mitnick-digest Monday, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 213 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:27:42 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 12:59:08PM -0800, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > > Consider also: We are all *supposed* to take pride in our individuality. > Why are we all using the same banner? Why are we wearing badges? We don't > need no stinking badges. If we design and post our own personal statements, > artwork, or code to convince people to learn more about Kevin Mitnick, then > we will get a whole hell of a lot more brilliant ideas out of the > imaginative and intelligent and creative people who care about this issue. > Much of the public perception problem we have is that people think hackers > are all the same. Why are we being "consistent" in this, of all things? believe it or not, we are engaged in a form of marketing. i know that leaves a bad taste with some people, myself included, but in cases like this, you need to have a degree of "brand recognition." not that there hasn't been a number of variations on the theme. i'm all for that - it's a healthy sign of a true movement. but if you want to reach the average person who hasn't had exposure to what we've already seen, you need to get something to stick in their mind. a simple phrase, easy to read, a very basic design. and i dare say it's worked far better than i ever expected. someone recently pulled up alongside me doing 70 on the new jersey turnpike and shouted "FREE KEVIN MITNICK!" a few months ago they would have been shouting "WHO'S KEVIN?" consistency is the key to getting the message out. how many movements really have that opportunity to reach so many parts of the world with so many people? we really can do a lot and the people involved so far really *have* done a lot. > If forty idiots put "Free Kevin" banners on their sites, and an uninformed > third party goes to twenty of them, he has just seen twenty idiots with the > same banner on their sites. That banner is therefore a banner which is used > by idiots, from empirical research, and the visitor not only does not give > two tin shits about Kevin but will associate any "Free Kevin" banner he > sees with idiocy. As a result, he will ignore otherwise intelligent and > informed people because he had some bad experiences. if he actually *reads* the mitnick site once he clicks on the link, i'll bet he'll forget all about the idiocy on the site preceding it. if not, i doubt he'll associate the two. the goal is to get people to bookmark the km site and go there on their own. this seems to be happening - over the past few days our stats have gone through the roof. which tells me that when something happens in the mitnick case, people know where to go. we're basically using madison avenue tactics. which is ironic since we hope to establish a physical headquarters on that very block. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:38:20 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] Reporters/quiet On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 02:00:30PM -0500, Dan Sissman wrote: > > > Douglas Thomas wrote: > > > Another a piece of the puzzle that people may not be aware of is that this > > is Pfaelzer's last criminal case. Which is why, I am sure, she is so > > anxious to get it started. > > Is she retiring, going to a civil court, or what? enlisting with the contras, i heard. looking for a country to liberate from democracy. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:29:17 PST From: "kenneth sooyna" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Banner, Banner---who has the Banner? if you don't like the black on yellow banner then go to che's site (http://che.findhere.com) and get some of the ones i made. the thinker - - http://listen.to/duz http://thinker.findhere.com icq:19173887 >From: BadGirlnLA@aol.com >Caliban, > >You have too damn much time on your hands. > >You have, in deed, covered the BANNER subject. Now, how about >dropping it, or better yet-----create your own banner and come back >and show us. > >There is nothing wrong with the FREE KEVIN banner. It is a way of >connecting all the sites and the individuals who are sympathetic to Kevin >Mitnick. > >A BANNER IS A BANNER IS A BANNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >The banner, which also appears on the t-shirts, pens, pencils, bumper >stickers, stationery and many other items, connotes a general theme >which I find positive. > >I hear good things about the banner. The idiot negative remarks are >made by those who do not know the facts. > >Buy a shirt from Kevin Joubert. Wear this sexy "free kevin" shirt for >one day. If you get the negative reactions you are pontificating about >today, I will refund your money. > >Bad Girl ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 15:28:52 -0800 From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On 05:27 PM 12/6/98 -0500, I personally witnessed Emmanuel Goldstein jumping up to say: > >believe it or not, we are engaged in a form of marketing. So the primary goals are to identify the market, identify the needs and desires of the market, and provide them with an avenue whereby we satisfy those needs and desires. We have identified the market: people who do not know about Kevin's plight. We have provided an avenue: a banner that says "Free Kevin". I don't see any real effort to satisfy any needs or desires, or in fact any effort to identify those needs and desires. Let's consider that. Who are the people who want to know about Kevin? Well, I'd assume it would be people who consider their freedom and their liberty important. What do they value? Well, primarily, freedom and liberty. (It's hard to provide these over a web link, unfortunately.) But primary to their belief in freedom and liberty in most cases is the concept that every human being deserves those same freedoms and liberties... so an effective avenue with which to interest them in Kevin's situation would be to identify the pertinent fact that there is an individual whose freedom and liberty has been removed unjustly. "Free Kevin" doesn't really do this. It doesn't really mean much of anything to me when someone says "Free so-and-so". Free him from what? Usually, this means the person is in prison. Why? In the vast majority of cases, people who are in prison have committed crimes of which they were convicted in a court of law. Kevin is, after all, in prison, and at that point many people stop caring. They're not aware that he hasn't been tried until they read in some level of depth the background of his case. Look at the process: See the banner. Wonder about the banner. Click on the banner. Read a *big* banner. (How many people leave that page in the expectation that this is all there is? I click on "Free Kevin", I get "Free Kevin". Oh, great. A joke. Ha, ha.) Go to the home page. Read the case background. That's an awful lot to go through to get these people hooked! How can you market anything effectively like that? What we need to do (IMO) is nail these people right where it counts and have them fired up BEFORE they click on the link. They need to have some idea of what they're getting into even before they go to the page. In the interest of avoiding stigma, we can avoid words like hacker and Kevin which might carry preconceptions. We push some buttons, get people incensed, and THEN drop them on the home page. I realise people like the "Free Kevin" banner; it's comfortable. We're familiar with it. But we're not in the business of making people comfortable here, we're in the business of stirring things up. We don't want to reach people who already know about Kevin. We want to reach people who don't. And those are the kind of people who *don't* click on the existing banner, which has been around for some time, and I would say that's a reasonably legitimate indication that the existing banner is not going to get them to the site. The existing banner is an excellent thing to have on t-shirts, which can be deliberately enigmatic in order to encourage the opening of a conversation. This is a *great* way to get people to ask about it, no question about that. The pencils and pens, likewise. The bumper stickers... well, I am of two minds about those. On the one hand, they can't say much more than they do without becoming virtually illegible, but on the other you generally don't have an opportunity to speak to the driver. I think the real end conclusion on that has to be that the bumper sticker is for people who DO know, not people who don't -- it shows them that there are other people involved. Sort of a badge of recognition. If your ad campaign isn't working anymore, you design and implement a new one. This is referred to as the "Mature-Product Syndrome" in professional marketing, to which I am not a stranger; the most effective strategies to pursue at this point are the definition of new market segments and evangelisation to existing market segments. We want to involve people who are currently uninvolved. This does not mitigate the need to keep those who *are* involved interested in and informed about the movement, which is primarily achieved by Kerry's excellent efforts on updating the web site. >i know that >leaves a bad taste with some people, myself included, but in cases like >this, you need to have a degree of "brand recognition." Brand recognition is important in some cases, true. However, it has potential value in this instance to make it known that many people from many walks of life are concerned about Kevin's situation; to indicate that not just hackers, not just computer people, and not just civil liberties types are concerned about what is happening to Kevin. It might be worthwhile to consider that very few people have ever marketed the freedom of an unjustly accused prisoner successfully. Perhaps existing marketing methods and "the way we always do it" aren't going to work. >if he actually *reads* the mitnick site once he clicks on the link, i'll >bet he'll forget all about the idiocy on the site preceding it. But if the site is run by an idiot, why would he click on the link? If I am offered a series of links selected by an idiot, what could possibly convince me that the sites he links to are not themselves operated by idiots? We can't prevent the banner or some other form of "Free Kevin" information from showing up on sites run by idiots. That's going to happen, and no question about it. Idiots are everywhere. (It could even be argued that their participation helps the exact diversity that I champion above.) But we *can* try and get people to say something profound when they can; to say it themselves if they think "Free Kevin" is inadequate; and to support the movement without jumping onto a bandwagon. Many people just dislike bandwagons on principle. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the fire burneth a wood, and the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. - ---------------------------[ Psalms, 83:14-15 ]--------------------------- Caliban Tiresias Darklock | "Hell, you don't Darklock Communications | know me." FREE KEVIN MITNICK! | - Charles Manson - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit out of you. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 16:13:35 PST From: "TelePhreak -" Subject: Re: [mitnick] Proof of existence? i know what your going through many people (in school) i've spoken to have thought i was tring to be funny and make fun of this 'goofy' kid named kevin. They were very surprised when most of them actually went to kevinmitnick.com. ---------------------FREE KEVIN - -TelePhreak of The Phone Rangers Email: telephrk@hotmail.com ICQ: 10886438 mIRC: telephrk Aol IM: TelePhrk 0 http://welcome.to/phonerangers http://phonerangers.cjb.net ---------------------FREE KEVIN ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 16:18:59 PST From: "TelePhreak -" Subject: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' ---------------------FREE KEVIN - -TelePhreak of The Phone Rangers Email: telephrk@hotmail.com ICQ: 10886438 mIRC: telephrk Aol IM: TelePhrk 0 http://welcome.to/phonerangers http://phonerangers.cjb.net ---------------------FREE KEVIN ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:03:44 -0800 (PST) From: Mordaci Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose - ---Emmanuel Goldstein wrote: - - - - believe it or not, we are engaged in a form of - - marketing. i know that leaves a bad taste with some - people, myself included, but in cases like - - this, you need to have a degree of "brand - - recognition." not that there hasn't been a number of - variations on the theme. i'm all for that - it's - - a healthy sign of a true movement. but if you want - - to reach the average person who hasn't had exposure - - to what we've already seen, you need to get - - something to stick in their mind. a simple phrase, - easy to read, a very basic design. - - This post is not directed toward Emmanuel nor am I implying that Emmanuel condons, endorses, or approves of, nor am I implying that anyone on this list condons, endorses, approves, or engages in the following behavior. I am merely responding to the idea (concepts) of marketing, brand recognition and symbols. Regarding the movement and the creative license of web page alteration. Why do some individuals insist on using language such as: h1 M+y n4m3 !8 b0 b0 ??? If you think you have a serious message to convey, and you are intent on getting it across to a wide auidence, (not just an audience of your peers, peers meaning others who will either understand wh60l dj3 sj7fd9j means or are willing to spend the time to tediously attempt to sit and figure it out), why not express yourself in language that will have the most meaning to the greatst amount of people who are exposed to it? Think about the people in Europe and Latin America or Asia for that matter. When people from those countries have a cause they are serious about and feel strongly about, (strong enough to want to express their views or make a statement, in a place that will be viewed by a large audience), they take it seriously. They don't squander the opportunity by using such techniques in an effort to impress each other. They create the major portion of the message in language that is unmistakable and understandable by anyone who reads it of any age group who happens to be literate. Of course there is always room for personal expression, (such as names, shoutouts, and arcane or cryptic messages). When someone is made to read through a paragraph or so of fhha; afshaihai98fu! they are not likely to perservere and read the entire message, and it will only result in annoying people more than educating them, (other than educating them to the fact that you are capable of doing something like that), which will annoy them all the more. However, an intelligent message might make a difference in more ways than one. An intelligent message will also result in a changed perception of these practitioners, and pehaps in the movement as well. If in fact anything like this should ever occur. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:05:11 -0800 (PST) From: Mordaci Subject: Re: [mitnick] Banner, Banner---who has the Banner? Keep Kevin! Free the banner! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:26:41 -0800 (PST) From: "mr. moon" Subject: [mitnick] Freedoms just another word ... - -----Original Message----- From: talkafrica Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 10:29 AM Subject: Accountability ... Pinochet and his Intel staff ... Accountability ... Pinochet and his Intel staff ... The world is more keen than ever to bring tyrants to book, it seems, though sadly democratic western leaders want until tyrants are out of powerbefore acting. Here in Africa - and, of course in places like Burma and the Middle East there is no shortage of murderous thugs, but no-one wants to doanything about it except the people they are oppressing ... and they have little hope of doing anything. Indonesia provides an example of hope. One wonders about the accountability of the intelligence services inthese countries since they are largely responsible for keeping theseregimes in power. We've discussed before on this forum the difference between intelligence officers and secret police, but is some countries theline is very blurred as it was with the KGB. Intel services in Africa sometimes double as hit squads, torturers, thought police and intimidators while also keeping the country safe fromoutside threat by fulfilling the role of the traditional Intel team. They are usually indemnified from being sued by their victims and, at the lower levels which is where the oppressive arm operates, they aregenerally young people (under 30) who follow blindly the orders of theircommanders. They work in secret, often not knowing the reason for tapping asuspects phone, blowing up his or her car, and so on. There is some evidence that the British Int services have acted beyond the normal limits in Northern Ireland and ditto the US service in Central America. So what is the liability of an Int officer when his supreme commander,like General Pinochet, is brought to book? Should people be tried for their actions? For the Intel officers, we're not talking here about crimes against humanity like genocide - for which it is accepted that people must be brought to trial - but small-scale assassination, torture and suppression of political freedom. This is a hot topic in Africa and I'd welcome members comments. Harare _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:05:05 EST From: Phoenxknt@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker In a message dated 98-12-06 19:25:53 EST, you write: << is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' >> Yes I've noticed, the ONE time they use that term, and its the wrong time! - -AM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:38:51 -0800 From: Brian Subject: Re: [mitnick] Freedoms just another word ... - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 18:26 12/6/98 -0800, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: talkafrica >Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 10:29 AM >Subject: Accountability ... Pinochet and his Intel staff ... > > >Accountability ... Pinochet and his Intel staff ... > >The world is more keen than ever to bring tyrants to book, it seems, >though sadly democratic western leaders want until tyrants are out of >powerbefore >acting. Here in Africa - and, of course in places like Burma and the >Middle East there is no shortage of murderous thugs, but no-one wants >to doanything >about it except the people they are oppressing ... and they have >little hope of doing anything. Indonesia provides an example of hope. > >One wonders about the accountability of the intelligence services >inthese countries since they are largely responsible for keeping >theseregimes in >power. We've discussed before on this forum the difference between >intelligence officers and secret police, but is some countries theline >is very blurred as it was with the KGB. > >Intel services in Africa sometimes double as hit squads, torturers, >thought police and intimidators while also keeping the country safe >fromoutside >threat by fulfilling the role of the traditional Intel team. > >They are usually indemnified from being sued by their victims and, at >the lower levels which is where the oppressive arm operates, they >aregenerally young people (under 30) who follow blindly the orders of >theircommanders. > >They work in secret, often not knowing the reason for tapping >asuspects phone, blowing up his or her car, and so on. > >There is some evidence that the British Int services have acted beyond >the normal limits in Northern Ireland and ditto the US service in >Central America. >So what is the liability of an Int officer when his supreme >commander,like General Pinochet, is brought to book? Should people be >tried for their actions? For the Intel officers, we're not talking >here about crimes against humanity like genocide - for which it is >accepted that people must be brought to trial - but small-scale >assassination, torture and suppression of political freedom. > >This is a hot topic in Africa and I'd welcome members comments. > >Harare > > > > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > What exactly DOES this have to do with Kevin? And what is with your name? Do you change it every day? are you plain stupid? - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 Comment: Free Kevin www.kevinmitnick.com iQA/AwUBNmtb2i7sph9laBOUEQIhLwCg1mRKCQrSq6rCvObdzxQ/8n0/wNIAn3pv 2d4wQn4W6fidcd7qGkGMUhz9 =WLJU - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -brain kandy- Free Kevin Mitnick - Visit www.kevinmitnick.com ICQ: 6635525 AIM: Msie Kandy E-mail: brainkandy@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:14:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, TelePhreak - wrote: # is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a # cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been # causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who # in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' Not to start the whole hacker/cracker flame war again, but classical hacking has nothing to do with cracking anybody's security, even if it's "just to see"; see the Jargon File for details. Since Kevin seems to have made a practice of cracking, he is correctly classified as a cracker, albeit a nondestructive one. I'm sending this to let you know that there's another viewpoint out there, with a tradition that is arguably stronger and more respectable than the one that defines a hacker as a nondestructive breaker-in. If you disagree with this viewpoint, direct your opinion to me OFF the list; last time I brought this up, the flames lasted for weeks. Having put the other idea out there, I leave it to the list members to look the details up themselves, and make their own choices which to use. Incidentally, Caliban has mentioned that, years ago, [0] declared a proper appellation for destructive breakers-in to be "Cheez Whiz"; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I invite him to send one of his patented long, unduly well-written messages about it, at which point this thread should die and all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well. [0] Cap'n Crunch? I forget the handle. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:30:57 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose > On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 12:59:08PM -0800, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > > > > Consider also: We are all *supposed* to take pride in our individuality. > > Why are we all using the same banner? Why are we wearing badges? We don't > > need no stinking badges. If we design and post our own personal statements, > > artwork, or code to convince people to learn more about Kevin Mitnick, then > > we will get a whole hell of a lot more brilliant ideas out of the > > imaginative and intelligent and creative people who care about this issue. > > Much of the public perception problem we have is that people think hackers > > are all the same. Why are we being "consistent" in this, of all things? All movements need some sort of unity. That's why you don't see 40 completely different ACLU logos. One should suffice. You're not supporting Kevin to express your individuality, you're supporting Kevin to see that justice is done. Right? Learn it. Live it. Love it. (To quote Judge Reinhold from "Fast Times...") If you want to express your individuality, become a sculptor. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:34:28 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote a long string of nonsense, that although is well written and comes from a good mind, is hardly worth taking the time to read. Caliban, join the movement. Join the Free Kevin corporation. Take the corporate identity for your franchise. Or don't. But let's enjoy whatever unity this club of ours can achieve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:38:00 -0500 (EST) From: Macki Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker I'm sorry if you consider any disagreement to be a flame, because that isn't my intention. The only justification I can think of for calling Kevin a 'Cracker' has to do with skin color, not because of his alleged computer fraud. The fact is that Kevin is the textbook definition of the traditional hacker. One with a deep understanding and respect for the technology he uses, which is reflected in his ethics. Listen to what Kevin Poulsen had to say about him on last week's Off The Hook. It's a slippery slope when you start to label people like that, do you think Kevin cosiders himself a 'Cracker'? The term wasn't even invented when he was on the outside. "The Jargon File" is hardly an officiating source, it's just another demonstration of the failure of mainstream and technology publications to accuratly report on the hacker community. --Macki On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Aaron D. Ball wrote: > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:14:06 -0500 (EST) > From: "Aaron D. Ball" > Reply-To: mitnick@2600.com > To: mitnick@2600.com > Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker > > On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, TelePhreak - wrote: > > # is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a > # cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been > # causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who > # in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' > > Not to start the whole hacker/cracker flame war again, but classical hacking > has nothing to do with cracking anybody's security, even if it's "just to > see"; see the Jargon File for details. Since Kevin seems to have made a > practice of cracking, he is correctly classified as a cracker, albeit a > nondestructive one. > > I'm sending this to let you know that there's another viewpoint out there, > with a tradition that is arguably stronger and more respectable than the one > that defines a hacker as a nondestructive breaker-in. If you disagree with > this viewpoint, direct your opinion to me OFF the list; last time I brought > this up, the flames lasted for weeks. Having put the other idea out there, > I leave it to the list members to look the details up themselves, and make > their own choices which to use. > > Incidentally, Caliban has mentioned that, years ago, [0] declared a > proper appellation for destructive breakers-in to be "Cheez Whiz"; I agree > with this wholeheartedly. I invite him to send one of his patented long, > unduly well-written messages about it, at which point this thread should die > and all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be > well. > > > [0] Cap'n Crunch? I forget the handle. > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 01:38:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Aaron D. Ball" Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Macki wrote: # I'm sorry if you consider any disagreement to be a flame, because that # isn't my intention. As I said, I just don't want to get into it, because if this get started, it *will* degenerate into flamage, regardless of how you personally phrase your disagreement, or I my response. I'm getting sucked into it even now. Muussssttt stopppppp--- argh. Oh, well. Just one message can't hurt, right? Right? Once again, if your only problem with what I said is that you think your definition of hacker is better than the one I'm using, direct it to me via personal email. The intent of this reply is to clarify, not to pick fights. In fact, I hereby promise to ignore any reply to the list that promises to lead to "my definition is better than yours" wars. It is important to me that you accept the view of mainstream hackers like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond (to drop a few names) that `hacker' does not mean somebody who cracks security but doesn't break stuff. You don't have to agree with it, just realize that it *isn't* just some clueless reporters, or the Mainstream Media, or The Man, calling Kevin a `cracker'. # The only justification I can think of for calling Kevin a 'Cracker' has to # do with skin color, not because of his alleged computer fraud. The fact is # that Kevin is the textbook definition of the traditional hacker. One with # a deep understanding and respect for the technology he uses, which is # reflected in his ethics. # "The Jargon File" is hardly an officiating source, it's just another # demonstration of the failure of mainstream and technology publications to # accuratly report on the hacker community. What textbook are you using? The Jargon File was written by and for hackers, in the sense of the word that has been around since at least the '60s. It is currently maintained by, IIRC, Eric S. Raymond, a hacker if I ever saw one. It is *the* authoritative reference on hacker language. There are things it doesn't cover, but you're out of your mind if you class it with `mainstream and technology publications' (i.e., The Man and clueless reporters). If you consider ESR, RMS, et al. to be aligned with The Man, then I really have no interest in discussing with you any further; it would be like talking to a brick wall. An entire community of people has been calling themselves hackers since before there was security to break. These people call those who make a practice of breaking security `crackers', and tend to think of them as nuisances more than anything else. This isn't to say that a True Hacker doesn't break security; he may well do so --- it's just that being a peeping tom isn't his goal in life. # Listen to what Kevin Poulsen had to say about him on last week's Off The # Hook. It's a slippery slope when you start to label people like that, do # you think Kevin cosiders himself a 'Cracker'? The term wasn't even # invented when he was on the outside. Oh? The fact that you put "The Jargon File" in scare quotes suggests that you haven't read it, and that you therefore don't really have a clue about the history of hacker language. If you did, it would be one of your primary references. Even if you disagree with some of the things it says, you'd still refer to it for the huge volume of data therein. Do you have a cite for the first use of 'cracker'? I'd bet a fair amount of money it was used at least as early as the '80s. For the lazy or webless, Jargon File quotations for `hacker' and `hacker ethic' are included below. The point is that `security breaker' is a small and, if you agree with the Jargon File, incorrect, part of the meaning of `hacker'. # hacker /n./ # # [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who # enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch # their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only # the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even # obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about # programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person # who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular # program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a # Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who # fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might # be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual # challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. # [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive # information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. # The correct term for this sense is cracker. # # The term `hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global # community defined by the net (see network, the and Internet address). It # also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some # version of the hacker ethic (see hacker ethic). # # It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe # oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a # meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are # gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in # identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are # not, you'll quickly be labeled bogus). See also wannabee. # hacker ethic /n./ # # 1. The belief that information-sharing is a powerful positive good, and # that it is an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by # writing free software and facilitating access to information and to # computing resources wherever possible. # 2. The belief that system-cracking for fun and exploration is ethically # OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of # confidentiality. # # Both of these normative ethical principles are widely, but by no means # universally, accepted among hackers. Most hackers subscribe to the # hacker ethic in sense 1, and many act on it by writing and giving away # free software. A few go further and assert that all information should # be free and any proprietary control of it is bad; this is the philosophy # behind the GNU project. # # Sense 2 is more controversial: some people consider the act of cracking # itself to be unethical, like breaking and entering. But the belief that # `ethical' cracking excludes destruction at least moderates the behavior # of people who see themselves as `benign' crackers (see also samurai). On # this view, it may be one of the highest forms of hackerly courtesy to # (a) break into a system, and then (b) explain to the sysop, preferably # by email from a superuser account, exactly how it was done and how the # hole can be plugged -- acting as an unpaid (and unsolicited) tiger team. # # The most reliable manifestation of either version of the hacker ethic is # that almost all hackers are actively willing to share technical tricks, # software, and (where possible) computing resources with other hackers. # Huge cooperative networks such as Usenet, FidoNet and Internet (see # Internet address) can function without central control because of this # trait; they both rely on and reinforce a sense of community that may be # hackerdom's most valuable intangible asset. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 08:24:02 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI "Today, also, they chase fugitives over cyberspace as well as over fences. You may remember when we arrested Mr. Mitnik a year or so ago. He was found by the FBI, but he was found because we hired a 23-year-old computer specialist to locate exactly where he was and where he was transmitting from. That was the basis of effecting that arrest. " from a speech by FBI director Louis J. Freeh, 1997 International Computer Crime Conference, New York, New York, March 4, 1997. http://www.fbi.gov/dirspch/compcrim.htm I assume they're talking about Shimomura here - I can't think of anybody else that "expert" might refer to. It's interesting that the director of the FBI says they "hired" Shimomura, and gives him the credit for the whole thing. I had always read that it was the FBI that did it, and they officially claimed they didn't allow any civilians to participate. Altho they obviously did that, at the very least. Did they or didn't they hire Shimomura? If they did, I guess that justifies his use of illegal snooping equipment in the investigation (as much as association with the FBI can justify anything, that is). I'm just curious. 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: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:06:44 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:34:28 -0800 (PST), rOTTEN wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote a long string > of nonsense, that although is well written and comes from a good > mind, is hardly worth taking the time to read. I recall an astute orator in my world literature class a long time ago. His eloquent prose fully captivated the limited minds of his audience. When he stood up and delivered his oratory to a group of experienced professors, they immediately saw it for the empty shell that it was. Caliban fits that bill. As long as he has an audience who is less knowledgeable than he, his oratories are fascinating... at least as fascinating as any well-produced science fiction. But try and make him productive within the scope of reality, and you soon learn the well is dry. ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #213 *****************************