Re: New Mitnick Book

Responding to msg by pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner) on 
Wed, 3 Jan  7:39 PM


   Here's Littman on immunity for Shimomura (describing telco
   tracking Mitnick):

   Shimomura's brought along his own hacker's scanning rig.
   It's pretty basic, just an Oki 900 cellular phone and a
   hardware interface to his tiny HP Palmtop. One of
   Shimomura's friends -- who happens to be under federal
   indictment for illegal hacking -- cooked up the interface
   and helped write the software.

   Shimomura likes his computer-controlled cellular phone, but
   its use for tracking is limited. Its main purpose is to
   lock on a call and eavesdrop. It is illegal to use it to
   eavesdrop on calls. That's why Shimomura needed immunity
   from prosecution when he demonstrated his Oki scanner
   before Congress a couple of years ago. (p. 6)

------

[Still reading ... ]

>  Shimomura likes his computer-controlled cellular phone, but
>  its use for tracking is limited. Its main purpose is to
>  lock on a call and eavesdrop. It is illegal to use it to
>  eavesdrop on calls. That's why Shimomura needed immunity
>  from prosecution when he demonstrated his Oki scanner
>  before Congress a couple of years ago. (p. 6)

Curious, David Skaggs (R-CO) while arguing against having the Rocky
Flats Grand Jury testify before congress on they're findings pointed
out that congress can only offer immunity from prosecution for a
testimony _about_ crimes they may have committed.

In Shimomura's case the crime was committed in front of congress
as _part_ of his testimony.  One could easily argue, as Skaggs did,
that congress oversteped it's bounds by asking a witness to commit
a crime.  Then again, they're the ones who decide what most of
these crimes are in the first place.


Sorry to stray off topic.
brad