Re: Actually, Now that I think of it [slightly OT]

At 13:16 1/1/2003 -0600, gluteous maximus
<gluteous.maximus.gldbz@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:
[snip]
>If you’re an Internet predator wannabe, then militant attitudes about
>“intellectual property” are a really good start. If Kevin Mitnick is a
>hero for you, then you’re about five years behind the times.
[snip]

Careful, glut. Kevin Mitnick was neither an “Internet predator” nor is he a
figure who is necessarily deserving of such comments that could be
considered libel. I’d be happy to explain why privately, so as to not post
a huge message that would be entirely OT. Watch yourself when you start to
rant. Berating people who aren’t part of the conversation and lack the
ability to respond to your comments is more than slightly unfair. Remember:
Kevin can’t even use a phone anymore except to talk directly to a person;
he can’t access automated phone services anymore.

Mike

Re: Re: Actually, Now that I think of it [slightly OT]

Mike, you misconstrue.

There are two separate sentences there.
In one, I was talking about an “Internet predator” of the type who preys on children via the web.
In the other, I mentioned Kevin Mitnick as someone who is a cult hero to a large number of kids who
aspire to be hackers, crackers, phone phreakers, whatever (fact, not libel… just check out a few phone phreaking sites).

Those are two distinct ideas stated in two different sentences.

I did not berate Kevin Mitnick, I and did not suggest that he is/was and Internet predator. I merely said that it’s a bit late to want to be like him; mainly because of the facts that you, yourself, have pointed out about his current condition.

Thanks for the warning, but you’re mistaken.

K.M.'s phone problems are neither my fault nor my concern, but I promise never to rant his name in vain again.

kevin just got to renew his ham radio licence,


you’d think that corporate perpetrators of computer crime would be treated as more heinous than individuals acting alone, but alas.