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)
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Damn, he's good.
Free Kevin as in Beer?
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.
There was a good interview of Kevin Mitnick in the third release by "The Broken".
He is a reasonable sounding guy, and I think in the interview with "The Broken" sort of dispells some of the myths that were started about him in the book "Cyberpunk" by Katie Hafner and John Markoff.
I read that book when I was in 6th grade and I was totally blow away. I got a modem and started war dialing and memorizing "at" commands just so I could try and be a badass like Kevin Mitnick.
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
"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.
Why would one need to admire him in order to be outraged by the rights he was denied?
I want certain rights for everyone, including people I hate.