Very fair points. He has really worked hard seemingly to scrub the memory of the incomplete nature of his sensationalism at the time. You Google around and he i

Very fair points. He has really worked hard seemingly to scrub the memory of the incomplete nature of his sensationalism at the time. You Google around and he is considered a vanguard of computer security, but his book capitalized on the sensationalism of film and television fiction of hackers at the time and other hacks in the news. A lot of this criticism only exists in the text files of BBSes from the time and his damaging opinions only on early evening tabloid tv of the era that isn't on YouTube. He eventually recanted a lot of this ideas a decade later, but has made no effort to address these criticisms head on that I can find. I guess it makes for compelling amateur sleuthing but what the governments of the time were dealing with are probably all still classified and were to him at the time as well. So his declarations of being first to many things are unfalsifiable.