0 Followers
0 Following
6 Posts
Hi, I'm Phil, Founder of a bootstrapped / self-funded Open Source enterprise software startup called Fogbeam Labs.

How to contact me:

Email: [email protected]

XMPP: [email protected]

Mastodon: https://fosstodon.org/@mindcrime

Twitter: @fogbeamlabs OR @mindcrime

Github: https://github.com/mindcrime/

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes

Quora: http://www.quora.com/Phillip-Rhodes

Web: http://www.fogbeam.com

Phone: 919-265-4489 (note: I generally prefer email, but call me if it's urgent)

hnchat.com:hOaIWIylU0WFAwwchlZw
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.

Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup

And here I was expecting this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Rl8TpGIP4

Calling Dr. Love

YouTube
"Your security technique will be defeated. Your technique is no good"
Nope, no theory at all. Just providing some context for people who might not be as familiar with that book and the authors, and some of the questions that have been raised about it.

From what I can remember, while there was some public awareness of "computer crime" by 1988 (War Games helped with that), it wasn't exactly a "big deal" to most people yet. My subjective recollection is that things took a marked turn around 1990, with the advent of "Operation Sundevil"[1], the raid on Steve Jackson Games, etc.

And by the mid to late 90's (I'd say about 1997) it was finally becoming "received wisdom" to most hacker that "this is real now: getting caught doing this stuff could mean actual jail time, fines, not getting into college, losing jobs, etc." Now I grew up in a rural part of NC and so we probably lagged other parts of the country in terms of information dispersal, so I expect other people view the timeline differently, so YMMV.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil

Operation Sundevil - Wikipedia

For the sake of argument, let's assume that rtm finds the whole episode embarrassing or whatever and would prefer to avoid the topic. If pg is really his close friend, it makes sense that pg would defer from conversing about it (especially in public) simply out of respect for his friend.

It's in Katie Hafner and John Markoff's book!

Not sure if that was supposed to be sarcasm[1] or was intended seriously, but for what it's worth Hafner & Markoff have frequently received a lot of criticism for playing fast and loose with the truth in that book. Now most of that is specifically in regards to their treatment of Mitnick, and I'm not making any particular accusation here. Just sharing a thought that "it's in Katie Hafner and John Markoff's book" might not be terribly strong evidence of $WHATEVER.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Poe's law - Wikipedia