Response to an article unfairly depicting security professionals.

From: cult hero (jericho[at]
Cc: Emmanuelle Richard (emmarichard[at], errata submission (errata[at]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:12:43 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Errata in your recent article.


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:

 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

main page ATTRITION feedback