mitnick-digest Tuesday, December 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 208 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:30:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... I can't take it anymore, dammit! Che: I have never seen another human being more impervious to sarcasm than you are. rOTTEN: Do you think making fun of kids who -- despite being quite dense and thoroughly naive -- are trying to help, much less dragging out said ridicule over the course of a dozen or so emails, is doing *anything* to improve the S/N ratio on this list? Or are you just being an asshole for the fun of it, this time? I mean, sure, it was funny the first six times or so, but after that it sort of went down hill, y'know? Puh*lease* lay off. The aforementioned naive and dense kids: If you want a formal organization, try directing it towards something more general than Kevin Mitnick's cause - -- say, "Hackers for Justice, Freedom, Truth, The American Way, and Family Values", or something like that. Even then, a formal organization of hackers is something of an oxymoron. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:54:42 PST From: "TelePhreak ." Subject: [mitnick] Poem/ Chapter Bylaws greetyings, first off, i was sitting bored as can be about a month ago in class, and decided to write somewhat of a mitnick poem...here it is, oh yea...if you dont like it..make your own to shut me up, but dont try to put mine down. by the way, its not at all rhyming 3.5 years........No trial.... Hacked some computers....... Stuck in jail...with no bail.... He's all alone behind bars.... That Kevin Mitnick 4 years in a house of white...... Lied.....cheated on his wife...... Ordered others to bomb hundreds...... Just to save his own ass.... He's smoking a fat cigar now.... Thats Bill Clinton....Our president Who should be in jail? Who the real treat? ======================== Ok....now the Chapter bylaws....etc.. First off, rotten....why would we want to send you anywhere?!!? heh Next, i really didnt think we would have to send out a copy of the bylaws to everyone....i figured there would be a main site, where everyone can access the bylaws, and print them out. On this site i figured we would have access to flyers, and other kevin mitnick stuff. and anyway, if we did somehow manage to send out copies to everyone, why would that help? Oh so they could just lose them, or so people can Frame it and bow down to the almighty bylaws? just doesnt make sense to me... - - - - - - - - ->Phone Rangers<- - - - - - - - - - - F -TelePhreak R Email: AcidHak@Hotmail.com E mIRC: TelePhrk E ICQ: 10886438 K Aol Instant Messanger: TelePhrk 0 E NPA: 908 (NJ) V http://phonerangers.home.ml.org/ I http://welcome.to/phonerangers N - - - - - - - - ->Phone Rangers<- - - - - - - - - - - ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 17:07:42 -0400 From: che guevara Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... I like the sarcasm. p.s....it's naïve - -- che guevara "I never think of the future - it comes soon enough." [albert einstein] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:28:25 -0800 (PST) From: Edith Crabtree Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... john barleycorn said (in essence): There wasn't an outcry for Minor Threat because he was arrested for stealing phone company equipment, which categorized him as a common criminal. It's consoling to know that even in the so called "hacker community" there are distinctions between different types of crime and criminals. Let me make sure I understand how this works. If someone steals hadware, then they are a thief. Which relegates them to the status of common criminal, of which the individual deserves to be shunned, abandoned, and rejected. However, if an individual uses hardware to break into networks and systems, and steal software, then somehow they aren't considered a criminal, which comes replete with the privilege of being accepted, supported, and embraced. Of course that may also depend on who the individual is. Was it a virtual crime? It virtually didn't happen? It occured out in the ether somewhere and doesn't exsist? Does anyone know how I could gat one of those Free Kevin serapes? > Edith Crabtree wrote: > > > Minor Threat went to jail (I'm not sure whether he's still in), and no > > one made a sound concerning his situation. For those of you who don't > > know, Minor Threat coded the famous war dialer program ToneLoc. I > > don't know what excatly he went to jail for, (something computer > > related I believe, if not for programming ToneLoc). However, no one > > said a word, (I think Emmanuel mentioned it once on Off The Hook, but > > that's about it). He just went to jail. I quess the public outcry > > movement is selective in it's battles. Or the individuals involved, > > (those in or going to jail), are not all equal. It's funny how some > > people who encourage those who are arrested, to hold out in jail or to > > not cop a plea, aren't the ones sitting in jail or have ever been > > arrested for that matter. Phiber Optik didn't cop a plea, he held out > > like a real stand up guy. He also did the most time out of all the > > MOD group. > > > > Be careful or you will get (be) used. > > > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 23:26:20 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] Constructive things to do 1. Write a letter to the editor below, complaining that the statement that Kevin Mitnick was accused of stealing credit card numbers is very misleading, as the credit card numbers were in a file that was circulated around IRC and the net for months before it was found on K's computer. He never used any of the numbers, and he was never charged with this, so the Associated Press shouldn't be printing it. (Again.) This is not only misleading, it's a good example of how the media's had such a big impact on this case and law enforcement's paranoia. Steve Loper Associated Press 221 South Figueroa #300 Los Angeles CA 90012 Here's the statement from the story: "He was arrested in 1995, accused of stealing 20,000 credit card numbers." 2. Find the abovementioned editor's email address (or someone else appropriate at the AP) and give it to the rest of us so we can email him. 3. Go to http://www.kevinmitnick.com/wycd.html and write some letters/emails to the media contacts there. If you have media contacts that should be there, not so much local ones, but national or international especially, send me the contact info and I can add it. Some fair attention from the press would be really good right now, because Judge Pfaelzer could very well just decide on Wednesday that the government's misdeeds will have no bearing on this case. thanks! :) kerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, che guevara wrote: # I like the sarcasm. You have been trolled; you have been informed; you have forged on. I wash my hands. Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere bit bucket! Dinner! # p.s....it's naïve Not in 7-bit ASCII, it ain't. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:50:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Edith Crabtree wrote: # Let me make sure I understand how this works. # # If someone steals hadware, then they are a thief. Which relegates # them to the status of common criminal, of which the individual # deserves to be shunned, abandoned, and rejected. # # However, if an individual uses hardware to break into networks and # systems, and steal software ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And there's your error, right at the beginning. There's no such thing as "stealing" software. By definition, stealing involves taking something away from somebody. Illegal copying of software is just that -- illegal copying. It may or may not be immoral, and it certainly is illegal, but it is *not* the same as stealing something with a physical existence, which can only be possessed by one person at a time. If I have ethical qualms about copying some piece of software, it would be because such an action would be a violation of privacy or a breach of contract, not because it takes anything away from the putative victim. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:08:40 -0500 From: "ArGus" Subject: [mitnick] Re: I think you have the wrong person, I post a message that I was intresteding getting a Mpeg of the 20/20 story done on him. But the song dose sound like a good idea... Just I could NEVER do it! - ---ArGus - -----Original Message----- From: Kamikaze Kaze To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 9:47 AM >OK. > >YOU wrote that you wanted to do a song about kevin being in jail, >aldought i should have realised that ether yiu diden`t write it or you >were like drunk or something. >I`ve got 3 guy that can play drums and guitarr if you weren`t drunk at >the time, or if you just changed your mind. >There is one more posibility of course, i might have been a mail from >someone else. >forgive my extremly bad spelling, i`m swedish. >Kamikazen. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 15:36:08 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... - -----Original Message----- From: Edith Crabtree To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... > >john barleycorn said (in essence): > >There wasn't an outcry for Minor Threat because he was arrested for >stealing phone company equipment, which categorized him as a common >criminal. > > > >It's consoling to know that even in the so called "hacker community" >there are distinctions between different types of crime and criminals. > >Let me make sure I understand how this works. [...] >Was it a virtual crime? It virtually didn't happen? It occured out >in the ether somewhere and doesn't exsist? The major distinction (which, incidentally, I do not myself wholly agree with) is that when you steal a piece of hardware, you have it and the original owner doesn't. When you steal a piece of software, it is generally the case that you have it and so, too, does the original owner. The argument here is that since the owner still has it, it hasn't been stolen (definition of theft as deprivation). It can, however, be argued as a corollary that since you *do* have it, it *has* been stolen (definition of theft as acquisition). With hardware, it doesn't matter whether theft happens when the owner is deprived or when the thief acquires: the two qualities are synonymous in the theft of tangible objects. With software or other information, it becomes a very iffy situation, since existing IP law is utterly useless in the face of everyone being able to (and in fact *expected* to) copy everything. There's just not as much rich intellectual debate inherent in the idea of stealing phone company equipment. In the idea of stealing software, however, you hit up against the problem IP laws have always had: it's all up to the judge. Look very carefully at the existing copyright laws. See anything missing? Absolutes. There's a lot of broad wording like 'substantial similarity' and 'reasonably equivalent', but that's not an accurate representation of what is and isn't allowed. Maybe I'm alone here on this, but I find the whole digital copyright and "theft of information" issue fascinating. I think it's one of the key elements of the case, and one which the defense ought to make heavy reference to. Some of the qualifications for "federal interest" computers are also outdated, and this should be heavily stressed. As required, I must state here that I am not a lawyer. I just happen to have read large portions of the United States Code since the early eighties. While this undoubtedly makes me reasonably competent in the discussion of some portions of the USC for civilian purposes, it's certainly not comparable to formal education at a reputable academy of law, and it would be positively suicidal to think for one minute that it was. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:38:45 -0800 From: Brian Subject: Re: [mitnick] Re: At 18:08 12/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >I think you have the wrong person, I post a message that I was intresteding >getting a Mpeg of the 20/20 story done on him. But the song dose sound like >a good idea... Just I could NEVER do it! >---ArGus Someone did talk about making a song, but i belive that it died out, and no one remembered it. -brain kandy- Free Kevin Mitnick - Visit www.kevinmitnick.com ICQ: 6635525 AIM: Msie Kandy E-mail: brainkandy@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 15:50:13 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... - -----Original Message----- From: Aaron D. Ball To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... >If I have ethical qualms about copying >some piece of software, it would be because such an action would be a >violation of privacy or a breach of contract, not because it takes anything >away from the putative victim. Actually, this is an oversimplification. It denies the victim certain exclusive rights which are guaranteed by law -- namely, exclusive control of the copying and distribution of his property. This is guaranteed by existing copyright law in the U.S. (And by international copyright law, to a different degree. The issues are the same, but the specifics are different.) As a result, you actually ARE taking something away from the victim, but what you take away isn't what you get and what you get isn't what you take away. Hmm. Hairy situation, that. However... One might consider someone who made a leaflet. Let's say it's a picture of Mickey Mouse wagging his private parts. He shows it to you, and you think it's funny so you make a copy of it. Then he decides he doesn't want anyone else to see the picture. Can he demand that you give back the copy you made? If a given individual or organisation knows that a copy has been made of something they no longer want copied, can they retroactively retract copies made previously? Do they have any right to do so, independent of whether it would actually happen in the real world (which I think we all realise it wouldn't)? It is worth noting that I don't believe overly in the concept of intellectual property. I think the major effect of these laws is to deprive the public of resources, not to encourage artists to create them. This contradicts the portion of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) which forms the foundation of copyright. (You'd have to speak to someone else about international issues.) As Richard Stallman said, "Control over one's ideas really constitutes control over other people's lives, and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 15:46:45 -0800 (PST) From: Edith Crabtree Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... What about the breaking into networks part, you sap? I am not pro theft of anything. But taking a piece of equipment from the phone company? The phone company! I don't know of a larger organized group of thieves this side of organized crime and the government. I don't agree with what is happening to Kevin. But you have to admit, the guy was already busted for the same thing once before. If he didn't want to get burned the second time, he should of kept his hand out of the flame. I don't believe he is an innocent victim. However what is happening to him is bad. But he also might be listening to poor council. One thing is certain, Kevin has become a cash cow and cottege industry for quit a few people. Unfortunately, it isn't doing him any good. But you can rest assured others are cashing in, whether it's for montetary gain, or public recognition. They're on it like vultures. It doesn't matter whether he's in or out of jail. They're going to make sure they get theirs either way. 1 Free Kevin serape please. - ---"Aaron D. Ball" wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Edith Crabtree wrote: > > # Let me make sure I understand how this works. > # > # If someone steals hadware, then they are a thief. Which relegates > # them to the status of common criminal, of which the individual > # deserves to be shunned, abandoned, and rejected. > # > # However, if an individual uses hardware to break into networks and > # systems, and steal software > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > And there's your error, right at the beginning. There's no such thing as > "stealing" software. By definition, stealing involves taking something away > from somebody. Illegal copying of software is just that -- illegal copying. > It may or may not be immoral, and it certainly is illegal, but it is *not* > the same as stealing something with a physical existence, which can only be > possessed by one person at a time. If I have ethical qualms about copying > some piece of software, it would be because such an action would be a > violation of privacy or a breach of contract, not because it takes anything > away from the putative victim. > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 00:46:18 +0000 From: kerry Subject: Re: [mitnick] Constructive things to do Sorry - this article was posted earlier today and I thought the URL had been mentioned there, but I was wrong :) It's on wire.ap.org - also on http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/hacker981130.html, and the story's called "Computer Hacker on the Lam Again", Dec.1, 1998... kerry wrote: > 1. Write a letter to the editor below, complaining that the statement > that Kevin Mitnick was accused of stealing credit card numbers is very > misleading, as the credit card numbers were in a file that was > circulated around IRC and the net for months before it was found on K's > computer. He never used any of the numbers, and he was never charged > with this, so the Associated Press shouldn't be printing it. (Again.) > This is not only misleading, it's a good example of how the media's had > such a big impact on this case and law enforcement's paranoia. > > Steve Loper > Associated Press > 221 South Figueroa #300 > Los Angeles CA 90012 > > Here's the statement from the story: > > "He was arrested in 1995, accused of stealing 20,000 credit card > numbers." > > 2. Find the abovementioned editor's email address (or someone else > appropriate at the AP) and give it to the rest of us so we can email > him. > > 3. Go to http://www.kevinmitnick.com/wycd.html and write some > letters/emails to the media contacts there. If you have media contacts > that should be there, not so much local ones, but national or > international especially, send me the contact info and I can add it. > > Some fair attention from the press would be really good right now, > because Judge Pfaelzer could very well just decide on Wednesday that the > government's misdeeds will have no bearing on this case. > > thanks! :) > 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: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:01:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Edith Crabtree wrote: # What about the breaking into networks part, you sap? Gee, you cocksucking catamite, I guess I must have overlooked the need for an in-depth discussion of "virtual trespassing" when I answered your question about the distinction between theft of hardware and theft of software. # I am not pro theft of anything. But taking a piece of equipment from # the phone company? The phone company! I don't know of a larger # organized group of thieves this side of organized crime and the # government. And? It's a long-established precedent that stealing from thieves is still stealing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:10:05 -0800 (PST) From: Edith Crabtree Subject: Re: [mitnick] to:owner-mitnick... Please ... The last time I opened my internet, the neighbor's dog started barking. - ---Kamikaze Kaze wrote: > > well of course it`s illegal, hacking is. > But still, think of it.the one important hacking rule is not to damage > any systems, but what if we could go in to their computers put a "free > kevin" sign so that it was shown as fast as they opened their computer > or the internet. > Anna. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:05:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: # >If I have ethical qualms about copying # >some piece of software, it would be because such an action would be a # >violation of privacy or a breach of contract, not because it takes anything # >away from the putative victim. # # # Actually, this is an oversimplification. It denies the victim certain # exclusive rights which are guaranteed by law Note "ethical qualms". I'm aware that it's illegal. # -- namely, exclusive control of # the copying and distribution of his property. This is guaranteed by existing # copyright law in the U.S. (And by international copyright law, to a # different degree. The issues are the same, but the specifics are different.) # As a result, you actually ARE taking something away from the victim, but # what you take away isn't what you get and what you get isn't what you take # away. It's a right under law, but I don't believe it's a fundamental moral right. In general, I'm with the "1Nph0 w@n+Z 2 B phr33" crowd: knowledge -- at least "how to" knowledge, which includes software -- can't be owned. One reason is theoretical: I don't think it makes sense to own a class of things as opposed to an instance of a class. Another is moral: cooperation is good, and copyright on process knowledge is hostile to cooperation. There are others. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:57:29 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok, i'd hafta ask the same. Is anyone on from the Kansas City area interested in helping start a chapter around here? Send all replies in a personal e-mail...unless u want a flame from someone on the list (just a guess...) jackdarippa From: Larry To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... > > >AcidRayneWrote > >> And although the 2600 meetings do span across most of the US, it isn't >> completely accessable to the general public. There are many places that are >> without a 2600 meeting that is attended without a long trip... >> > >Des Moines Iowa as an example, anyone in the area care to meet? > > > > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNmSCaNpIpYADgVGcEQJycACgyx5B7Os6NEwOkFPYmzvgYHyME2IAoOir XwKfEt8hhmzs703ZYA3jTUNa =QQsd - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:58:39 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] tO:Jackdarippa... - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hey this wasn't my idea, i just volunteered the fact that i play the guitar :) jackdarippa - - -----Original Message----- From: Kamikaze Kaze To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 8:51 AM Subject: [mitnick] tO:Jackdarippa... >well sure, there`s some guy that want to write a song about kevin, >search for him. >If you read this(the guy who want to make the song), contact >Jackdarippa. >Kamikazen. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNmSCr9pIpYADgVGcEQIuSgCgypDT7qWFG4JWAKuCCT5nk1qYqJIAn3ZV 1VmJp0E5ju0lJBQ1Lg/IN272 =hiY2 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:19:05 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Constructive things to do - example letter fyi to the list: don't send something like this unless you've done the research. begin letter ============ Steve Loper Associated Press, Inc. 221 South Figueroa #300 Los Angeles CA 90012 213-626-1200 Voice 213.346.0200 Fax Mr. Loper: Just a brief note in re an erroneous Associated Press story that appeared recently concerning Kevin Mitnick (note that Mr. Mitnick's first name is, in fact, "Kevin," and not "notorious" as so many media organizations seem to believe). Background ========== The following statement appears in that AP story (referring to Mr. Mitnick): "He was arrested in 1995, accused of stealing 20,000 credit card numbers." Rebuttal ======== Mr. Mitnick has never been charged with ("accused of") "stealing 20,000 credit card numbers," and he has never been accused of using any of the allegedly stolen credit card numbers. After my review of the pending indictments against him, I can confirm that Mr. Mitnick has not been charged with the offense you mention; thus, the AP statement referenced above is false. You may review the indictment for yourself at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/indictment.html. Action Requested ================ In light of the demonstrated falsity of the statement, I respectfully request an immediate correction be issued by Assocated Press, Inc., to all of your subscribers. If AP is interested in Mr. Mitnick's case, please accept my encouragement to report on the recent motions filed by Mr. Mitnick's attorneys in Federal District Court on November 24, 1998. You may review the motions at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news.html. FBI Informant In Mitnick's Former Attorney's Office =================================================== In those motions, Mr. Mitnick's attorneys point to sworn FBI witness statements that document the fact that an FBI informant was employed by Mr. Mitnick's former defense attorney while representing Mr. Mitnick. See http://www.kevinmitnick.com/home.html for more details. The actions of the FBI to plant an informant in Mr. Mitnick's defense attorney's office deserves immediate and widespread attention. The FBI's actions certainly deserve more attention than a 3 year old false charge that may have appeared for the first time in a New York Times article by reporter John Markoff on July 4, 1994. In closing, please note that Mr. Markoff's "journalism" has been criticized by both the New Yorker and The Nation magazines for apparent violations of journalistic ethics in the articles he wrote about Mr. Mitnick. Summary ======= I trust that Associated Press will take immediate action to print a retraction of the false claim I've described above, and I look forward to AP reports on the motions recently filed by Mr. Mitnick, which are scheduled for a hearing in Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's courtroom on Wednesday, December 2, 1998. Thanks in advance for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:22:12 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Constructive things - example letter (typo fixed) fyi to the list: don't send something like this unless you've done the research. begin letter ============ Steve Loper Associated Press, Inc. 221 South Figueroa #300 Los Angeles CA 90012 213-626-1200 Voice 213.346.0200 Fax Mr. Loper: Just a brief note in re an erroneous Associated Press story that appeared recently concerning Kevin Mitnick (note that Mr. Mitnick's first name is, in fact, "Kevin," and not "notorious" as so many media organizations seem to believe). Background ========== The following statement appears in that AP story (referring to Mr. Mitnick): "He was arrested in 1995, accused of stealing 20,000 credit card numbers." Rebuttal ======== Mr. Mitnick has never been charged with ("accused of") "stealing 20,000 credit card numbers," and he has never been accused of using any of the allegedly stolen credit card numbers. After my review of the pending indictments against him, I can confirm that Mr. Mitnick has not been charged with the offense you mention; thus, the AP statement referenced above is false. You may review the indictment for yourself at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/indictment.html. Action Requested ================ In light of the demonstrated falsity of the statement, I respectfully request an immediate correction be issued by Associated Press, Inc., to all of your subscribers. If AP is interested in Mr. Mitnick's case, please accept my encouragement to report on the recent motions filed by Mr. Mitnick's attorneys in Federal District Court on November 24, 1998. You may review the motions at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news.html. FBI Informant In Mitnick's Former Attorney's Office =================================================== In those motions, Mr. Mitnick's attorneys point to sworn FBI witness statements that document the fact that an FBI informant was employed by Mr. Mitnick's former defense attorney while representing Mr. Mitnick. See http://www.kevinmitnick.com/home.html for more details. The actions of the FBI to plant an informant in Mr. Mitnick's defense attorney's office deserves immediate and widespread attention. The FBI's actions certainly deserve more attention than a 3 year old false charge that may have appeared for the first time in a New York Times article by reporter John Markoff on July 4, 1994. In closing, please note that Mr. Markoff's "journalism" has been criticized by both the New Yorker and The Nation magazines for apparent violations of journalistic ethics in the articles he wrote about Mr. Mitnick. Summary ======= I trust that Associated Press will take immediate action to print a retraction of the false claim I've described above, and I look forward to AP reports on the motions recently filed by Mr. Mitnick, which are scheduled for a hearing in Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's courtroom on Wednesday, December 2, 1998. Thanks in advance for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:24:00 EST From: SkyFireZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... In a message dated 12/1/98 1:53:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, abaddon@cs.umb.edu writes: << rOTTEN: Do you think making fun of kids who -- despite being quite dense and thoroughly naive -- are trying to help, much less dragging out said ridicule over the course of a dozen or so emails, is doing *anything* to improve the S/N ratio on this list? Or are you just being an asshole for the fun of it, this time? I mean, sure, it was funny the first six times or so, but after that it sort of went down hill, y'know? Puh*lease* lay off. >> The list just got over this... Maybe you should too... AcidRayne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:03:46 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think this is all a great idea, the fact that officers have been mentioned, too. we need to be organized, unlike a 2600 meeting, if we are to have any effect at all....just wanted to mention that jackdarippa - - -----Original Message----- From: che guevara To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters.... >the pgp key...i don't know..my pgp key 2048 bits (pretty long) >but i do like your idea about the member cards...if anyone wishes to >come up with a design...please make it into .jpg or Photoshop format and >I'll see if I like it. I'm estimated about $10-15 of the dues will go >to the defense fund. Telephreak & I are in the process of writing the >Charter and Bylaws. I think he will post what we have so far soon. > >rOTTEN wrote: > >> Who's going to write the Free Kevin national charter? > >> Well, it's probably better that you not have any clear-cut ideas on what >> the club will be about...that way there's no limits to your creativity. >> > >> I would hope that most would go to the defense fund. In fact, I would >> hope that it ALL would go to the defense fund. But I can see that you'd >> want to be reimbursed for costs incurred making duplicates of the by-laws >> and the charter. >> >> And I'm still curious what the membership cards are going to look like. >> >> You could have each person's PGP key on the back of it. >> >> <..rOTTEN..> > >-- >che guevara > > > > > >"I never think of the future - it comes soon enough." > [albert einstein] > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNmSD4tpIpYADgVGcEQLktwCfWz9wG9u56YVhhKlKeQZB6fp+DwQAoPxu jp2NXtfAlYhJnaWbF6PVDgmE =8qYp - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:44:50 -0500 From: "Matt Cutright" Subject: [mitnick] unsubscribe mitnick unsubscribe mitnick deerrun@visuallink.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:54:34 -0800 (PST) From: Edith Crabtree Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... I didn't ask a question, you fucking jerk. You commented on something I posted. Go home and suck your mothers dick! - ---"Aaron D. Ball" wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Edith Crabtree wrote: > > # What about the breaking into networks part, you sap? > > Gee, you cocksucking catamite, I guess I must have overlooked the need for > an in-depth discussion of "virtual trespassing" when I answered your > question about the distinction between theft of hardware and theft of > software. > > # I am not pro theft of anything. But taking a piece of equipment from > # the phone company? The phone company! I don't know of a larger > # organized group of thieves this side of organized crime and the > # government. > > And? It's a long-established precedent that stealing from thieves is still > stealing. > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:02:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Chapters... On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Edith Crabtree wrote: # I didn't ask a question, you fucking jerk. You commented on something # I posted. Go home and suck your mothers dick! Thanks for sharing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:37:11 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Constructive things - example letter (error fixed) hey - misteaks happen. one of the references to markoff has been changed, as it was erroneous. apologies for the public fact-checking process.... shudda took note of my own "fyi...". ============================================================= fyi to the list: don't send something like this unless you've done the research. begin letter ============ Steve Loper Associated Press, Inc. 221 South Figueroa #300 Los Angeles CA 90012 213-626-1200 Voice 213.346.0200 Fax Mr. Loper: Just a brief note in re an erroneous Associated Press story that appeared recently concerning Kevin Mitnick (note that Mr. Mitnick's first name is, in fact, "Kevin," and not "notorious" as so many media organizations seem to believe). Background ========== The following statement appears in that AP story (referring to Mr. Mitnick): "He was arrested in 1995, accused of stealing 20,000 credit card numbers." Rebuttal ======== Mr. Mitnick has never been charged with ("accused of") "stealing 20,000 credit card numbers," and he has never been accused of using any of the allegedly stolen credit card numbers. After my review of the pending indictments against him, I can confirm that Mr. Mitnick has not been charged with the offense you mention; thus, the AP statement referenced above is false. You may review the indictment for yourself at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/indictment.html. Action Requested ================ In light of the demonstrated falsity of the statement, I respectfully request an immediate correction be issued by Associated Press, Inc., to all of your subscribers. If AP is interested in Mr. Mitnick's case, please accept my encouragement to report on the recent motions filed by Mr. Mitnick's attorneys in Federal District Court on November 24, 1998. You may review the motions at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news.html. FBI Informant In Mitnick's Former Attorney's Office =================================================== In those motions, Mr. Mitnick's attorneys point to sworn FBI witness statements that document the fact that an FBI informant was employed by Mr. Mitnick's former defense attorney while representing Mr. Mitnick. See http://www.kevinmitnick.com/home.html for more details. The actions of the FBI to plant an informant in Mr. Mitnick's defense attorney's office deserves immediate and widespread attention. The FBI's actions certainly deserve more attention than a 4 year old indirect allegation that may have appeared for the first time in a New York Times article by reporter John Markoff on February 16, 1995. In closing, please note that Mr. Markoff's "journalism" has been criticized by both the New Yorker and The Nation magazines for apparent violations of journalistic ethics in the articles he wrote about Mr. Mitnick. Summary ======= I trust that Associated Press will take immediate action to print a retraction of the false claim I've described above. I look forward to AP reports on the motions recently filed by Mr. Mitnick, which are scheduled for a hearing in Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's courtroom on Wednesday, December 2, 1998. Thanks in advance for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #208 *****************************