Kicking Crackers Off the Grid http://web.archive.org/web/20000824015646/www.wired.com/news/...

Kicking Crackers Off the Grid

by Arik Hesseldahl

9:05 a.m. Aug. 5, 1998 PDT

If convicted, the two teenagers who earlier this year demonstrated the vulnerability of US military computer
networks will likely accept the usual punishment doled out to crackers: They'll be barred from computers
and the Internet.

But critics say that such restrictions may not be the best punishment for computer crimes -- and could
point to a wider fear of technology on the part of the legal system.

US Attorney Michael Yamaguchi's recommendations, made last week, would bar the two Northern California
teens, "Makaveli," 16, and "TooShort," 15, from unsupervised computer use, owning a modem, and seeking
employment in the computer security field during their probation.

Both teens pleaded guilty to several charges relating to illegally accessing sensitive military and government
computers in February of this year. The pair is expected to be formally sentenced in several months.

Mike Roadancer, president of the Hackers Defense Foundation and a convicted cracker, called the
computer-use quarantines usually recommended in such cases a joke.

"These kinds of restrictions don't even touch the issue of responsible use of technology. They don't serve
any purpose other than to make these kids bitter and angry," he said.

"Personally, I think that if anything, they should be encouraged in the responsible use of technology,"
Roadancer said.

A San Francisco criminal defense attorney who specializes in computer crime cases agreed.

"From a political standpoint, what the computer-use restrictions say is that what we're concerned about is a
threat from someone with skills plus tools plus knowledge," said Jennifer Granick, who operates a private
practice.

"In this day and age we should be embracing skills and tools and knowledge," she said.

At first glance, the recommended restrictions seem to resemble those placed on another alleged cracker,
Kevin Mitnick, who until recently was barred from using a computer while preparing his defense.

Mitnick, who has been in a federal prison for more than three years awaiting trial on 25 counts of
computer-related fraud and theft, has recently been allowed the use of a laptop to examine the evidence
against him.

In an age in which computers are fast becoming a part of daily life, are such restrictions realistic and
enforceable? Will they make a difference or serve as a deterrent? And whose interest do such restrictions
serve?

Opinions from other computer security specialists and advocates vary.

It's a "close question," said Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
has not taken a formal position on the restrictions placed upon accused or convicted crackers.

"As an alternative to incarceration, it is clearly less punitive. But on the other hand, I hate to see people
being asked to waive their First Amendment rights."

Granick draws a clear distinction between imposing such restrictions as part of a probationary period and
after parole from prison.

"In the case of probation, the court can impose restrictions on activity intended to serve the interests of
public safety, but it's also intended to be a period of rehabilitation for the defendant," said Granick, who

1 of 2 1/13/07 7:35 PM
Kicking Crackers Off the Grid http://web.archive.org/web/20000824015646/www.wired.com/news/...

briefly represented Kevin Poulsen, a cracker who served federal time for breaking into a Los Angeles radio
station's telephone contest in 1990.

"The system wants to move this person to a place where they won't be committing more crimes," she said.

Granick said the system should be focused more on understanding and eliminating a hacker's motives for
committing crimes.

For Terry Ewing, who served 18 months in federal prison for crimes he committed as the cracker "Purpcon,"
not having computer-use restrictions following his release has allowed him the means to pay his fines and
restitution.

Ewing pleaded guilty in 1995 to charges that he broke into Tower Records' computers and stole credit card
numbers and password files.

Before his sentence was handed down, an investigation determined that computers and the Internet were
the tools of his trade, and that limiting his use of them would inhibit his ability to pay more than US$19,000
he owes the court.

"Without the ability to use a computer for my work, and to increase my skills, I would have been left behind,"
said Ewing, who works as an administrator for two Internet service providers in Sacramento, California. "I
can't imagine where I would be if I had to pay my current bills without being able to do what I know best. It
still scares me to think how close I came to that."

But before he went to trial, he wasn't allowed to go near a computer. "I literally had to take a job serving
pizza. I had to actively look for work that didn't require use of a computer. I was lucky the place I found
didn't do what most businesses have done, and use a computer for a cash register," he said.

But Roadancer -- of the Hackers Defense Foundation -- may prove the most interesting case study in the
long-term effectiveness of computer restriction sentences. Since his wire fraud conviction in the early 1980s,
he has worked on computer system management for such clients as the US Justice Department and the US
Navy.

"I learned the responsible use of technology and applied it to help my clients," he said.

"But I would not have been able to do that if the court had told me 'no more computers, no more modems.'"

Related Wired Links:

Mitnick Denied Computer Access

31.Mar.98

Teen Hackers To Be Grounded

30.Jul.98

Teen Crackers Admit Guilt

11.Jun.98

Pentagon Hacker Exposed by Justice Department

18.Mar.98

Copyright © 1994-2000 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.

2 of 2 1/13/07 7:35 PM