The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a cut.
It couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Bundle it bombed for the best, expect the worst.
I hope they understood, bundle it bombed.
And a very good evening to one and all.
This is Emanuel Goldstein.
The program is off the hook.
We talk about technology, we talk about telephones,
we talk about computers, and we talk about hackers.
And tonight we're going to be talking about all of that, plus a whole lot more.
Thanks for listening.
A lot of interesting things going on in the world of payphones, for one thing.
Recently, independent payphones were criticized locally
for the way that they handle customers,
or the way, perhaps, they don't handle customers.
The State Public Service Commission has begun a crackdown
on some pay telephone companies.
It charges that they were not providing local operator assistance
as required by agency rules designed to protect consumers in emergencies.
And what the commission has done is it's ordered nine companies
to show cause why the thousands of payphones they operate in New York State
should not be disconnected for failing to ensure
that users dialing zero are connected to a local telephone company,
such as New York Telephone,
which can quickly route the calls to the proper authorities.
That has not been happening, and I'm sure just about everybody out there
that has been using one of these phones
and on some occasion has run into a major problem.
And, in fact, I had quite an adventure just the other day,
which I'll get into in just a moment.
The commission staff said two-thirds of all independently operated payphones
in New York do not, do not,
route zero calls to the local phone company.
Two-thirds.
There were about 30,000 such payphones
in New York Telephones operating area as of last November,
so that means 20,000 are not doing
what common sense dictates they do.
You dial zero, who knows?
Who knows what you will get?
The PSC Public Service Commission said
it surveyed 328 payphones for statistical purposes
and found 218 of them in violation.
Instead of routing zero calls to the local phone company,
the PSC staff said the calls were routed to providers
of alternate operator service located outside the state.
The PSC added that three companies
that provide alternate operator service,
International Telecharge of Dallas,
Telesphere of Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois,
and American Network Exchange of Orlando, Florida,
were not authorized to provide emergency operator services.
The PSC ordered the three companies
to stop handling emergency zero calls,
or they will lose their right to operate in New York State.
Ed Pope, General Counsel of International Telecharge,
said he could not comment on the order
until he had seen a copy
and discussed it with the company's local attorney.
Officials at the other companies
could not be reached for comment at all.
According to the PSC,
the most consistent violators,
get your pens and pencils ready,
I always say that,
I mean to say pen and paper ready,
to write down the violators.
Next time you're at a pay phone,
you can look for these names
and see if they are considered violators
of this very basic law.
Not really a law,
but just a nice thing to do
when you dial zero connected to an operator
instead of somebody God knows where.
Anyway,
the most consistent violators
among pay phone providers were
Multiplex Services Incorporated of Elmhurst,
Intellibooth Communications of Long Island City,
Tricom Paytel of the Bronx,
and here's a strange one,
Dave Martin of the Bronx.
I'm not quite sure what that means,
but Dave Martin of the Bronx
is listed as a phone company.
Commodore Industries of Congers,
P. Contino and B. Sandies of Floral Park,
M.T.S.,
Mother Tower Street,
Incorporated of Brooklyn,
Telecor of New York,
based in Greenpoint,
and Telemerica Incorporated
of Plantation, Florida.
All I know is,
mine are supposed to be going
to New York Telephone,
and that's the way ours
are supposed to be programmed,
and that's the way
they are programmed currently,
said Alan Rothenstreich,
president of Telebooth,
which operates 1,400 pay funds
throughout the state.
Officials at the other companies
could not be reached for comment.
The violations were found
during an ongoing audit
of regulatory compliance
by independently owned
or leased pay funds.
Because this is a particularly
significant and important
development in terms
of emergency situations,
the commission felt
something had to be done
right away rather than wait
until later this year,
according to PSC spokesman
Ed Collins.
If the companies fail
to comply with the PSC's order,
Collins said,
the agency can sue the companies
in state Supreme Court.
So, that's the story
as far as that goes.
That story incidentally came
from Alan J. Wax of Newsday,
and I think it does quite a bit
to point out the problems
that a lot of us are having
with alternate pay funds.
You know, they could be
a really good thing.
They could be amazing.
They could provide services
that New York Telephone
does not provide
and just an alternative.
You know, it's always nice
to have an alternative way
of doing things.
Unfortunately, a lot of them
are abusing people.
There are some pay funds
that provide a good service.
For instance,
there's one downtown
where you can call anywhere
in the country for a minute
for something like 30 cents.
And that's a good deal.
You can't do that
on a regular pay phone.
But there are others
that charge huge amounts
of money for things
that aren't supposed
to be charged
huge amounts of money for.
I was at a pay phone
the other day
trying to make a 950 call,
which is the equivalent
of a toll-free call.
I was told I had to deposit
50 cents for this toll-free call
that there was no way
the pay phone
could have been charged for.
And hence, I was unable
to make the call
I wanted to make.
Another thing,
another thing,
and this was simply incredible,
but the gall of these people,
lots of times you'll see
that the companies have names
that are meant
to kind of fool you.
I remember once calling up
an operator service,
an alternate operator service,
and the name was actually
something like AT&D.
So they would pick up the phone
and say,
AT&D, can I help you?
And everybody, of course,
would think it was AT&T,
or it might have been AD&T.
I don't know.
It might have been AD&D
for all I know,
but most people were fooled
and thought that it was
a real operator
that could do real things
and wasn't going to charge
them outrageous amounts of money.
That kind of thing is,
well, I'd say commonplace.
They're always trying
to get you one way or the other.
Another company was known
as something to the effect
of the phone company.
So somebody getting
a collect call
from the phone company
would naturally think
it was a legitimate company,
and would maybe accept it.
The one I saw
the other day, though,
was most incredible.
This was somewhere in Queens.
We'll reveal the exact location,
otherwise there might be
a gangland shooting
of a payphone.
But the phone itself
had a little label on it,
and they're required
to have these labels
that tell you
various bits of information.
And one bit of information
is the phone number
for the Public Service Commission.
All right, the Public Service Commission
is the agency
that oversees these payphones.
And they have their phone number
displayed there.
You have to call them
to complain.
You have to tell them
exactly what you're
complaining about
when you find something like this.
They're not the most
technically adept people,
but they can help
once you get them
on your side.
So anyway,
the 800 number
for the PSC
was on there.
And then it said,
next to that,
who their long-distance
companies were.
And it said,
zero plus service
is provided by PSC.
And it got me.
I was completely tricked.
I looked at that,
and I said,
oh, wow,
the Public Service Commission
is providing
telephone service,
so this has to be legitimate.
And then I,
I hit myself
across the head
and said,
you fool.
Of course the PSC
isn't providing
phone service.
They're not a phone company.
They can't do that.
So I looked a little bit
more carefully,
and sure enough,
there was a phone company there
whose initials
happened to be
PSC.
And I thought,
that was the sleaziest trick
I've ever seen in my life,
actually trying to get people
to think that
the PSC
was responsible
for the long-distance calls
as well as
regulating the phones.
Oh yes,
maybe it was just
a coincidence,
but they didn't spell out
the name of the company
on that little notice.
They said PSC,
and it struck me
as being the
Public Service Commission.
It's the kind of thing
you have to watch out for.
The kind of thing
you always have to be
on guard for.
We'd like to hear
your stories.
We'd like to hear
your complaints.
Try out all these phones.
Let us know if you know
of good ones.
Let us know if you know
of bad ones.
We'll tackle this together.
You can write to us,
care of Off the Hook,
Emanuel Goldstein,
WBAI Radio,
505 8th Avenue,
New York, New York,
10018.
And now,
to get to the
main part
of the program
tonight,
we're going to be
taking a look
at a book
that has just come out,
just fairly recently,
a book called
Cyberpunk.
It's written by
Katie Hefner
and John Markoff
of the New York Times.
And I'll,
before we introduce them,
I think I'll just go over
this press release
that comes with the book
here to give everybody
kind of a background
information.
Cyberpunk.
When Cornell University
graduate student
Robert Morris
crippled one of the
country's most important
computer networks
in 1988,
the incident made
national headlines.
The Morris case
highlighted the
vulnerabilities of
the computer technology
that controls
many of modern society's
most important
and sensitive functions,
from national defense
to credit reporting
to stock market trading.
Yet,
according to a new book
by John Markoff,
who broke the Morris story
on the front page
of the New York Times
and former Business Week
technology reporter
Katie Hefner,
the Morris case
is just the American
public's first glimpse
into a growing
underground network
of high-technology
renegades
known as cyberpunks.
In Cyberpunk,
Outlaws and Hackers
on the Computer Frontier,
Hefner and Markoff
reveal who the cyberpunks
are,
the technological thrills
that motivate them,
and the serious threat
that they pose
in the age
of computer networks.
In the 1960s
and 1970s,
the authors write,
to be a computer hacker
was to wear
a badge of honor.
It signified
a dedication
to computers
that was construed
as fanatical
by outsiders,
but was a matter
of course
to the hackers themselves.
The inspiration
for this book
came when we began
to see a change
in the way computers
were being used.
We found harbingers
of cyberpunk,
young people
for whom computers
and computer networks
are an obsession,
and who have carried
their obsession
beyond what computer
professionals consider ethical
and lawmakers consider
acceptable.
The term cyberpunk,
the authors explain,
comes from a genre
of science fiction
writing that blends
high technology
with outlaw society.
In his first comprehensive
look at the world
of cyberpunk,
Hafner and Markoff
focus particularly
on three hackers,
each of whom
has perpetrated
an audacious
and potentially damaging
computer crime.
The first is Kevin Mitnick,
a dark side hacker
and a former phone freak
who succeeded
in breaking into
the top secret
software planning group
at Digital Equipment Corporation,
the second largest
U.S. computer manufacturer,
and he eventually
wound up in prison.
Mitnick,
like the other members
of his gang
of California hackers,
was a socially alienated
young man
who enjoyed the challenge
of trying to thwart
sophisticated electronic devices
purely for the pleasure of it.
Deck has managed
with considerable success
to limit felicity
about the incident.
Then there was Pengo.
He was a member
of a West German group
of hackers
who decided to try
to obtain military information
to sell to the Soviets
as a way of fulfilling
their outlaw fantasies.
They roamed
through military networks
worldwide,
easily obtaining classified,
although not top secret,
information.
Pengo and his group
were eventually caught
because of their
persistent attempts
at break-ins,
but neither the CIA
nor the FBI
initially thought
much of their activities,
despite the ominous implications.
When Pengo
and his fellow hackers
were brought to trial
in Germany,
their acquittal
demonstrated the difficulties
faced by police
and prosecutors
around the world
in pursuing
and prosecuting
serious computer crimes.
Finally,
Hafner and Markov
offer a psychologically
compelling,
in-depth profile
of Robert Morris,
as brilliant
as he was
irresponsible.
Morris inserted
a flawed computer program,
or virus,
or worm,
as some might say,
into the National
ARPANET
Computer Network,
linking the Pentagon,
defense contractors,
and research universities,
unintentionally shutting
the system down
for several days.
Ironically,
the software
Morris penetrated
had been written
in part by his father,
Robert Morris Sr.,
one of the country's
foremost experts
on computer security.
Like the Pengo case,
Morris's much-publicized trial
revealed the weaknesses
of the legal system
in detecting,
defining,
and prosecuting
computer crimes.
Even the government
attorneys who obtained
a felony conviction
against Morris
disagreed about
the damage he had done
and,
in an extraordinary
development,
offered no guidelines
or a request
to the judge
at his sentencing.
Given a suspended
sentence,
Morris is now working
as a computer programmer
at Harvard
and has appealed
his conviction.
Very different
in social and intellectual
background as well
as motivation
from a disaffected rebel
such as Kevin Mitnick,
Robert Morris represents
just one facet
of the evolving
computer underground
explored by Hafner
and Markov.
As the authors consider
the nature
of cyberpunk culture,
they investigate
when and why
the hacker ethos
changed from
one of benign
intellectual fascination
to one that
fostered criminal
behavior.
They examine
the preoccupation
of thousands
of young people,
nearly all of them
men,
with the hidden,
dangerous,
and seductive
alternative universe
of cyberspace
created by global
links between
powerful computers
and filled with
electronic demons.
They also ask
what should or can
be done about
the new breed
of computer outlaws.
A dispatch from
the frontiers of
technology,
cyberpunk is at
once an engrossing
adventure in an
unfamiliar new
world and a
definitive up-to-the-minute
account of an
emerging important
issue of public
concern.
That being the
press release for
the new book
Cyberpunk written
by Katie Hafner
and John Markov,
both of whom
hopefully are still
with us on the
telephone.
Are you folks
there?
Yes, we're here.
Okay, great.
Is there anything
in that press
release that you
take exception to
or is it all
pretty much accurate
in your view?
You take a tone,
but I think
factually it's
pretty much in
line with what
we wrote.
I think it tends
to embellish
things.
I think we wrote
something that was
a little bit more
closely to the
facts and didn't
speculate wildly in
any particular
direction.
I see.
Now, there's one
question I'd like to
ask at the offset.
In this press
release here,
they make
reference to
what computer
hackers are.
And the
description here
seems, I don't
know, it strikes
me as a bit
harsh.
Young people for
whom computers
and computer
networks are an
obsession.
They've carried
their obsession
beyond what
computer professionals
consider ethical
and lawmakers
consider acceptable.
And then on
the section
about Robert
Morris, you
have a definition
here of what
the early hackers
were.
The earliest
self-described
computer hackers,
those at MIT,
who abhorred
computer security
or anything else
that would inhibit
the sharing of
information and
free access to
computers, had it
in for Multics,
a particular kind
of operating system
from the start.
MIT hackers often
tried to bring the
system to its
knees, and
occasionally they
succeeded.
Now, these days
we hear a lot
about the honorable
use of the word
hacker.
What do you
define as the
honorable use
of that word?
Well, you know,
this is one of
these debates
that really
doesn't stop.
And the
earliest definitions
of the word
hacker were,
as we wrote
in the introduction,
something that
really was a
badge of honor,
and it was
the striving
toward excellent
programming and
going to all
lengths to
perfect a
computer program
and getting
as much time
on a computer
as one could,
you know,
back in the
days when
computers were
not all that
accessible to
everyone.
and obviously
now the
meaning of the
word has
evolved into
much more of
a pejorative
sense and
sort of this
dark side,
more sinister
sense, and
the question
is, can
anyone really
stop the
language from
evolving like
this?
And
unfortunately,
no, I guess
we can't.
The reason
I'm latching
on to this
here is
because I'm
looking at
the description
that you had
in there of
the earliest
self-described
computer hackers,
and I don't
see much of a
difference between
what they are
doing and what
the people today
are doing.
You say that
they were
against anything
that would
inhibit the
sharing of
information,
inhibit free
access to
computers,
and they
often brought
systems down
to their
knees.
That sounds
pretty ominous,
yet those were
the early
hackers.
Well, I
think that
there are
similarities.
There are
also important
differences.
In a lot
of ways,
some of the
kids today
who break
into systems
in an effort
to get access
to computer
time,
they're motivated
by the same
things that
motivated the
MIT programmers,
for example.
But there are
a couple things
that are
different.
One, the
MIT environment
was basically
one computer
used by a
very small
community.
So there
weren't laws
in the sense
of formal
things where
there was
justice to
be upheld
or to be
broken.
And two,
there wasn't
an international
network of
computers that
society in some
sense depended
on, and that
if it went
awry, like
when the phone
system crashes,
could do
tremendous harm
to a lot of
people.
So in a sense,
the stakes
are higher.
And also,
most of
this first
generation of
hackers were,
in fact,
almost all of
them were,
there was a
streak of
anarchism about
them, but
they were
people who
were really
scientifically
and technically
minded.
If you take
a look at
the computer
underground
culture today,
some of it
is like that,
and some of
it is just
full of people
who I would
put in the
category of
being vandals,
basically.
And, you
know, it's
hard to, you
have to go on
a case-by-case
basis, but
it's certainly
a different
situation.
Now, John
Markoff, as a
reporter for
the New York
Times, you
no longer use
the word hacker
in your articles,
is that correct?
Everything I
can to, well,
I mean, I
think I do
occasionally use
it in the
old sense.
I use it in
the traditional
sense.
If I mean
someone who
is a wonderful
program or a
good hardware
designer, I
will use the
word, but I
won't use it
to say a
hacker broke
into a
computer, which
is the
general.
Now, as of
I think basically
1983, when
the movie
War Games
came out,
that's sort
of the general
view of the
population at
large, is that
a hacker is
someone who
breaks into
computers for
whatever reason,
and I don't
use it in
that way.
Because I
guess I
basically buy
the, I'm
doing my
little bit to
try to save
the word,
although I
feel it's a
lost cause.
Let's take a
look at the
book specifically.
We have a
profile of
three different
kinds of, I'm
going to continue
using the word
hacker only because
I don't have any
better word to
use.
What was
involved between
the two of
you in talking
to all these
people, getting
all this
information, and
how much time
did it all
take?
Well, it
took a total
of about two
years of
research, and
about a year
of finishing up
the research and
then writing, and
it involved many,
many, many
interviews with
as many people
in the computer
underground, and
also people in
the law enforcement
community, and
people around the
periphery, we
just talked to
as many people
as we could in
order to really
get some insight
not only into
the world that
these people live
in, but also
what the people
who are kind
of flummoxed by
them and plagued
by them, what
they were going
through.
And these were
stories.
All three of
them are stories
with a beginning,
a middle, and
an end, and we
had to piece
those stories
together, and
that was quite
the challenge.
And the stories
are also
interrelated in
some ways.
Yeah, there
were coincidences
along the line.
For instance,
Kevin Mitnick
and Lenny
DeCicco, the
two in L.A.,
they happened
upon a piece
of software,
a patch to
the VMS
operating system
log-in-out
program that
had been written
by these guys
in Germany,
and they
just found
it lying
around on
the EZNet,
which is
DeC's internal
email network.
Kevin and
Lenny did,
and then they
used it for
what they
needed to do,
which was
break into
these DeC
computers.
And that was
quite a coincidence
and quite an
overlap between
the two sections.
And then there
were little
things, like a
lot of the
prosecutors were
working on
these cases
simultaneously,
coincidentally.
Why these
three?
Why Kevin Mitnick,
Pingo, and
Robert Morris?
Well, our
thinking was
that if we
wanted to
really give a
picture of
what's out
there, if we'd
taken any one
of these guys,
it probably
wouldn't have
told the whole
story.
But in
bringing out the
stories of all
three of them,
I think we
succeeded in
giving a pretty
well-rounded
picture.
Now, which
story must
have had a
beginning
someplace.
Where did
you see the
idea for the
book starting?
Which one of
these was the
beginning of it
all?
It probably
began with
the April
of 1988.
I wrote a
story in
April of
1988, which
was based
on essentially
a paper that
Cliff Stoll
was writing in
the Journal of
the Association
of Computing
Machinery.
It actually
leaked out
before, but it
detailed his
pursuit of a
group of West
Germans through
the Internet.
And that was
probably what got
us started.
And then there
were a series,
really there was
an upsurge of
activity and
police activity
that year that
continued on
through 1989
and even into
1990, just
a growing
concern of
was this a
real menace?
I did a lot of
reporting during
that time about
a series of
incidents which
led us into
the book.
I see.
Of the three
characters that
you take in-depth
profiles of, did
you speak to all
three of them?
No.
We spoke with
all but Kevin
Mitnick.
In fact, we
spoke with
absolutely everyone
in the book
except Kevin
Mitnick.
I was
responsible for
that bit of
reporting and
I wrote him
many, many
letters and
he didn't
reply and
basically at
the very end
wanted to
get paid
but I only
heard that
through his
grandmother and
I didn't
agree to that
and so I
know, unfortunately
I never did
talk to him
which I
consider to
be too
bad.
Why do you
suppose he
didn't want
to speak to
you?
Well, I
think in the
beginning it
was not long
after he had
been arrested.
He was
arrested in
December of
88 and I
think that he
was sort of
obviously not
feeling up to
talking to
people from
jail and one
can understand
that but then
he was taken
from a pretty
tightly secure
situation and
put into
Lompoc and
there it was
a much more
relaxed situation
and I
approached him
there and he
wouldn't talk to
me from there.
I think at
that point I
stopped understanding
why he wouldn't
talk to me.
As I was
gathering more
information and
kept telling him
that I was
gathering more
information in
my letters,
I thought he
would want to
tell his side
of the story
and to this
day I don't
quite understand
why he didn't
want to tell
his side of
the story.
Let's take a
quick look at
some of the
things that
Kevin was
involved in
according to
the book.
This is a
short piece
from part one
of it,
Kevin the
Dark Side
Hacker and
it details
a couple of
the people in
the gang
that he
hung out
with.
Whatever the
personality
differences in
the L.A.
gang, their
various talents
brought results.
Working together
they were able
to get the
numbers of
lost or
stolen telephone
credit cards
using highly
imaginative
methods.
For instance,
they would
divert card
holders' toll-free
calls to
report lost
cards to a
payphone of
their choosing
and answer
with,
Pacific Bell,
may I help
you?
Their vast
store of
knowledge came
from months
of diligent
research.
They obtained
manuals however
they could get
them and joined
as many company
tours as they
could, mostly
to familiarize
themselves with
building layouts.
The group
routinely got
credit information
from the computer
at TRW's
credit bureau.
Sometimes it
was a matter of
talking an
unsuspecting
employee out
of a password.
Sometimes the
job required
physical research,
such as a
late-night
excavation of
TRW's
dumpsters.
By
brainstorming
together,
the group
would be
inspired to
ever more
audacious
stunts.
On one
occasion,
Steve Rhodes
figured out a
way to
override
directory
assistance for
Providence,
Rhode Island,
so that when
people dialed for
information,
they got one
of the gang
instead.
Is that
person white
or black,
sir,
was the
favorite line.
You see,
we have
separate
directories.
Or,
yes,
that number
is 875-0-1-2.
Do you
know how
to
dial
the
half,
ma'am?
A few
months into
her infatuation
with Roscoe,
Susan Thunder,
one of the
hackers here,
noticed unhappily
that he was
spending less
time with
her.
Then someone
let her in
on the
reason.
She had
been deceived.
Roscoe,
it turned out,
was all but
engaged to
someone else,
a law
student as
prim and
straight in
her ways as
Susan was
errant in
hers.
The other
girlfriend
apparently provided
Roscoe's tie to
respectable society.
Susan despaired.
He had been
displaying affection
for Susan
when what he
really wanted
to do was
exploit her
eagerness to
hack.
When she
confronted him,
he just
laughed,
so she
tried a
veiled threat.
She told him
it was quite
likely that
FBI agents
would come
knocking on
her door
and she
would have
to talk
to them.
Roscoe feigned
puzzlement.
Susan refused
to believe that
he wasn't at
least torn
between the
two women.
Seizing upon
that possibility,
she suggested
that they go
to Las Vegas
and get married
at once.
He just
smiled and
said,
she had
been misled.
What Roscoe
had failed
to take
into account
was that
the person
he had
just crushed
was a woman
who had
been bruised
once too
often.
By rejecting
her so
heartlessly,
Roscoe was
inviting trouble.
He had yet
to experience
Susan's
dark side.
This sounds
very intriguing,
almost like
an afternoon
drama that
you would
see having
to do
with hackers.
Do you
find this
kind of
tales of
passion are
ripe in
the hacker
world?
I'm sorry,
tales of
passion what?
Well, I mean,
is this a
common thing?
You know,
we see
computer hackers,
we don't think
of all these
things going
on behind
the scenes.
this kind
of thing
was really
happening,
huh?
Oh, yeah.
Well, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
We didn't
make it up.
Yeah, but
I think
the Susan
Thunder
presence
in the
whole,
in the
Roscoe gang
in particular
and in the
hacker world
in general
is probably
an exception.
She's the
only female
hacker
in the
book,
in fact.
It's
interesting.
I noticed
that throughout
the book
real names
are given,
but in the
case of
Susan Thunder,
there was
never a real
name given.
Is there
a reason for
that?
Yeah,
there is.
And this
was difficult
to decide.
When I
interviewed her,
she asked
me if I
would keep
her name,
her real
name out of
it, her
true name.
I didn't
say anything
to her at
the time.
I didn't
make the
promise,
and then I
decided in
the end
that I
should respect
her privacy
and keep
her name
out of it.
She asked
me again
about a
year later.
She reminded
me that she
had made
that request
and asked
me if I
would honor
it, and I
said yes.
And the
reason I
decided to
do that,
although her
real name
has come
out many
times,
is that
when her
real name
has come
out in
the past,
no one
has ever
written that
she was
actually doing
things that I
describe in
the book,
such as taking
a lot of
drugs and
working at a
brothel, and
I decided that
in this case
her privacy
really should be
respected.
Was there
perhaps an
element of
fear of
crossing this
person?
Because she
does have a
tendency, and
we see it a
couple of
times in the
book, of
being rather
vindictive.
Well, no.
I mean, I
was never
worried about
that Susan
would ever do
anything to me
personally.
No, there
wasn't.
Did you feel
that way about
any of the
people in the
book?
Because they
are, as you
point out,
extremely powerful
individuals.
Yeah, I
think that one
thing I was a
little concerned
about is that
Kevin might
tamper with my
telephone system
somehow in the
beginning when I
was reporting it
because I had
heard so many
stories from
detectives and
cops, but
after a while
that fear
waned.
That's
interesting.
We're speaking
with Katie
Hafner and
John Markoff,
author of the
new book
Cyberpunk.
You mentioned
that your
fear of, or
just, I
concern over
what Kevin
Mitnick, the
dark side
hacker, could
do abated
with time.
I'd like to
ask you, what
specifically did
Kevin do?
What is, I
guess, the
worst thing that
he has done
and been proven
that he did?
A lot of what
I've read in
the book, you
get a feeling
of what he
could do, of
the fear of
not knowing what
he was capable
of, of the
tremendous power
that he had,
but as far as
what it was he
actually did, can
you put your
finger on that?
Do you mean,
when you ask
that, do you
mean, is it
what he did
personally to
others, or
what he did in
terms of
committing a
felony?
Well, we know
what the charge
is.
He was charged
with a particular
crime, but as
far as malicious
acts, can you
point to a
particular malicious
act?
Well, what's
in the book,
there's one
incident, for
instance, where
one of his
probation officers
from way back
discovered one
day that her
phone service
was out, and
she called the
phone company to
alert them to
this, and
they said to
her, no,
everything's just
fine, we don't
see anything wrong
with your phone,
and it took her
two weeks to
convince them
that, yes,
indeed, her
phone service
was out.
Now, that has
obviously, it has
never been proven
that that was
Kevin, and yet
there's kind of
this consensus
that it probably
was.
I think I
probably just
in the book
conjectured that
it was.
There's another,
there's another,
and again, you
know, I didn't
get Kevin's
reaction to this,
and there's
another incident
where, for
instance, his
friends say that
they witnessed
Kevin attach a
hospital's huge
monthly telephone
bill just to
someone, to the
bill of someone
he didn't like
that week, for
instance.
That's the sort
of thing.
And also, there's
the incident
involving the bank
and the press
release of the
quarterly earnings
loss, which,
again, was never
pinned on Kevin,
but circumstantially
someone, shortly
after Kevin was
denied a job
working as a
technical person
for this large
California bank,
someone sent out
a bogus press
release, which
would have cost the
bank an incredible
amount of money if
it had gotten out on
the wire and there
had been a run on
its stock.
But it was
never actually
It was never
proved it was
Kevin.
There's only the
coincidence of
events.
Do you see with
the story of
Kevin Mitnick,
in particular, a
certain kind of
paranoia as far as
the media and as
far as the
authorities react to
it?
They think this guy
can do anything
and they react.
I mean, he was
put in solitary
confinement for
eight months.
Do you think
such a thing is
justified?
Exactly.
The whole Kevin
story really points
out this
unjustified hysteria
on the part of
law enforcement
people.
He was not only
put in solitary
confinement and
maximum security,
but they kept him
away from a pay
phone because
someone managed
to convince the
judge.
They denied him
bail.
They kept him
away from a
pay phone because
someone managed
to convince the
judge that he
could trigger
World War III
from a push
button phone,
which was just
completely ridiculous.
And so Kevin
ended up paying
this ridiculous
price for it
for this hysteria
that everyone
else was drumming
up.
And that's
unfortunate.
But the fortunate
thing is that it
got cleared up.
And he did end
up getting a year
sentence and
probation, et cetera,
but the ultimate
sentence certainly
did not bear out
that initial
hysteria.
Uh-huh.
Do you see a
danger in that
kind of reaction?
Are computer
hackers going to
be looked upon as
the enemies of
society and
prosecuted as
such?
Well, they
already are.
When you talk to
some of these law
enforcement guys,
they see them as
a terrible threat.
Although, again, I
believe that that's
beginning to get
tempered.
And that's a
terrible danger,
is just to sort
of point to this
unknown enemy and
think that these
people can do what
they really can't
do.
Do you think
prison is ever the
answer for something
like this?
Well, you know,
the big question
there was the big
debate was in the
Robert Morris case.
There were many,
many letters sent
to the judge who
was sentencing
Robert.
This big debate
ensued over whether
Robert Morris,
who's one of our
future software
stars, you know,
should go to jail.
What good is that
going to do?
And he ended up
not going to jail,
much to his
family's relief
and his relief.
Let's talk about
Robert Morris for
a little while.
The section on
Robert Morris,
I feel it differs
from the other two
sections on
Mitnick and
Pingo, because
you seem to
really describe
Morris in
glowing terms.
Is that a fair
assessment?
I think we were
probably, what's
the word, I
don't know if
they're glowing
terms, but I
think that we
had a different
perspective on
Morris than we
did on either
Hans Huebner or
Kevin Mitnick.
I think what he
was trying to do
was, and his
activities were
were different than
either Pingo or
Mitnick didn't
have the same
streak of
maliciousness,
certainly, that
Kevin did, and he
wasn't attempting to
sell information to
a KGB agent like
Hans Huebner or
Pingo.
So, Robert did
something that was
remarkably stupid and
he paid a heavy price
for it, but I think we
ended up feeling a
little bit different
about him, that's
true.
Do you think any of
the people that you
described are inherently
bad people or do you
think they were just
perhaps misunderstood?
I don't think we're
close enough to Kevin
because he would never
talk to us, so it's
really hard to make a
final analysis.
I think we came away
with the feeling on
both Robert and
Pingo that they were
misunderstood and they
were basically good
folks, potentially.
The only trouble with
Pingo is he lacked a
certain moral reference
point, but just a
minor detail.
Well, Pingo has
always said that he has
no morals whatsoever.
At least I feel he's
being honest as far as
that goes.
He swings back and
forth.
He said that on
occasion and on
occasion he said
other things.
His internet posting
was a little bit more
contrite.
Now, why Pingo?
Why not Peter Karl or
Karl Koch or one of
the other German
hackers?
Why focus on Pingo?
I think it was
because Pingo was
really the...
in a lot of ways he
was the best story.
He was a kid who
really expressed what
we were trying to
capture in a way
better than anybody
because he was very
young when he was
taken with computers
and was totally
captivated by them.
They became his
life and he was
sucked into this
electronic world of
huge networks and
really lived in it
for years.
The others all, they
were in a way more
worldly and less
innocent.
Do you think such
cases, that case
involving rather a
botched attempt at
espionage, do you
think we'll be seeing
a lot more of that in
the future?
Well, since the
Cold War ended, we
probably won't see a
lot more of, I
mean, what we'll
probably see more of
now is industrial
espionage.
It's hard to gauge,
it's hard to judge how
much of it and what
form it'll take.
It seemed from reading
that particular section,
the one on Pingo, that
hackers just somehow
weren't very good at
being spies.
You mean the
hackers weren't good
at hacking as spies
or weren't good at
being sort of
clandestine?
Well, they seem to
be all right as far
as being clandestine,
but when it comes to
doing something for
somebody, something
specific, and this
is something I've
noticed with all the
hackers that I know,
when you're assigned a
particular task and
it's for a particular
purpose, suddenly the
direction seems to be
lost.
And when you're
just doing it on
your own, you can do
all kinds of
incredible things.
Huh.
Maybe, yeah.
I never really
thought of it that
way.
Yeah, once Sergei,
that's the KGB agent
in the Pingo section
whom the hackers
dealt with, once he
tried to wind these
guys up and direct
them in a certain
way, you're right,
they tended to bump
into walls rather than
get what they needed.
Well, it may have
also been the case
that Sergei was
asking for things
that were beyond
their easy technical
capabilities.
I mean, these things
were doable, but he
was asking for huge
software files that
were not readily
accessible, and in the
time frame and with
the modems they had,
I mean, a lot of the
things just weren't
doable.
Do you buy the
explanation that the
German hackers gave
that they were doing
this to further the
cause of peace, to
equal the power, the
power struggles?
Well, it was an
inventive line of
reasoning and defense,
but no, not for a
minute.
Uh-huh.
Do you think it was
money, or do you think
they were really, truly
on the side of the
Soviets?
I think there was a
fair amount of
cynicism and alienation,
and, you know, it
was an easy, it was a
comfortable
rationalization that
justified what they
wanted to do, and it
looked like it might
work out well
financially, too, for a
while.
It did work out well
financially, more or
less.
Yeah, they were
throwing, you know,
hundred-mark bills
around in hotel rooms
and thought they were
pretty great.
Uh-huh.
That just encouraged
them.
What was involved in
researching that
particular part of the
story?
Um, yeah.
You talked to people
from the KGB, by
chance?
Well, I actually did go
to East Germany, when
East Germany still
existed, to East
Berlin, and that was
kind of a scary little
trip, you know, because
I was sure that I was
being followed around
and photographed, and I
went to Leipziger
Strasse, which is this
street in East Berlin,
which is funny because I
go there a lot now, and
it just is another
street, but then it was
this really scary
adventure up into this,
uh, into this apartment
building, and I started
knocking on doors and
asking, uh, for this guy
Sergei, whose last name
happens to be Markov, no,
no relation, we hope, and,
um, you know, and these
nice guys with, uh, thick
Russian accents, uh, spoke
to me in German and said
they'd never heard of
this guy, Sergei Markov.
I know that one of the
offices I went to is, I
was having trouble placing
where these guys, the
hackers, had, had, had
gone to do their business,
uh, with Sergei, and I'm
sure that one of the
offices I went in fit the
description exactly, but
they professed to know
nothing, so I, you know,
I sort of did my bit to
find the KGB guys and
didn't, um, and then, uh,
it was a lot of, I spent
a lot of time, uh, in
Germany talking to
everyone possible, um,
about the case.
The trouble with this
case is that everybody
had a different story.
Uh, everybody said
something diametrically
opposed to what the
other guy had just
said, so, uh, um, but
they, uh, I think in the
end, it's the, probably
the most accurate account
you'll ever find.
Uh-huh.
Do you think, uh, the
sentence, the suspended
sentence that they got
was fair?
Probably in light of
changes in world
politics, um, it, I'm
not sure, um, it's a
difficult call because
these kids were really
cynical and, um, you
know, they weren't out,
uh, they, they weren't,
um, you know, let, let's
say we, um, adopt a
definition of sort of a
modern hacker where the
kids are simply
adventurers.
These kids became
something else than
adventurers.
And, um, uh, you
know, they could have
conceivably done real,
real damage.
I mean, they, they, many
of them were not in it
just for computing.
They were in it to, uh,
to, uh, sell information
to the East.
I don't, you know, it
depends on what you think
of that, whether that's a
good thing or not.
Uh-huh.
This, uh, of course,
isn't, um, meant to be
reflective of the Chaos
Computer Club, uh, because
the three, uh, or,
actually, there are many
more than that, uh, were
involved, uh, with Chaos.
Um, the group itself
wasn't, uh, wasn't the
one going around selling
secrets.
No, and that's a huge
misconception on the part
of the public.
The Chaos Computer Club is
a, is a, is a quite
benign club of computer
enthusiasts, really, in,
uh, in, uh, that's, uh,
in, based in Hamburg.
And they, uh, um, and the
Chaos is kind of an
unfortunate name because
of, because of what it
connotes, but, yeah, uh,
everyone in Germany, and
me, and here, immediately
associated all of this
with Chaos, but Chaos had
nothing to do with it.
Uh-huh.
Do you, um, know very
many hackers outside of
this book?
Have you, uh, have you
affiliated with, uh, the
hacker communities of, uh,
both Europe and, uh, the
United States very often
and, and if so, for how
long?
Which, how are we using
the word?
Okay, let's, uh, let's
use the word in the, um,
I guess in the, uh, the
modern-day sense, the, the
kids breaking into, uh, and
adults, too, breaking into,
uh, various computers.
I, I think we, between the
two of us, we've probably
known dozens of people who
would fall into that
category.
Um, do you, does that
seem like an accurate
description, Katie?
Yeah, it does, and, uh, I
meet new people every day.
I was doing a, a radio
interview today, and it
was a call-in show, and
three people who identified
themselves as hackers
called one after the
other.
Uh-huh.
And it was a very
interesting, uh, conversation
we had, and, uh.
How do, how do you, how do
you peg these people?
How do you figure them?
Where do they fit into
society, or do they at
all?
I don't know if it's, it's
possible to generalize.
I mean, I, you know, I've
seen some kids, um, who I've
met maybe, um, you know, I've
met them as long as five
years ago, go in very
different directions.
So you could say in one
case, this was a phase, this
was something he was
interested in.
Um, unfortunately, some
have gone in good
directions, and some have
gone in bad directions.
It's sort of, you know, not
possible to call.
I mean, I, I think that
this is a very fascinating
thing to do, and, uh, it's
probably for a, a bored kid
living in the suburbs, uh,
growing up with television,
and, uh, you know, high
school and all that.
This is probably a way out
in a lot of ways.
It's an escape from the
tedium of suburban
existence.
I, I would do the same
thing.
Well, have you ever hacked
yourself, or have you
ever wanted to?
Not on the radio.
Uh-huh.
I have never known we've
done anything illegal with
a computer and a network.
You know, I was sitting, uh,
very late one night in
Berlin with, uh, Pengo.
It was about midnight, and
we were really getting into
this discussion about what
he did, and he said,
you know, you've really
got to see this, and he
took me back to his
apartment, and he said,
and it was like we were
high or something, and, uh,
and he said, I just have,
we've got to do this.
It's as if he couldn't help
himself, and I couldn't help
myself all of a sudden, and,
uh, it was like two
unrestrained individuals, and
then suddenly we realized
that, uh, his modem wasn't
there.
He, it was at work, and I
felt like we were saved,
you know, by the scrub of
our necks, you know.
Well, what, what do you
think would have happened
had his modem been there?
Well, you know, we would
have, we, I probably would
have, who knows, I could
have gone over the edge and,
you know, hacked with Pengo,
and, uh, I, I didn't do it,
and I, you know, maybe right
before he logged in, you
know, I would have realized
that this was not a good
thing to do.
But, but you felt, you felt
the excitement, the fever of
hacking.
He sure, he infected me
with it, and, uh, I'm, I'm
awfully glad in retrospect
that, uh, you know, it
didn't happen.
You know, I've come to, to
be a little more skeptical
about a lot of the kids.
I mean, there's a, a wide,
um, range on, of
capabilities.
I mean, I know, um,
everybody from some of these
kids who make wild claims
about being able to get
into, you know, a variety of
systems all the way to the
computer scientists who
designed the systems.
And there, it's true,
there are some kids who
are very good, um, there's
some young people who are
very good and adept and
technically skilled, and
there are others who talk
a good line, but when you
really push them on what
their knowledge and
expertise is, it's limited.
Uh-huh.
As is anybody's, really, I
suppose, on, uh, on the
vast number of subjects.
Yeah, sure.
And I'm just, this is a
corrective to some of the
mythology that's around.
Uh-huh.
And that mythology, uh, is
really what, uh, seems to
be the most dangerous thing
of all.
People who think that, uh,
a kid with a computer can,
uh, can start World War
III.
Do you find that, when you
write your stories for the
Times, do you find that to
be, uh, a prevalent attitude
among the readers and among
the professionals?
I mean, I, you know, I
don't have much direct
contact with my readers
unless they call on the
telephone, and not that
many of them do, but with
the, in terms of the
editors, um, yeah, they
buy into a lot of, a lot
of that mythology.
Um, you know, I mean, I
think it's not, it's shaped
by things like war games.
Everybody's seen the
movie, movie war games, and
the kid almost did start
World War III, right?
And so, you know, that,
they, that sort of reality
blends with, with the
fantasy, and it becomes
part of the, part of the
culture, and it, that's,
you know, that's out there.
It's true.
What do you hope people
will, uh, will get out of
the book Cyberpunk after,
uh, especially those people
that aren't that familiar
with computer hackers and
with the, uh, high-tech
world after reading this?
What, what would you like
to see them get?
Well, we hope that people,
well, I, anyway, hope that
people walk away from the
book, um, enriched in a
way, um, informed in a, in
a way about, about what
this, what this generation
of kids is, is all about.
Uh, and also the tech, not a
lot of people shy away from
reading about computers
because it feels, they just
don't want to have to work
at it, and we hope that
it's, the book kind of goes
down like candy because it's
really, um, very easy to
read these stories.
They're really just stories,
and that's what it's all
about, is people.
Are there more stories out
there?
Oh, I'm sure.
Oh, yeah.
You know, what they say,
the good ones don't get
caught.
The best stories we'll
never know about.
Are, were, were there
other stories that you had,
uh, wanted to tell but, uh,
decided to either not tell
them now or save them for a
sequel or anything like
that?
I think we have a sequel.
We kicked around some other
cases, but, um, these were
the three that were most
compelling to us.
So, for some reason, three
seems to be a good number.
Uh-huh.
Now, the book was started a
couple of years ago.
Here it is, 1991.
Uh, do you think things have
changed in any way since you
started on this project?
Uh, yeah, the, well, there's
just, uh, the internet has,
uh, since we even, yeah, since
we handed in the manuscript
last September, the internet
has grown tremendously.
The computer network.
And also the public, um, the
public understanding of these
networks has really gone up.
And, you know, in terms of,
since we handed in the
manuscript, or about the time
we were handing in the
manuscript, there were these,
uh, the, uh, nationwide, uh,
arrests and searches related
to Operation Sun Devil.
And then the, you know, the
balancing, uh, the balancing
fact of, uh, the fact of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation,
which I think has done a
tremendous amount to sort of
opening a national debate
about this that sort of put a
rational spin on what was
sort of the new prohibition or
something.
Uh-huh.
Do you see, uh, do you see
the future as being, uh, positive,
uh, because of hackers or, uh, or
scary or anything like that?
Well, I, I mean, I think the
fact that they're out there
and they're, they're causing
people to think about these
things is, is basically
positive.
I mean, we're going to have to
deal with the fact that, uh,
these electronic, uh, networks
are increasingly spinning webs
around all of us and they're,
you know, determining a lot of
what goes on in our lives.
And we've got to come to
grips with that.
Um, and if the hackers can
help us do that, that's a plus.
We've been speaking with, uh,
Katie Hefner and John Markoff,
authors of the, uh, book
Cyberpunk, Outlaws and Hackers
on the Computer Frontier.
It's available from, uh, Simon
and Schuster.
And, uh, we want to wish you
the best of luck with it.
And, uh, thanks very much for
talking with us tonight.
Thanks, Emmanuel.
Thank you, Emmanuel.
And that's going to pretty much
do it for Off the Hook tonight.
As I can see, the, uh, people
from the Personal Computer Show
are already here.
So, uh, we'll sign off for this
week.
We won't be on next week.
But, we'll be back the week
after that with another edition
of, uh, telecommunications
and computers and hackers
and all the marvelous things
that are going on in cyberspace.
So, Emmanuel Goldstein,
have yourselves a good night.
See you in two weeks.
But, if you could, you would
for Nilly Bumpers
are best to speak for words
I hope that sound is good
for Nilly Bumpers
For Nilly Bumpers
New
Thank you.
Thank you.