mitnick-digest Thursday, September 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 163 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:13:32 -0500 From: "poiSiNous" Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack >I'm no anarchist, and I don't necessarily condone anything illegal. But >there is ALWAYS room for non-violent civil disobedience... especially when >it comes to constitutional issues. I'm sure there was negative press about >the Boston Tea Party, too... but it sure as hell got the word out. Civil >disobediance has a respected place in our history. kevin *IS* involved in a LEGAL battle and I don't particularly think any form of illegal action (which you say you do not condone YET there is room for it ..righto) serves any perpose in a legal battle what so ever. As disturbing as it may be, the law is the law, no matter how much you or I may disagree with it. As far as Non-Violent Civil Disobediance goes... sure protests against the Viet Nam war and the like are completely understandable... of course there was not ONE person in a prison cell whose life is dependant on responsible LEGAL action not self condoned or self proclaimed "Non Violent Civil Disobediance". I am being the devil's advocate here, because sure, when I was younger I would have been *for* the hacks and probally participating in various *Civil Dosobediance*, and it got me...oh, jail time. As I got older, the sad fact exploded in my face... this is not a free society nor do I particualrly think it is a democracy for that matter... so legalities are legalities, and until the *average citizen can write the laws, unfortunately "we the people" (barf) have to obey them ... and untill Kevin's legal troubles are in his past... we have to be extremely careful about the manner we spread the word. > >-Ray > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:25:46 -0600 From: Ray Randolph Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack At 12:13 PM 9/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >kevin *IS* involved in a LEGAL battle and I don't particularly think any >form of illegal action (which you say you do not condone YET there is room >for it ..righto) serves any perpose in a legal battle what so ever. I'm NOT in the legal battle. Neither are you. Any actions that I take part in, or that anyone other than Kevin or those "in active concert" with Kevin take part in, are absolutely irrelevant in Kevin's case. They cannot be used in Kevin's trial. The federal rules of evidence restrict it from becoming an issue at all in his prosecution under Article 4, Rule 402. If you're just here to help Kevin with the legal battle, then put away your bumperstickers and go home. Because those bumperstickers won't make a whit of difference to the judge or the jury. In other words, about all you can do to help in the courtroom is raise money for him. There's an issue here that's bigger than just getting Kevin off the hook. We want to educate people for a reason, I assume... and that reason is MORE than just getting money from them and getting them to help Kevin. It's to shed light on an injustice, no? > As >disturbing as it may be, the law is the law, no matter how much you or I may >disagree with it. Sure... you bet. That's why they crucified Christ and excommunicated Copernicus and Luther, and pronounced Washington and Franklin rebels. That's why they arrested Ghandi and 34,000 of his followers and why they arrested Martin Luther King. Because all those men.... every last one of them, broke the law. And the law is the law right? From the perspective of the lawmakers, the law should never be broken. What I think is larger than your one-man-in-a-cell are the 6th Amendment implications to *the rest of us*. Kevin's been mistreated, but rising up in his defense is less about saving Kevins butt and more about protecting ourselves, and the rights of every American. It's a patriotic battle over the 6th Amendment, over abuses of the legal system, abuses of power, exploitation of men by the government for propoganda purposes, and victimization of a specific man, who happens to be part of a mix that's much larger than himself. > I am being the devil's advocate >here, because sure, when I was younger I would have been *for* the hacks and >probally participating in various *Civil Dosobediance*, and it got me...oh, >jail time. "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." -Henry David Thoreau > As I got older, the sad fact exploded in my face... this is not a >free society nor do I particualrly think it is a democracy for that >matter. It is what we allow it to be through our action or inaction. >.. so legalities are legalities, and until the *average citizen can >write the laws, unfortunately "we the people" (barf) have to obey them ... I'm *damned glad* those behind the American Revolution didn't feel the same way you do. 800 million residents of India are glad that Ghandi and his followers didn't feel the way you do. >and untill Kevin's legal troubles are in his past... we have to be extremely >careful about the manner we spread the word. No we don't. We are our own men. We need to be aware of how we appear to the press. That's a good idea, because good press is our friend. But that doesn't rule out civil disobedience in any way. Although if the press is already completely biased (which they appear to be) then maybe we're wasting our time worrying about them. I should further explain that I'm not saying that Civil Disobedience is *THE* way to approach this. It's only *A* way that some have apparently chosen, and I can support without losing any sleep. Personally, I'll probably stick to talking to people, making phone calls, writing letters, and other things of that nature. The point of my previous message was that HFG, ultimately, brought more awareness to this issue. For that I commend them. If anything, I wish their hack had been less about themselves and more about Kevin. I would've loved to have seen a pure "free kevin and here's why" style page. - -Ray - -- "This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard Company. The text is provided for informational purposes only. It is supplied without warranty of any kind." M. Ray Randolph -- IT Solutions Specialist Phone -- (970)898-7909 Hewlett Packard Fort Collins, Colorado ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:03:38 EDT From: JAKade@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: Hello, Jon. Thanks for your e-mail. I disagree with almost all of your points. I should also point out that my column is exactly that--a column and has never been intended as an "objective" news piece. Your "corrections" are not really corrections, but simply disagreements with my point of view. However, if you feel you must share, send a 200-word letter to the editor to "editor@nashscene.com" and we may run it in our next edition under "Letters to the Editor." Hackers violate the rights and freedoms of innocent people when they steal their resources/Web space. If they truly wanted to help Kevin Mitnick, I truly believe they'd do it through the legal system. And maybe someday someone will. If a self-described "hacker" decides to do such a thing, perhaps my opinion and lack of respect for them will change. Regards, James He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his beliefs. Shameful. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:43:38 -0400 From: Kenneth Lo Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack JAKade@aol.com wrote: > > The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: > > > He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his > beliefs. Shameful. That Nashscene artice is "pretty" biased, and provoking, too I must say. But Jakade, how did you put it in your email? I mean, his response sound like a) you're totally wrong about facts/corrections, which I doubted or b) he just ignoring you. I was thinking about write a letter to him, it would be nice if you can pass along your original email that sent to him. - -- klops ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:00:48 -0700 From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On 04:03 PM 9/24/98 -0400, I personally witnessed JAKade@aol.com jumping up to say: >The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: [...] >He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his >beliefs. Shameful. But he has a valid point. Stealing people's resources and web space *is* a violation of their rights and freedoms, and if those people want to help Kevin Mitnick they *should* be doing so through appropriate and *legal* channels. Several of us on the list said effectively the same thing. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Caliban Tiresias Darklock | "I'm not sorry or Darklock Communications | ashamed of who I PGP Key AD21EE50 at | really am." FREE KEVIN MITNICK! | - Charles Manson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:23:14 -0500 From: "poiSiNous" Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack <<<>>> Which was my point. 'nuff said.... next. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:33:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: % >The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: % [...] % >He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his % >beliefs. Shameful. % % But he has a valid point. Stealing people's resources and web space *is* a % violation of their rights and freedoms, and if those people want to help % Kevin Mitnick they *should* be doing so through appropriate and *legal* % channels. Several of us on the list said effectively the same thing. Err... no. What these attacks do, strictly, is add data to someone else's machine and move some files around -- e.g., replacing your index.html with my index.html. So what they're doing is "causing unwanted operation" -- which I'm pretty sure is illegal -- or at least some sort of metaphorical trespassing, but is in different ethical territory than stealing or destroying. It's perhaps similar to standing in front of a Nike billboard or storefront with signs protesting their policies. Of course, HFG did it in a rather ineffective way (the people we need to reach are unlikely to Use The Source), but nevertheless their action was a nonviolent and nondestructive protest. It's ethically dubious to state that the NYT's "right" to have a web page up with stuff it wants all the time outweighs HFG's "right" to speak out about the NYT's (and the [media in general]'s) abuse of Kevin and hackers in general some of the time. I, for one, cheer on general principle when the little guy coopts the big guy's name recognition and pokes a hole in the uniformity of the media. Keep in mind that I said "ethically", not "legally", dubious. The two are not the same, and in the eyes of the law HFG is unambiguously a den of Bad Guys. The law, unfortunately, does not always coincide with moral truth. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:00:04 -0700 From: koolwip Subject: [mitnick] i'm gay I fuck sheep - ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I will not eat any animal that has ever been a cartoon character." --Dave Lister ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:59:21 EDT From: BadGirlnLA@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] I'm As Mad As Hell, etc. Sometimes you just don't feel like being nice to idiot reporters. There are many really good ones in the world, but this Nashville Scene "columnist" was just too stupid for me to give him any respect. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: James Hanback Message-Id: <199809241614.LAA05994@mail.nashscene.com> Subject: Re: Generalizing bullshitter To: BadGirlnLA@aol.com Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:14:41 -0500 (CDT) Hello, Tawny. Thank you for your e-mail. A couple of people have called me on that column. Certainly, you are welcome to talk to my editor. And, you are absolutely correct that I am not a reporter. I am a columnist. It is entirely my opinion that I put in that piece, and it is entirely my opinion that is supposed to go there. Also, you'll be happy to know that I have already written a new column mentioning the hacking community's dissatisfaction with a lack of fair trial for Mitnick (thanks to a much kinder individual who happens to be a hacker and pointed it out to me in a much calmer wayi--the way disagreements SHOULD be settled). You will also recall that I did point out a difference between the general term "hackers" and the group that infiltrated the Times. It's in the second paragraph. As you have every right to your opinion, so have I to mine. Regards, James > > James, that is what you are. You are not a reporter. > > Nobody on the internet who knows 1+1=2, calls all hackers, > "losers"! Only neophytes who do not do their research make such > stupid blanket remarks. > > I plan to discuss this matter further with your editor because you > are a disgrace to the reporters who do excellent writing. > > The New York Times has been steadily going downhill. Their have > lost their credibility. Any newspaper who hires someone like John > Markoff has to be second-rate. John Markoff was the main reason > the Times got hacked. He is a liar and a fraud. He has crossed > the line from responsible journalism to yellow-trash reporting, just > like you. Could that be the reason you are putting down hackers? > You see a strong resemblance between you and Markoff? > > Markoff spread lies about Kevin Mitnick. HFG was making a statement > to show their support for a hacker who has been in custody going > on four years without a bail hearing or a trial. And the chances are > great that his trial scheduled for January 19, 1999 will be continued > for the fourth or fifth time due to the fact that the government refuses > to turn over discovery that could fill two libraries. > > I suggest you do some background checking on Kevin Mitnick, > John Markoff, and HACKING, because you don't know what in the > hell you are talking about. > > If your constitutional rights were being taken away from you, we > would hear you screaming and yelling from coast to coast. Your > style of irresponsible reporting is dangerous and appalling. > > a very disappointed citizen and internet user! > tawny tracey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: You might be interested... Date: 98-09-24 17:38:35 EDT From: james@pulp-fiction.NashScene.com (James Hanback) To: teknowh0re@hotmail.com CC: BadGirlnLA@aol.com Hello. Because both of you expressed your concerns to me about the way hackers/hacking/and the Kevin Mitnick situation were portrayed in my column, I thought you might be interested to know that I have written a "Byte" for next week that speaks to those issues. I must admit that I made some factual errors (largely because I got my information from CNN and MSNBC). So as a show of good faith and because I believe both sides of an issue are important, I am sending this message to you. First, I clarified the blanket-sounding statements I made about hackers, their points of view, and their societal status. This was largely inspired by a current editorial at www.antionline.com. I pointed out that not all hackers do what HFG did to the New York Times. I cannot bring myself to condone the NYT defacing, but I apologize for the harsh words I used to describe those who performed it. Second, I clarified that HFG and other hacker groups are upset about Kevin Mitnick's lack of a fair trial to date (and, in my opinion, you are absolutely right to be upset about it-- no one should be denied due process). Third, I did not mention either of your e-mail addresses or names in this piece, because neither of you expressed a desire to be heard outside of the e-mails you sent me. Thanks again for both your comments. The column runs next Wednesday if you'd like to take a look. Regards, James Nashville Scene ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:16:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Macki Subject: [mitnick] HFG Hack's motives I said it before, now I'll repeat myself. HFG's motive clearly was not to help Kevin's situation. Writing FR33 K3V1N Y00 WH0R35 was just one of many things. Okay, sure they said other things about Kevin when they wrote about Markoff, etc. But especially if you read their source, their real goal here was publicity! Not for Kevin, but for themsleves, and they sure as hell got it. I think that more than anything they were using Kevin's cause to draw attention to their hack, while at the same time stating their opinions about the Mitnick case. And that's perfectly okay. One cannot presume to control how others express themselves. Following the hack I received this email: > I must say, by the way, that hacking the NYT website doesn't give > Mitnick > supporters a very good name... > > Dan Gillmor, Tech Columnist E-mail: dgillmor@sjmercury.com > San Jose Mercury News Voice: +1-408-920-5016 > 750 Ridder Park Drive Fax: +1-408-920-5917 > San Jose, CA 95190 www.mercurycenter.com/columnists/gillmor/ To which I replied, that their actions do not represent the sentiments of most Mitnick supporters that I know. But still, note he referred to MITNICK SUPPORTERS not Kevin Mitnick himself. Sure Kevin disapproves of hacks in his name, and he has every right to. But he may not exactly see the big picture from his stand point (and how could he?). People realize that they can't control how others express themselves, and I think on a whole (and where it counts most) that will be taken into consideration. Need I remind you that www.kevinmitnick.com jumped from ~20k hits a day to ~95k hits in ONE DAY and stayed at an average of ~50k hits that entire week. In our position any publicity is good publicity because it helps us get our message out. --Macki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:19:57 EDT From: NikkonX@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] i'm gay oh wow...kolwhip is gonna be pissed.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:24:55 -0700 From: The Bri Man Subject: Re: [mitnick] i'm gay At 18:00 9/24/98 , you wrote:
I fuck sheep
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
"I will not eat any animal that has ever been a cartoon character."
=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --Dave Lister

Aint this getting a bit old?  we all know someone is fuckin with kool's acct.  if you are the one doing it, then i would like to say "shame on you", and that this is getting old, and know that kool is NOT the one sending these bullshit messages.  quit your shit, whoever you are...


    *BRaiN KaNDy*
<!-- Free Kevin!  www.kevinminick.com= - --!>
<!-- Support RC5!  www.paranoid.org --!>
<!-- ICQ:  6635525 | AIM:  MSiE KaNDy --!> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:02:01 EDT From: JAKade@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack In a message dated 9/24/98 5:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, klops@bigfoot.com writes: > JAKade@aol.com wrote: > > > > The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: > > > > > > He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his > > beliefs. Shameful. > > That Nashscene artice is "pretty" biased, and provoking, too I must say. > But Jakade, how did you put it in your email? I mean, his response sound > like a) you're totally wrong about facts/corrections, which I doubted > or b) he just ignoring you. > > I was thinking about write a letter to him, it would be nice if you can > pass along your original email that sent to him. > > -- klops Erm....I already did =) Here it is again.... ________________________ Hm, how shall I say this...maybe you should take the advice you offered to hackers: get a life. I'm not a hacker myself, but I do very much empathize with them, especially Kevin Mitnick. Did you know you could very possibly run over someone and spend less time in jail than Kevin has in pre-trial detention? IMO, your article was very poorly written - and erroneous. Here are some examples: "On the day Kenneth Starr released his 445-page report on President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hm....there's a worthy thing to be doing. I'd rather read "31337" text than that presidential can of worms. a group of cyber-terrorists ("hackers" is too mild a term for them) This is a sad, pathetic attempt at emphasis. The depth of your ignorance simply and absolutely stuns me. They themselves ridiculed those who called them that on the hacked page, saying: broke into the New York Times Web site http://www.nytimes.com/. ) and replaced the newspaper's coverage of the unfolding Starr report with photos of naked women ^^^^^^^^^^^ Hardly. It's part of their logo, although I think it does severely hurt their cause. They wish to project a childish "haxor" image, however. Since you are a sysadmin, according to the article, I would have THOUGHT that you, of all people, would have checked the source. Had you checked the source, you would have found a well-written message. Another quote from source: and messages demanding the release of Kevin Mitnick, the hacker now in federal prison." A link to the Kevin Mitnick homepage and this text from the source: is a demand? Hardly. Secondly: "Markoff, along with the author of The Happy Hacker, Carolyn Meinel, was blasted on the counterfeit Times Web site by a group calling itself HFG (Hackers for Girlies)." I already addressed their true comments about Markoff. Concerning Meiner, they said this: and Thirdly: "Only last week, a 28-year-old hacker named Aaron Blosser was accused of diverting resources from more than 2,500 U.S. West computers, which usually answer telephones, to help him in a 350-year-old mathematical effort to find a new prime number. Blosser also reportedly stole information from those 2,500 computers, which he then distributed on the Internet. The FBI served him with a warrant last week, but so far no charges have been filed. Blosser told The Denver Post he made no money from his hacking. Does that make it less of a crime? Blosser never found a new prime number. He did however run up 10.63 years of computer processing time on the U.S. West equipment." Wow. He tried to further the cause of mathematics by finding a new prime number by diverting some of the power of these computers? I am appaled. Seriously, I think he should be allowed to continue the work WITH A GOVERNMENT GRANT. Fourthly: "In the 1980s, not long after the film War Games hit theaters, telephone companies were suddenly inundated with pay telephone repairs after people attempted to replicate Matthew Broderick's cheating of a pay phone with the popped top of a soda can. This year, at least one woman has fallen to her death while she and a partner were re-enacting Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's "flying from the bow of the ship" scene in Titanic." Have you ever heard the terms unity and coherence? These paragraphs deny all English (and common) sense. This is the fault of hackers? Hardly. It's the fault of MTV, and frankly, I don't believe many MTV addicts could run a computer, much less do any sort of hacking besides "AoL HaXoRiNg." Fifthly: "Hackers are losers. Proof? Examples? They're perpetual children in dire need of a hobby, a job, or a date. Proof? Examples? Their lapses of cyberspace ethics often lead to a lack of morality in everyday life, perhaps even to worse crimes, such as Kevin Mitnick's. What horrible crimes did Kevin commit? Do you know anything besides what John Markoff has drilled into your skull? Ted Kacinzsky was a science and math genius, after all." You're comparing a man who damaged nothing, stole nothing, damaged nothing, to a man who killed or injured over twenty innocent people? Shameful. And take not of their final source code quote: Kiddies indeed. I hope in the future you decide to write objectively, instead of going on and on about a subject you obviously know nothing about, reverting to stereotypes the whole time. By the way, I'm 17. Rather ironic that I'm the one making corrections, don't you think? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:05:59 EDT From: JAKade@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack In a message dated 9/24/98 5:25:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, caliban@darklock.com writes: > On 04:03 PM 9/24/98 -0400, I personally witnessed JAKade@aol.com jumping up > to say: > >The response from the letter I sent james@nashscene: > [...] > >He didn't try to refute any of the facts I pointed out, or explain his > >beliefs. Shameful. > > But he has a valid point. Stealing people's resources and web space *is* a > violation of their rights and freedoms, and if those people want to help > Kevin Mitnick they *should* be doing so through appropriate and *legal* > channels. Several of us on the list said effectively the same thing. But.....I never said it wasn't in my letter. I made a list of errors he had in his column, and he pretty much ignored them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:42:08 -0400 From: Dan Sissman Subject: [mitnick] Scene article According to James Hanback, Jr., the anti-hacker article has been pulled from the Scene website due to "factual errors discovered by previous readers".  According to Mr. Hanback, the article will be corrected next week--it's unclear whether this means another article will appear in the paper, or whether they'll simply put the corrected article up on the site. - -- Dan Sissman, amateur triviaphile            Free Kevin Mitnick! http://www.albany.net/~dsissman             http://www.kevinmitnick.com   ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:56:49 -0400 From: Brad Hoover Subject: Re: [mitnick] I'm As Mad As Hell, etc. Can you post a URL of the article? Thanks BadGirlnLA@aol.com wrote: > > Sometimes you just don't feel like being nice to idiot reporters. > There are many really good ones in the world, but this Nashville > Scene "columnist" was just too stupid for me to give him any > respect. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From: James Hanback > Message-Id: <199809241614.LAA05994@mail.nashscene.com> > Subject: Re: Generalizing bullshitter > To: BadGirlnLA@aol.com > Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:14:41 -0500 (CDT) > > Hello, Tawny. > > Thank you for your e-mail. A couple of people have called me > on that column. Certainly, you are welcome to talk to my editor. > And, you are absolutely correct that I am not a reporter. > I am a columnist. It is entirely my opinion that I put in that > piece, and it is entirely my opinion that is supposed to go > there. > > Also, you'll be happy to know that I have already written a > new column mentioning the hacking community's dissatisfaction > with a lack of fair trial for Mitnick (thanks to a much kinder > individual who happens to be a hacker and pointed it out > to me in a much calmer wayi--the way disagreements SHOULD be > settled). > > You will also recall that I did point out a difference between > the general term "hackers" and the group that infiltrated the > Times. It's in the second paragraph. > > As you have every right to your opinion, so have I to mine. > > Regards, > James > > > > > James, that is what you are. You are not a reporter. > > > > Nobody on the internet who knows 1+1=2, calls all hackers, > > "losers"! Only neophytes who do not do their research make such > > stupid blanket remarks. > > > > I plan to discuss this matter further with your editor because you > > are a disgrace to the reporters who do excellent writing. > > > > The New York Times has been steadily going downhill. Their have > > lost their credibility. Any newspaper who hires someone like John > > Markoff has to be second-rate. John Markoff was the main reason > > the Times got hacked. He is a liar and a fraud. He has crossed > > the line from responsible journalism to yellow-trash reporting, just > > like you. Could that be the reason you are putting down hackers? > > You see a strong resemblance between you and Markoff? > > > > Markoff spread lies about Kevin Mitnick. HFG was making a statement > > to show their support for a hacker who has been in custody going > > on four years without a bail hearing or a trial. And the chances are > > great that his trial scheduled for January 19, 1999 will be continued > > for the fourth or fifth time due to the fact that the government refuses > > to turn over discovery that could fill two libraries. > > > > I suggest you do some background checking on Kevin Mitnick, > > John Markoff, and HACKING, because you don't know what in the > > hell you are talking about. > > > > If your constitutional rights were being taken away from you, we > > would hear you screaming and yelling from coast to coast. Your > > style of irresponsible reporting is dangerous and appalling. > > > > a very disappointed citizen and internet user! > > tawny tracey > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Subj: You might be interested... > Date: 98-09-24 17:38:35 EDT > From: james@pulp-fiction.NashScene.com (James Hanback) > To: teknowh0re@hotmail.com > CC: BadGirlnLA@aol.com > > Hello. > > Because both of you expressed your concerns to me about the > way hackers/hacking/and the Kevin Mitnick situation were > portrayed in my column, I thought you might be interested to > know that I have written a "Byte" for next week that speaks > to those issues. > > I must admit that I made some factual errors (largely because > I got my information from CNN and MSNBC). So as a show of > good faith and because I believe both sides of an issue are > important, I am sending this message to you. > > First, I clarified the blanket-sounding statements I made > about hackers, their points of view, and their societal > status. This was largely inspired by a current editorial > at www.antionline.com. I pointed out that not all hackers > do what HFG did to the New York Times. I cannot bring myself > to condone the NYT defacing, but I apologize for the harsh > words I used to describe those who performed it. > > Second, I clarified that HFG and other hacker groups are > upset about Kevin Mitnick's lack of a fair trial to date (and, > in my opinion, you are absolutely right to be upset about it-- > no one should be denied due process). > > Third, I did not mention either of your e-mail addresses or > names in this piece, because neither of you expressed a desire > to be heard outside of the e-mails you sent me. > > Thanks again for both your comments. The column runs next > Wednesday if you'd like to take a look. > > Regards, > > James > Nashville Scene > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:04:51 -0700 From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On 05:33 PM 9/24/98 -0400, I personally witnessed Aaron D. Ball jumping up to say: >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > >% Stealing people's resources and web space *is* a >% violation of their rights and freedoms, and if those people want to help >% Kevin Mitnick they *should* be doing so through appropriate and *legal* >% channels. Several of us on the list said effectively the same thing. > >Err... no. What these attacks do, strictly, is add data to someone else's >machine Did you know it's illegal to put a bumper sticker on someone else's car? See, political parties used to get college students, and hand them a bunch of bumper stickers and some money. Then the college students would go out to the supermarket or the baseball stadium and put bumper stickers on every car in the parking lot. (Some of our older list members may recall this practice.) The politician got free advertising, the students got money, and it was JUST a bumper sticker so no harm done, right? Wrong. Freedom of speech also encompasses freedom of *silence* -- my right *not* to say what I *don't* want said. Your right to freedom of speech is a right for *you* to say what you like, not a right to force *others* to say what you like. The practice was made illegal because it forces others to actively decide either to display your speech, or to spend time taking it off. In fact, until they acquire and use the necessary tools to remove your speech, they have to display it whether they want to or not. This is an abridgement of freedom of speech, in that it denies the right to be silent. As a result, putting a bumper sticker on someone else's car can land you in jail. I think the parallel should be obvious enough. >and move some files around -- e.g., replacing your index.html with >my index.html. I may have a very different perspective on web site management, considering that I develop (or at least have developed) huge sites for large companies and government agencies. A web site, to me, is far more than a few files in a directory. Someone who only gets fifty or so hits a day would be hard pressed to see things from the perspective of someone who gets fifty thousand, without some help. I'm going to try and offer that help here, because I believe you really don't understand what "big business" cares so much about web pages for. After all, you can get a web page at the drop of a hat, right? My index.html has value to me. The web site I run exists for the express purpose of distributing *my* index.html and *my* other files to the public. Therefore, when you replace my index with yours, you are stealing all of the work I have done to advertise my site -- every hit on your page was supposed to be a hit on mine, after all -- as well as some of my disk space, some of my bandwidth, one of the directory entries on my machine, and some of my monthly fee for the web server. You're still not off the hook, though. You cost my advertisers the exposure they purchased. You devalue the worth of my advertising space. You complicate my traffic logs, requiring additional effort on my part to separate legitimate hits on my index from hits on your index. You furthermore deny access to every link which my front page presents and yours doesn't, and thus to every link below those, potentially denying the entire world *any* access to my entire site. You offend my readers, you make me look foolish, and you steal my entire site and all of the effort I have placed into it for some period of time. If you design your own two-meg web site, this isn't generally all that much. It's a couple hours in an HTML editor and fifteen minutes with an FTP client to put it in the home directory provided by your ISP, even if you have a really cool site that you worked hard on. No big deal. If you have a full corporate web site, it's a lot more. That site represents an ongoing effort by about a dozen designers, programmers, and administrators with a combined salary in excess of half a million dollars annually. Companies routinely calculate the average worth of a single hit based on hits and site revenue from orders and advertising; if the worth of a single hit is five cents, every thousand hits is fifty bucks. In the course of a day, that's two and a half thousand dollars we lose because you thought you'd say something cute. Not to mention the cost of bandwidth and server operation, as well as the upcoming effort required to restore the site. Putting the index back is one thing. Determining how you got in, how to keep you out, and what else you may have done on our site is going to take someone a lot of time. This adds up. We're talking about something in the vicinity of ten thousand dollars. And for the "ethical" hacker? Even if you leave instructions on what you did and how to fix it, it would be *really* stupid to trust you. The hacker sense of humor would just be tickled pink by convincing the sysadmin to *open* a security hole on his machine -- or even better, to create a completely new one, so it can conceivably be spread to other networks while the clueless administrator tries to help his fellow man. Subversion of the enemy! We made him into a double agent, and he doesn't even know it. It's a lie inside of a lie inside of a lie. How much more ironic can you get? If you think that's a cool idea -- and I know I do -- then your instructions on how to fix the problem are certainly not to be trusted. It's not a problem for me, because I don't break into web sites. I have enough web sites to manage, thankyouohsoverymuch. So I'm never going to be leaving instructions to any sysadmin anywhere about how to fix any security hole. I also take my oaths and promises to the good ol' US of A very seriously, so I'm not going to be trying this particular hack out. But if someone else did it, I'd laugh my ass off. Hell yeah. That'll teach *you* to hire a stupid admin with no practical background, won't it? Pay some dipshit with a pager 45K when he knows half past squat about networking, indeed. >It's perhaps similar to standing in front of a Nike billboard or >storefront with signs protesting their policies. No, it's similar to putting your own billboard in front of Nike's so nobody can see it. Which is legal, on YOUR property, and *illegal* everywhere else unless you have the owner's permission. >It's ethically dubious to state that the NYT's "right" to have a web page >up with stuff it wants all the time outweighs HFG's "right" to speak out >about the NYT's (and the [media in general]'s) abuse of Kevin and hackers >in general some of the time. HFG has a *right* to get their own web site, on which they can say whatever they want whenever they want. The NYT's right to have a web site does not by any definition outweigh that. The NYT's right to have a web page on the NYT web site, however, most definitely DOES outweigh anyone else's right to have a web page on the NYT web site. >I, for one, cheer on general principle when >the little guy coopts the big guy's name recognition and pokes a hole in >the uniformity of the media. Negativland did this with Dispepsi, and that was laudable and commendable. They composed a complete album, start to finish, out of Pepsi commercials. It was sheer genius. (I must admit to some bias: I had been plotting such a 'concept album' in the back of my head for years, but the idea of using only *one* company's commercials was a brilliant twist that I would never have thought of. I defer to the obvious masters.) It was also arguably legal under the umbrella of fair use. If Negativland went to Pepsi's web site and replaced Pepsi's web pages with their own, however, it would be both illegal and grossly tacky. HFG used a club. Negativland used a scalpel. Forgive me if I consider HFG crude, primitive, and barbaric. I didn't find them admirable, I found them offensive. Okay, they're literate. I admire that. They're reasonably philosophical. I admire that. They're also stupid. That's just plain unforgivable. They either didn't know this would cause the kind of problems it has, or they didn't care. Either situation is a position of rank stupidity and deliberate ignorance. If you don't understand media exposure and public image, stay the fuck out of the papers. HFG has some level of talent, but their levels of *maturity* and *skill* are in the toilet. Look, they hacked a web site! A big one! Isn't that cool? Isn't that nice? Don't you wish we had them on OUR side? - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Caliban Tiresias Darklock | "I'm not sorry or Darklock Communications | ashamed of who I PGP Key AD21EE50 at | really am." FREE KEVIN MITNICK! | - Charles Manson ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #163 *****************************