Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Private Comment - Mitnick

Skip to first unread message

Lewis De Payne

Mar 5, 1995, 3:56:33 PM3/5/95
From Sun Mar 5 12:51:40 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 12:51:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Lewis De Payne <>
To: Collect Call Mojo <>
Subject: Re: New group

On Sun, 5 Mar 1995, Collect Call Mojo wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 1995, Lewis De Payne wrote:
> >
> > That's an interesting concept, one worthy of further analysis. Last
> > time Mitnick got in trouble, he was paid $25,000 by a movie studio for
> > an option to the rights to his movie. Nowadays, he'll probably be
> > offered five times that for the ultimate movie - I'd say that he'll
> > be well-paid for his talents, what about you?
> >
> Well paid does not make his actions just. Many traitors to their society
> are well paid. But payment does not make an activity that could destroy
> something just. If I were paid $500,000 to kill you I would still just be
> a murderous assassin. Mitnick's actions along with many others en-mass
> doing the same thing is a threat to the freedom we now enjoy on the net.

Have you ever stopped to consider where the real threat to your freedom
on and off the net comes from? It is not as much from hackers as from
FBI and other government agents who encourage informants to perform
illegal acts for them in an effort to gather probable cause which they
otherwise could not obtain legally. This is where the real threat to our
liberties is. I suggest you read Richard Sherman's letter to Janet Reno
regarding the illegal wiretaps and other activities FBI agents instructed
Justin Petersen, their informant, to perform in their effort to gather
evidence against Kevin Mitnick. Better yet, pick up a copy of the March
15th edition of Information Week magazine, in which Justin Petersen now
admits to committing crimes for the FBI in the Mitnick case.

Someone who causes others to commit crimes under color of authority,
with the intent of using the illegally obtained evidence to secure a
search warrant in hopes of finding admissible evidence is nothing but
a crook, and represents a greater danger to our civil liberties than
one lonely Kevin Mitnick hacking through cyberspace.

As you reconsider your priorities, don't be surprised
to find Mitnick sinking to the bottom of your list.

"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!

Lewis De Payne

Mar 9, 1995, 4:56:51 PM3/9/95
[ Article crossposted from ]
[ Author was Lewis De Payne ]
[ Posted on Thu, 9 Mar 1995 21:42:32 GMT ]

Sean Foderaro stopped to think, then wrote:
: Lewis, let me explain things more slowly and perhaps you
: will be able to understand.

Sean, now you have me really curious as to your interpretation of things
in general. As you sit there and type more slowly, presumably so that I
can understand your explanation, keep in mind that all anyone sees is
your complete letter... not the slow speed at which you composed it. As
you think about it like that, is there actually any meaningful purpose
to your sentence, beyond that of an ill-directed insult which makes you
look like a fool? Take your time in responding... type slowly.

: I have no control over government spying. It isn't done by one rogue
: person in the govenment but but a large organization (NSA, CIA) which
: which is accountable to Congress, the Executive Branch and the Courts.

Incorrect. It is done by both the "rogue person" as well as the large
organizations (E-Systems, NSA, CIA, FBI) whose "illegal" projects are
NOT accountable to congress, under a cloak of secrecy. Case in point,
check out Air Sea Forwarders lawsuit against E-Systems and the gov't.
They could not proceed because the CIA got a secret order to block the
lawyers, plaintiffs and judge in that case. The order was so secret
that the noone was allowed to have a copy of it - not even the judge,
nor were they allowed to talk about the fact that there even existed
such an order. It was on 60 Minutes last week...

: The government spies can only continue to justify their actions if
: they can point to criminals like Mitnick who must be stopped. If
: you don't believe that look at all the military bases that have
: closed down since the Soviet threat disappeared.

Wait a second - the issue here is that it is a crime to commit the
types of acts which (in my example) FBI agents committed with Justin
Petersen. Mitnick, nor others like him, is no justification for
allowing FBI agents to commit those crimes, period. You seem to want
to justify one wrong by supporting another.

: If we could police ourselves and discourage the Mitnicks rather than
: praise and idolize them then the government spies would have a much
: more difficult time justifying their actions to the superiors.

That's a very beautiful idealistic view. Now, as you return to reality
and face the inherent challenges imposed by human limitations, what
alternative strategy would you recommend as a backup to your failed one?

"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!

"Mum's the word" - Justin Petersen || "Here Justin, keep these SAS manuals
"Did you use SAS?" - Terry Atchley || for now. It'll come in handy since we
"Did YOU use SAS?" - LDP to KGM || can't wiretap without a court order."
"I am not a crook" - Richard Nixon || Kenneth G. McGuire, SA, FBI, LA, CA

0 new messages