Markoff Aids Mitnick Investigation
Ronald Austin
---------------------------------------
The group tracking Mitnick had now grown to include New York Times
reporter John Markoff, who had written a book about Mitnick and other
hackers. "John was our Kevin expert," Shimomura said. For instance,
Menapace said, if Mitnick's signal went silent, they would ask what
Mitnick would probably be doing now. If he was eating, where would
he go? Markoff acknowledged trading information with Shimomura, but
denied being a member of the team. "I wasn't involved. I am a reporter.
Tsutomu and Julia call me a member of their team, and that's fine if they
want to call me that. But I was a reporter," Markoff said. He said he
gave them nothing beyond what was available in his book.
---------------------------------------
The reason that Mr. Markoff has to strictly deny helping Mr. Shimomura
and his 'team' is that the behavior as reported is a serious violation
of journalistic ethics. How can he acknowledge "trading information"
yet say he was not involved? The fact is that not only was Mr. Markoff
involved, he was present in North Carolina at the time of the location
and capture of Mr. Mitnick giving advice and aiding in his apprenhenison.
While apprehension of a federal fugitive is desirable, it is not Mr.
Markoff's place to aid in the investigation and he knows it. There is a
factor here which did not manage to make the front page of the New York
Times and that is Mr. Markoff's sequel to his book "Cyberpunk". He has
created the story for that sequel by abusing his position and perpetrating
a hoax on the public.
A few months ago Mr. Markoff printed a front page story about Kevin
Mitnick. Recall that Markoff co-authored a book with Katie Haffner
of which Kevin Mitnick was a subject. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Markoff
brought us yet another front page story - this time about what was
seemingly the biggest threat to internet security in a decade. The
fact is, the bug being exploited was a decade old, and Mr. Markoff
obtained the CERT advisory days before it was released to the general
public. The CERT advisory dealt with the break-in on Tsutomu Shimomura's
computer. While Mr. Markoff's latest article would have us believe that
Kevin Mitnick was only considered a suspect in that break-in on February
12th, the fact is that Mitnck's name was mentioned at the Sonoma conference
at which Shimomura gave the talk that was the basis for the CERT advisory.
How did Markoff get a copy of the CERT advisory before anyone else?
Was this really such a big threat to internet security that it was worthy
of all of the coverage it recieved? The Feb. 19th L.A. Times also quotes Mr.
Shimomura as saying that Mitnick "did nothing imaginative. I can see
nothing new." But wasn't the break in on Mr. Shimomura's machine so new
and imaginitive that it made the front page of the country's largest
newspaper? And didn't Mr. Markoff, in fact, suspecting that the break-ins
were comitted by Mitnick, feed us this article only so that he could later
break the big story that it was the subject of his book and previous front
page article that committed this most heinous act?
Every bit of information that is publically available about Kevin Mitnick
seems to come to us, in one way or another, from John Markoff. All of
the quotes come from 'Cyberpunk'. Markoff even quotes his own book in his
articles without making reference to the fact that he wrote the book.
All of the articles that come to us about the recent incident are simply
lifted from Mr. Markoff's article. With this in mind, let us examine
the media blitz of this "Clash of the Titans in Cyberspace". Since Mr.
Markoff was part of the investigation he had a leg up on everyone else
and shaped the way the story unfolded. While Mr. Shimomura is without a
doubt worthy of a great deal of praise here, the more infomation that
comes from sources other than the New York Times the more it appears that
Shimomura was not a lone wolf intent on settling the score as Mr. Markoff
would have us believe. Instead of Shimomoura laying all of the groundwork
only to call in law enforcement at the last minute to make the arrest as
Markoff has told us, it appears that there was a longstanding investigation
going on that encompassed many agencies and internet providers and that it
was Mr. Shimomura who stepped in at the last minute to help out.
But the groundwork had been done to pave the way for this particular hero
to step into the roll. In the February 6th edition of Newsweeek, where
Katie Haffner is now employed, a feature on Shimomura was done which
included a large picture of what Markoff now calls our "cybersleuth" posing
in front of his laptop. Bear in mind that at this point, supposedly,
Shimomura had no idea that he was dealing with Mitnick. Also remember that
Katie Haffner at Newsweek was the co-author along with Mr. Markoff
on Cyberpunk. But for Shimomura to be cast as one of a team just won't do
for the book. A hero is vital and the personal details provided to us about
Mr. Shimomura's life and hobbies, while not relevent at all to the story of
a manhunt, give Mr. Markoff something to take to the bargaining table when
selling his sequel.
I think it is incumbent upon the New York Times to launch an investigation
into all of this. This is the most serious violation of journalistic
ethics I have ever seen. I find myself wondering who is really more
dangerous when left unchecked - Kevin Mitnick or John Markoff.
Glenn Fleishman
rau...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ronald Austin) writes:
> The reason that Mr. Markoff has to strictly deny helping Mr. Shimomura
> and his 'team' is that the behavior as reported is a serious violation
> of journalistic ethics.
That's totally incorrect.
Markoff's participation in the story is no different than any reporter
following any alleged criminal about whom they may have some expert
knowledge. Happens all the time in serial killer cases.
A reporter has to become a temporary expert on any subject they write
about. Some of them take this quite seriously and become real experts
on the subject. It is only a conflict of interest if Markoff had
something to gain, or if he misrepresented the issues.
He didn't. Ok, sure, maybe he'll sell more books, but I work in
publishing, and I know what authors get, and that's not how most people
make their living. Markoff has a lot of credibility, and he's a good,
solid writer.
It's not like he was letting them use his satellite phone in Iraq...
----
Glenn Fleishman * Point of Presence Company <http://www.popco.com>
"Trend Watch" columnist, Adobe Magazine
Moderator, Internet marketing list (finger in...@wolfe.popco.com)
For public key, finger p...@wolfe.popco.com
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Austin) wrote:
> I think it is incumbent upon the New York Times to launch an investigation
> into all of this. This is the most serious violation of journalistic
> ethics I have ever seen. I find myself wondering who is really more
> dangerous when left unchecked - Kevin Mitnick or John Markoff.
Oh please.
Just for the record, reporters often trade information with their sources.
Unless you are Hard Copy and are willing to pay for a story, or your
source is desparate to get his name in the paper, information is the only
currency you bring to the exchange.
--
Philip Elmer-DeWitt p...@panix.com p...@well.com
TIME Magazine phil...@aol.com
Read TIME on America Online, where we get paid to take abuse.
Our newest venue: http://www.timeinc.com/
Timothy C. May
John Markoff often knows about information before it is public for
understandable reasons: he has cultivated good sources over the years,
beginning at "Infoworld," and now at the "NYT." These sources talk to
him, correct details, etc. for the usual reasons people talk to good
reporters.
As to Markoff knowing about aspects of the Mitnick and Shimomura case
before the "rest of us," what else would you expect? Does this mean he
was an instigator, or was deeply involved with what the FBI was
planning?
Recall that Markoff was also the reporter who first released details
about "Clipper," days before the official press conference on April
16, 1993. He had cultivated sources and knew something was afoot.
(I happened to suspect something was afoot, too, and wrote an article
in October, 1992, titled "A Trial Ballon to Ban Encryption?, based on
a paper Dorothy Denning gave at a computer security conference. Little
did I know that Clipper was only 5 months off in the future.)
It is certainly true that reporters are becoming players. Markoff was
attacked by Mitnick, we are told, and Markoff was in the thick of
things. Reporters are no longer passive, waiting to hear on the police
scanner that a murder has occurred and then rushing to the scene.
(Actually, good reporters have never been passive, I suppose.)
I see no evidence of a breach of journalistic ethics as I understand
things.
--Tim May
--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tc...@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
| knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majo...@toad.com with body message of only:
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay
Sean Donelan
> I think it is incumbent upon the New York Times to launch an investigation
> into all of this. This is the most serious violation of journalistic
> ethics I have ever seen. I find myself wondering who is really more
> dangerous when left unchecked - Kevin Mitnick or John Markoff.
Ah, I see you have been studying up on your Watergate smear tactics. Wasn't
it strange how the Washington Post kept learning things from Deep Throat.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
Mark Seiden
>I see the spin doctors are going to downplay this. Perhaps you could
i would suggest not calling people names simply because they might be
better informed than you are. nonetheless, at the risk of accused of
acting like a spinster:
>come up with explanations to my points. Why was the CERT story worthy
>of front page NYT coverage when Tsutomu says he see's nothing new here
>at all?
editors decide what the placement is, not reporters. you should
ask them.
maybe tsutomu is just modest, but his orientation is that of a
physicist. rtm and bellovin discovered this strange particle years
ago, and tsutomu just happened to be lucky enough to sight it in
its first public appearance.
>How did Markoff get the CERT bulletin days in advance but not
>realize he was writing about Mitnick though the name was mentioned months
>before he has implied?
CERT issued the bulletin *because* the newspaper story was about to
appear. that's almost verbatim what Ed de Hart said at the Usenix CERT
Birds of a Feather where it was formally announced.
It was by no means conclusive at the time of the CERT advisory that
Mitnick was involved. The Times doesn't print rumors, last I checked.
>Do you believe Tsutomu when he says that John helped
>in the investigation or do you believe Markoff when he says that he only
>gave information from his book?
Yeah, he definitely helped in the investigation. Specifically I remember
he bought us lunch when we were about to drop dead from combined exhaustion
and starvation one day. (Where Kevin got all that energy I'll never know.)
>Why not just hand him a copy of the book
>and let him read the first chapter?
There are a lot of details about Mitnick that didn't make it into the
book. Everybody seems to agree that Mitnick and his crowd are a bit more
complex, full-flavored, and fruity than a single chapter could contain.
(This is not a statement about anyone's sexual orientation).
By the way, Katie Hafner is the first author of the book, and the one
who I recall did most of the research and interviews about Kevin.
>Why were we not made aware that John
>Markoff was a victim of Mitnicks on the Well?
It's in the indictment. It also seemed to be pretty clearly in the
Sunday times. What would it take to make you 'aware' of it?
Billboards on Times Square? Gimme a break.
>Was it ethical for
>Markoff to fly to North Carolina along with Shimomura to provide
>information about Mitnick to aid the capture?
Cmon, it would be totally lame to have the inside track on a story
like this and not to follow it. I suspect when you write about
computers in the BUSINESS section of the Times you get to eat a lot of
rubber chicken lunches with bland and boring CEOs. (Now, Peter Lewis
on the I-strada beat, he must lead an exciting life, full of fast cars
and virtual reality...) Don't you think the guy's entitled to a
little excitement when it smacks right into him? You must admit it's
a good story. He didn't manufacture it.
>This is not a smear campaign. I don't think this behavior is acceptable
>for someone who is trusted to put stories on the front page of the NYT.
>I'm not for Kevin Mitnick or against John Markoff. When I ask who is
>more dangerous, I mean who has the greater power between the two?
Now, *that* may look like an excellent question, in the abstract, but
why should anyone make that comparison?
A related, equally worthless question might be "who has historically
shown more interested in abusing their power?"
>Obvously we would not be as afraid of Markoff because he is operating
>legally, unlike Mitnick. But Mitnick stole the power he had.
(You know, I disagree with you even on that, but it's not worth going
into now).
> Markoff
>is given his power as a trust. If you want to dispute that what I'm saying
>is true, that's fine. But I'm really interested in knowing, if you
>believe what I've said above, do you really find this acceptable?
I dunno, if cats were dogs would you find that acceptable?
I think you have some basic misunderstandings of how reporters work in
a news organization.
>RMA
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Austin) wrote:
> Was it ethical for
> Markoff to fly to North Carolina along with Shimomura to provide
> information about Mitnick to aid the capture?
Yes. It's called covering a story. He watches the bust come down, he gets
the quote picked up in a thousand follow-ups. And what information did
Markoff provide in North Carolina "to aid in the capture?"
> I see the spin doctors are going to downplay this.
Ten points and a free ticked to Hoboken on the tubes for the first poster
who can name this rhetorical device.
--
Philip Elmer-DeWitt p...@well.com
TIME Magazine p...@panix.com phil...@aol.com
Read TIME on America Online, where we get paid to take abuse.
TIME's newest venue: http://www.timeinc.com/
Glenn Fleishman
aus...@primenet.com (Ronald Austin) writes:
> I don't think this behavior is acceptable
> for someone who is trusted to put stories on the front page of the NYT.
> I'm not for Kevin Mitnick or against John Markoff. When I ask who is
> more dangerous, I mean who has the greater power between the two?
> Obvously we would not be as afraid of Markoff because he is operating
> legally, unlike Mitnick. But Mitnick stole the power he had. Markoff
> is given his power as a trust.
Ah, see the difficulty here is that you're thinking of a reporter as
someone who is operating in the public trust, and gets to decide who's
guilty and who's not.
You're suggesting that Markoff smeared Mitnick or painted him poorly in
the press for personal motivations.
I don't see any evidence of this. Markoff's writing has painted a fair
picture of Mitnick. in fact, Markoff went *to great lengths* to point
out that Mitnick had :
* Never used any of his knowledge for gain
* Didn't use the 20,000 Netcom credit cards
* Only damaged the Well files by mistake -- a big mistake, but it
wasn't done to damage the Well.
This, in fact, helps present a more balanced picture of Mitnick as a
whole. In fact, gives me more compassion for him as an individual than
I would have had I not known those mitigating factors. I still think
he's a menace, but I have some insight into his motivations.
It's odd that you have a problem with a reporter knowing about events
as they unfold. I write for a couple of publications, and I am often
told things off the record before they occur -- sometimes weeks and
months early. Any good reporter cultivates sources and puts themselves
in positions where they can get information and chew on it before a
story erupts so that they can present the best and most complete
analysis of it.
Markoff wrote about the CERT issue before CERT advisory came out, by
the way, because Tsutomu lectured about it several days before CERT
wrote their advisory. It was public knowledge in a segment of the
public part of the computer security industry and academia.
The rest of it is not atypical. Reporters, like all citizens in the
United States, are required to assist the police in making arrests by
volunteering any information they may have that would help. Markoff,
without violating any of his confidential sources, I'm sure, provided
information to the authorities that assisted in the arrest in some
measure. That doesn't make him biased, evil, anti-Mitnick, or whatever.
I still don't see the point. Do you think reporters are elected
officials? Do you think newspapers exist to disseminate information?
Reporters are private citizens; newspapers exist to make their
stockholders money, like any corporation. Any news that we actually get
is an epiphenomenon.
bk...@michael.bbn.com
reporting. This happened to Daniel Shorr in the Watergate coverage
and it's now happened to John Markoff in the Mitnick break-in on
the Well. It is conventional for a reporter to recuse himself
when he becomes part of the story -- that part of the story must
be reported by a disinterested reporter.
The same thing sometimes happens in judicial cases, where a
judge discovers that he is a party to a case under his jurisdiction.
In the same way, the judge must recuse himself from ruling on a case
where he is a material party.
It is unreasonable to critcize Markoff for not reporting his
role in the apprehension of Mitnick. That part of the story
must be chronicled by another reporter. (Markoff might very
well write a personal account or memoir, but that would not
be the same as objective reporting.)
Barry Kort
John Higgins
reporter covering a story. Any reporter on the net would KILL for the
kind of access he earned --EARNED-- that put him in on the Mitnick bust.
Much reality checking in order for this thread.
For a guy with a hiddent agends John's done a pretty crummy job hiding
it, hasn't he?
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
* John M. Higgins * Read the Cable Regulation Digest *
* Mutichannel News * FINGER - hig...@dorsai.dorsai.org *
* hig...@dorsai.dorsai.org * E-MAIL - To: lis...@netcom.com *
* v)212-887-8390/f)212-887-8384 * Body: Subscribe cablereg-l *
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
voor...@interport.net
>I see the spin doctors are going to downplay this. Perhaps you could
>come up with explanations to my points. Why was the CERT story worthy
>of front page NYT coverage when Tsutomu says he see's nothing new here
>at all?
Editors, not reporters, ultimately make that call.
How did Markoff get the CERT bulletin days in advance but not
>realize he was writing about Mitnick though the name was mentioned months
>before he has implied?
What's the allegation here?
Do you believe Tsutomu when he says that John helped
>in the investigation or do you believe Markoff when he says that he only
>gave information from his book?
Reporters swap information all the time.
Why not just hand him a copy of the book
>and let him read the first chapter? Why were we not made aware that John
>Markoff was a victim of Mitnicks on the Well? Was it ethical for
>Markoff to fly to North Carolina along with Shimomura to provide
>information about Mitnick to aid the capture?
Don't you think he'd want to be there for the arraignment. Okay,
I see. A stringer could have covered it.
If you're saying Markoff and The Times played up a story they
had an inside track on, welcome to the real world, fellow.
Otherwise, I can't figure out what you're saying.
--Mark
Glenn Fleishman
aus...@primenet.com (Ronald Austin) writes:
> Reporters are private citizens but
> if you are a reporter, as you say, then you are no doubt aware that a
> reporter is not supposed to become part of the story. He is supposed to
> report on it in an unbiased manner. If he cannot do that he should recuse
> himself.
No, you're still off the real issue here. Reporters don't "recuse"
themselves. They're not elected officials.
You're confusing making news with being part of a story.
Markoff didn't create Mitnick or the event. What Mitnick did and is
doing deserves the coverage it's gotten, given the scope of what he was
(allegedly) doing and given the importance of the Internet in many
people's and most businesses' existence.
There was no distortion in Markoff's account of the events, as far as I
can tell. He didn't cause a federal manhunt to occur. He was along for
the ride, and maybe gave them some useful info, as any good citizen
should.
Markoff acted ENTIRELY APPROPRIATELY and has not attempted to distort
facts or cover up his role.
Ronald Austin
: Ah, see the difficulty here is that you're thinking of a reporter as
: someone who is operating in the public trust, and gets to decide who's
: guilty and who's not.
I'm not saying he passed judgement or even gave Mitnick a bad deal. In fact,
Mitnick will probably be able to make big dollars at some point off of
Markoff's book and movie. I criticize only the use of Markoff's
position to exaggerate and distort facts primarily regarding CERT,
Shimomuras role, etc.
: You're suggesting that Markoff smeared Mitnick or painted him poorly in
: the press for personal motivations.
: I don't see any evidence of this. Markoff's writing has painted a fair
: picture of Mitnick. in fact, Markoff went *to great lengths* to point
: out that Mitnick had :
: * Never used any of his knowledge for gain
: * Didn't use the 20,000 Netcom credit cards
: * Only damaged the Well files by mistake -- a big mistake, but it
: wasn't done to damage the Well.
I don't know about *great lengths*. For example he makes much of the damage
to the Well files stating only later in a single sentence that it was
reportedly a typing error. I'm not saying that these things are not
factual. He probably reported the facts. Anyone who has read Cyberpunk,
though, must admit there is a very anti-Mitnick bias with comments about
his mother looking like Olive Oyl, the cops patting him down and thinking
the rolls of fat might be weapons, etc.
: This, in fact, helps present a more balanced picture of Mitnick as a
: whole. In fact, gives me more compassion for him as an individual than
: I would have had I not known those mitigating factors. I still think
: he's a menace, but I have some insight into his motivations.
Well, your personal knowledge of Mitnick might be what's behind your
apparent belief that I'm a supporter or that my main thrust is that
Mitnick isn't getting a fair shake. I'm not a supporter. I just believe
Shimomura when he says that Mitnick and what he did is nothing new and
not the big deal we're led to believe. I still suggest that VERY BIG
book deal is underway and that's the motivation for the articles.
: It's odd that you have a problem with a reporter knowing about events
: as they unfold. I write for a couple of publications, and I am often
: told things off the record before they occur -- sometimes weeks and
: months early. Any good reporter cultivates sources and puts themselves
: in positions where they can get information and chew on it before a
: story erupts so that they can present the best and most complete
: analysis of it.
Read my post again. I have no problem with a reporter knowing about
events as they unfold. That's what makes a good reporter. I have a problem
with a reporter MAKING the events unfold through direct participation.
: Markoff wrote about the CERT issue before CERT advisory came out, by
: the way, because Tsutomu lectured about it several days before CERT
: wrote their advisory. It was public knowledge in a segment of the
: public part of the computer security industry and academia.
No kidding. And I contend that Mitnicks name was mentioned at the Sonoma
conference so that it was known THEN who it was and that alone is the
reason it wound up on the front page.
: The rest of it is not atypical. Reporters, like all citizens in the
: United States, are required to assist the police in making arrests by
: volunteering any information they may have that would help. Markoff,
: without violating any of his confidential sources, I'm sure, provided
: information to the authorities that assisted in the arrest in some
: measure. That doesn't make him biased, evil, anti-Mitnick, or whatever
It makes him biased if he is doing it so he can later write a book
about a hero vs. the bad guy for alot of money. He didn't just
phone them up and say Mitnick eats at Burger King. He hopped on a plane
to sit alongside the trackers to help catch him. Then he denied doing
so. I don't think Markoff is evil. I don't even think he is all that
anti-Mitnick. I just think he wants to sell a book and if that means
helping to make the ending by giving us a "unsolved big threat to the net"
story only to later fill in the missing piece then that's what he'll
do. It's not ethical to have an ulterior motive when reporting the news -
if, in fact, it is news.
: I still don't see the point. Do you think reporters are elected
: officials? Do you think newspapers exist to disseminate information?
: Reporters are private citizens; newspapers exist to make their
: stockholders money, like any corporation. Any news that we actually get
: is an epiphenomenon.
I agree with the first and last sentence. Reporters are private citizens but
if you are a reporter, as you say, then you are no doubt aware that a
reporter is not supposed to become part of the story. He is supposed to
report on it in an unbiased manner. If he cannot do that he should recuse
himself. I don't judge him too harshly here. All to often reporters cross
the line. But, if he suspected when he printed the CERT article that it
was Mitnick and later lied when he said it was suspected only on the 12th
that it was Mitnick that is wrong. If, additionally, the story wasn't worthy
of front page coverage on the NYT and it was only hype for a book then that
is VERY wrong. A reporter is not an elected official, but when I read the
paper, at least I should be able to expect that the reporter himself
believed what he was saying.
RMA
David Lesher
>Occasionally a reporter finds himself a part of the story he is
>reporting. This happened to Daniel Shorr in the Watergate coverage
>and it's now happened to John Markoff in the Mitnick break-in on
>the Well. It is conventional for a reporter to recuse himself
>when he becomes part of the story -- that part of the story must
>be reported by a disinterested reporter.
A better example might be John Scali (?) of ABC, who was a
lynchpin in backchannel communications that managed to avoid
a fullblown nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crises.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Glenn Fleishman <gl...@popco.com> wrote:
>In article <3i9u28$4...@nyx.cs.du.edu>
>rau...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ronald Austin) writes:
>
>> The reason that Mr. Markoff has to strictly deny helping Mr. Shimomura
>> and his 'team' is that the behavior as reported is a serious violation
>> of journalistic ethics.
>
>That's totally incorrect.
>
>Markoff's participation in the story is no different than any reporter
>following any alleged criminal about whom they may have some expert
>knowledge. Happens all the time in serial killer cases.
>
>A reporter has to become a temporary expert on any subject they write
>about. Some of them take this quite seriously and become real experts
>on the subject. It is only a conflict of interest if Markoff had
>something to gain, or if he misrepresented the issues.
>
>He didn't. Ok, sure, maybe he'll sell more books, but I work in
>publishing, and I know what authors get, and that's not how most people
>make their living. Markoff has a lot of credibility, and he's a good,
>solid writer.
>
>It's not like he was letting them use his satellite phone in Iraq...
Or deliberately sensationalizing the issues at hand in order to make a
name for himself. Markoff, Thank God, is above that kind of
neo-Joe-Abernathy kind of stuff.
As far as I'm concerned, every Times article written by Markoff is a
point in favor of the paper's professionalism -- particularly as any such
article written by Markoff represents one less opportunity for Jim Gleick
and Peter Lewis to play their sensationalistic irresponsible fame games.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@cloud9.net
Somewhere they're meeting on a pinhead, calling you an angel.
Lewis De Payne
: Besides, if you were a reporter covering nouveau riche computer
: people for years, wouldn't *you* finally want a piece of the
: mass media action? I'm sure John like many of us wants to be
: rich and is willing to forge new ground in the meaning of
: ^^^^^---- !!
: reporter<->reported to accomplish it. Is this wrong?
No further comment.
--
"Mum's the word" - Justin Petersen || cc: Kennie G. McGuire, SA, FBI, LA CA
"Did you use SAS?" - Terry Atchley || Kathleen "Hottub" Carson, SA, FBI
"I am not a crook" - Richard Nixon || Behave - or I'll tell Janet Reno!
Philippe Langlois
: In article <3i9u28$4...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, rau...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ronald
: Austin) wrote:
: > I think it is incumbent upon the New York Times to launch an investigation
: > into all of this. This is the most serious violation of journalistic
: > ethics I have ever seen. I find myself wondering who is really more
: > dangerous when left unchecked - Kevin Mitnick or John Markoff.
: Unless you are Hard Copy and are willing to pay for a story, or your
: source is desparate to get his name in the paper, information is the only
: currency you bring to the exchange.
in Mitnick case and instead of helping your mates cf:
: TIME Magazine
You should try to get the real story in Mitnick manhunt...
It's REAL weird to me: Could Markoff use the publicity of this manhunt to
get attention?
Could this manhunt be organized and manipulated in order to kick a storm
and to frighten this poor public-addicted-to-medias into thinking that
hackers are going to destroy their privacy and that Mitnick is evil?
Some things are still hidden....... apparently!
--
> Philippe Langlois -- Net & Unix Admin @ World Net, Paris, France. <
> Email: Philippe...@worldnet.net <
> Acces Internet Full IP: forfait de 240 F/mois --> in...@worldnet.net <
Dale O'Connor
>Ah, I see you have been studying up on your Watergate smear tactics. Wasn't
>it strange how the Washington Post kept learning things from Deep Throat.
I'm a former journalist who went into corporate PR a number of years ago.
Back in the mid-80s I was on a seven-member team to come up with new
ways to make revenue. This, BTW, was in the telecommunications industry.
Up until 1984, we'd been Ma Bell's children. Now we were in separate
companies -- cooperating in some areas and competing in others.
I started calling around to find out what was already known about an
idea we had. The more information I acquired the more I was able to
get from other sources. Worked the same way as those reporters worked
in "All The President's Men." I'd say: "I know this and this..."
Person on the other end of the phone would add: "But did you know that..."
It's human nature -- to want to set someone straight who has most
of the information but not all.
BTW, have you dialed 411 lately and heard a recording -- "for __ more
cents, we can complete that call for you..."
That was the idea my team was exploring. All of the glitches to
make it work hadn't been solved back then. Or we would have earned
enough points to take trips almost everywhere.
Dale
______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>If all of us had the same point of view<<<<<<<<<<<
{~~How would we ever spin a thread on the world wide web?~~}
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
Joel N. Shurkin
>
> The reason that Mr. Markoff has to strictly deny helping Mr. Shimomura
> and his 'team' is that the behavior as reported is a serious violation
> of journalistic ethics. How can he acknowledge "trading information"
Sorry, but that's not true. Reporters trade information with sources all
the time. Reporters also have participated in stories (Remember Stanley
and Livingston--Stanley was a reporter). As long as they state so in the
story, they are not violating ethical standards.
--
Joel N. Shurkin
DragonsPearl
Santa Cruz, California
"Sometimes the magic works; sometimes it doesn't."
Don Steiny
>Occasionally a reporter finds himself a part of the story he is
>reporting.
Sure, it's called "gonzo journalism" - read Hunter Thompson
for the whole theory.
-don
--
Don Steiny - ste...@infopoint.com - http://www.infopoint.com
InfoPoint - voice 1+(408) 425-5343 - fax: 1+(408) 425-1919
Central California shopping, entertainment, dining and lodging
Acoustic and folk music calendar and radio listing
Peter F Cassidy
that the reporter became an authentically interested party. Markoff, I
think, showed remarkable restraint and professionalism. Many of our
profession, pugalistic, prone to random violence and revenge fantasies,
might have taken this really personally and tried to figure out a way to
set up Mitnick for the bust. Trading dope on a subject is SOP. I just
faxed a copy of an old article I did for The Progressive a couple of
years back discussing the details of State Secrets priviledge, a body of
laws that played was at the center of a civil suit brought by a banker
against the CIA and its front company that forced him to launder money - the
foreground narrative in the piece. The attorney I sent it to, who I want
to interview, might use the information for developing the suit he is
bringing against the Air Force. Gosh, this kind of personal involvement,
this injection of the journalist into the event, might even net me, gosh,
four-figures of income. Wow, I better keep this under my hat lest St.
Peter cross my name off the list.
- I hope Markoff spends every dime of his advance in good
health and never, ever has to bother writing for fishwrap again. He's on a
weird beat, always being criticized by merciless experts who never stop to
consider he is writing for a non-expert audience, shredding him to bits over
every non-text book explaination of the technology at hand.
Eric Schadt
does anybody have the real scoop on what the deal was with this
investigation. i mean, rumor has it that markoff accompanied
shimomuri (sp?) to n.c., and basically lied to the fbi about
who markoff was (made the fbi believe he was an employee of
the company shimomuri works for and that he was a software
engineer, or something like that). anway, when one of the cellular
employees overheard shimomuri and markoff talking about writing
a book and informed the fbi. the fbi cornered shimomuri about
who markoff was, and shimomuri eventually told them. i guess the
fbi was a little upset; i heard they said something like, "if wae
see you around here again we're taking you downtown." anyway,
i also heard that shimomuri tracked mitnick across the country
using an oki cellular phone and an hp palmtop (basically turned
his oki into a scanner - which is against the law!!).
anyway, i've heard a lot of rumors and was wondering what was
true and what wasn't. does anybody know? i guess markoff has
already been advanced $500000 to write the book on this.
Vin McLellan
> Now, what was it someone was explaining a couple of weeks ago about
> how Markoff had nothing to gain from his hype of Shimomura? Unfortunately
> my news spool broke and I'm down to a day's expiry, otherwise there'd
> be a few choice quotations I'd like to show back to the Markoff
> apologists. 750K for a book and 600K or more for a movie. That's
> a lot of interest.
I have a lot more respect for the people on these threads, in various
newsgroups. who are upfront about their affinity and sympathy for Mitnick
(and pirate/cracker/data-thief values) than I do for you guys who presume
to apply some prissy Martian version of "journalistic ethics" to Markoff!
Every reporter has an interest in writing a good story.
Every reporter has an interest in presenting his stories with a much
drama, verve, and entertainment value as is possible and reasonably
proportional.
Reporters gather information and present it to the public. Often they
write books -- and yes, they get paid for it. (gasp!) Very very rarely,
they get lucky, or they do a particularly good job, and they get paid very
well. (Although I presume that Shimomura gets the lion's share, huh?)
In this case, mind you, it was _Mitnick_ who virtually dubbed Shimomura
as the cyberpunk champion of the Internet property owners association.
Who cracked who's site? Who left the taunting messages on whose answering
machine?
This was -- and is -- a great story. It has great human drama and an
exotic techy context; it's fascinating, charming, full of personal
contrasts, contests, and conflict.
And Mitnick, because of who he is, and what he's done -- not Markoff;
not Shimomura -- mades the story worth a cool million (maybe more; the
international market will be huge!) to whoever can tell the tale in a way
that the lay audience can understand.
Pleeeease, enough of the pious, self-righteous, snottyness about the
reporter! Get honest with yourself and just announce a Kevin Mitnick
Defense Fund. Hey, I'll contribute -- on the basis that Kevin has been
so damned entertaining for so long.
Truth is, there is always a lot of legitimacy to be found in rebel
values in an era like this, where industrial and cultural structures are
being transformed by technology. Anyone who presumes that software
patents and shrinkwrap licensing reflect the 11th and 12th Commandments is
either in corporate PR or on the Democratic (or Republican) National
Fundraising Committee(s.)
That many want to lionize Mitnick is predictable. That many have
sympathy for him is understandable. That virtually everyone is curious
about him is human nature.
What is not reasonable is taking your sympathy for Mitnick and
transforming it into a snide, bitter contempt for either Shimomura or
Markoff -- both of whom deserve far better.
Suerte,
_Vin McLellan
--
Vin McLellan+The Privacy Guild+<v...@shore.net>+Technical Translators' Guild = MULTI-LINGUAL tech writers, hw/sw engineers, Ph.ds: * BICULTURAL TRANSLATORS FOR HIRE * (617) 884-5546
Emmanuel Goldstein
having looked at his comments I have to say there's not a whole
hell of a lot I disagree with him on except of course his take on
Kevin. In answer to a question over how to protect information on the
net, he says, "Encryption. Strong cryptographic techniques. Not the
mickey-mouse stuff. We need to get them deployed." I couldn't agree
more. What's ironic is that Kevin would have too.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0
mQCNAisAvagAAAEEAKDyMmRGmirxG4G3AsIxskKpCP71vUPRRzVXpLIa3+Jrl0+9
PGFwAPZ3TgJXho5a8c3J8hstYCowzsI168nRORB4J8Rwd+tMz5lBKeKi9LzlSW1R
hLNJTm8vBjzHd8mQBea3794wUWCyEpoqzavu/OUthMLb6UOPC2srXlHoedr1AAUR
tBZlbW1hbnVlbEB3ZWxsLnNmLmNhLnVz
=W1W8
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Jim Duncan
> Now, what was it someone was explaining a couple of weeks ago about
> how Markoff had nothing to gain from his hype of Shimomura? Unfortunately
> my news spool broke and I'm down to a day's expiry, otherwise there'd
> be a few choice quotations I'd like to show back to the Markoff
> apologists. 750K for a book and 600K or more for a movie. That's
> a lot of interest.
That's not interest, that's principal. :-)
I didn't follow all of the thread, but I'll admit that I thought the
conspiracy theorists were way out of line. Keep it scientific. Those tens
of pages of paranoiac meanderings could have been reduced to two paragraphs.
We, and the spool space, would be much better off for it.
Jim
--
Jim.D...@psu.edu -- Manager, Network & Information Systems, Penn State
Applied Research Lab -- "Objects in calendar are closer than they appear."
Emmanuel Goldstein
> In this case, mind you, it was _Mitnick_ who virtually dubbed Shimomura
>as the cyberpunk champion of the Internet property owners association.
>Who cracked who's site? Who left the taunting messages on whose answering
>machine?
Kevin wasn't the only one who had access to that site, not by a long shot.
It's quite likely he wasn't the one who got in first. And I can say with
absolute certainty that Kevin didn't leave those messages. If you don't
believe me, go ask Shimomura.
Vin McLellan
Goldstein) wrote:
>
> Kevin wasn't the only one who had access to that site, not by a long shot.
> It's quite likely he wasn't the one who got in first. And I can say with
> absolute certainty that Kevin didn't leave those messages. If you don't
> believe me, go ask Shimomura.
I just downloaded and listened to the net-posted versions of those
messages from Shimomura's answering machine. I think you're right. Unless
Mitnick has a very severely retarded sense of humor, I doubt if he left
those messages. The messages (recorded in the week following the attack
on TS' computers) sound to me like they come from a couple of geeky
teenagers out to claim a rep.
However, I'm told that Shimomura -- in his 1/11/95 technical
presentation on the IP Spoof attack on his machines at CMAD 3 in Sonoma --
clearly stated that he thought the messages were left by whomever had
raided his machine. That's why he took the time to put them up on the
Net. After the bust and the CERT announcement, Shimomura posted a
command-by-command description of the attack: a summary of the CMAD
presentation. Then, he again claimed that the taped messages were the
"personal touch" of whoever had raided his machine:
> Of course, no attack would be complete without the personal touch.
Check out:
> ftp://ftp.sdsc.edu/pub/security/sounds/tweedle-dee.au
> ftp://ftp.sdsc.edu/pub/security/sounds/tweedle-dum.au
Shimomura, of course, had no way of knowing who left the message
(paraphrased, it said: "I'm the best hacker! my style is the best! and my
friend and I are gonna kill you!") But if he started out looking for the
voice on that tape, I doubt he was looking for Mitnick, a legendary
phreak, but fully 30 years old. I'd bet Shimomura started off thinking
he was chasing a teenager with a potent (and wholly scripted, "automated")
IP spoof attack.
I am intrigued at the suggestion that many people were able to
penetrate Shimomura's home machines. Does that imply that these others
were using the rather exotic IP spoof attack, or lesser and more mundane
penetration techniques? Evidence of other successful attacks may be
useful in Mitnick's defense. (Although, as you implied, on-line hacks
leave few fingerprints. Presumably, Kevin will be prosecuted for what he
had on his own disk and desk; what Shimomura and the FBI saw him do
on-line; and his probation violations.)
I'm surprised at the idea of Shimomuras' home site as a seive, Manny --
but the range of your sources is the reason I've been reading 2600 for so
many years.
Suerte,
_Vin
Graham Toal
> Kevin wasn't the only one who had access to that site, not by a long shot.
> It's quite likely he wasn't the one who got in first. And I can say with
> absolute certainty that Kevin didn't leave those messages. If you don't
> believe me, go ask Shimomura.
However it most likely *was* Mitnick who hacked into the Well in
order to read Markoff's mail, because he suspected what Markoff was
up to. This before Markoff admitted the slightest suspicion that
Mitnick was about to be tracked down and arrested, or was behind
the hack that the CERT bulletin that Markoff hyped up was about.
Yeah, right.
G
Graham Toal
> I have a lot more respect for the people on these threads, in various
> newsgroups. who are upfront about their affinity and sympathy for Mitnick
> (and pirate/cracker/data-thief values) than I do for you guys who presume
> to apply some prissy Martian version of "journalistic ethics" to Markoff!
> reporter! Get honest with yourself and just announce a Kevin Mitnick
> Defense Fund. Hey, I'll contribute -- on the basis that Kevin has been
> so damned entertaining for so long.
> sympathy for him is understandable. That virtually everyone is curious
> about him is human nature.
>
> What is not reasonable is taking your sympathy for Mitnick and
> transforming it into a snide, bitter contempt for either Shimomura or
> Markoff -- both of whom deserve far better.
If that's directed at me, you have a long long way to go in your study
of human nature sonny. I can assure you Mitnick is as far from being
lionized by me as you are.
I find it extremely depressing that no-one here seems to care about
journalistic ethics any more or reporting the whole truth, not an
extremely abbreviated and highly coloured version of it. What I'm
seeing is one of the most egregious abuses of journalistic power
I've seen in years and it's answered by a clamour of "so what?"s.
This thread has even been cross-posted on alt.journalism and I
haven't even seen the professional journalists take a stand. In
fact the two journalists who did post were in the "So what?" camp.
Well, you get the press you deserve, just like the government.
I just hope they're there when you need them.
G
Vin McLellan
very otherwordly grip on the strictures of ethics and enterprise that a
working reporter operates under.
I also think a number of people (perhaps not you, I don't have your
earlier posts) have taken a lot of liberty with the facts. These threads
have mixed fact, rumor, supposition and outright slander about equally in
their comments on both Markoff and Shimomura. Unfairly, in my opinion.
In article <3j4vj9$9...@taco.vt.com>, Graham Toal <gt...@gtoal.com> wrote:
> I find it extremely depressing that no-one here seems to care about
> journalistic ethics any more or reporting the whole truth, not an
> extremely abbreviated and highly coloured version of it.
Now those happen to be thing I do care about. The essential obligation
of a good reporter is to present his subject "fairly" -- a fairly subtle
and somewhat subjective measure, but the fundamental obligation in
providing information as a public service. Abbreviation, of course, is
always a fact, given the tight formats of print media.
> What I'm seeing is one of the most egregious abuses of journalistic power
> I've seen in years and it's answered by a clamour of "so what?"s.
You still don't get it! Most pro journalists do not just say "so
what?" Most would tell you straightforwardly that they don't think you
know what you are talking about! I've read virtually all of what has
been posted here, and I tell you -- based on 25 years as a journalist and
editor -- that I haven't yet seen anything that challenges Markoff (or
Smimomura's) reputation for integrity and capable professionalism.
Journalism is full of "egregious abuses," but I don't think Markoff's
articles on Mitnick fall within a light-year of that sort of wrongful
publishing. Quite the contrary, actually! I think he did a professional
and credible job... and I can't wait to read to read the book.
Wanna bet? I think Markoff will win a Pulitizer Prize for his
Mitnick/Shimomura article.
> Well, you get the press you deserve, just like the government.
> I just hope they're there when you need them.
>
> G
We really do look at this from different planets. The sins of the
media I worry about are sins of omission: the stories untold -- never the
article that "should not have been on page one." A story like this has
100 other reporters competing for new tibits around it. The details of
the original investigation will also be dug out (even Markoff's role) in
minute detail in depositions and court testimony. And a jury will have
its say.
Would that all of Government (or all of journalism) could withstand
such scrutiny!
Vin McLellan
Kirschner) wrote:
> Slander is a very serious word. Slander is the defemation of
> character with no basis in truith. If a reporter reports the
> truith then it's not slanderous.
>
> Philip
Frankly, Mr. K, I find slander is close to the norm in some
newsgroups. Don't you? Doesn't everyone? I'd also describe many of the
on-line commentators on Mitnick's arrest (and Shimomura's hunt for the
hacker who stole his software; and Markoff's articles on the whole scene)
as naive armchair editors; or techies overly critical of popular
journalism; or passionate enemies (or advocates, often undeclared) of
outlaw hacker values -- all seeking truth, to be sure, but having little
to do with gathering or reporting facts, per se, or the process of sifting
fact from rumor.
Nothing wrong with any of the above, of course. Most folks on-line
make no pretense to be doing anything more than rehashing what others have
published or said -- adding perhaps a little "color" among the facts
retold. And people get slandered all the time -- in neighborhood bars, in
school yards, in car pools, and in a thousand other casual environments.
The Net gives us an on-line equivalent, an audience of 100,000 (?) but
nothing in the way of accountability or responsibility. Witness the
repeated (and absurd) declarations that Shimomura had to break the law,
illicitly eavesdropping on phone calls or the like, in order to track
Mitnick.
With regard to Markoff, these threads have been full of slanderous
declarations about his motives, his role in the investigation, when he
knew what, what he expected his articles on the Shimomura's investigation
turn into. Unless these commentators are mind-readers or have a private
pipeline to Markoff, they simply _can't_ know much of what they claim to
know! It's also clear few of them know beans about how a newspaper
operates. (Who, for instance, decides what sort of display and page
placement an article gets. It isn't the reporter!)
Myself, I simply assume that neither Simomura nor Markoff is so stupid
as to have done illegal or unethical things that would inevitably be
revealed in the court hearings that will (inevitably, as they damn well
knew) review the whole investigation. I could be proven wrong -- but not
by the guys who have been howling for Markoff's and Shimomura's blood
here. And not from the facts available so far.
Personally, I think the on-line reaction to these events and Markoff's
articles has been fascinating. It could be a paradigm (or half a
paradigm) for a new, and generally healthy, level of engagement between
the journalist and his public -- or, at least, an outspoken subset of his
public which has its own "broadcast" system in the Net. I doubt if the
Times allows Markoff or his editors to debate these issues in these
newsgroups -- not even to defend his honor, or to correct
misunderstandings about how an article got in print. I can understand
their reticence -- the Net is something of a black hole, as we all know;->
-- but I don't think it will last. As the Matrix multiplies and extends
itself, it becomes much less a techie and college kid backwater.
Publishers are going to have to notice when, on-line, their more
enterprising reporters are getting mugged, flamed, and otherwise beat up
for doing their job.
Of course, editors and publishers have always had difficulty dealing
with "community relations" in any context other than the "Letters to the
Editor" pages they control. (Pickets at the press room door always freak
them out, eg.) That, I think, will change as mainline pubs get more
invested in the on-line community. In a year or so, I expect to see many
newpapers with an on-line ombudsman willing to argue, debate, defend or
apologize as necessary. Not to shout in the face of a mob, but offering
additional information as necessary to defend the publication's
reputation.
It could make the journalism newsgroups come alive, with
"backgrounders"on an article and how it came to be -- the sort of
wonderful tales the NY Times publishes (or used to publish) only in its
internal staff newsletter. Something to look forward to....
Suerte,
_Vin