Is the only source for this guy being Unix Terrorist and Jim Jones Kevin Mitnick? Couldn't they have said "according to Kevin Mitnick" rather than stating it as fact?

That's one reason I appreciate newspaper journalism even today. The standards they use to convey the level of credibility in the presentation of facts is something a lot of blogs, and even Wired, could learn from.

The author may have many sources for that identification; she says he "was known in hacker circles" by those names, which suggests there are many people who could (and possibly did) confirm the nyms to her.

I don't infer the same from the quote. It just as easily could have been her single source, Mitnick, that are the 'hacker circles'. The wording alone does not suggest multiple sources.

I read it differently; but since there's no suggestion Watt disputes this, or that Mitnick is unreliable on this, I don't understand the greatgrandparent post implication this is somehow indicative of shoddy journalism.

It's background info confirmed by at least one and probably multiple sources, and journalists specifically don't want to or need to footnote their stories with multiple named sources like a research paper or legal brief.

The author does say neither sides' lawyers acknowledge it. That indicates to me there's some reason to dispue it. If Watt doesn't dispute it, why isn't he quoted as saying so?

If it's not shoddy journalism, then it's shoddy writing.

Sounds to me like Watt and his lawyers have neither confirmed nor denied it -- it hasn't come up in the case, and there'e no reason to go on record either way. Quite possibly, she asked Watt's team, and they said something like "I have no information on that" or "I can't comment on things not part of this case".

You wonder what he thought his angle would be. He seems to have knowingly shouldered as much risk as his partner without any of the payoffs. My guess is he was compensated somehow but has thus far managed to shield that knowledge.

This plus the fact that he was working at Morgan Stanley seems to indicate that either he's managed to cleverly hide the loot, or he was doing it because of the challenge. If the latter, then it wouldn't have been any challenge to rip off Morgan Stanley, since he was already inside.

Interesting that this person was doing some of this while working at Morgan Stanley. It seems that there would be much richer pickings at a Wall Street bank than at TJX.

Also, Watt is now "prohibited from using a computer". Is that possible? How do the feds define "computer"?

Of course it's possible! Haven't you ever seen Hackers? The same thing happened to the guy in the movie. duck

It's most likely a condition of his bail. After he serves his sentence it will likely be a condition of his probation. I don't think this is uncommon for large scale computer crimes.

prohibited from using a computer I know, it sounds like something from 1987. I imagine that right now it's a condition of his bail rather than a sentence subject to appeal.

As far as I can tell, Watt didn't make any money off the scheme.

I think the author meant his mother paid off the apartment and forbid him from using a computer. At least that's what I understood.

"Watt was ignorant of the use to which his best friend would put the custom packet sniffer..."

Yea, right.

"Honestly officer, I was just keeping the engine warm while my friends were trick or treating in the 7-11."

And O. J. Simpson didn't murder anyone. Let's be serious here, anything is possible in the court. Maybe his friends only planned to play with that sniffer and not steal any money.

Penniless? He worked at Morgan Stanley. And then quit for an even higher paying job.