Responding to msg by altitude@cic.net (Alex Tang) on Fri, 18 Aug 2:52 PM
It seems that one of the problems with Damien's cracking job was that it was "not sanctioned". Look at the WSJ article, they didn't mention his name...they just called him "a hacker". It shows how public opinion still sees groups like the cypherpunks as just that, a bunch of punks.
With some "respected" business on our side, it may make a much bigger impact (better publicity, better leverage, etc.).
While the WSJ story mentioned no names, other than the esteemed CypherName and our cypheragent who lured the reporter, later stories have given individual credit and amplified the "mainstream" impact of the cabalistic hacker culture crack. This segue may be due to the PR-mad corporations and the LEA's seeking to profit by the drama given to outsiders to get their safety-products approved, to pose themselves as being more devoted to the public weal than the devil- punks (liars or inadverdent truthsayers?). Or, it may just be a more interesting (lucrative) to pump the outsider, hacker aspect. Reporting on hackerdom has been oft used to boost a shrewd wannabe-an-insider's rep in the mainstream -- no names now, you know who they are, most are doing quite well, Zarathrustra bless their complicit Guccioni-success. So, hackers, punks, cypherpunks, up all night, right, watch them come calling for an interview when you misbehave in outrageous and wondrous and techno-magical ways. Gotta get lurid stories to allure the customer/advertiser/voter. Damien, Hal and the SSL-non-anonymous hackers, watch your backs, think of Kevin and his oh-so-admiring, trust-me provocateurs. Just my Time-averse sensor-jigger, sensing threat models.