markoff was following standard journalistic ethics? Mitnick is of course free to write his own book and tell his side of the story.
10) How about.... What is the first thing that you have done with access to the internet? I'm gonna have to call bullshit on his answer. Come one Kevin, do you really believe that someone locked in prison for so long did any thing other than surf for some quality pr0n??!? Jackson_Ash
Having lived through one of Kevin's early penetrations (that of Digital Equipment Corporation) I can report that the damage was large.
The issue is not whether Kevin damanged the machines directly: as he says, he probably did not. The problem is that as a manufacturer, if the systems you build products on *might* have been compromised, you can no longer trust them, and get to rebuild them from scratch (get out distribution disks from before any possibility of compromise, reinstall from scratch, rebuild, and examine all source code that might have been edited). As a manufacturer, you owe it to your customers to be very careful about trojan horses, etc. You don't know all of what *might* have been done to the systems, and you certainly can't allow such things to end up in products shipped to end customers.
It is this cleanup of hundreds and/or thousands of systems (since you may not know exactly what has been compromised in an attack) that causes havoc and great damages to the victims.
- Jim
I can honestly say that I bought into the government hype surrounding your case, although I have never thought of your crime coming close to justifying your sentance and treatment.
:)
Not now.. Its nice to hear most of the points against you explained by you and not some news anchor. I find my self much more inclined to believe you simply because I know what can happen when someone sensationalizes a story for money.
Good luck Kevin, I don't think you will need it though!
- Jimbob
I thought we locked people up based on how much damage they actually DID.
When you are big enough to hire, let us know!
I've even got a cool slogun:
Crackerz bring you to your kn33z?
Quit yelling, "Help pl33z3!"
Put yourself at 33z3
Hire the Sl33z3
Taking care of your security d33dz
Of course, I don't know anything about security for real, but I can code some javascript!
(Dr Evil)
Is it (air quote) Evil (air quote) javascript?
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
Goin gto answer email? Really? So after years in prison and then quite a while with no net access the FIRST thing he plans to do is answer email?
Bullshit!
No way. First things first... Net Porn!
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I say good luck to you, Kevin, and keep using your tallents for good, not evil ;-)
I have to say that this is a very interesting read. I know that he must be glad to be back online and have his HAM license back. I wish him all the luck and I hope people leave him the hell alone and let the man make a living.
I've been spending a lot of time emailing people that have written me in the past couple of weeks.
I know you've been out of the internet-loop for a while, and probably haven't checked your email in like 6 years so....
Just a tip, pal - that message about some hot Russian chick that wants you to look at her and her friends on her web cam....Well...
And the idea that Microsoft is tracking an email and will give you $100 if you forward it or some such...
And the tons and tons of email from all your friends with the subject "I Love You"...
And the guy in Uganda that needs help smuggling all his money, and has a cool offer for you...
AND the people who say they can make YOUR penis bigger....
Well - don't think all that is fan mail, okay... *wink wink*
I couldn't tell from the tone of his answers, but do you think Kevin and Markoff get together for beers often?
No flames.. I'd be bitter, too..
-- jimmycarter
Did you read what he said in he interview? It sounds like he has learned something. Here is a quote "I don't encourage, and in fact, discourage anyone from doing any illegal activity that affects other's property rights." He said what he did is wrong and took responsability for his actions. Here is another quote for you. "I have stated repeatedly, that the crimes I committed were wrong, and that I deserved to be punished." Give the guy a break. No matter what he did he deserves all of the protections that the Constitution provides for him.
Note the frequent use of the word libelous. I bet the next step is the lawsuit against the NYT and Markoff - perhaps Mitnick will be wanting to get some of the profits from the book...
sulli
RTFJ.
Wow, apparently, you can't read. He denied all of the things that you are accusing him of...
Great, you think we should punish people based on how much damage you think they can do (which is legally bogus, btw)? Ok, so if it were 1620 and somebody thought I was a witch and burned me at the stake, then you think they would be justified? Punishing people based on fear and ignorance makes sense to you? Why don't we just dial the clock back to the middle ages? It never ceases to amaze me that people like you still exist... Apparently you and the young Mitnick have something in common; you don't think about consequences. For him it was the consequences of his actions and for you it is the consequences of your ideas.
I hate posting this way but I hit my message limit as diablobynight. Stop flaming Kevin when you have no concept of how much it costs to file a suit against the U.S. govt. unlike the markoff he didn't make millions off what he did.
Speak for yourself.
I now have my PayPal password again and can access the zillions of kroners I have stashed away there for my world domination plot.
First stop: Crystal City Restaurant for a suitable henchwoman.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
You sue somebody who has a large amount of money. You both pay for lawyers, but yours are cheap and few while his are expensive and many.
You might win, but odds are against you... and then you end up eating the court costs.
Why do you think large corps throw idiotic copyright/patent/etc violations against the smallest targets first? Easy win...
Oops, the sound of a mind closing.
Interesting to find that a reasonably smart person (yourself) has such a strong opinion without understanding any of the facts of the case.
I won't try to change your mind, nor should anyone. Rather, you work better as an example of what happens when a person forms an opinion and sticks to it no matter what the facts are.
Either that, or your trolling because Mitnick gored one of your oxen. But in any case, please don't change. We need you.
The Internet, of course, is a powerful tool to communicate messages to potential clients. ...
I intend to use the Net to its full potential to advance my professional and personal agendas.
Uh oh.
To quote from Kevin's answer to (I think) your question:
Which part of that statement is encouraging illegal activity? He's simply suggesting that one can "hack" (not "crack"--learn to distinguish the two terms or suffer the wrath of /.) on your own personal computer/LAN without the need to illegally access 3rd party systems. And he states quite clearly in the opening sentence that HE DISCOURAGES ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES (in caps so you catch it this time).
You also say:
Oh, you mean the part where he was held in prison for 4.5 years without any charges filed against him? Well, let's just take a look at what the Constitution of the United States has to say about the subject:
Now, let's take a look at the facts of the case: Kevin was arrested in February 1995. The indictment was not filed against him until September 1996. That's roughly 19-20 months that Kevin sat in prison (8 of them in solitary confinement) while there were no charges filed against him.
Why are you alive
Okay, maybe Mitnick's not the prick I thought he was. He still fucked up, his fanboys were legion (and braindead) and he deserved *some* of what he got, but I'll give him some credit after reading these answers and say he was noplace near what people made him out to be. Kevin's treatment by the government was terrifying - and all done before PATRIOT act crap and other post-9/11 legal hassles. I shudder to think what the current administration would do with someone getting the press Kevin got.
There was a time (far, far back, in the land of "statute of limitations") when I did some really low-level things in the social engineering realm of telephone fun. I never id anything for profit, amazingly I was able to resist the lure of "carding" things in those days, but I liked scamming people for information. Did pretty decently at it too. What bothered me is that Kevin deleted things other than traces of his own trespass. I'm not sure now if he actually -did- any of that, as I don't recall how much of it was based on Markoff writings, but if he never did anything malicious like deleting files, I'll say the same thing to Kevin that I said to Wil Wheaton.
Sorry for my juvenile reaction to your name for so many years.
Well, okay, I'm withholding part of what I said to Wil. After reading his site and posts elsewhere, I actually think he's pretty cool. Still don't think I'd want to hang out with Kevin. Too much ego.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
I'd just prefer that they remove the moderation cap for interviews. Then the best voted comments will deinitely have a better shot at getting in. If some of them happen to be funny, then so be it.
What you meant to ask was : How does a 15 year old Kevin Mitnick in 1986 learn about Unix? He goes to the nearest University and cracks the system.
I was a 15 year old in 1986. I wanted to learn about Unix.
I went to the local University and TOOK CLASSES, you jerk-off.
Learned plenty. Thanks.
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
Prove your credit card number was stolen by Kevin I assume that more than likely you are just making this up. Put up a page with photo copies of the letter you get from a credit card company when you report credit card fraud. Give us anything, don't just make a claim unfounded. I could claim Kevin kicked me in the balls in Raliegh and bitch, but that would be rediculous, like what you said.
Or maybe "funny" comments shouldn't be counted against the 10 that will be submitted. Make it optional for the interviewee to answer the funny extra questions, and this way they don't infringe on the 10 important ones.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Large and incompetent.
If a computer exploded in the middle of the data center floor, they'd need 3 hours to determine what the problem is.
Stupid-ass ops people like those in your and my company don't have easy ways to restore machines because somebody digital should have fired because Mitnick got there in the 1st place.
Of course, I realize you're probably one of those incompetent people who take a week to rebuild a box instead of restoring it in 3 hours, so you need to probably go to 7-11 and buy a clue to understand that (a) Mitnick should never have penetrated your perimter (b) He should not have been able to 0wn the machine (c) if he did, it should never take more than 4 hours to recover a machine.
But I won't convince you, because you're old and not very mindful of modern technology.
You're f'ing welcome.
Well Jim, I would love to confirm your employment when Kevin damaged your system. I imagine your full of it. Just my personal opinion
so it's been 8 years since I was first introduced to the Kevin Mitnick story and it has been nothing but interesting to me to research this topic as it progressed. I found myself many times trying to be a hacker in an attempt to "gather information". It's good to hear that Kevin is out and I welcome him with open arms to the IT community. I think it's rediculous that you people can't just let the man live. I mean - some of you are hating - some of you are prying. I mean - I'm sure that as time goes on, Kevin will set the record straight with the DOJ and the rest of the world. I'm also sure that he'll play a key role in making the internet and other facets of IT security better and more reliable.
I suggest we don't cap interview question moderation.
5 is too low in this case.
S
My dad was telling me that most of the guys they catch dealing cocaine only do ten years, with Kevin's total jailtime including the time he was held wihtout bail, he was in for 9 years. Glad that selling 8 year olds crack and stealing the source for a unix system are ranked under the same severity.
P.S.
No one here uses pirated software. Of course not.
I would ask slashdot about not being sentient first. mabey someone who works on slashcode could actually tell you weather or not /. was self aware. Most webservers out there are not sentient beings, but/. always seemed a little brighter than the rest. I would deffinately do some research before declared slashdot not sentient, and non opinionated for that matter.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the NYT is more and more operating like a tabloid? Let's see:
Who's next? Who would be the next hapless techie type to be thrown into jail by clueless Feds on the basis of unsubstanciated, overblown stories written in the oh-so-revered New York Times?
Personally, I never read it anymore. How reliable a source could the NYT be on complex social issues considering how lamely they report on even simple, verifiable tech issues?
Did I say Mitnik [sic] was a script kiddie? No; I said he was poster boy for script kiddies.
scott
I just want to say thanks to /. for the most interesting article I've ever (legally) read on a computer. You have rejuvinated my interest in this case, and I, too, look forward to reading an authentic book on the case. For /. to land Mitnik is huge; make him a member of the staff!
For example, you could fire CowboyNeal.
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
"They should either send about 2500 words (of the top of my head) and let it be any number of actual questions so the short funny ones don't "waste" anything, ditto with the other (serious) short obvious ones that will be answered with essentially a form letter. Or, get serious about the limit of ten questions, one per comment, and start ignoring multi-question comments."
/. likes to present a "pizza" (or something), containing a variety.
Well, this is gameable
quite easily. you could fit far more than 10 questions that require far more effort to answer this way. But I'm just humoring you now.
However, i do support my parent comment in that
Funny is variety. The interview was a lot more human, and enjoyable with the funny question.
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
Try to do something truely useful and interesting, and you should be able to generate sufficient attention. Fame brings as much unwanted attention as it does the good kind. The truth is that there are a lot of key contributors to OS that are mostly know in the specific development community that they work in. Actually, without slashdot, I wouldn't know what I do about the handful that I have heard of. Except for the few lik Linus, RMS and a very few others, the fame is rather limited anyway.
Okay mister serious no fun.
I for one am quite glad that he answered. Related item here.
Thank you Kevin!
BTW, I am not sure if Kevin remembers, but I am one of the people that helped organize a demonstration for him in front of the US Supreme Court. We have only met twice since then.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
When a movie was made about hacking and Kevin's name was used it further proves the statement of fear. Our government is using tools far more powerful than any 'hacker' has ever been able to have access too to watch our every single move.
In an Orwellian world the government needs to extend blame onto otherwise innocent people so they can stand on their backs to be heard and in turn gain more power. While there may not be a huge government conspiracy to ruin Mitnick, the media and government have a field day. This is exactly how they are able to name a few terrorists and go off to war with full support.
The software providers and the music/movie business will claim that they lost the retail price of everything copied. That's even though they sell their products much cheaper to resellers. Every piece of software and media copied doesn't mean a direct loss is inflicted. The way the law stands that it's illegal to have a copy of illegally copied software in your posession. Most of the copied material is by young kids and college students. Neither have the means to pay for; nor the need to buy 99% of what they have. In many ways piracy is free advertising. Record sales have risen at least 20% since the invention of the mp3. For the first time other bands that might not even be stocked at your local record store are heard. You cannot get away with using copied software in a corporate business. Corporate sales reflect a vast majority of total sales. Even if someone finds a program to download and likes it; they are still required to have someone to pay for it to use at work professionally. In this way more good products are sold. They are bought for their utility rather than fancy packaging and/or advertising. There are several groups that go to corporate sites and audit their systems to make sure that they are properly licensed. For all the bands that complain about Napster and filesharing in general get front page advertising or even cartoons about them.
The Internet, of course, is a powerful tool to communicate messages to potential clients.
Look out! Kevin Mitnick has just reinvented SPAM.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
Thoreau was a fool. There's a method of thinking that's responsible for much of the passionate, overinflated opinions that muck up the intellectual climate. If you read his works closely, you can see that he uses that same method.
From birth, we're given input. How our minds respond to that input depends on the previous input. Some people don't bother to structure their thinking beyond that. Instead, they set up all the incoming data in a loosely configured hierarchy of free-associations.
To determine if something is true, they hear it in their mind, and if it resonates loud enough with what's already there, it's true, otherwise it's discarded. This is the basis for the belief in a universal natural law, and it's why people who grow up in tightknit fundamentalist backgrounds all think alike and approbate each other, while being certain they have an answer for every question.
A symptom of people who think like this is that their writing rambles from topic to topic, and their words have ill-defined moral overtones that tip their hat to some kind of cosmic absolute. Transcendentalism is just another one of those ill-conceived social follies.
OK by me as long as we have an exception handler.
FreeSpeech.org
What i want to know is with all the publicity and the hype this non-trial has generated, theres clearly a market for the alcu to play into here. Where are they. What are the details behind the reasons they didnt stand up for his rights. What gives.
At any rate, in this interview it was nice to see a question answered by a one-liner in the midst of several questions answered by pages of text, it was a couple less pages to read. It's also nice to see how someone replies to humour...especially someone who's in the position that Kevin Mitnick is in.
Hey, I thought Shatner's answers were great. Sure, he was making fun of slashdot in a roundabout way, but I really got a kick out of it. Especially Wheaton's one.
funny munging
I agree: 'funny', while good, should be kept to questions 11 and up. (Although I agree with another replier, his answer was good.) And, for those that don't know, Guy Montag was the main character in Farenheit 451. (I knew it sounded familiar but had to look it up.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
When a person steals money or property, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines use the value of the property lost, damaged, or destroyed as the loss amount. This formula works well with tangible property, but when the property at issue is information, or in my case source code, does the same formula reflect the true intended or actual loss?
Big brother, even then, didn't seem to realize that in order for an owner to be completely deprived of the value of the property, its owner has to actually be completely deprived of the property. In my experience, very few people(read: none that I can think of) want to steal information (i.e. take and deprive its owner of it), but a great many would like a copy of it. File sharing analogies abound.
451 F is also ~ 233C ! (232.77777777...)
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I find it disturbing that there is so little comment on perhaps the biggest issue here, the effect the NYT reporting had on the process Mr. Mitnick was due. If the NYT--the "paper of record"--was so inaccurate about the facts of this case, how can we trust any of its content? Many people will not want to be confused with the facts and continue to judge Mr. Mitnick based on false or exaggerated information. How is this right? How many other things is the NYT wrong about? (From my own reasearch and experience, plenty.)
On July 4th, 1994, an article written by Mr. Markoff was published on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold. Included in that article were numerous un-sourced allegations about me that were stated as fact, which even a minimal process of fact-checking would have revealed as being untrue or unproven.
Wait, in the New York Times ? The bastion of liberal truth? The philosophical touch-stone for millions of lunatic left wingnuts all over the world? One of the reasons we aren't carpet-bombing Iraq with total vengance right now instead of blowing the UN Security Council with evidence proving what we already know to be true?
PERISH THE THOUGHT!
In the above, Mr. Mitnick asserts that Mr. Markoff libeled him extensively and caused him no end of personal distress, excessive legal punishment, and so on and so forth. That may very well all be true.
But if it is true, why hasn't Mr. Mitnick sued Mr. Markoff, the New York Times, his book publishers et. al. for libel? That's what libel law is there for ... if these things are true, then they should be exposed in a court of law, the truth would be revealed for all to see, and Mr. Mitnick should receive some very hefty compensatory damages. Mr. Mitnick would win big if even a tenth of what he describes above is true, since he would have qualified at the time under libel statutes as a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure," so the threshold of showing libelousness would be quite low.
So why isn't he suing Mr. Markoff? Don't say it's because he doesn't have the money, because plenty of lawyers will work on a contingency basis, especially for something as high-profile and (if the above is true) lucrative as this. If Mr. Mitnick can back up what he's saying here, why isn't this all coming out in a court of law? And don't say "Markoff should have to prove he's right, not Mitnick," because if Mr. Mitnick sues for libel Mr. Markoff will have to do just that (produce his notes, documents, etc. to verify where he received all his information), but he doesn't have to do this if Mr. Mitnick doesn't sue.
I don't know Mr. Markoff or Mr. Mitnick, and I have no idea what the real truth is here. But for some reason the fact that Mr. Mitnick talks at great length about all these abuses but is not willing to test them in court seems indicative of something to me...
"95% of all Slashdot
absolutely -- Kevin has crossed the ethical boundry
from his explanation of how he is such a cheater and fraud, why would anyone believe that he won't just
do it again?
as the old joke goes --
You sleep with one pig and you're called "MacGregor the pig fucker" for the rest of your life.
there are dozens of other people more qualified and smarter without a record.
Do you feel... hacked? Well, rush to the police!
Ah yes, the constitution's such a BOTHER isn't it? Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Translation: PORN PORN PORN!!
Anyhoo, you can read more of the same here @ register.com. Kevin's story in his own words.
I find Mitnick's idea that he should get recompense for telling his story to Markoff a bit silly.
First of all I have no clue about what kind of man Markoff is - if Mitnick wants nothing to do with him for character/ideological reasons, fine.
It is common journalistic practice not to pay anyone for their story. If you're doing an article or a documentary and you pay people to talk to you, your interview is ineherently suspect. A lot of people will talk to you and say all kinds of things if you give them money. If you don't give them money, then you at least know they are saying what they want to say, not what you want them to say.
Personally I think Mitnick's story was a travesty of justice - I totally sympathize with him and feel he was unjustly jailed. However, perhaps if he had thought less about cashing in on his notoriety and more about speaking the truth, Markoff's book would've been more even handed. Maybe then Mitnick would've approved of the film that eventually was cancelled.
A number of systems at the University of Rochester were compromised during the Shimomura incident. The compromises included deliberate destruction of log files. So which is it:
It's hard, if not impossible to prove a negative -- like "I'm not guilty because...". Thats why we use (at least in theory) the "You are guilty because..." method. Less chance of someone being unjustly convicted. Doesn't mean that doesn't happen, but it makes it happen less often.
Actually, the number of questions used to be 5, so they ~are~ allowing for +5, Funny.
Kickstart
How's your cornhole, Kevin?
Who was this lawyer that let all the BS go on?
Our sysadmins hack new web apps before the developers deploy them. It's legal and productive. And we usually end up with bragging rights over the code monkeys.
(Hint to coders, write a freaking input verification function and use it!)
(PS - Hint to sysadmins, make sure they're not pointed to a production database when you do this)
How does it feel to be a ridiculously overhyped convicted felon?
(Oh, right, like no one else is thinking it...)
Kevin's reputation seems to focus on a combination of what he did, and the perception of how he was treated.
What I don't understand is, if we was held for so long, and (allegedly) illegally, why was there no action taken by any Appeals-level court? I find it hard to believe that Kevin's rights could be so blatanly violated, and yet no hearing be granted at any level.
jason
It seems to me that in this whole matter, the real abuse of trust was by John Markoff - after all, as a reporter do we not trust him to spend at least a little effort verifying information?
Instead it seems Markoff was much more the hacker than Mitnik, using his position as a newspaper columnists for one of the most powerful newspapers on the planet to manage a social exploit (the harshest possible punishment for Mitnik) on a far larger scale than anything Mitnik ever did.
Like Mitnik, I have no doubt that what Markoff published about Mitnik was read by many people, probably including the judge... Because of the publicity the prosecutors probably felt pushed to extract the maximum punishment for Mitnick, and again because of the same publicity the Judge was only too happy to comply. Whenever the spotlight of media shines brightly on a subject, weird things always start to happen...
It's a shame that Markoff couldn't have spent five years in jail for libel instead of Mitnick, who deserved some punishment but not what he got.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is absolutely wonderful. Slashdot can offer up some real gems sometimes; this is one of them. Where do people like you hang out? I need smarter friends.
No one asked what Kevin thinks about "The Fugitive Game:Online with Kevin Mitnick" by Jonathan Littman. I remember reading the Markoff book and the Littman back to back . but its been so long the differences between them are are reduced to Littman seemed to have interviewed Kevin and Markoff didn't..the Littman book came out after the Markoff and presented him in a slightly more favorable light
you got trolled. BAD
That's the option that gets my vote... were this a democracy.
What I'd like to know is..
.gov now that he's out for breach of his constitutional rights? (I mean.. if they're making you sign something in order to get a lesser sentence.. I'd say that's under duress..)
Is it really possible to sign away your constitutional rights?
Why wouldn't Kevin file suit against the
Yeah, I was really hoping he'd answer the questions about whether prison is really full of sex/rape.
Perhaps you have to sign an NDA as you leave prison saying you'll never talk about your experiences? Including the NDA? I've never heard or seen or read anything by anyone supporting the view of prisons we see in the movies.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Typically when the FBI arrest and the DJ prosecute a defendant they're very interested in inflating the importance of the case for all kinds of reasons.
Classic examples are the estimated "street values" of drug busts. Certainly, Mitnick got a very raw deal, but so do folks whose three marijuana plants have an alleged "street value" of $50,000.
I assume some of us remember the case of Steve Jackson Games being nearly put out of business for trying to develop a Cyberpunk supplement for their GURPS paper-based RPG...
he isn't denying doing the crime or that he needs to be punished. he is saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Fuck you, i hope you to to jain for 5 years. we'll see how you feel about dick
What's wrong with funny? Funny's important.
While reading interviews where the responses are so verbose and detailed, I really appreciate short and funny Q-and-As. And with hundreds of Slashdotters mod-ing question "funny," you're pretty much guaranteed a chuckle. That is, unless you're a sour-pussed Scrooge.
Have you ever been arrested or locked up for an extended period? I was only in a cramped holding cell once with other people for 48 hours, but I can tell you I would not trade my freedom for anything.
Do you know what SuperMax is? It's a prison for "the worst" offenders (most of whom I have no doubt I would not like to meet). In a supermax prison you are in lockdown 23.5 hours a day, on your own, all alone, with basically four walls and a near fully covered door. No voices, no visitors, no NOTHING. Good god, and they wonder why guys released from these places after 10 year senteces loose it on the outside, what the hell do you EXPECT!
Prison is a 5' room. Isolation is the total absence of ANYONE ELSE AT ALL. Think of this, we're not talking about a couple hours with a book or a few days away, we are talking about YEARS in a sterile closet with only intermittent interaction with others.
The media has succeeded in recent years in convincing the general public that prison is some kind of playground, and that sentences can never be strict enough for criminals. This is one of the most laughable misconceptions I have ever come across.
However, it is not as laughable as the belief that the government "doesn't incarcerate innocent people" or that "a small number of innocent incarcerations is acceptable". You laugh, but I had a deep conversation with a Brooklyn ADA in which he stated, POINT BLANK, that he believed he was justified in manipulating situations to get people convicted, even if he had reason to believe they were innocent. He argued that there were acceptable losses... good god, and they say the medical system needs an overhaul!
-rt
The site www.defensivethinking.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
?
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
I have the movie, Takedown, on dvd, I'm so cool :-) :-D
but one thing I never figured out, wer ethey using windows3.1 or unix or what?
you see, I think they used win3.1 and a bunch of terminals to other unix servers, cos he got a BSoD! that is not a feature of any unix os I know of
maybe, it was unix, but with the explorer shell that windows uses! who knows, not me.. do you?!
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; "
The judge believed he could launch Nuclear Weapons. I'd say that consitiutes a public danger.
The problem is that the judge did not make the prosucution show any tangle evidence that he could do that. Hell, if the judge bothered to call someone at NORAD, he could have found out it was impossible to do, literally.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe I should partner up with Eminem?
Kevinem ? I can see it now
getSexySig();
How much free pr0n have you downloaded since you could access the net again?
When I apply for Infosec work they invariably want to know about my custody fights, tax liens, late credit card payments, and other assorted computerized detritus that comes from living a long and reasonably colorful life. Oftentimes the job goes into a black hole and I never hear from them again. Do I actually have to steal stuff in order to become employable?
Simple? I think your thought processes on the subject is whats simple.
...those were the best questions and answers I've read in a Slashdot interview.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
I'm not defending Mitnick's actions. He did lots of things that were wrong and deserving of punishment. However, he was screwed over by the Government in his trial and imprisonment.
Clearly, the Government was using Mitnick as an example to all the other would-be hackers. They completely ignored Mitnick's rights to a "speedy trial," denied him a bail hearing, and so forth in order to achieve their goal. I've heard of RAPISTS who served less time than Mitnick did.
Second, I believe that the Government was also "testing the waters" with Mitnick as to how they could hold someone while violating due process. They painted the picture of him being an extremely dangerous criminal, almost to the point of labeling him as a terrorist (and this was pre-9/11, as well). Perhaps they wanted to see if they could make someone look dangerous enough that the public would support an unconstitutional imprisonment of that person.
Either way, I feel Mitnick was unjustly treated by the Government. There was absolutely no need to treat him the way he was treated in order to convict him of the things he was guilty of.
Anyway, Kevin's "social engineering" skills should clearly be an eye opener for anyone who implements security, computer security or otherwise. People themselves are often the weakest link of security. It doesn't matter if a password is encrypted with the highest grade encryption available if someone just tells it to an attacker over the phone.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
He has good grammar and spelling. :)
The main feature of Kevin's experience is the blind stupidity of justice.
It will all happen again. The institutions have never learned.
Has an attorney advised you about the possibility of winning a suit against the government, compensating you in some way for such dramatic violations of your civil rights? If you have been advised against that course of action, have you gotten a second opinion?
include $sig;
1;
As one of those who fought for a stop to torture of suspected terrorists by the 'general security agency' here in Israel, and won -- I know that currently the U.S. is using Jordan and other friendly arab countries for its 'investigative' needs, and not Israel (as it used to do previously).
See this for example.
He did not exploit a position of trust. He exploited a position of "mis" trust. Any phone operator, help desk personnel, or anyone who has access to accounts, who picks up an outside line, ABSOLUTELY MUST operate from a position of mistrust. Just about every company has security guidelines that phone personnel are required to follow. Companies that do not have guidelines in place, are fools. Companies that do not enforce the guidelines that are in place, are even bigger fools. It is those guidelines that provide the first line of defense against illegal access/activity on a customers account. It is the responsibility of the company to provide that "REASONABLE" level security. However, and sadly, the term "Reasonable" is subject to very wide interpretations.
The majority of companies out there are unable or unwilling to provide this reasonable level of security because security costs money. As such, security affects the bottom line. Top executives, providing as little funding for security as possible, still attempt to maintain the facade that they are "protecting" their customers personnal data. All in the name of profits and the "Bottom Line".
The fact that Kevin, and/or his cohorts, was able to talk his way past the phone trolls, proves this point. Those companies did not spend the proper amount to have the Phone Trolls trained. They did not spend the necessary amount to ensure that proper oversite for the phone trolls was in place. In essence, those companies that were damaged were more worried about the bottom line, than about the information they were supposed to be protecting. This is a major problem that is even more prevalent in todays sluggish economy.
The current day and age brings about even more opportunities for h4x0rs to gain illegal access to systems. With the advent of the internet and new user sign ups growing at an exponential rate, targets of opportunities are springing up everywhere. Also, new internet companies (and old brick and mortar companies who are putting their "presence" on the net) are providing even more targets. They do not seem to understand the need for security or their knowledge of security is minimalistic at best. New and old companies seem to believe that anyone who can produce a business card and "assure" them that they can protect their systems, will provide that ellusive "Silver Bullet". Again, it points to a companys' over-riding dedication to reducing the bottom line. Security costs money. What many companies and investors fail to realise, is that the lack of security, or under-powered security, will absolutely bury their bottom line.
Your actions in life will determine your children's future.
Mitnick says he was misquoted by YIL. Ziff-Davis has since closed YIL. Coincidence? I think not!
The Free Kevin campaign was initiated by a group of people who realized that Federal prosecutors and the Federal judiciary had turned a blind eye to my constitutional rights and statutory law that protects any person accused of a crime.
Thank your lucky stars you aren't a Muslim.
I have to disagree. Why must everything be serious and informative? Humor in the proper doses is good for everyone (even you).
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Your imaginary friend hang out somewhere on Usenet. He's often referred to as cut n' past. You've been folled. Faggot!
If you are a software company, you should be obliged to have a decent security policy which mandates BACKUPS and INTEGRIT-Tripwire for gods sake! So you can assert in case of compromise if your sources-systems-whatever were modified or not.
Now, being Digital Equipment Corp. I could guess that lame systems management added to the companys ever sinking trajectory...
Actually, Social Engineering is simply obtaining information via Society. It does not HAVE to be via lying or persuasion. It could be hanging out where people just talk too much. It could be simply asking someone what the password is. It could be looking over someone's shoulder. It could be asking someone to help you. It could be anything to do with PEOPLE.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Well, the problem is that our government (through stupidity, ignorance, or purpose) do not deal with technology correctly. Whether we are talking about them claiming that copying a CD made them loose a few hundred (thousand?) dollars, or whether we are talking about the Patent Office issuing completely invalid patents -- the government is not handling technology correctly. For the punishment to fit the crime, he would have had to be charged for the actual amount of money LOST. R&D was not lost, as they still sold their products. If he would have deleted the data (and all backups) that would have been different. They charged him as if he did.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Uncountable crops lost...
Contact the mothership...the queen must be notified.
Consider a small town where everyone trusts their neighbours and no one locks their doors. Then along comes the oh-so-helpful burgler who waltzes into these houses. (maybe he takes something, maybe he just leaves a note saying "I was here"), but then the residents are worried and scared he might come back, so they all buy locks and lock their doors.
Even if he didn't take something, I don't think you could really claim that the burgler did a positive thing ... he spoiled the trust and made people fearful. Maybe you can say someone would eventually come along and do something *really* evil, but that doesn't make the first guy into a Good Guy. It just makes him a Lesser Bad Guy.
I agree that Kevin was treated in a horribly unjust way and punished far beyond what his crimes deserved, but that doesn't make his actions praiseworthy. Maybe he didn't intend to cause any loss or harm, and that's great, but to call his actions a great service is quite juvenile and really shows a limited consideration of the facts.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
You called Mr. Mitnick "a vandal" without any proof of this. Wait a minute, so did the government prosecutors. But he told us that he did not damage (or vandalise) anything--he never destroyed data. All he did was look at and copy data on various sites, using his knowledge of telephone and other types of networks to get around to that information.
How do we know you're sincerely repentant? Maybe you're just acting sorry so that the government will release you from prison? Did social engineering get you out of jail?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Does anyone remember Hackers: Episode One: The Phantom Mitnick? :)
fortune
/usr/games/$x ] ; then /usr/games/$x
And here is the code, thank U.C. Berkeley for the copyright longer than the code.
#!/bin/sh -
# $NetBSD: wargames.sh,v 1.3 1999/11/16 17:27:14 abs Exp $
#
# Copyright (c) 1985, 1993
# The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
# documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
# 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
# must display the following acknowledgement:
# This product includes software developed by the University of
# California, Berkeley and its contributors.
# 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
# may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
# without specific prior written permission.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
# ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
# ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
# FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
# DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
# OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
# HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
# LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
# OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
# SUCH DAMAGE.
#
# @(#)wargames.sh 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
#
echo -n "Would you like to play a game? "
read x
x=`echo $x | sed 's/[^-a-z0-9]//g'`
if [ -f
tput clear
exec
else
# Original quote "Strange game, the only winning move is not to play."
echo "Strange, the only winning move is not to play."
fi
exit 0
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
which says quite a lot about the pre-juvenile critical analysis skills of /. moderators.
100% overrated is more like it
Is anyone denying that Mitnick stole 20,000 credit card numbers from Netcom in 1995? I didn't think that fact was in dispute.
At that time, I recieved a message from Netcom stating that my number had been one of the cards compromised. Sorry, I do not have a copy of this eight-year old email. Based on what I had been told, I took steps to protect myself (had the card canceled, asked for a new number, and put my Netcom account on a different card). Yes, it was Netcom's fault for having crappy security and I was pissed at them also.
No, Mitnick did not do anything with my credit card, and I'm willing to believe that he was trying to be a 'white hat'. But the way he did it wrong, it was illegal, and he could have done a lot of damage to many people, including myself.
Sorry, I don't have hard proof for you. I didn't think it would something anyone would demand, as Kevin's guilt is certainly not in dispute. If anyone doubts me...well, that's your problem, and I really don't care if you believe me or not. This only has to do with my opinions on Kevin Mitnick -- it's between Kevin and me -- and in my earlier post I said that I was ready to begin to forgive him.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
All you l33t MF'ers are so full of shit your eyes are brown. Have to beat a person down everytime they post someting that is not extravagant or leet-like or in fact admitted to making a mistake.
.... Fuck off losers!
..... All you negative posters on this thread. Pull your head out of your ass so you can comprehend what you are doing.....
I'll say it for Jim
probably 90% of you were still shitting in your diapers when Mitnick was on the loose, which means you don't know shit, or can appreciate the history of computers and what it takes to build an older system. You can't build jack-shit, well maybe PC, big fucking w00p.
As far as security back then... I was probably not even discussed in project meetings.
So
Perhaps you have to sign an NDA as you leave prison saying you'll never talk about your experiences? Including the NDA? I've never heard or seen or read anything by anyone supporting the view of prisons we see in the movies.
You just need to get your head out of your ass, that's all.
I used to run with a bunch of guys, and we all lived in slightly shadier circles. There I learned that the difference between the state pen and the federal pen is the difference between doing hard, satisfying work (state pen) and getting ass-raped (federal pen). Also, if you just knock over a bank or something, you won't usually get locked up with the sex offenders. It's the sex offenders that really get you. IMO, if we executed the sex offenders when they commit rape in prison (proving their guilt) and let the ones go that don't commit rape in prison (demonstrating more plausibility of innocence), we'd have better luck with the problem. Anyway, the point is, it depends entirely on what prison you're sent to. What prison did Kevin go to? He certainly did federal time, but there's still variety in the federal prisons as well.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Heh, you just proved Godwin's Law. You lose.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
As can "ten questions". My point though is that if our current arbitrary limit hinders our ability to ask quick funny questions, we should pick a new arbitrary limit. If doesn't need to be perfect, only better.
If we had more granular voting we could just send the whole list of posts over 4.5 and ask people to answer for a reasonable period of time.
On the subject of game theory and such... I've got a fun party game I mean to try. You get a small group of people and auction off a dollar. The catch is that you get the winning bid (of course) *and* the second bid. You start the bidding at a penny. As long as two bids are made before someone says the obvious "there's no way to win except not to play," the game continues. Nobody wants to be the second bidder because you pay out and get nothing, so you bid again, and so on.
There's a chance of a consortium bidding early on, agreeing to stop bidding and split the dollar after paying the two bids. But there's an opportunity for a wrecker here to push the bid up past fifty cents at which point it's a guaranteed failure for someone. And then as it approaches a dollar and people realize that even the winner is going to lose in the end. Will someone be mature enough to take a small loss to keep it from going out of control?
I was responsible for securing the CERT network from 1998 until 2001. I was made fully aware of all security incidents relating to the network up until that point. I know personally everyone who was responsible for maintaining the CERT network before (and after) me. To my knowledge the CERT network has never been compromised. I suspect Kevin compromised a network close to the CERT network (as there were quite few university machines that wouldn't have been secured at the time).
Kevin:
Well, I was searching for some pr0n last night, and found some really freaky shit. Remember, the most rique thing we had before the internet was ascii pr0n. Its like there is nothing left to the imagination anymore.
But, I have no complaints. By the way, Peter Townsend is a sick fuck.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
As you know, security is not a product that can be purchased off the shelf, but consists of policies, people, processes, and technology.
And that's thing to remember. It's not just whether you're running *NIX or Win*, but a host of other things. It's not about stylishly breaking in from some remote location through 80 different redirectors - and l33tly downloading all the data and breaking the web site.
Physical security. Information policies. Knowledgable administrators. Good solid tech.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
shouldn't post until they're old enough to vote, JFC.
As someone who's dealt with computers almost their entire life, I've always been bowled over by the events in this case. Kevin was crucified because of the events surrounding him and the government's fear of oncoming technologies. A tragedy like this drives home the fact that what people do on the net is REAL. Things that happen on the internet can really hurt you, even ruin your life. All told, I really just wanted to post up my feelings after reading through the interview above.
Good to see you finally set the record straight in your own words.
I remember reading the book Cyberpunk (think I still have a copy at home) and still remember the story in it about your handcuff key in your wallet. Of course Markoff loved to blubber on and on about how you were fat and pimply and other such crap.
Was an interesting story and you were not the only one in it who was totally mis-represented (btw)...
I can sort of understand saying that my face was plastered on the front of a book, along with Brian (dis.org, attrition/~jericho and site here detailing http://www.attrition.org/shame/) and slandered as well in several other books. Though nothing to your extent.
Anyway, I am sure it is nice to have a public forum like this to be able to set the record straight.
Cheers..
Eight months of solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. I've been unemployed for the last four months. The loss of contact with the people at work was crushing. I'm embarassed to go out durring the day and all interaction with strangers brings on a sense of guilt. My feeling of loss of contact are nothing next to being denied ALL contact with others. It's difficult to imagine a harsher punishment except for a longer confinement. As he was held without charges his period of confinement was unknown and that only makes it worse. He deserved to be punished but no one deserves that. Execution is kinder.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
"Thank you for calling NORAD. To launch a nuclear strike against Russia, press 1. To launch a nuclear strike against Iraq, press 2. To launch a nuclear strike against North Korea, press 3. To launch a nuclear strike against France, press 4. To hear these options again, press 5."
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
Make sure that the account numbers are clearly legible, along with your name, address, social security number and anything else that might be useful. Otherwise we just don't believe you wil^H^H^H were ripped off.
-Thanks in advance.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
He was able to avoid all the spam the rest of us have had to put up with
Thoreau was a fool, and if you believe what you wrote, you are a fool as well.
Kevin, how are your typing skills after all these years? Considering the length and detail of your responses you must still have it. Have you been using typewriters all this time to maintain your typing abilities?
Zoot!
At least that is what they'd say if you left the gate open to a pond on your property on a hot summer day.
The government was acting ultra vires in an extreme fashion.
Exactly. I have listened to his radio show which can be quite good. I already know he has a sense of humor and well adjusted to his current life. I would rather something of a slightly more technical/social engineering slant would be asked from a group of self-labeled nerds/geeks. Please mod the parent up.
Fnord.sig
Before I get into this comment, I want to say that I know nothing about the legal aspects of Kevin Mitnick's case, except what he has written in the interview above. I simply want to provide the Slashdot reader with some context on some of Kevin Mitnick's statements.
First, it is important to understand the plea bargaining process. A guilty plea is just that: an admission that one committed the crime of which one is accused. Once that admission of guilt is made, defenses to the commission of the crime are no longer available. For example, Kevin states that the search warrant which the police used to search his home at the time of his arrest was blank. Well, once Kevin plead guilty, the sufficiency of the warrant was no longer an issue. If he wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the search, he could not have plead guilty (well, technically he could challenge first and then offer a guilty plea if he lost, but few prosecutors would take a plea in that situation).
In addition, at the time when he plead guilty, he plead guilty to the crime, not the damages, and thus was exposed to receiving a sentence for whatever damages the prosecutor could prove by a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt) at the time of sentencing. Unfortunately for Kevin, since his sentencing the law has changed and the Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot be sentenced for, e.g., causing $300 million in damages unless the defendant plead guilty to that specific amount.
Second, he states that he was held in federal detention for four and one half years (jargon note: detention generally refers to pre-trial confinement; incarceration generally refers to what happens after conviction). Being held for that amount of time is not common, but it is also not necessarily unconstitutional. When a defendant is ajudged a threat to the community, the defendant can be held without bail for as long as it takes to resolve the case. I have seen a pre-trial detention of almost 3.5 years for a defendant who was considered to be a dangerous and violent drug dealer. I grant that multiple-year pre-trial detention is rare, but it can be justified by a great risk of harm if the defendant is released. Of course, keep in mind that the question of pre-trial detention is a matter of proof. Kevin's defense attorney (should have)* had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence to rebut the prosecution on the point of Kevin's dangerousness. The other point to keep in mind is that sometimes a defendant can be rendered not dangerous through monitoring and certain activity restrictions. It is possible that Kevin could have been released under some set of conditions, but that those conditions were so difficult to implement as to be infeasible.
*I note "should have" because Kevin claims that he was held without a bail hearing. I know nothing about that situation, so I can't definitively say that Kevin acutally had an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's evidence of his dangerousness.
Third, on a more psychological note, Kevin admits that he committed the crime, then he says that his punishment was unfair. If he had refused to plead guilty and tried his case, he might have received more punishment from a jury. This is the calculus that criminal defendants must make when deciding to plead guilty or not. Kevin might be right; he might have been treated unjustly and punished too harshly. But ask yourself: Why would anyone who believed that he had a better than 50/50 chance of beating the worst of the charges (or was convinced of his innocence) voluntarily take on any (significant) time in a federal penitentiary?
I have tried to limit the above comment to responding to direct statements made by Kevin in the interview. I am not, and none of my comment should be construed as, making any statement about Kevin as a person or a professional, what he has done, or the truth of his statements. I just wish to offer the Slashdot reader an interesting (I hope) perspective.
your not the only one who's suffered because of the corrupt, self-serving and irresponsible people who hold the reins of power. Two thirds of the world's people are currently starving or suffering in some way. Welcome to the world of the real. I can only hope good people like you, sir, can effect some positive change, otherwise I fear all hope is lost.
I guess you would know. :-)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Aww, if I knew I'd get modded up for posting on offtopic, I wouldn't have posted anonymously. No, I didn't cut and paste. =D
-Adam
Penetrations eh? - say, I didn't know you were on D-Block in Lompoc w/Kevin, sounds like his confinement wasn't that solitary after all!.
PG, you've done it again.
Kevin said: I'm the only person in United States history that was held without an initial bail hearing.
I don't know if I quite buy that one. Certainly with the war on Terra, that is no longer a unique distinction.
I don't think it's so "funny." This guy just gets out of prison and makes an off-handed joke about guessing somebody's password and I nearly crap my pants. The bottom line is that I quickly changed a couple of passwords after reading that!
See, he's already contributing to the betterment of society. Or at least helping me to not be so stupid.
Sincerely,
Sc077
Let's not forget the third option, that Mitnick and Markoff are BOTH jerks. There is no reason to assume one is better than the other. That goes for the Department of Justice, too. All THREE can be jerks, it is not a zero-sum game.
Also, Mitnick is by prior trade a con man, an expert in getting people to see things a certain way in order to manipulate them. His major tactic seems to be to provide true facts out of context. So every detail about press coverage and his criminal prosecution may be true (they're not) but may be presented in such a slanted way as to be falsehoods. Or, again, all sides could smell bad.
Mitnick sure hasn't mentioned suing, has he? Instead he chants "false and defamatory" in the hope they'll stick, rather than develop the facts. He also has two principle problems -- under the First Amendment, he's a public figure and would have to show actual malice (he appears aware of this). Also, what are his damages? As a multiple felon -- this was not his first time in lockup -- and career computer trespasser (or whatever you want to call it), his would have trouble establishing much of anything. These sorts of problems with suing for libel are undeniably unfortunate for the victims of the press. The alternative, the reasoning goes, is a press so cowed by threats of lawsuits that they'd not push the envelope on things like the Pentagon Papers and Watergate and perhaps now the NASA Columbia investigation. Even a meritless libel suit costs a fortune to defend. It's also sadly true some reporters abuse this umbrella out of plain old laziness.
Frankly, the newspapers print falsehoods every single day. And IMHO the august NYT -- or more to the point, two particular NYT reporters given too much latitude -- really did a number on Wen Ho Lee. But the papers also prints many truths, and the NYT prints more of them on compelling topics than most. We must not let our guard down against the lies, not raise our suspicions so high that we lose the truth.
No Shit!
The guy's named 'Kevin' for fucks sake! hahaha.
oh for the web of 1995
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, the government is held to the Constitution, in fact they are the ONLY one bound by it. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights, to prevent government overreaching. And while there are some very strange things in the Mitnick case, the scale of his punishment is not one of them. Teenagers who get busted with a few grams of crack get more time.
For example:
Mitnick has little if any remorse. He can't even acknowledge his crimes without launching into a tirade about his victimhood. This is a guy who kept committing the same kinds of offenses despite getting caught, prosecuted, and punished TWICE. This was the single largest factor in the length of his time in detention and the record long denial of bail.
Mitnick vs. Markoff
I'm trying to come up some understanding of why Markoff would want to treat Mitnick in the manner that Mitnick says he was treated. I feel like I already know that Mitnick was treated poorly by the government, and that the punishment didn't fit the crime. What is more interesting is the attitude the two main characters of this story have towards each other.
Anyways, to the point I was trying to make. I was trying to dig up some of the articles Mitnick was referencing in his response. I ran across Mitnick's site, and Markoff's site.
It basically comes down to who's word to you trust, a convicted felon, or a reporter whos job it is to report the truth.
Here is Mitnick and Markoff battling it out on each other's web pages: http://www.takedown.com/bio/index.
html and http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-release.html
[Round One]
Mitnick re 1994 NYT article:
Mr. Markoff labeled me, without justification, reason, or supporting evidence, as "cyberspace's most wanted," and as "one of the nation's most wanted computer criminals."
Markoff:
1981 Mitnick arrested for burglary.
1982 Mitnick gets 1 year probation.
1982 Mitnick arrested for hacking USC computers. 6 Months juvenile prison.
1987 Mitnick arrested. 3 years probation.
1988 Mitnick arrested. Convicted felony. 1 year sentence.
1994 $1Mil reward issued by CA DMV for Mitnick's arrest.
[Round Two]
Mitnick re 1994 NYT article:
" But to suggest without reason or proof, as did Mr. Markoff and the prosecutors in this case, that I had committed any type of fraud whatsoever, is simply untrue, and unsupported by the evidence.
Markoff:
1989 "Kevin pleaded guilty to one count of computer fraud and one count of possessing illegal long-distance access codes. "
Anyways, now that Mitnick is out, what else is there? How about these other computer intrusion cases at the department of
justice.
how about trashing the mod cap as sugested above and make everyone mods for the story. This is the way to make sure that everyone who cares about the interview gets the questions they want heard.
And how many spam emails would be sitting in his inbox?
They really should set up some other system then the moderation to decide what questions can be answered.
For one thing, the vast majority of people have no say, which is kind of annoying.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yes - that's it, remove the moderation cap so that the score is basically a vote. Cripes, why didn't anybody think of that before? Mr Malda, please take note...
Interesting question.
I'd assume that "suing Markoff" would be interpreted as benefiting from Markoff's crimes, not Mitnick's...
For example, If you are arrested, are beat up by a cop, and are then convicted of the original crime, that doesn't preclude you from suing the cop and the police department for their unlawful actions.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
That's so tasteless it's funny! Well done. :)
that's what i want to know.
Totally agreed, I wanted to see Kevin being asked the question about jail - how was it, is it like the movies, did you feel unsafe...
etc etc etc
> I was never accused of abusing a position of trust, profiting from any illegal activity
...seems to conflict with...
> On one occasion, I was challenged by a friend of mine to get his Sprint Foncard number. He said he would buy me dinner if I could get it. I couldn't pass up a good meal so I phoned customer service
Granted, a harmless example, but seems to be abusing someone's trust. I guess one person's profitibility is another person's free lunch.No, #3 was "he tried , and the lawyer & judge told him "the government can't get sued for doing its job." The writer was apparently thinking immunity, not lack of merit. I don't know what "the third was probably just a judge trying to adapt to the unknown" meant.
The misdeeds of others: I was referring to Mitnick's whine about how other instances of gov't misconduct (a judge denying bail or a prosector making charging or plea bargain decisions) in cases other than his (e.g., "folks have been held w/o bail hearings for centuries") are irrelevant. This sort of disparate treatment is generally not governmental misconduct. Mitnick may be correct to be the only recorded case of a defendant denied a bail hearing, except for this novel "illegal enemy combatant" stuff we have now, and I think that's pretty disturbing though not actionable. He also mutters something about an invalid search warrant being used' but even if he's correct, what's his injury? Getting caught? Did he even use the alleged defect to exclude evidence?
It's also pretty damn hard to sue a judge; they have nearly absolute immunity, for fear they'd otherwise be unable to do their jobs. Believe me, nearly every convict thinks he got screwed by the judge. The court of appeals is supposed to keep the trial judge in line. Mitnick made MANY appeals to the 9th Circuit without success -- is he going to sue them, too?
. . . are any of them HIRING?!?!?!
xScruffx
Was your life ruined when you lost your credit card? Should the life of the man who took it be ruined as well?
Punishments should be in proportion to the crime
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Did anyone ask about Alias? I can't believe no one asked about Alias...
Kevin would need to prove beyond a resonable doubt that Markoff knew what he was printing was false. Absolutly false. Not iffy. Not unproven. False. Proving that would be extreemly difficult.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I watched his First Internet Access since 1995, on the ScreenSavers tv show. ;)
He certainly did not surf for pr0n...
You obviously haven't seen his girlfriend...
First of all, It's great to have you back Kevin.
:)
Further, I was left wondering about 2 things:
1 At what point did you actually come up with the idea to use IP-spoofing to do an attack on Tsutumo Shimomura? As has as I know there were yet no serious attacks registered which used IP-spoofing. So what caused you to come up with that attack (using IP-spoofing as I said
2 What role did the Netherlands play in this entire situation? I read that the Netherlands had a law not finding hacking an actual crime. So, what was their influence in the whole thing?
if you decide to answer all this, thanks in advance!
roeles
True; he never earned trust which he could have abused.
It's really difficult to try to admire someone for being a thief, liar, and fraud. The FBI did an admirable job tracking Mitnick down and locking him up, and one can only hope that they will prosecute similar criminals with the same vigor. The world will be a better place through their efforts.
I'm so tired of reading so much crap about the New York Times and their horrible reporting practices that I wish people would outright boycott them. The NY Times routinely prints news that is slander or libel without any regard to the truth. The printing of this libel agains Kevin is just one out of many in recent memory. Please stop reading it. Please stop submitting stories from that rag. Find some other source to quote.
My name fits again.
I just came across this: " Additionally, pursuant to the plea agreement with the government, Mitnick has agreed that any profits he makes on films or books that are based on his criminal activity will be assigned to the victims of his crimes for a period of seven years following his release from prison." at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mitnick .htm
That's not quite true. If Mitnik sued Markoff, it would be in civil court. The requirements for judgement to the plaintiff in civil court are much more flexible than in criminal court. The phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt' only applies to criminal court.
Why do you guys made and interview to this piece of shit? It's a waste of time, space and energy.
die Kevin, you're a piece of inmature lamer
In the publishing world a writer who dose a poor job is called a hack. In reporting opinions, conjecture and fiction as fact the reporter is labled a hack.
So the irony is Keven became a famous hacker becouse of annother hacker.
I don't actually exist.
He hacked into an alien space craft triggered it's time phase system so it would crash in the past.
He's the reason certion presedents have won office (to avoid political fighting I'm not naming anyone just pick someone you think shouldn't have won.)
He's responsable for Coke II.
He's the insperation for Sereal Experement Lain... he wrote IPv6 and as soon as we switch to it he'll be god.
I don't actually exist.
...what Kevin Mitnick's Slashdot account is?
Hey Kevin,
While what you've done in the past is illegal, there are now many free software projects that give you ample ability to read source code and find exploits. Consider the Free BSD project, who's volunteers spend the bulk of their time reading source code to find exploits.
I suspect that your talents would be appreciated with projects like these, and you'd maintain yourself as an upstanding citizen. Or for that matter, netizen, as the case may becoming.
In regards to PhysicsGenius's question, what's it feel like when YBHT. HAND.?
Just go to Vegas and see how many former card sharks now are security consultant for the very casinos they made money from.
---
I brew therefore I am
First you claim that all killing is bad. Then Saddam's killing of Iraqis everyday through violence and starvation is o.k.
First all war is bad then ask why "we are not going to attack them"? Well because they have Nuclear weapons already! Nuclear war in Korea would kill too many people for us to consider it. It's too late! That and the Russians are only brutalizing Chechens and would stop if the West had the backbone to push them hard on it. War would not be needed, only Bush and the EU to actually care about human rights. Don't hold your breath.
Americans are willing to die to liberate the people of Iraq and bring peace and democracy to the poor people there, including the Shiites and Kurds killed and starved daily by Saddam. And you are attacking them for daring to interfere with Saddam's Stalinist regime.
I don't trust Bush, despise Ashcroft, and I hate war, but a short war is a small price to bring freedoms and US-UN guided reconstuction to Iraq. Where would you rather live now UN-administered Bosnia (aiming to get in the EU someday), transitionally-governed Afghanistan (where women can work and drive again(unlike Saudi Arabia)), or Saddam-controlled Iraq? Now let's make the Iraq like the first (or at least 2nd). If George W. loots some oil and extends America's sphere of influence as a side effect, well that too is an acceptable price to pay. Or would you rather wet your pants and let Saddam keep killing innocent Iraqis because those "ragheads" aren't worth saving if Americans have to die to do it and can't handle democracy anyway?
How many protesters hate war and how many think that non-Americans aren't worth liberating? Look at your own prejudices.
But hey... that was an useful one... I bought loads of pr0n with that paypal account!!!
Science reporter Gina Kolata has been widely accused of poor reporting, bias and using industry shills in her "objective" reports. See more information here (down at the bottom) and start googling further from there.
And here's an extremely sobering collection of reports on NYT problematic journalism.
One simple rule for its versus it's
Kevin,
:)
I have always been an addict of computers since I began in working with them in my dad's business while in 2nd grade, and I've always yearned for more knowledge. Over the last year, I've become intrigued with network administration, and although I use the equipment, software, and such, I believe that I'd gain quite a vast amount of knowledge if I better knew the innerworkings of systems, networks, etc. I would never engage in illegal activities (because I clearly see the negative result as noted in your responses), and I also don't see any harm in legal/consensual hacking. I personally believe that this kind of legal vast knowledge about exploits and how to use and fix them is extremely beneficial to computer programmers, administrators, and power users in the sense that it will provide them with sufficient knowledge for any high-powered CS-related job imaginable.
I was wondering if you could give any tips, pointers, advice, and other helpful comments on people like me who want to learn *legally* but who don't know where to start and where to *not* start (obviously, illegal hacking is first on that list). I hope to pursue a career in computing and to attend an elite computer-related college, so I am quite sure that I will learn a great deal there, but all preliminary knowledge is also a great resource to have stored away.
Any info would be appreciated.
(Thank you for taking the time out to answer those questions above. They were very helpful, as well. Good luck with your new life.
Especially on /. which is a collection of people who probably don't give a shit about you because they have their own opinions, a less confrontational approach is more effective when trying to change people's perceptions. I'm actually posting this more to score points with others than change your mind (because this is the game of slashdot! like the game of life but without spinners or playing pieces.) It's fun that way.
The fact is that the comment actually was funny, and Kevin obviously found it amusing; Since the /. readership AND the /. editorship found it amusing it was clearly reasonable to include it.
As you have noticed it is possible for interviewees to answer more than ten questions.
Finally, I'm sorry that it "annoys" you that some "truly important question" was dropped to make room for that question, but who cares? And who decides what's truly important? Do you really think that Kevin is going to tell us something new and magical that we didn't already know? No, he's just answering our curiosity. One element of curiosity is how he would respond to the joke, which helps us get to know him better, which is what the interview is for, really. If we truly want to know something about his moral fiber, an interview will not tell us; if we want to know something about security, we can hire him; if we want to know in-depth details about him, we can buy his damn book.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The moderation cap should do the same thing going negative, but give half-votes at -1 and quarter votes at -2.
Alternatively you can charge people more votes to up or downvote a comment once it reaches a high enough or low enough score.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Did you ever play Rolemaster?
Reminds me a lot of their skill system.
I played rollmaster in the form of MERP. 120+ on missile weapons vs. large creatures owns.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
yeah, i still have a stack of Rolemaster books. I seldom get to play anymore, but their rules have strongly influenced my thinking towards gaming and scoring systems.
;) You should see some of the expanded weapons tables in Arms Law. You'd love it. I used to spend as much time reading the lists and fantasizing over the damage I could do as I did playing.
120+ on missile weapons vs. large creatures owns
I don't have to prove I never slept with a sheep!! And you can't prove I did!!! ( I destroyed that tape! ) But more on topic...
1. Is it okay to sleep with a cloned sheep since it isn't really a sheep?
2. What is the best way to sleep with a sheep? Do you either put its hind legs inside your boots to keep it from runing away, or do you face it towards a high cliff so it pushes back harder?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Assuming that I was one of those people you were talking about, how would one go about verifying this? And how would one change this?
This got me thinking. Why don't we focus on educating our judges and congressmens for a while? And by that I mean, giving them somekind of free adhoc technical education. Next time one of us needs to fill up a classroom, or fill up a technical conference, we could send a free (non-transferable) complimentary ticket to our nearest judge or congress representative.
Many of them wouldn't have the time to go, but who knows, if they get flooded with enough legitimate offers -- some might. Hell, we could even extend this offer to their immediate family members and immediate staff members.
There is no excuse for the way you were treated, but for the sake of argument -- if I catch someone breaking in and stealing my stereo. It doesn't matter if the guy couldn't make it out of my house and it does not matter if he couldn't make me suffer that loss. It only matters that the guy had my stereo in his hands while he was trying to get away.
It's been interesting to observe how much good press Kevin Mitnick's return to the Internet has been getting. It makes me realize that the media's treatment of hacking and hackers has changed a lot in the last year or so. I attribute this to the passage of DCMA.
:-)
To explain this I use the example of water in my home state of California. 85% if all water in California is used for agriculture. In order to expand the business of agriculture in CA it takes more water. Building dams to get the water would not be profitable for an agricultural business. So in order to make more money agricultural businesses need to convince the people of California (who use 15% of the water) to build them a dam or two.
This is easy to do, just create a "water shortage." For years the largest newspaper in the largest city in California was owned by a family that also owned a lot of farmland and potential farmland, if they could get water for it. The Los Angeles Times could always be relied upon to scare their readers into voting for more dams whenever it was desired, by publishing stories about how LA was "running out of water." Then a local or state bond issue for another dam or two would be proposed. It would pass, thanks to the yes votes from the readers of the LA Times. Once the bond issue was passed, but before the dams were built, the stories in the Times, and the "water shortage," would go away.
Getting back to the computer industry, many news outlets are owned by people who stand to make money by DCMA. Did legislators get voted out of office for voting for DCMA? Not that I know of. At the time there was much fear of hackers around, and the DCMA was portrayed as somehow making computers safer. Are computers much safer than they were before DCMA was passed? Has hacking decreased significantly in the last year or so? I doubt it, but the stories are gone from the mainstream media.
The campaign of fear has done it's job and is no longer necessary. So Kevin Mitnik can be an OK guy now in the mainstream news media. When DCMA has been fully exploited, and those who had it passed come looking for more laws to exploit, then you will see scare stories about hackers again in the mainstream news media. Hey, if you don't believe me, just watch Chinatown!
http://www.filmsite.org/chin.html
Actually. If we lock up people based how much damage they did, then it would be to punish. If we locked them up based on how much damage we think they could do, then it would be to prevent.
The penal system perhaps was designed to restitute. But it certainly has proven a failure. The penal system is hoped to prevent. But crime persists. If the penal system punishes, it produces nothing.
If we would have any hope left of producing any kind of beneficial product from the penal system, it would be to understand this one philosophy...
As long as the total benefit to the criminal of the crime is remotely in the ballpark of the general direction of equivalent value as the consequence, the crime is worth it. The important factor to remember here is that the "benefit" is [1] personal to the criminal [2] not limited to tangible materialistic properties. If we understand this, then we will understand that "crime" is unbound as is evil, good or peace, and hence in THEORY is undefined. They are defined defacto by the authorities based upon common beliefs. But it appears that these common beliefs shift and change with the tide of changing demographics. Chaos theory in action. Evidence Australia.
So to say Society is to blame or not to blame, is meaningless. Mitnik just needed parents that were more attentive... so they could smack him a good one when he was bad. Er... figuratively speaking ofcourse.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp