Message-ID: <005401c948f9$b1b86c80$15294580$@net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:16:01 -0800
From: "William Lefkovics" <william@...kovics.net>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: NTLM Multiprotocol Replay attacks

Isn't the key 'profiting' from their crimes versus talking/writing about
them?  I hope so.

 

 

From: Trollie Fingers [mailto:trolliefingers@...il.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:54 PM
To: william@...kovics.net
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu; full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] NTLM Multiprotocol Replay attacks

 

he'd probably be on shaky ground if he wrote a book *specifically* about the
hacks that got him landed in jail.

[snip]
Now that the statute of limitations has lifted on many of his crimes -- as
well as a seven-year court ban prohibiting him from writing about them (the
ban ended midnight on January 28, 2007) -- former hacker Kevin Mitnick is
telling his story in a book to be published next year.
[/snip]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/kevin-mitnick-t.html

FYI.  I don't subscribe to the belief that criminals cannot talk about their
crimes.  That is ridiculous.  They become popular because people have
interest.  If there were no interest then this wouldn't be an issue.

I also don't think we should prevent people from arranging words as they sit
fit on printed items.  Isn't there some sort of amendment over here that
protects this kind of thing? (For those in Ermerika.)

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, william@...kovics.net
<william@...kovics.net> wrote:

OJ was acquitted of the crime allegedly admitted in his "book". He could
profit from it then, right?

Of course, he does have a huge debt from the related civil suit he lost and
any money he makes from anything is fair game.  OJ is not a good example
there... well, unless he writes a book on his most recent conviction for
armed robbery/kidnapping here in Las Vegas.




  _____  

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:31 AM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] NTLM Multiprotocol Replay attacks



On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:46:50 GMT, n3td3v said:

> We should bring in a law to stop criminal hackers from profiteering
> from their crimes or otherwise reaching any kind of stardom.

You might want to actually investigate what the law really is in your area.

In most areas, there already *are* laws that specifically prohibit or
severely restrict a convicted felon's ability to profit from their
notoriety by selling interviews/books/film rights/etc regarding the
crime in question. This is why OJ Simpson will probably see next to
zero profits from any "How I did it" books he tries to sell (the victim's
family has first claim on that money), and why Kevin Mitnick can write
a book about 'The Art of Deception' and make money off it, but he'd probably
be on shaky ground if he wrote a book *specifically* about the hacks that
got him landed in jail.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

 


Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists