348 DEAR HACKER

348 DEAR HACKER

big leap to have seen him shut down a process that looked to him as if it were a security program designed to catch him, but was in fact

a control program for a piece of medical equipment, thereby killing an innocent bystander. Wouldn’t that have had a consequence in the “real world?”

And on those “ free” phone calls, granted they might be “ free” for the person who made the call. But in the long run, who do you think pays for those “ free” phone calls? The legitimate customers with increased fees. Or the innocent third party who has had their phone number co-opted and used to make long distance/international phone calls. I know as I was the victim of such a “ free” call.

When I was living down in St. Petersburg, FL shortly after having the phone turned on in my new apartment I received a bill from then GTE for the better part of $1,000 for several international calls. I am a disabled veteran living on a fixed income. At that time, I was collecting just under $1,000 a month in benefits. And I can tell you that I would have never made even enough long distance calls to warrant a bill of over $100, let alone enough international calls to exceed $1,000. Yet when I tried explaining all of this to GTE, I got nowhere, except for being given the “company line” of, “Well Mr. X, because of the hour of day (they chose late at night), and the amount of your bill, we feel as if you did make the calls.” I had two choices. Pay a bill I couldn’t afford, or not pay and lose my phone service. I choose the latter as I couldn’t afford the former.

So here I sit, a black mark on my credit report for failure to pay a phone bill I wasn’t responsible for and I cannot get service with GTE/ Verizon because I refuse to pay for calls that I never made. So please explain to me how the calls that had been made by someone “ just” looking to make a “ free” phone call were “free?”

I’m sorry, but there are some lines that shouldn’t be crossed.

Digital _ Cowboy

We definitely believe that certain systems (including medical systems) should be “off limits.” But that doesn’t mean simply making it a bigger crime to access them and having no actual protection. Such a system has no place on a public net- work where it will be vulnerable to all kinds of problems and potential breaches.

OUR BIGGEST FANS

If, on the other hand, such a system gets broken into on a private network where presumably users have inside knowledge, you actually have some sort of motive attached to an attack, unlike the randomness of the public network.

As for the “free” phone calls, you should never have been put in that position by the phone company. They are obligated to remove any charges from your bill that you did not authorize. This certainly doesn’t excuse people who make fraudulent charges but one thing they’re not doing is intimidating innocent people. If it’s any comfort, only wireless phone accounts can show up on your credit report. But we believe you should pursue this and get your name cleared.

Dear 2600: Mitnick merely played a series of tricks, changed files as he went along,

was stupid enough not to change the ones to cover his tracks, and got arrested. I would dearly love to know what could cause people to want to free him. It’s idiocy displayed in the greatest manner and respect of all things that should be considered easy as hell. This turkey didn’t do anything great. Why the hell would you want to free someone who enjoys destroying things?

rewt We get these kinds of letters all the time but it’s good to occasionally address the

points. Here, however, there are few to find. You contradict yourself by expressing moral indignation at someone who committed a crime and then chastise that same person for not getting away with a crime. Mitnick is the first to admit the wrongness of what he did. But what he didn’t do—and what nobody affected has accused him of doing—is intentionally cause damage or harm to anything. It’s really quite disturbing to see people who apparently believe five years in prison wasn’t enough, regardless of what they believe he actually did.

Dear 2600: In 21:1, you responded to a letter by saying “Hackers who uncover

unprotected private information are treated as if they created the weak