Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 01 Issue 24
****************************************************************************
>C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D<
>D I G E S T<
*** Volume 1, Issue #1.24 (July 22, 1990) **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith
REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
protections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONTENTS:
File 1: Moderators' Comments
File 2: Neidorf Trial: The First Day
File 3: Electronic Frontier Update (John Perry Barlow)
File 4: Press Release from Atlanta Prosecutor on LoD Guilty Pleas
File 5: CU in the News
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.24, File 1 of 4: Moderators' Comments ***
********************************************************************
++++++++++
In this file:
1) Craig Neidorf's Trial
2) Revisions of 1986 Computer Crime Bill
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CRAIG NEIDORF'S TRIAL
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jury selection for Craig Neiforf's trial began today (July 23). File #2
(this issue) contains a summary of events. Several CuDites (including the
moderators) will divide attending duties for the duration and will keep
readers informed. The trial is expected to last at least two weeks. The
prosecution is expected to take a week to develop its case, and the defense
will take at least a week to respond. The defense requested a jury trial,
and much of the strategy for both sides will be an attempt to educate the
jury without blowing them away with technical jargon. It also appears
that, as part of their plea agreement, at least one of the LoD defendants
will testify for the prosecution. Sentencing for the LoD defendants will
occur in September, giving great incentive to them for "cooperating"
against Neidorf. A source who interviewed an assistant attorney working on
the Atlanta case indicated that the proseuction will ask for the judge to
"depart downward" from the sentencing guidelines if there is "complete
cooperation" from Riggs on other cases.
++++++++++++++++++
Revisions of Title 18 / Federal Computer Abuse Act
+++++++++++++++++++
There is currently a move afoot to revise the federal computer fraud and
abuse statute of 1986. File 4 contains a news story describing the nature
of some of the proposed revisions. Any revisions that will further enlarge
the scope of prosecutable offenses is unacceptable, and CuD will watch the
progress and keep readers informed.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.24: File 2 of 5: First day of the Neidorf Trial ***
********************************************************************
We have two separate reports from the opening day of Craig Neidorf's trial.
The first comes from Gordon Meyer, and the second from an anonymous
contributor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO: >INTERNET:TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.UIC.EDU
RE: ARTICLE ON JURY SELECTION
7/23/90 Chicago, IL.
The jury selection in case # 90 CR 70 (United States v. Craig Neidorf) was
completed today. Although opening statements were also scheduled to begin
the selection of jurors, while not overly arduous, did perhaps take longer
than was anticipated. Courtroom observers were overheard remarking that
Judge Bua seemed to be a bit more cautious and in-depth in his questioning
than usual.
The Government was represented by a team of three attorneys, headed by Bill
Cook. Also in attendance was agent Foley of the US Secret Service. The
prosecution team brought along two "shopping carts" full of binders and
boxes of paper, along with an easel and several charts of some sort.
However none of this was utilized as the trial never proceeded to the
opening comments, which are now scheduled to begin at 10am tomorrow
morning. (Room 2503, Dirksen Federal Building. Jackson and Dearborn.)
Defendant Neidorf, dressed in a blue blazer and khaki pants, was seated
next to his attorney, Sheldon Zenner. (Who, by the way, looks a bit like
George Will.) Also in attendance, though seated in the gallery, were
Craig's parents, his grandparents, Dorothy Denning (who will be testifying
later in the trial), and several other lawyers and staff from Katten,
Muchin, and Zavis (the firm with which Zenner is associated).
Bua's opening remarks to the prospective jurors included a brief summary of
the charges and an admonishment that an indictment does not neccesary translate
into guilt. Bua's questions to each of the jurors, after they were called
to sit in the jury box for consideration, included the traditional "where
do you live" and "what magazines do you subscribe to" questions, but also
included specific inquiries into grievances or affiliation with Bell
South/AT&T/Illinois Bell, association with Craig's college fraternity
(ZBT), and use/knowledge of computers. Jurors were also queried as to
whether or not they had any idea what a computer bulletin board was, and if
they had ever used one.
The process of juror selection took over four hours and thirty minutes
(excluding recesses). During this time several people were excused from
the selection pool for various reasons. In Federal court the Judge queries
the jurors, with the counsel for each party communicating their "vote" via
written messages. Therefore, it is difficult to say for sure whether the
defense or prosecution wished to exclude which individuals. (It is also
possible that a potential juror be excluded for other reasons as well, such
as knowing a witness or something.) Never the less, it seemed quite
obvious why some people were not chosen. Some, for example, turned out to
be Bell South and/or AT&T stockholders. Another had a husband who worked
for Motorola Cellular (which has ties to Bell South Mobile). One man had
served on three juries, and one grand jury previously. And finally there
was Catholic priest who had studied Constitutional law, been involved in an
ACLU sponsored law suit against the state of Colorado, and been involved in
various other litigations.
Here then, is a thumbnail sketch of each jury member that was selected.
(The first six were selected and sworn in before lunch, the next six and
the alternates that afternoon.) The information here has been gleaned from
their selection interviews and is presented so as to get a better idea of
the "peers" that will judge Mr. Neidorf.
1. Male, white, mid to late 20's. Works in an orthopedic surgeons office.
Has computer experience in using SPSSx-PC, 1-2-3, and various other
number-crunching applications. Doesn't subscribe to any magazines.
2. Elderly white female. Retired, but used to work at a Hallmark store.
No computer experience.
3. Female, white, mid to late 40's. Teaches court reporting at a trade
school, has never worked as a court reporter. Has some computer
experience with word processing and spreadsheets.
4. Female, white. Middle aged. Former City Clerk (elected) of a Chicago
suburb. No computer experience. Subscribes to Readers Digest.
5. Male, White, late 30's. Passenger pilot for American Airlines.
Subscribes to Compute! magazine. Has a PC at home. The only juror to
have ever used a BBS (one set up by American for use by the pilots).
6. Female, Afro-American. Works as a school volunteer and a baby sitter.
Has used history teaching programs on Apple PC's at Malcom X College.
7. Female, Afro-American. Works in claims underwriting at CNA.
Experience in word processing and using LAN based PC's. Former Illinois
Bell and AT&T employee.
8. Female, Afro-American. Works for the Chicago Board of Education. Some
computer experience in the classroom (as a teaching tool). Holds an MS
degree in Special Ed.
9. Female, white, elderly. School teacher (1st grade). Classroom use of
computers. MA degree in education. Subscribes to Newsweek.
10. Male, Afro-American. 36 years old, lives with parents who are retired
postal workers. Employee of Trans-Union credit reporting company.
Programming exposure in BASIC and COBOL.
11. Female, white, early 20's. Lives with parents. Holds a BA in
education, studying for a Masters from North Western University. Teaches
Jr. High, has WP and some DTP use of computers but limited in other
knowledge.
12. Male, white, 30-ish. Chief engineer at a company the makes floor
trusses for construction sites. Has a BS in architectural engineering.
Has done a little programming. Uses CAD packages, spreadsheets. Had a
class in FORTRAN in college. Has used a modem to download files from
software manufacturers.
ALTERNATE JURORS
1. Female, white. Works as a systems analyst and LAN administrator.
Familiar with PC to Mainframe connections. Holds a BA in Special
Education and has about 20 hours of computer classes. Familiar with
Assembler, COBOL, and PL1 among other languages.
2. Female, white. Owns and operates a small hotel with her husband. Uses
a Macintosh for word processing but husband does most of the computer
stuff. Holds a BA from Northwestern. Subscribes to the New York Times.
3. Female, Afro-American. Works at the Christian League of Chicago.
Formerly a word processor at Montgomery Wards.
4. Male, white, early 50's. Elementary school principle. Former phys-ed
teacher. Access school district records using modem connection to
district computer, has used e-mail on the districts bulletin board. Holds
an MA in Education from Loyola University of Chicago.
Random Notes: Court begins at 9am on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. 10pm
on Tuesday and Thursday (except today, things didn't get going until
10:00). Although Judge Bua was careful to pronounce each of the
prospective jurors last names correctly, he seemed to mispronounce
Neidorf's name differently every time he said it. "Neardorf", "Neardof",
and "Nierndon" were distinctly heard. I respectfully suggest that he learn
to pronounce it if not correctly, at least consistently wrong, lest the
jury think there is more than one person on trial. <grin>
Finally, a reporter from Channel 7 in Chicago was in and out of the
courtroom throughout the day. Reportedly a brief piece ran on the evening
news today but I wasn't home in time to catch it. I spoke to one of the
camera men waiting to get some film of Neidorf and he indicated that
something might appear on tuesday.
********************************************************************
++++++++++++
Anonymously contributed
++++++++++++
U.S. v. NEIDORF--an anonymous view
A seal high on the wall, the icon of justice, ornate and gothic, looms over
the courtroom. Light seeps out of the ceiling giving the illusion of
daylight, but like justice itself, the source remains invisible and
ominously cold, creating an impression of indifference to all who enter
these halls. Perhaps 50 people are seated on one side and a few on the
other side. They are the potential jurors. A handful of functionaries stand,
sit, or mill about. The judge, cool and stern, looks left, then right. A
law student from England is taking notes. "Fascinating, your process of
jury selection," he remarks. "What's this case about?" Somebody else is
sketching. A giant of a fellow, one would guess a pro football player, but
in fact, I learn, it is the CuD reporter, Gordon Meyer, sits impassively. A
television reporter from a local t.v. station hobbles about on crutches,
looking for people to interview. In front of the judge, to his right, a
youth and an older man sit, a notebook and a pitcher of icewater in front
of them. On the left sits a team of prosecutors, two shopping carts full
of documents, an easel for demonstrations, and smirks. The man in charge,
Bill Cook, is small, lithe, and tanned. He appears to be in his early 40s.
One can picture him in tennis whites, drinking gin and tonic, and
discussing political ambitions on the veranda of a country club.
The judge calls the prospective jurors, and takes care to pronounce their
names correctly. He continually mispronounces the defendant's name. The
judge asks the questions, the attorneys take notes. "Do you use a
computer?" "What kind of software to you use?" "Are you familiar with this
case?" (none were). The judge seems cautious, reserved. The attorneys
decide, on a "paper ballot," which prospects to retain or dismiss. About
half were dismissed. The panel was selected by 4 pm. Four alternates were
selected in about 45 minutes.
Thus begins the first day of the inquisition of Craig Neidorf. What will
happen in the next few weeks? The judge says that it could last from seven
to ten days. What is in all those documents the prosecution has made
dramatically visible? What kinds of things will they say? Will he take the
same kind of cheap shots he took against Shadowhawk, whom he prosecuted a
few years ago? They say, after all, this is the same prosecutor who, noting
that Mr. Zinn's crimes were committed with a computer, is reputed to have
said, "So if you had gun instead, then you'd be a murderer??"
Not without irony, the seal of justice looms over a scene in which the goal
of the prosecution seems not to be truth or fairness, but story-telling and
show. The drama of justice will be played out, verdicts will be announced,
these people will leave and others take their place. But, on this first
day, I cannot but wonder along with the British student, why we are all
here?
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.24: File 3 of 5: Electronic Frontier Fund Update***
********************************************************************
From: well!eff-news-request@apple.com
Subject: EFF mailing #1, take 2
To: eff-news@apple.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 13:33:58 PDT
THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
One Cambridge Center, Suite 300
Cambridge, MA 02142
617/577-1385
617/225-2347 fax
eff@well.sf.ca.us
Saturday, July 21, 1990
Good people,
Greetings. Some of you who read Crime and Puzzlement when it first went
digital and offered immediate help in dealing with the issues raised therein.
It's been five weeks since I promised to get back to you "shortly." It is
now clear that we are operating on political rather than electronic time.
And political time, though not so ponderous as geologic time or, worse, legal
time, is hardly swift. The Net may be instantaneous, but people are as slow
as ever.
Nevertheless, much has happened since early June. Crime and Puzzlement
rattled all over Cyberspace and has, by now, generated almost 300 unsolicited
offers of help...financial, physical, and virtual. At times during this
period I responded to as many as 100 e-mail messages a day with the average
running around 50. (The voice of Peter Lorre is heard in the background,
repeating, "Toktor, ve haf created a *monster*.")
Well, we have at least created an organization. Lotus founder Mitch Kapor
and I have founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an endeavor for which
we have immodest ambitions. Descending from the Computer Liberty Foundation
mentioned in Crime and Puzzlement, the EFF has received initial (and
extremely generous) funding from Mitch, Steve Wozniak, and another Silicon
Valley pioneer who wishes to remain anonymous. We have also received many
smaller offers of support.
As you will see in the accompanying press release, we formally announced the
EFF at a press conference in Washington on July 10. The press attention was
lavish but predictable...KAPOR TO AID COMPUTER CRIMINALS. Actually, our
mission is nothing less than the civilization of Cyberspace.
We mean to achieve this through a variety of undertakings, ranging from
immediate legal action to patient, long-lasting efforts aimed at forming, in
the public consciousness, useful metaphors for life in the Datasphere. There
is much to do. Here is an abbreviated description of what we are already
doing:
* We have engaged the law firms of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard,
Krinsky & Lieberman and Silverglate & Good to intervene on behalf of Craig
Neidorf (the publisher of Phrack) and Steve Jackson Games. (For a digest of
the legal issues, please see the message following this one.) We became
involved in these particular cases because of their general relevance and we
remain alert to developments in a number of other related cases.
Despite what you may have read, we are not involved in these legal matters as
a "cracker's defense fund," but rather to ensure that the Constitution will
continue to apply to digital media. Free expression must be preserved long
after the last printing press is gathering museum dust. And we intend an
unequivocal legal demonstration that speech is speech whether it finds form
in ink or in ascii.
* We have funded a significant two-year project on computing and civil
liberties to be managed by the Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility. With it, we aim to acquaint policy makers and law
enforcement officials of the civil liberties issues which may lie hidden in
the brambles of telecommunications policy. (A full description of this
project follows.)
* During the days before and after the press conference, Mitch and I
met with Congressional staffers, legal authorities, and journalists, as well
as officials from the White House and Library of Congress. Thus we began
discussions which we expect to continue over a period of years. These
informal sessions will relate to intellectual property, free flow of
information, law enforcement training and techniques, and telecommunications
law, infrastructure, and regulation.
Much of this promises to be boring as dirt, but we believe that it is
necessary to "re-package" the central issues in more digestible, even
entertaining, forms if the general public is to become involved in the
policies which will fundamentally determine the future of American liberty.
* Recognizing that Cyberspace will be only as civilized as its
inhabitants, we are working with a software developer to create an
"intelligent front end" for UNIX mail systems. This will, we hope, make Net
access so easy that your mother will be able cruise around the digital domain
(if you can figure out a way to make her want to). As many of you are keenly
aware, the best way, perhaps the only way, to understand the issues involved
in digital telecommunications is to experience them first hand.
These are audacious goals. However, the enthusiasm already shown the
Foundation indicates that they may not be unrealistic ones. The EFF could be
like a seed crystal dropped into a super-saturated solution. (Or perhaps
more appropriately, "the hundredth monkey.") Our organization has been so
far extremely self-generative as people find in it an expression for concerns
which they had felt but had not articulated.
In any case, we are seeing a spirit of voluntary engagement which is quite a
departure from the common public interest sensation of "pushing a rope."
You, the recipients of this first e-mailing are the pioneers in this effort.
By coming forward and offering your support, both financial and personal, you
are doing much to define the eventual structure and flavor of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation.
And much remains to be defined. We are applying for 501(c)3 status, which
means that your contributions to the Foundation will be tax deductible at the
time this status is granted. However, tax-exempt status also places
restrictions on the ability to lobby which may not be consistent with our
mission. Like many activist organizations, we may find it necessary to
maintain two organizations, one for lobbying and the other for education.
We are in the process of setting up both a BBS in Cambridge and a Net
newsgroups. None of this is as straightforward as we would have it be. We
have also just received an offer of production and editorial help with a
newsletter.
What can you do? Well, for starters, you can spread the word about EFF as
widely as possible, both on and off the Net. Feel free, for example, to
distribute any of the materials included in this or subsequent mailings,
especially to those who may be interested but who may not have Net access.
You can turn some of the immense processing horsepower of your distributed
Mind to the task of finding useful new metaphors for community, expression,
property, privacy and other realities of the physical world which seem up for
grabs in these less tangible regions.
And you can try to communicate to technically unsophisticated friends the
extent to which their future freedoms and well-being may depend on
understanding the broad forms of digital communication, if not necessarily
the technical details.
Finally, you can keep in touch with us at any of the above addresses. Please
pass on your thoughts, concerns, insights, contacts, suggestions, and, and
most importantly, news of relevant events. And we will return the favor.
Forward,
John Perry Barlow for The Electronic Frontier Foundation
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.24: File 4 of 5: Atlanta Press LoD Press Release***
********************************************************************
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Northern District of Georgia
MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1990 Suite 1800 Richard Russell Building
5 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30335
Telephone: (404) 331-6954
NEWS RELEASE
Joe D. Whitley, United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Georgia, and Dwight D. Ellison, Special Agent in charge, United States
Secret Service, Atlanta Field Office, announced today that three Atlanta
men pleaded guilty to charges involving a scheme to defraud Southern Bell
Telephone and Telegraph Company and BellSouth Advanced Network,
subsidiaries of Bellsouth, (collectively referred to as "BellSouth") out of
valuable proprietary information. The defendants are ADAM E. GRANT, a/k/a
The Urvile and a/k/a Necron 99, of Atlanta, Georgia, age 22; FRANKLIN E.
DARDEN, JR., a/k/a The Leftist, of Norcross, Georgia, age 24; and ROBERT J.
RIGGS, a/k/a The Prophet, of Atlanta, Georgia, age 22.
Between September 10, 1987 and July 21, 1989, according to the government,
all three defendants conspired to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, access
code fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen property under Title
18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030, 1343, 1029, and 2314.
Defendants DARDEN and RIGGS pleaded guilty to one conspiracy count apiece.
Both face a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Defendant GRANT pleaded guilty to possessing 15 or more BellSouth access
devices with the intent to defraud. GRANT faces a maximum penalty of 10
years incarceration and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for
September 14, 1990, before United States District Court Judge J. Owen
Forrester.
According to the government's statement of what the evidence at trial would
have shown, defendants accessed various BellSouth computer systems without
authority and obtained valuable proprietary information which they
distributed to other "computer hackers." The defendants and others stole
valuable proprietary BellSouth information and positioning %sic% themselves
to significantly compromise telephone service in the four-state BellSouth
area and throughout the country. Defendants GRANT and DARDEN also monitored
telephone conversations by breaking into BellSouth computer systems.
According to the government's evidence, all three defendants were members
of an organization called "Legion of Doom," a closely knit group of over 15
computer hackers located in Georgia, Texas, Michigan, illinois, Florida,
New York, and other states. According to the government, the Legion of
Doom disrupted the telecommunications industry, monitored private telephone
lines, stole proprietary information, stole and modified credit
information, fraudulently obtained property from various companies, and
disseminated information that allowed other computer hackers to enter
BellSouth and non-BellSouth computer systems.
This indictment is the result of an investigation conducted by the Atlanta
field office of the Unite States Secret Service. Assistant United States
Attorney Kent B. Alexander prosecuted the case.
The United States Attorney commended Special Agents Bill Gleason and Bill
Conkell of the United States Secret Service, Atlanta Office, for their
outstanding work in investigating the case. The United States Attorney
also thanked BellSouth for their very helpful assistance and encouraged
other companies to report illegal computer intrusions to the government.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.24: File 5 of 5: The CU in the News ***
********************************************************************
"An Espionage Law that may not Compute"
By George Lardner, Jr.
Source: The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, July 16-22, 1999: p. 34
The Bush administration is seeking a change in the federal computer
espionage law that would open the door to prosecution and conviction of
whistle-blowers and journalists as well as spies.
The Justice Department says the proposal would make the espionage law "more
useful." It would eliminate a provision in current law requiring proof of
espionage and make it a crime simply to use--or cause the use of--a
computer to obtain classified information without authorization.
The penalties would be the same as they are now. Violators would be subject
to 10 years in prison for a first offense, or "an attempt to commit such an
offense." Second offenders could be sent away for 20 years.
The proposal was submitted to Congress last month by Acting Assistant
Attorney General Bruce C. Navarro as part of a package of changes in the
computer fraud and abuse statute of 1986. It has drawn a frosty reception
from lawmakers with jurisdiction over the issue.
"It seems they want to make far more people spies than actually are," says
Democratic Rep. Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the House
Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice.
Under the current computer espionage law, it is a felony for anyone
knowingly to gain unauthorized access to a computer and obtain classified
information "with the intent or reason to believe that such information so
obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the
advantage of any foreign nation."
The Justice Department wants to drop the "intent or reason to believe"
clause.
Although the clause is a stable of traditional espionage laws dating back
to 1917, the Justice Department contents that it "has so narrowed the
application of the computer espionage provision as to render it virtually
usless." Taking it out, Justice officials say in a section-by-section
analysis, would establish a "new computer crime offense, which merely
requires proof that the person obtained certain information, and not that
he delivered it or transmitted it to any other person or government."
Prosecutors would then have "another weapon for combating the increasing
number of espionage cases."
Another part of the Justice Department package that drew criticism was a
provision that would define information in a computer, as well as computer
processing time, as "property."
"The thrust of that is to say that if you take information, that's property
and you can be accused of stealing," Schumer says. "I think that's very
dangerous. We need a law more finely honed than that."
Morton Halperin, Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), says the proposals call to mind the controversial 1985 prosecution
of former naval intelligence analyst Samuel Loring Morison, the first
person convicted under espionage laws for leaking documents "relating to
the national defense" to the news media.
Morison was found guilty of espionage and theft of government property for
leaking three spy satellite photographs that were classified secret to a
British magazine. He also was convicted on separate espionage and theft
charges for taking portions of two other Navy documents, also classified
secret, and keeping them in an envelope at his Crofton, Md. apartment.
Morison's lawyers contended that the sections of espionage law used in the
case were meant to apply only in a clandestine setting, to spies and
saboteurs, and not to disclosures to the news media. As for the theft
charges, they protested that making the law applicable to government
"information" would give the executive branch unbridled discretion to
control what the public may be told.
An advocate of bigger defense budges and a supporter of president Ronald
Reagan, Morison contended that he sent the magazine satellite photos, which
showed the first Soviet nuclear aircraft carrier under construction at a
Black Sea shipyard, primarily because he was interested in publicizing the
Soviet threat. He was sentenced to two years in prison.
Under the Justice Department's computer espionage proposal, it could be
even more dangerous to take the secrets from a computer than to get them on
paper. The bill would make it a crime to pluck from a computer any
"classified" information, even items stamped secret, because disclosure
would be embarrassing. That is a much broader category than documents
"relating to the national defense."
Halperin says the ACLU would strongly oppose any such change in the law.
"Given the amount of information that is classified and the degree to which
debate in the United States depends on that information, we have
consistently opposed criminalizing access to classified information by
private citizens, except where it involves transfer to foreign powers,"
Halperin says.
Justice Department officials acknowledge that their proposal would cover
whistle-blowers and journalists. "No one considered that in the drafting of
it," says Grace L. Mastalli, special counsel in Justice's Office of Policy
Development. But she says it was "probably not possible to narrow it
without destroying the purpose of the bill.
(End this story)
********************************************************************
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 00:34:48 EDT
From: Michael Rosen <CM193C@GWUVM>
Subject: stuff
To: Computer Underground Digest <tk0jut2>
From Computerworld, July 16, 1990, p. 6, by Michael Alexander.
CRIME DOESN'T PAY -- HACKERS DO
Three hackers pleaded guilty last week to their participation in a scheme
to steal documentation for an enhanced 911 emergency telephone system from
Bellsouth Corp.
The three are members of the Legion of Doom, a group of hackers that has
been involved in numerous computer-related crimes, federal prosecutors in
Atlanta and chicago said.
In Chicago, Robert J. Riggs, 21, pleaded guilty to interstate
transportation of stolen property and wire fraud charges. He faces up to
15 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000.
Riggs, along with Adam E. Grant, 22, of Atlanta and Franklin E. Darden, 24,
of Norcross, Ga., was also indicted in Atlanta last February for conspiracy
to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, access-code fraud and interstate
transportation of stolen property. Riggs and Darden each pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiring to commit computer fraud. Both face a maximum
penalty of five years in jail and a $250,000 fine. Grant pleaded guilty to
having 15 or more Bellsouth access codes with the intent to defraud.
Sentencing has been set for Sept. 14. "That is when the fireworks will
start," said Kent Alexander, assistant U.S. attorney in Atlanta. "There is
a distinct possibility that this may be one of the first instances of a
hacker [Riggs] going to jail."
In an indictment last February, federal authorities alleged that in
September 1988, Riggs and Craig Neidorf, an electronic newsletter
publisher, began a scheme to steal documentation to an enhanced 911 system
from Bellsouth. Riggs downloaded the text file in December 1988 and posted
it on a computer bulletin board in Lockport, Ill., the indictment said.
Neidorf allegedly retrieved the 911 program from the Lockport bulletin
board service, edited the document and reposted it on the bulletin board
for Riggs to review.
Neidorf has admitted to publishing an edited version of 911 documentation
along with information on how to alter telephone switching software so that
calls are put into an endless loop. He pleaded not guilty to the charges
and is currently set to go to trial next week. Neidorf contends that he
was not aware that the 911 documentation had been stolen, said Sheldon
Zenner, his attorney. "There is only one guy here who has not broken into
anything, and that is Craig Neidorf."
However, government documents asserted that Neidorf was involved in the
scheme from the outset. According to the plea agreement between Riggs and
federal authorities, Riggs contacted Neidorf and told him that he was
transferring a text file stolen from Bellsouth. Also, in an affidavit for
a search warrant, a U.S. Secret Service agent alleged that Neidorf admitted
to knowing that the 911 documentation was stolen. His edited version of
the Bellsouth 911 documentation contained a Bellsouth notice forbidding
disclosure of the text file's contents, the agent added. Riggs is expected
to testify for the prosecution.
(This article was written by Michael Alexander (CW Staff).
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #1.24**
********************************************************************
! 
