Reply From: Ryan Waldron <rewat_private> > Reply From: Don Tobin <dontat_private> > > 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. The amount spent in detection, tracking, and recovery is certainly a legitimate cost, and while it was not likely itemized, it is certainly included in the regular expenses that contribute toward the annual report. However, that's not the point, and it's not what these companies claimed the "damages" were; they claimed "losses" based on calculation of the *cost* incurred in *producing* the files or information that Mitnick copied. These were not costs incurred by the companies as a direct result of his efforts, as detection, tracking, and recovery might be. They were extraordinary capital losses (as any uninsured loss to theft would be; in retail this is commonly reported as "shrinkage", for example), and would almost certainly NOT be classified as a normal expense, since there's no category for it, say, in Sun's annual report. The point is not that his antics didn't cost them money. The point is that they have claimed extraordinarily large losses based on their cost to produce the information that Mitnick took. They did NOT report the "losses" to their shareholders, because there *weren't* any. Those losses are not "real" losses. The companies neither reported them in their P&L or annual statements, nor did they suffer any significant financial or competitive damage (at least, not that anyone, including the FBI or the "victims", has documented). They were simply allowed to claim that Mitnick had "stolen" that much from them, and on the other hand to ignore it as the financial non-event that it was when filing their regular reports with the SEC and their shareholders. And if the losses weren't real, then it is wrong for Mitnick to be charged with damage he did not inflict. It is much the same as if I had a $100,000 Aston Martin in my garage, and my neighbor snuck onto my property and took a picture of it that I had not authorized him to take. I call the FBI, they whisk him away, I file charges claiming a "loss" of $100,000 (never mind that he can't do anything much with the picture, and I still have the car and its full use), and he goes to prison for a much longer time than he would have on mere charges of trespassing. Mitnick broke the law. He should pay for that. But the charges against him have been consciously and malevolently inflated past all possible reason, and it's now getting to be an embarrassment for both the Feds and the "victims". -- Ryan Waldron ||| http://www.erebor.com ||| rewat_private "The web goes ever, ever on, down from the site where it began..." -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 - 13:24:14 PDT