mitnick-digest Wednesday, November 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 192 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:22:55 EST From: FallOut4E@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times > If you're the sort of hacker reporters interview, then > do all you can to help out those who write sympathetic stories, and rebuff > Markoff's type. The problem is, there are so few "sympathetic" writers. The ones we do have on our side I'm afraid don't have the clout to be heard by the masses. It's reporters like Markoff who understand computers and technology and have enough clout to be heard by millions that could be a great asset to us, but ironically he has done the most damage and is very much responsible for Kevin's situation. Bottom line is, reporters have to do their job, and reporting about a "cybercriminal" not getting a fair shake is not going to make it into very many papers. What would have the potential for a big story is how the USG is going to use this case to shape future law and trials, and use it to take away our rights. If they win you will see more people being held without bail hearings, especially hackers. You will never see that in the NYTimes, however. They would also never report on how Kevin's situation ties in with the growing trend of the USG to seek access to "back doors" to encryption, the clipper chip, the V chip, and the ability to capture all digital information without a search warrant. > If it happens once, it's a bunch of weirdoes on the street. > If it happens twice, it's two bunches of weirdoes on the street. > If it happens n times (for an unknown value of n), it's a legitimate > movement > worthy of attention. Agreed, we need to stage more protests, this time maybe in L. A. at the MDC. Emmanuel, you listening? > Random hacked web pages don't get in the news. *Prominent* ones do, and > ones > that seem to show a trend do. Right now, the trend that seems to be showing > (from a newswriter's perspective) is hackers doing juvenile shit to show off > how big their dicks are, and mentioning "convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick". I' > m > not saying that hacking web pages is bad, just that the message the past few > have produced is bad. They've failed to get out the right message ("Kevin > Mitnick has been denied civil rights without due process") and instead got > out > quite the wrong one ("Cyberterrorists want to free Kevin Mitnick, who is a > cyberterrorist like them"). Right, which is why they should either stop hacking web pages and mentioning Kevin's name, or they do it and speak clearly and effectively about Kevin, and none of that 31337 speak. My biggest concern is that 95% of people just don't give a fuck about what happens in this country. They don't care what laws are past or who loses their rights as long as the economy is good. They also don't give a fuck about Kevin. Which make our cause all but lost, even before it started. I'm frustrated, can you tell? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 07:45:50 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] June 16 97 transcript refs Thanks dan sissman for indexing the June 16 1997 transcript -- the references he added are below. Soon we should have all these listed on the site too, so people can find things in the legal documents more easily. We still have a bunch of other documents that need these tags, if anyone wants to help out with them. This transcript - http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html - is a good example. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#separate Judge Pfaelzer agrees to sentence Kevin for two of his charges without regard to the other charges. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#postrelease Attorney Randolph argues whether conduct after the end of the supervised release should be considered. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#stay Judge Pfaelzer addresses the motion to stay http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#discovery Attorney Randolph explains the difficulties in accessing the computer evidence. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#apprehensive Judge Pfaelzer expresses her feelings about KDM having access to computers http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#apprehensive_2 Judge Pfaelzer again expresses her feelings and explains that she won't allow KDM to access the evidence via computer, even if the MDC officials are willing to allow it. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#warning Judge Pfaelzer explains that she will consider KDM's former appearances in her court in formulating his sentence, and reaffirms that she will not allow him to access evidence via computer. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#randolph Attorney Randolph begins his sentencing recommendations to the Court. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#depayne Attorney Randolph's recommendations for the charge that KDM associated with Lewis DePayne in violation of his supervised release terms. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#halfway Attorney Randolph indicates that KDM will not receive credit for his time in a halfway house. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#butt_in Amusing moment where prosecutor Painter attempts to butt in but is stopped by Judge Pfaelzer. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#restitution Attorney Randolph recommends that restitution be delayed until after KDM's incarceration ends. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#painter Prosecutor Painter begins his recommendations to the Court. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#guidelines Painter argues that the sentencing guidelines are not binding, but are "only policy" http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#apprehensive_3 Judge Pfaelzer tells us a few more times how apprehensive and fearful she is of the prospect of KDM having access to a computer. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#response Attorney Randolph responds to Mr. Painter's arguments. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#apprehensive_4 Just in case anyone in the courtroom missed it, Judge Pfaelzer takes the opportunity to remind us how she feels about KDM and computers. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#sentence Judge Pfaelzer indicates that she will sentence KDM to 22 months total for the 2 charges indicated. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans061697.html#apprehensive_5 Sensing that things are drawing to a close for the day, Judge Pfaelzer works in one last reminder, and again indicates her intention of prohibiting any computer access for KDM. *********************************************************** 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 07:56:45 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] kevin's grandmother I just heard that Kevin's grandmother, who set up the Legal Defense Fund, suffered a mild heart attack on Friday - if you would like to send her a get well card or note, send it to: Reba Vartanian c/o 2600 PO Box 752 Middle Island, NY 11953 (this info is on www.kevinmitnick.com too) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 23:09:28 -0800 (PST) From: "Micah S." Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, John Vranesevich wrote: > Oook, I can't stand to keep quiet about this guy any longer. Allow me to > step out on a limb and give you a profile of him, based on the thousands of > hackers I've talked to over the past 6 years. Some of which were true > geniuses, and others, well, were more like him. Does anyone else think it's hilarious that John Vranesevich doesn't seem to know who 'Support Services' really is? I guess he must not have been on the list for very long or just hasn't read the header to see who's domain it was comming from. > I would also like to encourage the owners of this list to publicly > denounce such childish and immature flames that are being posted to this > list. It is beginning to create a hostile environment, that is surely > detrimental to the continued productivity of the list, and VERY counter > productive to your Mitnick plight. Who the hell are you to make such a suggestion? Even in this blatant attempt to solicit recognition from 2600, you refuse to directly acknowledge them. You call this "...counter to your [2600's] Mitnick plight." Well, you know what I think is counter productive? Your press release and subsequent "ad impression" on AntiOnline. You have attempted exploit this cause for your personal benefit. In your arrogant and flawed attempt to gain a leadership role in this movement (or "campaign" as you put it), you have fraudulently represented AntiOnline as being endorsed by the Official Kevin Mitnick Site. In order to have made a donation, your offer must first be presented to the Official Kevin Mitnick Site, so that it may be accepted or refused. An advertisement is a form of sponsorship and thus endorsement, regardless of whether or not you purport it to have been 'donated'. Contrary to what you have implied on AntiOnline, last I heard, you've made absolutely ZERO contact with the Official Kevin Mitnick Site and 2600 which operates it. They have only been made aware of your intentions indirectly by means of your statement on AntiOnline and your posts to this list. Further more you have the audacity to completely ignore 2600 and their involvement, in your statement and in your posts to this list. And on top of all of that, you have the gall to call upon 2600 (referred to only as "the owners of this list") to condemn the actions of an individual who has a far greater right to this list than any of us. This list is dedicated to discussion of Kevin Mitnick and his current incarceration and legal battle. As you surely must be aware, Lewis DePayne is Mitnick's friend and a CO-DEFENDANT in this case. How dare you suggest that his sentiments should be denounced as being counter to our cause? I sincerely doubt that Mitnick approves of your "$50,000us ad impression" that says "Kevin Mitnick: Let the Guy Go! Keep His Ass In Jail! What do you think?". What makes you think Kevin and his official website want to be associated with a media whore like you, and your hype-filled commercial website? No, I don't believe that they would, and apparently you didn't think so either, and that's why you didn't ask anyone's permission or tell anyone before associating yourself with them. --Micah ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 03:07:35 EST From: Antboy23@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] The thread doth lengthen I came across a page that some of you might find interesting, not directly related to Kevin, but containing examples of the Governments abuse of the Constitution. Food for thought. www.twistedlogic.com/info A quick word about the media, if you hack the web page of a media representative you will gain more exposure than if you simply contact a media representative and asked them to consider a story. The act forces them to listen. I do not condone this, but lets face it, it works. I'm out. ANTBOY ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:59:04 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Aaron D. Ball wrote: > Let me spell it out: the media (large-scale television, print news, and > similar organziations) are the only channels by which a message -- any message > -- can reach lots of people in a usefully short time. We don't necessarily > need to be *friends* with them, but it's definitely in our interest to court > their favor and win over the masses. > > It is NOT in our interest to scoff at them and call them vile tools of the > fascist pigs, or whatever it is this week. What is the difference, then, between hacking web pages and demanding Kevin's release, and associating with reporters, the great majority of whom will print erroneous news reports? There is little difference. It's a bad scene, and a person's occupation does not necessarily establish their credibility as a progressive reporter of the FACTS. The news will get out in either event, but both may paint a dark picture of Mr. Mitnick. That, in my interpretation, is what that Support guy was saying. <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure - - - - - - To do: 1) Update my "To do" list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:31:49 +0100 From: Hamburg Robbert <95100526@student.sem.hhs.nl> Subject: [mitnick] EARN MONEY FOR KEVIN JOIN THE GAME AND WIN $500 Hi there, Today I have found a sponsor for my site who agreed to pay me a dollar for every person who joins his free game on the net. You just have to sign up and play the game whenever you like. Otherwise just sign up never do something again with you signin and only let me earn a dollar for Kevin Mitnick. Go to http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8495 and click -Wall Street Sports - Wall Street Sports operates free fantasy sports games all year around.- You can find it on top of the page, just above FREE WEBSPACE. Please do so. We can earn a lot of money for Kevin. PLEASE HELP PLEASE CONTRIBUTE. Robbert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:40:48 -0500 From: gjones@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] kevin's grandmother As if she doesn't have enough problems as it is with Kevin being in Jail. jump0@mindspring.com on 11-03-98 02:56:45 AM Please respond to mitnick@2600.com To: mitnick@2600.com cc: (bcc: Gregory Jones/NWSMEL) Subject: [mitnick] kevin's grandmother I just heard that Kevin's grandmother, who set up the Legal Defense Fund, suffered a mild heart attack on Friday - if you would like to send her a get well card or note, send it to: Reba Vartanian c/o 2600 PO Box 752 Middle Island, NY 11953 (this info is on www.kevinmitnick.com too) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:44:01 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times #2 aaron's comments on > > Just how the hell do we court their favor? included this.... > Our goal is to induce the media to write stories > that help, rather than hurt, hacker causes. to me, that seems like a worthy issue. please consider that "hacker causes" are much less important than the larger issue that this listserv is aimed at: someone accused of rather trivial crimes is being detained without a bail hearing, without access to the evidence against him, and in violation of various fundamental constitutional rights. to all: please consider shifting priorities from addressing an important but non-urgent idea (in general, "hacker causes") to an important *and* URGENT matter: shifting the court's treatment of kevin mitnick. the method of achieving that: shift the message being put out by the media FROM the one they're publicizing ("he's the leader of nefarious hackers, who frighten us all with their power") TO a much more accurate, and IMPORTANT message: markoff made a million bucks by lying about kevin mitnick in violation of state and federal anti-defamation laws, and claiming that kevin mitnick was a criminal. when arrested, kevin mitnick's treatment was -- and is -- dramatically out of proportion with the allegations against him. on kevin mitnick's behalf: - - we demand the courts obey the constitution. - - we demand markoff be held financially, legally, and morally accountable for his lies. - - we demand a bail hearing. - - we demand the constitutionally guaranteed right to examine the evidence and prepare an adequate defense. any issue that isn't included in these four, imho, is unimportant if you're interested in obtaining justice for kevin mitnick. note that "hacker issues" isn't part of the paradigm i've outlined. note, too, that i've explicitly acknowledged that "hacker issues" are important, too, but *much* less urgent in the current sequence of events. let's focus on getting the guy out of pre-trial detention and helping him and his counsel prepare an effective defense. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:10:00 -0500 From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times #2 On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 10:44:01AM -0500, Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > > aaron's comments on > > > > Just how the hell do we court their favor? > > included this.... > > > Our goal is to induce the media to write stories > > that help, rather than hurt, hacker causes. > > to me, that seems like a worthy issue. please consider that "hacker > causes" are much less important than the larger issue that this listserv > is aimed at: someone accused of rather trivial crimes is being detained > without a bail hearing, without access to the evidence against him, and > in violation of various fundamental constitutional rights. You're right, I was wrong. It was late at night and I was looking for a broader term than "Kevin's case" (because we aren't just talking about Kevin, here) and picked the wrong one. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 15:23:43 -0500 From: John Vranesevich Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times Greetings All, Ok, I'm certainly not going to start involving myself in flame wars. I'm going to say a few things, then drop back into idle mode. "In your arrogant and flawed attempt to gain a leadership role in this movement (or "campaign" as you put it), you have fraudulently represented AntiOnline as being endorsed by the Official Kevin Mitnick Site." First off, I have NO desire, none, not the least bit, to become the "leader of the Mitnick plight". I think each of us desires to have a person in our lives that will stand by us as much as Emmanuel stands by Kevin. Secondly, there's a phrase which says "Don't Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth". You're getting more views to kevinmitnick.com now, that's all that should matter to you. Secondly, and no offense, I certainly wouldn't want AntiOnline to be officially endorsed by the Official Kevin Mitnick Site. It is very one sided, as it should be, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that at all. However, I like to stay on middle ground with my site as much as possible. To say that by placing a link to a website, means that the site your linking to officially endorses yours, is just stupid. As far as AntiOnline being "commercial". Last time I checked, 2600 magazine wasn't being given out free of charge, nor were their T-shirts, cds of archived radio shows, etc. Other organizations have followed suit, even l0phtcrack is shareware now. "Who the hell are you to make such a suggestion? Even in this blatant attempt to solicit recognition from 2600, you refuse to directly acknowledge them." First off, I made the suggestion as a user of this list, nothing more, and until I'm no longer a user of this list, either by choice, or by force, I'll continue to do so. Personal flames do shit for the Mitnick plight, and are little more than lame attempts of ego boosters for the people making them. Furthermore, I have no desire to "solicit recognition from 2600". Like it or not, AntiOnline is recognized internationally by most everyone in the computer security field, and is quoted daily by the world's largest news agencies. 2600 has its place, and I have mine. I have NO desire to inter tangle the position that I feel I have obtained, with the position that they have obtained. Also, I think you're trying to place harsh feelings where non exist. I met up with Emmanuel and Phiber a while back on one of my trips to NyCity, and even made an appearance on Off The Hook while I was there. As far as I know, there are no hard feelings between any of us. When he was down in the Pittsburgh area on his way to defcon, he called wanting to meet up, unfortunately I was unable to due to prior commitments. So as I said, I think the problem here is with your PERSONAL attitude, and not with any harshness between AntiOnline and 2600. So, my rantings here do shit for the list either. As I said, I'll go back to idling and watch the "interesting" flow of conversation from now on. Yours In CyberSpace, John Vranesevich Founder, AntiOnline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:53:43 EST From: BackRowSka@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] Forbes Article So I have been anxiously awaiting Forbes magazine since yesterday to look at the article about HFG and the NYT hack. I already read the article yesterday but still wanted to see it in print. So it arrives in the mail, and need not to look far because right on the cover "INSIDE THE SECRET WORLD OF HACKERS." So I open to page 132 and there it is-the HFG logo (with a nipple or two showing). It has the black background and the white print. Why does Forbes have to print the black background? Its another subconscious message. Also to whomever has seen it, or to the author who is or isn't on this list, What the hell is with Carolyn Meinel with the donkey in her living room? Also the caption below the picture of Markoff (which is a real bad picture) is just plain stupid. It says -Times Reporter John Markoff: "Sure I was Pissed". Come on! Well, I would like to hear feedback on this article from other people which states Kevin as being "A martyr to hackers" which martyr is defined in Websters "a person who sacrifices something of great value and esp. life itself for the sake of principle." If you are going to buy Forbes it is the one with the general on the front. - -Mike Ossner- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:30:45 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times That's about the only sensible thing you've said so far. Let's hope you stick to your guns, and keep that sock in your mouth. > So, my rantings here do shit for the list either. As I said, > I'll go back to idling and watch the "interesting" flow of > conversation from now on. > > Yours In CyberSpace, > John Vranesevich > Founder, AntiOnline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:37:17 EST From: Phoenxknt@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] kevin's grandmother In a message dated 98-11-03 08:48:43 EST, you write: << As if she doesn't have enough problems as it is with Kevin being in Jail.>> Yah, i think we should all send a card, but don't put free kevin on it, as that could get her worked up about not being able to help for a while :-/ - -Absolute Matter ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:16:56 -0500 From: "Bachrach" Subject: [mitnick] [distributed.net] cracking for kevin team Just quickly for those of you who don't know, distributed.net is a group of people trying to crack a message encrypted with RC5-64 encryption as part of a contest. Thousands of people from all over the world download the client system and run it on their computers. The client will use extra processing power when the compute is idle to try and crack the code, and mail results back to the central thing via several proxy servers they have set up. (all you really have to do is download the client and install it, a five year old could do it). There are teams within distributed.net, and one of them is "cracking for Kevin" (mitnick of course). It's obvious from recent results that a lot of people are on the team, so I just wanted to send a little update. Yesterday we completely a total of 18,738 blocks. On a normal day that would be among the top 100 for that day, but on mondays all the machines that were off-line over the weekend flush their 'out-boxes' and everything is higher. We only missed the dailt top 100 by around 600 blocks. Since we really didn't get going until recently, we only broke the overall top 250 today, moving from 251 to 249 overall. Looking ahead of us though I can see that most of the teams in front of us are not turning out nearly as many blocks as us, and we should pass hadiko, cornjerkers, and PAC in the next day or two, in fact, looking at the last two days stats we may even pass them sometime today. (In which case you would see it updated tommorow). I of course urge you all to join, both for Kevin and for the general cause of helping to cracks the encryption, proving that there is a need for stronger encryption in this country. (plus, if you are the lucky one to crack the code you could win money). The main homepage for the kevin team is http://www.paranoid.org/mitnick/ and all you really need to do to start is go to www.distributed.net and download the apropriate client for your OS. - --On a personal note guess who just added a second computer to the cause that runs 24/7 and moved up another 2441 places on the overall people list? :-) - ----------------------------------- | are you helping distributed.net to crack RC-5 64 encryption? you should be. | are you on distributed.net and on team #39, cracking for kevin? you should be. - ----------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:53:46 -0500 From: Arik Hesseldahl Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times I don't think you, of all people, should go around using words like "sensible" without first consulting a dictionary, and secondly, applying the definition you find therein to yourself. See also: civilized, thoughtful and mature. >That's about the only sensible thing you've said so far. Let's >hope you stick to your guns, and keep that sock in your mouth. > >> So, my rantings here do shit for the list either. As I said, >> I'll go back to idling and watch the "interesting" flow of >> conversation from now on. >> >> Yours In CyberSpace, >> John Vranesevich >> Founder, AntiOnline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:16:39 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times Rudeness alters neither fact nor truth, but rather serves to blind the weak. So far, you've been unable to attack the substance of my post, instead concentrating on my character flaws. That, in turn, reveals a lot about you. As for my behavior -- I accept the fact that it is totally socially unacceptable. Likewise, you should accept the fact that I still espouse we're better served by your self-fornication. Or, compare that to your own behavior, in which you attack the tone and arrogance of the messenger, yet do nothing with the message itself. You too, are as intellectually bankrupt as Arik Hesseldahl. I'd rather be an arrogant son of a bitch with anti-social tendencies than an idiot in man's clothing. On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:53:46 -0500, Arik Hesseldahl wrote: > > I don't think you, of all people, should go around using words > like "sensible" without first consulting a dictionary, and secondly, > applying the definition you find therein to yourself. See also: > civilized, thoughtful and mature. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:23:52 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] "more boilerplate" more boilerplate to use in letters, flyers, etc.... corrections of error in fact, comments, etc., welcome and requested. =============================================== > What is it he is alleged to have done? see http://www.kevinmitnick.com/indictment.html for the full content of the grand jury indictment against kevin mitnick. > It sounds like a serious case. interestingly enough, dramatically more serious crimes have been committed by other computer scientists, most notably one robert morris. robert morris is the fellow who released a "worm" onto the internet in 1988 that effectively shut down major portions of the internet. conservative estimates of the real damages caused by morris (as in computers crashing and not running for hours or days until software repairs were completed) range into the tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars. he got 3 years (or 5; i'm unsure) probation, and a small fine. no one has written any front-page articles for the nytimes about mr. morris' crimes since the initial reporting on the event that shut down the internet. then again, mr. morris' father works for the NSA, where he is a highly placed bureaucrat. a month or two later, kevin mitnick was arrested in los angeles for the first time for alleged computer crimes; the prosecuting attorney called him "extremely dangerous" when "armed with a keyboard." no mention was made about robert morris as the man who crashed the internet. when compared with robert morris, and despite the rhetoric of the u.s. attorney who prosecuted kevin in 1988, no allegations have been made (other than in the grand jury indictment as written by the u.s.attorney) that kevin mitnick damaged anything. the indictment alleges he "damaged" computers, but gives no evidence or description of any damaged computers. to the best of my knowledge, no one representing either the USG or the companies alleged to be "victimized" by actions alleged to be committed by kevin mitnick has provided any documentation of any financial losses whatsoever. > Why is the government so intent on keeping him > in jail? it's my contention (and the contention of others) that kevin mitnick's extraordinary treatment by USG is based upon the libelous statements made by two people: Katie Hafner and John Markoff. they were married at the time they jointly (? not sure...) wrote a book called "cyberpunk". kevin mitnick was a central character in that book. people who know one another in the hacking community compete with each other in odd ways. one way they compete is by telling disparaging untruths about each other to writers and reporters. hafner asked kevin for an interview for "cyberpunk". kevin would agree to speak with her and her then-husband/co-author markoff if they would pay him a fee. i've heard (hearsay) that in interviews since the book was published, hafner has acknowledged threatening kevin mitnick that if kevin didn't consent to an interview without a fee, they'd write about kevin and print the disparaging comments that others said about him. kevin acknowledges this to be the case as well. in the years following the release of that book, markoff wrote three articles disparaging kevin mitnick in personal and legal ways (alleging criminal behavior). one of those articles appeared on the front page on july 4, 1994. within days, the u.s. marshall's office announced that arresting kevin mitnick was a top priority. as the summer 1998 issue of 2600 wrote, "all the article said was that mitnick was a fugitive being sought by the fbi. now markoff was the "mitnick expert," despite his lack of first-hand knowledge." the two subsequent articles both appeared on the front page, and in both of those front page articles john markoff wrote statements about kevin mitnick's actions as fact, as though markoff had first-hand knowledge of those actions, although markoff did not. in addition, both articles quote tsutomu shimomura, with whom markoff had both a personal and professional relationship, although markoff failed to mention that relationship in more than 5,000 words of reporting on the front page of the nytimes on two separate occasions. in the eighteen years i've been doing media analysis, i've not seen a more egregious example of journalistic malfeasance against a u.s. citizen since the rosenberg case, or perhaps the cointelpro attacks on the black panther party. leonard peltier's case would qualify, but coverage about leonard was primarily local (some national coverage), whereas kevin mitnick was being written about worldwide after markoff's article in july 1994. markoff and shimomura shared a $700,000 book deal within a week of the final article describing the arrest of kevin mitnick. mitnick got nothing. here's an analogy: you're a star in your field. imagine someone asked to interview you for a book and you refused. they went ahead with the book, and quoted a dozen people claiming to be your associates who alleged that you plagiarize your students' work routinely. you don't have the money to defend yourself. you come up for tenure, and during the hearing, the book is cited as a source. the nytimes then publishes a cover story on you, alleging that you're the biggest plagiarist in academia. you get turned down for tenure. the person who wrote the articles for the nytimes then signs a book deal writing about your failure to achieve tenure, and how your life has collapsed. that's more or less what's happening to kevin, except for the fact that his behavior is alleged to be criminal, rather than merely unethical as in the mythical example above. > ...is there a write up on the case besides what > is on the web site? here are a few other url's.... http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/computer-crime/mitnick-3-29-97.tx t is a brief description of the circumstances i described above. http://www.pathfinder.com/altculture/aentries_ew/k/kxmitnick.html - from entertainment weekly's website with links to 2600 and kevinmitnick.com. one of the few sites that mentions possible ethics violations, albeit indirectly, on markoff's part. Note: the nation magazine is the only source i've seen that published an analysis of the implications of markoff's violation of journalistic ethics; i'm currently trying to locate that article's citation. http://members.aol.com/crashursys/index2.html is an interesting, sympathetic look at kevin mitnick's situation from (presumably) someone interested in hacking. http://www.salon1999.com/30dec1995/features/qamarkoff.html - a q & a with markoff that contains some statements that i'd describe as journalistically suspect. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:50:27 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] More court doc references OK, dan sissman has provided reference points for these court documents, and the updated files are now on kevinmitnick.com -- April 22, 1996 court transcript references: http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans042296.html#plea Kevin enters his plea and is examined by Judge Pfaelzer http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans042296.html#rights Prosecutor Schindler informs Kevin of his rights http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans042296.html#proof Prosecutor Schindler outlines the case against Kevin, and the attorneys agree on dates for further proceedings. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans042296.html#mdc Attorney Yzurdiaga arranges to have Kevin held at the MDC. October 7, 1996 court transcript references: http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#appoint Donald Randolph is officially appointed as KDM's attorney, and there is discussion of when to meet to set a trial date. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#third Prosecutor Painter describes the alleged 2 and a half year "hacking spree". http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#additional It is agreed that bail for KDM will be discussed at the next meeting on November 4. Also, Prosecutor Painter alleges a conflict of interest because Lewis DePayne's attorney Richard Sherman once represented Kevin Mitnick. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#response Attorney Randolph responds to the conflict of interest issue. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#waiver Attorney Sherman files a waiver to exempt Lewis Depayne from future pre-trial appearances. http://www.kevinmitnick.com/trans100796.html#tapes Discussion of evidence in the form of 15 audio cassette tapes of phone calls allegedly made by the defendants. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 06:42:15 -0400 From: che guevara Subject: [mitnick] indictment i was just reading kevin's indictment....what the fuck is meant by "misappropriating software belonging to the companies described below"? - -- che guevara "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man" [Che Guevara] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:57:59 -0500 From: Arik Hesseldahl Subject: [mitnick] response to support services If there were any substance to attack or debate, I might make the effort. From what I see, your posts consist of nothing more than simple flames and commands to cease and desist posting "irrelevant" matter to this list. And not just where I'm concerned. I don't know who appointed you the list's stormtrooper/ thought police, but it's a role that doesn't become you. But since you insist, I will do my level best to rebut what little substance there is from your posts attacking me. >Carefully explain to us how a NYT (the same scum who acted as a soap- >box for Markoff, where he spouted his inaccuracies) article on Hack- >tivism will specifically benefit the Mitnick case. Don't be a coy >scumbag reporter -- tread on the issue and stay on-topic. Exactly >how will Randolph, or anyone else defending Mitnick, use your stupid >off-subject post to create a better situation for Kevin? Dumb ass. One, the New York Times article on hacktivism describes how several groups with various political goals are organizing and using their skills to bring attention to their causes, and cause system problems for their enemies. Simple as that. It seems to me that those involved with the so-called "Free Kevin" movement could learn from having read the article, and that it might stimulate a bit of discussions. I had no reason to refer anyone to it beyond that. >Several people, including myself, would also find the latest Iraqi >incidents interesting. That doesn't mean I post them all on here. >That's obvious. The fact that you formulate such a weak excuse to >cover-up your off-topic bullshit serves as just another indication >of how intellectually bankrupt you are... especially as a reporter. You're right. Postings on the lastest "Iraqi incidents" as you call them would be off-topic, and have no place on this list, especially since it has nothing to do with hacking. If you're going to try and attack me using some kind of logic, compare apples with apples, not oranges. It seems that at least a few people on the list have agreed wtih my reasoning, and found the article both interesting and useful. If you'd care put forth some kind of evidence regarding how intellecutually bankrupt I am, I'd like first to your credentials for saying so. I've been a journalist for ten years, and I've covered the hacking scene for two years. I've written for Wired, Wired News and The Columbia Journalism Review on the topic. The first time the words "Hong Kong Blondes" were seen in print, it was under my byline. I have also written about Kevin. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/14855.html I have spent a good part of my free time during the last two years trying to follow the always-changing nature of the hacker culture. I don't walk into writing a story having already made a judgement. I let those involved explain to me their viewpoints and do my best to document claims and charges made. Truth is an elusive quarry and never easy to pin down. I'm not in this for the money. Yes, I support myself as a working journalist. It's a job, just like plumbing or working as a security card or stock broker or an ISP tech support person. But I'm not out looking for a book/movie deal. To do so would be disingenous to the process of journalism. >No - I didn't think that for one minute. This guy's not a kid, >he's a scumbag reporter out for a blood-story, at Kevin's expense. >All the reporters play their little games to get what they want. >His is to feed us off-topic bullshit, in an insincere show of >patriotism and all that shit. Good thing Kevin is experienced >enough to know better than to talk to the likes of this guy. I have nothing to gain from anything that happens to Kevin one way or another. You wanna know how much Wired News paid me for the one story I did on Kevin? About $300. For the story I did on the hack of the Times Web site? Another $400. If I'm "out for a blood story as Kevin's expense" as you say, then I sure haven't been very successful at it. I know that may seems like a lot of money to some people on the list, but I live in New York City, and that kind of money disappears quickly here as the cost of living is twice that of any other place in the the US. And from the postings on this list, which I've been following since the early summer, I can say quite confidently that it doesn't take much for the list to go off-topic. As for Kevin talking to me, it should be quite obvious to you, if you have any familiarity with legal procedures, that for Kevin to talk to ANYONE would be stupid for him right now. I actually doubt that he will ever grant an interview after he gets out, conviction or no. From what I've read about him, and those who know him personally will either agree with this or correct me if I'm wrong, he never liked the notoriety he had gained. >The media is a garbage pail of half-truths and self-serving >interests. Therefore, why would I want to associate myself >with that? If you're another one of the scum-buckets who >writes for the media, so be it... you're a scumbag. Your >interest is simply self-serving. Your relationship is no >different than that of any other reporter or media person. I won't dispute your claim about half-truths and self-serving interests in the media. It is a wasteland. First and foremost, there are far too many media outlets right now competing for attention and their own unique angle on each and every story. And where coverage of the hacker scene is concerned, the main problem is one of technical ignorance. Most reporters who try to cover the scene know the Internet culture well, but don't enough enough about how all the infrastructure works and how that actually contributes to the underground's unique points of view. Of the few journalists who do have the technical grounding, most are off covering other things. I have worked for Internet World, a weekly trade paper that covers nothing but the Internet. To my knowledge, I was the only one who in recent memory wrote a story concerning hackers. The rest were too busy writing about new businesses, products and technologies. In the grand scheme of coverage of the new economy, hackers, rightly or wrongly, exist on a periphery. The scene is difficult to understand in a short time, which in most cases is all a reporter has to gather the information for a story. Reporters, in general are like most people, very overworked, very underpaid, and face a lot of the same complaints from people like you every day. My interest in the scene has been personal. I wrote my masters project at Columbia University on New York's scene, and have been attending 2600 meeting at Citicorp with fair regularity since November of 1996. I have made an honest attempt to try and have the relevant background to understand the scene so that when things happen, I can write about it in such a way that I can explain it as correctly and simply as I can to a reader who does not have all the background. Keep in mind that most daily newspapers are written at an 8th-grade reading level, with rare exceptions. It is very difficult to explain the technical underpinnings of rooting a box to the average reader in such a way that they will understand it both as an action unto itself, and in the context that it's really not all that uncommon. >Don't tell me you're different -- that you're willing to >forego your interests and risk your career over accurately >reporting the Mitnick story. Are you ready to chastise and >scold other reporters publicly? Are you ready to lose the >"respect" of your fellow scumbags, all in the name of Kevin? I won't tell you I'm different. I'm NOT willing to risk my career for Kevin. But to accurately report what happened would NOT be something that would risk my career. To be honest, I recently pitched a story to a major magazine that would have examined the coverage of the Mitnick case from beginning to end, paying close attention to possibility (though I suspect most here treat it as fact) that Markoff was not an unbiased party when he picked up the Mitnick story for The Times. He has already devoted a major section of his Cyberpunk book to Kevin. At the time he suspected that Kevin had hacked his account on the Well. Jon Littman claims that Markoff even wanted to "catch" Kevin, a claim Markoff has since denied. My story idea was simply not accepted by the magazine I suggested it to. Simple as that. My suspicion is that their staff may already be working on a similar story as I speak, but I have no direct knowledge of it. That said, it's not my job to take issue with that other reporters have written. I'm not suppossed to inject my opinions into what I write. That's for the columnists and self-appointed pundits. I don't deal in my own opinions. I deal with facts and what people say about those facts. My opinion in the Mitnick case, is irrelevant. The only reason I even joined this list in the first place was to get a feel for what people on one side of the fence are saying about the case. It has not been particularly useful, with the exception that this is where I first learned about the NYT hack. Why I even bothered to try to give a heads up to the NYT story is, at this point, beyond me. Personally, I think Kevin's getting a pretty rotten deal. Most of the people here think so as well. You want to do something about it? Turn on your printers and write many many letters to newspapers that might actually cover the upcoming trial. Include my friend and colleague Chris Allbritton at the Associated Press in your list of addresses. (You can find the mailing address if you look hard enough.) Remind these editors simply, briefly, and firmly, that there is more than one viewpoint in the Mitnick case, and that there are lingering questions about how his case came to become such a priority for federal prosecutors in the first place. What papers will be covering the trial? San Jose Mercury, probably. LA Times, definitely. LA Daily News. Alternative papers in LA. Wired. Wired News (both are seperate entities owned by different companies now.) Associated Press (probably the LA Bureau). Reuters. Washington Post. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francsico Examiner. Possibly the NY Times even, but probably not John Markoff, for obvious reason. You might also go have a look at the Online Journalism Review. www.ojr.org, and read the several columns on the case in "hacker alert." These might give you some ideas in lobbying the media to bring pay attention to the case and not just follow the party line giving by federal prosecutors. If you raise sufficient questions about the case in the minds of the right reporters, you might get somewhere with this. Writing to local papers in Muncie, Indiana isn't going to get you anywhere. Small local papers are only going to use if AP wire feed on the Mitnick story and are too busy with local issues to spend any time on it, other than to use your letters to the editor as filler when there's not enough letters for that day's paper. Beyond that, I might suggest to any students out there, that you get off the grid for awhile, and try your own hand at the craft of journalism. If you understand the technology well can write well, offer up your services to your school paper to write about the scene. If you're in the LA area, offer to help with trial coverage by being someone a reporter can call for explanations when they don't understand something. Reporters really do want to get it right. Honestly. In most cases they just don't have enough information. If you're in college, try taking a journalism class or apply for a job at your campus paper, and offer to cover the local scene. Offer to write a guest column on Mitnick case. Most papers are generally open to such suggestions. But don't get offended when your work is edited for length and clarity and grammatical correctness. All publications have space limitations and other style guidelines they must adhere to in order to remain consistent. Be reasonable. Don't send them a 20,000 words like the unabombers manifesto. No one will read it, and no one will print it. Write 500 words on the most important and salient facts on the case. Call up the opinion page editor at the paper. Ask about guest column submission guidelines. Call up the local daily paper. Do the same thing. Do make accusations you can't prove (you'll get get the paper in trouble). Point to salient, provable facts or unprovable, taken-for-granted "facts" and question them. When the movie is released, you've got what's called a news hook. Get in touch with entertainment reporters. Call to attention inaccuracies that put Kevin in a false light. Call reporters and colunists that cover the net and bring these facts to their attention. The sad fact is that this is not going to get anyone's attention until the movie is out. There is a multi-billion dollar industry devoted to getting the attention of the press. It's called public relations. Its very existence is due to the fact that getting the undivided attention of a reporter is a difficult thing to do. It's not a global conspiracy. It's just a simple, unfortunate fact that is not going to change soon. With that, I'm finally going to take your advice, support services, and shut up. >Rudeness alters neither fact nor truth, but rather serves to >blind the weak. So far, you've been unable to attack the >substance of my post, instead concentrating on my character >flaws. That, in turn, reveals a lot about you. As for my >behavior -- I accept the fact that it is totally socially >unacceptable. Likewise, you should accept the fact that I >still espouse we're better served by your self-fornication. > >Or, compare that to your own behavior, in which you attack the >tone and arrogance of the messenger, yet do nothing with the >message itself. You too, are as intellectually bankrupt as >Arik Hesseldahl. I'd rather be an arrogant son of a bitch >with anti-social tendencies than an idiot in man's clothing. > >On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:53:46 -0500, Arik Hesseldahl wrote: >> >> I don't think you, of all people, should go around using words >> like "sensible" without first consulting a dictionary, and secondly, >> applying the definition you find therein to yourself. See also: >> civilized, thoughtful and mature. ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #192 *****************************