Three weeks ago I recieved and read the screenplay for 'Takedown' dated
July 2nd.   I understand that this is close to the version of the story
that Miramax is currently  filming.   It has taken me this long to do some
research and consider how I feel.  I know that my opinion matters little,
especially at this stage of the game, but since you asked here are my
impressions.

I find it very unsettling that the screenplay takes such liberties with the
facts in portraying  real people and events.   I understand the need to
tell the story in a dynamic and compelling way but I question that this is
accomplished by stereotyping or villianizing  the participants.

I feel that the Julia character does not so much negatively depict  me as
it does genericize me to fit someone's image of a person in her role.
There are many departures from the facts.  I am a computer programmer, not
a psychologist and would not  presume to psychoanalyze Kevin Mitnick,
professionally or otherwise, as does the character with my name.   I also
never operated Tsutomu's scanner.   He did, with the volume level set loud
enough to detect modem tones but not loud enough to overhear the content of
conversations.   This is a point of law and does matter, which is I suspect
why he is not shown doing it himself.

As a love interest I am almost ten years older than Tsutomu, not younger,
and my ex-partner John Gilmore is just  a few years older than I, not twice
my age.  Tsutomu and I did not live happily ever after.   In fact he
dropped out of my life shortly after precipitating my final break with
John.   I should probably be grateful that the triangle between John,
myself, and Tsutomu has been regularized in the screenplay.  Still, if I am
to be made less complicated, less mature, non-technical, and the
authoratative vehicle for womanly insight into human nature, at least let
me be articulate.   I DO try not to rely too heavily on the word 'stuff'.

My more pressing concern about the script is for some of the others
depicted, Kevin Mitnick first and foremost.   Granted Kevin is a habitual
offender of a particular sort but he is not violent and he never physically
attacked Tsutomu.  In fact he was so shaken upon his apprehension that he
spent 5 minutes vomiting before the arrest could proceed.  He is credited
in the film with commiting crimes that we have no solid evidence to connect
him with, and attributed with skills I would be very surprised if he
posesses.  Although we witnessed him accessing stolen data archives at the
Well there are no computer forensics proving that he broke into Tsutomu's
computers and if he did, I seriously doubt that he wrote the IP spoofing
code that was used in that attack.  The realy interesting story would be
who was assisting and perhaps using Mitnick.

I know that Kevin is not in a good position to defend himself, and perhaps
it even pleases him to be cast as a superhacker,  but is this not libel?
He IS still pending trial and to the extent that this film influences
opinion, it mixes truth and falsehood in such a way that it can only harm
him.   Even if Takedown is not released until after Kevin's sentencing he
still has to get through the rest of his life, including any parole
hearings that are to come.    The screenplay inflates both his skill set
and his volatility, misrepresenting the danger that he poses to the
community.

While Mitnick is not in good standing with the community, others unfairly
portrayed in your film are.  John Gilmore, while no longer my partner, is
well known and respected in his circles as an entrepeneur, phillanthropist
and civil rights crusader.   He is called upon by publications such as the
New York Times for his quotes and opinions on digital privacy and related
subjects.  He only has informal connections to the WELL and was not present
at the meeting which the screenplay has him run.

There WERE real conflicts of interest  inherent in the situation for the
Well management to resolve.   Catching the intruder required allowing him
to continue his activities unhindered, with unpredictable consequences.
Watching the intruder also exposed other users of the WELL to being
watched, comprimizing their privacy.   By allowing us to do our work there
the WELL was making itself vulnerable to both the intruder's potential
mallice and the displeasure of its other privacy loving members.
Manufacturing a personal confrontation between Gilmore and Tsutomu in the
scenes at the WELL obscures these issues and misrepresents all parties
involved.

The staff of Internet service providers are permitted by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act to view the contents of user accounts when in
pursuit of fraudulent use.  With the help of  the EFF, I determined that
Tsutomu, Andrew and I  were covered by the same rule, since the WELL and
Netcom had requested our assistence.   It is unfortunate that the
screenplay  chooses to manufacture a confrontation between Pei and Julia on
the subject rather than illuminate that fact.

The WELL policy that users own their own words is also misrepresented.
This is not justification for recieving stolen property but rather a strong
commitment to the personal privacy of WELL members.   The WELL management
was concerned that as little collateral information as possible be captured
and made public in the process of our investigation.    We invested weeks
of highly skilled labor to address that concern.  While the WELL retains
copies of every file and transaction, should there be a question of
context, we sifted out ONLY the material related to Mitnick's activities as
evidence for the FBI.  Such care was not taken with the information
gathered at Netcom, the other Internet service provider that asked for our
help.

The WELL and Netcom both deserve credit for putting the interests of the
community at large in stopping the intruder ahead of other concerns.  The
usual response of an Internet service provider is to close the security
hole, if it can be found, and perhaps notify the users that there was a
breach, but otherwise to ignore the incident.  It is cheaper overall but
does nothing to realy address the problem of insecure networks and the
people who exploit them.   What makes this story unusual is that enough
skilled people cared enough to work together long enough to make an arrest,
not that Mitnick is unusually dangerous or malicious.

Perhaps there will be some disclaimer in the film stating that while it is
based on true events it has been heavily fictionalized.   If the story
portrays real people and events how can it contain so many lies, damaging
and otherwise?   If it is a work of fiction, then why attach the names of
real people to the characters?  I am surprised that such a thing is even
legal, much less considered ethical.   This fictionalization comes at a
personal cost to some of those portrayed but I think it also costs  the
film, making  a complex story  formulaic and therefore less interesting.

For what it's worth... Feel free to forward this as you see fit.
Julia Menapace