Some thoughts on this documentary

A few people here have stated the movie was pretty good and then launched into some pretty blistering criticisms of the film, but I'm going to diverge from that and start off by saying that, for me, it was basically unwatchable. Primarily because I really need fairness and without it, I just can't get into a film. As others have noted, hackers know when they are breaking the law and know there will be a penalty. Kevin Mitnick knew this too and stated it, yet the maker of this film almost acts like hackers are these innocent saints. A little more honesty in the regard at the start would have glued me to the screen.

Take for example the treatment of John Markoff, the reporter who covered the story. The filmmaker gleefully points out every error Markoff made and damns him for it. In journalism, you need that story out soon, in about a day or so. From my own experience with writing projects, I know that to start with no facts and build a story with precision, you need to take weeks or even months for longer stories. Well, in the newspaper world you need to run with a story the next day! If stories came out 5 weeks later, we the public would be screaming bloody murder. So yes, errors will creep into all stories. Don't think this is true? Give yourself one day to write a story of your grandpa (using your parents, family, etc...), then go verify the story with your grandma and see how many errors *you* (read: your sources) have created. So the filmmaker really didn't have a deep understanding of the process in my opinion.

In short, the filmmaker is way too biased about the subject to make this interesting. When libertarians and free-market anarchists discuss an issue, it's more interesting when each side will acknowledge and honestly assess their position. You might actually discover something that way.