On Wednesday, July 26th, from 1 to 6 p.m., WBAI salutes one of the most memorable events
in the history of the Americas, A Portrait of Cuba, produced by Samori Marksman and Rosemary
Mealy. Mankata, 36 years of combat, construction, and victory. That's this Wednesday, July 26th,
1 to 6 p.m., A Portrait of Cuba, over listener-supported, non-commercial, WBAI radio.
And you are listening to WBAI in New York. It's 7.32 time now for a special presentation,
Off the Hook.
Good evening.
This is Emmanuel Goldstein, and the program is Off the Hook, dedicated to the telecommunications
revolution, computer hackers, phone freaks, and all those amazing things that you probably
don't understand.
We're going to try to make it a bit more understandable, and we're going to be talking about a case
which has been in the newspapers, which has been butchered and horribly misrepresented.
And perhaps at the end of this hour, we'll have a better sense of just the importance of computer
hackers and what's really going on out there.
By now, you've probably heard the name of Kevin Mitnick, which is the name of a hacker in California.
Last year, last December, actually, Kevin Mitnick was arrested for computer hacking, and that's
something that seems to be spreading, seems to be going around a bit more.
For computer hackers actually getting arrested for playing with computers and for saying there are
different people over the telephone, that kind of thing.
Well, Kevin Mitnick was supposedly, and all of this is according to what is said in the press,
uh, Kevin Mitnick was supposedly the best.
Uh, this, this guy could make you believe anything when he was talking to you over the telephone.
Uh, according to newspapers, he was described as 25, an overweight, bespectacled computer junkie
known as a dark side hacker for his willingness to use the computer as a weapon.
His high school computer hobby was said to have turned into a lasting obsession.
Now, he, uh, allegedly, uh, used computers to break into defense department, uh, computer
systems, uh, play around with business computers and harass people.
Uh, supposedly he disconnected Christy McNichols' telephone number.
Um, what was unusual about this case, or most unusual about this case, was the fact that
when Kevin Mitnick was arrested in December of 1988, he was held without bail.
People around him were, uh, drug dealers, kidnappers, uh, all kinds of, of mean, nasty, ugly things.
Uh, they were walking in and out, getting bail, but Kevin Mitnick, a computer hacker, is still
in prison.
He has not been out of jail one day since he was put in jail in December of 1988.
And I suppose one of the questions we'll be asking tonight is why that is.
Now, uh, Mitnick's family and attorney, uh, have said that prosecutors have no evidence
for the accusations.
They are blowing the case out of proportion, either out of fear or misunderstanding of technology.
And, um, that's another issue that we are going to be addressing.
Uh, in 1981, Mitnick and, uh, three other group members were arrested on charges of stealing
technical manuals from the Pacific Telephone Company.
Uh, he was caught again by University of Southern California officials in 1983, trying to break
into the school's computers.
Uh, in December 1987, he was convicted of stealing software from microport systems in Santa Cruz
and was sentenced to 36 months of probation.
Uh, in another incident, Mitnick supposedly fled to Israel to avoid prosecution after being
accused of tampering with a computer storing credit information at TRW.
Again, all of this is based on what has been reported in the media.
Um, now, what made Mitnick the best, according to those same sources, was his ability to talk
people into giving him privileged information.
For instance, he'd, uh, call an official with a company that he wanted to penetrate and say
he was in the maintenance department and he needed a computer password.
And he was so convincing that they would give him the necessary names or numbers.
Now, uh, last Tuesday, a week ago today, Kevin Mitnick was sentenced to a year in prison.
Uh, and, uh, that, uh, counts the amount of time that he has actually been in prison already.
So, he will be, uh, out of jail in December of 1989.
And after that, he has to serve six months in an addiction clinic.
Yes, uh, Kevin Mitnick has, uh, supposedly been addicted to computers all of this time.
Well, we have on the line with us Kevin Mitnick's lawyer, Alan Rubin, in California.
Mr. Rubin, are you there?
I am here.
Uh, was what, uh, what we said so far, was any of it blatantly wrong?
Well, uh, with regard to many of the things that were reported in the press, originally
they were blatantly wrong.
And many things the government originally said were blatantly wrong.
And they've come to admit it.
Uh, starting at the beginning, what I remember from the introduction, with regard to, um,
break-ins into the defense department, government originally accused, um, him of breaking into
the National Security Agency and other defense department agencies, which, in fact, they have
now verified, as we say, stated all along, that there never have been any such break-ins.
And Kevin never committed any of such break-ins.
Indeed, the way they originally made the mistake demonstrated their own lack of knowledge about
computers.
They looked at the name of some computer disk that was found that had been named by another
individual who was in the case named Lenny DeCicco, who had given it a shorthand name, not knowing
that somebody can name a disk anything.
They can give, they could call it Hitler's Diaries, or the name they want to give it.
Mr. DeCicco had given, called it NSA List, and they immediately assumed it was the National
Security Agency List of some classified material.
In fact, it was not.
It was totally unclassified material off a public university.
So, based on, based on one law enforcement, uh, official's misunderstanding of a computer
disk, this entire thing was, uh, played throughout the international media.
That, that's part of it.
I mean, I, I give that example as just sort of an example of some of the paranoia that I
felt was going on and the immediate overreaction by the government to the situation that they
were immediately willing to jump to a conclusion and, and had him detained without bail.
And what was significant about without bail was, while there were others, as far as drug
deal and so forth, who were kept without bail, they still have access to telephones.
The key thing with Mr. Mitnick is he was even kept without access to a telephone, fear, fearing
that he could do some damage from the prison with a telephone.
Um, which, because of that order, he was ultimately kept in, uh, with the only place they could enforce
that order, was to keep him in solitary confinement where he was locked up for 23 hours a day.
And that was far more brutal than most drug dealers get, most bank, armed bank robbers, just
about everybody in federal prison gets, um, unless there were discipline problem in prison,
which he certainly wasn't. Um, again, there was another misunderstanding of how the technology
works. Prison telephone calls are all collect telephone calls. He, you cannot call a modem
or access a computer from prison. They're all, all calls must be collect. Again, the government
doesn't understand the technology or, uh, was unwilling to accept it and, uh, just wouldn't
listen.
Do you have any idea what it was that they were afraid of? What was it that Kevin Mitnick
could do if he was able to access some kind of a computer on the telephone?
They never answered that. At this point, uh, I guess what happened was in the climate of,
uh, the virus problem with Robert Morris in Syracuse, and I want to emphasize that Mr. Mitnick,
Kevin never planted any virus, never did any damage to any computer. And this has all been
admitted to by the government at the sentencing that they finally, after a lot of screaming
by myself and the defense, when they finally checked out the facts, there were no viruses,
there was no damage. There was nothing except an, an illegal access, a trespass, if you will,
into the computer. And what's significant is if, if anybody, uh, any lawyer knows what would happen
if somebody trespassed into a store and took a computer program from a computer software store,
and they'd probably get a few days in jail or a fine, and that would be it. The fact that, uh,
he somehow he did it by computer as opposed to physically walking in to the store and taking a
program seemed to make all the difference in the world to them. And he wound up with a lengthy
sentence, though I might add, significantly lower what they were originally talking about.
And what was that?
There were times when, frankly, the prosecutor, the original prosecutor on the case at the very
beginning of the case, were talking in terms of three to five years in prison. And, uh, I should
also point, some of the other things you mentioned in the introduction, he'd never fled to Israel.
Israel. Mr. Mitnick has never been to Israel. His passport demonstrates that. I mean, all they
had to do was check his passport.
Okay, so how would something like that be reported in the press?
Well, the government stood up at a bail hearing and, and either intentionally or unintentionally
told the judge that they have information that he fled to Israel, when, in fact, the only time he's
ever been out of the United States was on a one-day vacation to Tijuana, Mexico. And his passport
confirms that. But again, it was such an overreaction. And the government frightened the judge. And the
judge, not knowing really who this is, relies on the government. And if they tell her that this
man is a security risk is going to steal defense secrets, she believes him. And, uh, in, in order to be safe,
she kept him without bail. And frankly, the whole case ultimately was an effort for, by us, to try and
sort of unroll the snowball. It started in the press and started in, uh, by the, by the government.
Kevin is not in any way a, quote, dark side hacker, is not a vindictive person. And indeed,
for example, the story with Christy McNichol, Christy McNichol herself has verified to us that
not only were her telephones down, did Kevin never shut off her telephones, but her telephones
were never shut off. So that simply never happened.
Christy McNichol herself says this.
Absolutely. Um, and this is just simply one of those apocryphal tales that get spread around.
And of course, as Kevin got a reputation, it was easy for other hackers if they wanted to,
to blame him. Or there's a very common, uh, concept among, in, known by defense attorneys among
the police known as clearing the books. Whenever they have a case, a set of cases that they can't
figure out who did, they find, it's sort of like Casablanca, round up the usual suspects.
And they, uh, find a computer hacker, or in cases of arson, an arsonist, and they blame all of them
on, uh, that one person. And that clears their books of unsolved cases. And that's what happened,
I presume, in many of these cases. The, the, the truth of the matter is, is that many of the
incidents simply never happened. He was accused of making, uh, changing credit records of the
judges that he was in front of. We, we, uh, investigated that, contacted the judges.
They said it never happened. I mean, all kinds of stories like that. But the government,
uh, rather than, in my judgment, sadly, when you lock somebody up, uh, this is not Iran or Russia
or another, or, or another totalitarian country, supposedly. And when you lock somebody up without
bail when they're presumed to be incident, you better do it for a real good reason. And rather
than really checking it out and make sure they had their facts straight, they overreacted and
over, blew the situation out of proportion and locked them up. And from that point on,
um, it's, in the legal system, it's very hard to unroll the snowball as it, as it goes downhill.
Now, uh, Alan Rubin, as, um, as, uh, Kevin Mitnick's lawyer, you've been exposed to the world of
computer hackers. Is this the first time that you've been able to, uh, to see this world?
It is. And, uh, some of it is simply because, um, this is, is the very first computer hacker
crime that's been prosecuted in the federal courts in Los Angeles. And indeed, it's probably
one of the first ones, uh, in the United States. The statute, the federal statute that just, uh,
went into effect, went into effect in late 1988. And so the first cases are really coming forward
now. Um, I, it's, it's a frightening thing in, in my mind because people are so, at least
government officials are so frightened of people who have, who know computers and who access
computers that, uh, again, I just think they completely overreact. The example I gave, you
know, there should be no difference of, about somebody taking a program if they walk into a
store versus taking it by computer. There's, there's, there's no difference.
Do you see, uh, wider implications for this kind of, uh, misunderstanding and fear of technology?
And how, how would it affect, uh, the average person that really doesn't have an interest
in computers?
Well, I don't know if it's, uh, it's going to affect, affect the average person. The average
person may be giving, uh, some impetus to the government in the sense they know that they
have private records on computer disks and the government is reacting to try and protect
them. Um, I think unfortunately there may be a lot of kids or young hackers who don't really
see themselves as doing any harm that may get caught up by the law enforcement system, be given
criminal records. Um, one of the saddest things, obviously Kevin is a talented guy in computers and our
country needs those kinds of people who have that kind of talent. Um, he would desperately like to be in
the computer industry, uh, providing productive use of his talents because of, uh, the criminal
situation. It may be very hard for him to, to get employed and for his talents to be used. And I'm, I'm afraid
some of the best and the brightest, if you will, uh, may wind up in that situation.
And, uh, Kevin has been sentenced to, uh, stay in jail until December and then be treated in an addiction
program. Is that correct?
That's correct. And frankly, that was a much, a very good, good result considering where we were. At
one point the judge had, had refused a one year sentence and had stated that in her judgment, it
was much too lenient. It was only after, uh, we had been able to demonstrate to her that there were
certain elements of his behavior that were similar to, uh, an addict's behavior, the long hours at the
machine, the high, if you will, of what, um, of, um, of computer hacking, uh, were very similar to what
you see in cases of drug addiction and alcohol. And once the judge and the government saw that, then
the picture started to change, uh, of him from this dark side hacker to someone who, who, um,
does have a certain type of compulsive behavior about computers. But in, in no instance, and I want
to emphasize this, did he ever do anything vindictive or evil. Even in this case, as I said, he never
damaged anything, never planted any virus, never stole anything for profit. The only program that was
taken was simply so that he could study it and learn about the operating system. He has an intellectual,
uh, you know, challenge and as an intellectual challenge and desire to learn about the operating
systems there. He, that's the reason he accessed the computer for no other reason to simply learn
about the system. Um, no profit motive, really, uh, almost pure hacking, if you will, just for the
pleasure of it or for the intellectual challenge of it and to see if it could be done rather than
for anything that you would consider real base or, uh, evil motive.
We're speaking with Alan Rubin, who is, uh, Kevin Mitnick's lawyer. Kevin Mitnick being, uh, a computer
hacker in California who was arrested last December and has been held without bail. He was, uh, sentenced
last Tuesday to serve a year in prison and have that followed by six months in an addiction treatment
center. Uh, the case has been, uh, uh, rather strange, rather bizarre because of the, uh, the hardline attitude
of, uh, of the courts towards, uh, this person who was, uh, playing with computers. It's the first time
that, uh, we've actually seen a case of a computer hacker going to jail and being treated in a very harsh
manner, as, as we've heard, uh, actually being put in solitary confinement so that he would not have
access to a telephone. I'd like at this moment to, uh, introduce John Markoff, uh, reporter from the
New York Times. Uh, Mr. Markoff has been covering, uh, the Kevin Mitnick story from, uh, from the day
it began, uh, in December of last year. And, um, I'd like to ask you, uh, John, uh, um, is this an unusual
kind of story? You've been following computer hackers, uh, for a while now. Um, what's, what's different
about this case? Well, I think what's different, what's different here is, uh, a matter of degree.
In a sense, Kevin's case was one that was waiting to happen, um, as there have been a variety of
these, uh, legal incidents over time. And the proximity of Kevin's case with, uh, the, the virus,
the internet virus was, uh, I think, uh, he, he picked the absolutely worst time to get himself
arrested in a sense. The country and the government in particular was really looking for
an example. And Kevin, for a lot of reasons, uh, turned out to be the perfect example.
Uh, also, I think that, um, I guess, uh, you know, I'd maybe ask, uh, Mr. Rubin to explain a little bit
more about the particular software that, that Kevin, uh, Kevin was caught for because it's, you know,
I have a little bit of difficulty with, uh, the issue of whether it's just the same as walking
into a software store and, and taking a program, taking a program off the shelf.
Do you think it's better or worse?
Well, there are programs and there are programs. I mean, this is, uh, the, the program that Kevin
took was, uh, essentially the, the source code to, uh, what I think, a source code to the,
a security module for the, uh, Digital Equipment Corporation's operating system. He couldn't
have picked a worse program to go after to, uh, to make the company uptight. And they
were extremely uptight.
Well, how was he able to get a hold of that? Was it left out in the open?
Well, in a sense, I mean, it was, it was left behind locked doors, if you will, but it was
sitting on a shelf. And, um, I think, uh, Mr. Rubin is right. From a, from a hacker's point
of view, this is, uh, the, you know, the perfect object of intellectual, um, curiosity. You
have to look at it from the company's point of view. From the company's point of view,
here they find some unknown, um, you know, uh, individual coming in and essentially taking
the, um, you know, the, the, the, the crown jewels. This is the, the particular program
that protected, uh, you know, the, the operating systems. Ultimately, their hardware and all
of their customers' hardware are all over the world. So it was, it was enough to, to, to
send them into an absolute panic.
Were they harmed? Did something happen to the company as a result of this?
Uh, that's a, that's a good question. Uh, they were harmed in the sense that they,
they directed their security personnel to spend a ton of time trying to, um, uh, trying to
track down, to try and actually unsuccessfully, for the most part, with, uh, to track down
Kevin. I don't think the company, uh, you know, lost anything materially because of who
he was, but they didn't know who he was. And as a matter of fact, I've, I've heard that
they actually thought that, uh, that this was, um, a penetration run by the East Germans
at first. Now, if you have that point of view from within the corporation, what is your,
what's your attitude going to be? What they did makes a lot of sense at that point.
Let me just say one thing. My understanding of what was taken and I'm, uh, uh, my understanding
of that what, what was transported was simply a program that emulates other, somewhat ironically,
emulates hackers to see if their security systems are secure. To a certain extent, it's
less valuable. It has no commercial value. It's not, it's not something you can buy in
a store. It's not a program they sell and it has, has, uh, certainly no commercial value.
Um, I would also point out is, it is true also as far as loss to the company, the only loss
of the company was, uh, the computer downtime, which they value, uh, at whatever they want
to value it. It's like saying, uh, how much is your time worth? And they pick out a number
and that, so they can inflate the amount of damages by simply picking out a higher number.
One thing I think cannot be, uh, underestimated in this with deck screaming and, uh, and really
seeking, uh, prosecution is that to a certain extent, it's extremely embarrassing for them.
I mean, they are a computer company whose own computers became, got penetrated and it's
sort of like, uh, you know, a burglar alarm company getting burglarized. I mean, it's embarrassing
to them and to a certain extent they have to create a, I'm not sure if a myth is the right
word, but they, they have to really, uh, try and emphasize the evil genius aspect in order
to, in some way, remove some of the embarrassment from their, from their standpoint. And I think
that was a factor here.
I think we have, uh, maybe a conflict of two different worlds here. We have, uh, uh, the,
um, the big business, uh, approach of lost profits, uh, bad public image and, um, time
and energy and CPU time and all that kind of thing. And, uh, we have that, uh, crossed with
an individual person who is, uh, exploring and learning. And, uh, what's sad in this particular
case is that no one is really thinking, well, what's going to happen to the individual person?
Uh, that the headlines talk about the profit, the profits that, uh, are at stake. Uh, but
they're not talking about the fact that this man has already spent eight months, uh, in jail
at, uh, the prime of his life, uh, for something that some people would, would not even consider
to be a crime.
Well, I, I have one thought about that. Now, I mean, I take sort of a middle ground. I think
this is, is an issue of not having, not having taught sort of the, the new, a new technological
morality perhaps to, to our children. I mean, I look at what Kevin did, not so much as, as
theft, but as someone who is, um, going through a neighborhood perhaps. And it's a very extended
neighborhood. Some people call it cyberspace, but there are locked doors. I mean, he had
to compromise the security of each computer he went, he went into. I mean, it's not like
the doors were locked. And so this is like somebody in a city maybe sort of wandering around
in apartment buildings and walking indoors and looking around. And if somebody's doing that
in the city, it's true, it's not a major crime, but it's not something, I mean, people, you
know, right, right-thinking people don't do it. Um, I, I think the problem is that there
hasn't been any education in the form of maybe teaching computer citizenship. We teach computer
literacy. That's a big thing. But nobody really thinks very, uh, clearly about what kind of
values we need to go along with the new technology. Um, that's, yeah. Um, you're listening
to WBAI in New York. The program is off the hook and we're talking about the, uh, Kevin
Mitnick case in, uh, in California, uh, where a computer hacker has been sentenced to a year
in jail, uh, and six months in an addiction treatment program. It's not the only case going
on. There's a case, uh, in Illinois involving, uh, someone named Herbert Zinn, known as Shadowhawk.
Uh, he was, um, sentenced to a nine-month prison sentence and he also has to pay a $10,000 fine
and serve two and a half years of federal probation. Uh, basically at, when, uh, Zinn was 16 years
old, he used his, uh, home computer, uh, to break into a Bell Labs computer in Illinois and,
um, copy software. And it's mostly for the fact that he copied the software that he has been
sentenced to this, uh, this rather large sentence of, of nine months in jail. I mean,
when you're 18 years old, uh, nine months in jail can, can really be a bad trip. Um,
I should also emphasize, if I can plus in here, that nine months or a year in federal prison
now under the new, under new sentencing rules really means nine months. There's no parole or
good time or anything like that. Uh-huh. Uh, I also think, uh, the way we look upon this is,
is most interesting. If, if you read the newspapers about the, the Zinn case in, in Illinois, uh,
you would have heard about a computer hacker that stole millions of dollars worth of software.
And, uh, if you took a closer look at the case, you would have seen that this was a 16-year-old
kid who copied a computer program over the phone lines, which, uh, some people might consider
stealing, others might not because the original is still right where it was left. Um, he did not sell
it. He did not, uh, damage it. He simply looked at it. And for that crime, for invading that
corporation's privacy, he was sentenced to jail. And it's, it's, it's frightening to think of, uh,
how highly we hold a corporation's privacy and how low we hold our own individual privacy.
It's, um, kind of, uh, a sobering thought. And I'd like to, uh, to use that sobering thought to
introduce our third guest, uh, Richard Matthews, who is a computer hacker in Louisiana. Richard,
are you there? Yes, I am. Okay. You've been listening to this discussion. Any, uh, any thoughts
as a hacker? Well, um, I think what we're dealing with here, um, is ignorance on the part of a lot
of, uh, public officials. They, they really are, are unaware of, of what's going on. They don't,
um, they're not, um, they're not well-versed in computers and computer technology. And it's,
it's a new and strange technology to them. And when they, when they're confronted by someone
who has, uh, who has hacked or, or has exhibited some computer knowledge, I think their, their
main emotion is, is paranoia and, uh, a great deal of fear.
Let me, uh, just mention at this point, we are going to try to take some phone calls for
anyone who wants to, uh, comment on, uh, on these cases. The number is 212-279-3400. Uh,
now, Richard Matthews, you, uh, recently went through some, uh, some conflict with, uh, authorities.
Perhaps you could describe a little bit what, uh, what took place and, uh, what, uh, some of
the things you were facing, uh, were. Well, uh, one of the first things I noticed, um,
when I came home and found that my apartment had been searched was that, uh, apparently those
doing the investigation had little or, or no knowledge of computers and, and computer technology.
Um, I noticed that they, uh, the search was conducted in a manner that, uh, that allowed
a lot of perhaps valuable materials to get away from them. Uh, and...
Could you be a little more specific on that?
Well, for instance, uh, if I were, if I were on the other end of this and I were conducting
a search, one of the first places I would look for, for a disk containing information would
be in the disk drive. And, uh, a lot of, uh, uh, both of my disk drives contained, still had
disks in them after the search was over. And I, I found that quite remarkable. And I also noticed
that they, uh, took printouts and materials that had nothing to do whatsoever with the case that
was being investigated. Uh, perhaps you're familiar with a publication called 2600.
Well, I, in fact, I'm, I'm the editor of that publication. Uh, but, uh, go ahead.
Right. Well, uh, I noticed one thing was that my entire collection of 2600 had been confiscated,
although it, it had absolutely nothing to do, uh, it had very little to do with the case they
were investigating. Um, and when I was brought in for questioning, I virtually had to give the,
the sheriff's officers and the secret service agent a crash course in computers and telecommunications.
So basically they had virtually no idea what they were doing.
They had, uh, they had virtually no idea whatsoever.
Can you, uh, tell us in as, as specific or as vague, uh, a term as, as you desire, uh, what
it was you were up to and perhaps why? Well, a friend, a friend of mine, uh, told me that he had
found an interesting number that, uh, allowed him access to a computer. So I told him to come on over
to my, to my apartment and we would take a look and see what, what this, uh, system looked like
and what it did. So my friend came over and he, he logged on to the computer, uh, on the other end.
He, he logged on and we spent a pretty good deal of time looking at the file structure of the computer
on the other end and, uh, using a few of the functions to see who else was online and looking at some of the
program names that were on the system. Uh, that's pretty much all we did, uh, altering nothing.
And then we left, we logged off of the system.
All right. And, um, it was for exploratory, uh, purposes that you did this?
Right. It was, it was, uh, it was almost an academic exercise. Uh, I had never before been logged on to
this type of system and I wanted to see what was there, what it looked like, uh, just how much
information could be stored, not, not the specific information itself. We, we, uh, didn't access
any files that contained data. We just spent a good, a great deal of time looking at directories
and looking at file names.
Now, how easy was it for you to get, uh, to get into this particular computer system?
Well, uh, I was startled at, at how easy it was. The, uh, the computer security can best
be described as non-existent. Uh, it, uh, it was, it was very, very easy to get in using just
minimal knowledge of the operating system. And the, the, the password to a high, to a very
high level account could have been figured out by someone with no knowledge of computers
whatsoever, just brainstorming with a piece of paper and a pencil.
I see. Uh, what, uh, what happened, uh, when things started going wrong for you? Uh, when
was the first indication and what was it you were facing?
Well, uh, the first indication I had that there was trouble was when I tried to get in
touch with a, with a friend of mine who came over and logged into the system. I was told that
he was in some very big trouble. That afternoon, I came home to find that, uh, my apartment had
been searched. And, uh, the, the afternoon that my apartment was searched, I got a call from the
local sheriff's office telling me to come in for questioning. And, uh, I did that. Then I was,
I was, uh, offered a, offered a reduction of, uh, sort of a reduction of charges. They would
arrest me on a lesser charge if I would cooperate with them, telling them what I knew. And, uh, a lot
of people give all sort of high sounding talk about how they won't, how they won't break down and how
they won't, they won't give in or tell what they know. But I was, I was, uh, in effect threatened.
I could either be arrested then and there on the federal charge of, uh, on, on the federal charge.
They weren't very specific on what federal charge. Or they said I could cooperate with them and I would
just be arrested and charged with a state-level misdemeanor. And so, naturally, I was, I was, uh,
I was figuring I should take the state misdemeanor instead and, and perhaps cooperate with them a bit.
There's a particular phrase, uh, that was rather, uh, rather intriguing. Um, do you recall what that
was, uh, the, the particular law that you were, uh, accused of, of breaking? Well, when, when I was,
uh, being photographed, when I, when they were taking my mug shots, the officer asked me what,
what I had done. And when I told him what, what I was, uh, alleged to have done, he said that he had
never seen anyone before that was charged with intellectual theft of private or proprietary information.
And I, I find that quite a, an interesting thing to be charged with.
Now, let me ask you one last question and then we'll open it up, uh, for a discussion amongst,
uh, the three guests and the callers. Um, address this to the people that, uh, that might not understand
what motivates a computer hacker or someone who is just, uh, very much intrigued by technology.
People say it's, it's wrong. People say that you're trespassing, you're breaking the law.
Why would somebody continue to do such a thing? Is there something that, that motivates you?
Well, um, my main interest in all of this was strictly the, the academic pursuit of learning about computers.
In general, there was no malicious intent on my part whatsoever. I, I strictly wanted to see
how this computer was set up, how it, how it was run, and what it's, what its storage capacities were.
I, I, I, in effect, I wanted to see what it, what it was. I, uh, some computer enthusiasts
tend to regard computers as, as entities themselves almost, as individuals, because each, each system
is indeed, uh, its, its own system. And I, I was just wanting to get to know this individual system
a little better, since it was a, a pretty large system that I'd never seen before.
And, uh, where do you stand now as far as, uh, as these legal troubles?
Well, to date, eh, I was arrested early, early this year. Uh, and as of yet, I've heard absolutely
nothing from the authorities, uh, concerning my case. Um, I guess, I guess, uh, they're just
going to let me sit around and wait for a while before they decide what they're going to do
with me.
We're speaking with, uh, Richard Matthews, who is a computer hacker in Louisiana, um, as
well as Alan Rubin, who, uh, is Kevin Mitnick's lawyer. Kevin Mitnick being the computer hacker
who was recently sentenced to prison time and time in an addiction clinic, uh, for being
addicted to computers, as well as John Markoff, reporter for the New York Times. And, um, if
anyone wants to, uh, to say something now, uh, before we go to the phone calls, feel free.
All right. Just one point. I think that, uh, the point about intellectual crimes is an interesting,
an interesting one. Uh, it gets right at the, uh, tension that I think has been, been around
for a long time between the community of hackers who created the computer industry. And maybe
as an aside here, let me get at the, the differing meanings and the changing meanings of the term
hacker over the last 20 years. I mean, it's, the term hacker originated at MIT, uh, in the
late 1950s around some engineering students who liked to play with model trains. And it then,
uh, it then, uh, was transferred to the people who had a, a passion for programming and building
computers at MIT somewhat later. And more recently, the media got, has gotten a hold of the term. And
now in the public eye, it, it, it, it means people who like to break into computers, at least from the
media point of view. So the, the term hackers evolved over time. But this notion of, uh, of intellectual
crimes, um, Apple computer recently, uh, went, uh, after a group or is going after a group called
the new Prometheus league who has been distributing Apple's source code. And it gets at, uh, how valuable
information has become in the 1980s. Um, Apple computer was a company that started because a guy
by the name of Steve Wozniak liked to share his new computer designs with his friends. Well, today
about the only thing that differentiates Apple computer from its corporate competitors is its
software. And, uh, the company will go to virtually any lengths to protect what differentiates it,
which is just software information from other computer companies. So it's, it's, uh, it's an
interesting, it's an interesting time. Well, do you think we're moving into, uh, dangerous ground with
such things as intellectual crimes, uh, against the state being, uh, being thrown at us? Uh, I mean,
what I like to say is, I like to say, let's forget computers were involved here. Let's just
forget there were computers. Would it be a crime if there were no computers? And would the sentence
be outrageous if there were no computers involved? Well, it's, uh, I think that was the point I was
trying to make earlier, that for some reason, simply because a computer is involved, the crime
has escalated beyond belief. And I think there's also a problem going on here that
clearly the, the core, the, some corporations will have an enormous amount of influence on the
government and whether they will prosecute an individual. In this instance, there was, I
know, substantial communications between, uh, the government and deck. And instead of a
government making an independent judgment and analysis as to whether this really is worthy
of prosecution, there was a, a lot of, uh, pressure, if you will, I don't know, overt or, uh, subtle,
that from deck to, uh, to prosecute Kevin and, uh, to really throw the book at him when,
um, in my mind, it wasn't really justified, certainly to the extent of, uh, that he received and
certainly to accept the notoriety he received. Okay. Well, we're going to be, uh, giving out
addresses and, uh, phone numbers, uh, later on, uh, at the end of the program right now that
we'd like to take, uh, calls from the listeners. Uh, the number is 212-279-3400 and the switchboard
is all tied up right now, but, uh, feel free to keep trying and, uh, we'll try to fit you
in. Good evening. You're on. Yes. Good evening. Um, I'm, I'm very much surprised at, uh, how
you can justify these particular actions under a guise of exploring. Uh, this is pure and
simple theft. And if you consider that, uh, the terminology, I don't care what you call
it, hackers or these innocent, uh, uh, look, I deal with computers too. And, uh, we're not
talking about innocence here. We're talking about people behind the keyboard, people who
are trying to get something that doesn't belong to them to, to invade privacy, which I thought
is, is your strong point, you people. Uh, privacy of somebody else, whether it's an individual
or whether it's a business, it's, it's still privacy and it's still ownership of, by somebody
else. Now this guy, Mitnick, uh, he is getting a course in, uh, in computer citizenship. Eight
months worth, eight months worth and counting. And I really think that, uh, the more the
prosecutions continue, the better off we as a society are going to be. We're not talking
about individual rights here. We're talking about laws of theft and invasion of privacy.
Well, uh, now I'm not sure if, if, uh, the other, uh, guests can hear you. I'm sure they
don't agree with me. No, I'm, I'm saying that they can hear you. There's a bit of a hum on
the line, but, uh, I'd just like to ask the caller a question. Um, uh, obviously you think
that, uh, computer hacking is a crime and, um, quite a few people do, but don't, don't
you think in this particular case, uh, the person sentenced received more of a sentence
than if he had done the actual physical, uh, invasion of privacy and, and theft of, of
a service. I didn't say hacking, it was a crime. I said theft and invasion of privacy
are both crimes. They're on the books. Okay. I'm not talking about hacking per se. And I'm
not, and, and, uh, you're putting it under the umbrella of exploring. Uh, that's a very
big and very wide circumference of an umbrella. I think that what we're talking about here is
not hacking or exploring. I'm talking, we're talking about breach of law.
Well, let, let me respond a little bit to that. First of all, uh, the charger Kevin
was convicted of and pled guilty to was not theft, was not taking of anything. In fact,
what he was convicted of was unauthorized access into the computer.
Is that on invasion?
Not taking anything. Simply accessed the computer.
It's not just simply. Yeah, I like the way you say simply. It's not simply.
Well, I'm correcting you. He's, he was not convicted of theft or stealing or taking anything
from a legal standpoint. If you're talking about what's on, on the books, what's on the,
what, what he did was in the equivalent of, and what he was convicted of would be a trespass.
And for example, if somebody walked into your home, onto your property, but didn't take anything,
they would not be stealing or theft or burglary. They would be convicted of trespassing onto your
property. And that is what the equivalent is here. He's trespassing into their computer system.
And that's what he's convicted of. And the question in my mind, and I think is pretty clear,
if he walked into, onto deck's grounds, okay, or he trespassed, the sentence would have been
substantially less than accessing the computer. And even without taking anything or, and as far
as a matter of privacy goes, there were no private records of individuals. I think ultimately in
each case you have to look at what the motivation is. In any case, that's, that's what happens in
every case in, in a courthouse is the motivation is looked at. What was really done was looked at
in judging what an appropriate sentence is. Simply to say something's on the books, you know,
doesn't necessarily mean, uh, it should be a crime or should be, should be treated, uh, uh,
appropriately. I mean, illegal assembly is a, is technically a crime, but certainly when people
marched for, in, against the war in Vietnam or march for abortion rights or march for any other
reason, they're, they may be technically committing a crime, but certainly their motivation deserves to
be taken into account. Thank you for calling, sir. We're going to take some more calls here at, uh,
279-3400. And, um, uh, I think another, uh, another issue that, uh, we haven't really addressed,
uh, as far as, uh, considering whether such actions are crimes, um, should it also be a crime
that a corporation, an organization, an institution of some kind makes it so easy? We have a hacker on
the line who says it's incredibly easy to break into these computer systems. Uh, shouldn't those
organizations bear some responsibility when people somehow manage to slide through these cracks that
they've, these well-publicized cracks? I mean, 2600 Magazine, uh, uh, prints a lot of, uh, information
that, uh, while not geared towards a specific system, uh, can certainly, um, show some, some, some
flaws, uh, in, uh, various organizations' computers if they have not taken, uh, certain basic safeguards.
Safeguards that a 12-year-old Apple computer owner would take to prevent people from gaining
illegal access to his computer bulletin board system. And I'm sorry to say, many of those
bulletin board systems are more secure than Defense Department computers. Uh, so, uh, perhaps
some of the responsibility lies in these organizations. Uh, the number is 279-3400. Good evening, you're on.
Hello?
Yes, go ahead.
Yes. Oh, should I ask my question now?
Uh, go ahead. I'm afraid you have to ask the question and then hang up because all the lines
seem to have hum in them for some reason.
Okay, here goes.
Go ahead.
During the past year, people have been arrested for using modified discramblers to view satellite-delivered
television programs. These include people who live in rural areas who cannot access conventional
TV programs. TBS, the public broadcasting service, recently scrambled its feeds, making it a crime to
view Sesame Street via satellite. Obviously, in this instance, the cable TV monopoly is behind
the drive to deprive individuals of their freedom to monitor the airwaves. Do you see any parallels
between this issue and the cases which you have been discussing during this program? That
is big business depriving individuals of their rights.
Okay, we're going to answer your question. Thanks for calling. Um, anyone want to take
that? Go ahead, John Markoff.
Well, just a comment that there has been an interesting technological war between the scramblers
and the de-scramblers. There is a fairly lively, um, underground, I don't know, industry or
community, a little bit of both, of, uh, people who, uh, have essentially, uh, been engaged
in electronic warfare with the, uh, scrambling, uh, industry. And that clearly the cable industry
wants people to pay for their service. And, uh, if you can just stick a dish in your backyard
and receive the stuff for free, they don't make any money off of you. And so they've increasingly
scrambled, uh, more and more of the stuff that has, that is broadcast. The FBI has actually
been cracking down during the last, I think, two years on people who have modified the systems
and various ways to, uh, get around the scramblers. And it's, it's, it's one of those sort of
technological wars where one side scrambles and the other side comes up with sort of a
counter-scrambling mechanism and it's gone on for some time.
There is a parallel, uh, between the, um, the people trying to, uh, to de-scramble the TV pictures
and the hackers. Uh, it's kind of the same, uh, rebelliousness. Um, um, um, I'm not involved in that
particular field, but I do see it, uh, the outrage that how, how dare they, uh, scramble a
program, uh, and, or, or how dare they prosecute me for just pointing my dish at the sky and
receiving something, uh, that's, uh, or, or, or for de-scrambling a scrambled signal. I mean,
some people would think that is illegal. Other people would say, no, there's nothing wrong with
doing that. It's, the airwaves are free. Uh, it's, it's one of, of many different things going on
right now in the technological revolution, uh, that, uh, are, are going to create some shockwaves
when, when they're resolved. Uh, there are going to be some bad decisions made, like the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986, uh, that, uh, makes it a crime to listen to a cellular phone
call and that's it. Uh, there's no other, uh, protection required for cellular phone manufacturers,
uh, just, uh, will make it a crime for anybody to listen to these conversations and then nobody
will intercept them. Yeah. Uh, our number is 279-3400 and I sure hope that, uh, there's no
hum on this line, but we'll see. Good evening. Yes, good evening. Go ahead. Good evening to
Richard and to Alan and to John. Okay. Um, I guess I have more comments than, than questions
and I'd like some responses. Okay. Uh, specifically directed at Richard, um, the fact that you were
charged with intellectual theft is astonishing to me. This is a phrase that sounds like it
comes immediately out of a newspaper from the Soviet Union or China. This was a standard
political accusation that they would use to put someone away with. So it's just amazing
to me that this is happening in the United States today. Although what tempers that amazement,
I guess, is a sense that, that look at the government's point of view, you are dabbling
in the one thing that they have that separates them from us, which is information. The fact
that you can go in and get information the way the government likes to think that it can
makes them shiver in their boots, essentially. I would think that. I mean, they're looking at
information as, as a God or an entity against which you can commit a crime.
Well, that's, uh, that's precisely right. Uh, they're afraid of, uh, they seem to be afraid
of anyone who, who has the ability or the knowledge that, uh, that would allow them to access information,
and in some cases very sensitive information. Uh, but then again, a lot of citizens here would
argue that Louisiana isn't truly a part of the United States.
I've heard that argument actually made, but, uh, I do a little playing with computers I've
hacked on a, on a personal level and played locally in the metro area and looking at different
people's lines and playing with, with passwords. And I have to vouch for the fact that you're
absolutely correct that there's very little security. If you sit and play with a pad and
a paper, you can break into most of the, the, the ongoing business systems locally here.
People are not really setting up serious stops, serious reasons that you shouldn't be able
to get in there. Sort of like, well, if, if we put up a little bit of a wall, people will
understand they're not supposed to go in, and then they won't. That's their assumption
at any rate.
Yes, it's, uh, security on, on the part of the corporation, uh, is pretty lax. But one
point I would like to make is that, um, in a sense, I stole nothing. I didn't transfer
any information from the host computer on, onto my computer. I didn't save anything onto
disk. I didn't print anything out on the printer. The only thing that I came away with when I
logged off my head, and that's, that's what got me in trouble, was looking at information,
uh, strictly looking at it. And the only theft I committed was the theft that comes from looking.
Sir, I want to thank you for your call. We just have time for one more short call.
Thanks for calling in. Good evening.
Hello?
Yes, go ahead.
Sir, turn down your radio or, ma'am.
Okay.
Are you there? Yes, go ahead.
Yeah. Yeah, I'd just like to say that, uh, I think, uh, uh, one of the, one of the big
problems these days is, uh, a lot of, um, younger computer hackers are, like, getting their hands
on computers and modems, and, uh, they're not learning, like, actual ethics before they
actually get, they actually get online. And, uh, the main problem with that is, um, the fact
that, uh, they're getting into, uh, you know, basically they're getting caught, and they're
setting the, the standard by which, uh, hackers are judged by in the eye of the public.
Yes.
And, um, uh, no, but the point I want to get across is that, um, I think that, uh, uh, uh,
well, what I'm trying to say is that I think that, um, uh, uh, the public is being painted
like a very bad picture of, uh, hackers and freakers because of the fact of, uh, like, the
more destructive type hackers that are being, you know, uh, made known to the public.
Uh-huh. Well, as, as we've, we've been able to point out tonight, uh, the most destructive
hacker of them all, supposedly, according to the press, uh, Kevin Mitnick, uh, a lot of the
things that we heard about him simply aren't true, and, um, it, it stems from ignorance.
And I'm sorry to have to cut you off, but, uh, we are practically out of time.
Um, I want to thank, uh, our guests for tonight, uh, Richard Matthews, a computer hacker in Louisiana.
Uh, thank you and good luck to you.
Um, and hopefully, uh, you know, your, your individualism won't be, uh, crushed by all of
this.
Uh, do you think it will?
Well, um, like I said, that remains to be seen.
Um, I have, at this point, I have no idea what's going to happen to me, and under the
provisions of the law, I could be sentenced to, I believe, up to a year of time in the,
uh, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
Well, uh, let's, let's hope that doesn't happen.
There are enough, uh, young people sitting in jail today already, uh, just because they
played around with computers.
Indeed.
Um, Kevin Mitnick's lawyer, Alan Rubin, any, uh, final thought from you?
No, I, uh, I just want to thank you for giving me the opportunity for trying to at least set
the record straight for Kevin, and I, I wish, uh, Richard luck.
Is there anything that, uh, that people, listeners can do to, uh, to help Kevin in any way?
Well, uh, at this point, he's, uh, going to finish out the sentence, and if there's, he would love
to get into the, I know, get into the computer industry, and, uh, try and really turn his
talents to productive use, so if there's someone there who wants to talk to me about it, I'd
be happy to talk to him.
Okay, you can give you a phone number if you want.
Okay, it, it would, uh, be 213-207-1114.
Okay, thank you very much for, uh, for being a part of the program tonight, and, uh, John
Markoff from the New York Times, uh, thanks very much for stopping by, and, uh, I assume
you're going to continue following this story and others like it in the future.
I imagine that more of these incidents will, will inevitably take place.
Undoubtedly.
Okay, thanks again for stopping by, and, uh, for folks interested in obtaining more information,
you can write to, uh, 2600 Magazine.
Uh, the address is 2600, Post Office Box 752, Middle Island, New York, 11953.
You can also call, uh, area code 516-751-2600.
Uh, 2600 is kind of the, uh, American hacker, uh, organization.
Uh, there is no real organization of hackers in this country, but, uh, 2600 is probably the
closest thing, uh, to something that encompasses, uh, the hackers of, of this nation.
Uh, again, if, uh, you can call 516-751-2600 or write to that address.
Um, however, there is a major hacking convention in Amsterdam this, uh, in a, in a couple of days,
so it's quite possible you won't get a response from us for, uh, for a while, as, uh, we'll be
out for a while.
Uh, also, if, um, if you're interested in contacting a hacker organization in, uh, Amsterdam, uh,
it's known as HackTic.
You can call them up at, uh, you need to call overseas, though, uh, 011-3120-6001480.
Again, thanks to everybody that called in, and, uh, keep reading the newspapers and, uh,
listening to what the computer hackers are up to, because it's fascinating, and, uh, the
things that come out of this will wind up affecting many, many people.
I'm Emmanuel Goldstein.
Thanks very much for tuning in.
We'll be back with Off the Hook at some point in the future.
Tune in this Thursday afternoon at one o'clock for News of the World.
We'll be hearing tapes directly from China, and, uh, I think you'll find that most interesting.
Thanks again for listening.
This is WBAI New York.
And coming up next on WBAI is a special presentation in the poetry of Sare.
Sare, poet and cultural worker, presents her provocative poetry.
Coming up next on listener-supported WBAI.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Music, voices, and women, a.k.a. also known as Are We Martians or What? by Sari Lalupe.
Music, voices, and women, a.k.a. I send my feelings unconsciously to her.
My middle daughter would carry on the struggle.
It's a process I always tried to tell her whenever she got so angry from her pain.
Use your palate, darling.
Yet he bludgeoned me, tried to rip apart my humanity.
White Jewish girl I was.
Wished I could have an Irish nose.
And now I want to be black, I suppose.
When will I love myself?
Jewish culture, I hate the religious.
Rabbis who laughed at girls.
Aye, smor, yente, ketzer.
Not in my poppy's eyes.
It was always younger brother.
I, my father, despised.
Mom, Polish, Jewish, peasant girl, why didn't you help me?
You degraded yourself too.
It goes...
I, my father, despised.
What do you do?
Humans, walker.
We, my father, despised.
I never wrote they completed yourself.