mitnick-digest Friday, September 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 165 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:55:02 -0400 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] Sample letter on www.kevinmitnick.com A sample letter has been added to Kevin's site -- actually 2 slightly different versions -- linked from http://www.kevinmitnick.com/media.html for writing the media, and http://www.kevinmitnick.com/semail.html for writing congresspeople/committee members, respectively. I'd still urge everyone to write letters in your own words -- that's far more effective than a "form letter"; but this is a good example of some great points you can make in writing them. Keep writing the media; people have been doing a great job of that; but also don't stop focusing on congresspeople; if you've written yours already, write the House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property (http://www.kevinmitnick.com/semail.html). Always request a response from congresspeople; this gives your letter a much better chance at being considered by the congressperson, rather than being passed off to be read by a clerk. Thanks Bobwil623 for contributing the letter :) kerry *********************************************************** FREE KEVIN bumperstickers http://www.mindspring.com/~jump0 *********************************************************** PO Box 17435 - Raleigh NC 27619 - email jump0@mindspring.com checks/money orders payable to "Free Kevin Publicity Fund" *********************************************************** Stickers are sold at cost plus postage - we make no profit from this effort - donations are split equally between Kevin's Defense Fund and the Free Kevin Publicity Fund. *********************************************************** F R E E K E V I N http://www.KevinMitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:03:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Ball Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: # On 09:03 PM 9/24/98 -0400, I personally witnessed Aaron D. Ball jumping up # to say: # > # >Yes and no. The difference, IMO, is that a *corporation* is not ethically # >equivalent to a person, By "ethically equivalent", I mean "deserving of equal treatment under a reasonable ethical system", not "possessed of the same ethics". I thought I had made that clear; perhaps not. Your reply to this point is based on a miscommunication (I won't explicitly point a finger), so I'll ignore it and let you make a new one if you want. # Let's try to agree on one thing: there is a dichotomy in the definition of # ethics as including but not being limited to the law. The law, since it is # defined externally, may be excluded from one's *personal* ethics unless one # has made a conscious choice to follow said law and has not thereafter # rescinded that choice. However, under such circumstances, the term "ethics" # becomes so subjective as to be irrelevant -- in other words, a moot point. # If your definition of ethics does not span more than yourself, then there # is no commonality on which to base a reasonable discussion. If you would # like to discuss the ethics of a situation, then we need some agreement on # what those ethics are -- and if I reject the proposed ethics as invalid or # unrealistic or just plain wrong, then there's very little hope of having # any sort of meaningful dialogue about them. # # Is that an acceptable proposal? Sort of. Of course my ethics are not necessarily the same as your ethics; on the other hand, the idea behind me talking about whether or not is ethical is to convince you (based on some presumed but unspecified common ground between our ethical systems) that I am making a good decision in classifying as ethical or not, and that you should follow the same reasoning and make the same decisions. This is "sort of" and not "yes" because I don't presuppose that each person on the list put forth a complete ethical system beforehand, but rather that you listen to my argument and criticize it as necessary to determine whether or not any incompatibilities it has with your beliefs are reconcilable, and allow others to follow and contribute to the argument and reap the same benefit. So, to reiterate: it's my belief that it is ethically less objectionable to hurt/humiliate a corporation (or other powerful entity) than it is to hurt/humiliate an ordinary powerless person like yourself, even if "objective" measures like dollar value say the opposite. Perpetrating a hack that costs a media giant like NYT even $100K in projected revenue because you think they're abusing their position of power is, to me, far less objectionable than walking up to a person you think is a jerk and giving them a punch in the face requiring $2 in aspirin and band-aids. In fact, since I agree with the hypothetical "you" that the NYT has been bad and needs a good whacking, I consider it a good thing that the NYT got whacked *even if* the only message you got across was that somebody wanted to diss the NYT and succeeded. Of course, it would have been *better* if they had done the hack in a way that conveyed a more useful message, but what they did is in a completely different ethical realm than the "terrorism" they were accused of in a certain column. By the way, my ethical system is constructed in parallel to the law. Something may be illegal but morally obligatory, or legally obligatory but immoral, or somewhere in between. # >even if it is legally equivalent. # # It's not. Current law ascribes certain theoretical human qualities to # corporate entities which it quite patently does not have; in short, the # preponderance of legislation surrounding corporate rights and # responsibilities makes the tremendous error of expecting the lifeless and # faceless legal entity of a corporation to have something roughly analogous # to a conscience. # # In other words, the corporation is *supposed* to be legally equivalent to a # person, but lacks the qualities such as judgment and accountability which # make a law apply reasonably to an actual human being. As a result, the # corporation -- by virtue (or vice) of its diffusion of liability, and thus # responsibility -- enjoys some degree of operations "beyond the law" by # merely invoking the quite obvious fact that the corporate entity is not a # human being and does not respond to or display human sentiment. The law # assumes someone will take responsibility for the corporation's actions. The # corporation, in turn, sees to it that no clear target is presented through # organisation of its board members and executives -- so where we have the # myth of victimless crime, we also have the corollary myth of criminal-less # crime. 'zackly. If I were to commit the relatively trivial crime (from Microsoft stockholders' perspective) of stealing a few million dollars from them in certain legally convenient ways, I could well expect to be imprisoned for many years, losing what amounts to my life. But the unspeakable crime (from a human perspective) of treating thousands of people like slaves to turn a hefty profit punishable by nothing (if it happens outside our borders) or by trivial (from Nike stockholders' perspective) fines. Power not balanced by responsibility, like I said. # >I perceive this to be a # >tremendous injustice, and as a consequence find it hard to disapprove of # >*anything* that lessens the power of such an entity. # # I perceive this to be a tremendous injustice, as well, but I also find it # hard to approve of anything that takes basic human rights away from others. # A corporation, after all, *can* be run effectively and appropriately -- and # its owners and stockholders can choose to be accountable for their actions. # Likewise, they can choose not to be; but in either case, the basic rights # of the corporate entity must not be abridged, lest we set a dangerous # precedent. In other words, we oughtn't to institutionalize ganging up on big guys just 'cause they're big. Agreed. But I'm very happy with the idea of ganging up on big guys who throw their weight around at the expense of little guys, like NYT has done here, and it's a hell of a lot more forgivable for David to kick Goliath in the shin than for Goliath to stomp David's head in, see? # >[Below "I" am a hypothetical ethical hacker, and "you" are a hypothetical # >media giant whose web page I have hacked or plan to hack] # # (Don't you hate having to add those disclaimers? Any reasonable person # would know this intuitively -- but not all people are reasonable, so even # when we try to have reasonable discussions between hopefully intelligent # people, we have to assume someone who knows nothing whatsoever is reading # them and drawing erroneous conclusions.) Don't worry -- I've read enough of your writing to know that you understand what I mean. But there *are* some slooooooooooooow people out there, and I don't want to drag them into this over issues that aren't really there. # Since both proposals are reasonably syntactically equivalent, it is # reasonable to assume their statistical probability is likewise equivalent. # As a result, the average based on that statistical norm is the only # reasonable estimate of the damages. It may have been more; it may have been # less; but the likelihood of it being more is roughly the same as the # likelihood of it being less. But all the above argument is about "reasonable approximation" of loss of potential revenue, rather than actual provable damage done. There is a serious qualitative difference between "he made me miss the bus" and "he gave me a black eye", and there is a serious qualitative difference between "he made us look silly, and probably made us make less money than we could have" and "he turned the opinion of millions of people against me, introduced a provable bias into the pool of jurors, and generally made life more dangerous for me and thousands of people like me". # >Forgive me if I am unmoved -- especially if my messing # >with your web page was a reaction to your abuse of tremendous media power # # Contrary to popular belief, people have no inherent right to power. Power # must be acquired through effort, and if you lack such power, you may not # demand that my own power be taken away because of your own lack. This is # the basis of capitalism, really. Power is a commodity, and it is traded # like everything else. You can buy it, sell it, barter it, give it away, # steal it, destroy it, and even manufacture it out of whole cloth. No, this is an old-fashioned ethical idea: that with power comes a responsibility to refrain from hurting people with that power. People tend to forget that capitalism is an economic system, not a moral system. I have no desire for power; I just don't want people who have it to use it as a club against me, and recognize the same desire in other powerless people, and recognize the fact that powerless people as a whole must stand fast against power precisely for that reason. When the New York Times classes "hacker" with "murderer" (which is what they do when they put an article on the front page about how bad that nasty hacker is), they are doing an appreciable evil to a large class of people, of which I am a member, and telling me that I had better put myself on the side which is not theirs, 'cause they certainly aren't on the side which is mine. Re good & bad admins: your points all make sense. But that's why you hire security consultants. # >Once again, I would lose no sleep and shed no tears if someone replaced a # >Nike billboard with one protesting their labor policies, or blocked the # >entrance to NikeTown, etc. Both of these things would cost Nike on paper; # >"big deal", sez li'l old me. # # I wouldn't care either, to be honest, BUT if I paid for a billboard and # some asshole in a hat blocked it, I would want my damn money back. And if # it's okay for you to do it to Nike, then it would be okay to do it to me, # and I don't accept that. Nor do I. The fundamental difference is that you don't have the sheer power that Nike has. # The problem with freedom is that people are very happy to demand the right # to do what they want to someone else, but are rarely happy to let someone # else do it to them. If we allow one corporation to own another # corporation, then we must allow any corporation to own another # corporation. If we allow people to do something to one corporation, we # must allow them to do it to any corporation. s/corporation/powerful entity/g and you've got it: I will cheer for anybody who slaps an abuser of power in the face. # I have always firmly believed that fines and damages should be percentages # and not absolutes. If breaking law X means a five thousand dollar fine, # then Bob down the street won't do it, but some rich asshole in Palm Beach # will just laugh. If it means a five percent fine, then Bob with his four # thousand dollar net worth would get smacked with a pretty hefty 200 bucks # and decide not to do it. The rich asshole in Palm Beach looks at his ten # million dollars, and would get smacked with a half million dollar fine, so # he doesn't do it either. Excellent idea, one I've had myself and agree with. But that's not the "equal protection under the laws" you were just talking about! All of a sudden, we're treating the powerful differently. (And if you object by saying "but I'm using the same mathematical formula for everybody", I'll give you a rough formula for correlating the relative power of two entities with the relative moral-severity-IMO of abuse of each by the other. The only correlation function that unequivocally means "equal" is the identity function.) # Likewise, a small business with an average income of a hundred thousand # bucks should be able to cry foul at someone who costs them two and a half # grand. Microsoft, on the other hand, should be laughed out of court for # whining about anything less than a couple million dollars. # # Loss is relative. What I said. # >% 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. # > # >Legalistically yes, but I've argued above that the ethical case is # >different. # # You're arguing for community property and lack of personal ownership? I'm # sorry, man, I can't get behind that. I have nice shit, and I like my nice # shit, and I want that nice shit to stay mine. If you want nice shit, then # you can go out and bust your ass like I did to make the kind of money you # need to buy nice shit. Nopenopenope. It's not the relative niceness of the NYT's web server and HFG's weenie little two megs on GeoCities or whatever -- it's the fact that NYT reaches gazillions of people and throws that weight around at the expense of little guys like me, and messing with it's web page is nothing but a tiny attempt at cutting it down to size. Re capitalism/communism: I'm a cooperative anarchist/libertarian somewhere between Ayn Rand and Kropotkin. Where in there depends on the phase of the moon. Anti-authoritarianism is presumably our very strong common ground. # What it really comes down to is that I want my stuff to be mine, and in # order to expect that I have to let your stuff be yours. In fact, it's also # important -- since I do have some nice stuff -- that I let some of *my* # stuff be *ours*, too. That way, when *you* have some nice stuff, you'll # probably be more inclined to share. Then there will be mine and yours and # ours, and we all get along happily. It's not just that: some things, like roads, air, networks, and dirt need to be shared to be useful. # Now, the corporate mindset is different. Corporations don't generally go in # for that mine, yours, and ours thing. Corporations tend to take the # position that there is MINE and NOT-MINE. MINE is good. NOT-MINE is bad. # When something is NOT-MINE, that thing is bad, and it must be made good or # else it must be destroyed. So when the corporation sees NOT-MINE, it tries # to make it MINE, and failing that it attempts to destroy it. # # That's a hard thing to regulate. 'zackly. Hence my approval of non-regulatory tactics for keeping it under control. # >Agreed: their implementation of the idea of protest was bad. Others # >should not do things the way they did. BUT that is not a case against web # >page hacks in general; just against ones that stroke someone's ego rather # >than getting the message out. # # I don't care what they said or how they said it, what they *did* was # stupid. No matter how brilliant my discourse, I should not deliver it in a # public library with a megaphone; it annoys everyone else and will cause me # nothing but trouble. Maybe, maybe not. If the guy who owns the public library (to mix metaphors) won't let your books in 'cause he doesn't like you, (a) he's abusing his power and deserves to get it messed with and (b) a megaphone may be your only option in reaching him. When you lock someone out of the public discourse, kicking the door down tends to be the only viable option. # >I still maintain that humiliation of those # >who abuse power is a Good Thing regardless of the law, and that HFG's # >action in particular was simply a good idea poorly executed. # # If the idea was to say something meaningful, then you're right. If the idea # was to hack a web site, it was a *bad* idea poorly executed. Let's pretend that their goal was to humiliate the Times, not to stroke their adolescent egos. From over here, the former seems way more important anyway. Much better, though, would be a subtle rewriting of the existing content. Much better subversion factor. - -- Aaron D. Ball Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:37:44 -0700 (PDT) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > 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. This is not meant as a hostile question, merely an encouragement for discourse: What kind of legal channels should people go through? The NashScene columnist mentioned trying to help Kevin through the legal system, but I can't think of any ways to help him through the legal system. Granted, I am a little dull when it comes to great legal ideas. Also, where do we get the resources to garner interest from those who have the talent, intelligence and availability to work that system? What would the approach be? <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:54:06 -0700 From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On 03:03 AM 9/25/98 -0400, I personally witnessed Aaron Ball jumping up to say: > >it's my belief that it is ethically less objectionable to >hurt/humiliate a corporation (or other powerful entity) than it is to >hurt/humiliate an ordinary powerless person like yourself, even if >"objective" measures like dollar value say the opposite. I reject that distinction on its face, because I am far from ordinary and anything but powerless. I would venture to say that neither are you, and in fact neither is anyone. ;) However, I know what you mean, and will read that as "an entity which does not command large amounts of financial and political power" if you find that an acceptable translation... would that be reasonable, considering that we (or at least I) not only want to protect the individual citizen, but also the small business and the struggling company? My own personal distinction of whether action X is ethical or not is as follows: "If I were that person/entity and someone did this to me, would I be willing to accept that as fair?" If the answer comes back "yes", then it's ethical. If it comes back "no", it's not. I also tend to prefer ethical results thyat bring reasons with them; there has to be some reason that it is or is not fair. If I can't think of one, then I need to think harder. I have to admit to one guilty fact, though... some things just have no real explanation. Would I be mad if someone I didn't know just walked into my house and poured himself a cup of coffee? Well, yeah! But knowing that I'd invite pretty much *any* visitor to my house inside and *offer* him a cup of coffee, I have to ask -- why? Um... I honestly don't know. The immediate response is "because he didn't ask", but if he *did* ask, I'd think he was presumptuous and rude! So he can't just do it, and he can't ask, and therefore he just has to wait for me to offer, and that's that -- but I'll be damned if I can reason out WHY. >what they did is in a completely different ethical realm than the >"terrorism" they were accused of in a certain column. I think terrorism is an excellent description of what they did, myself. They took action against a perceived power structure by force for the purpose of making a political statement. (I don't know if terrorism involves violence by definition, and I don't feel like looking it up. It would seem reasonable from my perspective to define it either way, depending on the individual biases of the etymologist, but I think the above definition -- which just feels right to me -- is probably pretty close.) >In other words, we oughtn't to institutionalize ganging up on big guys just >'cause they're big. Agreed. But I'm very happy with the idea of ganging up >on big guys who throw their weight around at the expense of little guys, >like NYT has done here, and it's a hell of a lot more forgivable for David >to kick Goliath in the shin than for Goliath to stomp David's head in, see? But by the same token, we also ought not to institutionalise leaving the little people alone just because they're little. Just because David is a shrimpy little guy doesn't mean he can go around kicking everyone in the shins because they're bigger than him, either. The problem with current law is *scalability*. The laws against white collar crime were designed to act against entities with at most tens of thousands of dollars, not several billions of them, and they don't provide appropriate deterrent factors to such entities. >But all the above argument is about "reasonable approximation" of loss of >potential revenue, rather than actual provable damage done. But you can't prove it. That's the problem. It's gone, and you'll never get it back, and you'll never KNOW. But it is *reasonable* to conclude that the general activity during the time in which the web site was subverted will be substantially similar to the general activity during other times. >"he turned the opinion of millions of people against me, >introduced a provable bias into the pool of jurors, and generally made life >more dangerous for me and thousands of people like me". Can you *prove* that? It's very convenient to lay the burden of proof upon someone else, but it *always* lies with the proponent of the positive hypothesis. If you posit that someone did something, it is your job to prove he did it -- not his job to prove he didn't. He can perhaps prove that he was in a position where he could not possibly do it, but obviously you could not then prove that he did it so he is under no such requirement to prove that. (It still helps him an awful lot if he can, though.) >No, this is an old-fashioned ethical idea: that with power comes a >responsibility to refrain from hurting people with that power. I thought the responsibility to refrain from hurting people came with being human. Call me a romantic. >People tend >to forget that capitalism is an economic system, not a moral system. This is what generally gets termed political economics, i.e. the economics of power. And it remains a capitalist system even in communist and socialist countries; political economics is almost universally selfish. Power is not easily shared. Humility is difficult. Arrogance is much easier and more satisfying. ;) >I have >no desire for power; I just don't want people who have it to use it as a >club against me, and recognize the same desire in other powerless people, >and recognize the fact that powerless people as a whole must stand fast >against power precisely for that reason. That would be an exercise of power, wouldn't it? ;) Seriously, the problem isn't power, it's that we don't appropriately limit and restrain that power. You can reach a point where you do whatever the hell you want and no one can stop you. This is Wrong, and something should be done about it. >When the New York Times classes >"hacker" with "murderer" (which is what they do when they put an article on >the front page about how bad that nasty hacker is), I don't follow. The focus of the front page of every newspaper and every television news program for weeks has been Clinton getting blow jobs. Does that mean blow jobs are like murder? I mean, lots of things go on the front page of the NYT, not just murder. I agree, the media are pretty reckless and can do irreparable damage with a careless word or two -- but part of the problem is that we're not doing anything very positive where the NYT can see it and notice it. Which sort of begs the question. :) Is anyone doing any press releases on Kevin's behalf? We have the web site, sure enough, but how are we going to get people there if we're just hanging up shingles one by one? Is anyone cross-pollinating other related lists, like political fora and discussions on legal theory? I participate in very few online discussions, and while I've mentioned the list and the site to several people in private mail, the Kevin situation isn't easily introduced into programming and graphics discussions. Does anyone here get into deep philosophical and political debates online where Kevin's cause could be showcased in the discussion? ># I have always firmly believed that fines and damages should be percentages ># and not absolutes. > >Excellent idea, one I've had myself and agree with. But that's not the >"equal protection under the laws" you were just talking about! All of a >sudden, we're treating the powerful differently. No we aren't. 10% of a million isn't the same as 10% of a thousand, but it's still ten percent -- and by the same logic, abusing a million people isn't the same as abusing a thousand people... but it's still abuse, isn't it? A crime committed by a powerful entity is almost by definition a bigger crime. Larger and more powerful business entities enjoy a competitive advantage we call "economies of scale" -- which is to say, the more items you make at once, the cheaper each item is. This is, in fact, one of the single largest factors in the decision to form a larger company in the first place. But it has never been paired with the corollary *liabilities* of scale. Your average small business owner is quite simply not CAPABLE of dumping twelve thousand gallons of toxic waste anywhere, any more than he is capable of pressing twelve million compact discs. When you press twelve million compact discs, the cost per unit drops to less than a dime. The small business owner, however, can't come up with 1.2 million bucks, so he has to press in lots of a thousand at a unit cost of about a buck and a half. When those sell, he presses another thousand, and so on, and so forth. If they sell the same volume of twelve million CDs at the same price in the same amount of time, the small business owner has spent eighteen million dollars, and the huge corporation has spent 1.2 million. That's $16,800,000 that the large corporation didn't spend and the small business owner did. For every dollar the small business owner made, the large corporation has made fifteen. Now, given that a large and powerful corporation can make more money doing the exact same thing that a smaller business does purely by virtue of their size, is it at all equitable that both companies are fined the same amount of money for the same crime? When a large company dumps toxic waste, it's a LOT of toxic waste. When a small one does it, it's generally about as environmentally damaging as pissing in the river. But they both get fined a few thousand dollars. The big corporation goes home and yells at the truck drivers who dump the waste: be more careful next time! The small business owner goes bankrupt, loses his house and his car and virtually everything he owns, and then sits around in his squalorous little rathole of an apartment wondering what he's going to do now and how he's going to pay the rent. Justice? I don't think so. Now, if we fine them ten percent or whatever, the small business loses a large part of its liquid assets and is rather hurt. But it can go on. The large corporation, same thing. (Probably worse - -- large businesses tend to be less 'liquid'.) Suddenly, it becomes an economic imperative for the corporation to behave itself. The balance of power has shifted. The political economics of corporate crime are now prohibitively expensive. Wanna make a bet on whether this would work? While we're here, something I'd like to see done that will never happen is a law made about campaign contributions. Since the members of our government represent the *people* of America, campaign funds should be contributed *entirely* by private citizens. Individuals. Not organisations, not businesses, and certainly not legal fictions like corporations. Lobbyists and business interests have traditionally been permitted to screw the American people time after time by giving politicians lots of money in exchange for promises -- which then get kept in return for support in the next election. Cute little circle. It's *long* past time to stop it. And NO FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. No foreign nation or business has any place taking part in our political process any more than we have a right to take part in theirs. >NYT reaches gazillions of people and throws that weight around at the >expense of little guys like me, and messing with it's web page is nothing >but a tiny attempt at cutting it down to size. But you don't. Their web page continues to reach gazillions of people tomorrow, and yours only reaches gazillions of people today. Wouldn't it be better to make another page elsewhere and promote it appropriately to get it to reach gazillions of people every day, too? ># That's a hard thing to regulate. > >'zackly. Hence my approval of non-regulatory tactics for keeping it under >control. Perhaps the best way to regulate it would be to reward sharing rather than punish keeping. The carrot and the stick, as it were. I like regulation; it's clear and easy to understand, when it's done right. Unfortunately, it hasn't been done right quite yet. ;) >Maybe, maybe not. If the guy who owns the public library (to mix metaphors) >won't let your books in 'cause he doesn't like you, Ever go into a Christian bookstore and ask if they have the Satanic Bible? It's certainly something a Christian ought to read -- after all, the Satanists are reading *their* Bible -- but it's never there. In fact, they're offended that you would even ask. What, that book in here? That pack of lies? Are you insane? Hmmmm... the owner is *allowed* not to carry books with which he has an ethical or moral disagreement. >(a) he's abusing his >power and deserves to get it messed with Ninety percent of everything is crap, and every author thinks he's in the top ten percent. When someone tells you that you're not, there's a ninety percent chance they're right. And I don't think that's an abuse of power at all. Hell, several publishers have told me my writing sucks. A couple have liked it, and published it. I think the breakdown comes pretty close to that 90% crap ratio, except that after each publication, I looked at the story and thought "Man, that sucks." I ain't in no top ten percent, no sir. ;) >(b) a megaphone may be your >only option in reaching him. That megaphone doesn't just reach HIM. It reaches everyone in earshot! And that, unfortunately, is intrusive and annoying. Your only option or not, everyone else in the vicinity has a right to ask you to shut up. If you don't, then they can go get the authorities (or that old man napping in the front hall with the wrinkled uniform and rusty badge, who would have woken up when you started yelling if he wasn't stone deaf) and have you removed from the premises. >When you lock someone out of the public discourse, kicking the door down >tends to be the only viable option. But you're not locked out. You can speak to the public all you want. Getting them to *listen* takes time, effort, and skill -- things which the NYT has invested and proven in the public forum time and time again. That's why the NYT reaches gazillions of people every day. If you invest that time and effort and skill, gazillions of people will listen to you, too. Look at Howard Stern, for God's sake; he's offensive, boring, and has the one redeeming value of being funny for about half an hour out of every day. But he reaches... gazillions of people. Loyal people. People who will stand up for his cause no matter what. People who actually defended his right to call up an airline which had a recent crash and ask for... a ticket to the 14th street bridge, and by the way, do you serve ice water on that flight? (Okay, okay, it *was* pretty damn hilarious. The man has solid brass balls the size of coconuts.) Time, effort, and skill. You can pick up the skill as you go, too. >Much better, though, would be a subtle rewriting of the existing content. >Much better subversion factor. Much more likely to remain available to the public, too. But still Bad. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:08:04 -0700 From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack On 12:37 AM 9/25/98 -0700, I personally witnessed rOTTEN jumping up to say: >On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > >> 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. > >What kind of legal channels should people go through? The >NashScene columnist mentioned trying to help Kevin through the legal >system, but I can't think of any ways to help him through the legal >system. Granted, I am a little dull when it comes to great legal ideas. I couldn't think of any either, but I think he just meant through systems which are legal. I know that's what *I* meant; I can't imagine anything we could do with the legal system itself. Maybe write letters to state bar associations? Yeah, that would do some good. Not. I talked to a hiring manager at a web design firm today about Kevin; he had *heard* of Kevin, but thought Kevin was in jail following a conviction -- not awaiting trial. He seemed quite upset about the idea that someone could spend over three and a half years in jail without bail before being tried. I think that counts as a score. I've also brought Kevin up to eight people in Microsoft's management, and several others in the technical ranks. Maybe that will spread a little. I know my web site seems to be getting a lot more hits lately. >Also, where do we get the resources to garner interest from those who have >the talent, intelligence and availability to work that system? What would >the approach be? Well, this may strike people as unnatural, but we could go out and meet real people in real life and talk to them. If a group of nice, clean-cut hackers were to go out and talk to people in a friendly and intelligent way, without appearing threatening, that would be good PR. Go out to a few coffee shops, and talk to whoever happens to be there. At the risk of sounding manipulative and overly contrived, it will probably garner more support to be sad and dejected about Kevin's situation than it will to be righteously indignant. A tale full of sound and fury will just remind them of how unpredictable and dangerous hackers are. And I know we're all angry about it, but if you get loud and demonstrative and start blathering about media conspiracies and judicial injustice and the tyranny of evil men -- all you'll do is scare people. ;) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:43:47 -0400 From: Dan Sissman Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack   Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > Negativland did this with Dispepsi, and that was laudable and commendable. > They composed a complete album, start to finish, out of Pepsi commercials. Not so.  The album also contains their readings of internal Pepsi memos, interviews with executives about the "Cola Wars", call in talk shows, and original songs with no Pepsi samples whatsoever.  The advertisments themselves make up a significant portion, but not the totality of teh album.  No argument here that it's brilliant, though. >   > 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. As well as terribly out of character. > 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. Well, they spent 15 minutes looking through Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, anyway.  Doesn't mean they actually read any of the works they cited.  "Con Air" began with a quotation from Dostoyevsky.   - -- Dan Sissman, amateur triviaphile            Free Kevin Mitnick! http://www.albany.net/~dsissman             http://www.kevinmitnick.com   ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:05:03 -0400 From: Dan Sissman Subject: Re: [mitnick] The result from the HFG web page hack   Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > But people are like that. They say things in haste, and they don't always > mean exactly what they said. All of the letters I've seen people send say > "you are wrong," and that's not strictly speaking true. The truth is, "we > are hurt and offended." No, the truth is, he was wrong.  "Hackers are losers" is quite clearly an opinion, and however much we on this list may disagree, he has an absolute right to print that opinion.  This doesn't change the fact that Mr. Hanback said "Mitnick, a notorious 'cyberthief,' broke into the home computer of one of the world's leading computer-security experts."  Note the conspicuous absence of the word "allegedly".  As we know, Mr. Mitnick has yet to be tried for this crime, let alone convicted.  I am not a lawyer, but this statement would appear to constitute actionable libel on Mr. Hanback's part. I agree that he has an absolute right to be angry at the HFG hack, and to express that anger.  The authority of the printed word, however, demands a higher level of responsibility than that attached to blowing off steam to a group of friends.  The Scene article was not exactly exemplary of that (or any) level of responsibility. - -- Dan Sissman, amateur triviaphile            Free Kevin Mitnick! http://www.albany.net/~dsissman             http://www.kevinmitnick.com   ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #165 *****************************