ONE - EIGHT - TWO : Issue 3
SECTION 182 PRESENTS
ONE EIGHT TWO
Information for the Information Society
EDITOR IN CHIEF: Doktor Avalanche (avalanche@stratos.oet.uhf.com)
STAFF WRITER: Elliott Finesse (elfin@stratos.oet.uhf.com)
FROM THE FRINGE
Well, here's yet another installment of ONE EIGHT TWO.
To begin with, ONE EIGHT TWO has recently acquired a UNIX system to better communicate with the rest of the world. Please send all your articles via the Net to uunet!fiver!stratos!avalanche.
The War on Drugs is churning ahead full steam, and in a mad dash to crack down on pushers and users, the Government of this country is seeing fit to stomp on the rights of minorities, the powerless, and the unpopular. The most to gain from such civil rights violations are the police, who get to keep the profits seized from suspected drug dealers.
In his first article, and subsequent more articles to come, Elliott Finesse outlines in what could very well be a casual link to the War on Drugs and the current crackdown on hackers. In it, he explains that "it's not just for drugs anymore."
To say that we're all in this together is understating it politely.
-----------------------------------------
ONE EIGHT TWO also has the interview with John Draper, a.k.a Cap'n Crunch, the legendary phone phreaker of the early pioneer days.
And, of course, we've got the assorted news and blurbs.
YOUR REALITY CHECK IS IN THE MAIL
Casual links between the War On Drugs and crackdown on hackers paints a frightening picture for those who love freedom and believe in individual rights.
by Elliot Finesse (elfin@stratos.oet.uhf.com)
When they came for the hackers, I couldn't believe it was really true until I went out and verified it. This next article is certainly no exception.
I present to you the newest writer for ONE EIGHT TWO magazine, Elliott Finesse - and what he's got to say about the War on Drugs affects us all.
If you're black, hispanic, asian, or look like a hippy, you're more than suspect for being a drug dealer. The government can, quite legally, seize your house, car, money and other valueables if they THINK (no proof required or needed) that they were acquired by drugs.
I wouldn't normally touch an article like this, but it's much too important to let go. I suggest you read very carefully the section titled IT'S NOT JUST FOR DRUGS ANYMORE.
And, don't take our word for it. This is pretty incredible stuff. Go out and verify what has been said.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action"- George Washington
We got trouble, friends, right here in River City. It is a dangerous time to be engaging in "unacceptable" behavior. In fact, it's dangerous even to look "like the type known to engage in..." unacceptable behavior. This alone is sufficient to ruin your life. Big Brother is back, and boy is he pissed off.
I intend to show that there are people with power who will stop at almost nothing to control what you say, believe, and do. The lengths to which they are willing to go has no relationship to the danger posed by those actions or thoughts.
There is a dark side to this nation's "personality" that is virtually unknown to the middle class and rarely mentioned in history books. It is a side that is usually experienced first hand - if at all.
Many in the middle class don't believe it exists or that it has been exaggerated. When a member of the middle class does experience and comes back to tell others about it, it's too late - you are suspect. You did something to deserve it. Where there's smoke...It is easier and more comforting to believe the victim really isn't like us than to believe we could be next.
If I convince you of only one thing I hope it is this: If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately.
Wait. Don't type-cast me as just another Armageddon monger - not yet, anyway. I'm not inclined toward consparicy theories, Amway Pyramids, or New Age power crystals. Nor am I of the "up against the wall" political persuasion. What I say I don't say casually. My perspective, what I have to compare this with, comes from the Sixties, from being on the wrong side of Nixon over Viet Nam. It comes from memories of the Cuban missile crisis. I KNOW how it feels to think the world is coming to an end - or completely insane.
Since you may see my column here from time to time, I should probably state what my guidlines will be:
- I will attempt to make clear distinctions between opinions and facts. As you may have noticed, many people either don't know or can't tell the difference.
- I won't pretend to know something when I don't.
- Finally, I won't expect you to take my word for anything. Faith is for the gullible or the religious. Since you aren't stupid and I ain't God, faith won't be necessary.
SURVIVAL TACTICS: EXERCISE #1
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privlidges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."- Amendment XIV, Section I of the Bill of Rights. 1790
and
"We (the feds) seize money, real estate, cars, etc. I have even seized the cash value of life insurance policies. All that federal law requires is that the property either be the proceeds of criminal activity or that it have been used in to facilitate a criminal activity. Property is sold, cash and the proceeds of sales we share with state and local law enforcement agencies that assist in developing the criminal case..."- Amendment XIV, updated 1990.
Text taken from a message posted on a BBS by an agent of the FBI.
Step outside yourself and examine your activities as someone might who doesn't like you. Look at your activities, habits, your style of life. Try and give your activity the worst possible interpretation. Can you be made to look bad from this perspective? Can you be made to look like a criminal?
I'm not trying to be funny here. History has shown that if they want you, they're going to get you. Len Rose, and the victims of Operation Sun Devil, got a rather unpleasant civics lesson on the true meaning and the scope of the Bill of Rights. That lesson is: EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG. You can't be made to testify against yourself. WRONG. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. WRONG. A right to a fair trial, no punishment without due process, search warrants needed, probable cause, privacy protection - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.
I realize these are radical statments. Even the most cynical would probably find it hard to accept this as literal truth. I CERTAINLY HOPE SO. I would have serious reservations about the mental abilities of anyone who would take my word for it.
"The sanctity of marriage and the family relation are the corner of our American society...which polygamy and Mormonism have imperiled."- Rutherford B. Hayes
State of The Union Address
Dec 6, 1880.
The practice of polygamy by Mormons so incensed Congress, more than a hundred years ago, they passed laws that allowed for the legal confiscaction of their churches, temples, and even private homes - all without due process. Sound vaguely familar? Only the Church's absolute disavowal of polygamy prevented the complete and utter destruction of Mormonism in this country. Plural marriage wasn't an option for them, or some kind of lecherous "quid pro quo" pay off for piety. It was an unalterable and fundamental requirement in attaining the highest glory. It was an imparitive that came directly from God.
As you might expect, polygamy wasn't so easily eradicated. And although the church's official repudation of the practise halted the wholesale seizures and imprisonment, polygamy continued underground. For the next seventy years, the government, in what can only be described as a vendetta, agressively pursued and prosecuted practitioners of a religious belief that was, at worst, a victim-less "crime".
The culmination came in the early 1950's when a remarkable historic event occurred, almost completely forgotten about today. The entire town of Shortcreek, Arizona - men, women, and children - were arrested. In what was reminiscent of a cattle round-up, numbers were applied to women and children, and photos taken of each little "herd" for evidence. The wives were told they would never see their children again in an effort to force them to testify against their husbands.
This is not an isolated example, friends. Many skeletons exist, hidden deep in the back of the national closet.
JUSTICE FOR ALL
"The state may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to recieve, the right to read... and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach."- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
Most people apparently think that our Constitutional protections have existed from their inception pretty much as they do today; well, not exactly. For instance, before the landmark decision on the First Amendment, from which the above quotation is taken, government considered shrinking "...the spectrum of available knowledge," and limiting the free expression of ideas, a reasonable tactic. That this was an accepted and quite legal government weapon, during the same decade that this country put men on the moon, may surprise some. It shouldn't.
The intent of the First Amendment, most historians believe, was to prevent the government from practicing "prior restraint" of the press, except in the most extreme cases of national security. They believe this because the authors of the Constitution found the English system - which required final approval of everything, by either church or state before it went into press - so distasteful. Despite this unequivocal First Amendment protection, government could - and did - legally restrain, prior to publication, whatever they deemed "dangerous". The rationaled was called "killing the serpent in the egg." This rather elegant metaphor could prevent publication of embryonic word serpents too "dangerous" for the people to hear. But who decides what "dangerous" means?
SHOOT-OUT AT THE CREDIBILITY GAP
There are things or situations than any sane person would call dangerous. But there are other times when it becomes a judgement call. A shark is dangerous. A hand grenade is dangerous. A hacker is dangerous. A hacker is dangerous? You don't have to prove that a shark is dangerous. And if the right people say it often enough, you don't have to prove that a hacker is dangerous either. That's what I call dangerous.
When it gets right down to it, our Constitutional protections only mean what the Supreme Court says they mean. Time and again government has said to the people: The xyz problem is so important, so immediate, and so very dangerous that "we all gotta give up some rights so we can deal with it." Sooner or later another problem will arrive, or be fabricated, and, "If we can suspend civil liberties in the first case, why can't we do it here too?" That's a damn good question. In fact, I believe a direct casual link between the "war on drugs" and the current crackdown on hackers can be shown.
The concept of "probable cause" was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the Government from going on "fishing expiditions" ie: searching everybody in hopes of catching a few bad guys. Well, the Supreme Court recently decided that probable cause wasn't necessary when it comes to drunk driving. The majority opinion said, in effect, the infringement on the rights of non-intoxicated drivers was acceptable when weighed against the danger posed by drunk driving. Lower courts said pretty much the same thing about drug testing.
How do you reply to someone who argues: "Hey, it's such a minor inconvienance, and if it helps catch drunk drivers or drug pushers, why not?" If you're innocent, you shouldn't mind. "What have you got to hide?"
If someone ever lays that shallow, self-righteous homily on you, try this. First, congratulate him on his civic-mindedness. Now ask HIM a few questions. A good topic is sex, but there are others. Start slow and get progressively more personal. "Are you married? Do you have sex with your wife? Extramarital sex?" Pretty soon he's going to say something like: "that's personal" or "That's none of your business." Smile and say, "NOW you understand."
Some real non-thinkers may respond, "But that isn't the same thing at all!" Give him the other barrel, something like: "Don't you know we have an INCREDIBLE sex crime problem in the country? Do you know how may women and children are RAPED, beaten and KILLED every year?? You shouldn't mind answering a few questions if you're innocent. After all, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE??"
Congratulations, you may have just smartened up a chump (maybe). There is a more important reason why I detailed this little idiot trap of an argument. It was to demonstrate just how easy it is to justify giving up almost any Constitutional protection.
Although the privacy of phone conversations is protected from government surveillance, without court order, the CIA quite legally maintains geo-synchronous satellites, at this minute, sitting 25,000 miles above our heads, that monitor phone conversations transmitted by microwave - meaning just about everyone. They employ billions of dollars in computing power listening for key words. Suspicious calls are then monitored. Of course this is only to catch spies and the like. But, as the Soviet Union self destructs, and the "dangers" of hacking or of drugs become greater in the public mind, ask yourself how hard it would be to turn this technology toward other ends.
Ronald Reagan's legacy, if you can call it that, is a country that has been financially and morally eviscerated. One aspect of this - one that is becoming more obvious - was his "packing" of the Supreme Court. By "packing" I don't mean putting Republicans on the bench. Earl Warren was a Republican, but Reagan did his best to choose idealogues - knee jerk reactionaries, if you will, who would never let pangs of fairness cloud their politically based decisions. In his article in "The Nation", Jamie Kelvin states, "Never before have the criteria selection been so narrowly ideological. And never before have those criteria been applied in so disciplined and unrelenting a fashion."
For example, one of Reagan's nominees, Robert Bork, thinks that the First Amendment's protection of free speech should apply only to speech that "contributes" to the "political process!" In his own words Bork has stated, "There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other form of free expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic." And even in the category of political speech, he would deny protection to anyone advocating the violation of ANY LAW. Compare this to the words of Chief Justice William O. Douglas. Do you feel a little safer, knowing that Congress rejected Bork by the largest margin for the Supreme Court?
IT'S NOT JUST FOR DRUGS ANYMORE
"I smelt a rat"- Patrick Henry on why he did not attend the Constitutional convention
Of all the thousands of words written about Operation Sun Devil, one aspect was never explained. At least I never saw it mentioned. It seems also to be the most puzzling aspect of the whole affair: how could the Government confiscate computer systems and tens of thousands of disks, and, as yet (to my knowledge) never charge the owners with any crime, and never return the hardware or software to the owners? My curiosity lead to a story that has relegated Operation Sun Devil to virtually microscopic signifigance by comparison.
The story was on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner for four days, August 25-29th. Under the headling, "Seizure Laws: License to Loot?" Are you sitting down? The first two sentences read:
"Police in the U.S. can take your cash or your car or your home. You don't have to be guilty of a crime or even charged with one."
It goes on to state:
"Eighty percent of the people who lost their propert WERE NEVER CHARGED WITH CRIMES."
Impossible you say? Unconstitutional? In fact, from the details outlined in the article, seizure laws would appear to violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Before you throw up your hands, thinking I don't have both chop sticks in the chow mein, I'll quickly describe, in general, how it works:
Constitutional protections apply only to CRIMINAL LAW, where life or liberty is at stake. CIVIL LAW, the dominion of law suits, where "only" property is at stake, HAVE NO SUCH PROTECTIONS. Federal and state seizure laws are ALL WRITTEN IN CIVIL LAW, NEATLY CIRCUMVENTING CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGAURDS. These laws, originally designed to strip drug barons of ill gotten loot, are snaring innocent people as well - thousands of innocent people.
During the mid-1980's, laws were passed allowing the government to take the possessions of big drug dealers without convicting them of a crime or even charging them. To get their property back, the suspected drug dealer would have to prove his belongings weren't bought with drug money. The local police got to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. The money was supposed to go for "law enforcement purposes", but with no accounting required, police departments used the money for just about anything - uniforms, recreation equipment, air conditioners, fringe benifit pay, are but a few.
Maybe we should have seen it coming. I didn't, that's for sure. Eliminating Constitutional restraints, coupled with a strong financial incentive and no accountablility, transformed a well intended idea into a frenzied nightmare of greed and misery.
Why have 80% of the people who lost property to the government NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING? Think about that for a moment. I believe this is the key issue.
It's improbable, though possible, the entire 80% actually were drug people. Maybe the police didn't have enough evidence to charge them. Maybe these were the people the seizure laws were designed to catch. Maybe. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, they all were somehow involved in drugs. That 80% represents an enormous number of bad guys that were never even charged with a crime, let alone tried and convicted.
Another theory, one I find less improbable, is that the police, impatient to reap the financial fall-out, ignore a suspect's civil rights. The evidence might still hold up in court but it it didn't, it was no big deal. Their goal was to grab his assests for themselves. It might work like this: (This is a tentative hypothesis only) police are tupped off to a big dealer. They had no probable cause for a search warrant, but raided his house anyway. Since they had no search warrant they couldn't use anything taken as evidence against him in a criminal trial. But they could keep his house, car, cash, and anything of value for themselves - legally. And the dealer gets to walk away (with empty pockets). ****** Waiting to build a case would make it less certain that the assests would still be available for seizure some months in the future. Other departments would likely get involved, so assets would have to be shared. Stake-outs are extremely expensive to maintain - I mean, why wait? Look at it from their point of view: "We could lose him and the assets too, and there's no guaruntee the scumbag will even do time." A bird in hand, after all. The only differences between this scenario and the stereotypical New York narc of old, shaking down a street dealer, is that now the shakedowns are better organized - and funded - and of course, completely legal.
There is compelling evidence many of the 80% were completely innocent. Either way, there seems to be no good reason why 80% of those who lost property were never charged with a crime. An inventory of items seized also tends to support the theory that many were innocent.
EVIDENCE: Only 17% of the goods seized were big ticket items like boats, limos, jewelry or other drug baron's toys. Most of the things seized were homes, cars, and savings accounts - things more typical of ordinary people.
Arrest records seem to support this also.
EVIDENCE: Narcotics arrests in California, after increasing every 10 years, have taken a sudden and unexpected down turn. In 1989, roughly 1 year after the implementation of the State seizure law, drug arrests began to decline. ****This year are down an additional 18%. So signifigance is the decrease, the state will probably scrap their EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR prison construction master plan. In the same period, seizure money, going to local police is up by...20%
Maybe you aren't worried because you can prove your house, car, and other possessions weren't purchased with drug money. Even putting aside the question of why you should have to prove anything, proof may not help very much. PROOF DOESN'T STOP THEM INITIALLY SEIZING YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, BANK ACCOUNT OR ANYTHING ELSE!
In fact, the only chance you have of getting your property back is to show that the MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE PROVES YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT RELATED TO DRUGS - not easy to do. According to the California Deputy Attorney General, Gary Schons, it would require, "...voluminous financial records." And without these records, innocent or not, you've lost your property forever! You have also lost 10 to 20 thousand dollars in legal fees.
Ask Mrs. Juana Lopez who was stopped in a downtown bus station last October 9th. Even though she had receipts for every cent of the 4750.00 she had, it was taken from her at the bus station and, so far anyway, it hasn't been returned.
Ask Grady McClendon, age 53. He, his wife, their two children, and two grandchildren were returning from a family reunion in Georgia. When he made a wrong turn down a one way street, he was stopped by local police who asked to see his ID and permission to search his car. Within minutes suitcases and purses were dumped out and searched. Shortly thereafter, the police "started waiving a little stick they said was cocaine." He and his family were hauled in to the station and held for six hours. Finally they were released. And though no charges were filed, the police kept their car, $2500 in cash, their jewelry, and everything else they had of value.
Mr. McClendon hired an attorney who ended up battling the state for 11 months, just to get them to produce the lab test results on the "cocaine". Although legal fees went well beyond the value of his posessions, McClendon continued in order to remove the cloud of suspicion he felt hanging over him. Finally, after months of struggle his lawyer forced the DA to provide a copy of the lab test. The "cocaine" turned out to be bubble gum. After nearly a year a judge finally ordered his possesions returned.
Consider yourself warned.
More information will be forthcoming in future issues. Verify what I've said. Verify Verify Verify!
CODA
"There's the King's messanger, he's in prison now, being punished; and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday; and of course, the crime comes last of all."
"Suppose he never commits the crime?", asked Alice.
"That would be all the better, wouldn't it?" the Queen responded...
Alice felt there was no denying that. "Of course it would be all the better," she said; "but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished."
"You're wrong..." said the Queen. "Were you ever punished?"
"Only for faults," said Alice.
"And you were all the better for it, I know!" the Queen said triumphantly.
"Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for," said Alice.
"That makes all the difference."
"But if you hadn't done them," the Queen said, "that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!" Her voice went higher with each "better" till it got quiet to a squeak...
Alice thought, "There's a mistake here somewhere..."
- Lewis Carroll
HOW'S YOUR PROFILE?
This assessment is primarily directed toward those who may be innocently targeted by a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). Those not so innocent should be very worried: 1 or 2 cute little pot plants in the back yard is enough for them to seize your house, and keep it. If more than just a few of the following traits apply, consider re-examining your habits.
A) ASSETS: Do you have anything to lose? You can't lose what you don't have with one BIG exception. The property of friends, relatives, and others can be seized and must be considered a seizable asset in this discussion if near-at-hand or used by a Law Enforcement Target (LET).
Property can be seized if:
- It has been used in a crime.
- Used to facilitate a crime.
- Purchased with the proceeds of a crime.
CASH with detectable drug traces is seizable. Unfortunately, almost all American money does have trace drug residue.
You can expect the above factors, vague and open to interpretation as they are, to cover almost anything as an aggressive LEO wants it to cover. REMEMBER They don't have to PROVE ANYTHING. Just the appearance of the suspicion above can be enough.
DANGER SIGNALS: LEO look for:
TRAVEL: If you frequent airports, train stations, bus depots, or major highways between large cities. Your risk increases if you are young, Mexican, Asian, Black, if you pay in cash, if you carry a lot of cash while travelling.
LIFESTYLE: Non establishment look or demeanor. Expensive jewelry, cars, clothes, YOUNGER PEOPLE with these things, paying with or carrying too much cash while traveling
ETHNIC GROUPS: Mexican, Asian, and Black.
APPEARANCE: young, Mexican, Asian, Black, long hair. Beepers, pagers, Cel-phones, LOOKING OUT OF PLACE.
LOCATIONS: Almost anywhere.
ATTITUDE: Nervousness, not making eye contact, walking too fast/too slow.
NEXT TIME: RECOGNIZING LEO IN HIS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - Counter subversion tactics in a subversive world.
APPRECIATION / THANKS
To Doktor Avalanche, who extended the press deadline, allowing this Cyber-gremmie to pull a continously evolving and disjointed confederation of ideas into something approaching "semblance"
Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty whose original, Pulitzer quality investigative report - most of my Seizure law information derives. First published in the Pittsburgh Press, the report is based upon a 10 month nation wide investigation that includes the review of over 25,000 seizure cases, 1600 interviews with state and federal law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges, and the examination of 510 court documents. I think we owe these folks a debt we will never be able to repay.
THE CRUNCH COMETH
John Draper speaks to ONE EIGHT TWO
I recently had the chance to speak with John Draper. Well, here's what he had to say.
When did it all begin?
"As far as when, I'm not sure exactly, but it was some time in the late sixties. I was working for an electronics company, minding my own business when I get this call from this whacko guy who's blind and had happened to dial my number at random. He mentioned that he knew a bunch of ways of making free calls. At the time, I was sort of between jobs and was interested in knowing how to make a free call. So, he started to tell me about the existance of blue boxes and what they all do. He then turned me on to meeting this other blind friend with an organ who was able to emulate a blue box."
So the blue box technology wasn't exclusively your invention?
"No, actually, but I was I was into hardware and had built one. At the time it really happened, and I didn't belive it was really possible. He demonstrated it to me and I was totally in disbelief that it was that easy to make a free call, that all it took were tones. So, I went home and within hours I had a working bluebox. You know, I was on the phone all the time, calling everyone I knew, just to test it out. I was looking for numbers to call after I had ran out of people to call. It was very quick. If you know how to make free phone calls, making a free call isn't such a novelty anymore. So, I started to play around with test numbers and that's how it all got started."
So what went down with the blind kids?
"The blind kids were totally irresponsible, and naturally they bragged to all of their friends that I was able to do this, which was the final thing that got them [telco security and the law] to notice me. At the time, I don't know if there were any laws pertaining to that. They knew that I knew how to do it, but they didn't really try to stop me by giving me a warning or anything like that. They were, however, watching me and I knew that. I stopped doing it from home after a while."
What exactly did the blind kids do to draw so much attention to yourself?
"These kids were bragging around school that I knew how to do this stuff, and I started recieving calls from all these random kids, wanting to know how to build a blue box, because the blind kids told them that I was the only one who knew how to do it. The only other way they could make a call with a blue box was for them to get operators to connect to places they couldn't connect to otherwise by Social Engineering, which was possible to do at the time.What happened next was one of the kids started talking to his activities director at high school, or something like that, and bragged about me and what I could do. I then decided that it was high time I distance myself from the kids by telling them, 'Look, I don't want to do this anymore. I could get in trouble..', especially when I was involving minors. "
How old were you then?
"I was in my late 20's. The kids were VERY irresponsible, and the only way they made a call was by using a tape recording of the organ tones, which only one kid knew how to do."
Did you build any boxes for anyone?
"No, in fact, one of them actually called a telephone secuity agent and filled him in on what I was doing, because I wouldn't build him a box. At that point, I knew they knew about me, and I didn't want to be involved anymore."
What did you do then?
"I moved away, and I didn't tell them my phone number. It didn't do any good, because they FOUND my phone number, and somehow where I lived. They seemed to know how to get unlisted numbers, and they seemed to know how to find out where I lived, amongst other things. About a year or so later, the news came out that someone who was building blue boxes, or had someone built him a blue box and was busted for using it. He was the only one outside our circle who knew how to do it. The blind kids contacted him and told him how 'uncool' it was to be making and selling blue boxes."
When did this take place?
"This was about 1968-69, and I was into something different. I stopped playing with them for a while, and then when I moved again, I moved into an area where it was cool to do it, and it was it was sort of untraceable. The problem was that these blind kids kept following me around, and they would do this by finding a line location to my number. "
Tell me about the exploits with the blue box during this time.
"I was visiting a lot of conferences, especially this one in Vancouver that was very popular. It was at a time when the Vancouver phone company was switching to a new system, and when it went on-line, they had discovered that all these phreaks were using the conference. So, they started tracing the line, and since I was on it, they had traced me as well."
So, it was the installation of this new system that had led to a rather shocking discovery: phreakers using their conference lines?
"Right, and that's where they traced me."
In the early 70's, an article came out in Esquire magazine about phone phreakers, which pretty much threw cold water on the whole phreak scene. How did you come across it?
"During that time, a reporter investigated someone who was making and selling blue boxes was given the number of the blind kids by this person, and in turn this reporter contacted the blind kids. The kids talked about me, because I was this ideal martyr, or something like that.At any rate, the blind kids had contacted Esqure magazine, and so a reporter from Esquire had contacted me. At the time, I had figured out how to call the UK for free, but my friends had already figured that one out. In fact, everyone wanted to talk to me when I was in the UK, because I was the only person they knew in a foreign country they could call. Of course, when they tried to call me in the UK, the English authorities were very puzzled as to why I kept getting all these calls from the States. For a while, I would sometimes place calls to the dead side of a loop, and the other guy would call the other side of a loop, and would make a collect call to a loop, and that's how they were able to do that. So, eventually what had happened was the English authorities had sort of caught wind of the whole thing, and they couldn't understand how I was able to keep the answer signal from getting back. I figured out that if you made a call to England, and if you blew the whistle at that right time, they guy who was calling me from England wouldn't get an answer signal, and could then talk without the call being charged. No answer signal, no charge."
I bet the British authorities were puzzled, indeed. What became of that? What did the authorities do in the way of action?
"Nothing. They couldn't do anything."
They never understood what was going on.
"No, they never understood what was going on. So I went back to the States and cashed in on all the knowledge my phreak friends had learned in trying to get me, and about six months to a year later, after I had been in England, the guy from Esquire had contacted my blind friends, and they gave the reporter their number, and they also told me to contact the reporter from Esquire. I thought about it for a while, and then decided 'Sure, why not?'. I wanted to try to discourage the reporter from doing the article because I didn't want it out. I was afraid that if everyone knew a bout it, the phone company would take action and do something about it. I didn't know how possible it was at the time."
What was the conversation like between you and the reporter?
"When I talked to the guy, I tried to discourage him from doing it, and all my blind friends spoke on my behalf. It was kind of...well, I really didn't have much say in the matter. The reporter had already made up his mind to do the article, even after I had tried to discourage him from doing it. About six months later the article came out in 1971, and I remember very well reading it. I was totally aphalled. I thought, 'Oh, shit. This is gonna end hacking on the phone as we know it today', and three months after the article, the FBI and the Department Of Justice launched a large scale investigation. They had a grand jury in Los Angeles, Seattle, and around the Bay Area."
Were you indicted in this investigation?
"Yeah. What ended up happening was that I was on of the last few to be indicted. During the grand jury, they had subpoened all my friends, siezing all their notebooks, tape recorders and tapes, because they knew they had MF tones on them. They had also seized their phone directories, and in every one of the directories they'd seized, my name and number was in them. This was to be the common denominator of the whole investigation. The grand jury had reached the conclusion that I was the kingpin of them all, because of the fact that my name had appeared in all the seized directories. It had made me martyr in the sense that I was the 'fall guy' , the evil guy. They had made up their minds that I was to be the one responsible, and that I would take the rap for what everyone else had done. So, in May of 1972, I was picked up by the FBI. I hadn't been active for about eight months. I was going to college at the time, and they'd grabbed me as I was heading out to my car in the parking lot on campus. I had just gotten done with a class, and was getting ready to go to my P.E. class."
And were you in jail?
"Yes and no. I was put in jail for an evening, and was let out on O.R."
Let's jump from that tangent for a moment. I've been hearing stories and lore about the famous tin whistle. When did you figure out that you could fake out the phone company with it?
"Years before. The Cap'n Crunch whistle was used primarily in...okay, in San Jose, the whistle was only useful for clearing you from a long distance trunk. All it could do. It wasn't until two years later that I had discovered that you could use the whistle to make calls by dialing an 800 number in Little Rock, Arkansas. You could use the whistle that way. I was the one who figured that out. Anyway, I had noticed that for some strange reason, when I had picked up a new 800 number to try, it wouldn't work. I couldn't understand why. When I called, I noticed it took an extremely long time for the call to go through. So, I deduced that the reason it took a long time for the call to go through was it wasn't sending tones, but pulses. I couldn't hear the pulses. It had alerted me to the fact to try pulses, and the pulsing seemed to work. That's when I discovered it."
Back to May of 72. You've been picked up by the FBI, and you spent the night in jail. What followed after that incident?
"I got out late that evening. I didn't stay there overnight. I got arraigned late that afternoon, and they let me go. They took everything of mine. Notes, notebooks, everything. The resolution of that was that I would be put on probation. "
What would you attribute to your busts?
"All the other times I've been busted was the result of acts from uncool and irresponsible people."
Including your being sent to jail for five years?
"Yeah. About four or fiver years later, in about 75-76, I was going to a computer club meeting in Menlo Park, and someone from the L.A. area was there, and he knew me. He also knew about blue boxes, and also owned one. At the time, I didn't one, and I wasn't really interested in it anymore. What happened was that he called a mutual friend of ours, handed it to me, and when he used that phone, that phone had been tapped by the FBI. They had my voice on it, and was charged a second time. I was naive and didn't really understand what was going on. That's how I got trapped in it the second time."
You mean, there's more?
"Yeah. The third time I had a party and was living in Pennsylvania. I had invited some friends, and during that party I was upstairs. Downstairs, where most of the people were at, I had removed all the extensions and kept one extension upstairs so no one would play around with the phone at the party. Somehow, someone brought in a phone, and plugged it into the walljack, and was doing something illegal on it. The moral of the story is: if you have friends over for a party, watch what they do with your phone. These guys did something to my phone, and had been using blue boxes from a phone that was tapped. Obviously,my phone was being watched very closely. Within hours of the time these guys did this to my phone, I got picked up. They were just waiting for the chance.I had warned everyone when they came to my place to not do anything with the phone, but you know what happens at a party. Half these people I didn't even know, and so they had somehow plugged into my phone line and were using box tones, without my knowledge or consent. It didn't become apparent to me until I was picked up. That's sort of what happened.
Anyway, that got my probation violated the second time, so I had to go back to jail for that. What had happened was that I was supposed to do a year in jail, but since I had already done four months in Pennsylvania, they gave it to me as time served. Normally, if you do a year, you really only have to do eight months. Since I was sentenced to a year, and credited four months, I only had to do four months. I was put on a work furlough program, and it was during that time that I wrote the word processor for the Apple II; Easywriter, it was called, and it was a big success. I actually wrote that in jail. I had nothing else to do, and did it without the use of a computer. During the daytime, I went to work and had access to a computer there.
I had to fake the fact that I had a job. On a work furlough program, you have to work for a legitimate employer. I had a friend of mine be the so-called 'legitmate employer', and they actually let me do that. I was able to get out of jail during the day, but had to be back in by five. I also had to pay $150 out of my paycheck. I actually had my checks mailed to the furlough center, and they took the money, the $150 for my 'rent', and kept it in an account for me. When I was released, I was given all the money back. That terminated my probation, and that was the end of all my legal problems."
So you thought...
"So I thought. Until I had run across Bill Squire." (Ed.Note: Bill Squire is actually Billsf, the American phreaker living in Holland whom I spoke with in the first issue of ONE EIGHT TWO. Neat how this all ties in, huh?)
So how did that relationship start?
"That was about four years ago. Bill wanted to use my Macintosh to lay out a PC board. I didn't think it would be a problem, so he came by and the agreement was that he could use my Macintosh and he could use my table to develop his PC board. He also wanted to know if he could use my place to build the boards. I had asked him what the boards were for, and he told me that it was related to his work at a radio station in Santa Clara. I saw what he was doing and took an interest in it. I noticed he had this blue colored box that had two magnetic tape heads on top of it. I didn't ask what it was because I thought it was part of a tape recorder, either he had cannabilized it from a tape recorder or he had built it to look like that.At the time, I had no reason to believe that it was illegal. Then, one evening, he approached me and wanted to know if his friend could come over. His friend was Perry Forcier (Ed.Note: see issue #1). I didn't like Perry very much because I thought he was an irresponsible punk. That was my description of him. The guy was always hanging out, mooching out, things like that.
My tolerance level of Perry wasn't that good. I told Bill, 'Sure, he can come over...but he can't stay long.' Bill then asked, 'Can I bring my friend from BART over?'. I said sure. Why not?
They came by, and they brought Glenn Parker. Glenn was one of the guys from BART that Perry knew. And it turns out that Perry met this guy at a coffee and donut stand that BART has for people to come home sober. Perry met Glenn late at night, waiting for a BART train. He got to talking to him, and then bragged he knew me, and that he could use a red box - that he knew how to make a free phone call, and that I had told him how to use it and that I had given him the device. None of this was true."
So why did he do it?
"Perry did it to boost his own ego at my expense. Glenn, who worked for the BART police, thought this was a case worth pursuing. He bugged Perry to meet me.A situation arose when he and Perry came to meet me. At the time, Glenn worked for BART: big deal. It wasn't until Glenn pulled out a bunch of BART cards that I started to get suspicous. When I saw what that blue colored box was for, I pulled Bill to the side and said, 'I don't who this guy is, get rid of him!'. Bill says that they were preparing to leave anyway, and did so after about half an hour. During that time, they were using this box to duplicate BART cards, after which they left.
The very next day, I got arrested. Agents from the BART Alameda, Oakland police, two security agents from the phone company, and BART detectives came by. They arraigned me, and that was the BART incident.
It was then it became evident that they didn't have much evidence on me, but they had to charge me with something in order to do a plea bargain. In order to do a plea bargain, they couldn't drop the charges. It made them look bad.
We finally agreed that I would be charged with a misdemeanor crime called 'Altering MUNI Tickets', or something like that. It wasn't computer related, and I agreed to cop to that charge. My probation is up in September, and I go back to court to get my record cleared.
I was an innocent bystander in the sense that I had no knowledge of a crime had been committed in my apartment. Because it happened in my apartment, I was allegedly part of the conspiracy. The thing is, if a crime is committed in your place, YOU are going to be a party to the crime."
Of course.
"That's what happened to me. Just because I'm a nice guy, I have to deal with this.I could have let this gone to trial, and I would have totally been exhonerated of all charges had I been able to afford $750,000 necessary for me to have my legal defense to go to trial. I would have had to hire 5 or 10 expert witnesses, had to pay them for their time, about $10 an hour, and paid them for their time to go over about 1000 diskettes. It would have ended up costing me about $100,000 just in that part of it alone. They couldn't be people I knew, of course. They had to be unbaised, people picked by the court, and I would have had to pay them to go over my disks. We were getting ready to do all that when it became obvious that I couldn't afford all that shit.
In order to save a lot of money, I had to cop a plea. I was able to get them to not cop a plea that had anything to do at all with computers. It would have affected my work. Even though I know I'm innocent, I had to lie to say I was guilty just to avoid spending all that money. The puliminary trial would have cost $100k. The actual trial would have been $750k."
Tell me about your five years in the slammer.
"The first place I went to was Lompoc. This was in 1976. It was easy time, because it was like a camp. You slept in barracks.During the day I would work on a pig farm, slopping hogs. I would mark on the hog with a pencil the name of my judge. It kept my morale up, seeing these hogs and thinking to myself, "Oh, there's my judge". In my mind, it made me feel better than I would have normally. I liked animals too, so it was good that I could work on the farm."
You told OMNI magazine that, under threat, you were forced to teach hardened criminals your craft...
"In the Pennsylvania conviction, what had happened was promised that I would not serve any jail time, but ended up doing so anyway. It was really a raw deal. It was during that time that I told everything about everything. There were a lot of people in there who were really sharp. They knew about electronics, and they knew about other technologies. But, they didn't know how to go about finding the information. And so, I had to tell them how to do that."
Under threat.
"Under threat. That's right. Nothing I could do about it."
So, you're teaching hardcore criminals things they shouldn't know in the first place.
"Yes, and that leads me up now to a very serious issue, and that is the stupidity of the authorities, of the fact that they incarcerate hackers, hackers who have information, and access to knowledge, that should be kept out of the criminal element. Look at what's happening now, with these hackers getting 18 months.In jail, jails are basically Universities Of Crime. In there, I learned how to pick locks..."
...Boost cars...
"...boost cars, and I learned about other kinds of illegal activities that I didn't otherwise know or care about. In jail, I was exposed to that science of picking locks, and how to pick a serial number of a lock to get a combination. All the things they knew how to do. It turns out that in most jails this happens, and the authorities are so stupid to think that they can just lock up hackers and throw away the key. In essence, the authorities are shooting themselves in the foot by making the situation much worse by putting the knowledge hackers have in direct contact with career criminals, who can use this knowledge very effectively. And with the situation with the War On Drugs (Ed.Note: READ: WAR ON THE UNDERCLASS), the technology of drug dealers, with the money that they make, buy the same equipment that the DEA uses and descramble their codes. They hire the best people they can get, the best engineers they can get, to build de-scramblers and code generators to gain access to their computers and communications, and get all the information and goods on the DEA.One of the things I had to do while I was in jail was to tell all these criminals what to do to break into the DEA computer, what to expect when they got in, how to access files, and get access to their e-mail systems. It wasn't that hard to do, because they actually got in the DEA's Email system, and were able to get information they wanted. They were also able to monitor their radios, read email, and do all these things, which they wouldn't have been able to do if they hadn't been in contact with me.
I didn't give them any access codes. I didn't know any access codes, but I'm gonna tell you how to find them, what to look for when you get it, and how to identify what you found. I taught them how to scan, and I taught them how to use an electronic scanning device using an Apple II, and as far as my knowledge, they went out and got Apple II's. They took the schematic for the phone board I gave them, built it, and used that phone board to scan all the numbers in the Washington D.C. Federal office buildings, and uncovered about 30-40 computers with access numbers, one of which belonged to the DEA, which is what they wanted. With that, they repeatedly attempted entry into the DEA computer, a skill I had taught them with passwords and stuff."
Of course. If I was a dealer, I'd be very interested in what the DEA was doing.
"Yeah, yeah. They were using UNIX at the time. The DEA had a UNIX system. It was actually an Ultrix system. They were using IBM's and BITNET. I told them what to expect, how to find what it was they're looking for, and where to find manuals on it, and these guys went out and used the information I gave them to order the manuals. The manuals were used, once they logged in, to navigate the computer and find what it was they were looking for."
That was helpful...
"Oh yeah."
So what are you doing now?
"I'm a software consultant."
Anything you're doing you can talk about?
"No, there's nothing I can really talk about, because if the information got out, then someone else would get the idea and undercut the company."
Ah...well, thanks for your time.
"You're welcome."
BACK IN THE USSR
Soviet hackers exchange mail during the coup.
Reprinted from New York Newsday by Joshua Quittner
It was the computer message seen 'round the world:
"Please stop flooding the only narrow channel with bogus messages [and] with silly questions," Vadim Antonov [avg@hq.demos.hq] wrote to westerners attempting to send electronic mail to Russia during the early hours of the coup.
"Note that it's neither a toy nor a means to reach your relatives or friends. We need the bandwidth to help organize the resistance. Please, do not (even unintentionally) help those fascists!"
The message, sent from Antonov's computer in Moscow late on the night of Aug. 19, was copied and posted dozens of times across the United States and abroad, on electronic bulletin boards, databses where users can log in and swap messages publicly. Antonov, one of the builders of the Soviet Union's two-year-old computer communications network, known as Relcom, knew its severe limitations---and its awesome potential to spread information---as well as anyone.
And no one cared more about keeping the system alive and well: The lanky, long-haired programming wizard, described by friends as "the first among equals" at a Moscow-based software cooperative aptly named DEMOS, and his peers, were working to keep communications channels open to hundreds of pro-democracy activists at 70 cities around the Soiet Union.
"At the beginning, we had no idea what was happening. We were preparing for long-term underground activity," Antonov said by telephone from Moscow in his first interview yesterday. [+7 095 231 2129].
He said the network reached as high as Gen. Konstantin Kobets, head of Russian President Boris Yeltsin's defence committee, who was ready to rely on the network should the crisis worsen. An information bucket-brigade of sorts, it extended to personal computer users in remote republics, who would print out directives and news updates, posting them in public. And it included computer correspondents in the United States and Europe, who provided timely news feeds.
"Computer communications are more democrati by nature than mass media like TV or newspapers, simply because they don't belong to a single entity. There's no central authority over the network," Antonov said. "We all realized it was the only chance for us to survive."
[Pseudo-technical nonsense omitted :) ]
While television stations and major media were muzzled, and while radio reception was jammed in some parts of the country, the computer network stayed intact, Antonov and others said. "Transcripts of Yeltsin's speeches were sent. News went back and forth," said Ray Davis, a programmer in Frankfurt, Germany, who corresponded with the DEMOS workers throughout the coup. "If the coup hadn't failed, they might all be in jail right now."
"I sat here sending them news from the U.S.," said Larry Press, a computer scientist at California State University. "There were people around the world sending them news."
The DEMOS group had its setbacks, however. One member attempted to bring a laptop computer, outfitted with a high-speed modem and network-compatible communications software, into the White House, as the bouilding that houses Russian parliament is known, but coulnd't get through, Antonov said. The machine would have made communcation easier for the correspondents inside.
And KGB agents undoubtedly knew about the underground network, Antonov said.
"During the last night of the coup we got a strane phone call to our headquarters," he said. "The caller said, `We are your users. Please give us your modem phone number.' "
This was an absurd statement, since anyone who knew about the network knew how to interconnect to it. The DEMOS people gave the caller different instructions: "We said to them rude words," he said.
SOME NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND
Here are some electronic messages sent from Soviet computer users who helped mobilize resistance by sending out information. Most of these messages are from people in the United States and Europe. They were compiled by Larry Press, a California State University computer science professor. Senders sometimes used punctuation marks to create "sideways smiley faces," such as :-) to denote irony, sarcasm or happiness.
Monday Aug. 19
~From: Vadim Antonov, DEMOS Software Cooperative
...I've seen the tanks with my own eyes. I hope we'll be able to communicate during the next few days. Communists cannot rape the Mother Russia once again!
~From: Polina Antonova, a DEMOS programmer
...Thanks Heaven, these cretins don't consider us mass media!
Tuesday, Aug. 20
~From: Polina Antonova
Hi! Don't worry, we're OK though frightened and angry. Moscow is full of tanks and military machines, I hate them. They try to close all mass media, they shutted up CNN an hour ago, Soviet TV transmits opera and old movies. But, thanks Heaven, they don't consider RELCOM mass media or they simply forgot about it. Now we transmit information enough to put us in prison for the rest of our life :-). Hope all will turn out well at long last. -Polina
~From: Anonymous
If these dogs win, for certain they'll throw us in prison---we distributed the proclamation from Yeltsin and the Moscow and Leningrad Soviets throughout the entire Soviet Union, together with the forbidden communiques from Interfa [an independent News aganecy -DV]...
Greetings from the underground
~From: Enn Tyugu
Estonia has survived until this hour. The troops are neat Tallinn and more are coming, but they have not yet got to the TV and radio centers. latvia and Lithuanian mass media are already in the hands of the troops. many people are around our vulnerable buildings protecting them and building barricades. Mostly heavy trucks are being used as barricades. -Thanks for your support.
~From: Anonymous
To all people of good will! We want you to know that the democracy of the USSR is in great danger... Right now the center of Moscow is surrounded by tanks and soldiers... We need your moral support! ... Down with the Communist tyranny!
Wednesday, Aug. 21
~From: Polina Antonova
Don't worry, the only danger for us is if they catch and arrest us, as we're sitting at home...and distributing all inf. we have. I can only hear these tanks, and, it seems, aircraft. But I have to know, what's happening near White house! ... -Polina
~From: Polina Antonova
Really good news. Right now we're listening to the Radio Russia (without any jamming!) they told that the Eight left Moscow, no one knows where...Hard to believe...May be, they really run away? Radio asks for information about their location.
~From: Polina Antonova
Thank you, Larry!
Now all information media are on, CNN transmits our ``Time'' TV program, and I can watch them both! [They've got a sat dish -DV]
I've heard (maybe it was CNN) that they withdraw armed forces from Baltic cities. I'm not near the parliament, I'm still at the computer, but the situation on the net became lighter now and I hope to sleep a little, it was my dream during last two days. :-) You can't even imagine, how grateful we are for your help and support in this terrible time! The best thing is to know, that we aren't alone. -Cheers, Polina
Thursday, Aug. 22
~From: George Tereshko
When the dark night fell upon Moscow, Relcom was one source of light for us. Thanks to all these brave people we could get information and hope. I would also like to thank the people running Soviet BBSs who provided another net for information flow.
------- end of original message ---
Ed. Note: And you wonder why the government is scared of computers?
EXTENSIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
Overseeing senile dementia from computer.
reprinted from comp.risks
"Gunnar, it is night. Don't go out, go to bed!"
"Gunnar, shut of the water tap."
These voice messages are controlled by a computer watching over Gunnar, aged 77 and suffering from senile dementia. They were taken from a Swedish radio program mainly dealing with how to take care of old people while preserving their integrity.
Gunnar doesn't want to stay in a home, so he has food delivered to his apartment and help from time to time.
The computer is part of a highly modified burglar alarm system, which is still in the trial stage. The designer thinks it is better than video surveillance, since now Gunnar isn't watched over, but can get help when he needs it, for example if he is lying on the floor. Or when he doesn't need it, if the new help makes his bed so the sensor gets unplugged, which has happened.
Gunnar doesn't understand there is a computer, any positive reaction is probably because he thinks he's got visitors. His life isn't risk free: He smokes, but isn't very good at putting the cigarettes out, so one message is:
"Gunnar, there is a fire! You must go out in the street immediately!!"
But he also runs the risk of being a VERY involuntary beta tester. It took a long time before it was discovered what would have happened if there was a fire in the night.
"Gunnar, it is night. Don't go out, go to bed!"
Urban Fredriksson, Stockholm, Sweden
(Ed.Note: Uh huh...and next it'll start scolding him for disobeying a direct order.)
NO LICENSE, NO JOB
New Jersey on the verge of a Software Developers Licensing Program
Ed.Note: This has been kicked around for quite sometime. It seems the state of New Jersey is trying to get a licensing bill on the books that would require that all computer programmers be licensed before they can work. I've ignored this issue for some time...hmmm, guess I'm going to kick myself in the head now.
New Jersey Assembly Bill #A4414, proposed by Assemblywoman Barbara Kalik, purported to be a Consumer protection bill, would require that all software designers in New Jersey be licensed. Included as designers are those who design, specify, implement, test, validate, OPERATE, maintain and manage software. There are educational and experience criteria necessary to take the test that would lead to licensing.
Without a license, renewable every two years for an unspecified fee, the software "designers" would have restrictions on their ability to work in New Jersey. This bill has already passed in the Assembly and is currently in the Senate Labor, Industry and Professions Committee chaired by Senator Raymond Lesniak(D), District 20.
Essentially, this means most, who do not have degrees, cannot even be eligible to take the licensing test (So much for Summer Interships) Keep this in mind, the designers of Lotus, Ms-Dos and Wordperfect could never meet the requirements to take the licensing test. These people either did not have a degree in Computer Science or did not have a degree at all. According to this bill, these people are deemed incompetent to program software. Get the point? Scary!
People who work out of State are affected as well. According to A4414, a NY employee must be licensed in New Jersey in order to touch a NJ software package. Yes, even out-of-towners are not exempt!
At this point, many are thinking "Yeah right, this bill is so STUPID, it could never pass!" Well the simple fact is that it HAS already passed the assembly, and is threatening to become LAW. Can we, who are intending to make a living, afford to sit while are futures are being molded by five people on a Committee? In America, does the minority speak for the majority? I sincerely hope not, and it is my intention to inform and hopefully incite those who read this, to do something for your profession as well as your future.
We as the future creative minds of tomorrow cannot afford to have our futures destroyed today.
NY/NJ ICCA HOTLINE (908)-615-0999.
VIRUS HALTS COMPUTERS IN SOUTH CHINA
Government on the offensive
HONG KONG, Sept 16 (AFP) - A spate of computer virus attacks put computers in more than 90 Chinese governmental departments out of order, prompting the authorities to have all software checked by police, a semi-official Chinese news agency reported here Monday. More than 20 kinds of the rogue disruptive programs hit more than 75 per cent of the offices' computers in southern China's Guangdong province, the Hong Kong China News Service said.
Continue?
The provincial public security bureau had ordered all government units not to use software from unknown origin or software which had not been inspected by the bureau. In addition, units or individuals were banned from engaging in the study of computer viruses, or to hold training courses on them. The new regulations also forbid the sale of software capable of neutralising the viruses.
The report said the public
