Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 02 Issue 12
****************************************************************************
>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 2, Issue #2.12 (November 17 1990) **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet)
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith
USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is
cited. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be
reprinted, unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit
reasoned articles relating to the Computer Underground.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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' Corner
File 2: PhD Candidate Seeks information on the CU
File 3: Riggs, Darden, and Grant Sentenced
File 4: Prodigy Saga Continues
File 5: Re: Response to Mars "Censoring"
File 6: Response to SJG Affidavit (part 1)
File 7: Warrants schmarrants! The SS is Crazy!
File 8: More guidelines on what to do if busted
File 9: CU in the News--England and Emma Nicholson; VOGON News
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 1 of 9: Moderator's corner ***
********************************************************************
From: Moderators
Subject: Moderators' Corner
Date: November 17 1990
++++++++++
In this file:
1. PHRACK CLASSIC #32 AND CHRISTMAS-CON
2. FACE-TO-FACE BBS
++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
Phrack Classic #32 and Christmas-Con
+++++++++++++++++++++
Five years ago today (November 17, 1985), the first issue of Phrack appeared.
Today, November 17, 1990, Phrack Classic #32 will be released. Information
about Christmas-Con will be provided. it will be held in HOuston, December
28-30, and law enforcement and security personnel are encouraged to attend.
Video cameras will not be provided.
As a bit of nostalgia for the old folks, here is the original
header from the first issue of Phrack:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_ _ _______
| %/ | / _____/
|_||_|etal/ /hop
_________/ /
/__________/
(314)432-0756
24 Hours A Day, 300/1200 Baud
Presents....
==Phrack Inc.==
Volume One, Issue One, Phile 1 of 8
Introduction...
Welcome to the Phrack Inc. Philes. Basically, we are a group of phile writers
who have combined our philes and are distributing them in a group. This
newsletter-type project is home-based at Metal Shop. If you or your group are
interested in writing philes for Phrack Inc. you, your group, your BBS, or any
other credits will be included. These philes may include articles on telcom
(phreaking/hacking), anarchy (guns and death & destruction) or kracking. Othe
topics will be allowed also to an certain extent. If you feel you have some
material that's original, please call and we'll include it in the next issue
possible. Also, you are welcomed to put up these philes on your BBS/AE/Catfur
Etc. The philes will be regularly available on Metal Shop. If you wish to sa
in the philes that your BBS will also be sponsoring Phrack Inc., please leave
feedback to me, Taran King stating you'd like your BBS in the credits. Later
on.
TARAN KING
2600 CLUB!
METAL SHOP SYSOP
This issue is Volume One, Issue One, released on November 17, 1985. Included
are:
1 This Introduction to Phrack Inc. by Taran King
2 SAM Security Article by Spitfire Hacker
3 Boot Tracing on Apple by Cheap Shades
4 The Fone Phreak's Revenge by Iron Soldier
5 MCI International Cards by Knight Lightning
6 How to Pick Master Locks by Gin Fizz and Ninja NYC
7 How to Make an Acetylene Bomb by The Clashmaster
8 School/College Computer Dial-Ups by Phantom Phreaker
Call Metal Shop and leave feedback saying the phile topic and where you got
these philes to get your article in Phrack Inc.
(end Phrack header)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++
FACE-TO-FACE BBS
++++++++++++
A number of electronic digests exist, such as this one, that attempt to
raise the issues of computer security, ethics, law, or policy. Few BBSs
exist for the same purpose. However, a new BBS has been set up for the
discussion of hacking, and unlike conventional "hacker" BBSs, this one is
designed for discussions between law enforcement and security specialists
and hackers. The goal of the board is to provide serious, intelligent
dialogue between various groups. It's called FACE-TO-FACE, and the number is
713-242-6853.
Here is the introductory log-in message:
All Hackers, Federal Agents, and Journalists
Welcome to a new concept in underground bulletin boards!
IDEA: The idea first came to me when I was mourning over the fact that Phoenix
Project went down. I thought, now gee, that was a good board. Ever since then
I've been searching for a place to "Hang-out"; A place where users were not
only productive but mature. Well, out of all those BBS's out there, I could
not locate one that met my standards of "a good board". So, I came to the
conclusion: There are no decent BBS's in the underground still running. Then
it hit me-- Why not make one ? Sounds logical. Well, here it is.
FACE to FACE: This BBS is devoted to having an intelligent, mature,
communication link from the Computer Underground to the Press and back to the
Security Agencies around the nation.
WARNING: Although this BBS allows "hackers" access, The Management of this
BBS demands that all users refrain from posting illegal material in nature.
If any such material is posted, that user and the message(s) shall be deleted.
I can't stress this enough. You have called a BBS where security agents are
scanning the messages also-- It's for OUR and YOUR saftey. We do not advocate
"hacking" in any way.
We are the MODERATORS of this BBS, while you are the USERS. It's a pure
communications link between the two sides. One side seeing white, the other
black. We see grey.
Access is guaranteed to any user who wishes to call.
This is an open system for the "phree" world.
(End Face-2-Face header)
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Subject: PhD Candidate Seeks information on the CU
From: P.A. Taylor <EJPA09@uk.ac.edinburgh.emas-a>
Date: 02 Nov 90 15:25:32 gmt
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 2 of 9: PhD Students Seeks Info on CU ***
********************************************************************
I'm in the second year of a PhD on the subject of hacking/viruses and the
politics behind them, and I was wondering whether any of you are prepared to
enter into a dialogue on the subject.
At the moment, I'm preparing the theory section and literature review. In
January or thereabouts I want to start field-work (or modem-work, if it
turns out that way) with both hackers and their computer security industry
counterparts, and anyone who would consider themselves neither one nor the
other, but nevertheless interested in the field and the issues raised by it.
Theoretically, so far I've concentrated on the notion put forward in various
quarters that hackers are surfers on a technological wave that is carrying
the rest of us away, or in a similar vein, cowboys staking out new territory
in the new frontier world of computer technology. Looking at hackers in
this way has made me concentrate on the whole issue of technological
determinism and the "information revolution" and also the idea of hackers
being perhaps an extension or most recent development of an alternative
culture, hippies with modems perhaps. It also raises the whole issue of the
exact nature of cyberspace and the implications it holds... are we entering
a new realm of informational colonialism? What is information? Who has rights
over it, and are hackers/the computer underground fighting a battle of
principle the importance of which has passed most people by?
On a more practical level I'm interested in the following points...
1. To what extent has the advent of hacking/viruses fed back into
and affected the development of computer science? (e.g. the conceptualisation
of genetic algorithms)
2. Information and reference material relating to the formation of the
computer security industry. Ideally I'd like to write a short history of it
and trace the ways in which it has developed and been shaped by its
adversarial relationship with the computer industry.
3. The subject of the changing nature of information illustrated by
such episodes as the "look and feel lawsuits" and an increasingly
proprietal attitude towards information that is now evident. To what
extent are hackers/computer underground concerned with the type of
opposition to information control that people such as Richard Stallman
and his Gnu project represent?
Thanks for taking the time to read all this,and hopefully some of you
can give me feedback/suggestions/reference material.
Cheers, P.A.T.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Moderators
Subject: Riggs, Darden, and Grant Sentenced
Date: 17 November, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 3 of 9: Riggs, Darden and Grant Sentenced ***
********************************************************************
Robert J. Riggs (The Prophet), Franklin E. Darden, Jr. (The Leftist), and
Adam E. Grant (The Urville) were sentenced in Atlanta Friday, November 16.
All were given prison terms. Riggs was sentenced to 21 months. Grant and
Darden were given 14 months each, half of which may be served in a half-way
house. Additional provisions include supervision and prohibitions on
computer use. In addition, each was ordered to repay $230,000 restitution.
Darden and Grant report for sentencing on January 4, 1991, and Riggs on
February 15. According to previous news reports, under the plea
arrangement Riggs could have been sentences to 15 years and a fine of up to
$500,000. Grant and Darden could have received up to 5 years in prison and
fines of up to $250,000.
Because the three pled guilty, the evidence against them is not public.
Yet, the both the prison sentence and the restitution seem harsh. Riggs,
presumably, received a heavier sentence because of a prior offense and
because the charge to which he pled guilty carried a more severe sentence.
But, according to reports, his cooperation with law enforcement and his
testimony against Craig Neidorf would be taken into consideration during
the testimony.
Did the actions of the three cause $700,000 worth of damages, or is the
figure intended to be a "message" to others? If the former, one wonders
what they possible could have done to create such mischief, because the
original indictment mentions nothing about concrete damages, and we have
already seem how Bell is willing to inflate costs. If the amount of
restitution was intended as a message, it is successful. But, it sends an
inintended message: The judicial system is wacky! If each repays $4,000 a
year, they may be paying out of their social security well into their 70s.
If each repays it within 25 years ($9,300 a year), they are effectively
saddled with a "second mortgage" before even launching their lives. They
will emerge from prison faced with obstacles that even the most hardened
criminals do not endure.
Prison time also seems inappropriate. The so-called "tough on crime"
mentality of the past decade has created an explosion in the nation's
prison population. Since 1980, the nation's prison population has more than
doubled, increasing from about 329,821 in 1980 to almost 800,000 in
November of 1990. Tossing people in prison is not, for non-violent crimes,
particularly cost-effective, and there is no agreement on the deterrent
effect of prisons. For relatively minor white collar crimes, such as those
commited by the "Atlanta Three," prison seems both unnecessary and unjust,
and tax-payers foot the bill.
There is apparently little the three can do about the sentence. But the
rest of us can join in the tasks of lobbying for saner laws and sentences
that better fit the "crime" than does incarceration, while simultaneously
working to curtail computer abuse.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Adam Gaffin
Subject: Prodigy Saga Continues
Date: November 14, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 4 of 9: The Prodigy Saga Continues ***
********************************************************************
(The Prodigy saga continues. Adam Gaffin, who has been following the story
for the Middlesex News in Framingham, Mass, reports that after a couple of
days, Prodigy restored the account of the "Prodigy Nine" and then, a few
days after that, pulled them again! The total number is actually now up to
about 15. Prodigy has been receiving lots of bad press in the media, and
Henry Niman, a prodigy victim, has been interviewed about his experiences
by several TV stations and newspapers. Adam recently wrote the following
stories--moderators).
+++++++++++++
From: "Conversations with Fred," Middlesex News, Framingham, 11/6/90.
The story is bizarre but true, swears Herb Rothman. Seems Prodigy, the
network run as a joint venture by Sears and IBM, wouldn't let somebody post
a message in a coin-collecting forum that he was looking for a particular
Roosevelt dime for his collection. Upset, the man called "member services."
The representative told him the message violated a Prodigy rule against
mentioning another user in a public message. "What user?" the man asked.
"Roosevelt Dime," the rep replied. "That's not a person!" the man said.
"Yes he is, he's a halfback for the Chicago Bears," the rep shot back.
Rothman is one of those alleged compu-terrorists Prodigy claims is
harassing other users and companies that advertise on the service by
sending out thousands upon thousands of increasingly hostile messages in
protest of a Prodigy plan to begin charging users who send more than 30
e-mail messages a month. Rothman and the others say they sent very polite
messages to people (Penny Hay of Los Angeles says her messages were even
approved by the Prodigy legal department) telling them about the new fees
and urging them to protest.
What's really happening is that Prodigy is proving its complete arrogance
and total lack of understanding of the dynamics of on-line communication.
They just don't get it. People are NOT going to spend nearly $130 a year
just to see the weather in Oregon or order trips to Hawaii.
Even the computerphobes Prodigy wants to attract quickly learn the real
value of the service is in finding new friends and holding intelligent
"discussions" with others across the country.
But Prodigy blithely goes on censoring everything meant for public
consumption, unlike other nationwide services (or even bulletin-board
systems run out of some teenager's bedroom). Rothman's story is not the
only one about capricious or just plain stupid censoring. Dog fanciers
can't use the word "bitch" when talking about their pets, yet the service
recently ran an advice column all about oral sex. One user who complained
Law" was not allowed on was told that "queen b***h" would be acceptable,
because adults would know what it meant but the kiddies would be saved.
So when the supposed technology illiterates Prodigy thinks make up its user
base managed to get around this through the creation of private mail
"lists" (and, in fact, many did so at the urging of Prodigy itself!),
Prodigy started complaining of "e-mail hogs," quietly announced plans to
levy charges for more than a minute number of e-mail messages each month
and finally, simply canceled the accounts of those who protested the
loudest!
And now we are watching history in the making, with the nation's first
nationwide protest movement organized almost entirely by electronic mail
(now don't tell Prodigy this, but all those people they kicked off quickly
got back onto the system -- Prodogy allows up to six users per household
account, and friends simply loaned their empty slots to the protest
leaders).
It's truly amazing how little faith Prodigy has in the ability of users to
behave themselves. Other systems have "sysops" to keep things in line, but
rarely do they have to pull messages. Plus, Prodigy is just being plain
dumb. Rothman now has a mailing list of about 1,500. That means every time
he sends out one of his newsletters on collectibles, he sends 1,500 e-mail
messages, which, yes, costs more for Prodigy to send over long-distance
lines and store in its central computers. But if they realized their users
are generally mature, rather than treating them as 4-year-olds, Rothman
could post just one message in a public area, that everybody could see.
Is this any way to run an on-line system? Does Prodigy really want to drive
away the people most inclined to use the service -- and see all those ads
that pop up at the bottom of the screen? Prodigy may soon have to do some
accounting to the folks at IBM and Sears, who by most accounts have already
poured at least $750 million into "this thing."
(With your computer and modem, you can reach Fred the Middlesex News
Computer anytime, day or night, at (508) 872-8461. Set your parameters to
8-1-N and up to 2400 baud.)
+++++++++++++
"Prodigy Pulls Plug on Electronic Mail Service for Some"
From: Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 11/2/90
By Adam Gaffin (News staff writer)
Users of a national computer network vow to continue a protest against
censorship and a new charge for electronic mail even though the company
kicked them off-line this week.
Brian Ek, spokesman for the network, Prodigy, said the "handful" of users
had begun harassing other users and advertisers on the service and that
some had even created programs "to flood members' %mailboxes' with
(thousands of) repeated and increasingly strident harangues," he said.
But leaders of the protest say they sent only polite letters - approved by
the company's legal department - using techniques taught by the company
itself. Up to nine of them had their accounts pulled this week.
Protests began in September when the company said it would cut unlimited
electronic mail from its monthly fee -- which includes such services as
on-line airline reservations, weather and games -- and would charge 25
cents for every message above a monthly quota of 30. Ek says the design of
the Prodigy network makes "e-mail" very expensive and that few users send
more than 30 messages a month.
But Penny Hay, the only organizer of the "Cooperative Defense Committee"
whose account was not shut this week, said she and others are upset with
Prodigy's "bait and switch" tactics: the company continues to promote
"free" electronic mail as a major feature. She said Prodigy itself had
spurred use of e-mail by encouraging subscribers to set up private e-mail
"lists" rather than use public forums and that the charges will especially
hurt families, because the quota is per household, not person.
Ek said relatively few members protested the rate change. Gary Arlen, who
publishes a newsletter about on-line services, called the controversy "a
tempest in a teapot."
Hay, however, said the group now has the backing of nearly 19,000 Prodigy
users - the ones advertisers would want to see on-line because they are the
most active ones on the system and so more likely to see their ads.
The group is also upset with the way the company screens messages meant for
public conferences. Other services allow users to see "postings"
immediately.
"They are infamous for this unpredictable and unfathomable censorship," Hay
said.
"We feel what we are doing is not censoring because what we are essentially
doing is electronic publishing," Ek said, comparing the public messages to
letters to the editor of a family newspaper.
Neil Harris, marketing director at the competing GEnie service, said many
people would feel intimidated knowing that what they write is being
screened. He said GEnie only rarely has to deleted messages. And he said
GEnie has picked up several thousand new customers from among disgruntled
Prodigy users.
del 85 86; ch eol to')' in 89; m 87
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: laird@SLUM.MV.COM(Laird Heal)
Subject: Re: Response to Mars "Censoring"
Date: 7 Nov 90 10:45:18 EST (Wed)
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 5 of 9: Mars *was* Censored ***
********************************************************************
In article <CuD #2.09 #4>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Dan Hankins) write:
>In article <CuD #2.08 #3>, Karl Lehenbauer <karl@sugar.hackercorp.com> writes,
>>I used Prodigy several times, and it is a heavily censored system,...
>This is inaccurate. Prodigy is not censored, it is _edited_. There is a
>significant difference. When newspaper articles are removed by government
>order, that's censorship. When the newspaper owners decide to not run an
>article because it is counter to their editorial policies (or personal
>prejudices), then that's editing.
>In article <CuD #2.08 #4), the moderators write,
>>In the MARS incident, the NSF flexed its fiscal muscles (according to those
>>on the receiving end).
>This is again not censorship. The NSF pays for the Internet, and has the
>right to say how those monies are spent. Since MARS resided on an Internet
>node, the NSF had the right to refuse to pay for those files to be transmitted
>across its network. In fact, the NSF has the right to refuse to pay for
>network connections for any site for any reason whatsoever, unless it has made
>a contract to the contrary. If this is "flexing its fiscal muscles", then so
>be it.
You have gotten caught up in an emotional response to the word
"censorship". If you are going to mince words, do not use a meat
tenderizer or your argument will be mush.
The first comment is correct. Censorship is when a governmental body edits
a writing based upon its perceived content.
The fundamental point that has not been brought up by those approving of
the action (removing access and storage of the pictures) is that a
governmental body must grant First Amendment protection to all speech. The
sole exception where censorship is generally allowable is when that speech
would shock the general public, and this is normally restricted to
materials in public view.
The GIF archives are not in public view - even when sent as net-news they
are encoded - but they were/are in a location where there is general public
access of whatever files have been submitted to the archiver or to the
network. Particularly with netnews, there is no specific editing done
whatsoever after the author posts the article, and moderators serve only at
the whim of a majority of voters. Wherever speech is allowed, even if the
governmental body is paying for it, the content of that speech may not be
regulated by the governmental body. These pictures might be accessed by
immature youths who should be protected from carnal knowledge
Moreover, once it is established, that arm of the government may not simply
discontinue the service if the reason is to suppress the speech that is
being communicated. The First Amendment is guarded zealously by the
Federal courts and such an action should not withstand the "strict
scrutiny" that it should be examined under. I wish the Second Amendment
received such guardianship; I have never owned a gun, but I think everyone
should have the right to own one while the government has lots of guns and
seems to think nobody else should ever have any.
Obscenity may be censored - when it might otherwise shock the unsuspecting
public. A brown paper bag can never attract the prurient interest; do not
tear the bag open unless you do want to see what is inside. I never have
looked at any of the alt.sex hierarchy. Once a public forum exists, it may
not be censored, although the participants may agree to self-regulation. I
remember once wondering what was really in alt.flame, and the first article
convinced me that I had read enough. Those guys are serious about their
roasting there, not their vocabulary (damned if they do not just grab for
the nearest word). The alt.flame group is there with a good reason -
otherwise people who do not want to read that material might have to read
the same articles, but in their news group.
I personally can see no great benefit to maintaining an archive of sexually
explicit GIF images, except that archives exist to keep network
transmission to the most suitable paths; otherwise the private messages
sent back and forth are unmanaged and unmanageable, and we wind up with the
situation as described where Australians ftp'd files from Finland because
they were not archived at a more convenient site. Archives reduce network
load. Netnews reduces network load.
I can also personally see no great benefit to every person having a gun or
two except that we would all either be much more polite or on the way to an
ambulance. I am not an absolutist, and everyone does not act the way I
think everyone should. I do not act the way I think I should sometimes
either. I am a pragmatist when it comes to dealing with other people's
business: you send my files along, I will send yours along too.
>Complete the following: Pro is to Con as Progress is to ________.
That is a nice .signature.
Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM The Usenet is dead! NA:USA:NH:Salem +1 603
898 1406 Long live the Usenet!
********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Subject: Response to SJG Affidavit (part 1)
From: David G. Cantor <dgc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 22:48:06 -0800
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 6 of 9: Response to SJG Affidavit (part 1) ***
********************************************************************
I just received the special issue CUD on the search affidavit for Steve
Jackson.
Thank you for publishing it.
Perhaps you could discuss how transferring a document can be a crime, other
than possibly a (relatively minor) copyright violation? If it truly is a
crime, as stated in the affidavit, then anyone, by calling a document
proprietary and attaching a large value to it, can, in effect, create a
classified document and have this classification enforced by the US
Government.
As the Pentagon Papers case (dismissed against Daniel Ellsburg) showed,
it's extremely difficult to prosecute such cases, even when they are real!
Note that in Ellsburg's case there was no doubt that the documents in
question were government documents. classified SECRET (mostly). Yet the
case against Ellsburg was dismissed. Of course, Ellsburg had powerful
allies: The New York Times and the Washington Post, among others.
You pointed out, "It should also be remembered that the "$79,449.00"
document in question was shown to contain nothing of substance that is not
available to the general public for under $14. Further, to our knowledge,
there is no evidence, contrary to suggestions, that E911 software was
obtained".
I find it troubling that these considerations are even relevant. What was
transferred were a few electrons forming information, not classified, or
otherwise secret. Even if it were 911 software, so what? No criminal
charges were made concerning copyright or patent violations
I also wonder, considering the generally tight budgets in our government,
why the "Feds" are so interested in this case? Why are they investing so
much effort? In my limited experience, this occurs when some party has an
ax to grind or something special to gain. For example, in one of the first
such cases, against Ronald Mark Austin (who in 1983 was convicted of a
felony, primarily for accessing the (then) Arpanet), Los Angeles District
Attorney Phillibosian (appointed by the Governor) was running in his first
election. Presumably for publicity to help his re-election campaign, he
fried Austin in a MAJOR PRESS CONFERENCE (this DA also gave us the infamous
McMartin child molestation case).
Who stands to gain in the current prosecution? Is it Bell South, trying to
protect its turf in some way, or cover up something it has done? Is it
having problems with its 911 system it would like to blame on someone else?
Clearly it has the clout to cause such a prosecution. But WHY?
This whole case STINKS.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Subject: Warrants schmarrants! The SS is Crazy!
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 17:12 CST
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 7 of 9: Warrants Schmarrants (SJG, part 2) ***
********************************************************************
I've read the Steve Jackson Games warrant in CuD 2.11 and it makes me want
to move to Russia. It is crazy, just plain crazy. It reminds me of essay
tests when I wasn't prepared for a question and tried a snow-job hoping the
prof wouldn't notice. I usually got an F, but Foley gets rewarded and Steve
Jackson gets raided. Foley and his crowd have taken a few logs and blown
them out of context. They claim that Erik Bloodaxe's post on Jan 23 is some
kind of conspiracy, and that it proves that there's an encryption service,
and it says no such thing. The following posts don't add anything to that
post, so it seems it's just a silly attempt to fake evidence. Bloodaxe's
post may have been ill considered and in bad taste, but that's not a crime.
Heck, if bad taste were a crime, federal agents would be doing 30 years for
their wingtips.
The Phoenix Project had Phrack 24 on the board with a few pages of a
document. So what? Foley keeps talking about "my investigation." Well, if
he'd really investigated, he'd have known that the document in Phrack #24
was more than slightly edited and that the information in it was public.
Everything I've read says that the information that was published costs
about 13 dollars, not the 79,000 Foley claimed. Was he having a nap when
he claims to be investigating? Phrack is on a lot of boards, not just the
Phoenix Project, so what's the big deal? They make it sound like it was a
great conspiracy. Doesn't the first amendment allow posting legal
magazines?? Foley claims to be a lawyer; some lawyer! His lack of concern
for constitutional rights makes me wonder if his law degree isn't mail
order.
Foley also claims that Mentor's post on Jan 26 links him to some encryption
service. All he did was explain what Kermit is. Is that a crime?
Explaining a protocol? Christ, would anybody else who explained Kermit have
been busted? Beware when somebody asks about the difference between Puma
and Lynx. They might be feds and your boss might be raided.
Since when are encryption and decryption devices illegal? I can get them
off any good PD board in the country. Did Foley rewrite the law on his own?
The list of stuff to be searched boggles the mind. Books, notes, tapes, and
everything but the computerized micro-wave oven could be snatched (oh-oh!
Better keep quiet on that one or they'll get that next).
From this they justify their raid on Steve Jackson's company and nearly
destroy it. I guess you have to be prosecuted before you can charge
malicious prosecution, but I hope there is some way that those involved in
this total travesty of justice can get their due. It is frightening to
think that this could happen in America, and if Foley and his lackey's can
be sued, hopefully somebody will nail him. This isn't legitimate law
enforcement, it's a witch hunt. And if Foley is sued, I hope he gets more
justice than he is willing to give others.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: The Conflict
Subject: More guidelines on what to do if busted
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 90 12:26 CST
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 8 of 9: More tips on Reacting to a Raid ***
********************************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% %%
%% Simple Guidelines To Follow If You Encounter %%
%% Law Enforcement Agents In An Unfriendly Situation %%
%% %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The current state of the Computer Underground is an extreme turmoil. The
recent threat of another series of witchhunt raids has put many people into
a state of paranoia, and rightfully so. Noone needs to deal with all the
bullshit associated with a bust. I am offering a few guidelines to follow
if you are placed in a precarious situation instigated by a law enforcement
agent; of course, it is up to you to decide what you want to do. Of the
people who I have spoken with, these will be some of the best steps to
follow if you receive an unexpected visit.
Probably the first thing you would want to do if you receive an unfriendly
visit from Joe Fed is to READ the fucking warrant. Find out why you have
been chosen, and what they are looking for. Also, remember that if they
have only a search and seizure warrant, they are warranted only to
confiscate items on your premises; however, if they are serving a subpoena,
they may take what they need, on or off your premises. So, in essence, the
clean-house preventive measure may or may not be useful to you.
An important thing to do when Agent Foley (or one of his lesser evil
counterparts) comes knocking on your door is to cooperate fully. Drop a
lot of "Yes sir"/"No sir" answers; respond politely. You're in no position
to be a smart ass, and being friendly surely can not hurt you.
Another important thing to remember, although it is almost opposite of the
aforementioned, has to do with what to say. In essence, do not say a
fucking thing if you are questioned! Remember, anything you say or do can
and WILL be used AGAINST you in a court of law. Simply reply, "I can not
answer any questions without counsel", or "I first must contact my
attorney." You need not answer a damn thing they ask of you without an
attorney present, and it would most probably be very detrimental to do so.
This hint parallels the previous one. No matter what you do, do not reply
to any question with "I don't know anything", or any simple derivation of
that phrase. If you do, and you are indicted, you will be reamed in court.
The presence of that statement could greatly damage your defense, unless
you are conditionally mental or something.
In essence, those are all you should need. What I have outlined is very
simple, but logical. You need to keep a level head at least while they are
on site with you; get pissed off/psycho later, after they leave. If you
are currently an active member of the Computer Underground, you may wish to
lose anything that is important to you, at least temporarily. Why? Well,
the analogy I was given follows that: if you were suspected of
racketeering, the feds could execute a search and seizure on your property.
If they can prove by 51% that ANY of the confiscated material COULD have
been used in your suspected racketeering, it is forfeited (i.e. you lost
it, for good). The forfeiture stands whether or not you are indicted or
convicted! So, you would be entirely screwed.
All of the aforementioned steps are important. Those are all I really have
to offer. I suggest that you get clean before the sweep occurs, and that
you stay clean until after the sweep clears. Exercise extreme caution.
Keep your head high, and keep your back to the wall (otherwise, it would be
quite possible to find a knife lodged in it). Stay safe, and good luck!
The Conflict (11-13-1990)
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: P.A. Taylor@EDINBURGH.AC.UK
Subject: CU in the News--England and Emma Nicholson; VOGON News
Date: 04 Nov 90 16:07:16 gmt
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.12: File 9 of 9: The CU in the News ***
********************************************************************
"A Bug In The Machine" By Tom Dewe Matthews.
From: Sunday Correspondent, 17th Dec, 1989.
"Adrian Vole " looked on helplessly as the words on his computer terminal
began to drift down to the bottom of the screen. Soon, all that was left
were skeleton lines of meaningless text. "Oh God", cursed Vole, "I've
been hit by Cascade". There was nothing he could do to stop the computer
virus from running amok. In less than ten seconds, Adrian Vole's computer
had been turned into a useless piece of junk. Vole the hacker had been
hacked.
Adrian Vole is typical of his breed. By day he works at a computer console
for a financial research company and by night he hacks away in a computer-
filled den off his bedroom. Self-sufficient, with his terminal and telephone
modem which connects him to the rest of the computerised world, Vole is
typical in that he himself is open to attack.
Hackers see themselves as fighting for freedom of information, as trying to
break the control which big corporations such as IBM hold over computerised
information, in order to disseminate it freely. "Hackers", says George Stone,
the man who gave birth to Max Headroom, " want to be able to look into a
computer system and say %I understand you and therefore can question you.
You can no longer threaten me. I've beaten you". This curiosity and
sometimes paranoia, is provoked by the sheer power of computers. "On
one computer disc" says Stone,"you can put every address in the UK,
including postcodes, and on another you can put every name from every
electoral role in the country.You correlate those two discs, whack in a
few parameters and you can start up your own credit company, or your own
poll tax."
Hackers may say they want to demystify computers,not to rob them, but they
are nevertheless constantly destroying each other's systems by off-
loading sabotaged computer games on to the electronic notice-boards where
they swap software programs with each other. "Lounge Suit Larry" is only
one in a long line of these tainted computer games which in their pure
commercial state are harmless, but if you run an adulterated copy of
"Larry" through your computer, it will wipe out your hard disc, which in
human terms is the equivalent of removing your spine.
Computer companies have been known to put bugs into the programmes that
they're trying to sell to stop the customer from copying the programme-
which is illegal under copyright law. The computer companies also blur
the battle lines by adopting an attitude of: "If we can't beat them,
let's exploit them". It is now common practice among managers of computer
networks to put the telephone access number and password of a proposed
system on to an electronic notice-board and then sit back and watch
hackers wander around their system. In the mock battle that follows,
the systems designer will even put up barriers which the hackers will
try to knock down or evade. At the end of this phoney war, the system is
dismantled and the manager redesigns it according to what he has learnt.
The real system, with a secret telephone number and password, is then
put in place and if that is hacked into it is likely that the hacker will
be traced and confronted- only to be employed by the company on the theory
that it takes a thief to keep one out.
For the politicians who want to introduce legislation into the computer
industry, such double standards are largely ignored in their pursuit of the
hacker. The Conservative M.P. Emma Nicholson tried unsuccessfully to
introduce a bill last summer which called for a loosening of Home Office
restrictions on phone taps and up to 10 years imprisonment for those who
gain unauthorised access into a computer system. If the government fails to
introduce its own hacking law in the next parliamentary session,
Ms Nicholson promises to be back soon with a repeat of her Private Members
Bill.
Hackers according to Nicholson, "are malevolent, nasty evil doers' who
fill the screens of amateur users with pornography". She believes that
"hacking has now become a regular terrorist action... The European Green
Movement hacks into large companies", she says,"and picks out sensitive
information. It could be pharmaceutical industries; it could be the oil
industry, and they justify it on the grounds of environmental or racial
fairness".
According to Emma Nicholson, the hacked information is then used to carry
out bombing and fires". The Greens may storm American air bases, but do
they really invade computers? "Yes," replies Nicholson, "The Green movement
in Europe is the most aggressive on this. They are akin to the Animal
Liberation movement here." So the Greens are trying to destabilize society
through computers? "Yes, without any doubt at all," she replies, adding that
she has " a lot of validated information" to confirm this fact.
The validation turns out to be a back copy of an anarchist magazine called
*insurrection*, in which a communique from the Dutch anti-Apartheid
movement Ra Ra lists 40 acts of sabotage against Shell in the Netherlands.
A separate article asks its readers to start fires and also lists various
computer viruses but doesn't tell the reader how to create them. The link
between the hackers and the European Greens still seems unclear. "That",
Nicholson replies, "is buried deep in my files". But what's the source?
She then becomes as enigmatic as she was previously emphatic. "You
could call it unofficial secret-service trackers close to the Dutch
government. They're very close to the hackers and if they're named they
could be put in terrible jeopardy. These hackers are very nasty people".
(That's the first approx 1/4 of the article, the rest goes on to describe
a German hacker "Mike Blip" of the Chaos Club).
*******************************************************************
From: fitz@WANG.COM(Tom Fitzgerald)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 18:42:06 EST
<><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><>
Edition : 2193 Monday 12-Nov-1990 Circulation : 8447
VNS COMPUTER NEWS: [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
================== [Nashua, NH, USA ]
Massachusetts - Considering computer-crime bill hailed as a model for others
%The Wall Street Journal, 9-Nov-90, p. B1%
The legislation "is the first to properly balance property and free speech
interests," says Mitchell Kapor, founder and chairman of Lotus Development.
The bill, which has the support of the governor and is expected to be approved
by the Legislature, declares that new forms of communication such as computer
bulletin boards and paperless electronic publications "are protected by
fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and association and freedom
from unreasonable government intrusion." The bill orders jail terms and stiff
fines for those who break into computers without authorization or let loose
software viruses that disrupt systems or destroy data. Hackers caught causing
damage of $10,000 or more are subject to as much as 2 1/2 years in prison, a
fine of up to $25,000, or both.
European Community - Protecting computer software against piracy
%The Wall Street Journal, 9-Nov-90, p. A6%
European Community internal-market ministers gave broad-based support to
proposals aimed at protecting computer software against piracy. Among the
topics touched on was "reverse engineering," which allows a manufacturer to
write compatible software or produce compatible equipment. The EC proposals
would allow reverse engineering if the purpose was to create compatible, or
"inoperable" products, although strict limits on the process would be set.
<><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><>
Edition : 2194 Tuesday 13-Nov-1990 Circulation : 8450
VNS COMPUTER NEWS: [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
================== [Nashua, NH, USA ]
Security - Two teens charged with sabotaging voice-mail system
%The Wall Street Journal, 12-Nov-90, p. B7C%
Daniel Rosenbaum, 17, and a 14-year-old juvenile, both from Staten Island,
allegedly gained unauthorized entry to a computerized voice-mail system owned
by International Data Group, Framingham, Mass., then changed recorded
greetings to lewd messages, made bomb threats and erased customers' messages,
said John Keary, a New York state police investigator. The tampering occurred
between May and September at the company's Peterborough, N.H. office, at which
eight computer magazines published by the concern are based, said IDG
telecommunications director Jane Creighton. She estimated the disruptions cost
the company $2.4 million in lost revenue from advertisers and other expenses.
Mr. Rosenbaum said the two broke into the company's system because they didn't
get a free poster they had expected to receive with "Gamepro," one of its
computer magazines, said Mr. Keary. Mr. Keary said the teen-agers were charged
with computer tampering, unauthorized use of a computer and aggravated
harassment. They gained entry to the voice-mail system by entering "certain
codes" into it through telephones, after calling the company's toll-free
number, he added. By experimentation or luck, outsiders can learn passwords
needed to break into voice-mail systems, enabling them to change outgoing
messages and otherwise disrupt operations. Voice-mail break-ins, however, are
declining as security aspects of the systems are beefed up, asserts David
Ladd, executive vice president of VMX Inc., a San Jose, Calif., seller of
voice-mail systems. IDG's Ms. Creighton said that gaining access to the
company's phone mail system required use of multiple passwords. The teen-agers
"are subscribers and readers of ours, therefore they are very
computer-knowledgeable," she added.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.
<><><><><><><> VNS Edition : 2194 Tuesday 13-Nov-1990 <><><><><><><>
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #2.12**
********************************************************************
