362 DEAR HACKER

362 DEAR HACKER

And I am sorry if you cannot understand that, or that breaking into a computer that one does not have the legal right to access should carry the same criminal penalty as if they physically broke into someone’s home or office.

Also, if you’d stop and think about it, you’d realize that every time someone breaks into a computer system/network that they do not have the legal right to access that they undermine/chip away at the trust that the legitimate users have/had in that system, as well as cast doubt on the integrity of their data and/or any experiments that they may be running at the time of the break-in. I remind you again of the cybercriminal that Clifford Stoll was tracking who was break- ing into “his” computer system—a person who was indiscriminately shutting down any and all processes that looked as if they might have been “spying” on him.

So for all the comments on how hacking is different and not like “real” crime, at the end of the day it would appear that Kevin Mitnick was just another thief and con man. If you don’t believe it, ask him to have his juvenile record. I’m betting as is my friend that he won’t do so because he knows that it’ll speak volumes about the type of person

he is/was. Digial _ Cowboy

It’s really rather funny that we’re still running into this kind of attitude so many years later. And also pretty sad when you consider that this is the mentality of a lot of people who can control the fate of those in trouble. Let’s be clear. Even if someone were to do all of the things you mentioned above, it absolutely would not justify the kind of treatment Mitnick received. There is a rather barbaric attitude in our country that justifies everything from torture to lengthy prison stays simply because someone “broke the law.” Here’s a newsflash: everyone breaks laws in some way. Much of it is very minor but if we follow the simpletons, every transgression defines us as criminals. And nobody cares what happens to criminals, right?

Now, as to this specific case, you quote a lot of “facts” without any kind of docu- mentation other than meeting someone online who claims to have known Mitnick back in the day. Did you really think that would somehow be enough to sway

OUR BIGGEST FANS

anyone? You heard what you wanted to hear but there’s simply no substance here. And that seems to have been the theme of the prosecution throughout the history of this case. We’re not going to get into the whole house analogy thing yet again except to say that accessing a computer without authorization just isn’t the same thing as breaking into someone’s house. But if it were, as you seem to think it should be, then the penalty should logically be the same. If someone is “just another thief and con man,” then why treat them as if they were a true criminal mastermind? You simply can’t have it both ways.

Thanks for the entertaining allegations. They provided us with much amusement. And, for the record, that glaring typo in your name didn’t come from us.

Dear 2600: I’m a fairly new subscriber to your glorious magazine and I’ve loved

every issue. One thing I’ve noticed though is that every time I receive

a new magazine in the mail it looks like someone has opened/torn the envelope and then taped it back up. Seems a little suspicious to me. I mean, it has happened to every single issue! Am I on a watch list now? If so, cool—I’m finally on a watch list. Or is it because the children in your basement are too shaky and malnourished to correctly stuff envelopes without mutilating them? If so, give ’em a freaking Happy Meal so I don’t have to feel so paranoid.

C The children would have no reason to reopen the envelopes after sealing them.