An Interview With Craig Neidorf
Did you ever believe that you might actually go to prison for publishing the 911 article?
Yes, there was the possibility that I could go to prison because of the federal sentencing guidelines that applied to the charges. Furthermore, I was told by the prosecution that they would be asking for at least two years.
Were you prepared to go to jail?
Yes, especially when the plea bargain was offered. I was prepared to go to jail continuing to proclaim my innocence rather than plead to something I didn't do. I knew the possibility was there. But I guess I didn't really believe it could happen. I knew I was right. And I also, especially in light of the Morris trial, I didn't see how they could ever put someone like me away.
Most people would have gone for a plea bargain of some sort to avoid the ordeal and expense of a trial. But you didn't. Why?
Essentially, on the 26th of July the plea bargain was offered. Had it been offered back in February or March, maybe I would have gone for it back then. But [during the trial] their case was falling apart. And we knew it. They knew it. I think they knew we knew it. But I was prepared to risk it just because I knew our defense strategy. And there was one thing the government had done for me that was better than us trying to establish it ourselves: they had given me credibility. Their own witnesses had testified to the fact that had never broken into any systems and had been fully cooperative with them. Because of this, I felt that if I took the stand, and I probably was going to, they would believe what I had to say.
Were First Amendment issues ever raised at the trial?
They were mentioned in the opening arguments. But the trial never got to the point of debating the First Amendment. A few comments were made.
What is your opinion of the current "witch hunt" against hackers?
When I was raided, I was not physically abused, as I've heard a lot of other people were. The search warrants they had only allowed them to search one room in the entire fraternity house. Therefore, as long as I wasn't in that room there would be no reason to restrain me. That and the fact that 40 people were watching. But all this running into people's homes and carting off all of this extra equipment seems to be more of a persecution than a prosecution. And it looks like it'll continue for a while until they go that one extra step too far and somebody decides to do something about it.
What kind of a toll has this taken on your personal life?
Well, it wasn't easy. It's caused me to loose lot of credit hours in school, which ultimately is going to force me to put off law school for at least a full year. It sort of alienated me from a lot of people: some friends who didn't want to get involved and whose parents had made them refrain from having any kind of contact with me. It forced them to break off relations with my best friend [and Phrack co-publisher] although we're back in contact now that the trial is over. But more than that, it just had a great emotional toll on me. I couldn't concentrate on my remaining courses. Every day was something new and it was never good. I was traveling to either St. Louis or Chicago almost every weekend. I didn't have a summer this year and I never really got a break from it.
Has it gotten better?
Immediately after it ended there was a lot of press and people doing interviews with me. You get to be on a sort of high because of all the publicity and the excitement of the aftermath. But as time goes on I'm becoming old news, you might say. It's sort of a downer in that respect. I just have to go back and hit school with everything I've got. But the money situation has gotten pretty bad. I used to have a decent college fund, enough to get me through undergrad. Maybe kick me off into my first year of law school. No longer. I don't have a whole lot of savings after this.
Several media reports implied that your case would receive funding from the newly formed Electronic Frontier Foundation. Has this happened and to what degree? What kind of expenses are remaining?
When I read the first articles about the EFF, I was under the impression that this organization would see the constitutional issues and understand that I was not really financially able to fight this battle. It seemed that they would come through and would actually fund this court battle. As I later found out, it was not their intention to actually provide monetary funding to me. They had paid for court motions filed by their law firm on my behalf concerning the First Amendment. And I guess they got me some good press for a while.
How much are we talking about in terms of what you owe for legal expenses?
We still haven't received the final bill. I'm told that the bill actually reached over $200,000 but that the law firm had found ways to reduce $100,000 off the bill. My parents and I have paid $35,000 to the firm already and an additional $8,000 went to the first law firm we retained in St. Louis which, believe me, was not well spent money. I imagine that we have roughly $65,000 left to pay off.
What are the plans for Phrack?
I don't have any plans for Phrack, partially because of my studies, but mostly because I can't afford to risk the possibility of being prosecuted because of something that might appear in the newsletter. I just couldn't afford it, financially or emotionally.
What would you say to those people who think this means the government has won and has managed to shut down your magazine?
I'd say that's probably an accurate assessment.
Would you approve of another publication taking over the name of Phrack?
I'm totally against it. I've spoken with the individual responsible for putting out a magazine named Phrack that came out this summer. He's agreed not to release any more issues under the name of Phrack. Whether he holds to this, I don't know. My opinion is that Phrack was something special and it should just be left alone, rather than see someone else continue it and do a shoddy job.
How has this whole chain of events changed your outlook on the hacking world? Is it capable of banding together under adverse circumstances?
I found an extreme amount of support for me from the modem community and a lot of the Phrack subscribers. When I needed help trying to locate people or copies of documents, they were there for me. They were also able to stir up enough exposure about this so that the traditional media sources got involved. I'd say it could have been a very different ending without their help.
What about the media? Is there a way to make sure the facts are presented correctly?
This is not the first time I've seen stories that reporters have gotten completely screwed up. I think it's a fact of life. As people who aren't directly involved in a situation they're not going to be able to relate to it or even understand it in the first place. Then their editor may not be able to understand it. It's really unfortunate. I don't think any story you see printed in the paper really presents the facts accurately. It's like a house of mirrors in a carnival. The images have got all the same parts and colors as the shirt you're wearing. But they're out of proportion.
You've presented yourself as the publisher of a hacker magazine, not a hacker. How important was this distinction?
To the extent that the definition at the trial was that a hacker was a person who illegally broke into systems, then I did not fit under that definition. So it was a very important distinction.
Do you feel this was an accurate definition?
Considering that I believe that a hacker is just a person who has a deep interest in finding uses for computers and ways to use them and work with them, then I'd say that I'm just as much a hacker today as I ever was. But I don't do anything illegal.
Is there a message you'd like to give to all of the hackers out there?
Don't let this scare you too much. It wasn't pleasant by any means. It's not something you want to have happen to you. Natural curiosity existed long before the computer was invented. It's something that you just can't eradicate. One thing I've learned from this is that being cooperative helped me tremendously at the trial.
They asked me general questions and I didn't try to hide anything. But it's also possible that if they hadn't taken everything I said and manipulated it, perhaps there wouldn't have been enough to get me indicted in the first place. So I wouldn't say that it's necessarily all right to talk to these people if you have nothing to hide. I was tormented by things I had told them because of the way they interpreted it. It's not what you say, it's what they make out of it.
For anyone else who gets a visit, don't lie to these people. But don't talk to them either, no matter how innocent you are. Get an attorney. I don't know if it would have saved me any trouble but at least they can't really make anything out of that because that's just a reasonable thing to do.
To the hackers out there, I say fight for what you believe in. Obviously you don't want to jump in a situation and defend something you don't know enough about. You might be made to look foolish and you may find that you're wrong.
I was defending the right to information. And I nearly went to jail for it. I hope that more people are prepared to fight as I was. When you accept a plea bargain on something this new, you're setting a precedent that's going to affect people down the road. Especially here, where they're going after kids who don't have the financial resources to defend themselves. Technically, I don't either. Had I plea bargained something out or plead guilty to something because it was the only thing to do financially, it would have set a precedent that could have done a lot of damage to other people in the future.