In a time when the country is concerned with electronic privacy and safe commerce on the Internet, we caught up with infamous cybercriminal Agent Steal to get the real lowdown.

An Interview With Agent Steal

By Julie Jamison

KARK TV, NBC

Successful adult site Webmaster, Hollywood night club promoter, concert sound engineer, musician and technology fanatic, Justin Petersen is many different things to many different people. But if there is such a thing as a professional computer hacker, Justin would be quintessential. As an information and electronic surveillance specialist for a Los Angeles private investigation firm, his expertise with computer networks gave his employer access to information well beyond the norm.

As a dedicated computer hacker for 15 years, Justin's adventures eventually captured newspaper headlines numerous times and made mention in four best seller books. More recently, a Miramax movie was completed in which Justin's character appears. His 15 minutes of fame began when his reputation and proclivity for hi-tech scams caught the attention of the FBI in 1991. Hunted, then arrested, he was indicted for several rather spectacular computer related crimes.

As luck would have it, the FBI was in need of an undercover hacker bounty hunter. In a relationship that lasted two years, Agent Steal, as he is known among fellow hackers, netted the Bureau mountains of data on hacking techniques and ultimately busted the nation's most infamous hacker, Kevin Mitnick. Unfortunately, Justin's all expense paid probe of cyberspace eventually turned sour and he was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. I caught up with Mr. Steal shortly after his release, finding him very up to date on technology's dark side and filled with tales of woe.

1. JJ: Welcome back to society. Was 2+ years in a federal prison enough to lose touch?

JP: Prison is a strange environment. The psychological effects creep up on you very slowly. I don't think 2 years was enough to make me neurotic, but I can say it has changed me. I spent a good deal of time studying technology, playing drums in the prison band program, and trying to keep abreast of what was going on outside in the real world. I'm feel more informed than ever. So I would say the change in total is for the better. I am probably more motivated now.

2. JJ: In 1996, what is the crime du jour?

JP: Still drugs, some bank robbery, but various white collar crimes are on the rise. Over 60% of federal prisoners are serving sentences for non-violent drug related crimes.

3. JJ: Did you meet any hi-tech criminals?

JP: Yes, quite a few. Mostly sophisticated credit card and check writing operations. I also met some cellular fraud cases and a few other hackers. Kevin Mitnick and I did time together for a while.

4. JJ: That was the hacker the FBI paid you to track down. The story of his capture was on the cover of several popular magazines. Wasn't that a rather odd conversation?

JP: Quite. He was obviously very guarded about what he would say to me even though we spoke on a number of occasions through the A/C vents, as he was on another floor. We are both on the same side of the fence now, having been screwed by the government.

5. JJ: Why do you feel Mitnick was screwed by the government?

JP: Kevin is a victim of circumstance. Yes, he is guilty, but he doesn't deserve the 8+ years that Assistant United States Attorney, David Schindler is pushing for. He is being used by Schindler to gain media attention, to appear tough on crime. It's the same ole same ole. If you have your mind set on a career in politics, you can't be soft on crime. It's a sad reflection of the public's view towards criminals.

6. JJ: Schindler was the prosecutor on your case.

JP: Yes he was. He was my control in the Mitnick investigation for two years.

7. JJ: What was that like?

JP: The legal phrase passive negligence" comes to mind and I can think of other people involved in the case who share my opinion. He was very indecisive about the direction the investigation should go. There was also too little control of my activities. I was essentially free to do as I pleased with the computers and equipment provided by the FBI. Fortunately for them, I behaved myself. Around that time, Pacific Bell had offered me a job as a security consultant and Schindler had the audacity to tell me not to take it. He felt it was fine if I ran amok for the government, but not for anyone else. Furthermore, I'm certain Mitnick would never have become a fugitive if they had used even a little technical discretion in their investigation. Their arrogance in failing to believe that Mitnick was watching them watch him was to me, comical. He knew when they were coming for him and unsurprisingly went underground. It finally took a friend of a friend of mine, Tsutomu Shimomura, to track him down. Everyone probably remembers when that story made major headlines.

But in all fairness, Schindler is a good prosecutor. It was simply an odd situation. Dealing with hi-tech crime and hackers was uncharted territory.

9. JJ: What kind of arrangement did you have with the FBI and what was the nature of your work?

JP: To this day I am still trying to figure out the real purpose of my recruitment. First they rented me a nice, furnished apartment in a very corporate undercover manner. Then they gave me two computers, two phone lines, a cellular phone, and a salary. From there I simply started gathering data. An agent or two would stop by every other day or so and I would give them a report. They would in turn fill out a report called a "302". At one point, I was flown to a hacker convention in St. Louis to gather more information.

I felt the Bureau was only interested in two things: Compiling data on hacking techniques and keeping their eyes open for potentially dangerous hackers. Well, during the course of the two-year investigation, the only hacker who caught their attention happened to be thumbing his nose at them. That was Kevin Mitnick and you see where he is now.

10 JJ: How do you feel about the FBI now?

JP: When I first started working with them I had a somewhat pro-government attitude. But then again I led a sheltered life. I buried my head in Hollywood and the music scene. I really didn't want to know what was going on in the world. Since my experience with the Bureau, my whole outlook has changed. I no longer view the FBI as an entity. I see it as a group of individuals all trying to further their own personal goals. Their intentions for the most part are good; they simply lack focus. At least until someone collectively pisses them off. At any rate I was naive.

11: JJ: Why did the Feds pick you as their undercover poster boy?

JP: Perhaps I have an honest face. Seriously, this is speculation but I believe my bosses' ex-partner at the P.I. firm I worked for had something to do with it. He was the former head of the FBI's L.A. field office. Maybe it was just the right timing. During this period, the Bureau was in the midst of a project to analyze and profile the hacker threat. All of the information I compiled and all of the hacking methods I taught them were eventually reviewed by the FBI's Computer Crime Task Force out of Washington, D.C.

12. JJ: What is it like inside of a prison these days?

JP: Keep in mind that the differences between state and federal prisons are night and day. There are six different levels of security classifications in the Feds and prisons are rated accordingly. You are rated on your past and present behavior. I was a low or Level 2 and was placed in prison with a like designation among other inmates with similar ratings. The environment was very non-violent and predatorial inmates were uncommon. Any unacceptable behavior on my part would have resulted in a visit to the hole and possibly a transfer to a higher level of security prison. All in all, prison sucks; it's overcrowded, the food is bland, and I was often bored, but I wouldn't say it was a nightmare. Probably the worst aspect of prison life is being forced to live with such an uneducated and unintelligent class of people. I found it rare that I wanted to relate to many inmates.

13. JJ: Did many inmates know you were a computer hacker?

JP: Yes, after a while, word had spread. Hackers in prison are rather uncommon, although I can see that changing in the near future. I would often get asked questions related to computer matters. There was another hacker by the name of Lamprecht, Minor Threat was his moniker, who was my best friend. We spent a good deal of our time in the prison library and quite a few people knew who we were. My nickname in prison was Einstein. This came about from my ability to modify the Walkman radios that were sold at the prison store. When some of the foreign prisoners learned my special radios could pick up Japan and South America, I became someone to know.

14. JJ: How did the other inmates act towards you?

JP: That really varied. It depended largely on what they had heard about me or if they knew me personally. Once someone got to know me they would treat me well. Aside from being a little pretentious I am amiable enough. Give me a beer or two and I can be down right charming. But seriously, there were occasions where someone would hear that I had worked with the FBI. If they didn't know me ahead of time they would simply avoid or not talk around me. It was a rather strange situation. You see about 70% of the prison population has cooperated with the authorities during the adjudication of their case. But everyone in prison runs around complaining about how much they hate snitches. It really was quite funny. The brothers (blacks) have a saying, getting down first, meaning it's best to be the first one to cooperate, you generally get a better deal.

It didn't use to be this way in prison. Slowly over the years the level of acceptance towards cooperating has changed. This would be with the exception of the ultra-high security prisons. Those boys take doing their time very seriously. If you're not down then you better PC up. (Go into protective custody.) This relaxed attitude towards cooperating is being brought about by the length of the new law sentences. In many cases cooperating means 8 to 10 years versus 20 to 30. You come to realize you are going to spend the better part of your life in jail and you wonder if you can get down first.

I was fortunate in that I was able to get around ratting on my friends. I am very loyal to certain people. However, there were some less deserving souls. Their demise was of little concern to me.. Regardless, knowing what I know now about the criminal justice system, I can say I regret working with the FBI. At the time, with my upbringing, it seemed like the right thing to do. I have family in law enforcement and military intelligence. And how could I pass up the opportunity to gain all of the knowledge, to see how the other side worked? Well, I know now.

15. JJ: Do you think the government's tough on crime stance is being effective? What is the talk in the prisons?

JP: America has a big problem on its hands. Do you realize that over 1% of our population is currently serving a criminal justice sentence and that number is growing steadily? I'm not even sure where to begin answering this question. The most significant issue is that Awe the people are slowly losing our constitutional rights. I'm going to spare you the political analysis and just relate the facts as I see them.

Let's start with the criminal conspiracy laws. Suppose you and I discuss for example, importing 2 kilo of heroin from Amsterdam. Then I later made a reservation on Air Holland. With just those two facts we can both be found guilty. Our sentence would be in the neighborhood of 5 years. If you cooperated and agreed to testify against me, your sentence may be reduced by half, maybe less.

Next issue: If you are walking down the street and pass a police officer, he can stop and question you. This is assuming he can find even the remotest probable cause. No problem, but now since you are in close proximity to him, he can pat you down for his safety, to make sure you are unarmed. If he finds anything illegal, he can arrest you.

Drunk driving is now defined as a crime of violence under the 3 strikes law. Yes, you can get life, excuse me, must get life in prison for 3 drunk driving convictions. That is if the prosecutor decided to charge you under the 3 strikes provision, not the judge, the prosecutor.

In federal law there is now a complex set of guidelines that dictate the length of your sentence. In most cases, the judges have very little latitude in deciding the length of your sentence. This was enacted to alleviate the disparity in similar cases. The courts were giving different sentences for the same crime under similar circumstances. Unfortunately, this fix has a side effect. Federal prosecutors now have a great deal of power in locking in a sentence. The is done a numbers of ways: By choosing which type of charge to file; by overlooking or not submitting certain mitigating or aggravating offense characteristics; and by making, or failing to make motions for upward or downward departures at the final sentencing hearing. The complexity and power of the new sentencing law has created problems for attorneys. Thus, law firms specializing in the new law have sprung up. I should mention a number of circuit courts refused to accept the guidelines as constitutional. The Supreme Court had to step in and affirm their legality.

Do you think career hungry federal prosecutors should have the discretion to determine someone's sentence? That is exactly what is happening. My favorite is when a prosecutor charges someone who is guilty of fraud or theft with money laundering. That statute was written with drug dealers in mind. Prosecutors use this trick simply because the guidelines dictate a longer sentence. A good example would be the Lamprecht case. This small time computer hacker received a 6 year sentence simply because the prosecutor didn't like him.

My last issue concerns the weight of evidence used in determining sentences. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard no longer applies once you have been found guilty. At this point, almost anything can be used against you including illegally seized evidence. Let me point out that in drug cases, your sentence is determined by the amount of drugs involved. For example, if you get arrested selling a half of a kilo of cocaine, your sentence would be around 4 years. However, if a reliable informant tells the court you sold him 10 kilos last week, your sentence will be around 13 years. Keep in mind federal inmates only receive 15% off for good time these days. This insane provision of sentencing law is referred to as relevant conduct. Anyone with a reasonable indicia of reliability can provide information to the court and it will be used in determining your sentence. This also applies in fraud and theft cases as your sentence is determined by the amount of loss or attempted loss.

These are just a few examples of our criminal justice system run amok. Give me some research time and I could fill a book.

16. JJ: Wouldn't you say these provisions of law are only being used in extreme cases?

JP: I would like to say all of this power to incarcerate people with little culpability for great lengths of time is only being used on occasion. But it's not. There are literally tens of thousands of people in prison for 10 to 30 years whom were either in the wrong place at the wrong time, associated with the wrong people, or only involved with a small amount of drugs. The problem is the court system, especially the prosecutors, have little regard for how guilty you are. Their only goal is to put as many people as they can, away for as long as possible. I don't understand it and I know it sounds crazy, but it's happening. And these are the primary reasons so many people are incarcerated.

Drugs are illegal because they destroy lives. Well so does imprisoning someone. In terms of the severity of traumatic experiences, incarceration is one of the worst. I've seen more lives torn apart due to imprisonment than I care to remember.

17. JJ: Have you seen any of the effects of the push for harsher prison conditions?

JP: Yes, some of the perks were taken away during the time I was serving my sentence. Anyone who doesn't believe that prison is a harsh environment simply hasn't been to one. Prison is no longer a place for rehabilitation or self-education. It serves little purpose other than to punish. The main thing I see is everyone who has a brush with the criminal justice system feels it isn't working. Obviously it serves as a deterrent, but most prisoners leave prison filled with disgust, anger, and resentment.

I'm not sure what all of this means or if there is even an elegant solution. Like I said earlier, I'm not going to offer an opinion and I've tried to keep my comments as factual as possible. So I return to my first statement. America has a big problem on its hands. I really wish there were something we could do. There are a lot of really good people in prison who do not deserve to be there.

18. JJ: Did many inmates try to coax you into committing crimes with them?

JP: My favorite was "Hey if you could fix my credit limit to like a million dollars I'll split it with you". I would laugh. Obviously, if I could do that I would fix mine to $10 million and I wouldn't have to split it with anyone.

19. JJ: Is that possible?

JP: Think about the ramifications if it was. TRW's credibility would be ruined and whoever could do it would be worth an unthinkable amount of money. No, I do not think it is possible without some inside help. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably lying. The credit reporting agencies have spent a great deal of money securing their systems. I know a number of hackers, including myself, who have tested them and I'm not talking about merely pulling someone's credit report, I'm talking about altering reports. I should clarify that fixing bad credit, or placing a bad mark on someone's credit report is entirely different. Those types of actions are possible and usually are done without a computer.

20. JJ: Do you think the FBI is equipped to deal with hi-tech crime?

JP: As individual agents with standard Bureau resources, no, they are not. But as an interdepartmental inter-field office agency they are. The problem is they rarely group their resources together efficiently. Only when a case of national media attention comes around do they pull the stops out so to speak. Otherwise, too many egos involved I suppose.

21. JJ: So does this mean that Americans should expect an upcoming hi-tech crime wave?

JP: The truth about hi-tech crime is this: There are very few people out there who have the savvy and inclination to pull off the big scores. The number is really too insignificant for most of us to concern ourselves with. The problems start when hi-tech scams trickle down to the masses. We have seen this with cellphone encoding, credit card magnetic strip re-encoding, and the telephone calling card black market. These types of crimes can be thwarted. It's simply a matter of when it becomes cost effective to do so. At any rate, it's detectable and any responsible company should see the problem building. As far as the consumers goes, it's a moot issue. Take credit card fraud for example, you are only responsible for the first $50 of loss. It can be a major inconvenience and in the long run, it costs us all a little something. But aside from a few obvious precautions, there is little one can do to protect one's self. The vast majority of credit related frauds are committed by sophisticated operations.

22. JJ: What is the next hi-tech crime trend?

JP: I'd be hard pressed to come up with something unheard of. Most of the hot topics will continue, like computerized check writing fraud. This is where a large company's payroll check is counterfeited on a laser printer using the banking industry's magnetic ink. I can see currency counterfeiting continuing for a while as well. On the decline I would say cell phone cloning should be tapering off. The cell phone companies are finally installing some top notch detection equipment and locking out the bandits. The new PCS should also be fairly secure, at least in the immediate future.

23. JJ: How closely is the government watching the Internet?

JP: There is no question there are a lot of agencies watching the Net. The government has a long history of illegal mass interception of public communications. And I want to stress I'm not just some anti-government, militia associated kook who is spouting off. Their propensity for snooping is well documented, and those in the know simply accept it as fact. The point I'm trying to make is the public has no reason not to believe the government is scooping up and filtering Internet traffic for specific content. In fact the nature of the architecture of the Net makes this a relatively simple task. Undetectable as well. Yes, big brother is watching.

24. JJ: What types of Internet related crimes do you see occurring in the future?

 JP: Big question. Crime is going to be on the Net just like anything else. I think the biggest problems are going to be the scams, flim-flams, pyramid schemes, etc. The public's concern for credit card commerce over the Net is overblown. Fear sells and uniformed people buy it. Sure, hackers are all over the Net and it's relatively simple to packet sniff or snoop on data conversations on the Net. But it's really not the most efficient way to scoop up credit card numbers. I'd be more concerned with the integrity of the employees or the database at the company I was doing business with. Getting credit card numbers is really not that difficult and I doubt that will be changing much in the near future. I could produce 50,000 by tomorrow. The problem is using them to generate a substantial amount of cash or merchandise.

25. JJ: How hard will it be to crack the new smart credit cards or the e-cash system?

JP: Conceptually they appear secure as do most public key encryption schemes. But I would be willing to bet that someone will find a hardware/firmware weakness. It's just a matter of time. It will be interesting to see how the banking industry reacts to the first breach.

26. JJ: The press has reported you were a professional wiretapper in the employ of a discrete private investigation firm.

JP: You mean my co-defendants reported it to the press. Yes, well I was just trying to make a living like anyone else.

27. JJ: Everyone else doesn't tap phones for a living. What would you say the most interesting conversation you ever heard was?

JP: 99.9% of all telephone conversations are mundane, and as a general rule I did not listen to our clients tape. Not even when I was paid to tap one of Heidi's Fliess' girls. I live in a strange town; I've grown numb to it.

28. JJ: How easy is it to physically tap a telephone?

JP: Easy. Any resourceful and somewhat technical person can do it. Some phone lines are less accessible than others and thus, it might take someone with considerable experience to get the job done. There are logistical problems in tapping the phone of a physically inaccessible location. So having access to phone company cable pair data is always a plus. Armed with that information, it is then possible to tap the line at one of those green boxes you see on street corners.

29. JJ: What about tapping the new digital phone lines?

JP: Tapping an ISDN line is essentially the same as tapping an analog one. It just requires some more expensive interception equipment.

30. JJ: How easy is it to tap a data line?

JP: That can be very tricky and there are not many people who have this skill. Obviously the governments have their experts, but publicly available documentation on the subject is rare. What makes it so difficult is the wide range of speeds, protocols and manufacturer specific systems in use. Unless you know what you are up against, determining the transmission environment requires experience.

On top of all that, you have compression, QAM, emulations, packetization and multiplexing. If you are concerned with secure communications, I wouldn't worry too much about your local modem-to-modem connection.

31. JJ: What should the average business person be concerned with as far as computer security?

JP: Internal personal and physical security. I would be concerned that someone would discretely break into my office in the middle of the night, copy my hard drive, my paper files, and then try to find any passwords to the mainframe written down somewhere in my desk. And I would be concerned that this someone was a fellow employee.

32. JJ: What about hackers?

JP: Well there are enough of them out there whom are good enough for us to be concerned about. You have to protect yourself, but in a cost effective manner. Computer users should be aware that most of the time, hackers leave tell-tale signs of their break-ins. For example, failed log in attempts and a change in the pattern of system use will be evident. Once you know they have gotten in, you can lock them out, hopefully before they've done any damage. Logging and monitoring systems work well for this and should be considered essential.

33. JJ: Tell me about hackers and the underground.

JP: This is a subject that would fill several books. Let me shatter a few myths first:

Myth #1: Anyone who can hack into a secure computer system must be a genius. Nonsense. Most hackers are of average or above average intelligence.

Myth #2: Hackers are nerds or

Myth #3: Hackers are really hip these days. Stereotypes don't apply anymore. The truth is hackers come from all walks of life and styles. Anyone who can type and read can become a hacker. How to manuals are accessible all over the Net.

Myth #4: Hackers usually get probation when they get caught. Not so anymore. The government's tough on crime stance has trickled down to the hackers as well.

Myth #5: A really good hacker would be a good candidate for a computer security job. Sorry, most hackers have a very narrow understanding of the computer security field. To use an analogy, a burglar doesn't necessarily know how to design and engineer electronic alarm systems.

Myth #6: There are thousands of accomplished hackers out there who could bring this country's networks to its knees. Guess again. Our networks are not as vulnerable to attack as some would have us believe. However, given motive, financing, and direction, a small group of hackers could create a national disaster of significant proportions. I estimate that there are about 25 to 100 hackers of that caliber. Fortunately, most hackers are good people. Let's hope they never find a cause.

34. JJ: Are many hackers profit motivated like yourself?

JP: I didn't start out that way. I grew up as a regular hacker, never damaging a system. I just wanted to learn. Then I grew up and realized that by merely looking around in someone's system, I was gaining something of immense value: knowledge and information. I was stealing. Most hackers have quit or decided to quit once they fully understand the ramifications of their actions. I continued. But to answer your question, yes, most are profit motivated. They just rationalize themselves into thinking what they are doing isn't at anyone's expense. They also like to think they are doing good by pointing out system weaknesses. To a certain degree they are doing some good, just think about all of the jobs they've created in the computer security field. This is one of the fastest growing industries next to building and operating prisons.

35. JJ: Do hackers view you as a superhacker?

JP: I sure hope not. That distinction gets tossed around by the media quite a bit and usually they are referring to Mitnick . I am very good at what I specialize in. I've contributed to the hacker community by writing technical articles and I've found and hacked into systems that nobody had probed into yet. So for those reasons, I'm respected. But, my decision to work for the Feds is frowned upon. Some feel I sold out. What can I say? I'm truly sorry, that was a mistake. Returning to the subject of superhackers, I'd have to say the overall title goes to Kevin Poulsen, a.k.a. Dark Dante. As far as Mitnick goes, well let's just say he never did anything that wasn't done before. He never thoroughly impressed me as much as Poulsen, who taught me a great deal.

36. JJ: What direction is computer security taking? Is it going to be tougher to be a hacker?

JP: Not really. More and more opportunities come on line for hackers everyday. In many instances, it is simply not cost effective to double bolt every door. On top of that, there will always be holes in software. As a result, there will be always be hackers and there will always be breaches in software security.

Encryption is a big trend right now and it is to some degree, effective. However, for someone who is determined to gain access, it is merely an inconvenience. There is also a move to install systems that screen the traffic flowing between networks. Firewalls, as they are called, are prudent measures; however, they sometimes can create their own security holes. And in some cases it is possible to simply go around them by finding unprotected access points.

For every security measure, someone has developed at least one way to circumvent it. A thoughtful system administrator would utilize several precautionary techniques and have a well thought out security policy. Network security is a full time job. The hacker underground is to some degree a collective consciousness and information flows freely. This makes computer security a dynamic and demanding field.

This may all sound a bit alarming, but in reality, I liken it to driving a car. A single driver in a lone vehicle has the potential to do a lot of damage, but it rarely happens that someone goes berserk and drives into a crowd of people or runs amok destroying property. There is always the possibility that some wacko might log into McDonalds.com and start shooting virtual customers, but it will be an isolated incident. The problem right now is that many young computer users have not been taught the proper respect for computer power. Networks run our lives now and that happened almost overnight. Perhaps when our current techno savvy generation has children they will tech them Net etiquette. We need a driver-ed class for all potential netizens.

37. JJ: Let's continue on to some more technical questions. How easy is it to detect a telephone tap?

JP: First of all, those special phone numbers you can dial to tell if your phone is tapped do not work. In theory they sort of worked on an obscure tap called an infinity transmitter. But those old-style infinities are no longer in use. Basically, it would depend on who is tapping you and how much effort they have put into not being detected. Tap detection can range from the purchase of a $35 device from The Sharper Image to an all day physical inspection of every inch of your phone lines. As far as the Feds go, I am not at liberty to discuss their methods.

38. JJ: It was reported that you were at one time able to compile a list of every federal wiretap in California, and this was through your computer?

JP: It would be best if I did not discuss this topic. I was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

39. JJ: That is understandable. What about the remote wiretap system you accessed to win the radio station contests?

JP: It was a telephone company test and maintenance system. Through special number test trunks in the telephone switching equipment, I could latch on to any phone line and monitor, ring, dial out, etc. I could even answer your phone from my location. All I required was a computer and two phone lines, one for control via computer and one to monitor.

40. JJ: I'm not sure if that is impressive or scary. What did you mean by was?

JP: Pacific Bell operated the system. It was deactivated shortly after they discovered the unauthorized use. That was understandable given the power of the system. They were under the impression it was secure.

41. JJ: Here is a question I'm sure you've been asked a few times. How do you transfer funds out of a bank's bank account?

JP: I'm afraid that method is no longer feasible. It has been corrected.

42. JJ: So do you not think it can happen again? Can you say anything about it?

JP: Someone might figure out a new way. The Russian Citibank hackers did it, but only because they had an inside man giving them the complex passcodes. I was all by myself on the transfer and the technical end. A reporter told me once I am the only one to ever get into the inter-bank network and initiate a successful transfer. I worked on the project on and off over a period of five years. It required careful technical study, midnight break-ins and alarm bypassing. I thought I had it once, but then I was arrested (for other hacking). After that I tried to stay away from hacking. I've never been a greedy person, I just love technology.

At any rate, my life took a wrong turn and I became a fugitive. I found myself in need of cash badly, I had to leave the country. I went back to work on the transfer project only to find it didn't work like I thought. But, I was determined. Eventually, I found a place in the network connections in between computer switches where, because of a protocol change, the data was unencrypted. I set up a test transfer of $150,000 and it worked. It blew my mind. There was almost no limit to the amount of money I could move. Getting it out of the bank and into safe untraceable cash was the crux. Three weeks after this first test transfer, I was arrested as a fugitive. They had found me, pretty much by accident. It's a very twisted story. You'll have to wait for the movie.

43. JJ: Movie?

JP: Yeah, I overheard something at one of those Hollywood parties.

44. JJ: I suppose you have. I've read all of the books you are mentioned in.

JP: I should probably mention that the book by Jon Littman is quite misleading and in some cases simply made up. It was really irresponsible of him to write it that way, very National Enquire-ish. The second book he wrote that I am in, "The Watchman", is better but not much.

45. JJ: What about all the women, the kinky sex, the Hollywood night clubs?

JP: A lot of that was exaggerated. I was just in the right place at the right time. It was the 80's, the pretty boy rock bands were in vogue. That era is gone now. I have a new style and a new tune. The problem with his book is he made it seem so sordid. I really don't believe he ever understood that lifestyle; he was, simply put, out of touch. He was never able to comprehend West Hollywood on a Friday night in 1986. It was magic, it was live, it was fashion and music. But in all fairness, my lifestyle is often misunderstood.

46. JJ: So what is it right now?

JP: IT: Information Technology. Knowledge is power, it's a commodity. I discovered several years go if you have enough information in your head people will pay just to hear what you have to say.

47. JJ: And is that working for you now?

JP: It appears that way. For example, I have started writing technical articles for a trade journal and there is talk of a documentary on computer crime.

48. JJ: What is your take on the Web hype?

JP: The what? Oh yeah. You know there was a day when it felt like I was the only person in the world with access to all that information. Albeit most of the access I had was unauthorized. But back then the Information Super Highway was just a dirt road and it was the techies' little secret. Now it's four lanes wide and running through everyone's backyard. I feel a little violated. Imagine your private country club just went public at $7.50 for a round of golf. People talk about Web culture like it's some kind of organized town hall meeting. Well it's far from that and although I'm glad the meek finally inherited the earth, it occasionally makes me want to vomit. I especially dislike that overly colorful and flagrantly pompous technology magazine. You know the one that tries to tell you what is hip and what is not. Yes, I'm talking about Wired. Fortunately, the Internet still has a few secrets left. One being that the masses don't know how to harness its powers yet. 

49. JJ: How does the future look for an ex-computer hacker?

JP: All I've ever really wanted to do was work with technology on my own terms. I'm not drawn to hacking or crime by nature. That was just part of surviving and being able to continue searching for knowledge and information. I love this new technology and how it all fits together and affects our lives. But when it gets right down to it I'm a musician, have been all of my life.

50. JJ: How is the music biz working out for you?

JP: For the moment that is on hold, too busy working on other projects.

51. JJ: Let's leave it at that. What do you plan on doing for work?

JP: I am currently working as the Information Systems Manager and Webmaster for a Medical corporation. I am also operating several adult web sites.

52. JJ: This has been very enlightening. Any closing thoughts?

JP: Welcome to the disinformation age. Please place your E-cash ticket in the slot.