Charles,

I don't want to get into the rant we're close to falling into, whether or not you think that hiring hackers is a good thing or not really doesn't affect me, as I do not currently (nor do I plan in the future) work for you. My opinions on this are known. However, my words have been seen in print, digital print and analog magazine print (I welcome you to search, you'll find me, as others have in the past.) Luckly, magazine and e-mag editors don't see things with the narrow vision that you have. They, like hackers you so elegantly dismiss, value information regardless to what the background of the person is (so long as it is truthful, plausable, or at least a valid opinion.) I've even seen some stuff in print that never should have been.

The point that I've tried to make here, is that sometimes people with a large amount of education or certifications (CISSP, SANS, etc.) fall into the rut of being closed minded about things. They look too hard at the source of the information, and dismiss the information outright if the source of the information does not conform to their checklist of valid senders. I find it amazing that people dismiss information as invalid just because the person who creates or relays the information is a "criminal" (if they have spent time in jail.) Honesty and trustworthyness have nothing to do with a criminal past, there are folks in jail right now who are more honest and trustworthy than I am, yet they did something in the past that was wrong and are serving time as a punishment for their transgressions. I've done things in the past that I could have been caught doing (I tend to be a lead foot on the freeway,) as I'm sure you and everyone else here has. Yet is my knowledge about traffic safety any more valuable than someone who is caught speeding? I've not seen anything from either the courts or the jail system to indicate that Mitnick has ever been untruthful. On the other hand, I have seen indications that some of those who worked to put Mitnick in jail were far less than honest or truthful, yet they were on the good side, right?

Like my brotherin have said in this thread, Mitnick has served his time for a crime he committed. He is still serving time, he isn't allowed to even read these threads for himself (unless someone else hands him a printed copy) as he isn't allowed to touch a computer (except a supervised and unconnected laptop.) Just because he spent any time in jail doesn't make his word any less truthful or accurate. And your previous (albiet shady) claim of SecurityFocus or any other publisher pandering to Mitnick because he is a well known and well feared (or revered,) and not printing articles from other (less known) individuals is unfounded and just not true. You get published for having good information that others can use, or well developed opinions that others can listen to, not because you've been to jail nor because you haven't.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/199/5524#5524