In the absence of a real war, for years the Internet remained inhabited largely by members of academic and scientific communities who prized and throve upon instant exchange of information. It was these individuals who became the first denizens of cyberspace, a new frontier characterized, like the wild west, by anarchy and governed, similarly, by the good sense of inhabitants.

With interest in the Internet as a phenomenon increasing steadily over the past decade, however, it is evident that those now living are witnesses of a bizarre transformation whereby technological experience becomes wholly integral to our daily routine. As scores flock to experience the new online realm, tiny enclaves of similarly-interested individuals coalesce into electronic communities engaging in facilitated exchange of ideas, goods and information. As these communities continue to grow, codes of conduct are frequently established, challenged, and broken. People begin to engage in ecommerce, to establish eculture and to discuss being a good netizen. These are the inhabitants of today's cyberspace. Among these inhabitants are some individuals whose interests and pursuits will push the envelope of legality online, whose actions will culminate in a laundry list of cyberlegislation, who will, in turn, be largely responsible for shaping the future face of the Internet. Some of these individuals exploit holes in security to gain unauthorized access to computers and are known as hackers. They are intelligent, resourceful, inquisitive, curious, patient, technical-minded and untiring to the point of obsession. At least the good ones are.

Kevin David Mitnick is an exceptional hacker who was arrested in February of 1995 in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was later indicted on 25 counts of criminal activity "including charges for unauthorized access devices, computer fraud, wire fraud, and interception of wire or electronic communications" (Littman 388). In addition, "the major alleged offenses were the misappropriation of copies of the proprietary software of Motorola, Nokia, Fujitsu Ltd., Novell, and NEC Ltd." (Littman 388) So his most egregious offense was possession of a copy of some source code which those companies, in most instances, frequently licensed for a fee. It remains to be seen whether those companies, in actuality, have been burglarized, and whether Mitnick's actions constituted theft of information.

Information theft is an important issue in our world where info-brokers control mass opinion. It is additionally important in cyberspace where the world is composed of information, and information is a valuable meticulously cultivated resource. It is unacceptable that information be tightly controlled, difficult to come by and accessible only to a few individuals. Such a scenario would fly directly in the face of the fundamental precepts of the Internet, and hearken eerily to the doublethinking denizens of George Orwell's 1984. Similarly, it is unrealistic to dream that all information be free for everyone. Somewhere between these two extremes lies a fine line which, when crossed, constitutes theft of information. It is not clear whether Mitnick crossed this line.

It is true that he was in possession of proprietary source code for five multinational technology-based companies. But he downloaded copies of the code, which was still safely stored on its original computer and in the hands of its rightful owners. They had not lost anything, nothing was missing, and they would never have noticed anything amiss because nothing was different. Mitnick had effectually made a carbon-copy of the code which he intended to look at and learn from. There is no evidence that he intended to profit from or otherwise distribute the code which he had copied. His motivation appears to have been curiosity.

The affronted companies claimed that Mitnick had caused them millions of dollars in damages. It had, after all, cost them millions to develop the source code which was now in his possession. Still, they still had their code, and they would be protected by other legislation which would prevent Mitnick from profiting off their work. It seems preposterous to hold a man liable for damages incurred by the loss of something they still had. In this digital age, however, the phenomena of precise reproduction and exact duplication do raise additional questions as to what constitutes property and theft.

For now, it is important to consider a variety of factors when characterizing an event as the theft of information. The original owner of the information must remain in possession of an unaltered version of it. The so-called thief must not gain financially or cause financial loss or other damages to the original owner through his or her possession of the information. Finally, the so-called thief should not distribute, or demonstrate evidence of intent to distribute or gain financially or cause financial loss or other damages to the original owner of the information, by the subsequent ownership thereof.

This being said, it is intuitively understood that on some level Kevin Mitnick did engage in the theft of information. What remains unclear is how we as a society should respond. It does not seem that he ought to be severely punished for what amounts to curiosity. Certainly he could have made a great deal of money and caused extensive damage, but there is simply no evidence of this being his intent. In the absence of a precedent, it is difficult to judge wisely. The only certainty is that as more people come to inhabit cyberspace, more of these cases will come to the forefront of our imagination and attention, more legal decisions will be made and more precedents set which will have real bearing on your very own little corner of cyberspace.