If Mark Mitnick is this great super-hacker, shouldn't he be in prison anyway? What difference does it make how he was convicted? I don't get this anarchist mentality. It's perfectly okay for anybody to break the law as long as he's taking down some big evil corporation.
shareLets assume for the sake of argument that Mitnick (that's Kevin Mitnick, not Mark Mitnick) can freely take over any computer on the face of the planet and force its legitimate users to watch Richard Simmons videos. Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that wielding this awful power qualifies him for instant jailtime.
Given this, does it not stand to reason that you should be in jail, since you have the capability to take a claw hammer and murder someone with it?
If you intended to ask why he's not in jail because he *did* scar someones life with illicitly displayed workout videos, keep in mind Coffin v. United States and its resulting legal right to presumption of innocence.
Hey assclown, reading the title and/or plot outline isn't the same as actually watching the film. You don't "get it" because you didn't watch it. His name is Kevin Mitnick, not Mark Mitnick. That error, in combination with the dozens of times we see/hear "free kevin" throughout the film - demystifies why you don't get it.
Furthermore, the underlining point IS NOT that his crimes were justified, but that there isn't proof that he actually commited said crimes.
As for your (albeit ridiculous) question: no. He should not be imprisoned for embracing technology. He should not be imprisoned for being curious. When and if he crosses a legal line, then a jury should make that decision - not some nobody on a message board.
And "what difference does it make how he was convicted"? Considering all of this happened on US soil, and his constitutional rights were totally stripped without a shred of evidence - it kind of does matter. It matters to people who actually believe the constitution means something. It matters to people who believe "innocent until proven guilty". It matters to people who understand the concept "rights" and "freedom". You know who it probably doesn't matter to though? People who don't watch the film, and people who fabricate imaginary characters such as Mark Mitnick.
Edit: (I didn't see the first reply until after I had submitted this). MichaelKaegler, you bring up a good point and it's an argument I've often used on a wide range of subjects. People automatically think that because someone is capable of doing something, that they will indeed do it. The example I always used was a airplane technician. Surely he knows and understands the inner-workings of the airplane. He also has enough knowledge, and the resources, required to be malicious. He could, if he wanted to, purposely destroy/modify/disable an important part of the plane's engine. Which would likely lead to an awful plane crash.
That logic is, as you said, flawed. The same could be said for cooks, car engineers, mechanics and the whole nine yards. Just because a person is capable of doing something, that is no indication that they will actually do it. There has to be an incentive for doing so, a reason or a purpose. More times than none, people don't just do things 'because they can.'
Kevin Mitnick is not one of those hackers who destroys data. You want to lock him up because he used to copy source code?
share