totse.com | Geraldo Rivera Browbeats Craig Neidorf

NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.

On Sept 30, Geraldo Rivera's show focused on "hackers." Not surprisingly, the commentary was closer to sensationalistic fiction than fact. Those who saw the original airing described Rivera's framing of the issue as reprehensible, and his comments about Craig Neidorf were described as potentially slanderous. Even by Geraldo standards, Craig could not have expected the grotesque insults to which he was subjected and the bullying and inaccuracies that he endured, according to observers, with reserved dignity.

We are indebted to an anonymous reader who provided us with excerpts from the transcripts. They reveal a consistent pattern of sensationalism--not surprising--but they also reflect that Rivera had little interest in accuracy and instead resorted to fabrication bordering on lies to depict Craig as a "Mad Hacker." His task was made considerably easier by Alameda County (California) prosecutor Don Ingraham, who contributed to the misconceptions of Craig and played into the sensationalistic "mad hacker" motif that was the format of the show.

Those who viewed the program report, and the transcripts confirm, that the initial portion focused on the potential dangers of hacking to national security, and skillfully juxtaposed film images of terrorism and military violence with discussions and images of hackers.

Rivera continually referred to Craig as the "Mad Hacker," described him as Ingraham's "arch-rival," and used the term "notorious hacker" to remind the audience that his guest was not some run of the mill evil-doer, but "mad," "notorious," and America's "most wanted" hacker. Ingraham implied that Craig was responsible for breaking into and endangering the nation's E911 system, but backed off slightly while leaving the connection between E911 and national security intact. Ingraham's analogy of rape and hacking was in poor taste, and he seemed to join Rivera in competing for outlandish sound-byte of the day.

The media has played a major role in contributing to hacker hysteria by grossly exaggerating the exploits of suspects and defendants. Rivera has taken hyperbole to a new level by imputing dangers where none exist, by fabricating facts, and by leaving the audience with the impression that--in this case--Craig had actually broken into the E911 system. In a time which Constitutionally protected liberties are threatened, when demogogues enact anti-crime legislation that expands definitions of punishable behavior and increases penalties for offenses, and when the public--still largely technophobic--does not understand hacking, Geraldo's portrayal is recklessly dangerous and unconscionably irresponsible. It is one thing to engage in self-serving sleaze for ratings. It is quite another to distort truth in ways that create false impressions and tarnish reputations by name-calling. We suggest that Geraldo Rivera has far more in common, both in his actions and in his consequences, with terrorists than do hackers. Rivera, like terrorists, seems to have no hesitation in doing violence if it serves his own narrow interests. On balance, society can survive a "hacker menace" far more easily than it can survive callous disregard of truth.

Geraldo: Joining us now via satellite from Oakland, CA is the Assistant District Attorney Don Ingraham ... for Alameda County and he has been prosecuting computer hackers for years.

Geraldo: Don, how do you respond to the feeling common among so many hackers that what they're doing is a public service; they're exposing the flaws in our security systems?

Don: Right, and just like the people who rape a coed on campus are exposing the flaws in our nation's higher education security. It's absolute nonsense. They are doing nothing more than showing off to each other, and satisfying their own appetite to know something that is not theirs to know.

Geraldo: Don, you stand by, Craig as well. And when we come back we'll hear more from prosecutor Ingraham and from, I guess his archrival here, the Mad Hacker Craig Neidorf.

Geraldo: We're back with Craig Neidorf, a former University of Missouri student who ran a widely distributed electronic newsletter for computer hackers. He is so proud of being America's Most Wanted computer hacker that he has put together this very impressive scrapbook.

Geraldo: That's your handle. OK. And from Oakland, CA we are talking with the Assistant District Attorney Don Ingraham, who is hard driven, you might say, to put people like Craig behind bars. Don, do you think Craig's lucky that he's not behind bars right now?

Don: Yes, I think he's extraordinarily lucky. He was part of a conspiracy, in my opinion, to take property that wasn't his and share it with others. They charged him with interstate transport of stolen property - couldn't make the threshold -and it came out that it had been compromised by, unfortunately, released by another Bellcore subsidiary. But was certainly not through any doing of HIS that he is a free man.

Geraldo: Craig, you wanna respond? Are you doing something for the greater good of society?

KL: Well I was merely publishing a newsletter. I didn't go out and find this document. Rather it was sent to me. In many ways it could be compared to Daniel Ellsberg sending the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.

Don: No, Ellsberg went to court to deal with it. Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers is the subject of a published court decision to point out it was a matter of national security and national interest. The E911 codes, which is the citizen's link to the police department are not a matter of national security. They're a matter of the central service to the community.......

Don: I didn't say he entered into it. What I said was that he and Riggs conspired together to take a code that they knew was necessary to 911 and to take it apart to see how it worked. They never had the owner's permission, they never asked for it.

Geraldo: You were acquitted. You were vindicated at least from criminal responsibility. Lemme just quickly ask you this: hackers have been inside the White House computer.

Geraldo: And if Saddam Hussein hired some hackers whether they're from Holland or any other place, he could've gotten into these computers, presumably.

KL: That's not what I said. I think that those kind of activities are wrong. But by the same token, the teenagers, or some of the people here that are not performing malicious acts, while they should be punished should not be published as extreme as the law currently provides.

Don: I don't think they're being punished very much at all. We're having trouble even taking away their gear. I don't know one of them has done hard time in a prison. The book, Hafner's book on _Cyberpunk_, points out that even Mitnick who is a real electronic Hannibal Lecter ... did not get near any of the punishment that what he was doing entitled him to.

Geraldo: <laughing> An electronic Hannibal Lecter. OK, stand by, we'll be back with more of this debate in a moment...

Geraldo: Back with Craig Neidorf and prosecutor Don Ingraham. Craig, do you think hackers are voyeurs or are they potentially terrorists?

KL: I think they resemble voyeurs more than terrorists. They are often times looking at places where they don't belong, but most hackers do not intend to cause any damage.

Don: If they stopped at voyeurism they would be basically sociopathic, but not doing near the harm they do now. But they don't stop at looking, that's the point. They take things out and share them with others, and they are not being accountable and being responsible as to whom they are sharing this information. That is the risk.

Geraldo: Can they find out my credit rating? I know that's not a national security issue, but I'm concerned about it.

Don: Assume that the credit is not carried by someone who is using adequate security.

Geraldo: Give me quickly the worst case scenario. Say Abu Nidal had you working for him.

KL: Well, hackers have gotten into computer systems owned by the government before. At this point they've never acknowledged that it was anything that was ever classified. But even some unclassified information could be used to the detriment of our country.

Geraldo: Like the counter-terrorist strategy on January 15th, the day of the deadline expired in the Persian Gulf.

KL: Perhaps if Saddam Hussein had somehow known for sure that we were going to launch an attack, it might have benefited him in some way, but I'm really not sure.

Don: They wipe out our communications system. Rather easily done. Nobody talks to anyone else, nothing moves, patients don't get their medicine. We're on our knees.

Don: What do I think of Craig? I have a lot of respect for Craig, I think he's probably going to be an outstanding lawyer someday. But he is contributing to a disease, and a lack of understanding ethically, that is causing a lot of trouble.

Geraldo: One word answer. As the computer proliferate won't hackers also proliferate? Won't there be more and more people like you to deal with?

Knight Lightning: I think we're seeing a new breed of hacker. And some of them will be malicious.

Geraldo: Some of them will be malicious. Yes, well, that's it...for now. I'm Geraldo Rivera.

If you look past the obvious sensationalism (hey, what do you expect from Geraldo?) the ''Now It can Be Told'' program on hackers was actually quite good, and quite informative.

However, as expected, the program served to enhance the stereotypes that hackers are always destroyers of information. Words such as terrorist, thief, mad hacker, notorious, sociopath, et al were often substituted for ''hacker''.

>From a hacker's point of view, the show was great. First we see ''home video'' of Dutch hackers hacking into US Department of Defense (military) computers. Emmanuel Goldstein (editor of 2600) is present among them, and describes in-depth what they are doing, and how they are getting into these computers.

The Dutch hackers success rate was astounding! Goldstein says that they "literally picked a computer at random among a list and used various means to get in". First, they fail with a login of guest. Then, they succeeded in gaining superuser privileges with the sync login and proceeded to create a new account under the name Dan Quayle, and gave him superuser privileges.

I thought Emmanuel Goldstein was an excellent defender of the hacker's position, successfully refuting Cliff Stoll's comment that compared hackers to thieves breaking into someone's house (yaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn) by stating hackers are not interested in personnel files - they're interested in huge databases and computer systems. Hopefully, (however doubtful) Emmanuel Goldstein has forever put the "breaking into a house" argument to rest.

Next we see a scene that is truly cyberpunk: Japanese Kanji characters in neon colors spread over the screen as we hear a voice say "My handle is Phiber Optik. I'm a computer hacker from the East Coast.", standing on a dimly lit street in the middle of the night. The Phiber Optik portion of the program is interesting, and shows (for the first time?) hacking from a pay-phone with a laptop. (Note: if you freeze-frame at the right moment, you can see Emmanuel Goldstein and a g-man type in sunglasses [??] during this segment.)

The next segment features an anonymous hacker (most likely Phiber) who says "we'd just be coexisting with the other users of the machine" and states once again that hackers are not interested in personal files. We also learn that this hackers has most likely entered the White House systems.

What follows the hacker profiles is a segment on computer-terrorism, which focuses on viruses, interception, ''computer guns'', and eavesdropping.

Emmanuel Goldstein: "The computer is a tool. And any tool can be used as a weapon."

A. Hacker: "I wouldn't so much call it a weapon as an extension of one's own mind;"

This segment somewhat vaguely attempts to separate hackers from terrorists, but since the distinction is not made clear, it is obvious that the makers of the show think that some hackers would qualify under this category. Krista Bradford hints that these activities are done by our own government, as well.

A neat demonstration is given by Winn Schwartau, an information security expert, who demonstrates TEMPEST technology (picking up the radio waves from a monitor, and being able to display what's being typed up to 1.5 miles away). In this fake scenario, credit information is being intercepted. It is most unlikely that hackers would use this type of interception, since it requires a lot of expensive equipment. (In case your interested, the frequency the signal was picked up on is 19.9217)

Intermixed in this segment are clips from Die Hard II (remember, the terrorists take over the airport computers).

The third segment involves a 'debate' between Craig Neidorf (Knight Lightning of Phrack fame) and Don Ingraham, an assistant District Attorney in California. Geraldo informs us that Craig Neidorf is a ''mad hacker'' who is proud of his hacking achievements.

Geraldo holds up an interesting portfolio that CRaig Neidorf has created, which hackers might find interesting, if you can get your hands on it.

Geraldo engages in his usual sensationalism. He wrongly assumes that Craig Neidorf 'broke into' the 911 system. He wants to confirm that hackers have broken into the White House and Pentagon, and tries to put terror into the hearts of the masses. One of the great shames of this program is that the host is nothing more than a sensationalist seeking to get ratings, and doesn't care one bit about the truth, which only serves to further the stereotypes all hackers have been stuck with.

Don Ingraham is there, basically representing the Operation Sundevil opinion. He thinks that hackers have not been punished enough, and that their crimes are very serious. It is obvious that Mr. Ingraham has never even considered for a moment the idea that hackers are only interested in knowledge and most of them would not knowingly harm systems or files. He ought to take a look at the other side before forming his ignorant opinions.

In my opinion, Craig Neidorf does not represent the common hacker as well as he is capable of in this program. But, obviously he was constrained by the format of the show and the ignorance he was forced to deal with on behalf of the host and Mr. Ingraham. He is not given opportunity to explain that not all hackers are malicious, and the subject of hackers informing system administrators of security flaws in their systems is not even brought up.

In summary, the Now It Can Be Told program contained sensationalist aspects that was to be expected. However, from a hacker's point of view it was interesting to see the exploits of other hackers. Most interesting was the cyberpunk atmosphere of Phiber Optik hacking, as well as the home video of the Dutch hackers and their exploits. It was encouraging to hear Emmanuel Goldstein's opinions on hackers and he did well to represent them; he did not make them out to be saints, yet he defended them from the stereotype of being destructive. Cliff Stoll got one or two sentences in, which is all he deserved, IMHO. He only spews out the rhetoric we've all heard time and time again. The segment on computer terrorism was interesting, but not of much use to hackers; the demonstration on eavesdroppping was especially worth watching. The final segment, the 'debate' between Craig Neidorf and Don Ingraham was not as interesting as it could've (SHOULD'VE) been. Geraldo succeeded in disallowing Craig Neidorf to make the points it appeared he wished to make, and Mr. Ingraham succeeded in perpetuating stereotypes of hackers.

Craig Neidorf ended the show by saying "We're seeing a new breed of hacker." And if you look past the obvious sensationalism of Now It Can Be Told, that new breed of hacker was well profiled.