On Sun, 25 May 2003, shogunx wrote: > Dean, > > > > > [1] SPEWS has attemtped to avoid prosecution and legal responsibility by > > remaining completely anonymous. ORBZ.ORG was criminally investigated for > > crashing the City of Battle Creek's computer system. The City dropped the > > investigation after ORBZ announced it would end operations. However, > > simultaneously or before the City's announcement, ORBZ operator Ian > > Gulliver registered DSBL.ORG with a Brazilian address. Quite obviously, he > > had no intention of halting operations, but merely to disguise their > > jurisdiction. > > > > sounds like ORBZ 1 Battle Creeek 0 ORBZ got away with a deception, yes. Ian Gulliver is not the first con-artist to talk his way out of a jam with the cops and won't be the last. > > [2] Even though Kevin Mitnick was on the FBI's most wanted list, the FBI > > was unable to track him down. Only after one of his victims became > > involved, was Mitnick finally located and arrested. > > > > Kevin gets locked away for years without even being CHARGED, and suddenly > he has victims? He was the victim. He was not locked away for any years without being charged. While he may also have been victimized in some respects due the difficulty and complexity of his trial, he was by no means innocent. He brought it all on himself. He was a self-described con-artist, and violated numerous civil and criminal statutes. He had no regard to civil or criminal laws, and therefore couldn't be allowed to roam about society unsupervised. He had many victims, as he recently admitted at a talk I attended. What he did was wrong in a big way. He has completely repudiated his earlier activities. Those who see Mitnick as representative of the hacker ethic don't really understand the hacker ethic. Hackers are not dishonest. Hackers share, they do not steal. Hackers ask politely, and invent for themselves what they are refused. Hackers do not coerce or extort anything. --Dean