he has a book to sell and a consulting business to build. (Don't forget: Kevin hasn't been able to make much money for a number of years, and has a lot of lost time to make up for.)
Knowing all this as the result of your choice, would you choose this path again? If so, why?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday January 20, 2003 @01:30PM (#5119483)
I don't think he chose to be kept in Federal prison without a trial for more than 4 years. I don't think he chose to have the software he downloaded (and did not distribute) valued at an amount way beyond reality because the Feds said to. I don't think he chose to have terms of his probation which kept him from using his First Amendment rights or being able to make a meaningful use of his technologic abilities.
Did he choose to be the poster-boy of government corruption when it comes to prosecution of technology-related case? I don't think so.
You're the type of person who would ask Skylarov why he chose to come to the U.S. to speak at a technology conference.
No, there was never a trial. Kevin plead guilty. It took them four years to "decide" what his punishment was going to be. Locking someone up and forgetting about them for 4 years under this pretense is wrong.
Don't get me wrong, if you break the law, you deserve and should expect to have to pay the penalties. But you should also be able to expect to know what your punishment is going to be in a reasonable time frame.
It is also a fact that he was not allowed to review the evidence against him. After 4 years of illegal detention and having the alleged evidence of your crime being kept from your defense team,
He was able to review the evidence against him - he just couldn't do it on a computer - at first. Then they let him see it on a computer but he could only use the computer in the meeting room. His defense team of course could use computers whenever they wanted, and did. The argument that being bared from using a computer was tantamount to "not allowing him to review the evidence against him" seems a rather weak one. Did they not have a printer? Was every defendant prior to the invention of the computer also "not allowed to review the evidence against him"? I will concede that the prosecution and the judge were paranoid about giving Mittnick access to a computer but even though their conditions were silly and inconvenient it is just as silly to suggest that because of them Mittnick "wasn't allowed to review the evidence against him".
No, there was never a trial. Kevin plead guilty. It took them four years to "decide" what his punishment was going to be.
Pleading guilty and going to jail is a VERY different thing from going to jail without a trial. If you plead guilty what exactly would be the purpose of a trial? I will agree that it was wrong if it took them 4 years to decide on a sentence but it is a very different thing (and somewhat less serious) from what the original comment implied. I don't know but I am guessing there was more to it than just "forgetting" to sentence him for four years - like prosecutors and defense attorneys going back and forth with motions & appeals about the final sentence.
The government had access to all the records that Mitnick could have used for his defense, but they arbitrarily withheld the records indefinitely. Each six months Mitnick was given the choice of going to trial with an unprepared defense and some crappy government lawyer with no access to the records necessary to prove his innoccence, or to sign a waiver allowing the government to delay the trial for another 6 months while he stayed in jail. In other words, they were just trying to fuck with him untile he broke, gave in, and pleaded guilty. They never had any intention of giving him a fair trial. It was a total mockery of the legal system and a travesty of justice.
You're the type of person who would ask Skylarov why he chose to come to the U.S. to speak at a technology conference.
On the contrary, I applaud Dimitri Sklyarov and feel his work was construct, in the face of unjust legislation the USA exports and tries to exert on other peoples. It should be the choice of each sovereign nation to determine the extent of copyright/patent protection to inventors. One country, such as the USA, may attempt to hold all others in thrall as long as the life of intellectual property protection.
Besides, Kevin didn't attempt to bypass electronic IP safeguards, except as the DMCA may regard hacking. He revealed the swisscheese security of information systems in their infancy. He made people afraid, powerful people. We already, well most of us, are aware what sort of democracy-for-sale the Congress and Administration are, when their friends sneeze, they catch cold, and act within or without the law. It's a matter for the defendant to pry him/herself out of such a mess. As often as such examples play it's remarkable anyone wants to open themselves to such harrassment, particularly without alerting the ACLU or some group ahead of time that they intend to demonstrate how unjust the system is, in whole or part.
Anyone remember the 414's? A group of young men in the Milwaukee area who, when caught breaking into DEC systems wanted to sell movie rights? It wasn't too hard to figure how they did it, hell, I was admin on a DEC system and there were default passwords and field service passwords easy enough to guess. You just had to be bored and stupid enough to go trespassing.
I have plenty of sympathy for those treated unjustly, but those who go alone to spread fear among powerful interests are no more clever than a swimmer dogpaddling around in a shark tank.
I suppose this makes what he did right?
Although what the feds did to him was a complete violation of his constitutional rights(which I believe he should have been set free on that basis alone), it doesn't change the fact that he DID break the law.
"You're the type of person who would ask Skylarov why he chose to come to the U.S. to speak at a technology conference."
Ahhh, but Sklyarov wasn't breaking any laws from his viewpoint, since the DMCA doesn't apply in Russia. Hell, he may have never even heard about it until he was arrested. However, Kevin was breaking the law and he knew it. He knew exactly what he was doing when he used social engineering to gain important password codes, and he knew what he was doing when he accessed and downloaded software from corporate systems.
Sklyarov was writing software for his company. Kevin was stealing it. Don't compare the two.
I don't think he chose to be kept in Federal prison without a trial for more than 4 years.
Actually (a little googleing reveals that) in many instances he DID - or rather his lawyers did. The trial kept getting delayed due to it's complexity - often at the request of HIS lawyers. Hiring and firing three different lawyers doesn't usually speed things up any either (though I'll grant you it is possible they were incompetant - but the real possiblity exists their client was part of their problem). As for being denied bail that whole time - well that is sort of a natural penalty for running & continuing to commit the same crimes while on the run - for some reason people just don't trust you not to it again. Wasting time in useless appeals to GET bail when no sane judge would give it to you is just another thing that drags out the time you spend waiting for trial.
I don't think he chose to have the software he downloaded (and did not distribute) valued at an amount way beyond reality because the Feds said to.
And they should have been valued at less because he & his lawyers said so? I have no idea what the real value of the damage he caused to various systems was or the value of the information he stole. I doubt HE knows it's value. I am sure his victims and the prosecution exagerated it's value. On the other hand it is not difficult at ALL to assume that the value was quite significant. Big companies worth many billions of dollars keep stuff on their computers that really do have multi-million dollar values to those companies. Those where the kinds of companies he liked to hack and the kind of information he liked to steal BECAUSE he wanted to be a big deal and make a big splash. Well he did.
I don't think he chose to have terms of his probation which kept him from using his First Amendment rights
While convicts have rights the whole point of being a convict is having certain rights taken away. As for his specifically first amendment rights - I don't know of any instance during his sentence when the government established a religion for him, forbade him to excersise his own, forbade him to speak, talk to the (or even run a) press, assemble peacably or petition the government to redress his greavances (this last I think he excersiced far more than most of us) Being forbidden to use a computer after being convicted 4 or 5 times (on multiple counts each time) of computer fraud & abuse is not much different from being forbidden to own a gun after being convicted of a gun crime. Being forbidden to use a tool that you only seem adept at using criminally seems appropriate and fitting not cruel nor unusual. Having himself argued in court before that he was compulsive and unable to control himself probably didn't help his case any on this point.
Did he choose to be the poster-boy of government corruption when it comes to prosecution of technology-related case
After being caught and convicted on numerous prior occasions and being dealt with fairly leniently by the courts at first - then doing the same thing again *while on probabation* - then running when a warrant is issued - then continuing to commit the same high profile crimes while on the run IS asking for it.
Yes, there are murderers that have been dealt with less harshly. That's a GREAT argument for harsher treatment of murderers IMO than for more lenient treatment of multiple offense fraud artist fugitives. All the time I hear on/. that online crimes should be dealt with the same as offline - well his punishment doesn't seem so out of whack for a string of multiple breakings & enterings, thefts, & frauds while on the run from the law.
Hmmm, I can't just let this post slide. You present a good argument, but you miss some crucial facts. I feel I must respond.
The trial kept getting delayed due to it's complexity - often at the request of HIS lawyers.
Primarily because his lawyers were denied access to the information they needed in order to prepare for any trial. Personally, I'd rather wait in prison a little longer for my lawyers to prepare than go to court with a lawyer who isn't even sure what the charge is (I'm exaggerating there, obviously, but I think you get the point).
As for being denied bail that whole time - well that is sort of a natural penalty for running & continuing to commit the same crimes while on the run - for some reason people just don't trust you not to it again.
It wasn't just that he was denied bail, he was denied a bail hearing. From what I understand, no other defendant in all of American legal history has been denied a bail hearing. This doesn't strike you as a bit odd?
I doubt HE knows it's value... On the other hand it is not difficult at ALL to assume that the value was quite significant. Big companies worth many billions of dollars keep stuff on their computers that really do have multi-million dollar values to those companies.
Actually, in some cases the values are quite clear. For example, one particular item of software he downloaded was available free to educational institutions, and $100 to anyone else. But that didn't stop the plaintiffs from claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Well, at least that was their claim in the courtroom. They made no such claim to the SEC or their shareholders. As far as I know, none of the "victim" companies reported a single lost penny as a result of Mr. Mitnick's actions. But the moment they stepped into the courtroom, suddenly it was all sob stories about the hundreds of millions in damages he had caused. I wonder if any of those guys went on to work for Enron....;)
That's a GREAT argument for harsher treatment of murderers IMO than for more lenient treatment of multiple offense fraud artist fugitives.
Agreed to an extent. Many violent criminals these days are treated far more leniently than they should. But, Mr. Mitnick got the shaft, big time. If he had received a 2-year sentence, you wouldn't hear a single voice speaking out on his behalf. In fact, based on things I've heard him say in the past, I don't think even he would speak out. He would say that he got what he deserved, and I think few would argue with that. He was a petty criminal, but was treated like he was the biggest threat to society at the time.
Did you sleep more easily while Mitnick was in jail, knowing that he was off the streets? Do you lose sleep now knowing that he's back out there? I doubt it. They went way overboard on his case.
Primarily because his lawyers were denied access to the information they needed in order to prepare for any trial.
I'm no expert on the case but from what I know there are a couple of issues here. One is the claim that since Kevin himself (not his lawyers) was barred from using a *computer* to review the evidence against him he wasn't able to review it. By this logic every defendant prior to the 1960's and 70's was "denied access to the evidence against them" because computers hadn't yet been invented - Come on... didn't his lawyers own a printer? The second issue is that Kevin wanted access to files he had encrypted on his hard drive because they might contain exculpatory evidence but wouldn't give the court any idea of what was in those files nor provide the password claiming that would violate his right against self-incrimination. The prosecution argued that while Kevin had a right to the evidence against him since the government couldn't read those files they obviously weren't part of the evidence against him. They also didn't want to give him access to who knows what programs with who knows what capabilities. Paranoid... perhaps & technologically clueless.. perhaps. But then while Kevin had not been particularly destructive nor profit minded in his hacking previously his ability to do such was tremendous. Sure he didn't have a net connection but I'm sure his lawyers did... a little trojan horse in a file given to his lawyers to review? With all the passwords & access he had to all sorts of government & business computers? Imagine the possiblities. Imagine the reputation he would build if he trashed all those computers he had perviously gained access to from a jail cell without a net connection. By his own testimony his hacking was compulsive and he couldn't control himself and he was skilled at it. Part of the appeal of hacking is to do a lot more than others expect with far fewer resources - I don't know that I would have trusted him if I were the judge.
And it *was* a novel legal situation - usually the prosecution has to provide evidence *they have* to make sure that the defense knows as much as they do. In this situation they had to provide evidence the *didn't really have* to make sure the defense knew much more than they did. They were perfectly willing to hand over this evidence if they got access to it as well as the defense. Legally we have to hold to the principle that we can't make any assumptions about the nature of the evidence the government couldn't see. But as a practical matter I'm sure Kevins claim that it would be self-incriminating to reveal the evidence took the time to *encrypt* was far more accurate than his conflicting claim that it was exculpatory.
It wasn't just that he was denied bail, he was denied a bail hearing.
So? Despite the 5th ammendment claims of the defense (which were obviously rejected) Bail is not a constitutional right. The case against granting him bail was obvious and overwhelming on it's face. That the judge decided not to go through the formality probably had more to do (at first) with a desire to move on than with a desire to persecute someone who didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting bail no matter how many hearing were held on it. In hindsight given the length of the case the judge should have simply granted the hearing, denied bail and moved on without adding the fun "longest held without a bail hearing" factoid on the Free Kevin webiste.
If he had received a 2-year sentence, you wouldn't hear a single voice speaking out on his behalf
He got about 5 years and additional time on probation without access to computers. Rather harsh but throughout his criminal history he behaved in such a manner almost guaranteed to get dealt with harshly. NOT because he was a hacker (though that added a certain high-profile sex appeal to the case that didn't help him) but because he was convicted multiple times before, ran from the law and continued to commit high profile crimes while on the run. I don't care what the nature of your crime is that kind of history is going to get you a harsh sentence. It could have been worse - in China he would have gotten the death penalty.
Did you sleep more easily while Mitnick was in jail,
What a defeatist attitude for a hacker. Come on, part of the hacker ethic is to do more than anyone could imagine with the most meagre resources. A few minutes reflection and I'm sure you could come up with a few ideas. Make a few not very far fetched assumptions #1 Assume the encrypted data is the most sensitive/incriminating/useful data that he had - secrets he drudged up in his hacking exploits, passwords maybe programs such as virii, trojan horses etc... #2 Assume he has sympathetic hacker friends out there willing engage in attacks for him. A phone call to a friend with some user names & passwords could lead to interesting results - a tap on the prosecutors phone would allow Kevin to really "assist his own defense." Something by the way WELL within the capablities of someone with information found on the UNencrypted portion of kevins hard drive. A trojan horse in a file he provides to his lawyers who open it at their location WITH net access is a little more difficult but all the more appealing because of the challenge. Blackmailing some executive that doesn't want his wife/shareholders/coworkers/competitors to know something Kevin has found during one of his exploits could be a windfall for his legal defense fund. Use some imagination.
Yes, that's paranoid, but then again this is a guy that had thoroughly compromised the systems he attacked. His control over the phone system was total, he knew when he was tapped and allegedly tapped the phones of investigators & generally screwed around with the phone service of people that pissed him off. He read the emails of the DEC security team that was tracking his exploits. He made the (credible coming from him) claim that he had screwed up the credit records of the FBI agents trailing him. And he not only refused to give prosecutors access to the files (understandable) but he also refused to tell the court *anything* about the encrypted information. I suppose if I thought his hacking was cute harmless pranks I wouldn't care but I wouldn't trust him without very stringent oversight. Which was the final result (and still the cause of great bitching and moaning)
The case against granting him bail was obvious and overwhelming on it's face.
Then spend 15 minutes to hold the hearing, deny him bail, and that's that.
I've already agreed that this would have been the best way to deal with the situation. BUT I can't get all worked up over it in this case. It would have been an empty formality given his history and Kevin has nobody but himself to blame for that history. That the judge made a summary judgement just based on the immediately obvious merits of the situation was perhaps unfair but a hearing wouldn't have changed the result nor was it's denial as grave a breach of his civil liberties as his breathless hyperbole of Kevins star-struck admirers would suggest.
...probation which kept him from using his First Amendment rights or being able to make a meaningful use of his technologic abilities.
Um, that's what "probation" is, isn't it? I mean, probation means you can't do certain things, not necessarily because they're illegal, but because society can't trust you to be responsible about them. He could have been in jail for that extra time, not using a computer. I'd rather be outside than in, regardless of the other components of my sentence.
As far as not being allowed to use his right to free speech, I'm not very familiar with this case--what exactly was he not allowed to do? Speak about his experiences as a hacker and a criminal? Or was he simply prohibited from using a computer to do so?
If it was the latter, then it wasn't an abrogation of his rights at all. There are plenty of other ways to speak--nobody is entitled to use any particular forum, especially if the use of that forum puts the community at risk. Which the court decided it did.
Now Kevin, having behaved well over the course of his probation, is no longer considered a risk to society, and he can use computers again, which means he again has the privilege of exercising his right to free speech on the Internet. Since he's also published a book, it seems highly unlikely that his speech was restricted across the board.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others."
-- the Dalai Lama
No Offense meant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
he has a book to sell and a consulting business to build. (Don't forget: Kevin hasn't been able to make much money for a number of years, and has a lot of lost time to make up for.)
Knowing all this as the result of your choice, would you choose this path again? If so, why?
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he choose to be the poster-boy of government corruption when it comes to prosecution of technology-related case? I don't think so.
You're the type of person who would ask Skylarov why he chose to come to the U.S. to speak at a technology conference.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:1)
Did Kevin waive his right to a speedy trial? I think I read that somewhere.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, if you break the law, you deserve and should expect to have to pay the penalties. But you should also be able to expect to know what your punishment is going to be in a reasonable time frame.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2)
He was able to review the evidence against him - he just couldn't do it on a computer - at first. Then they let him see it on a computer but he could only use the computer in the meeting room. His defense team of course could use computers whenever they wanted, and did. The argument that being bared from using a computer was tantamount to "not allowing him to review the evidence against him" seems a rather weak one. Did they not have a printer? Was every defendant prior to the invention of the computer also "not allowed to review the evidence against him"? I will concede that the prosecution and the judge were paranoid about giving Mittnick access to a computer but even though their conditions were silly and inconvenient it is just as silly to suggest that because of them Mittnick "wasn't allowed to review the evidence against him".
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2)
Pleading guilty and going to jail is a VERY different thing from going to jail without a trial. If you plead guilty what exactly would be the purpose of a trial? I will agree that it was wrong if it took them 4 years to decide on a sentence but it is a very different thing (and somewhat less serious) from what the original comment implied. I don't know but I am guessing there was more to it than just "forgetting" to sentence him for four years - like prosecutors and defense attorneys going back and forth with motions & appeals about the final sentence.
What Really Happened (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, I applaud Dimitri Sklyarov and feel his work was construct, in the face of unjust legislation the USA exports and tries to exert on other peoples. It should be the choice of each sovereign nation to determine the extent of copyright/patent protection to inventors. One country, such as the USA, may attempt to hold all others in thrall as long as the life of intellectual property protection.
Besides, Kevin didn't attempt to bypass electronic IP safeguards, except as the DMCA may regard hacking. He revealed the swisscheese security of information systems in their infancy. He made people afraid, powerful people. We already, well most of us, are aware what sort of democracy-for-sale the Congress and Administration are, when their friends sneeze, they catch cold, and act within or without the law. It's a matter for the defendant to pry him/herself out of such a mess. As often as such examples play it's remarkable anyone wants to open themselves to such harrassment, particularly without alerting the ACLU or some group ahead of time that they intend to demonstrate how unjust the system is, in whole or part.
Anyone remember the 414's? A group of young men in the Milwaukee area who, when caught breaking into DEC systems wanted to sell movie rights? It wasn't too hard to figure how they did it, hell, I was admin on a DEC system and there were default passwords and field service passwords easy enough to guess. You just had to be bored and stupid enough to go trespassing.
I have plenty of sympathy for those treated unjustly, but those who go alone to spread fear among powerful interests are no more clever than a swimmer dogpaddling around in a shark tank.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:1)
Rest assured, if you are an american, you probably break half a dozen islamic laws, as laid down by the supreme council of Iran, before breakfast.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2)
The bottom line is, if Kevin hadn't broken the law, he wouldn't have gone to jail. Thus, the question asked of him is a valid one.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:1, Informative)
I suppose this makes what he did right?
Although what the feds did to him was a complete violation of his constitutional rights(which I believe he should have been set free on that basis alone), it doesn't change the fact that he DID break the law.
"You're the type of person who would ask Skylarov why he chose to come to the U.S. to speak at a technology conference."
Ahhh, but Sklyarov wasn't breaking any laws from his viewpoint, since the DMCA doesn't apply in Russia. Hell, he may have never even heard about it until he was arrested. However, Kevin was breaking the law and he knew it. He knew exactly what he was doing when he used social engineering to gain important password codes, and he knew what he was doing when he accessed and downloaded software from corporate systems.
Sklyarov was writing software for his company. Kevin was stealing it. Don't compare the two.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually (a little googleing reveals that) in many instances he DID - or rather his lawyers did. The trial kept getting delayed due to it's complexity - often at the request of HIS lawyers. Hiring and firing three different lawyers doesn't usually speed things up any either (though I'll grant you it is possible they were incompetant - but the real possiblity exists their client was part of their problem). As for being denied bail that whole time - well that is sort of a natural penalty for running & continuing to commit the same crimes while on the run - for some reason people just don't trust you not to it again. Wasting time in useless appeals to GET bail when no sane judge would give it to you is just another thing that drags out the time you spend waiting for trial.
I don't think he chose to have the software he downloaded (and did not distribute) valued at an amount way beyond reality because the Feds said to.
And they should have been valued at less because he & his lawyers said so? I have no idea what the real value of the damage he caused to various systems was or the value of the information he stole. I doubt HE knows it's value. I am sure his victims and the prosecution exagerated it's value. On the other hand it is not difficult at ALL to assume that the value was quite significant. Big companies worth many billions of dollars keep stuff on their computers that really do have multi-million dollar values to those companies. Those where the kinds of companies he liked to hack and the kind of information he liked to steal BECAUSE he wanted to be a big deal and make a big splash. Well he did.
I don't think he chose to have terms of his probation which kept him from using his First Amendment rights
While convicts have rights the whole point of being a convict is having certain rights taken away. As for his specifically first amendment rights - I don't know of any instance during his sentence when the government established a religion for him, forbade him to excersise his own, forbade him to speak, talk to the (or even run a) press, assemble peacably or petition the government to redress his greavances (this last I think he excersiced far more than most of us) Being forbidden to use a computer after being convicted 4 or 5 times (on multiple counts each time) of computer fraud & abuse is not much different from being forbidden to own a gun after being convicted of a gun crime. Being forbidden to use a tool that you only seem adept at using criminally seems appropriate and fitting not cruel nor unusual. Having himself argued in court before that he was compulsive and unable to control himself probably didn't help his case any on this point.
Did he choose to be the poster-boy of government corruption when it comes to prosecution of technology-related case
After being caught and convicted on numerous prior occasions and being dealt with fairly leniently by the courts at first - then doing the same thing again *while on probabation* - then running when a warrant is issued - then continuing to commit the same high profile crimes while on the run IS asking for it.
Yes, there are murderers that have been dealt with less harshly. That's a GREAT argument for harsher treatment of murderers IMO than for more lenient treatment of multiple offense fraud artist fugitives. All the time I hear on
Re:Jesus (Score:1)
And in Soviet Russia, the prosecutors give Jesus cancer!
Re:Jesus (Score:1)
All those who prosecute will get an unfairly-horrible type of cancer?
Jouster
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The trial kept getting delayed due to it's complexity - often at the request of HIS lawyers.
Primarily because his lawyers were denied access to the information they needed in order to prepare for any trial. Personally, I'd rather wait in prison a little longer for my lawyers to prepare than go to court with a lawyer who isn't even sure what the charge is (I'm exaggerating there, obviously, but I think you get the point).
As for being denied bail that whole time - well that is sort of a natural penalty for running & continuing to commit the same crimes while on the run - for some reason people just don't trust you not to it again.
It wasn't just that he was denied bail, he was denied a bail hearing. From what I understand, no other defendant in all of American legal history has been denied a bail hearing. This doesn't strike you as a bit odd?
I doubt HE knows it's value ... On the other hand it is not difficult at ALL to assume that the value was quite significant. Big companies worth many billions of dollars keep stuff on their computers that really do have multi-million dollar values to those companies.
Actually, in some cases the values are quite clear. For example, one particular item of software he downloaded was available free to educational institutions, and $100 to anyone else. But that didn't stop the plaintiffs from claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Well, at least that was their claim in the courtroom. They made no such claim to the SEC or their shareholders. As far as I know, none of the "victim" companies reported a single lost penny as a result of Mr. Mitnick's actions. But the moment they stepped into the courtroom, suddenly it was all sob stories about the hundreds of millions in damages he had caused. I wonder if any of those guys went on to work for Enron.... ;)
That's a GREAT argument for harsher treatment of murderers IMO than for more lenient treatment of multiple offense fraud artist fugitives.
Agreed to an extent. Many violent criminals these days are treated far more leniently than they should. But, Mr. Mitnick got the shaft, big time. If he had received a 2-year sentence, you wouldn't hear a single voice speaking out on his behalf. In fact, based on things I've heard him say in the past, I don't think even he would speak out. He would say that he got what he deserved, and I think few would argue with that. He was a petty criminal, but was treated like he was the biggest threat to society at the time.
Did you sleep more easily while Mitnick was in jail, knowing that he was off the streets? Do you lose sleep now knowing that he's back out there? I doubt it. They went way overboard on his case.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2)
I'm no expert on the case but from what I know there are a couple of issues here. One is the claim that since Kevin himself (not his lawyers) was barred from using a *computer* to review the evidence against him he wasn't able to review it. By this logic every defendant prior to the 1960's and 70's was "denied access to the evidence against them" because computers hadn't yet been invented - Come on... didn't his lawyers own a printer? The second issue is that Kevin wanted access to files he had encrypted on his hard drive because they might contain exculpatory evidence but wouldn't give the court any idea of what was in those files nor provide the password claiming that would violate his right against self-incrimination. The prosecution argued that while Kevin had a right to the evidence against him since the government couldn't read those files they obviously weren't part of the evidence against him. They also didn't want to give him access to who knows what programs with who knows what capabilities. Paranoid... perhaps & technologically clueless.. perhaps. But then while Kevin had not been particularly destructive nor profit minded in his hacking previously his ability to do such was tremendous. Sure he didn't have a net connection but I'm sure his lawyers did... a little trojan horse in a file given to his lawyers to review? With all the passwords & access he had to all sorts of government & business computers? Imagine the possiblities. Imagine the reputation he would build if he trashed all those computers he had perviously gained access to from a jail cell without a net connection. By his own testimony his hacking was compulsive and he couldn't control himself and he was skilled at it. Part of the appeal of hacking is to do a lot more than others expect with far fewer resources - I don't know that I would have trusted him if I were the judge.
And it *was* a novel legal situation - usually the prosecution has to provide evidence *they have* to make sure that the defense knows as much as they do. In this situation they had to provide evidence the *didn't really have* to make sure the defense knew much more than they did. They were perfectly willing to hand over this evidence if they got access to it as well as the defense. Legally we have to hold to the principle that we can't make any assumptions about the nature of the evidence the government couldn't see. But as a practical matter I'm sure Kevins claim that it would be self-incriminating to reveal the evidence took the time to *encrypt* was far more accurate than his conflicting claim that it was exculpatory.
It wasn't just that he was denied bail, he was denied a bail hearing.
So? Despite the 5th ammendment claims of the defense (which were obviously rejected) Bail is not a constitutional right. The case against granting him bail was obvious and overwhelming on it's face. That the judge decided not to go through the formality probably had more to do (at first) with a desire to move on than with a desire to persecute someone who didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting bail no matter how many hearing were held on it. In hindsight given the length of the case the judge should have simply granted the hearing, denied bail and moved on without adding the fun "longest held without a bail hearing" factoid on the Free Kevin webiste.
If he had received a 2-year sentence, you wouldn't hear a single voice speaking out on his behalf
He got about 5 years and additional time on probation without access to computers. Rather harsh but throughout his criminal history he behaved in such a manner almost guaranteed to get dealt with harshly. NOT because he was a hacker (though that added a certain high-profile sex appeal to the case that didn't help him) but because he was convicted multiple times before, ran from the law and continued to commit high profile crimes while on the run. I don't care what the nature of your crime is that kind of history is going to get you a harsh sentence. It could have been worse - in China he would have gotten the death penalty.
Did you sleep more easily while Mitnick was in jail,
I'll bet more than a few sysadmins did.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What a defeatist attitude for a hacker. Come on, part of the hacker ethic is to do more than anyone could imagine with the most meagre resources. A few minutes reflection and I'm sure you could come up with a few ideas. Make a few not very far fetched assumptions #1 Assume the encrypted data is the most sensitive/incriminating/useful data that he had - secrets he drudged up in his hacking exploits, passwords maybe programs such as virii, trojan horses etc... #2 Assume he has sympathetic hacker friends out there willing engage in attacks for him. A phone call to a friend with some user names & passwords could lead to interesting results - a tap on the prosecutors phone would allow Kevin to really "assist his own defense." Something by the way WELL within the capablities of someone with information found on the UNencrypted portion of kevins hard drive. A trojan horse in a file he provides to his lawyers who open it at their location WITH net access is a little more difficult but all the more appealing because of the challenge. Blackmailing some executive that doesn't want his wife/shareholders/coworkers/competitors to know something Kevin has found during one of his exploits could be a windfall for his legal defense fund. Use some imagination.
Yes, that's paranoid, but then again this is a guy that had thoroughly compromised the systems he attacked. His control over the phone system was total, he knew when he was tapped and allegedly tapped the phones of investigators & generally screwed around with the phone service of people that pissed him off. He read the emails of the DEC security team that was tracking his exploits. He made the (credible coming from him) claim that he had screwed up the credit records of the FBI agents trailing him. And he not only refused to give prosecutors access to the files (understandable) but he also refused to tell the court *anything* about the encrypted information. I suppose if I thought his hacking was cute harmless pranks I wouldn't care but I wouldn't trust him without very stringent oversight. Which was the final result (and still the cause of great bitching and moaning)
The case against granting him bail was obvious and overwhelming on it's face.
Then spend 15 minutes to hold the hearing, deny him bail, and that's that.
I've already agreed that this would have been the best way to deal with the situation. BUT I can't get all worked up over it in this case. It would have been an empty formality given his history and Kevin has nobody but himself to blame for that history. That the judge made a summary judgement just based on the immediately obvious merits of the situation was perhaps unfair but a hearing wouldn't have changed the result nor was it's denial as grave a breach of his civil liberties as his breathless hyperbole of Kevins star-struck admirers would suggest.
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Offense meant, but.. (Score:2)
Um, that's what "probation" is, isn't it? I mean, probation means you can't do certain things, not necessarily because they're illegal, but because society can't trust you to be responsible about them. He could have been in jail for that extra time, not using a computer. I'd rather be outside than in, regardless of the other components of my sentence.
As far as not being allowed to use his right to free speech, I'm not very familiar with this case--what exactly was he not allowed to do? Speak about his experiences as a hacker and a criminal? Or was he simply prohibited from using a computer to do so?
If it was the latter, then it wasn't an abrogation of his rights at all. There are plenty of other ways to speak--nobody is entitled to use any particular forum, especially if the use of that forum puts the community at risk. Which the court decided it did.
Now Kevin, having behaved well over the course of his probation, is no longer considered a risk to society, and he can use computers again, which means he again has the privilege of exercising his right to free speech on the Internet. Since he's also published a book, it seems highly unlikely that his speech was restricted across the board.