Reply From: Don Tobin <dontat_private> While I agree with some of your issue, the annual report ot the stockholders has absolutely nothing to do with a "hacker loss". The annual report summarizes the year, and you do not report on individual losses at the stockholder's meeting. You report onthe sum for the year only. Therefore, it is very likely the companies did not lie in their interpretation of what is allowed by law, or mine. Anything expended in the detection, tracking, and recovery is allowed to be deducted as an expense, and it likely is if you dig through the several thousand pages of expense sheets accompanying an annual report. All this info is pretty basic if you have been an officer in a company, been a stockholder and actually attended an annual meeting (I have, most don't bother), or have taken any low level accounting or finance courses in college. I am not belittling you here, and I actually agree with you about the quantification of these anomalous events companies claim. Commercial comapnies lie, governemnt orgs lie, and security vendors lie, all for their own reasons (I am working on publishing a paper with some of this stuff in it.) However, Mitnick IS a criminal, has historically pled guilty to about 30 various charges including credit card fraud in the past 9 years, and is overall not someone who is to be trusted. Given the state of computer forensics and evidentiary trail problems in the court system when dealing with computer science, especially a few years ago when Mitnick did hismost recent stuff, people simply don't get convicted in jury trials very much. Almost all defendants would and have gotten off. However, most plead out before trial. I don't believe Mitnick has ever faced a jury trial... he always pleads. I willneed to checkmy file on him that is many years old, but I can't recall any off-hand. Even he knows he is guilty,and has successfully used an "addiction defense" when he was in Las Vegas. It worked and he was put into a half-way house there... don On Mon, 31 May 1999, cult hero wrote: > Reply From: <anon> > > Humor me this one point with respect to the companies claiming losses > against Mitnick. Each claim millions of dollars in loss, yet none of them > posted said losses to their stockholders in those given years. > > Why has this been consistently overlooked? It would seem to me that a > company could not claim a loss without reporting it to their stockholders. > And if they didn't report it to their stockholders, then shouldn't the > Federal Trade Commission look into it? And if it is determined that they > rightly did not report a loss, then wouldn't that mean there was in fact > no loss and that their sworn testimony to the courts were in fact perjury? > > Something's not right in Denmark. > > > -o- > Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". > Today's ISN Sponsor: OSAll [www.aviary-mag.com] > -o- Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". Today's ISN Sponsor: OSAll [www.aviary-mag.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:24:12 PDT