Tune in to WBAI on Wednesday morning from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. for a Report to the Listener.
You'll get an update on completed projects, an explanation of future projects, and a report
on a recently held national board meeting.
And of course, we'll attempt to answer whatever questions you may have.
That's Report to the Listener, Wednesday morning from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Tune in.
You are here because you're interested in the unknown.
They are here.
If you want to know more, listen to UFO Desk.
Alternate Monday mornings, 1 a.m. inside of Sidney Smith's Carrier Wave.
We want you to understand the future because the future is where you'll spend the rest
of your life.
UFO Desk, your place for explorations into the unknown.
Come to us.
Alternate Monday mornings at 1 a.m. 99.5 on the FM.
Inside of Sidney Smith's Carrier Wave.
You have been chosen.
You are chosen.
We want you.
We are here.
The category is WBAI Overnight Schedule.
I'd like to buy a vowel.
They are on the air at 5 a.m.
Go.
Who are the Midnight Ravers?
That is incorrect.
Anyone else?
I know.
Fred Geerbo.
Wrong.
They are on the air at 5 a.m.
Next, is Carletta Joy Walker the answer?
That is not correct.
They are on the air at 5 a.m.
They.
Who is Chet Jackson?
No.
I know.
Creative Unity Collective.
Wrong.
Underground Railroad?
No.
The people you can hear at 5 a.m. on WBAI are...
That would have been my next guess.
Get up or stay up.
Just keep your radio on.
And it's 8 o'clock.
Time once again for the non-late night radio.
Yes, another edition of Off The Hook.
Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep. 
And a good evening to everybody.
The program is Off the Hook.
It's Emanuel Goldstein here with you on this Tuesday night,
as we are every Tuesday night at around this time.
And it's been a litigious couple of days.
Litigious couple of months, actually.
In fact, it's turning out to be full of litigation and lawsuits
and courtroom appearances and hearings and decisions.
Unfortunately, decisions that we don't ever seem to be making ourselves.
Boy, I went through some fun today.
Isaac, what's up?
You were deposed.
Yeah, well, don't say it like it's something bad, okay?
It doesn't necessarily have to be.
You were deposed.
It sounds like something that happens to a king that's not popular now.
Is the throne open now?
Well, the room's open now, but it's only open for a little while
because I have to go back tomorrow and finish being deposed.
It's a two-part deposal, apparently.
At least.
It might even be more than that.
Who knows?
Now, I told you it was going to be the most boring hours of your life.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It was not boring.
No, it wasn't.
I don't think it was boring for anybody.
Absolutely not.
Stories, stories.
Well, I'm not going to basically.
You can't go too deep into it.
Well, I can, actually.
I don't think there's anything secret.
I intend to have the transcripts released sooner than we are required to do.
As you recall, we have like a three-day period
where things are supposed to, I guess, be looked over for secrets.
I'm waiving that because I'm the person being deposed.
I'm saying, you know, just release the thing as is.
So I believe it will be released as early as tomorrow,
as soon as they can get it typed up and sent in.
It's interesting.
It really was.
I would be lying if I said it wasn't intimidating because it is.
You sit in the conference room and you're basically grilled
on the validity of your existence for a good six or seven hours,
and then you have to come back and do it again the next day.
But I'm not used to waking up that early in the morning to start with.
So no matter what, even if I was being awarded the key to the city,
it still would be a very stressful thing because I had to wake up at that ungodly hour.
And I don't know how people do it.
I do not understand it.
Packed into the subway cars like sardines, you know,
at the really early hour of the morning.
No wonder I was in such a foul mood.
Really.
I understand now.
Welcome to the city of New York.
I always venture out of my house around six or seven o'clock at night.
And that's when my day begins.
That's when I start to see things.
And it's a whole different feel.
You know, you have space on the highway.
You have space on the streets.
The subways are practically empty.
They're never completely empty.
You just kind of, you know, take up whatever space you want to take up.
And people give you space.
Nobody gives you anything in the rush hour in the morning.
I mean, I just could not believe it.
I was so incredibly—I was happy to get to the deposition.
I really was.
It was a relief.
The most space I had the whole day.
And it wasn't just the subways.
The streets, everything.
People just pushing and shoving.
I mean, I've never seen anything like it.
Welcome to New York morning.
You have to be crazy to live that life.
And for the kids out there.
The kids out there on the island in Westchester, New Jersey,
thinking of growing up and heading into the city
and becoming a commuter and living a businessman's life,
it's not worth it.
I don't care if you get $250,000 a year.
It's not worth it.
Don't do it.
Do whatever you have to to avoid it.
Well, $250,000 a year, you take your limo in.
Buy a farm.
Drive a bus out in the country or something.
Do anything.
But don't be part of that.
It shortens your lifespan.
It really does.
And it turns you into a different person.
I don't think it turned me into a different person
because I wanted to be myself for this deposition.
And I think I was.
I think I was.
I tried to be as honest as I know how to be.
I mean, I answer all the questions truthfully and honestly.
I don't think they always heard what they wanted to hear.
Who heard what they wanted to hear?
Well, the people on the other side.
The lawyers on the other side.
I mean, it was like...
You had your counsel there with you, though.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
You're supposed to.
And I really felt a lot more comfortable
just when I was given free reign to talk at length
about what I felt the answer to the question was.
I know that's not usually the way you do it.
Usually the way it works is the lawyer tells you
what to say and what not to say.
Well, you're supposed to keep it as short and simple
as you possibly can so they don't have much to go on.
Right.
Like, is your name X?
But you see, that's usually the way it works
when you're guilty of something.
When you're a criminal, you know,
when you're somebody who doesn't want to be caught.
You're not going to say the wonderful,
well, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to hide.
I wouldn't say that.
Okay.
That's Republican talk.
You seem to be pointing at it, though.
No, absolutely not.
But there are a lot of misconceptions in this case
that need to be addressed and need to be cleared up.
I think that's being kind.
Well, yeah, yeah.
There's many.
Quite a few.
Hundreds, dozens, thousands.
I don't know.
After the deposition, I went to federal court
and witnessed a hearing where basically it was
our lawyers against their lawyers and the judge.
And there were two issues.
Two issues, basically, depositions of various people,
including Michael Eisner,
who you may know from the Disney Corporation,
and extending the time that we have for this trial
because it is coming up
and all kinds of paperwork is being filed,
mountains of paperwork being filed
over the last couple of weeks.
And it's just a phenomenal task.
I've seen the lawyers at work,
and I do not envy these guys at all.
I have a profound new respect for the legal profession,
at least as is practiced by the good ones.
Unfortunately, those are the ones on our side.
I was looking at the other side.
I don't want to get nasty or anything like that,
but it was like looking into the face of evil.
Is that too harsh?
Yeah, you don't want to get nasty,
yet you're looking into the face of evil.
Okay, well...
No, I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here.
Oh, I see.
You know the film It's a Wonderful Life, right?
Yes.
What's the name of the evil guy?
The evil guy?
You know, the guy who owns the town,
everything like that.
Oh.
What's his name?
The one in the wheelchair, I forget what his name is.
I don't know if he's in a wheelchair.
Yeah, I guess he is in a wheelchair,
but the whole town is named after him.
Everything is named after him.
I honestly don't recall, and this is fairly embarrassing.
Yeah.
Someone help me out on the phone here.
212-209-2900.
Just call in with that piece of information if you have it.
All right?
Just the guy's name in It's a Wonderful Life,
because this is something that's really important
to the story that I know this.
Nobody?
Nobody knows?
That's sad.
None of our listeners,
they probably don't even know what I'm talking about.
It's a film, all right?
Yes.
It's a black and white film.
I'm seeing the character.
Here we go, here we go.
The phone's lighting up like crazy now.
Oh, okay.
Let's pick one at random.
Okay, what's the name?
Nate.
Who?
Potter.
Potter.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
BIA listeners are the most informative
of all the listeners, Mr. Potter.
Potter, okay.
That was somewhat embarrassing.
You can ask any question
and get an answer almost immediately.
It's having your own little information service.
Thank you.
Thank you again for that caller.
Yeah, so basically looking at the legal team
from the other side, you just think, Mr. Potter,
they look like that.
They look like those other,
and they're representing the MPAA.
Of course they look like that.
They have to look like that.
That's their requirement.
They would not hire someone
who looked like our legal team
because we look different.
I don't know.
We don't look ruthless.
Definitely, you look at the faces of our legal team,
and ruthlessness is not one of the words
that comes to mind,
and I think that might be a disadvantage in this case.
Well, I would imagine that if the tables were turned
and you were with the team for the MPAA
and they had your team,
they would look equally evil to you.
See, that's what I mean.
I cannot picture the MPAA having Martin Garbus.
I cannot picture that.
I just can't.
Well, yeah, that would be somewhat of a difficulty.
That would be a stretch.
Yeah.
I admit that.
I mean, it's like being met at the gates of hell
by Santa Claus.
It's an image that doesn't fit, you know?
Not that I'm equating anyone to Santa Claus
or hell or anything like that.
I'm just trying to make a point here
that there are certain faces that are just right for the case
and certain faces that are not right for the case,
and this is, you know, it's, I don't know.
Being in federal court was kind of interesting there,
especially when everyone's talking about you.
The whole thing is because, you know,
you just won't back down.
But in any event,
I think our team was chewed out quite a bit by the judge,
like almost nonstop, and I have to say,
you know, I've seen these guys at work,
and to see them be accused of not doing anything
is really, I think, pretty unfair,
and there was a little bit of criticism for the other side,
but I don't think nearly enough
because they've certainly done their share
of delaying things and making things difficult.
The end result of it all
is that we will be deposing Michael Eisner
for a limited amount of time.
One of the things that the judge dwelled upon,
which I thought,
I just don't think that he understood
the whole implication of the Jack Valente deposition.
He went on for a great amount of time
about how that was a complete waste
and how it just showed that we just want to waste time
and it didn't prove anything.
I think it proved a great deal.
If you looked in the New York Times,
I think about a week ago,
you'll see a very well-written, eloquent article
about Napster, RIAA, and the issues of piracy
written by a certain Jack Valente.
Now, either there are two Jack Valentes
or he doesn't remember anything he writes
after he writes it,
or a third possibility,
somebody else writes this stuff
and puts his name on it.
I think that's one of the things
that was proven by this deposition
is that this is not the same person.
They are not connected.
I think that's an important thing to prove.
The judge obviously does not feel that way
and that's one of the reasons why he was so hard on us
and why our legal team really had to fight
to get Michael Eisner.
Michael Eisner, of course, has also gone on record
as saying all kinds of things
against what we have done,
against the ECSS,
against all kinds of issues
without really dwelling on the facts all that much.
I think it would be a good opportunity
to really get to the heart of that matter.
Well, I saw Jack Valente on television earlier last week.
He was on a show called The View,
which is basically like 5-1 and kibitzing,
and he was talking about...
Someone thought it was going to be
about the whole legal issue here,
but it was instead about the ratings system,
and he seemed fairly coherent,
which was somewhat surprising.
I remember him speaking on that very subject,
the TV ratings system?
Right, movie ratings and TV ratings.
And I actually kind of liked what he was saying then
because I think he was kind of...
I'm not sure.
I think it was Jack Valente who was saying
that it was an imposition
to be mandatorily rating shows and things like that.
He wasn't saying that.
Okay, well, then it was somebody else.
But I don't know.
I just recall that he had somewhat of a strong view
and a well-presented view.
And there's another possibility, too, of course,
which I didn't want to present,
but that's that he knew all the answers
but just wasn't saying them.
That's something you may want to look at more closely.
Well, yeah.
That's something the federal court
might want to look at a little more closely.
But in any event,
I think it's very important to ask questions
of the people who have gone on record
as saying certain things are true
to find out how they know certain things are true
and just what exactly it is they believe
and how much of it is true.
So anyway, so we will be getting Michael Eisner
in, I guess, the next couple of weeks.
The other thing, the other ruling
that we wanted a decision on today,
well, we got a decision.
It wasn't the decision that we wanted
because in order to prepare this properly,
we really do need time for all the paperwork,
massive amounts of paperwork, just from me alone.
And that was not granted.
So the trial, I guess there's some good to that
from our point of view.
The trial is the day after H2K still,
definitely no question about it.
So I can look forward to all that then.
On the subject of H2K, obviously,
we're still planning it.
There should have been a new speaker release
and all kinds of other scheduling information
that was released by now, of course.
Since I'm the person that does that,
I've been kind of sidetracked.
I'm hoping to get to that by the end of the week,
and hopefully there won't be any more roadblocks
put up in the way of that.
So hopefully people will be patient.
Everything will take place.
We'll get it organized.
It'll be a little crazy,
but it's just the nature of things.
But you're still on schedule?
Yeah, yeah.
We'll get it done one way or another.
Just like the film is being worked on,
we have to get that finished by then.
It's a lot of pressure.
A lot of things have to be done by a certain date,
and we're working overtime to get them done.
And it's...
I don't know if fun is the right word.
No, this goes beyond fun.
This is just...
Time-consuming?
Well, yeah, obviously,
but it's a feeling that you get that just...
I don't know, you just have to finish.
You don't know why.
Well, you do sort of know why,
but you just are driven by powers
that you cannot understand.
All right, speaking of things
that we might not be able to understand,
of course, Kevin Mitnick
has been going through his share of troubles recently
with not being allowed to do all kinds of things
that you might expect people would be allowed to do
once they're out of prison.
And there was a hearing yesterday in Los Angeles
concerning Kevin's future
as far as being able to work at certain jobs,
being able to write certain things,
being able to speak in front of certain people,
do interviews, that kind of a thing.
Kevin joins us now from California.
Kevin, I take it the news was not especially good yesterday.
Yeah, hi, Emmanuel.
Looks like we're supporting a lot of lawyers
with our legal trials and tribulations, doesn't it?
Well, it certainly has become the bulk of my life,
and I'll tell you, it's a weird thing
because I was never in this particular world before.
It's weird being in the hallowed halls
watching people discuss legal strategies
and seeing judges and all kinds of people like that walking by.
It's not all negative, but it's kind of intimidating
when you realize that half the time these people are speaking,
they don't really get a full grasp
of what it is they're talking about.
You see rumors coming down without really that background.
Oh, I've experienced that myself even yesterday.
I'll update you just to give a background
for people that don't know.
Once I was released from federal custody on January 21st,
how I was supporting myself
because of the stringent conditions of my supervised release
is I was approached to write articles or columns,
to grant interviews, especially to foreign organizations,
and to participate as a speaker in conferences and symposiums.
And I received lots of offers to do different things
that really involved communicating
about computer-related subjects,
most especially computer or information security.
One of the conditions in my numerous lists
is that I can't act as an advisor or consultant
to any individual or group engaged in any computer-related activity.
So how the probation department construed that condition of release
is that if I even talk, if I speak about
or if I write about computer-related subjects,
that they're interpreting it to mean that I'm computer consulting,
and if they strictly follow the judge's order,
that I'm prohibited from doing so,
and they fail to exercise any discretion
that the court granted them
with respect to any of the conditions.
Because what the court wanted the probation department to do
is reasonably interpret the conditions and apply them.
So yesterday when I went to court,
I knew within the first minute that it was going to be a negative day
because the judge's opening remark was,
the court, I don't recall the exact words,
but it was something like,
the court had no doubt that we would be getting together with Mr. Mitnick again.
You know, kind of how I felt it was like labeling me
as some sort of troublemaker, if you will.
Excuse that beeping.
My phone is like timing up because the battery's going low.
But in any event, my attorney,
you know, the first, the other judge immediately went into,
well, what specific job are we speaking about?
And my attorney said, well, there's different, you know,
there's the freelance writing, there's this type of consulting,
but all the jobs entail communicative type employment
where I'm either communicating through speaking and writing,
that what I'm intending to do doesn't involve access or using a computer,
which is the only thing the court should be concerned about at this point.
And the judge goes, well, what specifically?
And then my attorney gave the court two examples,
one being Contentville, which is, you know,
Brill's content online site that's, I think, being launched this month,
where they wanted me to write a monthly column,
and also KFI Radio, they wanted to possibly employ me as a talk show radio host.
But those two examples, she turned to the government, to Chris Painter,
who, by the way, flew in from Washington, D.C.,
to especially appear as, you know, the prosecutor in the case,
which I thought was unusual that they would fly a prosecutor across the country,
you know, to be at a hearing on interpreting my conditions of supervised release.
But in any event, he was there,
and the judge asked him, well, did Mr. Minnick specifically submit any requests?
And the prosecutor answered no.
And I thought, you know, and I couldn't believe, well, first of all,
it was clear in our pleadings that we did submit specific requests,
and so it was quite apparent that the judge didn't read their pleadings.
And secondly, there was, I mean, how did we get into court?
I mean, the whole thing stemmed from the probation department sending a letter to me on April 12th
declining my participation in anything that indirectly or directly related to computers,
even if I speak or write about them.
And then that letter was a result of my numerous requests to do this type of employment.
So when the judge asked Painter or the prosecutor if Mr. Minnick made any specific requests,
he saw that as an open door, and he exploited it.
And what ended up happening is the court was given the impression,
I never made any specific requests.
So then the judge, you know, the judge basically said, well,
this is the probation officer's job to decide what type of employment I should be involved with
and that the probation department should, you know, evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.
And she basically threw the ball back to the probation office to decide, you know,
what type of employment I should engage in and refused to set any sort of guidelines on which
they should follow in interpreting and applying the conditions of supervised release.
And the most important point of the hearing was to set some sort of guidelines to the probation department
so they could reasonably interpret and apply them.
So now I'm kind of back to square one where now I have to submit any type of request back to the probation department,
let them evaluate it, and if they come back and say no, then I guess we have to file a motion and go back to court again.
But what's interesting to note is that the judge also said in the hearing that she will not be conducting
any more hearings involving me anymore, that she, you know, will refuse to, I guess, revisit this issue.
So in one breath she said that the court would review it if there was a disagreement in the future,
but on the other hand she wouldn't conduct a hearing.
So I was kind of left with the impression that, you know, that nothing was really accomplished
and that she threw the ball back into the probation department's hands.
But I think the probation department received a message that if the court really didn't want me to do any of this type of stuff,
she could have clearly said so, and she didn't say that.
So the only positive thing is that she didn't say no.
She basically didn't say yes, she didn't say no, but she left it in their hands.
But I'm kind of pessimistic in a sense because I don't really have any degree of trust, you know,
at this point that they'll exercise their discretion reasonably,
and I'll find out in short order because my attorney and I are going to work on resubmitting the same request
that I've already submitted before, you know, that Painter said were never submitted,
and let them evaluate it and see what happens.
And it just seems like this is just an ongoing process,
and I was really hoping that I would have got an answer one way or the other of what I can do
because then I can see this dragging on for a longer period of time.
So that was basically it in a nutshell.
Oh, the one other important thing was regarding travel, and get this, Emmanuel,
one of the obviously if you're participating at speaking conferences or symposiums,
you know, you obviously have to travel because most of them occur in New York, D.C., or San Francisco.
And we asked that the judge, you know, inform the probation department that, you know,
I should reasonably be able to travel, you know, to be able to participate.
And the judge, you know, basically said, well, we couldn't find this defendant for years.
So because we couldn't find this defendant, I'm not going to order the probation department to allow him to travel.
So, you know, I couldn't understand the logic.
You know, I still don't understand the logic of that because whether I reside in Los Angeles
or whether I'm given permission to travel to, say, New York to do a speaking conference,
does that mean that because I'm just in Los Angeles that if I chose to abscond that I couldn't abscond?
I mean, there's an airport in L.A. just like there's one in New York.
So it didn't make any sense because, number one, there would be no reason for me to abscond,
and number two, no matter where you are in the United States, you can still abscond.
Yeah, I mean, that doesn't make no sense at all because you're on a successful speaking engagement.
You're appearing on talk shows.
Yeah, that's a good time to start running away.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
It's really obvious where he'll be.
Yeah, they'll know where you are.
It was like if somebody's on bail, then yeah, okay.
You know, then you maybe won't want to let them travel because there might be a risk that they might split.
It's a flight risk.
And that is how they're treating you.
They're treating you as if you're still in jail or, you know, out on bail.
But, I mean, it's unbelievable because, like, one of the offers that's been on the table
and Stephen Brill actually retained Floyd Abrams to submit an amicus curiae brief,
friend of the court brief, I mean, that was one of the offers that was mentioned explicitly to Judge Felzer
about just writing a monthly column, and she just refused to say okay.
But she didn't say no either.
She didn't say no either, which left it back into the probation department's hands.
And they've already demonstrated that they cannot exercise reasonable discretion unless yesterday's hearing,
you know, changed their point of view because they think they know that if these requests get submitted again
and they're unreasonably denied that we're going to be back in court again and the judge is going to get angry.
And I just have some hope that they might not use the, oh, you can't act as an advisor or consultant, you know,
in that if you act as an advisor or consultant, you can't speak or write about computer technology.
If they fall back on that again, then we will be back in court.
But hopefully they won't do that.
Hopefully they'll, you know, take a reasonable approach.
We have to try and crawl into that mentality for a second here.
I mean, here you are.
You're offered a really good writing job with Brill's content.
You're offered a show on KFI, which I happen to think is one of the best stations in the world,
and for you to actually do a show there where I think would be absolutely unbelievable.
What is it that they see as bad about those things?
You're using your knowledge in a positive way.
You're not getting into trouble.
You're making a living.
You're putting yourself back on your own two feet.
Could that be what it is they don't want to see?
Well, I think it's something different.
Well, first of all, what I'm trying to accomplish is, of course, support myself
and help the community by offering my knowledge, background, and experience
and not using it for any type of illicit or negative purposes.
And what I think it really has to do with is my notoriety.
Don't forget the government is responsible for my notoriety because they really hyped up the case
to make me the poster boy for computer hacking.
So I think any type of job offer that's connected with my notoriety as a computer hacker,
that they're trying to find any reason whatsoever to preclude me from engaging in that type of employment
because they don't like the idea that my notoriety will somehow play into an employment offer.
But doesn't that go beyond what supervised release is supposed to be about?
Oh, absolutely.
The law is, and of course they haven't been following the law in my case, as you well know.
The law is that they're only supposed to impose conditions of supervised release
that are reasonably necessary to protect the public or promote my rehabilitation.
So one has to ask, how does prohibiting me from speaking or writing about computer-related technology
protect the public, or how does it promote my rehabilitation?
And the prosecutor's answer to this is, if I'm exposed to computer subject matter,
which means maybe even reading Byte magazine, that I somehow might be tempted to go into computer hacking again.
And that's the argument that they've been, the mantra they've been saying over and over.
And I think it's absurd.
Whereas keeping you at a minimum wage job at Burger King is going to be the road to success.
And in fact, what really led into what is a big factor in my computer hacking,
which I think is a big factor in a lot of people that do this, is their boredom plays a big part in it.
And you're bored and it gives the excitement and the thrill, and you're not bored anymore.
So I'm wondering, are they trying to put me in a position where I'm bored again?
And that's not to say because I would not go back into hacking,
but it's like, are they trying to put me in the same mindset for some reason?
Well, I mean, do you think that they have something to gain by people failing while they're on supervised release?
Is that the way the system works?
Well, I know they don't want you to be happy on supervised release.
And when you're on supervised release, it's not for punitive purposes like probation or parole.
And they're not supposed to punish you.
But it's really clear in my case that I think a lot of what they're doing with me is punishment
and not what is reasonably necessary to protect the public or to promote rehabilitation.
And I think a lot of it has to be like a cover your ass type of thing.
They're concerned that they don't want any egg on their face if they give me permission to do something,
and somehow something goes wrong and there's a lot of public scrutiny.
They don't want to have to explain to their superiors what happened.
So I think it's easier for them to say no than to reasonably exercise the discretion to allow me to succeed.
Kevin, what was the last date that you can remember that you were not under some kind of federal control?
That would be probably in early December 1988.
Unbelievable.
I mean, it just goes on and on and on.
And what's interesting is there was this Hart-Redmond Commission that is, I guess, under the Department of Defense,
and this commission is looking at the national security of the United States for the next 25 years.
So I was contacted by this commission because they would like to speak with me, I guess,
about getting my viewpoint or my ideas on issues relating to information security.
And they would like me either to fly to Washington or they would like to come out to California to meet with me.
And this is a government agency.
So here I have the federal government wanting me to assist in some way,
and yet I have another branch of the federal government trying to prevent me from speaking
or writing about computer-related topics to support myself.
And, of course, you also testified earlier.
Yeah, before the U.S. Senate.
Right, and there was no problem with doing that, and you were very helpful to them.
So you would think that they would take that into consideration, but they don't.
No, yeah, it's on one hand, help us, but on the other hand, we're going to screw you.
And it just doesn't make any sense.
I can understand them not wanting me to use a computer with a modem or any sort of network connection,
and because of the probably computer literacy, I think it could even be stretched
where they don't want me to use a computer because they feel that there's some risk.
But to suggest that merely being subject to computer matter like books, magazines,
or speaking, talking about the subject or writing about the subject, I think defies logic.
And I spend a lot of time trying to figure out the logic behind it, but I have to give up.
It's like the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
They don't operate with any logic, and I think I'm learning that some other parts of the federal government don't either.
Well, I mean, the logic behind your entire case is just as insane as far as I'm concerned.
That didn't make sense either, so why should this make any more sense?
I don't know, but the only thing I could hope is maybe they'll look at things more carefully.
And I think they have a clear message from the court is that the court wasn't prohibiting it.
And let's see what happens.
I'll know this week pretty much.
I'll be submitting the request by the end of the week, and hopefully I'll know within a week what their position is,
and then I can update you.
But again, I don't have much hope because of my experience with this whole system.
And it's funny because the probation department and the judge says that I should be treated like every other defendant,
but in this case I've been treated completely different than anybody else.
That's certainly true.
I find it interesting that Chris Painter flew in for this.
It reminds me of the Bernie S. trial, the Bernie S. Trials and Tribulations,
where a Secret Service agent came all the way from, I believe, D.C. just to tell the judge that this person was a real threat.
And, of course, that makes a big difference when someone, a heavy hitter like that, shows up.
Well, I mean, it's everybody's taxpayer dollars out there that went probably into the flight and into the hotel and into everything.
And I don't think it was really necessary for him to come out when they have a whole office of U.S. attorneys in Los Angeles.
But I thought it was quite unusual for the deputy chief of the computer crime intellectual property section
to fly out to Los Angeles to contest this issue.
So I thought it was just strange.
Very interesting.
Kevin Mitnick, thanks for letting us know.
You want to stick around? We're going to be taking some phone calls.
Oh, sure. Okay, Manny.
212-209-2900 is our phone number.
We're talking with Kevin Mitnick about the latest court decision there.
And, of course, we have our own trials and tribulations going on here with our court case.
It's unbelievable. Unbelievable.
We have no time to talk about anything fun, you know.
It's all legal matters now.
It's horrible.
Don't let this happen to you kids.
I don't know how to prevent it these days, though,
with all kinds of bad legislation coming down the road and all kinds of changing mentalities.
Oh, well.
Hey, Manny.
Sorry?
Well, there's another thing that not only is the probation department, you know,
are we having an issue with them,
but now the Federal Communications Commission is trying to, I guess,
refuse to renew my amateur radio license.
Yeah. What is happening with that?
Well, I have an attorney who's been kind enough to assist me.
And we sent them a copy of my conditions of supervised release
and a letter from my probation officer, you know,
wherein he has no objection to me using my ham radio equipment.
But, you know, for some unknown reason, the FCC would like a piece of me now,
and I've never violated any FCC rules and regulations with respect to amateur radio.
And now the FCC chief enforcement officer, this guy Riley Hollingsworth,
is, I guess, trying to refer, or he is going to refer my renewal application
to the hearing and investigation section of the FCC to determine whether or not my,
that I'm qualified to be an amateur radio operator.
So it just seems, you know, like anywhere, anybody that can screw me, they're screwing me.
How about your driver's license? Is that safe?
I don't know. The DMV hasn't contacted me yet.
Unbelievable.
But, I mean, what does my FCC ham license have to do with this computer case?
You know, it just boggles my mind.
What I suspect is that there are maybe people on the ham radio world that, you know,
are your enemy or something like that. They're exerting some pressure. Does that make sense?
Yeah, I guess people can write letters that want to stir up some, you know,
stir up some controversy and get a kick out of it.
But for them to really take a serious position on it, you know,
because I know for a fact that there's several amateur radio operators
that have been convicted of a felony, and that alone, I don't believe, you know,
determines your qualification to retain your license.
Unless the felony conviction had something to do with amateur radio
or transmitting without a license. So who knows?
Well, it'd be good to find out some similar cases, felons that have ham radio licenses,
people who broadcast from prisons. I don't know if there are any of those.
But certainly it's something that they don't – I've never heard of a case like this
where someone unsupervised released.
You know, it's like everybody, because of my notoriety,
it seems like everybody wants a piece of me.
Yeah, yeah.
And it's like nonstop litigation.
The only positive thing about this, Emanuel, is by the time I'm done with this,
I'll probably be able to take the bar and become an attorney.
Well, you certainly gained a lot of knowledge.
You certainly gained a lot of knowledge over the past few years.
Few years?
Yeah, many years.
And, you know, I think you speak more intelligently about legal issues
than many people I heard today speaking of legal issues.
Well, if they'll do it, you know, maybe they'll substitute me in as the judge.
Well, we can dream.
You'll be guaranteed a win.
Yeah, we can fantasize and dream, but I don't know.
Let's take some phone calls. 212-209-2900.
Good evening. You're on off the hook.
Speak up, please.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes.
This is Daniel Barrymore, who had the properly evil face for Mr. Potter.
Wonderful.
The name of the actor, too. Great.
Right, life.
And I don't quite know, I feel, with everything else that's on him,
a little indelicate about bringing this up,
but maybe if he could think about it off the air,
could we have just, there must be many listeners who sympathize with me on this,
but if Mr. Mitnick could have for himself a rule that there be no more than, say,
eight you-knows in any one sentence, would that be asking too much, really?
I mean it.
He's from California. They all speak that way out there.
I forgot. Okay, next call. Thank you.
Well, you know, it's good to have callers that really pick on the issues, you know,
the important things.
Do I really say you know that much?
No, no, just kidding.
From now on, how about that?
Well, I don't mind any constructive criticism.
It can be constructive, I suppose.
At least you don't do the like thing. That's really irritating.
Like you know.
Yeah, that's the tag team of doom kind of thing.
I really hope he got more out of it than just that, though. I really do.
But the funny thing is, he's not alone.
When I visited with Michael Wallace at MDC in Los Angeles,
he said, there's one thing I'm going to do, Kevin, I'm going to rid you of you-know.
Well, it didn't work, did it?
No, it didn't do his job.
Yeah, well, it's not the first time for old Mike there.
All right, 2-2-2-0-9-2-9-100. Let's go over here.
Good evening. You're on the air.
Oh, good evening. How are you, gentlemen?
All right.
Good, good.
Well, I tell you, brother, meaning Kevin,
first of all, I want to thank you for what a good show that you do here.
I am reasonably computer literate,
but there are justice issues going into this next millennium
all about the kinds of things or things that are happening to Kevin,
the things that are happening to the station.
But I do want to say to Kevin, really,
the burr that's in your side is that you were better than the system
and that you did something that embarrassed the system
because here are all these people who were supposed to be so brilliant
and you made it look so easy.
And, of course, so now they've riveted in, you see,
and they're saying, well, for the rest of his life,
I'm going to make him regret it.
It's not a question of justice or fairness.
Don't even lose yourselves in those notions.
What you need to do right now, brother,
is reach into yourself to remain resilient.
Do not let your back be broken.
And if that circumstance will change,
you have to get over those kinds of things.
And this is advice that I give to people
who I know have been targeted in many, many instances.
I mean, they did the same thing that Daniel Ellsberg,
ruined a perfectly honest man's life.
What you may have done may have been the equivalent of tampering,
but the main thing that you did was you embarrassed people
who, quite frankly, in their own human hubris,
thought that they were impervious to the very thing that you did
and made it simple.
Therefore, hey, public enemy number one.
The world doesn't think this way about you, brother.
And don't you think that way about yourself.
What you need to do is preserve yourself,
reach in for the resilience, and be discreet.
These people come and go.
You know you live in an age of fascism.
We've been trying to get everybody to see it as minorities.
We've been trying to get people to see it as renegades.
Now you see it's spewing out, and all this fascism,
the age of Ronald Reagan, all those people ran to the polls.
Oh, he was a wonderful man.
Everybody kept saying, you don't know what you're getting into.
Now they're mapping genes
and they're going to do all these goofy things as well.
So reach in and protect yourself.
You have a lot of support,
but you're going to have to go through these machinations
because you've embarrassed people, like I say,
whose human hubris was off the chart.
And then here comes a veritable unknown,
and for all their grand sophistication, there's embarrassment.
Somebody paid the price on the inside for what you did,
and now they're going to try to make you pay it on the outside,
making you like you're the grand bells above of civilization.
Give me a break.
You're no Milosevic,
and they're giving Milosevic millions of dollars.
Don't you see what's going on here?
The little persons always get picked on.
You're easy, you're fair game.
They'll give it to Pinochet.
They'll give it to anybody in the world.
You have to look at them in the big picture.
It's easy to focus on someone like you and make you the great ogre
so that they might overlook the ones that really do the damage to civilization,
the ones that steal liberty,
the ones that know nothing of justice.
So reach in there and hold on to that resilience, brother.
Get focused internally and just keep cool.
Keep your thoughts to yourself.
Monitor what you say because what you say is monitored.
You'll be all right, brother.
You'll come up from this,
and you'll be a stronger person for it because you have support,
and everybody has the inner essence to be resilient.
God bless you, man.
I'll be praying for you.
Thank you.
God bless you too.
Very kind of you.
Hang in there, brother.
We love you.
Thank you.
Wow.
I sure hope I have that person in the courtroom in July.
That was beautiful.
212-209-2900.
Let's go over here.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi.
This is one of the more Byzantine stories.
I'm not a real computer person,
but I'm paying very close attention to it for a lot of the reasons that the last caller mentioned.
I think it would be a good idea to read some Franz Kafka
because he was very prophetic in this realm of this experimental theocracy that we live in.
He was a lawyer at an accident insurance firm,
and he said that lawyers were the people who lived on the sawdust that's been chewed by a thousand mouths.
That was his way of saying it.
That's a good way of saying it.
Yeah.
But this is a phase we're going to go through because people are at blind ends.
They don't understand that a culture is different than a civilization,
and you can't put culture at the service of slavery.
Anyway, carry on.
All right.
Thanks for that quote.
Emanuel, as a side note, Katie Hafner, when I was in custody,
sent me a copy of The Trial by Franz Kafka.
Oh, well, she always has a good sense of humor.
It's a good story, though.
It really is.
A story that's becoming more and more true as the years roll by.
All right.
Let's see if we can continue with these good calls here.
We've got some really interesting listeners out there.
Let's go over here.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yes.
Good evening, Emanuel.
Hello, Kevin.
How are you doing?
Hi.
Deeply.
How are you?
Good.
How are you?
I'm hanging in there.
I have a quick question for you, Kevin.
What's going to happen to you after your three years of supervised release?
Are you planning on going back into the computer field?
Hopefully.
That's what I plan to do now unless circumstances change
where I find another career that I like better.
But once my supervised release is up in January of 2003,
then I'll be free to do anything that I choose to do.
Well, by that time, you might qualify for a manager at Burger King.
Or at Arby's.
Wait, he can't work at Burger King now because all the machines are computerized?
Well, they seem to think he can.
Didn't they suggest it, Kevin?
Yeah, they said if I wanted to go get a position in the fast food restaurant,
they'd allow me to work with the computer there.
So that's nice.
It's not logical that here I can't speak or write about computer technology,
but I could work directly with the equipment if I were to go get a position at Arby's.
Actually, Kevin, it's perfectly logical because that shows where they're coming from.
That shows what they want you to be miserable.
That's what it says.
That's what I think it is.
Again, I think it's punitive, but I'm going to work my way through it.
I have two years and seven months left.
If I had the finances right now, I would just go to school
and get more rounded out in different areas that I'd like to explore
and then go forward in 2003.
But right now I'm very interested in obtaining a gainful employment.
And then I have these obstacles.
I can understand that.
The government can be like that.
They're very powerful.
The message I'm really getting at this point is they're so powerful that they do what they want to do
and you can sit there and fight them,
but you're not going to get anywhere unless you have the finances to really hire the legal team necessary to challenge it.
Because if you're indigent and you're trying to go against the federal government,
the U.S. Attorney's Office, you're basically outnumbered and outmatched.
Are you expecting any harassment from the government once your three-year supervised release is over?
I don't anticipate any harassment, but I do anticipate that I'll be closely watched,
even to the point of probably illegally intercepting my telephone calls.
But I don't believe that they don't have any jurisdiction anymore to enforce any conditions that I'm under now.
Well, that job at that KFI radio station, as for supervised release, why can't you take a supervised job?
Well, if I'm talking about technology and what they were interested in doing is employing me as a talk radio show host
to talk about the Internet and topics related to the Internet,
and right now, at least before yesterday's hearing,
they were under the impression that if I speak about computer technology,
that it's prohibited because that's computer consulting.
They're afraid you're going to consult the masses, huh?
Yeah.
So, again, I really don't understand the logic.
I understand their argument that they're simply strictly enforcing the words that are on the judgment and commitment order.
And the words are actually that I'm not allowed to act as an advisor or consultant to anyone who uses a computer,
which would mean if you were going to ask me my opinion on how you should change the oil in your car,
that that would be violating that condition of release if you read it that broadly.
And really, they're reading it...
Someone can't even ask you how to format a floppy disk.
Exactly.
Or, well, you know, what word processor should I use?
All right, all right, all right. Let's get off that track right now.
We don't want to get in a conversation where we regret.
No talk about word processors, no talk about floppies.
Well, one of the questions one of the media guys asked me at a press conference after the hearing is,
why should you be able to work doing this type of stuff?
Because, you know, would we pay a bank embezzler to work in a bank?
And I didn't think fast on my feet, but my answer should have been, well,
should the bank embezzler be prohibited from using money?
Because that's what...
That's a good analogy.
That's an extremely good analogy.
Yeah, but I didn't think fast enough on my feet until after he asked the question.
But that's really the analogy in how different media organizations are approaching this.
Oh, it's like the bank robber wants to work in the bank.
Hey, thanks for the call. We're going to move on.
Well, thank you very much, Emmanuel. Kevin, God bless you, man.
You take care. Thanks for the support.
Thank you. Bye-bye.
Okay, let's move over here. I have a feeling this is a long-distance call.
Good evening. You're on the air.
Go ahead.
Okay, it's long-distance from Mars.
It's a very long-delay long-distance call.
Yeah, all right. How about this one here?
Good evening. You're on the air.
Hello?
Hello?
Go ahead.
Hey, I'm calling from Massachusetts up here.
Massachusetts.
I'm listening on shortwave. I'm going to turn the radio down right now,
but I would like to say that I am a ham radio operator, have been for a while,
and my license is coming up for renewal,
and the FCC might just get a letter explaining why I would not want to renew.
Uh-huh.
I mean, it's a free and public thing to, you know, be a ham radio operator.
I don't see why they have reason to deny.
Well, don't, you know, don't cut off.
What's that expression?
Don't cut off your nose to spike your face.
Yeah.
I forgot how it goes.
Don't cut off your nose to spike your face.
Yeah, there you go.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've been told that many times.
Yeah, because my case is an anomaly.
I mean, it's obviously I'm being treated differently than anybody else,
and I wouldn't want anybody to, you know, give up their amateur radio ticket,
you know, just because they don't believe what the FCC is doing is proper.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've done something along those lines.
And I appreciate the thought there, but, I mean, you know,
obviously you worked hard to take your test,
and I don't really think that, you know,
it's probably going to be a clerk that's paid at the FCC that's really going to
shrug their shoulders and just, you know, when you care, it's not going to go anywhere.
You're not going to hurt them any.
You're just going to be hurting yourself.
I'm sure there is a feedback line, though, where you can leave your opinions,
and I think if enough people do that, that might make a difference.
It might get to the right people.
I mean, there are a lot of amateurs out there.
We have a pretty good-sized lobby.
Well, I recently joined the ARRL.
Yeah, there you go.
I recently joined them.
Somebody recommended that I join them immediately because if it does go to a hearing,
since I'm now an ARRL member,
they should come to my assistance.
That's a good idea.
Definitely.
Well, guys, I've been following the various cases closely,
and, you know, good luck to all of you.
We're glad people like you are out there.
Yeah.
And 73.
Yes.
Oh, and I'd just like to give out Rebel's e-mail address.
Please.
We've had that boring enough.
Have a good night.
Take it easy.
All right.
You know, this is the Rebel one.
That's definitely the Rebel one.
All right, that's not the Rebel one.
Let's go over here.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
I recently joined the ARRL.
All right, that's delay.
That's our delay.
We don't need to hear ourselves twice.
I'll just take the Rebel one now.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi, yes.
Good evening, Emanuel and Kevin.
Hi.
Just a very, very brief word of encouragement.
I'll move on.
If history or precedent is any guide,
I'd like to tell you to take heart.
As soon as your term of supervision is over,
I think if history is not to occur,
you will probably luck out in that you might find a position
as a security consultant, a la John Draper, as he found, Captain Crunch,
advising corporations as to how they can make their impervious firewall.
No, that's exactly what my lawyers were trying to present to the court
that I can do now is by not using computers directly,
that I could work in the capacity of helping companies
in their security preparedness programs
and helping them protect themselves against any type of cyber intrusions.
And that's one of the employment,
several employment opportunities came up where I'd work in advisory capacity.
So that was one thing that my attorney was trying to get court approval,
but she left it in the hands of the probation department.
I think you shall find that will be the case if you still want that.
Just, if you can hold out until then, I think you'll succeed.
Good luck.
Hey, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the call.
I'm sure John Draper would like to talk to you about that, Kevin,
as far as the way things.
I mean, he's going to be at H2K.
We've talked to him many times, and he always has good advice on people.
Now, in light of what the judge said about my travel,
I don't anticipate that the probation department is going to let me travel anywhere.
Yeah.
So that's a really unfortunate thing.
It is.
It definitely is.
But, well, we'll have you there in some form.
That's the question about that.
Okay.
We're pretty much out of time.
I want to thank everybody for calling.
I had some really good calls tonight.
And I've got to say, you know, being locked up in depositions in court all day long
and, you know, kind of a brutal environment where you felt constantly under fire,
it's really good to look forward to talking to people like we have tonight
and just hear some sympathetic voices out there.
It means a lot knowing people are there and just keeping up to date on the case.
And I hope you feel the same way, Kevin, because you have a lot of friends out there.
Yeah, I really appreciate the support,
and I wish to thank everybody for their kind words.
And it really does something for me.
It really gives me a little bit more energy to carry on the fight.
And just as you said earlier in the program, it reminded me of that Tom Petty song,
you know, I'll stand my ground and I won't back down.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right, Kevin, thanks for joining us.
Best of luck.
We'll keep people updated as to the progress and what happens in the future.
Okay, and good luck in your depot tomorrow.
Yeah, yeah, I'm looking forward to Part 2.
I'll let people know how it goes next week.
Check the website, www.2600.com, for the latest as far as the case goes
and transcripts and things like that.
Email us, oth2600.com, if you have any questions or comments.
This is Manuel Goldstein saying good night.
Isaac, say good night.
Good night.
See you next week.
I hope that's understood, but let me know.