Because of how unjustly he was treated. Held for 5 years without trail, most of that in solitary confinement, because the government thought if he got to a phone he could launch nuclear weapons (seriously). Mitnick was in it for the knowledge, and exploration, not financial gain, not destruction, or anything like the script kiddies of today.
He seems like more or less the archetype of the modern script kid (he was using other people's exploits --- and in an era where you could exploit a lot of vulnerabilities with simple shell scripts, no less). What makes you think otherwise? How much do you know about his motives?
a little later:
When talking about his sentence, it's useful to compare it to that of Lewis DePayne, his accomplice. They're both charged with essentially the same crimes. But DePayne isn't going on a hacking spree while on supervised release, and gets probation.
> He seems like more or less the archetype of the modern script kid (he was using other people's exploits --- and in an era where you could exploit a lot of vulnerabilities with simple shell scripts, no less). What makes you think otherwise?
"In his 2002 book, The Art of Deception, Mitnick states that he compromised computers solely by using passwords and codes that he gained by social engineering. He claims he did not use software programs or hacking tools for cracking passwords or otherwise exploiting computer or phone security." [1]
> When talking about his sentence, it's useful to compare it to that of Lewis DePayne, his accomplice. They're both charged with essentially the same crimes. But DePayne isn't going on a hacking spree while on supervised release, and gets probation.
You mean he didn't get caught, and DePayne went screwing with Mitnick's girlfriend.
Maybe it's just because I was in this field during the events we're talking about (I got an early start!) but: I don't see how you can be at all familiar with the Mitnick/Shimomura story and think that he didn't use hacking tools. That breakin was famous mostly for introducing the wider world to the concept of TCP sequence number prediction. Unless you think he socially engineered Shimomura's TCP stack.
Kevin Mitnick absolutely did use other people's tools.
I don't know what your last sentence means. DePayne was charged as an accomplice, convicted, and given probation. He obviously did "get caught".
These people weren't there and only know what they have read or what has been glamorized. Mitnick had (has?) an evil streak and is in no way some poor little kid who got in over his head. He know what he was doing (in terms of his desire to cause harm) and he got off it. Lots of people had "fun" -- but very few seemed to be truly nasty human beings.
It's far better to create and help than it is to destroy and harm.
Hell, even u4ea popped up recently and doesn't seem like he's held a grudge for 20+ years -- think others can do or say the same?
What I found interesting about his MO when I read Takedown was the idea of social engineering and stringing together scripts. In particular Mitnick was interesting because it was a counter-narrative to the world Stoll portrays in The Cuckoo's Egg, a world where only technical knowledge seemed to matter in relation to technical issues. I suppose I found Mitnick M.O. interesting because it was so much simpler...like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Arch where Jones faces the swordsman [sans violence]. Not that he was my hero or anything. But I never found myself relating Shimomura in the way I did with Stoll. My recollection is that his book felt like a knockoff written with the expectation that I should feel outrage. I didn't.
Stoll was the most interesting character in his book. Mitnick was far and away the most interesting character in Shimomura's book. Stoll was interesting because he was curious. Shimomura was dull because he was just offended. The book did well because Mitnick was interesting, because cloning cell phones was interesting, because breaking into computer systems is interesting...even to people who aren't going to do it.
I don't know, honestly. Likely the way he was written about more then what he did. I went by pop descriptions, uninformed irc debates, the book, etc, so I think that any answer to your question is more cultural then technical/factual.
The way hacking or lying your way somewhere seemed to be socially proof of ones superiority and something admired by others. For a time I really thought there is something aspiring and cool about hacking. And that people who do it are all definitely inherently smarter then me, but it kinda felt bad to try and my parents would be disappointed so I never tried. I had not the same impression about other types of crime. And it stopped the moment I had closer light weight contact with that culture.
Oddly, i simultaneously believed that techies are inherently more ethical them "managers" and "politicians". I did not even wanted to believe that veev could be nazi, so strong the bias toward hacker in trouble therefore cool was.
Yes, and they set an interesting counter-example:
Kevin Poulsen, Mark Abene, Elias Ladopoulos, and others took things in a sinister direction. Mitnick wasn't like that, and I think that really set him apart, but because he was the best the government had to make an example out of him.
He wasn't like that? Says who? Him? And you believe this? The Internet in the late 80s to the mid 90s was like the wild west -- there were a few bad actors as Mitnick was one of them. Sorry.
There were of course other major hackers at the time, but were any of these nearly as well known as Mitnick outside of law enforcement and hackers who would already know of these people?
