As computer technologies become more advanced and integral to the daily lives of many, there is a growing need for laws to delineate what is appropriate and inappropriate online. The growing popularity of the Internet and the booming multi-million dollar business of ecommerce opens up cyberspace not only to the average consumer, but to less than ethical people who will take advantage of others and misrepresent themselves for monetary gain. Grouped with these schemers, there is a more powerful and subversive group called hackers. From the the avant-garde of capitolism in 1960s to the brilliant cyberpunks in the 1980s at MIT, the very term itself has illicited strong responses. The old generation of hackers saw themselves as intellectual pioneers whose curiosity knew no bounds. This was at a time when the computer technologies were not yet available to the masses. They were only in the hands of the few, who had the money to obtain them and the education to use them. This old generation of hackers have long since passed, but what of them remain?

There are two sides to this debate; the view of the hacker as a cyber terrorist, ready to sell top secrets to the highest bidder, and the other is that of a cyberspace underground anti-hero, who fights for intellectual curiosity and freedom. On the the two sides of this debate lies the concept of free information. The Internet consists of many systems of information which can be distributed and circulated, which in turn creates a more complex series of relationships among these systems. Many proponents of free information point out the inherently democratic aspect of free and open access to information, giving the argument a decidedly democratic and American standpoint. Yet the the other side points out that if a company is willing to spend millions of dollars to research an encryption code, then by rights that code belongs to them and no one else. Who is right? Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. There are far too many complicities to this debate than we can delineate with expertise. Instead we will attempt to respond with the life of one of the most famous hackers of all time, Kevin Mitnick.

One of the best known individuals in the online world is a hacker named Kevin Mitnick. Among certain circles his exploits are legendary. The things he can do with a computer and telephone are the stuff of novels and films. He possesses a vast technical knowledge and a consuming passionate fascinations with communications devices. He is a perfect example of what one can do, if not the best example of what one should do, in the vast online community of cyberspace.

Growing up, Mitnick's home life was a post-nuclear family: his parents divorced when he was three. Left in the care of his mother, he devoted his free time to learning about how electronic things worked. Initially he was fascinated with phones, later computers and amateur two-way radios. By the time he was in his mid-twenties, he was arrested and pled guilty to one count of computer fraud and one count of burglary. From then on, he was regularly in trouble with the law until he was finally placed behind bars in 1995.

By that time he had become especially well known to the L. A. P. D., the FBI, and Pacific Bell. He had developed such a thorough knowledge of how the phone system worked that he was actually able to check for wiretaps on his apartment, and to place wiretaps on the people hunting him. He was considered an extreme flight risk, was denied a bail hearing, and was sent straight to jail.

One interesting aspect of Mitnick's case is the idea of proprietary rights and theft in the digital age. When you "steal" a copy of someone's source code, they still have it. Mitnick said he just wanted the information to learn more, and there is no evidence that he intended to profit by it or do anything malicious with it.

Another interesting aspect of Mitnick's case is the idea of using computers, or in his case gaining unauthorized access to other people's computer systems, as a compulsion. In an age when every misbehavior is attributed to some genetic flaw or disease, it seems just a matter of time before the computer addict becomes similarly diagnosed. No amount of rehabilitation, incarceration, or threat thereof was able to deter Mitnick's actions or dissuade him from breaking into computers. He fled from city to city, from state to state, always just a step ahead of the authorities and he even suffered from a heart condition due to his largely nocturnal forays into the cyberrealm and yet still he could not control his behavior.

Yet another fascinating aspect of Mitnick is the means by which he gained most of his information. His method is frequently called social engineering which is essentially pretending to be someone you are not. He would call people on the phone under the assumed guise of an authorized person, and use the correct jargon or some inside information to establish credibility and extract valuable pass codes or any other juicy tidbit which he happened to be seeking. He is said to possess a calm, easy voice and beguilingly relaxed manner. These were his primary weapons. In this way, he was able to exploit the fact that the most secure computer system is only as secure as the individuals who have access to it. Consequently, the more people who have access to a computer system, the more vulnerable it is to unauthorized access. This has profound implications on the new information economy.

Finally, Kevin Mitnick epitomizes the use of information as a form of power. Mitnick may not have gained monetarily from his exploits, but he was most certainly empowered by them. He can access social security numbers, DMV records, home addresses and telephone numbers. He can find out if you are married, the names of your wife and children - anything available in records or electronic forms. These are the results of the information revolution, accessibility, and the depersonalization born of mechanization and automation. As computers are given more control of information and humans are taken out of the loop, gaping security holes are left in their stead.

In conclusion, one of the scariest things about Mitnick's case is that he might seem to some a compulsive, obsessed computer addict with a mean streak and a penchant for revenge who couldn't control his actions to such an extent that despite several scrapes with the law he invariably would have been caught anyway. But there are clearly more sinister implications. There are more malicious denizens of cyberspace. There are people out there who will gain unauthorized access to computer systems for the sole purpose of causing damage, destruction and chaos. Those individuals are the real threats to information society. Those are the faceless fiends of tomorrow whom we should truly fear, and from whom we should guard ourselves.