Response to an article unfairly depicting security professionals.
From: cult hero (jericho[at]attrition.org) To: email@example.com Cc: Emmanuelle Richard (emmarichard[at]earthlink.net), errata submission (errata[at]attrition.org) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:12:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: Errata in your recent article. Marie: I am writing to notify you of errata contained in one of your recent articles. A friend that reads/speaks French fairly well sent me this translation, so pardon me if the response is off because of it. Your article: (http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/portrait/port20000314.html) Last year, two hackers, Brian and Dale, helped Mitnick's lawyers to prepare a private settlement. "The government While Dale and I may be hackers by one definition or another, calling us this in the context above is unprofessional and potentially libelous. We were each hired by the U.S. Government because of our significant background in computer security, knowledge of operating systems, and computer forensics. This is a hard earned reputation that requires many years of specialized work. To be called 'hackers' in place of this is flat out wrong. Further, we were not hired because of our names, our reputations, or because we have the title 'hacker'. Next, Dale and I had absolutely NOTHING to do with preparing the plea bargain Mitnick eventually signed. We were hired to examine the evidence against Kevin, and prepare for the case should it go to trial. All matters related to the plea bargain were between Kevin and his legal staff, NOT his technical forensics staff. I would like you to make changes to the article to reflect more accurate statements, as well as issue a retraction to readers who have already viewed the article. Thank you Brian Martin