Talk:Erik Bloodaxe (hacker)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aren't we missing something on this page? Goggans was arrested, as I recall, and gained some notoriety in Masters of Deception. Is anyone going to cover this? Grimhim 10:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, He was never in MoD. Though he may have been arrested in Sun Devil, he never did any jail time. How about mentioning Comsec the cecurity company he Doc Holiday and the recently departed Malefactor started?

Sorry, I should have checked before I wrote the opening remark. He was LoD, of course, not MoD, and, as he has pointed out elsewhere, he was raided but never arrested. His early involvement with LoD and his supposed involvement in the formation of MoD, however, certainly deserves coverage in this article. I may get around to writing this ... Grimhim 10:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a speculation based on fact from government record on this case that Goggans may not only have turned evidence against Evan-Chaim, but possibly even lured him into a phone call that would incriminate himself in order to prevent Goggans from facing a charge. Goggans is well-documented to having turned in evidence on other hackers after his raid in order to keep his freedom. Netw1z aka john lee

Hi Netw1z, If you have more information, by all means let me know. With the amount of detail the AFP had on Phoenix I don't think they needed anything from Goggans, but if you know otherwise -- and can point me to the "government record" you speak of, I'd be happy to look into it.Grimhim 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Association with Nahshon Even-Chaim

I'm interested to know whether there is any evidence of Goggans and Even-Chaim's actual intentions regarding Execucom. Given that Even-Chaim rooted their boxes and yet didn't appear to actually do anything toward the sort of corporate espionage he and Goggans had discussed, and given that Even-Chaim is quoted in Apro and Hammond (from Apro's wiretap) advising caution because of the possibility of additional charges were they to be caught, I'm inclined to think that this may have been not a lot more than shooting the breeze. Thedangerouskitchen 07:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct in suggesting it was just talk. However Even-Chaim was convicted of four offences for what he did do in Execucom: on one charge of illegally accessing data he was given 300 hours community service; for one charge of altering data and two charges of erasing data he was given three nine-month prison terms, to be served concurrently, but released immediately on good-behaviour bonds. The judge found that Even-Chaim had no malicious motive "in the sense of a motive involving a deliberate plam to destroy or steal for your own advantage, information held by the targeted operators". A curious finding, given that it was contradicted by the evidence of Even-Chaim's comments in the wiretap. Then again, maybe he, too, decided Even-Chaim was just shooting the breeze.Grimhim 09:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading over the relevant section in Apro and Hammond now, and whilst Goggans certainly appeared to have invested considerable thought into how he and Even-Chaim might profit from their break-ins at Execucom, I can't find anything that indicates either of them actually copied source code out of Execucom, or that Goggans actually called them for a prospectus sheet, etc. The actual hacking that took place was before either had any ideas about what things "need[ed] to happen to Execucom".

So, is the evidence we have strong enough to contradict Goggans' quote that he never hacked maliciously? Thedangerouskitchen 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to seem as if I'm nitpicking, but the comment Goggans made in the interview was: "Malicious hacking pretty much stands against everything that I adhere to." The attitude he displayed in his conversation with Even-Chaim, regardless of when he said it, suggests exactly the opposite. He was prepared to do it, willing to do it -- or so he boasted to another hacker. The actions he discussed certainly had the potential to cause Execucom grave financial harm. To me that's a significant point in discussing the "hacker ethic" of such a notable hacker, particularly one who espoused such noble aims.Grimhim 12:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking is what editing is all about! :)

How about if we said something like: "While there is no evidence that Goggans and Even-Chaim acted on this discussion, its suggestions of impropriety call into question the nobility of Goggans' hacking ethics", only not so POV, nor weaseling. Thedangerouskitchen 11:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.Grimhim 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)