Mitnick Ordered Off Lecture Circuit 424
jpowell writes: "CNN had a story about Kevin Mitnick being ordered off of the lecture circuits. The federal probation office has said that he can no longer write or speak about technology issues." Normally I don't post Mitnick stories here, but, well, huh?
Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
I know that to many /.ers Kevin Mitnick is some kind of hero who fought the Evil Empire of the government, but all he really was was a hacker who got caught doing something illegal. That's right, he was a criminal, pure and simple.
Now it is my belief that anyone who engages in any criminal acts should not be praised for what they did, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to make any money from it. After all, look at the outrage when a serial killer or murderer writes a book and publishes it. But when it's Kevin Mitnick, "information hero", /.ers are full of outrage when he's not allowed to make money from his infamy.
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
Re:The Great Social Engineer... (Score:2)
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
I think this is the crucial point. Mitnick has done his time, and so has received his punishment. The judge seems to want to punish him further, but this really seems counter-productive in the case of a person like this. I believe it would be better to allow him to gradually get himself back into technology, so that he can become a productive member of society.
This kind of punitive order can only result in bad things for both Mitnick and society, as I believe it removes any disincentive for further criminal behavior. After all, if he's going to continue to be punished regardless, what the hell?
But, then again, I pretty much oppose all kinds of post-sentence restrictions/punishments. A person should receive their punishment, and that should be that. If they need to be in jail, leave them in jail; don't parole or otherwise release them. Otherwise, let them get on with their life.
--
Give me a break... (Score:2)
The point is that he served his time. They should not be able to prohibit him from speaking about his experience and about computer security. Five years has not invalidated his knowledge since much of the technology has not changed all that much. It's been improved certainly, but his knowledge is still quite useful, especially in an industry that claims that there is a severe lack of skilled workers. He should have no problem finding a job once he's allowed to use computers again.
He knows (now) what he did was wrong... gee, five years in a federal prison to realize that?
I don't condone what he did, but I can't blame him for attempting to evade capture. When you consider that the companies involved were lying through their teeth about the damages (which they later retracted), the government was wanting to make an example out of him, which implies an overly harsh sentence, and the fact that he would be severely mistreated during his time in prison, I would do the same thing. There was no justice done here. It was a stunt pulled by the government. They wanted someone to crucify as an example. They threw justice out the window and used every trick they could come up with to try to destroy his life. Kevin is a criminal. What he did was wrong. The difference between him and the people who prosecuted him is that he was convicted for his crime and served his sentence. They seem to be above the law.
Re:This is really about free speech... (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, he did his time and should be free to talk about it now. They've already managed to take away any possibility of him getting a good job doing what he is best at. They should at least let him make money somehow. Not to mention that taking away his freedom to speak to others is just plain wrong. Looks like it's time to break out the "Free Kevin" stickers and signs again.
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:2)
Why should he be forced to work at such jobs if he can do something more profitable? He served his time in prison. He's still serving his probation with no access to computers. He's not profitting from his crimes. Any fruits of his crimes were confiscated long ago. He's now using his knowledge to earn a living. Just like many of us do every day. Now the government wants to criminalize that as well. I'm sick of seeing people who have not committed a sexual or violent crime being persecuted as if they could snap and start killing people at any moment. Why should he be restricted to a minimum wage job and lifestyle, despite his ability to earn a better living without violating his probation or committing a crime? That is definitely an unusual, if not cruel(which is debateable), punishment.
Re:Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:2)
The difference is that OJ got off by having a good lawyer even though the evidence was pretty heavily against him. In the Davidian case, the evidence was heavily in their favor and it became pretty obvious that the government was way out of line. The facts of the case supported that view.
Re:two classes of crimes... (Score:2)
I fully realize the differences in the kinds of crimes I mentioned. I was getting at a point though. The point being that we should care how convicted felons are treated because they are not just "felons", they're people. They may have broken a law, but that alone doesn't make them bad people. There are many bad laws on the books. The fact that you broke one doesn't make you unworthy of life, or even of a decent life. It doesn't mean you can't still be a productive member of society. It certainly doesn't mean you should have your rights taken away from you after you've served your sentence, and certain rights should not be taken from you even during your sentence. (i.e. voting, speech, freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, etc.)
Re:Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:2)
Once you can show me how a criminal can undo the past and make it so that his actions didn't happen, then maybe I'll start worrying about how a criminal is treated.
So, you believe that any offense by a criminal means that we should no longer care about how they are treated? Death penalty for anyone that steals from you then? Why should we care? They trespassed, stole something, got caught speeding, etc. We should just write them off and get them out of society for good then? Even when they are kids? They were considered children by our government when they committed the crime, yet somehow the committing of that crime makes them adults that can be tried as such? What about their treatment before they're convicted? People are generally considered guilty until proven innocent anymore. God forbid you ever get accused of something.
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
(Would you actually elect a convicted felon?)
Yes, actually. It would depend on the person, the crime, and whether I think he/she's a better person now. Considering that many candidates for major elections are unconvicted felons, I'd rather vote for the one that has served his time and recognizes the consequences of his actions rather than the one that appears to be above the law and has never been held accountable for his actions.
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons?
It's been shown that minorities are far more likely (something like 6 times) than non-minorities to be tried as adults, convicted, and sentenced to adult facilities. If the legal system is so skewed, and I believe it is, then it is certainly not right to further persecute these people after they've done their time.
Is the law descriminating against black males? No.
I think you're wrong about this.
Does this make it right to repeal the law so "more black people can vote"?
That's not the real reason the law should be repealed. It should never have been passed in the first place. If a person has served his time, he should not be considered a second or third class citizen, and certainly should not be prohibited from voting. That's one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. They are effectively being excluded from the democratic process. They cannot effectively have a voice in opposing the government that convicted them, even though they don't agree with the laws they were accused of breaking. Drug laws are the most perfect example. The "war on drugs" has done more to take away our rights and more to divide the country into haves and have-nots than any other single policy. The rich can do drugs to their hearts content. They have good lawyers. The poor? Not a chance. They rot in prison for years for a petty offense. Zero tolerance policies, extreme punishments, persecution after the sentence has been served, removal of fundamental rights even after the sentence has been served, unequal treatment by courts depending on race and financial status. These are just some of the many unjustices that occur frequently in our "justice" system. They just keep getting worse too.
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
I don't see why Mitnick can't talk about computer technology or security in general, but letting him make money from crimes raises my hackles.
Any data he gained from his exploits was confiscated long ago, along with pretty much everything else he owned. He's not profitting from his crimes, he's profiting from his knowledge of security weaknesses, as well as getting to give his opinions about the actions of the government. Both should certainly be well within his rights.
Re:That's just plain wrong (Score:2)
That's just plain wrong (Score:2)
Felons can most certainly own property, including real property. A blanket prohibition on property would include money . .
They can also own real property; as an attorney, I have met several (including in california) who do.
Disney didn't own Disneyland becuase it was owned by the Disney Corporation, not because of any criminal history (I have no idea whether or not he was courtmartialed.)
hawk, esq.
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
Bzzzzzzzzz
Wrong answer Skippy
What you are talking about is the "Son of Sam Law" which was enacted after book companies offered the SoS book deals. The original law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 on free speech grounds.
Re:Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:2)
I am glad, however, to see you acknowledge its religious motivations. The enlightenment was much more concerned with science, and advocated a kind of sterling rationalism with an obsession on the "natural rights of man" rather than Christian compassion. How the englightenment got "natural rights" from their Deist, clockmaker god, is beyond me.
--
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
Allowing him to earn a living on the lecture circuit is not the same as condoning his illegal activities. It appears that the only way he could really violate his probation at a lecture is to use a computer as part of the presentation. (Even that seems like a silly restriction.) Remember, any legal restrictions that apply to Mitnik can be applied to any of us at some future date. This is a scary precedent.
But it's not funny (Score:2)
Just because he's a loser doesn't mean we should stand by and say nothing when his Constitutional rights are being trampled. Abuses almost always start against the people who are the "losers" of society. Problem is, that category of "losers", or criminals, starts to expand pretty quickly to include everyone. I seem to remember a saying about Nazi Germany, along these lines: first they came for the Jews, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew; then they came for the Catholics but I was silent, I wasn't Catholic;
he is making money off of his crime
It's somewhat difficult to prove that, though. He's not profiting from the crime so much as his expertise; there's a significant distinction there. If he were lecturing about his exploits, then I would agree with you. But lecturing on general computer security issues is not the same - he's not talking about his crimes. His overall expertise is what makes him the money. Granted, his notoriety from the crimes has no doubt made him more in demand to speak; but nonetheless the profit is made from his expertise, not his crimes.
And beyond that distinction, I think a lot of us take issue with the idea that the government is screwing Mitnick after he's served his time by trying to deny him the right to work. Not only that, but deny him the right to work in a way that is benefiting society by telling them how to avoid similar problems in the future. It's absurd.
. If Mitnick had cracked and ripped off another individual, rather than a corporation, there wouldn't be near as much uproar
Bullshit. There sure would be as much of an uproar. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with who Mitnick chose to crack, it's about government abuse of power. The reason for the uproar is that it could just as easily happen to anyone.
Why not leave the US and work wherever? (Score:2)
I mean as soon as he's able. I mean think about it, only US law is holding him back. Go become a citazen of another country. I'm sure some country would like to have him.
It's sad to say but it's not just the US - all the nations are rescricting rights of there people. Of course we just bitch about it, and hardly ever do much. But that's changing, people get tired of opression pretty quick. We need more 'mainstream anarchists' or 'true reformers' to turn things around before a company decides to overtly buy us out.
Gore and Bush are waiting for *your dollars still! You still have time to buy a cacnditate!! Hurry operators are standing by!!! Buy our way out of the antitrust case billy! You *can buy your own president, even if you aren't chinese.
( Look I just got on the FBI blacklist )
Re:Probation, Mitnick and the law (Score:2)
The saddest part is that NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE. I find myself often having to explain to people in detail why things like this (and the bust-in on Elian, and Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and a hundred other things) are so terrible, and when I'm done they say "Well, they're criminals, right?" It seems most people don't hear a word I say...
It scares me that people think it's OK for federal paramilitary troops (in the case of the BATF, under the Dept. of the Treasury... What's up with that?) to storm the residences and private properties of US Citizens because "they're wierd" or "they might have had guns". Last time I checked, both of those were legal.
Sure, maybe it's not so bad yet... But if we give away these freedoms one by one it won't be long until there aren't many left to give. Just because some rights violation doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean it's OK. When one does, you won't have a leg to stand on if you didn't defend your fellow citizens when their rights were infringed.
I like to use alcohol as an example to drinkers who think firearms should be outlawed... (I believe firmly in the right to bear arms, but I am a non-drinker) I present them with this situation:
At this point, the person to whom I am speaking almost invariably begins to cry bloody murder, saying it's an unfair comparison and "a drink doesn't hurt anybody" and a hundred other things. Is it because alcohol isn't dangerous, or because drinkers are more responsible than firearm owners? No. It's because alcohol affects them personally, and the firearms issue does not. The point is not that alcohol is terrible and should be outlawed (I think outlawing alcohol would be an infringement of rights), but that you have to consider others' rights as well as your own. Just because you don't want to have a firearm (whether for self-defense, hunting, shooting sports, defense against tyranny, or what) doesn't necessarily mean your fellow citizens should not have that choice.
I choose alcohol and firearms because they are both well-known issues, but it can be applied to almost any pair of rights. Many people are offended by sidewalk evangelists and think sidewalk evangelism should be outlawed... Compare that to the legality of tobacco, or right to display a confederate flag or anarchy symbol. I don't want to smell cigarette smoke or look at a confederate flag; the average citizen probably doesn't want to promote anarchy. However, the flag and the anarchy symbol are both freedoms of speech the same as sidewalk evangelism, and the tobacco is the freedom to decide what you want to do with your body rather than the gov't deciding.
I realize that most of these issues are not direct parallels, and many people won't have a problem with either side or will have a problem with both sides, but you get the point. (I hope so, anyway, not everyone does) As a responsible citizen, you have to consider the rights of other citizens, too.
Not everyone who I talk to understands this, but every so often a light will dawn behind their eyes, and I know I've helped someone realize the importance of personal rights and not losing ANY of them. It isn't enough not to lose the ones that are most important to ourselves, we must protect the rights of EVERYONE.
I guess this has sort of turned into a ramble, but it scares me how unconcerned the average citizen is for their personal rights. Once they're all gone, it will be impossible to get them back. The only option is to keep them in the first place.
But then again, I'm probably preaching to the choir for many readers of /., as I see a lot of "defend your rights" posts. Just remember to tell your friends.
Ethan
What about OJ? (Score:2)
--
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
So what's his frigging problem? Who said that he must work in US? There are other countries in the world as well...
Re:newsflash: criminals get punished. (Score:2)
Ummm... AFAIK we don't do this. If an axe murderer got out of prison on parole, I doubt they'd prevent him from owning or using an axe. If he had used a baseball bat, would they keep him from having one of those? But if he used the bat and not the axe, is it then ok if he has an axe? It makes no sense.
I just did a quick survey of my office. I found five types of objects, not counting my own hands and feet and whatnot, that could be used as a deadly weapon. Will we prevent the criminal from owning an electrical cord?
I have no respect for Mitnick, but... (Score:2)
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
Not at all. I know that convicted felons no longer have the right to vote or to own firearms. Since the right to own firearms is in the second amendment, it's obvious that felons do have a restricted set of rights, extending even to constitutional rights.
However, whether that extends to the first amendment rights to free speech is unknown to me.
Eric
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
And you think this is right? When the felon has done his prison time he should be integrated into society as a full member. The penal system is there to punish people, but also to reintegrate them successfully into society after the punishment has been carried out.
If you lock the felon out of normal society, how can society expect the felon to behave like a good member of society?
And yes, I would vote for a convicted felon if I believed in them, and yes it would depend on the crime they had committed and the circumstances around it.
In fact, in my country a man was elected to parliament while he was still in prison. It's also not illegal to escape from prison, provided you do not harm anyone or anything, and return your prison clothes and other prison owned items to their owners.
The next Darwin... (Score:2)
How much can he contribute to the world if he's stuck saying, "Would you like fries with that?" - for 8 hours a day.
He'll end up like Darwin, banished and ridiculed until WE open our minds to the greater good... or at least seeing things for what they are.
Just my $.02
This is so backward! (Score:2)
She said that she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage.
Isn't that just wrong? Mitnick arguably has skills and contributions to society he can make, and paying him decently is a good way to get it out of him as an economic exchange of goods. Yet by desiring Mitnick to be earn minimum wage, the system expects Mitnick to contribute minimally to our society.
WTF? I don't curse, so I'm glad for TLAs...
I wonder if he has the training or background to legitimately work in the security field; if he does, props to him! If the government thinks he's going to take advantage of the situation unfairly, then auditing his work is even better; security through rigor!
-AS
Thank you (Score:2)
However, I am trying to muddy the waters, a bit. The point of my thread is that crime, legality, and wrong is not black and white. Lots of things that are wrong are not crimes. Lots of things that are crimes are not wrong. Lots of things that aren't legal are still done.
UCITA and DMCA are both legislation that makes lots of fair use and common sense actions wrong. If they become law, they also become crimes. Yet the actions themselves aren't bad or immoral, just not sanctioned by Big Corporation.
I'm not trying to stir outrage, but I was trying to bring up examples that are ambiguous depending on context, location, and temporal placement.
Which you have pointed out very well.
-AS
No? (Score:2)
Breaking an encryption scheme, IE reverse engineering it(not the encrypted material, but the scheme itself) is illegal, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or whatever it's called. Look at DeCSS and all the software that revealed the censorware black lists!
Again, having an mp3 means using software to process and store and listen to your music in a way not sanctioned by the copyright holders, just like the DVD thing
Linking to a website is a crime that 2600 is currently fighting.
Driving 70mph is just violation of speeding limits in the US.
These aren't *wrong*, in a moral sense, but they violate some laws, statutes, (and in some cases, proposals) etc. that seriously limit us. Some more important than others...
-AS
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
I disagree somewhat. I think you are dead on in your analysis of this reason, but I don't think this is the sole reason. It's a bad idea to let people make money (or keep money) from their crimes. If I commit a property crime (ie NOT an offense against a person), serve one year in jail, and then make $300,000 as a direct result of my crime, I'd consider that a fair trade. Many others would, too, with the result that my particular type of crime would increase.
I don't see why Mitnick can't talk about computer technology or security in general, but letting him make money from crimes raises my hackles. Keep in mind, though, that judges have very broad powers; they can do almost anything they want. Ever hear of contempt of court? The judge accuses you, convicts you, and sentences you inside of about ten seconds. In Mitnick's case, if the judge says "Don't talk about technology," that sentence holds unless Mitnick appeals it. I have no idea if such a sentence would survive appeal.
Re:It's no different... (Score:2)
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
In at lest some cases, this kind of thing is mandatory. I've seen it done for drunk drivers - as part of their sentence, they have to perform community service, where the service is to speak to groups about how bad it is to drive drunk.
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
Preventing Kevin Mitnick from making money off of his crimes is one thing; preventing him from making money off of his skills is another. Do we prevent rapists from talking to women while on probation? If I rob a bank, am I going to be prevented from banking while on probation? If I rob a grocery store, will I be prevented from shopping? No. Yet the courts are preventing Kevin Mitnick from using technology, or even talking about it. What sort of precedent are we setting? Will slanderers be prevented from writing? Will purgerers be prevented from speaking on record?
It's one thing to keep a murderer from owning a gun. Guns aren't an integral part of today's society. You can work in plenty of industries without owning a gun. But, honestly, I can't think of a single industry that Kevin Mitnick could work in. He couldn't work as a receptionist at my apartment complex (there's a TV in the lounge). He couldn't change my oil at Jiffy Lube (their systems are all computerized). He couldn't take my order at Burger King (computerized cash register). So how is this man supposed to become a productive, law-abiding citizen, when every means of being productive is illegal to him?
There have been several burglers, muggers, etc. who have gone on to live productive lives teaching people how to avoid being burglerized, mugged, etc. They have turned themselves around, and are using ALL of their skills (even the ones that they used illegally before) for the benefit of society.
What Kevin Mitnick did was wrong. If he did it again, I would be the first person demanding him back in jail. But, at the same time, he has to have the chance to get on with his life.
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
I believe that anyone who can profit from their crimes in a way that is (a) legal and (b) beneficial to society should be allowed to do so. If it's just for entertainment value, then, no, they should not. But, if someone has seen the error of his ways, and wants to help people defend themselves from the same sort of crimes that he used to commit, then it is in the best interest of all involved to let them do so.
Re:some clarifictions (Score:2)
Having known a few people who have gone through the California and Washington prison system and hearing the stories, this is kind of a naive statement.
True, from what I've heard, Mitnick's social skills are a bit retarded, but that just takes some maturity - perhaps being on the lecture circuit would've actually made him a better communicator in the long run, and we may not find out now.
But in prison Kevin could've been a submissive, respectful lamb and still gotten his ass reamed from here to Bangkok. There is no justice inside those bars, man, regular social rules DO NOT apply. Don't make those kind of assumptions.
Re:From the Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
========
Abu-Jamal is getting fucked over. (Score:2)
Poor guy.
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
What makes his case important to "hackers" is not his guilt or innosence, it is what the government has done to him outside of the bounds of orderly, prescribed punishment.
When you say that he should not be allowed to speak about his experiences, you give up on free speech. If it disgusts you to think that a mass murderer would make money on a book describing the slayings, direct your disgust at the people who buy the book, not at free speech itself.
People should be allowed to write books about killing people in real life, burn american flags, and talk about encryption. It disgusts me that people like you think the solution is to limit the speech, when the sickness is the fact that people want to read the books, people make a big deal out of someone burning a piece of cloth, and people want to not allow completely private correspondance over the 'net.
Hope this isn't FLAME-MAIT or OFF-TOPIC ... (Score:2)
Is he saying, "beware of this kind of attack," or is it "[snicker-snicker] O.K., now, don't ever try this [snicker-snicker] ... and if you do, don't get caught, and CERTIANLY, don't tell them where you heard about this ..."
Maybe that's overstating my point, but the fact is, his lectures are the best example of the proof of his rehabilitation, right? from the tone of the few words he said in the news article, it sounds like he's BEGGING to do something and get caught .... I'm not sure, though ...
It just seems that what he's preaching about may tell volumes about the "potential harm" he may still be ... if he's lecturing about how to bang together two brings to make music, no harm .... if he's lecturing about work-arounds, to intrusion-detection architectures, harm ....
It is *NOT* Parole! (Re:He served his time, let h) (Score:2)
Problem solving and Justice (Score:2)
Re:Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:2)
First you say that it's inherently right to reform a criminal if you can find a way to reform a criminal. That's circular and not a valid argument. Sure the principle that a good person contributing to society is better than not having that person is sound. But you are speaking about a hypotheical reform. Until you can give a proven, unfailing method of reform then there is no point in trying to reform an recidivist thug.
Second you say that you wouldn't mind a hypothetical murderer being hypothetically reformed and then returned to society. Well this isn't a hypothetical world. This is the real world, people commit crimes and don't reform. Society has an obligation to protect it's members. Without having some kind of deterrent (and given the number of repeat offenders we aren't deterring people now) society is failing it's members.
Third you imply that people somehow are automatically liable for what other people decide that are liable for. It's not an Joe Famous' concern if some wacko out there decides that they are going to kill themselves if Joe Famous doesn't play the role of the Big Wonker in some movie.
Finally you go into the wrongly accused argument. Yes people are wrongly accused and it's horrible. But nowhere did I say we should just kill everybody for every little thing. Obviously you have to take into account what the crime was. But you are under no obligation to nuture some asshole into being a good person. That's my point. In societies we join together for the benefits. Having some goat molester steal your money, ruin your business, or break down your personal sense of security isn't a benefit and there needs to be a way for that to be corrected. If this can't be done, then there is no reason to try and help the "poor" criminal. People are not animals, they make their decisions knowing that there are going to be an expending circle of effects. If you get a hammer and nail and nail yourself to a tree is it societies job to ensure that you don't suffer any scars or pain from that?
Re:No? (Score:2)
Just because there are situations where you can't legally break an encryption scheme doesn't make breaking encryption schemes illegal. The illegal act is not the generalized breaking of encryption streams. It's much like you can't drive a car on public roads without a license, yet you can drive a car on private property without one.
The argument that the RIAA puts out that digitally playing music is illegal is not the law. It's what they want you to think is the law. At most it's currently ambigous. All previous case law that could relate to this says that it's legal to do so.
Again you say "Linking to a website is illegal." This is obviously untrue. There are certain things that may get you into trouble if you link to them, but by no means is the general statement you made correct.
Finally, the speed limit on many roads is 75 MPH or higher. In Montana (or maybe it's Wyoming) for instance, there is no speed limit during the day. Yes there are roads where it's illegal, such as residential areas. But merely driving over 70 MPH isn't breaking the law. Not to mention again the fact that if you are on private property you can drive as quickly as you desire.
You attempt to stir up outrage by using obviously wrong generalities is just dumb. You don't do anyone a service by muddying the waters.
Re:It isn't difference of opinion... (Score:2)
No.
Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime.
No.
Having an mp3 is a crime.
No.
Linking to a website is a crime.
No.
Driving 70mph is a crime.
No.
try again (Score:2)
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
Cool, that means you can probably answer my question: what exactly is the difference between a Felony and a Crime?
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
I could see where people might possibly ignore any statements of his that are moral/ethical in nature, but it seems like he has some knowledge to contribute about security. Even if the white hat academians already know everything he does, it might do others well to be shocked by finding out what sorts of social engineering are feasible.
Novel crimes are of value to society. They allow the society to be aware of potential future problems and to try to prevent them in the future.
--
His BRAIN contains ill-gotten information! (Score:2)
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:2)
But how about cars? Motorcycles? Go-carts?
For the equivilent punishment that Kevin got, you would be prevented from doing that also.
How about teaching Drivers Ed?
Aparently, they don't even want the 'truck driver' even TALKING about anything motorized.
Later
Erik Z
Drunk Drivers Kill people and don't get banned! (Score:2)
Damn, this is funny.... (Score:2)
As for his speaking about his cracking "skills", he is making money off of his crime. I don't give a flying rat's ass how you try to justify or generalize what he is doing, he is making money off of his reputation which stems directly from his cracking experiences. The judge has every right to do stop him from making money off it.
If a serial rapist and murderer were to lecture on a circuit about "the effectiveness of various methods of self-defense for women" I'd find it in equally bad taste. In both cases a crime was perpetrated, and a victim/victim's families get pissed that the perpetrator is making money off his notoriety. And frankly, I'm sick of all the bullshit "Screw The Corporations" attitude that's present here in this messageboard. If Mitnick had cracked and ripped off another individual, rather than a corporation, there wouldn't be near as much uproar. Grow up, or move to a small deserted island where you don't have to worry about big, bad corporations picking on your interests.
You can argue that there are different degrees of evil, that corporations have different rights than individuals, or Mitnick is really a loser with a Heart of Gold underneath, but nothing changes the fact that Mitnick is trying to profit from his notoriety. And that's how Uncle Sam views this case.
Knee-jerk libertarians and pissed-off-at-the-world 16 year-olds. Sometimes it's hard to tell who's who here on
telnet://bbs.ufies.org
Trade Wars Lives
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
they're felons. they have less rights than those of us who obey the laws, which is at it should be. i'm sorry, just because some criminal shares some stupid, geek ethos with you idiots doesn't make him a special person. he deserves the scorn and ignominy of being a felon.
No, and this is the typical narrow-minded and vengeful view of criminal justice that seems to permeate American society. Quite frankly, it sickens me.
Why do people seem to think that if you commit a crime, your entire life is worthless, and that you should not be allowed to continue it in even a small amount of comfort? The guy needs to eat, and condemning him to work at a McDonald's for the rest of his life seems unduly harsh. Prohibiting him from using computers is certainly unreasonable.
The entire paradigm that the American criminal "Justice" system is run on it so twisted and foul, and there are certainly millions of people in various countries who find it completely disgusting and inhumane, but we don't hear about any of this in our little protected shell inside the U.S., where the government has so learned to expertly control the media that there is no need for socialist-style state-controlled media outlets.
Think about the word, "Justice". And think about all the things you hear about "reform" and such. Is locking a man up for several years, denying him his constitutional rights, and then taking away his source of income "Justice", or "Reform"? The goal of the prison/justice system is (well, should) be to prevent crimes from happening again. It doesn't work for reasons like we see in the Mitnick case. The same thing happens with murderers, theives, and rapists. Now, certainly some of those may be harder to reform (or perhaps impossible, but it's no reason to stop trying) than others, but locking them up in prisons with horrible conditions where they are abused and mistreated both by the officials and the other prisoners is not the answer. And to make it worse, they're basically stripped of any chance they have of making a life for themselves on the outside, and revert back to whatever landed them in jail in the first place, because they really don't have that many alternatives from their standpoint.
The entire system is based upon some misguided and twisted notion that the populous at large needs revenge for what these people have done, and this is wrong.
Ok, that's my rant... but I really think the american public is really twisted and evil when it comes down to criminal justice stuff.
Re:A convicted felon != A probationer (Score:2)
Hopefully he isn't working within 50 feet of an office building, or anything else. Isn't there a proximity to technology restriction on him?
Kintanon
Re:A convicted felon != A probationer (Score:2)
Not in his case it doesn't. At least when incarcerated he was fed, housed, clothed, now that he's out he's not allowed near computerized cash registers, computers, palm devices, cell phones, and a myriad of other technology. The man can't even work on a construction site because the foreman carries an electronic pager and cellphone. He CAN NOT make a living in modern society at all. He may as well become a petty pick pocekt for all of the options they've left him. The man can not even FLIP BURGERS for dog's sake!
Kintanon
Late breaking news.. (Score:2)
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:2)
> and all of the massive stupid things like physics in collegiate level course work and just started to teach programming for CS
> I would almost bet more and more people would be able to get degrees and start coding and get a better life
Do you even have a degree? Comp Sci != Programmer !
At one time I thought: "why do i need to take this "fucking calculas shit" when as a comp sci programmer I'll never use it.
Guess what.
Today I'm working on splines - specifically a 3D Studio Max Exporter as part of our game tools. I need to know the length of a spline. Guess what? I needed to numerical evalulate an integeral in 3 variables.
As a 3d graphics programmer I'm glad for all those "useless" math and physics class undergrads were forced to take. It's called: Learning HOW to solve problems.
Sure most of the stuff they teach probably isn't need to be a good programmer, but don't confuse the 2 issues.
Cheers
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:2)
Does anybody have the actual plea agreement text? I'd be curious to know whether adding additional conditions is allowed...
Re:It's legal NOW! (Score:2)
Re:From the Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
I agree, Kevin was a bad boy. He served his punishment, and was released. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1. If computing consumes most of Mr. Mitnick's time...he is being robbed of life.
2. It is quite obvious that his civil liberties have been shamelessly stripped from him.
3. Pursuit of Happiness. It means that we don't have to sit in a cave, eating bats, and being warmed by open fire. We can pursue ventures to improve our lives. A representative democracy does not dictate how we may, and how we may not pursue such ventures.
Geeks are human too!
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line between entertainment and beneficial to society? Some people would argue that entertainment is beneficial to society (if it weren't, everyone would be unhappy all day long).
Re:He served his time, let him make a living! (Score:2)
Re:How can they do that? (Score:2)
Has anyone heard one of his lectures? Does he discuss his story, does he describe abuses of power by gov't, does he discuss technology in general, or is it as described "educate others about protecting themselves against cyberspace intrusions"? If it's any of the last three, then I can't see how they can legally restrict him on this.
This sounds more like the government being upset that he found a source of income greater than what the judge expected "she thought Mitnick would be unable to earn anything above minimum wage". Either way, this one's bound to end up in court.
If Mumia can speak! Or should Kevin bake bread? (Score:2)
I didn't realize that minimum wage/poverty was also part of Mitnick's sentence.
This Judge has overstepped the bounds of democracy and judicial fairness. I've always found that when stupid people feel threatened, they often blame the ones with the answers. This blame-game gives them a reason for their existence. I wonder who the Judge is really protecting? Is society better served by keeping Kevin silent, or is he making those who would like to keep him silent look stupid.
My suggestion... Kevin should bake bread for the next two years. Mixing the dough is a lot of fun. There are all sorts of bread styles and yeast combinations. If all goes well he could open a bake shop.
If he doesn't like that, he could always go to law school, earn a lot of money suing people and then start a foundation that protects our rights, since no one else seems to be doing it.
Re:From the Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
But I have no sympathy at all for Mitnick, and I really have no faith in his contrition about what he did (what is this, the 2nd or 3rd time he's said "never again"?)
Re:From the Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:2)
You have several massive gaps in your reasoning
1) Computer Science programs dont churn out programmers, they churn out computer scientists.
If you want to learn to program, buy a book, or go to DeVry. If you want to learn to analyze problems and model solutions to them using computers, then perhaps having a computer science degree and knowing how to use various programming tools available to you is the call.
2) Computer science was originally just "applied mathmatics", and for salary reasons im sure lots of math departments wish it were still that way. You simply cannot be a relevant computer scientist without a large understanding of various types of mid-level mathematics. I went through this same argument yesterday in a curiculum meeting. Some computer engineering senior was trying to suggest that discrete math isn't important to a computer engineers degree. Things like logic, set theory, graph theory, and proof methods are the foundation of _everything_ we do today. If you think the internet is broken and shitty _now_, let me tell you what it'd be like without basic graph theory. OSPF _is_ Dijkstra's algorithm. Ever hear of a chip with an "n" layer process ? Software doing that layout models the circuit as a graph, and then figures out the embedded planarity. You can mathematically prove a circuit can't be made with fewer layers.
I remember when I was a jackass highschool kid that figured "i'll just get my degree so people will beleive how smart I am". I'm glad I bothered to go to school. I was an idiot. People that dismiss getting a higher education because they know how to install linux, are also idiots. Idiots that I won't hire.
There are a class of programmers that dont need lots of mathematical understanding. VB programmers, or some random perl scripters. Application programmers, basically. If you want to write "pay me $15 for this shitty peice fo windows shareware I wrote in a weekend" sorts of software for the rest of your life, by all means, get "C++ / MFC For Dummies!" and go on your merry way.
If you want to take the "i'll just do networking and admin" route, you're going to find out one of two things.
1) Either you'll learn to program through lots of scripting tools, and eventually you'll realize you need to look up some theory on computational complexity, if nothing else.
2) You'll basically a machine babysitter that never gets promoted and never gets rid of that pager.
Re:Probation, Mitnick and the law (Score:2)
They're showing you that capitalism can go into excactly the same traps as Communism, Fascism and every other "evil governmental ideology" you people have been mindlessly bashing and ranting over the years. It's supposed to show you that its _people_ doing the bad things, not THINGS. So responsibility and change have to go down to the level of people and individuals, you and me.
I'm beginning to find all this hilarious, especially considering all the "Geek Rights" posts we have gotten today (28.april)! I'm glad I don't live in the US!
- Steeltoe
I can't believe it (Score:2)
However, I will say that a country that starts telling people, even convicted criminals, that they cannot speak in public is an order of magnitude closer to hell than it should be.
In short, this is the most bogus thing I've heard all week. The judge should crawl back into whatever stinkhole they grow fascists in these days, and keep her slimy little sadistic punishments for something useful...like, er... the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
=P
two classes of crimes... (Score:2)
There's a fundamental difference between the "crimes" you mention above. When a person takes what rightfully belongs to someone else, whoever was the victim has actually suffered a loss. However, when the only crime that same person has committed is driving their motor vehicle faster than some number on a sign, there is no victim. (Of course, having said that, there will always be people who respond with something like, "by exceeding the number that engineers have determined is the maximum safe speed for a given roadway, you're putting others in greater danger, and by doing so, society as a whole is your victim, because someone could potentially suffer a loss." To these people I'm tempted to point out that highway fatalities have steadily fallen ever since the "national speed limit" was repealed, and point out how "traffic tickets" generate a lot of revenue for the issuing agency. However, it's been my experience that most people who take the "speed limits are for obeying" stance have been very strongly programmed with their implanted beliefs (i.e. 55 Saves Lives), and it's pointless to argue with them. but I digress...) Under the system of common law passed down to us from England and in generally used until prohibition (i think) someone had to appear and say "Yes, the defendant caused me injury."
Many, if not most, of the 1.8 million people who are currently held in American jails are really no more than political prisoners, people whose only "crime" is having broken some "law" that was passed by a group of politicians who decided our standard of living could be closer to Utopia if we only removed those people from society at large. It cannot be argued that drug dealers and consumers should be grouped in the same class (criminals) as a murderer, rapist, or child molester (dealers only exist to supply a demand, the act of fulfilling a demand in and of itself cannot be considered a crime).
This is just weird (Score:2)
It sounds to me like a similar law that made it illegal for certain criminals to make money off of their crimes by selling books... I don't know whether or not to agree with that... but to keep someone from giving lectures is just wrong.
Dave
Participate in the Common Linking Experiment [oshate.com]
Re:It's no different... (yes it is.) (Score:3)
The court could/should consider that his speaking engagements are an act of attrition.
If his probation officer/panel insist that he has to get a job in an unrelated field, even though his probation is up in two years, it's wrong.
Just because most criminals don't have the skills to get a job past flipping burgers, doesn't mean that we should penalize Mitnick because he does.
Let me make it clear that I think Mitnick is a wanker, and deserved _most_ of what he got (not all,) but limiting his freedom to speak in such a fashion is wrong, and I belive, unconstitutional.
-buffy
As a taxpayer, I'm pissed. (Score:3)
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:3)
And no, I'm not equating Mitnick with Thomas Jefferson and MLK. I'm just pointing out that those who are convicted of crimes are not always justly convicted.
This is really about free speech... (Score:3)
This isn't about a persons right to profit from their crime, its about free speech!
Mitnick is on the lecture circuit, and even if he were doing it for free, they would still try to shut him up.
My suggestion to Mitnick: Stay on the lecture circuit, but donate the proifits to a charity which provides for the legal defense of people charged with technology related crimes. (Or some other good cause, related to this issue).
Any attempt to shut him up then would be a clean violation of his right to free speech.
Nonononono (Score:3)
Which it seems what Mitnick is doing; is this incorrect logic?
BTW, I don't believe in punishment, in the abstract sense. It's only the inflictment of pain on another, and that's just pointless. His punishment, btw, is the ban from using computers, TVs, cell phones, technology, etc. It isn't from speaking, or making a living, or making money!
-AS
Re:What pray tell is he doing for a job? (Score:3)
If i were a truck driver, and i abused my "privilege" of driving the rig (for instance, by driving through/over cars in a traffic jam, by driving into buildings, cool things like that), then i shouldn't be able to drive a truck for a LONG time.
Re:Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:3)
If hypothetical criminal killed my brother but was somehow reformed such that he'd never kill again, I'd have no problem with him being released back into society at large. In fact, I'd rather that than have him stay locked away for the rest of his life. Whether he's locked up, out and about, or fried in the chair my brother would still be dead.. the idea that the perpetrator should die in order to somehow make up for his crime is stupid beyond belief. It doesn't do anything but assuage your skewed sense of what's fair in the world. The dead person is dead, and giving him company doesn't do a thing. Keeping the criminal in jail all his life costs me a great deal of money and puts the criminal in an arguably much worse position than my dead brother. My brother died and was dead, all over in at most a week or two if the criminal really drew it out. He's being, most likely, mentally and physically tortured and raped all the rest of his life, the whole time knowing he can never get away from it.. that seems a bit uneven.
And if affecting a person's life negatively in any way makes a person not elligable for basic human rights, then i doubt there's a single person left on earth who can claim them. It's impossible to exist at all without messing up Someone's life.. even if you died right now you'd be negatively effecting the lives of all the people who care about you, so you can't even die without screwing someone over.
And that's not even taking into account people who are wrongly imprisoned. What happens if the guy who killed my brother gets away because the cops arrest some Other guy who looks guilty but, in reality, isn't? It's nice to think that the justice system would find him innocent if he truly is, but it doesn't work that way. Obviously 'reforming' a person who has nothing to reform isn't a perfect solution.. but if i get jailed for a murder i didn't commit, i'd expect it would be considerably easier for me to get through the reform system and get out than the current system, wherein i'm either put to death for nothing or spend the rest of my life in a living hell for not having a good defense attorney.
Dreamweaver
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:3)
You can't have it both ways AC.
Yes there is (Score:3)
IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher), but according to my worldview at least, there is.
Say Joe Criminal kills your brother, and gets caught. Which is better:
- Joe rots in prison for the rest of his life or gets the death penalty.
- Joe is released but has been totally reformed and never commits a crime again.
Well, to me, scenario 2 is obviously better. Everyone should have their fundamental rights, even people who have violated the rights of others. The fact that Joe has killed your brother does not him from being a person, and every person deserves their rights. This is a natural consequence of the concept that all people are equal.IIRC, the ethical motive behind prisons is to stop criminals from committing even more crimes. Not for revenge, which you seem to imply in your post ("undo the past"). Vengeful feelings have no place in ethics.
IMHO, the real problem is that you can't be sure that the criminal has really been reformed. But yes, reforming Joe is intrinsically right.
Re:He served his time, let him make a living! (Score:3)
1) Aquiring skills, using them to commit a crime, doing time, and coming out and using those skills constructively.
2) Aquiring skills, using them to commit a crime, doing time, then coming out and making money off of the _crime itself_.
How can they do that? (Score:3)
He served his time, let him make a living! (Score:3)
-------------------------------------------
It isn't difference of opinion... (Score:4)
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
That's a hot-point; making a statement that judges the viewer for being a hypocrite over an issue that is not clear. Criminals are not always bad people, and criminals are not always fairly judged. There is no difference between most criminals and most people, given that both belong to the set of people called humans. Maybe there are things wrong with criminals that make them so, but that's a different philosophical argument entirely. Then there's the case of making money of his crimes; he isn't, I don't think. He isn't selling the secrets he found, or the using the market to his advantage, from breaking into the corporations he did. Those were his crimes.
BTW, crime is not wrong, crime is just public mass opinion. DeCSS is a crime. Watching DVDs under Linux is a crime. Breaking an encryption scheme is a crime. Having an mp3 is a crime. Linking to a website is a crime. Jaywalking is a crime. Driving 70mph is a crime. Changing lanes within 20 feet of a traffic signal is a crime.
You're still going to use the line a crime is still wrong, whether it is a little wrong or a big wrong? Life, crime, and people are all shades of grey, not absolutes...
And what, you're saying he's only taken seriously because he's a criminal?
No; he's being taken seriously because he has the skills. Him being a criminal and him being caught are two separate issues. His being a criminal is only a matter of judgement from the legal system, not on his skills. His being caught is a matter of him not being as good as the A-Team, and not on his skillset of security!
-AS
The Great Social Engineer... (Score:4)
BUT, having the government tell you that you cannot speak publicly (or publish) smacks of the worst of South African Appartied-era Ban laws or internal exile in the old Soviet union. I find this quite ironic comming from the "home of the free."
I say let him talk - but remember the Son of Sam Laws - its illegal to profit from a crime. Therefore let hime talk but confiscate that 20k and give it to some charity.
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:4)
But also, as soon as he was released, he started a company dealing with computer security, which became a multi-million startup based on first-hand experience with computer security of its staff. Then he was admitted into a graduate CS program, and as of last fall he is an MIT professor.
Could Mitnick do the same? Maybe not, but preventing him to talk is certainly unusual and perhaps unfair.
just mho.
Re:How can they do that? (Score:4)
You are right, while you are on probation/parole you lose many of your rights. Depending on the circumstances and specifics of your sentencing and trial, you may get these back when it is all done (like I did), or maybe not. It differs from state to state, and crime to crime. If he (Kevin) was arrested for a similar offence once before, he will probably fall into the latter category.
Yeah. And Salem women "confessed" to being witches (Score:4)
And the women on trial for being witches in Salem "voluntarily confessed" to being witches and provided the names of several other witches. They would've done ANYTHING to abate the cruel treatment and torture of the "gov't". The Mitnick case was no different. It was and remains a WITCH HUNT. They want Mitnick's head impaled on a stick to set an example to any wannabe h4xx0rz out there. But so long as rapists and murders are getting their trial, and completing their jail time, and being release all in less time than Mitnick was merely waiting for a trial, I maintain that he... that all us... got shafted royally, wrongly, undeservingly, and unjustly. Because it sets a dangerous precedent for the "justice" system to do the same thing with impunity to any one of us for any reason. Maybe some guy in Syria ftp'd your GPL'd crypto utility from some FTP site, used it to hide assassanation plans, and Feds want to make an example of you? You didn't stand up to defend Mitnick. Who will be left to defend you... you terrorist pig.
Feds had been preparing their case and collecting evidence, hiring many lawyers, doing legal research, and coaching their "expert witnesses" for many months prior to Mitnick's actual arrest.
Then they say, you wanna be tried *now* (giving Mitnick no time to prepare his own defense) or forever waive any speedy tial date. Hmmm. Now or whatever Feds decide; maybe 20 years to trial or infinity, but Mitnick remains in jail until whenever. Yah. That's Mitnick's own fault.
When will Slashdotters realize that even trampling on the rights of SCUM like Mitnick is not at all OK and hurts us all?
You don't have to support h4xx0rin6 to support Mitnick.
Free Kevin! He's still being shafted by the gov't.
Re:How can they do that? (Score:4)
not to say that I agree with the feds, but I believe it is true that convicted felons do not have the same civil and legal rights as the rest of us. I believe their set of "rights" is limited.
Anyone who is a lawyer care to comment?
Re:Probation, Mitnick and the law (Score:4)
Too late! Remember the Secret Service busting into Steve Jackson Games with an open-ended unsigned warrant? Haven't noticed the Supreme Court ruling that no reason is needed to stop and search a car? The 4th is gone already. The 5th has become an admittance of guilt (why do you have to claim a right anyway?). Mitnicks case is a great example of the 6th and 7th being trampled on. His probation is iffy on 8th amendment grounds. The 9th is universally ignored and the lawyers seem to have forgotten the last phrase of the 10th. Yea, we still have the third though!
Gods I hope a bunch of these Reagan/Bush appointees die before another Republican is elected pres.... not that it matters much with the new left looking so much like the old right these days.
Rodney Mitnick (Score:4)
For this relatively minor crime, he served 5 years of hard time in a federal prison full of rapists and murderers, almost all of which was served prior to sentencing. His parole forbids him from using any form of computer or including cell phone, which is almost impossible in modern society. Now his right to free speech is being scaled back as an additional condition of his parole.
This news, on top of the Elian raid, the bombing of Sudanese and Afghani Asprin factories, the Waco debacle, and Ruby Ridge leaves me asking myself: Weren't we always told that it was the Republicans that ran fascist Presidential administrations?
When the BATF stormtroopers were using war tactics (sleep deprivation via loud music, etc.) against the religious nuts in Waco, the Davidians hung a bedsheet banner out their window for the press that said "Rodney King: Now we understand." The Mitnick case seems to draw certain parallels. Through the unfair treatment this "infamous" scipt kiddie, the hacker community is getting a good lesson about what it is like to be a black man in America. When powers of enforcement see you as fitting a dangerous profile, you can expect to be treated unfairly.
The loss of rights like "fair use" already had me angry, but this is the last straw for me. This week, I intend to get off the fence finally join the EFF... and while I'm at it, the ACLU, Amnesty International, and maybe even the Libertarian Party. I'm also going to write snail mail to each of my Senators, Rod Grams(R) and Paul Welstone(D) of Minnesota, expressing my concern about the need to curtail Federal power. For my next vacation, I will visit D.C. to persoanlly lobby whatever Reps are willing to talk to me. In the upcoming elections, I will loudly support any legitimate candidate (regardless of party) who shares the concerns of geeks, and fights for our rights. I will also be a noisy pest to those who back the DMCA or the various enforcement excesses of recent years. I hope that many of you will do likewise.
People sign away their rights all the time. (Score:4)
B. The defendant shall not be employed in or perform services for any entity angaged in the computer, computer software, or telecommunications business and shall not be employed in any capacity wherein he has access to computers or computer related equipment or software;
And this one is even more explicit:
D. The defendant shall not acts as a consultant or advisor to individuals or groups engaged in any computer related activity;
Mitnick agreed to these terms and that is why he is out of jail. He wasn't even a good hacker, the good ones aren't the ones that get caught. Just look at mafiaboy, who was responsible for at least some of the DOS attacks, he got caught because he bragged about it on IRC. Mitnick got caught because he took stupid risks and thought he was better than the people tracing him. He was wrong. He agreed to these conditions and he should abide by them. Enigma
You're way off... (Score:5)
Nobody thought he was innocent. Nobody claimed he was innocent. He committed a crime and deserved to be punished. What everbody was outraged about is the way his case was manipulated. The was he wasn't given access to the evidence against him. The way he spent months in solitary confinement like he was a murderer or something. The way the companies he was accused of hacking were claiming millions in damages, yet they couldn't show that any actual harm was done, nor did they report the losses on their SEC filings as they are required to do if they actually suffered the losses (so they later retracted their damage claims). Now, on top of serving five years and now probation with absolutely no access to computers, they are trying to take away his right to free speech. I'd say that this has gone well beyond punishment. It's become a vendetta against him by the government.
Prisoner #1024 (Score:5)
You have been living two lives in the last years. One as Prisoner #1024, and the other under an alias as Kevin Mitnick a well known cyber-terrorist.
One of these persons has a future, the other does not.
Public Service Announcement! Troll... (Score:5)
Nothing is ever black and white, clear cut, or so well defined.
Criminals, unfortunately, are people to. And people have every capability to become criminals. Mitnick is a criminal, fine, everyone agrees.
Mitnick can be productive to society. That's true too. It's not just about praise or fame; it's economics. If he can produce a service to our society we want, we exchange with him a fair service or amount of goods. In this case, he can speak expertly on hacking and cracking, something most are ignorant of. In this case, it seems a service worthy of being performed!
Now here's the question. If he were anyone else, people wouldn't take him seriously. Don't even try to put Mitnick in the same class as a rapist or serial killer, btw!
-AS
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:5)
So? I don't see your point.
Are you arguing that whoever got convicted of a criminal offence should not have any rights forever? You know, eternal damnation? Probably easier and cheaper to shoot them after the verdict, then.
Now it is my belief that anyone who engages in any criminal acts should not be praised for what they did, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to make any money from it.
As to the praise, you seem to have a huge amount of trust in the current law system. Whom I praise depends on my own moral value, not on what the law says. America's founding fathers, for example, clearly were criminals from the British justice system's point of view.
Speaking of money, it's reasonable to prohibit making money from the actual crime. Not that Mitnick made a lot of money (any?) from it. But you want to prohibit a person to use skills which he used in the commission of a crime. That's different, isn't it?
Are you saying that anybody ever convicted of hacking should never be allowed to come near a computer for the rest of their lives? Should thieves be prohibited from using their hands? Should we gouge out the eyes of voyers?
The fact of the matter is, you either believe that anyone who is a criminal should be allowed to make money off of their crimes, or you are a hypocrite. So what is it?
I believe that you have a long hard inflexible object stuffed up your ass. Mitnick is not making money off his crimes. He is making money off his computers skills which at some point in his life he used for criminal ends.
The problem with you is that you think that anybody who was convicted of a crime is not a person any more.
Kaa
Probation, Mitnick and the law (Score:5)
Of course, with the number of extreme, byzantine and intrusive laws in this country, anyone can be a criminal. It's all a matter of selective enforcement.
Of course, the Federal government may indeed get away with this, considering recent Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment (the fact that this ruling came down now is suspicious, I'm guessing that when he takes them to court they'll assert "secondary effects," "Why someone who listens to his words might become a double-plus ungood crimethinking computer hacker! That means that we can forbid him to speak.")
Let's see Miranda's gone, Fair Use is gone, Free Speech is gone, the Right to Bear Arms is gone (flame away!), and I'm guessing the next thing will either be that we have to billet soldiers in our houses or that the government will be able to search whatever it wants whenever it wants.
Oh by the way, I'm sure the Mitnick haters will show up in force to say, "Way to go Feds, get 'im." I just want you people to think of something, do you really want a government in place that can sentence someone, and then after they've served their sentence can continue to persecute them outside normal legal channels?
Well, I may just have to get a government job, I'm practically working for the government as it is (the company I work for has close ties to the U.N.), so it might not be that big a step. Then I'll be able to persecute any of my subjects as I please, without fear of restraint, right? Why are people so intent on making Federal bureacrats into feudal lords?
Sigh... what the Hell is happening to the United States?
Re:He served his time, let him make a living! (Score:5)
Kevin is on PAROLE. Being on parole means that he loses many of his constitutional rights. We Americans do not know how good we have it until our rights are taken away from us!
Here are some of the rights that Kevin no longer has while he is on parole:
- He can be searched by police at any time
- His apartment/house can be searched at any time
- He has to report with a parole officer who checks up on him
- He must notify his parole officer when he goes out of town.
- He is not allowed to associate with known criminals.
- He is regularly tested for drugs.
These are just a few of the conditions of Kevin's parole. I'm sure there are many other restrictiions
Wrong wrong and wrong again... (Score:5)
> Davidian folks will probably be barred from associating with
> each other which
> certainly would hinder their ability to practice their
> religious beliefs.
Don't stupid Americans learn what they're talking about before speaking? I'm American too, but I'm tired of the rest of the world laughing at us because of stupid people like this guy. The Branch Davidians were by and large acquitted of everything. There, I said it. Let me repeat: the Branch Davidians were acquitted. As in, not guilty of the lying and made up, false and manufactured, untrue charges which Janet Reno made up. I believe a couple guys had relatively minor weapons charges, but everyone else was acquitted of everything else. They were charged, for example, with murder of the federal thugs--er, agents--who stormed their home, but a jury acquitted them, saying that they were within their rights to protect themselves. Years later, and people are still falling sway to the FUD spread by the DoJ to cover their asses. No, no one was being molested inside the Branch Davidian compound, because the Age of Consent in Texas was low and because Koresh was commonlaw-husband to some of the under-18 girls he was supposedly with since parental consent was given. But so what, since THE ATF AND FBI HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS. I repeat, they were acquitted, of all but minor charges which wouldn't warrant a restrictive parole. If I recall correctly, only 2 went to federal prison. And, yes, I'm sure you weren't just referring to those 2, that you were under the mistaken impression that all the Branch Davidians went to jail for murder or one of the other misconceptions about the case. It just ticks me off since, as freedom-loving Americans, we should stand up more when something like Waco happens. Those people had their rights unlawfully infringed by agencies which had no jurisdiction (2/3 of the affidavit for search warrant was about alleged child abuse). The Treasury Department's own investigation into the causes of the debacle concluded that the ATF was there not to go after illegal weapons, but "to enforce the morals of our society." And I thought that we were supposed to be in a free country, where people could have different religions and moralities...
> It's hard to feel sympath for scum like Mitnick
It's easy. His crimes were minor. He caused no serious damage to any network--no damage at all, if you discount a little lost peace of mind on behalf of a few stupid sysadmins who should have been running a more secure environment anyway. You obviously have either never read the specifics of the case, or have zero appreciation for civil rights. His rights were violated, he was held without his right to a speedy trial, he was blackmailed by the prosecutor into accepting continuance after continuance just to be kept out of maximum security general population where he'd be beaten and raped, and now they aren't letting him make money the only way he can earn a living. I can understand the restriction against him using computers, but a restriction against him talking about technology on the lecture circuit is a clear violation of his rights--he still has a First Amendment right, that doesn't go away. That is the most sacred and fundamental right in this country, friend. "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured." -- Thomas Paine, 1791
Even convicted felons need to have basic, fundamental rights, or else you may as well keep them in prison. We are, today in this country, an evil and cruel society which tries to punish criminals instead of reform them. That's not how it's supposed to be. There's no excuse for sending a 12 year old kid to prison for life without parole; by definition a child is unable to fully understand the ramifications of his actions. Do you know why prisons in this country are traditionally called "penitentiaries"? Because the modern American prison system was founded on the Enlightenment idea that criminals could be reformed, if only you could make them penitent about their crimes. It was a great new idea that, instead of throwing people away when they "broke", you should try to "fix" them. It was a very humane and even Christian in the true sense of the word idea (remember Jesus with the stoning of the adulteress?). But now people would rather lock their fellow man up for life from the age of 12 than to try to make that person a functioning member of society again. It's a very sick and twisted paradigm, which most of the Western world is abhorred by. It's even contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for Mitnick specifically, the only reason they want him off the lecture circuit is because he's portraying the people who kept him in jail as what they really are: the real criminals here. Personally, I wish that prosecutor and judge harm enough for them to realize what they've done. What goes around, comes around. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court
Re:Criminals shouldn't be lauded (Score:5)
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual. If Mitnick chooses to describe how he defeated the security on a particular site through his limited technical knowhow and superior social engineering skills, he's not besmirching the memory of someone's dead relative, or airing facts which will bring back horrific memories to a victim.
To me, there is a definite line between crimes committed against an individual, and crimes committed against a group. Financial damages are *not* to be equated to a violation of personal rights or freedoms, be it the right to life, freedom of speech etc etc. Human rights are *FAR* more important than the right to make, or for that matter, keep, a buck. If you don't recognize that, you can put a dollar value on a life.
All that being said, I do recognize that Mitnick's a criminal. I don't respect him, and in fact, think he's a big boob. He's a geeky loser (like a lot of my friends and I were in highschool) without the redeeming quality of even being a nice guy. What has he got going for him? He apparently is good at getting passwords out of people on the phone. That's not a whole lot in my books. But that does *NOT* in my mind excuse the improper actions of the government. Mitnick deserved to be punished, he deserved to serve some time, but this is *apparently* a violation of the concept of due process. His punishment has already been laid out. It is not the right of the gov't to extend the punishment in any way unless he commits more crimes.
Greg
some clarifictions (Score:5)
2. Your restrictions while on supervised release are specified at the time of sentencing, and to amend them (technically) requires a violation hearing in front of a judge.
3. I say technically because the US Office of Probation (note that their name hasn't been updated to reflect the new laws) tends to do whatever they want. I'm speaking from experience -- i'm 6 months into a 36 month supervised release period, and I've ended up with a parole officer who's busting my balls. He's "not thrilled" that I'm sitting here at a pre-ipo internet startup coding my ass off and making more than he is, but he's got no choice because the judge specifically stated that I could continue working with computers, with certain restrictions.
So the fact that they're fucking with mitnick is no reflection on his rights, the conditions of his supervised release, or anything like that. They're probably just being petty and playing games with him because he's high-profile.
and i've never met the guy, but the way he got his ass kicked in prison makes me think he's might be obnoxious and disrespectful. that doesn't help with the feds. has anyone here met him?
Not a moment too soon! (Score:5)
"It's that guy!"