Slashdot Mirror
CNN Interviews Kevin Mitnick
phantom writes to tell us that a couple of days ago Kevin Mitnick gave an interview to CNN further deconstructing his past exploits and discussing his current activities.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
hahahahaha oh that's rich.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Why is it that people get so worked up over Mitnick?
He was a dick to a bunch of people, he got in trouble, he spent some time in jail. Okay, that sucks for him, but why does everyone drool over him?
Woz was an electronic prankster, but he wasn't a jerk, and he *created things* instead of just making people unhappy. I could see being a Woz fan, but waving a "Kevin" flag is just weird.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Truth is, Kevin Mitnick has become a poster boy for hackers, but he was by no means the most "dangerous" or the most skilled by any means. Most famous yes, most "powerful," no.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Yeah, that whole "reading" thing must be a bit beyond you, eh?
Flooding in eastern states leaves 10 dead has been on CNN.com's front page since Sunday.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
granparent post was right, he's just a dick
the kind of people who admire criminals do so for one overriding reason: for all of their other failures, criminals do have courage
so if you admire kevin mitnick, you admire him because he has the balls to do what you do not
meanwhile if you don't admire kevin mitnick, then good for you: you probably have a modicum of courage about your character, without the failures of character mitnick has/ had
as for his prosecution, well if that's what gets you fired up, then you aren't really interested in kevin mitnick at all, you are interested in law enforcement and prosecution and rights
those who admire kevin mitnick only do so because they are spineless themselves, and are drawn to anyone who shows initiative, while anyone with initiative in themselves find nothing attractive about mitnick at all, and could care less
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"See the difference?"
I saw a difference before your post, but now i'm just confused. That's a pretty crazy leap you made to get to your conclusion.
Lets try and make things simpler and see where we end up?
Copying is illegal?
No, distribution is illegal. Therefore it wasn't anything to do with copyright infringement, so both you and the GP are misguided.
Copying files after breaking into a network is stealing?
No that's just copying files after breaking into a network, a different crime i would imagine (it may be theft but not in the sense that your post makes it out to be).
Breaking into a network breaks various laws, copying files after breaking into a network *is* probably against some law or another but its not 'stealing' in a reasonable sense i.e you haven't taken something away from the victim. Although now that i think about it reasonable people will say that if someone copies some private file they have taken something (data) that's not theirs to take, so i guess as usual nothing is simple.
Could it be something else?
Unauthorised copying?
Unauthorised access?
Or perhaps copying data that you gain access to illegally is just a part of any overall legislation that deals with computer crime.
Conclusion
I really don't know.
But it's probably not so 'simple' as your post makes it out to be (in its roundabout way).
Copying files is not illegal in the copyright sense.
Copying files after breaking into a machine/network is undoubtably against the law in most countries.
It may be deemed theft, but not in the sense that you stole a cow or car. More like theft of trade secrets (is there such a thing?).
The End.
That's just about the most idiotic generalization I've ever read, bar SCO propaganda. I'm quite confident to hand you this compliment even if I don't really know who this Kevin guy is. Have you any idea how many reasons one can have to admire someone? Being spineless seems like a very very distant reason to me. I don't know what it is that bugs you about this Kevin or his fan club, but just reading the article tells me there could be quite a lot to admire regardless of what people think he stands for.
Admiration does not have to be coupled to the whole spectrum of human foibles and weaknesses. You can admire someone's guts even without having actually looked at his innards. You can hate someone's guts and equally admire him for it, etc etc etc...
I think there's even cause to admire this guy just by the emotions he seems to evoke in total - (barely saved my karma there)...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
it's an excellent article which puts mitnick, markoff and shimomura in their proper light.
Yeah, good thing our wonderful government would never imprison its own citizens without charge or trial.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.