Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

vault.fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#51

Post by tptacek »

vasco wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the best of my knowledge, Mitnick didn't really code at all. There are (let's call them) intrusion specialists whose skillsets don't really involve systems programming, but rather intuition and tenacity, and there are others who write exploits. My understanding is that Mitnick was the former, and was using tools he got from friends and peers.

In the book he spends a lot of time on the social engineering parts of it to be honest. It's been a few years but I remember him mostly bragging about that rather than developing custom exploits.

He also comes from an era of intrusions where systems were so bad you didn't really need to code to get into them. For an alarmingly long time, the most effective tool you could use to pop a network was simply `showmount`.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#52

Post by gmueckl »

rglover wrote: post #16

It should be illegal for the government to keep redactions in anything made public/declassified. It's a slap in the face to see entire sections of text (that most certainly contain important context) blocked out with a white blob.

There may be a middle ground where, with some effort effort, a watered down summary of the redacted information could be given (e.g. if a name of a person is redacted, replace it with some sort of unique handle). As long as this is done as an annotations for the visibly marked redaction, I see no problem. The reader may choose to trust those annotations or not.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#53

Post by timewizard »

toast0 wrote: post #19
rglover wrote: post #16

It should be illegal for the government to keep redactions in anything made public/declassified. It's a slap in the face to see entire sections of text (that most certainly contain important context) blocked out with a white blob.

If that were the requirement, documents would not be made public/declassified unless the entire document was considered safe to release. In many cases, a partial public document is better than no public document.

The people who generate the documents /cannot/ be the people who decide if they're safe to release. There needs to be independent oversight. These are not agency documents they belong to the public. They may be classified but the moment they're no longer _objectively_ worth classifying they are absolutely public domain material.

It's also extremely offensive to see the names of AUSA's (Assistant US Attourneys) and SA's (FBI Special Agents) redacted. They had personal involvement in this case so I genuinely don't understand why their names cannot or should not be a part of this document. They're public figures in a public role.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#54

Post by itishappy »

vasco wrote: post #43
ocschwar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mitnick files contain information about innocent people who are alive and whose privacy rights remain paramount.

Perhaps too naive a question, but if they are innocent what is there to protect? I get it in the case of informants or agents that operate undercover or in plains clothes but if just a bystander how is it different than some news article?

What's your name and address? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.) Is that info you'd be comfortable sharing on a public forum? I presume you're not doing anything particularly wrong.

This also assumes that we can all agree on a definition for "innocent."

> what is there to protect?

Their privacy. Some people have strong opinions on 3 letter agencies and poor reading comprehension. Some people are just mean spirited. Best way to prevent dumb stuff from happening is to not create a situation where dumb stuff could happen.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#55

Post by gosub100 »

jfengel wrote: post #17
joering2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve's Job SSN is 549-94-3295. How can this release harm a dead person?

Him, probably not. His estate, however, potentially. Perhaps one could get a loan, using his SSN, and his estate gets the bill and subsequent harassment. SSNs make terrible secrets and it's insane that you could harm a live person by knowing their SSN. I doubt that insanity stops just because you're dead.

Creditors have access to the death index too.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#56

Post by rglover »

palijer wrote: post #31
rglover wrote: post #16

It should be illegal for the government to keep redactions in anything made public/declassified. It's a slap in the face to see entire sections of text (that most certainly contain important context) blocked out with a white blob.

Why do we need to have the names of people like a random security guard that was duped by social engineering? To make sure he pays for a mistake or something? What is the reason for not reacting his name?

I'm not concerned with names. It's entire paragraphs that may have names in them that are redacted. If it's just a name or address, redact that, sure.

"Called -------- on July 1st, 1983 to get access to a router"

Is much better than

"----------------------------------------------------------"

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#57

Post by dkga »

timewizard wrote: post #53
toast0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the requirement, documents would not be made public/declassified unless the entire document was considered safe to release. In many cases, a partial public document is better than no public document.

The people who generate the documents /cannot/ be the people who decide if they're safe to release. There needs to be independent oversight. These are not agency documents they belong to the public. They may be classified but the moment they're no longer _objectively_ worth classifying they are absolutely public domain material. It's also extremely offensive to see the names of AUSA's (Assistant US Attourneys) and SA…

I completely disagree. In this case, it is clear there wouldn‘t be a reprisal but in many case law enforcement agents and prosecution teams get involved in might involve serious reprisal threat for them or their loved ones. Their names should never be revealed.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#58

Post by genewitch »

itishappy wrote: post #54
vasco wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps too naive a question, but if they are innocent what is there to protect? I get it in the case of informants or agents that operate undercover or in plains clothes but if just a bystander how is it different than some news article?

What's your name and address? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.) Is that info you'd be comfortable sharing on a public forum? I presume you're not doing anything particularly wrong. This also assumes that we can all agree on a definition for "innocent." > what is there to protect? Their privacy. Some people have strong opinions on 3 letter agencies and poor reading comprehension. Some people are just mean sp…

Licensed ham radio operators give their address every 15 minutes by law. And their full name. Sometimes it's a PO box, but mostly a home address's.

I can't think of anything more public than airwaves.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#59

Post by rglover »

gmueckl wrote: post #52
rglover wrote: post #16

It should be illegal for the government to keep redactions in anything made public/declassified. It's a slap in the face to see entire sections of text (that most certainly contain important context) blocked out with a white blob.

There may be a middle ground where, with some effort effort, a watered down summary of the redacted information could be given (e.g. if a name of a person is redacted, replace it with some sort of unique handle). As long as this is done as an annotations for the visibly marked redaction, I see no problem. The reader may choose to trust those annotations or not.

This would be fair (I hadn't considered names in my original comment). Whether truly sensitive or not, protecting names/addresses/numbers/etc. would make sense (especially if there was a footnote to a "why" something was redacted).
Post reply on HN