Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 01 Issue 25
****************************************************************************
>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 #1.25 (July 28, 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 Over: CHARGES DROPPED (Moderators)
File 3: Warning about Continued Harassment of BBSs (Keith Henson)
File 4: League for Programming Freedom Protests Lotus Litigation
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.25, File 1 of 4: Moderators' Comments ***
********************************************************************
Date: 28 July, 1990
From: Moderators
Subject: Moderators' Corner
++++++++++
In this file:
1) Disclaimer of Authorship
2) CuD Format
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER OF AUTHORSHIP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We do not engage in "guessing games" about anonymous authors, nor will we
reveal the identity. Often, we in fact do not know, because we tend to
erase files to preserve space and have no way of retrieving such
information. But, sometimes it is necessary to exclude those from the list
of "possibilities" if there exists potential repercussions. The recent
anonymous author of the Neidorf trial *WAS NOT* in any way involved with
the trial as a participant, witness, or member of the the defense team.
Those who have inquired can rest assured that no participant even remotely
related to the case will contribute any article until a verdict is reached.
+++++++++++++++++++++
CuD FORMAT
+++++++++++++++++++++
Our format is changing slightly each issues as we try to find one that
conforms to the basic conventions that will allow most systems to recognize
and do their magic with digests. If anybody has suggestions, please pass
them on. We're indebted to those who have responded with docs and other
information to help us in this.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.25: File 2 of 4: Trial Over: Charges Dropped ***
********************************************************************
Date: 28 July, 1990
From: Moderators
Subject: Neidorf Trial Over: Charges Dropped
Less than halfway through the trial, and before it had presented its remaining
witnesses, but government dropped all charges against Craig Neidorf Friday.
Defense Attorney Sheldon Zenner said that Prosecutor Bill Cook's decision
was "in line with the highest standards of good government and ethical
conduct." Zenner said that the government could have continued to the last
and let the jury decide, but did the honorable thing.
One reason for the surprise decision, according to one inside source, was
that, as the testimony and cross-examination proceeded, the government
realized that BellSouth had not been forthcoming about the extent of
availability of the document and its worth. The prosecution apparently relied
on the good faith of BellSouth because of the previously good working
relationship it had with it and other telecom companies.
Craig Neidorf was ecstatic about the decision, and feels vindicated. He can
now resume his studies, complete his degree, and seriously consider law
school. He *WILL NOT* resume publication of PHRACK!
Zenner praised Bill Cook's decision to drop all charges, and added he is not
angry, but appreciative. Zenner also felt that the the efforts of EFF, CuD,
and the many individuals who supported Craig were instrumental in creating
credibility and visibility for the case, generating ideas and information for
the defense, and facilitating enlisting some of the prospective defense
witnesses to participate.
There are those who have taken the Ed Meese line and assumed that Craig must
have done *something* or the government wouldn't be prosecuting him. Others
have not been as strident, but have put their faith in "The System," assuming
that the process works, and as long as Craig's procedural rights were
protected, we should "wait and see." Others on the extreme end have said that
those of us who supported Craig would change our minds once all the evidence
has come out, and we were criticized for raising issues unfairly when the
government, so it was claimed, couldn't respond because it had to protect
Craig's privacy and was required to sit in silence. One prosecutor even said
that when all the evidence comes out, Craig's supporters would slink back
under their rocks.
There is little cause for Craig's supporters to gloat, because the emotional
and financial toll on Craig and his family were substantial. Dropping the
charges hardly means that the system works, because if it worked, there would
have been no charges to begin with. From the beginning, Craig expressed his
willingness to cooperate, but the government made this impossible with its
persecution. Craig's supporters, from the beginning, have published the
evidence, explained the issues, and we can still see no reason for his
indictment. The evidence presented by the government in some cases could have
been presented as well by the defense to show that *no* criminal acts
occurred. When witnesses must be coached into how to present negative
evidence, and when little, if any, can be adequately constructed, one would
think that somebody in the prosecutor's office might realize there simply
isn't a case there. The government had no case in the beginning, they could
not construct one, and they had nothing at the end. So, dropping the charges
does not indicate that the system works, but rather that sometimes a just
outcome may result despite unjust actions of over-zealous agents. The
prosecution not only lost the case, but reduced its credibility in all areas
of computer enforcement.
The claim that a recent Telecom Digest contributor made that the SS and others
may intentionally overstep bounds to establish more clearly the lines of law
may be true, but what about the costs to innocent victims of such
Machiavellian tactics? Do we really live in such a cynical society that we
find it acceptable to place lives, careers, and reputations at great risk?
Now, however, it is time to move on and address the lessons learned from the
experience. Some of the issues include how computerists can be protected from
overzealousness, how law enforcement agents can perform their legitimate tasks
of gathering evidence without violation rights, and how legislation can be
written to reflect technological changes that protect us from predators while
not subverting our rights with loose, broad, or inaccurate language. This has
been the goal of Mitch and the EFF, and it is one on which we should *all*
unite and focus our energy.
Below is a summary of the days 2-4 of the trial (the first day, jury
selection, appears in CuD 1.24):
In the second day of Craig Neidorf's trial in Chicago, both sides presented
their opening arguments. The prosecution wheeled in two shopping carts
containing documents, presumably to be used as evidence. Bill Cook, the
prosecutor, down-played the technical aspects of the case and tried to
frame it as a simple one of theft and receiving/transporting stolen
property. Sheldon Zenner's opening statements were described as "absolutely
brilliant," and challenged the definitions and interpretations of the
prosecution. More detail will follow as the trial progresses.
DAY THREE OF CRAIG NEIDORF'S TRIAL (WEDS, JULY 25):
The prosecution continued presenting its witnesses. The most damaging to
the prosecution (from a spectators perspective) was the testimony of a Ms.
Williams from BellSouth whose primary testimony was that the E911 documents
in question were a) proprietary and b) not public information. Following a
lunch break, defense attorney Sheldon Zenner methodically, but politely and
gently, attacked both claims. The "proprietary" stamp was placed on *all*
documents at the source without any special determination of contents and
there is nothing necessarily special about any document with such a
statement attached. It was established that it was a bureaucratic means of
facilitating processing of documents. The proprietary claims were further
damaged when it was demonstrated that not only was the content of E911
files available in other public documents, but that the public can call an
800 number and obtain the same information in a variety of documents,
incuding information dramatically more detailed than any found in PHRACK.
After considerable waffling by the witness, Zenner finally received her
acknowledgement that the information found in the files presented as
evidence could be obtained for a mere $13, the price of a singled document,
by simply calling a public 800 number to BellCorp, which provided thousands
of documents, "including many from BellSouth." If our arithmetic is
correct, this is a little less than the original assessed value of $79,449
in the original indictment, and about $22,987 less than the revised value
assessed in the second document.
Ms. Williams often seemed hesitant and uncooperative in answering Zenner's
questions, even simple ones that required only a "yes" or a "no." For
example, part of Ms. Williams testimony was the claim that PHRACK'S E911
document was nearly identical to the original BellSouth document, and she
noticed only four changes in the published text. Zenner identified other
differences between the two versions. He then suggested that it was odd
that she didn't notice that the original document was about 24 pages and
the PHRACK document half of that, and wondered why she didn't notice that
as a major change. She tried to avoid the question, and in exasperation,
Zenner gently asked if she didn't think that to reduce 24 pages to about 13
indicated a major editing job: Doesn't that indicate that somebody did a
good job of editing?" "I don't know what you mean." After a bit of banter
in which Zenner tried to pin down the witness to acknowledge that a major
editing had occured such that the PHRACK document was hardly a facsimile of
the original, and several "I don't knows" from the witness, Zenner turned
to her and said gently: "Editing. You know, that's when somebody takes a
large document and reduces it." "I don't know," she repeated again. This
seemed especially damaging to the prosecution, because they had claimed
that the document was nearly identical. In challenging a motion to dismiss,
the prosecution wrote:
Neidorf received and edited the file and subsequently,
on January 23, 1989, uploaded a "proof cop" of the
edited text file onto Riggs' file area on the Lockport
bulletin board for Riggs to review. (Counts 8 and 9).
Riggs was to proofread Neidorf's version before Neidorf
included it in an upcoming issue of "Phrack." The only
differences between the original version posted by
Riggs, and the edited version that Neidorf posted for
return to Riggs, were that Neidorf's version was retyped
and omitted all but one of the Bell South proprietary
notices contained in the text file. Neidorf modified
the one remaining Bell South warning notice by inserting
the expression "whoops" at the end:
NOTICE: NOT FOR USE OR DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE BELL SOUTH OR
ANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES EXCEPT UNDER WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
[WHOOPS]
From an outsider's perspective, this witness was there to make a claim and
not to present "truth." Even when confronted with public E911 information
identical or similar to the PHRACK version, she seemed unwilling to give a
direct answer indicating that passages were identical.
Also in the afternoon session, Secret Service Special Agent Timothy Foley,
in charge of the search of Craig Neidorf and others, related a detailed
account of the search and what he found. A number of files from PHRACK and
several additional e-mail documents were introduced as government exhibits.
At this time, a number of documents were introduced as evidence. These
included several e-mail messages between Craig and others.
In addition to the E911 files, the following were introduced:
PHRACK ISSUE FILE No.
21 3
22 1
23 1
23 3
24 1
24 11
25 2
(Some of these have been reprinted in CuD. A CuD index is available, and
PHRACKS may be obtained from the archives).
From a spectator's perspective, the most curious element of Agent Foley's
testimony was his clear presentation of Craig as initially indicating a
willingness to cooperate and his initial willingness to talk without a
lawyer present. Given the nature of the case, one wonders why the
government couldn't have dealt less aggressively with this case, since the
testimony was explicit that, had it been handled differently, justice could
have been served without such a waste of the taxpayers dollars. When Agent
Foley read the PHRACK file describing summercon, one was also struck by
what seemed to be little more than announcing a party in which there was
explicit emphasis on informing readers that nothing illegal would occur,
and that law enforcement agents were also invited.
It was also curious that, in introducing the PHRACK/INC Hacking Directory,
a list of over 1,300 addresses and handles, the prosecution seemed it
important that LoD participants were on it, and made no mention of
academics, security and law enforcement agents, and others. In some ways,
it seemed that Bill Cook's strategy was to put HACKING (or his own rather
limited definition of it) on trial, and then attempt to link Craig to
hackers and establish guilt by association. It was also strange that,
after several months of supposed familiarization with the case, that
neither Bill Cook nor Agent Foley would pronounce his name correctly.
Neidorf rhymes with eye-dorf. Foley pronounced it KNEEdorf and Cook
insisted on NEDD-orf. Further, his name was spelled incorrectly on at least
three charts introduced as evidence, but as Sheldon Zenner indicated, "we
all make mistakes." Yeh, even Bill Cook. One can't but think that such an
oversight is intentional, because a prosecutor as aware of detail as Bill
Cook surely by now can be expected to know who he is prosecuting, even when
corrected. Perhaps this is just part of a crude, arrogant style designed
to intimidate, perhaps it is ignorance, or perhaps it is a simple mistake.
But, we judge it an offense both to Craig and especially his family to sit
in the courtroom and listen to the man prosecuting their son to continually
and so obviously mispronounce their name.
DAY FOUR OF THE TRIAL (THURSDAY, JULY 26):
Special Agent Foley continued his testimony, continuing to describe the
step by step procedure of the search, his conversation with Craig, what he
found, and the value of the E911 files. On cross-examination, Agent Foley
was asked how he obtained the original value of the files. The value is
crucial, because of the claim that they are worth more than $5,000. Agent
Foley indicated that he obtained the figure from BellSouth and didn't
bother to verify it. Then, he was asked how he obtained the revised value
of $23,000. Again, Agent Foley indicated that he didn't verify the worth.
Because of the importance of the value in establishing applicability of
Title 18, this seems a crucial, perhaps fatal, oversight.
Next came the testimony of Robert Riggs (The Prophet), testifying
presumably under immunity and, according to a report in the last issue of
CuD, under the potential threat of a higher sentence if he did not
cooperate. The diminutive Riggs said nothing that seemed harmful to Craig,
and Zenner's skill elicited information that, to an observer, seemed quite
beneficial. For example, Riggs indicated that he had no knowledge that
Craig hacked, had no knowledge that Craig ever traded in or used passwords
for accessing computers, and that Craig never asked him to steal anything
for him. Riggs also indicated that he had been coached by the prosecution.
The coaching even included having a member of the prosecution team play the
role of Zenner to prepare him for cross-examination. It was also revealed
that the prosecution asked Riggs to go over all the back issues of PHRACK
to identify any articles that may have been helpful in his hacking career.
Although it may damage the egos of some PHRACK writers, Riggs identified
only one article from PHRACK 7 that MIGHT POSSIBLY be helpful.
What are we to make of all this? So far, it seems that the bulk of the
evidence against Craig is weak, exaggerated, and at times seems almost
fabricated (such as the value of the E911 file and Craig's "evil" attempt
to organize a league of "criminals." We have been told repeatedly be some
law enforcement officials and others that we should wait, because evidence
will come out that could not be discussed in public, and that this evidence
would silence critics. Some have even said that those who have criticized
law enforcement would "slink back under their rocks" when the evidence was
presented. Perhaps. But, so far at least, there has been no smoking gun, no
evidence that hasn't been discussed previously, and no indication of any
heinous conspiracy to bring America to its knees by trashing the E911
system, robbing banks, or destroying the technological fabric of society.
Perhaps a bombshell will be introduced before the prosecution winds up in a
few days. But, even if Craig is ultimately found guilty on any of the
counts, there is certainly nothing presented thus far that appears to
justify the severity of the charges or the waste of state resources. To
paraphrase that anonymous writer in the last issue of CuD, I can't help but
wonder why we're all here!
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.25: File 3 of 4: Warning about BBS Harassment ***
********************************************************************
Date: Undated
From: Keith Henson
Subject: Warning about Continued BBS Harassment
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Keith Henson posted the following on Portal and sent it along to us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PORTAL MESSAGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One day you try to log in, and it's PORTAL OFFLINE. After a day or
two, the word gets around on other systems that the Feds have "searched"
Portal, carrying off all its computers, disk drives, modems, phones,
manuals, paper files, printers, even a box of blank paper. Why? Sorry,
the warrants are sealed, and you won't be able to even find out for six
months or more. The guess (because of some simultaneous arrests) is
that someone told the Secret Service of proprietary files being
transferred through Portal. Portal's computers (and anything *you* have
there) are now locked up as evidence in a case unlikely to come to trial
for a year or more.
Is this a paranoid fantasy? No, everything in the story, even the
box of blank paper, has happened to someone in the last three years.
Could it happen to Portal? All too possible. Even if the staff wanted
to snoop on everything that goes through Portal, they couldn't; there is
just too much. Is there anything we can do now to prevent these raids
from cutting into our access to the net? John Little, the owner of
Portal, thinks we can. That is why this is being posted.
There is a law, passed in 1986, called the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. This law requires warrants if law enforcement agents want
to take electronic mail which is less than 180 days old. To get a
warrant, a law enforcement agent must show a judge that there is
"probable cause" of a crime before he permits the agents to violate the
privacy of your email, or to deny access to it by confiscating the
computer on which your email is stored.
The legal question is: does a warrant for a computer automatically
include all the electronic mail which might be found within it? (Kind
of like getting a warrant to search a post office and using it to open
and read all the mail found within the walls.) Or should law
enforcement agents be required to get warrants for the each person's
email before they can confiscate a computer?
Truthfully, no one knows. Law is as much a hodgepodge of
precedents as it is the statutes. And since 1986 (as far as I know) no
precedent setting cases on this point have gone to trial. It is
unlikely in the extreme that one law enforcement agency would go after
another for violating the provisions of the ECPA, and generate the
precedent. However, the act provides for civil action against those who
violate its provisions. A civil win would be just as effective in
setting precedent.
Two and a half years ago there was an incident in which the email
of 15 persons was taken by law enforcement agents with a warrant for the
computer, but without a warrant for email. This happened on a small
system used by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation (a non-profit
cryonics organization). A suit against the law enforcement agents and
agencies was filed early this year. Filings, motions, etc. are posted
on Portal (go 9449.3.12). So far things are going well. The lawyers
for the agents filed for dismissal; the judge told them we have a case.
Originally Alcor was going to fund the suit, but an endowment they
were counting on turned out to be about 1/4 of the expected size. The
email case, though important, is one of the things which had to be pared
from the budget. It has fallen to me, one of the plaintiffs, to raise
money to fund the case, which could cost up to $75,000. None of the
plaintiffs is wealthy, and the potential award from winning the case is
only $1000 each. We have already spent around $15,000. (However, if we
win, they have to pay our legal expenses.)
What we are looking for is donations to help pay for the suit.
John feels strongly enough about this matter to offer the use of the
Portal billing system to collect small donations. (For large donations,
contact me directly for details on how to make them tax deductible, or
returnable if we win.) All you need to do is to send a note to CS,
stating the amount you wish to donate and have added to your Portal
account.
And why should you part with your hard earned dollars? If net
access, netnews, or email is important to you, consider it a small
insurance policy. A win on the Alcor email case would make the story in
the first paragraph much less likely to occur.
If everyone on Portal gave a few dollars, it would go a *long* way
in helping to pay for the suit. Of course, if you can afford more, it
would be greatly appreciated. All donations will be acknowledged. If
we win and get the legal fees back, anything donated through Portal will
be returned to a Portal legal defense fund.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
H. Keith Henson (hkhenson)
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #1.25: File 4 of 4: LPF Protests Lotus Litigation ***
********************************************************************
Date: 25 Jul 90 00:34:39 GMT
To: alt-society-cu-digest@rutgers.edu
From: tower@buita.bu.edu(Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Subject: Fight "Look and feel" Lawsuits--March on Lotus August 2
[Please repost as widely as possible.]
Sad to say, the bad guys seem to be winning---the courts are on their side.
On June 28, Lotus won the lawsuit against Paperback Software, which had
developed a spreadsheet with the same commands and menus as 1-2-3. Now
they have sued SCO and Borland, claiming that their spreadsheets (including
Quattro Pro) are illegal copies. This decision makes it more likely that
Apple or Xerox will win their suits, and establish a monopoly on window
systems. And who knows who will be the next to be sued by someone else.
But the last battle is the battle for public opinion, and we can still win
that.
Therefore, on August 2, we will march on Lotus headquarters to protest
their new lawsuits. This is a demonstration against look-and-feel
copyright, sponsored by the League for Programming Freedom.
We will rally at Tech Square at 12:30 pm (in the tree-filled central area),
then march at 1 pm to the Lotus building next to the river at 55 Cambridge
Parkway. Professor Patrick Winston, director of the Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory, and Richard Stallman, president of the League for
Programming Freedom, will speak once we arrive there. If you are late,
come directly to Lotus. Don't be too late, since we will finish at 2 pm.
We will be handing out the new League stickers, showing Liberty holding the
disk and tape, with the slogan, "Stop Software Monopolies." (If you are a
League member, we will mail you some in the next mailing.) Take them and
post them where programmers will see them! If you can come get some and
post them before the demonstration, so much the better.
Please post copies of this announcement where you work, on bulletin boards
and anywhere else appropriate. Also speak to your coworkers and friends
about the demonstration; some of them may not read net news or bulletin
boards. Then remind them again a few days before.
Since not everyone will make a sign, it is very helpful if you do so. Here
are some suggestions for slogans:
SAY NO TO MONOPOLY
KEEP YOUR LAWYERS OFF MY COMPUTER
BOYCOTT LOTUS
PROGRAMMERS ARE ANGRY
USERS WANT COMPATIBLE SOFTWARE
Use your imagination; the more variety, the better.
Once we get to the Lotus building, please remember not to litter, not to
block pedestrians and to stay out of the street. We want to behave as
responsible citizens of a democratic society and be seen as such.
It's a sure thing there will be lots of reporters covering this
demonstration. (We'll make sure of it.) Our previous demonstration led to
coverage in all the major computer newspapers, and many major dailies.
This one promises to be even bigger and have a greater impact.
If you have to be somewhere else at 2 pm, then come at least from 1 to
1:30. If you work in the suburbs, you can travel back and forth and attend
the most important part of the demonstration in about two hours. That's a
long lunch, but you can get away with it. Mark the date and don't let
anything stop you from coming. We can win--but we must all pitch in.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #1.25**
********************************************************************
