Alternative rank speculation:<p>Kevin's parole officer liked him and knew that his superiors in an overworked system wouldn't bat an eye at his wrong interpretation of the law. So he played along, and his superiors didn't ask any questions. One less kid to keep up with (and a nonviolent one at that).<p>If on the other hand Kevin's parole officer had been a dick, he would have told Kevin he wasn't allowed to do this. And when Kevin did it anyway, he would have brought it to the attention of his supervisors who would use the <i>right</i> interpretation of the law to hold him accountable and keep the warrant out for some longer amount of time.<p>Since there isn't a series of human-based gates running inside Chromium, this has very little if anything to do with finding exploits in software.<p>Edit: clarification
Ghost in the Wires is a great book. It's full of fabulous stories like this, all true.<p>Upon reading it years ago, I finally learned the explanation for why Netcom never billed me for years of continuous dial-up CSLIP service. Kevin had hacked Netcom and deleted their accounting records.
As someone with a software development background, I always found legal language very interesting. It is like a very verbose, programming language. All sorts of words and phrases have very specific meanings that, when arranged in a certain order, produce specific, reproducible outcomes. Sections of contracts and laws reference other sections by name and reference, and the whole document (or set of documents) gets interpreted in a semi-rigid way.<p>Just like computer programs, mistakes happen with legal languages, and when they do, they are typically have unintended consequences.<p>(edited for a couple of missing words in the last sentence)
Great story but ultimately Kevin Mitnick got fucked by the law and unjustly served years in jail. They made ridiculous statements like he could start a nuclear war by using a telephone. I think he's unfortunately an example of what happens when you push too far, a.k.a. FAFO.
If you send him $10 cash in the mail with a self-addressed stamped envelope, he will send you back one of his business cards, which is a lock pick set. One of my most prized possessions.
See also: the Yellowstone Zone of Death:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone)</a>
It's been fascinating to see the collision of security and smart contracts. Smart contracts in some ways represent an idealized view of the law, of law as code divorced from the messiness of reality, and security and hacking has a way of circumventing and/or dismantling such constructs via unknown unknowns. This post is a reminder that legal hacking has probably always been a thing even if it wasn't called that.
No on-line legal research in 1983? Nonsense. It was called "computer-assisted" legal research and at a minimum, there was the following:<p>Lexis<p>Westlaw<p>Juris (DoJ only)<p>FLITE (Air Force servicing other agencies)<p>and law review articles were indexed on laserdisc.
Decades of "sovereign citizens" trying the same thing get less respect.<p>It's all in the public relations. Fellate the right reporters and you're set for life.