mitnick-digest Saturday, December 12 1998 Volume 01 : Number 217 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 05:34:49 -0500 From: john barleycorn Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen...as seen by the Washington Post rOTTEN wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/daily/dec98/fugitive10.htm > > Thanks ESS! Next spring, Kevin Mitnick, the only hacker ever to make the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, will face trial here on charges that include stealing thousands of credit card numbers. Seems like every artical I read these days that refers to KM mentions that little tid bit of info if nothing else - and never tells the rest of the story. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:27:56 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen...as seen by the Washington Post On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 05:34:49AM -0500, john barleycorn wrote: > rOTTEN wrote: > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/daily/dec98/fugitive10.htm > > > > Thanks ESS! > > > > Next spring, Kevin Mitnick, the only hacker ever to make the FBI's Ten > Most Wanted list, will face trial here on charges that include stealing > thousands of credit card numbers. this is completely false and libelous. why don't these people do any *research* before they write these articles? this time we don't let them get away with it. this is the washington post, after all. i just got off the phone with the post's main headquarters (it seems their computers are down and they can't even connect calls - i assume we'll get the blame for that) but i managed to find out that this reporter (rene sanchez) is based in their los angeles bureau. let's band together on this one - no threats, no childish behavior - we firmly insist that they correct a major factual error and we don't back down until they do. i'll be faxing them the indictment as soon as i find their fax number. we'll have updates on our progress on the web site. as always, ideas are welcome. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:37:48 -0500 (EST) From: Macki Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen...as seen by the Washington Post In case anyone on the list still doesn't know (like the Washington Post) Kevin is NOT charged with stealing credit card numbers! He's not charged with HAVING credit card numbers! This is false. At one point he was, but those charges were DROPPED. They are not part of his current indictment. If Rene Sanchez of the Washington Post had done ANY research or fact checking (like READING the indictment, you know, BASIC journalism) she would have known this. The Washington Post is an excelent place to get the story out, let's use this and maybe we can get the Washington Post to release an accurate story about Kevin. This may be wishfull thinking and they'll probably just screw up again, but complain like hell anyway. --Macki On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, john barleycorn wrote: > Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 05:34:49 -0500 > From: john barleycorn > Reply-To: mitnick@2600.com > To: mitnick@2600.com > Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen...as seen by the Washington Post > > rOTTEN wrote: > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/daily/dec98/fugitive10.htm > > > > Thanks ESS! > > > > Next spring, Kevin Mitnick, the only hacker ever to make the FBI's Ten > Most Wanted list, will face trial here on charges that include stealing > thousands of credit card numbers. > > > > Seems like every artical I read these days that refers to KM mentions > that little tid bit of info if nothing else - and never tells the rest > of the story. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:25:10 +0800 (SGT) From: c Subject: [none] unsubscribe mitnick _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:33:44 EST From: EmpAllin@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Op-Ed...as seen by the Washington Post In a message dated 98-12-11 06:30:48 EST, some editor: > On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 05:34:49AM -0500, john barleycorn wrote: > > rOTTEN wrote: > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/daily/dec98/fugitive10.htm > > > > > > Thanks ESS! > > > > > > > > Next spring, Kevin Mitnick, the only hacker ever to make the FBI's Ten > > Most Wanted list, will face trial here on charges that include stealing > > thousands of credit card numbers. > > this is completely false and libelous. why don't these people do any > *research* before they write these articles? > > this time we don't let them get away with it. this is the washington post, > after all. i just got off the phone with the post's main headquarters > (it seems their computers are down and they can't even connect calls - > i assume we'll get the blame for that) but i managed to find out that > this reporter (rene sanchez) is based in their los angeles bureau. let's > band together on this one - no threats, no childish behavior - we firmly > insist that they correct a major factual error and we don't back down > until they do. > > i'll be faxing them the indictment as soon as i find their fax number. > we'll have updates on our progress on the web site. > > as always, ideas are welcome. > Here's the url for letters to the editor. I really think this needs to get straightened out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm Just think before you write - -Allin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 07:40:12 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: [mitnick] letter to the post i just sent this off via fax to the reporter in question and one of the head guys back in DC. those of you who feel you can speak intelligently on the subject and have some time today, do what you can to keep the pressure on. emmanuel - -------------------------------------------------------------------- December 11, 1998 Rene Sanchez The Washington Post 10100 Santa Monica Blvd #745 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Greetings, I am writing to you on behalf of 2600 Magazine and the 'Free Kevin' campaign. In your article dated 12/10/98, you reported that Mitnick "will face trial here on charges that include stealing thousands that include stealing thousands of credit card numbers." There is no such charge anywhere in Mitnick's indictment, which I am including with this e-mail and also faxing to your office. If you had contacted anyone familiar with Kevin's case or visited the widely publicized web site - www.kevinmitnick.com - you would have easily realized this fact. By printing such untrue and possibly libelous statements on page A2 of a widely read newspaper like the Post, you are helping to paint a picture of an individual that is false and very harmful. Mitnick has never been accused of stealing, causing damage, or profiting in any way from his abilities. If you are interested in learning the facts about this story, I suggest you look at the web site, read some of the material that we've printed in 2600 Magazine, or contact me either by email (emmanuel@2600.com) or at 516-751-2600. This one sentence has outraged a number of people who have been diligently working to dispel such falsehoods in the media. We hope to see the Washington Post do the responsible thing and print a correction. While it won't erase the damage, it will show that you have an interest in setting the record straight when you've made a mistake. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Emmanuel Goldstein Editor, 2600 Magazine cc: William Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:49:26 -0500 (EST) From: ksandre Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Emmanuel Goldstein wrote: > > i just sent this off via fax to the reporter in question and one of the head > guys back in DC. those of you who feel you can speak intelligently on the > subject and have some time today, do what you can to keep the pressure on. > > emmanuel In addition it might be helpful to suggest that their _real_ newsworthy article should be about the whole Kevin Mitnick story in relation to his treatment by the system and concisely list a few of the alarming points about his lengthy pre-trial incarceration (including the issue about the FBI operative in the Defense Camp) - something to make them read everything at the WEB Site and be inspired to do an informative story in addition to printing a correction. (I haven't read that Petersen article yet, so I don't know what it the theme of their original is.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:53:02 -0500 From: "h3ndawg" Subject: [mitnick] article on kevin I am hoping to have this message directed towards emmanuel, but anyone would be helpful. Last year I was in school and looking through these old magazine's for art class. I came upon the august 1995 volume of esquire, I noticed it had a 7 page article/story about the whole kevin mitnick arrest ect... this article was written by Katie Hafner. I was wondering how close to the truth this article is, If no one has read this i will scan it and send it or better yet put it on my webpage. just message me if you havent seen the article and would like to or if you have read it please tell me how much truth h3ndog ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:08:13 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use WHAT'S THE FAX NUMBER??? hint: include phone numbers (v & f) in the address fields of letters like this... - ---------------- Begin (edited) Forwarded Message ---------------- fyi to the list: don't send something like this unless you've done the research. begin letter ============ Rene Sanchez The Washington Post 10100 Santa Monica Blvd #745 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Rene Sanchez: Just a brief note in re your erroneous Washington Post 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 your story: "Next spring, Kevin Mitnick, the only hacker ever to make the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, will face trial here on charges that include stealing thousands of credit card numbers." Rebuttal ======== Mr. Mitnick has never been charged with "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 Washinton Post statement referenced above is false. You may review the indictment for yourself at http://www.kevinmitnick.com/indictment.html. In addition, and although my resources do not match those of the Washington Post, I have been unable to turn up any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Mitnick was ever on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. The first instance I've found of this claim is in a New York Times article by reporter John Markoff on July 4, 1994, where Mr. Markoff stated with obvious exaggeration that Mr. Mitnick was the "most wanted" man in "cyberspace" -- a reporter's unsourced and obvious hyperbole is a far cry from the FBI's Most Wanted list. Action Requested ================ In light of the demonstrated falsity of the statement, I respectfully request an immediate correction be issued by the editors of the Washington Post at the earliest opportunity -- websites are an effective way to quickly correct inaccurate reports, and the print edition may be used to follow up with a printed retraction. If the Post 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 the Washington Post will take immediate action to print a retraction of the false claim I've described above. I look forward to reports on the motions recently filed by Mr. Mitnick, which were heard in Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's courtroom on December 2 & 3, 1998. Thanks in advance for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, - ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:45:30 -0500 From: "Brett Burney" Subject: RE: [mitnick] article on kevin > Last year I was in school and looking through these old magazine's for art > class. I came upon the august 1995 volume of esquire, I noticed it had a 7 > page article/story about the whole kevin mitnick arrest ect... this > article was written by Katie Hafner. I was wondering how close to > the truth > this article is, If no one has read this i will scan it and send it or > better yet put it on my webpage. I haven't seen the article but I would like to read it. Please either send it me or post it on your webpage. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Brett Burney "Totally 2000!" University of Dayton School of Law brburney@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:49:50 -0800 (PST) From: Douglas Thomas Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post Kerry, Emmanuel, and other interested parties. One of the things we may want to do is set up a page for press contacts, regarding Kevin's case. People who can be called, written to, or emailed for reliable, informed comment on Kevin's case. I am certainly willing to serve in that role, and I assume Emmanuel would as well (not to volunteer anyone, but it seems that Emmanuel has been doing that anyway). It would certainly give us one more thing to point to when journalists get the facts wrong. Any other takers? Bobwil623? Best, Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:55:44 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] article on kevin - send it! > I am hoping to have this message directed > towards emmanuel, but anyone would be helpful. > Last year I was in school and looking through > these old magazines for art class. I came upon > the august 1995 volume of esquire, I noticed it > had a 7 page article/story about the whole kevin > mitnick arrest, etc... this article was written > by Katie Hafner. I was wondering how close to > the truth this article is... yes, please get the article to your website -- it would be especially useful for my research... although i haven't read the article, i have heard that katie hafner talked her way past the guards at the federal prison in which km was held in 1995, and somehow managed to convince the guards that km was supposed to meet with her in a "legal visit" in the (allegedly) unmonitored attorney's meeting room. note that impersonating an attorney is a crime under various state and federal laws, and that making false statements to federal law enforcement officials is a federal offense (max of 5 years per count, as i recall; so giving a false name [count 1] and a false occupation [count 2] would qualify hafner for 10 years in the slammer). i have also heard that the point of the meeting was this: hafner claimed that the 2nd edition of her cyberpunk novel was coming out, and that she was at the prison to "give" km a "another chance" to "correct the record"... as hearsay has it, km was startled to see her (he knows she's not an attorney, and does not qualify for a "legal visit"), said "i'm not talking to you," and asked to be taken back to his living quarters. the reports of the article that i have heard say it's yet more bullshit from someone who has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off km, and who hasn't contributed a dime to his legal defense fund (unless she's done so anonymously). > If no one has read > this i will scan it and send it or better yet > put it on my webpage... again, please do - it would be very helpful. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: ksandre Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Douglas Thomas wrote: > > Kerry, Emmanuel, and other interested parties. One of the things we may > want to do is set up a page for press contacts, regarding Kevin's case. > People who can be called, written to, or emailed for reliable, informed > comment on Kevin's case. I am certainly willing to serve in that role, > and I assume Emmanuel would as well (not to volunteer anyone, but it seems > that Emmanuel has been doing that anyway). It would certainly give us one > more thing to point to when journalists get the facts wrong. I'm really glad you said this because I just pointed Rene Sanchez to your articles when writing to her (and The Washington Post Editor) about the inaccuracy in her 12/10/98 article! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:28:45 -0500 (EST) From: ksandre Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > > In addition, and although my resources do not match those of the > Washington Post, I have been unable to turn up any evidence whatsoever > that Mr. Mitnick was ever on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. The first > instance I've found of this claim is in a New York Times article by > reporter John Markoff on July 4, 1994, where Mr. Markoff stated with > obvious exaggeration that Mr. Mitnick was the "most wanted" man in > "cyberspace" -- a reporter's unsourced and obvious hyperbole is a far cry > from the FBI's Most Wanted list. > Oy. This too? I never realised in all this time that '10-Most Wanted' statement is also false. Even the semi-informed are gullible to Media manipulations. Drat. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:35:00 EST From: ExeRoy@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post i would be happy to help on the page also. - - dangerz http://members.xoom.com/kevinribbon/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:34:56 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 11:08:13AM -0500, Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > > WHAT'S THE FAX NUMBER??? hint: include phone numbers (v & f) in the > address fields of letters like this... i intentionally left that info off so that only people serious enough to obtain the numbers would wind up using them. the alternative is to basically put them out of service by having a huge number of people tie them up without necessarily doing anything constructive and that could lead to yet another unfavorable story. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:36:35 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sounds like a good idea, consider it done. jackdarippa - - -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Goldstein To: mitnick@phalse.2600.com Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 7:12 AM Subject: [mitnick] letter to the post >i just sent this off via fax to the reporter in question and one of the head >guys back in DC. those of you who feel you can speak intelligently on the >subject and have some time today, do what you can to keep the pressure on. > >emmanuel > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >December 11, 1998 > >Rene Sanchez >The Washington Post >10100 Santa Monica Blvd #745 >Los Angeles, CA 90067 > >Greetings, > >I am writing to you on behalf of 2600 Magazine and the 'Free Kevin' >campaign. In your article dated 12/10/98, you reported that Mitnick >"will face trial here on charges that include stealing thousands >that include stealing thousands of credit card numbers." There is >no such charge anywhere in Mitnick's indictment, which I am including >with this e-mail and also faxing to your office. If you had contacted >anyone familiar with Kevin's case or visited the widely publicized >web site - www.kevinmitnick.com - you would have easily realized this >fact. By printing such untrue and possibly libelous statements on >page A2 of a widely read newspaper like the Post, you are helping to >paint a picture of an individual that is false and very harmful. Mitnick >has never been accused of stealing, causing damage, or profiting in >any way from his abilities. If you are interested in learning the facts >about this story, I suggest you look at the web site, read some of the >material that we've printed in 2600 Magazine, or contact me either by >email (emmanuel@2600.com) or at 516-751-2600. > >This one sentence has outraged a number of people who have been diligently >working to dispel such falsehoods in the media. We hope to see the >Washington Post do the responsible thing and print a correction. While it >won't erase the damage, it will show that you have an interest in setting >the record straight when you've made a mistake. > >Thanks for your attention. > >Sincerely, > > > > >Emmanuel Goldstein >Editor, 2600 Magazine > >cc: William Hamilton > > > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNnGsgtpIpYADgVGcEQJAuwCeLEzrWzwMkvgGAlr8eIncGBmrZXoAoM4G wBv/8NGcWGXZFonfZNpQkL05 =5Mj6 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:41:18 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well, of course, the media would write this off as a slight mistaken exaggeration, because he was on the "most wanted list", but not the "10 most wanted"....what bullshit. jackdarippa - - -----Original Message----- From: ksandre To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use > >On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > >> >> In addition, and although my resources do not match those of the >> Washington Post, I have been unable to turn up any evidence whatsoever >> that Mr. Mitnick was ever on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. The first >> instance I've found of this claim is in a New York Times article by >> reporter John Markoff on July 4, 1994, where Mr. Markoff stated with >> obvious exaggeration that Mr. Mitnick was the "most wanted" man in >> "cyberspace" -- a reporter's unsourced and obvious hyperbole is a far cry >> from the FBI's Most Wanted list. >> > > >Oy. This too? I never realised in all this time that '10-Most Wanted' >statement is also false. Even the semi-informed are gullible to Media >manipulations. Drat. > > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNnGtndpIpYADgVGcEQLENACePHYi+N5TtMXZNseVjTlID9UZ8h4AoPtl 7zEh5mUJowE0ooIyYrMV1ZGY =GHWn - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:49:48 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] measures of success At 11:21 PM 12/10/98 -0800, rOTTEN wrote: >On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 dark@mail.dandy.net wrote: > >> Congratulations, weenie, you've just joined rOTTEN and Kamikazen on a one >> way trip to /dev/null. >> >> (Sorry, list, I just had to get that out of my system) >> >> --Dark > >Hey, don't lump me in with THOSE fuckers. > >I'm a fucker in my OWN right, and my OWN league. > >how about /dev/rOTnull/ > >And why is it that all the COOL people dig me, but all the /dip/shits >consider me /dev/nullable? ...sounds like a problem with the /dip/shits if >you ask me. I think it can be traced to something you waxed eloquent upon, in what was (for you) a longish diatribe. The pattern seems to be, the ones that post "unsubscribe" to the list, repeatedly and continuously post off-topic, and especially engage in tit-for-tat, are also the ones that fall under the /dip/shit category. Now, everyone posts off-topic from time to time, some are capable of recognizing the message without getting sidetracked by the choice of words used to convey the message. Those would be the COOL people. Here is a bet for ya',,,, how many of the sheeple who threaten to /dev/null ACTUALLY KNOW how to do it- are not just saying it because they heard/saw it used to some effect here or elsewhere? Hmmm??? Reeza! ============================================================================ DH Key available upon request. The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense. "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." -- Tacitus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:52:33 -0600 From: "jackdarippa" Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Damnit, Outlook Express died on me (the PGP plugin keeps getting a GPF), so i lost the e-mail i was writing, and i was almost done too...I might not get one in now, sorry. I guess it's what i guess for still using windows. jackdarippa - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNnGwQNpIpYADgVGcEQKuPQCg1o+9wUmrJ6M0rCNbxet0N+hO5ocAn0Jn CMNPX9aYPCOsrI+3SKgrYh0S =szMo - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 19:28:53 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post - another letter to use once again, the voice of reason. thanks for the proactive nature of the post. i'll do the same with my posts in the future. pls ignore the "hint"... ;-) (hey, so i didn't know if you knew...!) > On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 11:08:13AM -0500, wrote: > > > > WHAT'S THE FAX NUMBER??? hint: include phone numbers (v & f) in the > > address fields of letters like this... > > i intentionally left that info off so that only people serious enough > to obtain the numbers would wind up using them. the alternative is > to basically put them out of service by having a huge number of people > tie them up without necessarily doing anything constructive and that > could lead to yet another unfavorable story. > > emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 19:34:16 EST From: DINOMITE1@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] article on kevin dude, scan it, send it, i want to see that shizinit. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: Macki Subject: [mitnick] Rene Sanchez.. Washington Post I just got off the phone with Rene Sanchez (the offending reporter at the Washington Post). It was a very insightfull half an hour, to say the least. Last things first, he admitted that the statment about Kevin (as printed) was false. He pledged to discuss making a correction in monday's paper with his editor. Basically, he said that since Kevin wasn't the focus of the article, he didn't feel the need to do any research beyond what the Federal Prosecutor's office said. He said "The clear sense that the Federal Prosecutor was giving me, was that the Credit Card numbers were part of it [the netcom part of the indictment]." But he wouldn't/couldn't quote exactly what Painter's office said. He claimed not to have any bias or agenda against Kevin, pointing out that he said "thousands of credit card numbers" because he thought that 20k seemed too harsh. However he conceeded that the Federal Prosecutors DEFINATLY have an agenda, and that it wasn't reasonable to just take their word for it... at which point he repeated that the focus of the article wasn't Kevin. Then he tried to say that he didn't think that he had written "charged with" more like "accused of" or "allegedly"... I read this too him, and he admitted that it was false. He then referred to a Feb. 1995 Post article that he used as a source, but as he read it to me, he realized that it infact, did not say that he was being charged with the CC# stuff. I explained to him the errors in his reference to "telephone freaks".. And sympathised with the fact that he hasn't been covering this story and just jumped into the Peterson story and mentioned Mitnick on the side... But I also made it clear that as a writer for the WASHINGTON POST, such carelessness is inexcusable. He also mentioned that 12+ people had complained that he didn't use the term "cracker"... so i explained to him both sides of that argument. He also mentioned that he had received several other comments from people agreeing with me, he probably wouldn't have talked to me if everyone hadn't written in, good going! As the trial approaches he intends to write another article, about Kevin, at which point he will reference the website. More news to come, as we follow up via email over the weekend. --Macki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:43:37 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] measures of success On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote: > Now, everyone posts off-topic from time to time, some are capable of > recognizing the message without getting sidetracked by the choice of words > used to convey the message. Those would be the COOL people. Um, no that's not exactly what I meant by COOL people.. <..rOTTEN..> nobody move, nobody get hurt error187(1) critical failure - - - - - - To do: 1) Update my "To do" list. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:31:16 EST From: BadGirlnLA@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] Justin Petersen caught Anybody have any details? Petersen was arrested around 6 p.m. (pst) tonight. Kevin has an empty cell next to his at MDC. ZDTV is covering it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 00:09:22 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: [mitnick] agent steal check www.cybercrime.com for details on his capture. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 00:19:25 -0500 (EST) From: Macki Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen caught Kevin Poulsen has written an article covering his capture: http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrime/features/story/0,3700,2175248,00.html --Macki On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 BadGirlnLA@aol.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:31:16 EST > From: BadGirlnLA@aol.com > Reply-To: mitnick@2600.com > To: mitnick@2600.com > Subject: [mitnick] Justin Petersen caught > > Anybody have any details? Petersen was arrested around > 6 p.m. (pst) tonight. Kevin has an empty cell next to his at MDC. > > ZDTV is covering it. > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 00:13:46 EST From: BadGirlnLA@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] Petersen Update Well, well, so Petersen told us he was in Europe.....don't think so! http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrime/features/story/0,3700,2175248,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:10:21 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] agent steal > check www.cybercrime.com for details on his capture. Oh happy day. See? I told ya. Vaseline and shit. That's all that comes out of his mouth. On with other topics. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:05:04 -0500 From: john barleycorn Subject: Re: [mitnick] Justin Petersen caught Well if anyone deserves to go to jail for another 10-11 months its certainly JP. Hope Kevin gets a chance to say "Hi". ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 98 01:07:51 MST From: Maras Erlenic Subject: Re: [[mitnick] Rene Sanchez.. Washington Post] shit!! awesome job dude! maybe this will help out with public opinion a little. i mean, if he uses the website for referencing and background info, he's gonna realize just how bad Kevin's situation is. hopefully he will use what he should learn to write an article in Kevin's favor. owner-mitnick@phalse.2600.com wrote: > I just got off the phone with Rene Sanchez (the offending reporter > at the Washington Post). It was a very insightfull half an hour, to say > the least. > > Last things first, he admitted that the statment about Kevin (as printed) > was false. He pledged to discuss making a correction in monday's paper > with his editor. > > Basically, he said that since Kevin wasn't the focus of the article, he > didn't feel the need to do any research beyond what the Federal > Prosecutor's office said. He said "The clear sense that the Federal > Prosecutor was giving me, was that the Credit Card numbers were part of it > [the netcom part of the indictment]." But he wouldn't/couldn't quote > exactly what Painter's office said. > > He claimed not to have any bias or agenda against Kevin, pointing out that > he said "thousands of credit card numbers" because he thought that 20k > seemed too harsh. However he conceeded that the Federal Prosecutors > DEFINATLY have an agenda, and that it wasn't reasonable to just take their > word for it... at which point he repeated that the focus of the article > wasn't Kevin. > > Then he tried to say that he didn't think that he had written "charged > with" more like "accused of" or "allegedly"... I read this too him, and he > admitted that it was false. He then referred to a Feb. 1995 Post article > that he used as a source, but as he read it to me, he realized that it > infact, did not say that he was being charged with the CC# stuff. > > I explained to him the errors in his reference to "telephone freaks".. And > sympathised with the fact that he hasn't been covering this story and just > jumped into the Peterson story and mentioned Mitnick on the side... But I > also made it clear that as a writer for the WASHINGTON POST, such > carelessness is inexcusable. > > He also mentioned that 12+ people had complained that he didn't use the > term "cracker"... so i explained to him both sides of that argument. He > also mentioned that he had received several other comments from people > agreeing with me, he probably wouldn't have talked to me if everyone > hadn't written in, good going! > > As the trial approaches he intends to write another article, about Kevin, > at which point he will reference the website. > > More news to come, as we follow up via email over the weekend. > > > --Macki ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 20:33:24 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] agent steal At 12:09 AM 12/12/98 -0500, Emmanuel Goldstein wrote: >check www.cybercrime.com for details on his capture. > In view of an earlier report that KM was happy that agent steal had gone on the lamb, is the capture good, or bad for the KM defense effort? Reeza! ============================================================================ DH Key available upon request. The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense. "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." -- Tacitus ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:59:14 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] "perjury by law enforcement and . . .gov't witnesses" for those on the list who doubt the claims some have made: namely, that The Myth of Kevin Mitnick (TMoKM) has been fabricated from whole cloth, and that the prosecutors are using TMoKM to achieve an agenda far removed from "justice" (read "just us", justice is "just for us", for the ones with the money to buy it or steal it), see this link.... http://www.post-gazette.com/win/19981211cacj2.asp the link shown above is a letter from one mary broderick, Executive Director, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (2,400 member attorneys), and describes.... > > > ...what defense lawyers and their clients > > > experience on a daily basis - perjury by law > > > enforcement and other government witnesses, > > > fabrication of inculpatory evidence and the > > > deliberate concealment of evidence that > > > would prove innocence, deception and fraud > > > by prosecutors, and the tacit endorsement of > > > these crimes by elected officials, appointed > > > attorneys general and the courts... ms. broderick's letter was written in response to a pittsburgh post-gazette series that's called "win at all costs". parts 1 - 9 have already made it to the website, and the concluding part 10 is scheduled to be on the site by december 14. in case you haven't already, start reading the series at this link: http://www.post-gazette.com/win/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 12:20:07 EST From: NegatveZr0@aol.com Subject: [mitnick] unsubscribe mitnick unsubscribe mitnick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 12:47:00 -0600 From: Jaeger Subject: [mitnick] ZDTV As I was browsing ZDTV's site after reading about petersen, I ran across this article: http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/cybercrime/spyfiles/story/0,3700,2000144,00.html it is one of the best articles about the history of hacking, and how the media has warped the meaning of the word "hacker", that I have seen in a long time.. Jaeger ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:08:08 -0600 From: Xer0 KelviN Subject: Re: [mitnick] letter to the post At 08:49 AM 12/11/98 -0800, you wrote: I would be love to help with this webpage....you can contact me at frozenxero@geocities.com >Kerry, Emmanuel, and other interested parties. One of the things we may >want to do is set up a page for press contacts, regarding Kevin's case. >People who can be called, written to, or emailed for reliable, informed >comment on Kevin's case. I am certainly willing to serve in that role, >and I assume Emmanuel would as well (not to volunteer anyone, but it seems >that Emmanuel has been doing that anyway). It would certainly give us one >more thing to point to when journalists get the facts wrong. > >Any other takers? Bobwil623? > >Best, >Doug > > > > ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #217 *****************************