Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 02 Issue 14
****************************************************************************
>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 #2.14 (November 30, 1990) **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet)
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Brendan Kehoe
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. Some authors, however, do copyright their material, and those
authors should be contacted for reprint permission.
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: Len Rose Indicted
File 3: CPSR's FOIA request from the FBI
File 4: International Information Retrieval Guild
File 5: A Note on Censorship
File 6: Two Comments on Prodigy
File 7: Don't Talk to Cops
File 8: Response to DEA/PBX News Story
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 1 of 8: Moderator's corner ***
********************************************************************
From: Moderators
Subject: Moderators' Corner
Date: November 30, 1990
++++++++++
In this file:
1. FTP INFORMATION
++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
FTP Information
+++++++++++++++++++++
We *DO NOT* maintain archives at NIU, and other than back issues of CuD, we
cannot send out archival material. Back issues can be obtained from two ftp
sites:
1. WIDENER: The *CORRECT* Widener ftp address is:
%% ftp cs.widener.edu
or%% ftp 192.55.239.132
On decompressing Zfiles:
The archivist just put up a 16-bit uncompress utility for DOS that'll do the
trick. Get pub/dos/uncom.exe first; then to uncompress anything with the .Z
extension, do it thusly:
C:%XFER >UNCOM FOO.Z > FOO
(it'll appear on the standard output). He hasn't played with it much yet,
so it may have a -o option or something to it. The site is available from
6 pm to 6 am.
2. BLAKE: The address and archive list is available to subscribers only.
All files are Zfiles, and if you are using a unix system, use the
"decompress +filename+" command.
+++++++
We have added additional papers and other material to the archives. We are
ESPECIALLY INTERESTED in receiving papers from lawyers or law students on
CU-related topics. This can include summaries of recent law,
bibliographies, or other material that would be of interest. We have added
the computer crime statutes from Illinois (16D-3) and California (502,
502.7), the ECPA, and other material. We hope to compile a strong set of
law-related articles and laws, so if you come across any related files,
pass them along.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Moderators
Subject: Len Rose Indicted
Date: 29 November, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 2 of 8: Len Rose Indicted ***
********************************************************************
"Man is Charged in Computer Crime"
By Joseph Sjostrom
From: Chicago Tribune, 28 November, 1990: Section 2, p. 2
Du Page County prosecutors have indicted a Naperville resident in
connection with an investigation into computer tampering.
Leonard Rose, 31, of 799 Royal St. George St., Naperville, was charged by
the Du Page County grand jury last week with violating the 1988 "computer
tampering" law that prohibits unauthorized entry into a computer to copy,
delete or damage programs or data contained in it.
Rose, who lived in Baltimore until last September or October, is under
federal indictment there for allegedly copying and disseminating a valuable
computer program owned by AT&T. The Du Page indictment charges him with
copying the same program from the computer of a Naperville software firm
that employed him for a week in October.
His alleged tampering with computers there was noticed by other employees,
according to Naperville police. A search warrant was obtained for Rose's
apartment last month, and two computers and a quantity of computer data
storage discs were confiscated, police said.
The Du Page County and federal indictments charge that Rose made
unauthorized copies of the AT&T Unix Source Code, a so-called operating
system that gives a computer its basic instructions on how to function.
The federal indictment says Rose's illegal actions there were commited
between May 1988 and January 1990. The Du Page County indictment alleges
he tampered with the Naperville firm's computers on Oct. 17.
(end article)
*************************************
Although we have not yet seen the indictment, we have been told that charges
were made under the following provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code:
*************************************
From: SMITH-HURD ILLINOIS ANNOTATED STATUTES
COPR. (c) WEST 1990 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
CHAPTER 38. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
DIVISION I. CRIMINAL CODE OF 1961
TITLE III. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
PART C. OFFENSES DIRECTED AGAINST PROPERTY
ARTICLE 16D. COMPUTER CRIME
1990 Pocket Part Library References
16D-3. COMPUTER tampering
s 16D-3. COMPUTER Tampering. (a) A person commits the offense of COMPUTER
tampering when he knowingly and without the authorization of a COMPUTER'S
owner, as defined in Section 15-2 of this Code, or in excess of the authority
granted to him:
(1) Accesses or causes to be accessed a COMPUTER or any part thereof, or a
program or data;
(2) Accesses or causes to be accessed a COMPUTER or any part thereof, or a
program or data, and obtains data or services;
(3) Accesses or causes to be accessed a COMPUTER or any part thereof, or a
program or data, and damages or destroys the COMPUTER or alters, deletes or
removes a COMPUTER program or data;
(4) Inserts or attempts to insert a "program" into a COMPUTER or COMPUTER
program knowing or having reason to believe that such "program" contains
information or commands that will or may damage or destroy that COMPUTER, or
any other COMPUTER subsequently accessing or being accessed by that COMPUTER,
or that will or may alter, delete or remove a COMPUTER program or data from
that COMPUTER, or any other COMPUTER program or data in a COMPUTER
subsequently accessing or being accessed by that COMPUTER, or that will or may
cause loss to the users of that COMPUTER or the users of a COMPUTER which
accesses or which is accessed by such "program".
(b) Sentence.
(1) A person who commits the offense of COMPUTER tampering as set forth in
subsection (a)(1) of this Section shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) A person who commits the offense of COMPUTER tampering as set forth in
subsection (a)(2) of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and
a Class 4 felony for the second or subsequent offense.
(3) A person who commits the offense of COMPUTER tampering as set forth in
subsection (a)(3) or subsection (a)(4) of this Section shall be guilty of a
Class 4 felony and a Class 3 felony for the second or subsequent offense.
(c) Whoever suffers loss by reason of a violation of subsection (a)(4) of this
Section may, in a civil action against the violator, obtain appropriate
relief. In a civil action under this Section, the court may award to the
prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation expenses.
(end Ill. Law)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Illinois employs determinate sentencing, which means that the judge is
bound by sentencing guidelines established by law for particular kinds of
offenses (See Illinois' Univied Code of Corrections, Chapter 38, Sections
1005-8-1, 1006-8-2, 1005-5-3.1, and 1005-3.2).
Computer tampering carries either a Class 4 felony sentence, which can
include prison time of from one to three years, or a Class A misdemeanor
sentence. With determinate sentencing, the judge selects a number between
this range (for example, two years), and this is the time to be served.
With mandatory good time, a sentence can be reduced by half, and an
additional 90 days may be taken off for "meritorious good time." Typical
Class 4 felonies include reckless homicide, possession of a controlled
substance, or unlawful carrying of a weapon.
A Class A misdemeanor, the most serious, carries imprisonment of up to one
year. Misdemeanants typically serve their time in jail, rather than prison.
Ironically, under Illinois law, it is conceivable that if an offender were
sentenced to prison for a year or two as a felon, he could be released
sooner than if he were sentenced as a misdemeanant because of differences
in calculation of good time.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: <mrotenberg@CDP.UUCP>
Subject: CPSR's FOIA request from the FBI
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 09:55:52 -0800
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 3 of 8: CPSR'S FOIA action with the FBI ***
********************************************************************
CPSR entered its first appearance today in federal district court in the
case CPSR v. FBI. CPSR is seeking information from the FBI under the
Freedom of Information Act regarding the monitoring and surveillance of
computer bulletin boards used by political and advocacy organizations.
Judge Stanley Harris began the status call by indicating that the case
would be transferred to the newest member of the Court, Judge Michael
Boudin, son of the late civil rights attorney Leonard Boudin. He mentioned
in passing that the decision to transfer the case was "made by a computer"
and that he "had nothing to do with it."
Judge Harris asked the parties to go ahead with their motions so that the
proceeding would not be delayed. Assistant US Attorney Mark Nagle
indicated that the FBI had located one document responsive to CPSR's
request and that he expected the FBI would release this document shortly
without any sections excised. He said that the government would then file
by January 15 a motion for summary judgment.
David Sobel, CPSR Counsel, and Marc Rotenberg, appearing as co-counsel,
then indicated to the Court that CPSR would likely challenge the adequacy
of the FBI's search for responsive documents.
Marc Rotenberg CPSR Washington Office.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: <KRAUSER@SNYSYRV1.BITNET>
Subject: International Information Retrieval Guild
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:18 EDT
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 4 of 8: Internt'l Info Retrieval Guild ***
********************************************************************
The following article describes the who and why of a computer group called
The International Information Retrieval Guild. I asked this group if they
would write an article for the readers of CuD in the hopes that other
computer groups past or present would write similar articles. I hope this
article will cast more light on what the "computer underground and hackers"
are and I invite other groups to send me an article about themselves. My
mail address is KRAUSER@SNYSYRV1.BITNET.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Who? What? When? Why? and Where?
THE
INTERNATIONAL
INFORMATION
RETRIEVAL
GUILD
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This article has been published to answer a few basic questions regarding
The International Information Retrieval Guild. We hope that those who read
these words will do so in an objective manner.
The I.I.R.G. Yesterday.....
The I.I.R.G. is not a new organization suddenly appearing on the scene. The
I.I.R.G. was originally founded by the Mercenary in 1982. In the following
six years the group grew to prominence in the Commodore 64 community and
created numerous share-ware utilities as well as text files.
The guild at this time was divided into two chapters, One would concentrate
on the publishing of text files and share-ware, While the second would
concentrate on the accumulation of data for the organization. At its peak
in those 6 years the I.I.R.G. ran a network of six bulletin board systems
spanning the East coast of the United States, as well as one system in
South Africa.
The group was comprised of individuals ranging from 17 to 42 years of age,
all of those having a wide variety of backgrounds and interests.
With the demise of the mainstream Commodore 64 community, (I know I'll
catch some flack on that one), and the introduction of the much superior
Amiga, the group was disbanded except for a small core of the founding
members.
Of the four surviving original members, their loyalty was divided. Two
went with the graphics capabilities and multi-tasking of the Amiga, And Two
went with the IBM.
The I.I.R.G. Today...
In early March of 1990, for the first time in over two years. The founding
members reconvened and discussed reforming the guild as a Vocal
organization. (It must be noted that in earlier days the I.I.R.G. was an
invitation only organization) The sudden shift in attitudes was due to the
negative publicity afforded hackers in the press and television.
After a brief hiatus to Canada in April, Mercenary set about establishing
the groups bulletin board system and contacting former members throughout
the United States. Knighthack, another of the founding members, was
contacted and set about the plans for publishing PHANTASY. Phantasy is to
be the I.I.R.G.'s voice to the world, a forum for discussing topics of
interest to the Computer Underground. At this point I'd like to have
Mercenary discuss this.
The I.I.R.G. was founded on the principal of exploration, The group as a
whole does not advocate illegal activities. To us Hacking is an Artform to
be nurtured and condoned. Phantasy will only publish legally obtainable
information and is not intended to be a replacement for Phrack. (Although
we do understand someone else will now be publishing Phrack, we wish them
the best of luck..)
The I.I.R.G. today is a small core of enthusiasts with a wide range of
computer preferences (IBM,AMIGA,DEC,etc) and will no longer concentrate on
one machine. I'd like to point out that freedom of speech is one of our
constitutional rights, But it seems that certain members of the
Law-enforcement establishment and certain politicians have forgotten this.
It's high time that the media also remembered this and looked at things
from our prospective. Techno Terrorists,high tech bandits, modern day
robin-hoods, this is all I see appear in the media. What about Hacker
cracks sex offender's security (Pete Leppik) or Hacker plugs multi-million
dollar security hole? Let's see some positive articles folks... Now I know
theres always a few bad apples in the bunch,and I don't dispute this, but
for the most part a true hacker is driven by curiosity about the world.
This is the same kid who took the family stereo apart when he was six not
one of Yassar's boys. I hope I've made my point and have gotten the
message across, As long as there are things to take apart,chinese
restaurants open till 2am,and a computer.. There will be hackers..
Mercenary....
Phantasy may be obtained at the following Systems...
1. IIRG Headquarters- The Rune Stone BBS - 1200/2400 Baud 24 Hours
Call for the Earliest possible releases of Phantasy and other
IIRG files. Our system will be going private so call Now while
you still can, at (203) 485-0088.
2. Lightning Systems- 24 hours - at (414) 363-4282
3. Sycamore Elite- 24 Hours - at (815) 895-5573
4. TAP's BBS at (502) 499-8933
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Czar Donic (California)
Subject: A Note on Censorship
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 15:40:43 0800
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 5 of 8: A Note on Censorship ***
********************************************************************
The recent debate or discussion in the Computer Underground Digest
concerning censorship is one more example of how technology has managed to
outpace legislation. Naturally, the First Amendment covers freedom of
expression in all of its manifestations, but exclusions have not yet been
codified to the extent that we can point to a corpus of specific precedents
to support restrictions thereon. It should be obvious to anyone that the
term "no law" means "no law," but ever since the prohibition against saying
"fire in a crowded theatre," people have been trying to modify the
constitution, trying to read that part of the first ammendment as meaning
"no law except . . ." or "no law but . . . ." It is one of the greatest
ironies that those who consider themselves "strict constructionists" have
the most difficulty with this ammendment.
The issue seems to revolve around property rights vs. free speech rights.
In the case of broadcast media, the airwaves are defined as belonging to
the public and this allows the government, as OUR representative, to
regulate the content of programming, even involving itself in the news to
some extent. For example, a fine arts station in Chicago, WFMT, once
elected to continue its classical music programming in the face of attack
by other interests who wanted its frequency. The attacks took the form of
complaints about its lack of news coverage, especially on "communism." The
station owners issued a statement that went something like this: "WFMT
serves a purpose that is not altered by temporary interruptions." The
station eventually won, but only at the cost of deflection from its
"purpose." The price was involvement in the political and legal arena.
It seems to me that this is where we are right now in the issue of
censorship in the computer network area. Who owns the network lines? Who
owns the machines? Who decides what information and in what form is
available to you? Finally, we have an even deeper question which is "who
owns what information," which can be expressed as an even more philosophic
one: "who owns information?"
Obviously, the framers of the constitution did not have internet on their
minds when when they were writing the constitution. They did, however,
have an interest in the free flow of information. Once a government can
restrict the information available to you, it can control every other
aspect of your life. Avoiding or preventing such a situation was the
entire premise of the first amendment.
EDITING VS. CENSORSHIP
It should be obvious that an attempt to censor an individual's right to
freely express and distribute his ideas is contrary to common sense. To
argue that publications such as Playboy and Penthouse must pay for
contributions from evangelical christians would clearly be absurd. Equally
absurd would be to require that every BIBLE come complete with a
centerfold. What is not so clear is whether such publications should be
forced to "air dissenting views." Already, equal time provisions force
electronic journalists to make air time available in such cases. Once this
crack in the rights of the "editor" is opened, all sorts of questions
arise. Much debate is squandered over whether or not certain views are
"mainstream" enough to be considered "worthy dissent."
So the absurdity becomes compounded. On the one hand we recognize that
dissenting opinions should be expressed. On the other, we make certain
that those opinions do not dissent too much. To paraphrase Barry
Goldwater, moderation in the defense of mediocrity is no virtue. If
freedom of speech is to mean anything, it must mean that uncomfortable
views be expressed.
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FREE SPEECH
We now come to the issue of property rights vs. expression rights. It
seems perfectly reasonable that someone who puts up his own computer, his
own software, his own telephone line, his own electricity bills, should
have complete control over any and all activity that transpires on his BBS.
At the very least, he has the perogative of shutting it down or using an
unlisted number.
PUBLIC FUNDS AND FREE SPEECH
The recent argument over whether NSF has the right to censor gif files is
analogous to the recent controversy over NEA funding of what a few
retrograde senators consider morally offensive. The recent flack over the
Maplethorp exhibit is a fairly clear example of this mentality. Because of
it, congress rushed to adopt the Jessie Helms agenda. Now, congress has
backed off as a result of Joe Papp and other famous artists refusing grants
and prominent reviewers resigning.
WALMART AND 7-11
The "moral majority" threatened to boycott 7-11 if it didn't stop selling
Playboy and Penthouse. 7-11 caved in. Walmart followed suit, but then
proceeded to ban rock magazines (lot's of sex in those) but not hunting or
gun magazines. Now Sam Walton is a bible thumper for the southern midwest
and went into it with gusto. 7-11, on the other hand, simply bowed to
pressure. Now it is bankrupt. People stopped going there. Now another
group threatened Burger King and it turned around a wrote what seems to be
like the loyalty oaths of the 50's promising to sponsor only programs that
reflected "family values."
What people like us have to do is let people like Burger King know that we
will boycott them if they continue to knuckle under to extremists.
SOLUTION
Even though NSF has little choice but to try to exorcise the GIFS from
their system, Americans interested in free speech should be as vocal as
possible arguing for their continuance. The reason is that we want battles
over free speech to be fought on the level or at the line of pornography.
As long as we can keep these bigoted zealots busy reading pornography and
worrying about it, they will be unable to attack more important and
meaningful forms of free speech.
Suppose there were no GIFS on the nets? Then they would go after anything
else they could understand. What about personal notes from one person to
another? Will we have to document that every syllable is of scientific
import? Suppose someone still believes in the steady state theory of the
universe rather than the big bang. Do we cut him off because his views are
clearly invalid (so far as we know)? It could very well happen if we did
not have the GIFS as a buffer. We can recognize that the GIFS are of no
value whatsoever, that such material is available elsewhere, that they take
up valuable disk or tape space, that they clog the lines that could be
better used otherwise. So what? Their values remains as pawns in the game
of censorship and they are the most valuable ones we have.
Czar D.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Alex Gross and Steven W. Grabhorn
Subject: Two Comments on Prodigy
Date: November 29, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 6 of 8: More on Prodigy ***
********************************************************************
%Prodigy has been receiving considerable criticism in the past few weeks
because of its policies on e-mail, alleged censorship, and other problems
that some users identify. There has been a lively discussion in Pat
Townson's TELECOM DIGEST (available from the internet or by dropping a note
to: TELECOM@EECS.NWU.EDU). The following typify the kinds of issues
underlying Prodigy's policies -- moderators%
From: Alex Gross <71071.1520@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: more on prodigy and censorship
Date: 27 Nov 90 01:05:43 EST
Tales of censorship on Prodigy have been ringing a great big bell with
me, and I think you'll see why from the following message which I wrote as
an answer to a query about the French Minitele service two years ago. It
was first posted on CompuServe's FLEFO (Foreign Language Education Forum)
and then got its life prolonged by being included in a Minitele info file
that is still posted there. I guess the point is that a lot of people
everywhere are still quite frightened by the idea of free speech. Also, what
about the free flow of information across boundaries (or even inside
boundaries telecom was supposed to bring--how free is it really going to
turn out to be, and for whom? It's really sounding like Prodigy is Minitele
revisited. I've added translations of some of the French words into English,
but otherwise it's as I wrote it then.
"My own experiences with Minitele are limited to the CTL branch between
Feb & June of 1988, & I don't know how applicable my observations will be
to Minitele as a whole or to what may have happened since. But I fear the
worst. First of all, it is expensive, $25 per hour from what I hear. This
wasn't true with CTL at the beginning. For close to a year, it was absolutely
free to North Americans--this was because they were trying to drum up sub-
scribers over here. Another version went that they were running big ads
in France to get people to sign up for the CTL branch there (they have
competitive companies over there running pieces of it) on the premise that
they would be able to "talk directly with America." I came in on the end
of this & had about 6 weeks of free service which then went to $4 per hour
to $10 & presumably to $25. I quit at the $4 level.
"There really wasn't an awful lot to do on this branch. You could go into
"Le Bar" & bavarder/taper (talk/type) 1 on 1 in real-time with the French. You
cd engage in something very remotely resembling free public discussion on some-
thing called Le Forum. Or you cd try some of the other "entertainments,"
mostly limited or dumb in one way or another. I'll take each of the three
in order.
"Conversations in "Le Bar" were I think on the whole worse than those you
might have on a BBS here using the CHAT option. Let's compare it to going
to a party where you really had no idea who the guests might be, and they all
turned out to have little in common. I had one or two pleasant chats, but most
of them were of the "Et quelle heure est-il a New York?" variety ("What time is
it in NYC?"). Many of the US-niks spoke only English, & a lot of the French
seemed happy to reply this way. I found at least 2 bilingual Parisian
secretaries there. Some of the talk was sex-oriented. Many had "PSEUDOs"
(handles) like Cuddles or Fondles or BIG-T*TS. Oh yes, we all had
PSEUDO's--mine was FRANGLAIS, which was generally appreciated. (Franglais is
the kind of French no one is supposed to speak, but almost everyone does--it
is a combo of French with lots of English words, FRANcais & anGLAIS.) Some
will no doubt call me a snob, but not too much really got said.
"Oh yes, some of the French affect an abbreviated slang, a la Metal
Hurlant, (Heavy Metal, originally a French mag) something like "k'veute
feravekma, magoss?" which wd not be too helpful for language-learning.
("Whatchawanna doowidmebabee?") Also, some of them don't even like computers
& seemed surprised when I told them Minitele counted as one--so user-friendly
is the interface that they really think they're on a typewriter or a tele-
phone. All conversations in Le Bar, by the way, are private between
those in them.
"So much for Le Bar. As for "Le Forum," that was simply terrible. They
practised rigorous censorship, & msgs cd take as long as 10 days to appear
on the Bd while someone performed "Validation des Textes" ("text accredita-
tion," I guess, but it sounds worse in French). At that time many
of the msgs posted in this "public" part were in English, but about a third
were in French. There were repeated anti-american msgs such as "All Americans
are stupid cowboys" or "Les americains sont tous des barbares" ("americains are
all barbarians") & such ilk. I have French cousins & have been hearing this
for 35 years, but I was sad to see it still going on. Also, some of them
have convinced themselves that France now leads the world technologically, &
I saw one msg claiming that the computer was invented by those two great
Frenchmen Pascal & Babbage (!) (to many French, any name ending in "-age" can
sound French.)
The best thing we had from it all was a party of 30 NYC area minitelistes,
& afterwards I posted a msg stating in French that our group had awarded
the PRIX DERRIDA for total stupidity to the Babbagehead and the PRIX
ETIEMBLE for some other sottise (stupidity). (Explanation: the French go
for literary prizes with names like PRIX THIS & PRIX THAT--Derrida is the
name of a virtually unreadable literary critic, Etiemble wrote the book first
condemning the use of "Franglais." The message finally got posted. Where
criticism is concerned, the French can dish it out, but they really can't
take it. I also (FINALLY) provoked them into posting a msg complaining about
the censorship, but even this was censored. Le Forum was the only part of
of Minitele I saw remotely comparable to CIS forums like FLEFO.
"As for the other services, how often do you need to know Air France times
or read Agence France Presse bulletins or consult a French astrologer? And
even if the real Minitele is more complete, do you really need to know the
names & addresses of all the dry cleaners in Marseilles? Hope this helps.
Salut! Alex"
And like it said then, Greetings! Alex
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <grabhorn%gandalf.nosc.mil@nosc.mil>
Subject: Prodigy "Protesters" Respond
Date: 27 Nov 90 05:33:19 GMT
I know we've seen quite a bit of discussion about Prodigy in the last
several weeks, however, I'd like to pass along an article I received from
some of the Prodigy members involved in the "protest." Prodigy certainly
does own its own service and it seems like they can do what they see fit
with it. However, I thought it might be a good idea to forward some
thoughts from the other side of the fence. Although I use Prodigy
occasionally, the thoughts below may or may not reflect my own feelings,
and the usual disclaimers about myself and my employer apply.
----------Begin Article------------
NEW PRODIGY GUIDELINES RESTRICT USE OF PRIVATE E-MAIL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, NOVEMBER 24, 1990:
Prodigy Service, the IBM/Sears owned home computer service, has taken
another unprecedented step in its clampdown on private electronic
communication.
In what appears to be a direct response to the growing strength and
visibility of Prodigy members who are protesting Prodigy's abandonment of
its much publicized "flat fee" billing structure and proposed e-mail
charges, the service has very quietly issued a new set of "messaging
guidelines" (see attached) [not included ?? -sg].] Imposition of these
guidelines will restrict the private exchange of information on Prodigy in
ways never before attempted on a commercial online service.
Russ Singer, a protest coordinator remarks, "Obviously Prodigy feels an
informed membership is not in their best interest."
Six days after being issued, existence of the new regulations is unknown to
most Prodigy users. The guidelines have not been announced on the
"Highlights" screen members encounter when logging on to the service.
Among the guidelines, which take effect immediately, are prohibitions on:
Contacting Prodigy's online merchants and advertisers for any reason other
than to "purchase goods and services" and to "communicate about specific
orders placed online"; "A mailing with a request to recipients to continue
distribution to others," which Prodigy describes as "chain letters". Use of
"automated message distribution programs (other than those provided by
Prodigy); and the threat of termination of users who fail to provide a
credit card number but who continue to send a large number of messages .
The guidelines are vague and raise disturbing questions about free speech
and the sanctity of private communication. These issues have aroused the
concern of the ACLU and other legislative and consumer groups. Although
issued universally, the intent of the guidelines seems aimed at stemming
the protest.
Says Henry Niman, another protest coordinator, "These guidelines don't make
sense from a monetary standpoint. If Prodigy goes ahead with e-mail
charges, in only five weeks these rules will be unnecessary." Although $.25
per message would afford Prodigy a bloated profit margin, most users on the
service would find the cost prohibitive.
Adds Niman, "These regulations do nothing more than create confusion and
intimidation. What purpose is served by requiring, under threat of termina-
tion, a credit card number from members who have already established a
billing arrangement with the service?"
Should e-mail charges be imposed, Prodigy, which is believed to be 80%
advertiser supported, will have created an electronic marketplace in which
merchants cannot benefit from customer to customer referrals. With the
addition of Prodigy's latest guidelines, merchants will be denied customer
feedback on the condition of that marketplace. Many protesters are asking,
"Don't advertisers have an interest in knowing what management is doing?"
Singer adds, "If what Prodigy wants to be is a shopping mall then it should
advertise itself that way, not as a flat rate interactive service.
Restricting users to submitting posts to Prodigy's public bulletin boards
makes Prodigy no more 'interactive' than a letter to the editor in a
newspaper."
Prodigy's campaign to silence dissent on the service began on October 30th
when Prodigy expelled ten of the most visible members of the protest group
(The Cooperative Defense Committee). An hour later discussion of e-mail
charges was prohibited on the only PUBLIC forum provided for member
feedback . Fifteen days later, Prodigy targeted four more protesters by
sending them newly devised "warning" notices informing them that private
"mass mailings" might be used as grounds for termination.
If Prodigy's new "guidelines" applied universally, you would not be getting
this FAX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: PENELOPE HAY (213) 472 0443
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Reprint
Subject: Don't Talk to Cops
Date: November 27, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 7 of 8: Don't Talk to Cops ***
********************************************************************
[reposted from misc.legal K. Henson]
% There have been a lot of recent discussions of police searches
% in the electronic-publishing cases (invasions of businesses),
% and in the Grateful Dead newsgroups (cars with friendly bumper
% stickers being prime harassment targets.)
% I just saw this leaflet that looked relevant,
% so I'm asciifying it for your enjoyment.
% Bill
DON'T TALK TO COPS
------------------
By Robert W. Zeuner, Member of the New York State Bar
"GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering
a few simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted
with those words, STOP AND THINK! Whether it is the local police or
the FBI at your door, you have certain legal rights of which you ought
to be aware before you proceed any further.
In the first place, when the law enforcement authorities come
to see you, there are no "simple questions". Unless they are
investigating a traffic accident, you can be sure they want information
about somebody. And that somebody may be you!
Rule Number One to remember when confronted by the authorities
is that there is no law requiring you to talk with the police, the
FBI, or the representative of any other investigative agency. Even the
simplest questions may be loaded, and the seemingly harmless bits of
information which you volunteer may later become vital links in a chain
of circumstantial evidence against you or a friend.
DO NOT INVITE THE INVESTIGATOR INTO YOUR HOME!
Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around for
clues to your lifestyle, frieds, reading material, etc., but also tends to
prolong the conversation. And the longer the conversation, the more chance
there is for a skilled investigator to find out what he wants to know.
Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the
police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him
for the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at
that time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for
identification purposes, a procedure which is easily accomplished by
placing him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking
him a few innocent questions, and then releasing him.
If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and
threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under
arrest or enter your home without a warrant signed by a judge. If he
indicates that he has such a warrant, ask to see it. A person under
arrest, or located on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a
warrant if he requests it and must be given a chance to read it.
Without a warrant, an officer depends solely on your helpfulness to obtain
the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself, don't
be helpful.
Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistent investigator is
simply to say: "I'm quite busy now. If you have any questions that you
feel I can answer, I'd be happy to listen to them in my lawyer's office.
Goodbye!"
Talk is cheap. But when that talk involves the law enforcement
authorities, it may cost you, or someone close to you, dearly.
++++++
This leaflet has been printed as a public service by individuals
concerned with the growing role of authoritarianism and police power in
our society. Please feel free to copy or republish.
Any typos are mine, as is the damage from squashing italics into UPPER-CASE.
Thanks; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
Government is like an elephant on drugs: It's very confused, makes lots of
noise, can't do anything well, stomps on anyone in its way, and it sure
eats a lot.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Various
Subject: Response to DEA/PBX News Story
Date: November 29, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 8 of 8: Responses to DEA/PBX News story ***
********************************************************************
From: Defensor Vindex <anonymous@usa>
Subject: Response to Joe Abernathy's article in CuD 2.13
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:49:44 cst
Mr. Abernathy:
This response is to your column about the theft of telephone services,
recently reprinted (with your permission, as I understand it) by the
Computer Underground Digest.
I agree that a major theft, including a theft of telephone services, is
news. As such, it was entirely legitimate for you to write your story.
What I find disturbing is your use of the generic term "hacker" for any
criminal or alleged criminal that knows how to spell electron or technical.
It inflames without informing.
Unfortunately, it appears to sell papers. My complaint is probably
useless, since language is constantly evolving, but it still disturbs me
that a misunderstood part of our society is defamed needlessly.
Sorta like Asimov (as Dr. X) wrote in "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man" a few
years ago, wrote about the meaning of "gay":
[ paraphrased with apologies ]
"The dictionary says 'gay' means 'excited with merriment, lighthearted.' So
you go up to an NFL linebacker who's just made his fourth sack of the day
and is obviously 'excited with merriment, lighthearted,' and you say:
'You're gay, aren't you?'
"Whether he is or he isn't, you'll almost certainly be surprised by the
response."
"Hacker", like "gay", is perhaps becoming redefined--no matter what its
roots, it is acquiring a new meaning and life of its own, and true
"hackers" may need to find a new label (unfortunately, it, too will likely
be subverted), but I wish you wouldn't sensationalize ordinary theft in
order to carry out a private crusade.
Besides, those crooks weren't "hackers," no matter what they called
themselves. At best they were "phone phreaks." And Joe, by now you ought
to know the difference.
*************************************
From: Jack Minard <deleted>
Subject: I have in my hand a list of hackers....
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 11:42:57 cst
(Sigh!). Why does CuD print articles from Joe Abernathy? His articles on
the Great Porno Netscam have hurt the entire electronic community, and he
hasn't made many friends with this latest article. It's another scare
story about hackers (and others?) and gives only one side of hackers.
Here's what pisses me off about the article.
No self-respecting hacker is going to rip-off, especially after Sun Devil.
Technically, the people breaking into the DEA's pbx were fone phreaks,
hardly the same as hackers. But does Tail-gunner Joe check? No, he just
tosses out a label that the public finds sexy and convenient. Doesn't he
realize how inaccurate and simplistic his story is? Maybe somebody
originally hacked out the PBX number and gave it out, but once somebody
gets the number there's no need to hack. It's a contradiction in terms, and
ripping off a L-D company by carding just ain't hacking. Repeat: THAT
AIN'T HACKING!
Where does this $1.8 million cost come from? I think he just multiplied 18
months by the $100,000 figure that an "Arizona Prosecutor" game him. At
about a quarter a minute, it would take 9.25 kids dialing 24 hours a day, 7
days a week for 18 months to run up this figure. Why didn't our
hard-hitting investigative reporter start asking some obvious questions
like either how can so much be done so long so often by so many or why
couldn't the DEA figure out something was wrong if there was so much use?
Dimes to donuts says the prosecutor he quoted was Gail Thakeray, always a
good source for exaggeration when it comes to hacker hysteria. Why didn't
he try to check out these figures? What do they mean? I think carders are
scum, but I also think they are accused of trumped up charges. The disuse
doctrine might be debated, but using ld lines isn't quite the same thing as
stealing them. If the crime is so serious, why did it take 18 months to
find it out, and then only incidentally during the investigation of another
crime? Didn't our intrepid journalist think about asking these kinds of
questions?
The article is filled with quotes, stories, and comments by people who are
anti-hacker. This may be fine in a story attacking hackers. But since the
suspects don't seem to be hackers, and since the quotes are so one-sided,
it seems like another hatchet job. If he has ins with all these
unidentified hackers he mentions, you'd think he could at least try to
either get his facts straight and present another side.
If Joe had asked me, I'd say yeh, I'm a hacker, and so are my friends, and
we, and people like us, don't rip off. You may like us or not, disagree
with what we do or not, but most of us draw a line at that kind of ripoff
and the line's not ambiguous. It's clear--carding is wrong and using a pbx
isn't what hacking's all about. But from Joe's slanted article, you'd think
that we're the world's greatest menace.
Finally, he says that some of his info came from people identifying
themselves as hackers in late night conference calls. Did these people
trust Joe not to say anything they revealed to him? Why doesn't he tell us
about his other sources of info and who initiated the calls?
Most of us are still pissed about his stories about porn and the nets which
were yellow journalism that sells papers and gets attention. It's great
that the cud editors print all sides so let's see if they print this.
*******************************
%Moderators note: We have not read the earlier stories to which this author
alludes. As to why we printed the story, we encourage Joe to send his
CU-related stories to us, and he sent that at our request. Whatever
political or ideological differences may exist, in phone conversations and
e-mail we have, without exception, found Joe to be decent and helpful. We
learn by discussing issues, and we strongly encourage people to respond
with substantive critiques. The term "hacker" is something worth debating,
because, according to many of the indictments we have read, hacking is
defined a priori as a criminal act. As a consequence, if one claims to be
a hacker, this claim could conceivably be used as evidence in a trial.
After all, if explaining Kermit is evidence of collusion, as it was to
justify the raid on Steve Jackson Games, debates over what constitutes a
hacker are not trivial -- moderators%.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #2.14**
********************************************************************
