316 DEAR HACKER

316 DEAR HACKER

even talk in terms of imprisonment and criminal records for harmless trespassing and minor pranks is incredibly disturbing and indicative of a society heading in a bad direction.

Dear 2600: Goldstein, let me start by saying what you’ve done with 2600 is honor-

able. It must have taken a lot of work and dedication to get this far. Now that you’re here and seemingly alive, I must express my views in hope of making a difference for the better.

Your content is biased, you want all of us to think just as you do, when in fact your views and opinions should be just that, your views and opinions.

Allow me to make an observation if I may. While reporting the Mitnick case, you never once looked at it from the point of the prosecution. The case most likely has been corrupted by media and opposing powers. You’ve told us as much. But do you really think your loyal readers are going to feel as committed and genuine about the whole thing if the “answer” is so obvious? No, we won’t. And if you can’t get us (the very foundation of the publication) to feel strongly about the Mitnick case, what chance do you have with the rest of society? You can’t be biased towards the judicial system just because you think they are being biased towards Mitnick. That will get us nowhere. In fact, it is counterproductive.

You’ve got the power, you have the readers, eyes are on you, now make the most efficient use of it. Print more manuscripts, more cold hard facts, and let us do the math. You’re bastardizing our cause when you allow us to only see things from your view. Instead of instilling your mindset, instill the facts and let us come to our own conclusions. Isn’t that the very essence of hacking anyway? We all learned to tie our shoes. Surely we can connect the dots.

cookiesnatcher

Unless you’re speaking to us from a meeting of all 2600 readers, what you say here represents your opinion and not necessarily that of anyone else. Presume the

OUR BIGGEST FANS

same thing about us when you read one of our editorials and presume the same when you read an editorial in a newspaper. Everything is colored by opinion and if we don’t present our opinion in our own pages, where else will it appear? If we’re not presenting specific facts fairly, we’d like to hear about it, but with regard to the Mitnick case, we believe we show the opposing side quite clearly. That, in fact, seems to be the strongest point in our favor.

Dear 2600:

I purchased one of your issues a while back out of idle curiosity. I found it to be quite dumb. It was oozing with sarcasm and gave way to a very condescending tone toward most of your readers who had taken the time to submit you letters. A word of advice if you would like to keep subscribers: if you think what they wrote you is foolish or idiotic, then don’t print it in your magazine. Pissing people off, ignorant or not, does not win you any awards.

As for this Kevin Mitnick trash, I don’t believe he should have received such a harsh sentence either, but that is an issue to deal with the justice system in general and not just one foolish person who thought crash- ing computers would be entertaining. I believe our justice system is screwed up for the most part, but this Mitnick fellow’s actions were only meant to hurt others. He did it for fun, too. I have nothing against throwing malevolent people such as Mitnick in jail and I don’t see why any other respectful citizen of this country would either.

Here is a simple ideology for you: respect others and just maybe they will respect you. Now doesn’t that sound almost like the golden rule your grandmother taught you? Maybe she really did know a thing or two.

Joe Blow It doesn’t surprise us that someone who doesn’t get sarcasm would have trouble

with the concept of justice as well. Please analyze the facts before you spout off— there was no crashing of machines and no actions “meant to hurt others.” Don’t believe us—look at the court records and see what he was actually charged with.