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

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#61

Post by jagged-chisel »

genewitch wrote: post #58
itishappy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That regulation is known before one signs up to be a ham. So the disclosure is voluntary.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#62

Post by chgs »

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?

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#63

Post by some_random »

genewitch wrote: post #58
itishappy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many things you're allowed to disclose about yourself that are considered unacceptable to disclose about others without their consent.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#64

Post by MG9991ep545a1l3 »

daghamm wrote: post #20
fabiensanglard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are into this topic, read as many point of view as possible and take a look at http://www.takedown.com/ (Tsutomu Shimomura's side of the story).

I've far more respect for Tsutomu. In the end he turned out to be the better hacker. Reading Mitnicks book I sometimes get the impression that the he is making up half of it.

Kevin hasn’t hacked anything at all. He ran with a few other characters who never received anywhere near the amount of attention that Mitnick did. For example, no one ever figured out who “jsz” was.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#65

Post by some_random »

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?

Their privacy, which has value to them and should be respected. You can argue it on a case by case basis but the default is (and should be) to not disclose. As for comparisons to news articles, well maybe this is a place where the government is doing better than some news agencies (reasoning as to why is left to the reader).

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#66

Post by caspper69 »

tormeh wrote: post #60
cyberax wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because there are SSNs shared by multiple people.

What? That sounds less than ideal.

It usually wasn't intentional: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html

The system still has to disambiguate and support the prospect of it happening though.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#67

Post by some_random »

rglover wrote: post #56
palijer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unless we get an unredacted version leaked in the future it's impossible to say what the redacted paragraphs say, but this document has a ton of the former style of redaction which makes me trust that the larger redactions (ie page 42) were in fact necessary to protect PII as labeled.

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#68

Post by timewizard »

dkga wrote: post #57
timewizard wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you possibly haven't read very many court documents. When these cases actually get tried much of this becomes public anyways. In particular this document details agents Mitnick _himself_ spoke with. Are you really suggesting their redactions here are to prevent reprisals? How could that possibly work?

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#69

Post by DamnInteresting »

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.

I write a lot about history, and as part of that work I occasionally file FOIA requests. There was one occasion where the FBI's response contained dozens of pages that were typewritten memos consisting of:

To: [recipient name]

From: [sender name]

Date: [date]

[Multiple paragraphs of redacted text]

...and that was basically it. It was funny, but frustrating (funstrating?).

Example: https://www.damninteresting.com/temp/memo.jpg

Re: Kevin Mitnik FOIA Final

#70

Post by Muromec »

timewizard wrote: post #68
dkga wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you possibly haven't read very many court documents. When these cases actually get tried much of this becomes public anyways. In particular this document details agents Mitnick _himself_ spoke with. Are you really suggesting their redactions here are to prevent reprisals? How could that possibly work?

It's one thing if Kevin Motnick knows and the other if all of the internet knows and it's indexable
Post reply on HN