**************************************************************************** >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 3, Issue #3.10 (March 28, 1991) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet) ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Bob Kusumoto POETICA OBSCIVORUM REI: Brendan Kehoe USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest. Back issues are also available on Compuserve (in: DL0 of the IBMBBS sig), PC-EXEC BBS (414-789-4210), and at 1:100/345 for those on FIDOnet. Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (or 192.55.239.132) (back up and running) and (2) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. 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. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 THIS ISSUE: File 1: From the Mailbag File 2: Hollywood Hacker, Part Deuce File 3: Len Rose Outcome (from AP wire) File 4: Len Rose Pleads Guilty (Washington Post) File 5: Len Rose's "Guilt" and the Washington Post ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Various Subject: From the Mailbag Date: March 26, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.10--File 1 of 5: From the Mailbag *** ******************************************************************** Subject: Stormin Norman hacked? From: Bob Izenberg Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 07:19:51 CST All Things Considered quoted a London Times article about an aide to Norman "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf (sp?), the general in charge of a recent spate of calisthenics that may have made the headlines. ;-) The aide's PC, with some US battle plans on it, was stolen out of his car, and anonymously returned three weeks later. The NPR report quoted the Times article as saying that authorities were satisfied that the info on the portable's disk(s) never got into Iraqi hands, or computers. If only it was a telco employee's computer! Then we'd have somebody's balls on a platter already. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: youknowwho@MYSYS.EMU.EDU(Anonymous) Subject: Some Comments on Computer Fraud Enforcement Date: Sat, 17 Mar 91 05:17:49 GMT >From pages 9-11 of "Credit Card and Computer Fraud" dated August 1988 published by the Department of the Treasury, United States Secret Service: Computer Fraud Computer crimes have emerged as a major concern for law enforcement in recent years. Victims of computer crimes have sustained substantial losses, inconveniences, and even anxiety over the damage to their credit reputation. Some businesses, including small long-distance telephone companies, have gone bankrupt as a direct result of computer fraud losses. In 1986, Congress revised Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1030, empowering the Secret Service, among other Federal law enforcement agencies, to investigate fraud and related activities in connection with "Federal-Interest computers." The law prohibits anyone from: [_] Knowingly accessing a computer to obtain certain information protected for reasons of national security with intent to injure the United States; [_] Intentionally accessing a computer to obtain, without authorization, information from a financial record of a financial institution; [_] Intentionally accessing a computer used for the exclusive use of the United States Government; [_] Intentionally accessing a computer to affect, without authorization, the government's use of any computer that is used by the United States Government; [_] Knowingly and intentionally accessing a Federal interest computer to fraudulently obtain anything of value other than the use of the computer; [_] Intentionally accessing a Federal interest computer to alter, damage, or destroy information, or prevent authorized use of any such computer, and thereby: a. cause a loss of $1,000 or more; or b. modify or impair a medical examination, medical diagnosis, medical treatment, or the medical care of an individual; or [_] Knowingly and intentionally accessing a computer to trafic in any password through which a computer can be accessed without authorization, where such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce, or such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States. The Secret Service maintains a group of highly trained computer specialists who participate in the investigation of computer fraud cases. Although the U.S. Secret Service is pioneering new law enforcement techniques in the identification and apprehension of computer criminals, the task of combating computer crime is not ours alone. The burden of responsibility for information and data security rests not only with law enforcement authorities, but also with the owners and operators of the computer systems who may, potentially, fall victim to computer fraud. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: halcyon!peterm@SUMAX.SEATTLEU.EDU(Peter Marshall) Subject: Re: New Telecom Laws Proposed Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 09:53:28 PST Mike's post leaves one perplexed about what it's doing in CUD? Perhaps he could explain the relevance of this item to CU-related issues? Further, one tends to be left even more perplexed about Mike's assertion that the Michigan bill he describes "specifically seeks to overturn the MFJ." Now that's really quite a mouthful. But it's not disgesti. How does Mike think a Michigan bill could bring this about, one wonders? Peter Marshall ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Re; SWB PUC Ruling From: halcyon!peterm@SUMAX.SEATTLEU.EDU(Peter Marshall) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 09:58:32 PST Peter de Silva is right on this one; it was not exactly a near-optimal outcome, and for the reasons he notes, among others. On the other hand, where's the capability to "watch the various PUCs like a hawk"? Might be a tall order, methinks. Peter Marshall From: MMaples@cs1.bim.boville.edu Subject: Hacking and Breaking and Entering Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 11:22:14 PST I've been reading a lot of posts that compare hacking to breaking and entering and wonder what CuD readers and editors think? I don't think the two are comparable. Breaking and entering is a type of violent crime and it physically destroys property. Sure, hacking might destroy data, but this doesn't happen much, which doesn't mean it's right, but that the two type of destruction aren't the same. A home is a private place and the type of privacy is different that the privacy of a computer. You can't curl up inside the computer and make love, retreat to its hard drives from the pressures of the outside world in the same way you do to the tv room, or make a sandwich. But it seems that the penalties for computer hacking are as severe as for breaking and entering. I just don't get it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: brendan@CS.WIDENER.EDU(Brendan Kehoe) Subject: Response to Washington Post Article on Len Rose Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 08:46:30 EST {Moderators' note: See File 5 of this issue for the Post piece.} The most intriguing part for me, was the way the Washington Post release made it sound like Mr. Rose's modified version of the login program was in itself inherently illegal. Even months after people complained about how blatantly uninformed making such a suggestion is, it persists and has taken a higher form. Had this case veered even one tenth of a degree from where it ended up, it could've set a rather dangerous precedent. It was a surprise when I read that Rose pleaded guilty .. and how quietly the trial took place. With the play it got earlier (Unix Today, etc) this year and last, the volume certainly did get lowered. Perhaps now Mr. Rose can get on with his life. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Dave.Appel@P30.F30.N231.Z1.FIDONET.ORG(Dave Appel) Subject: Indianapolis is now PC-Pursuitable Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 13:57:11 CST INDIANAPOLIS IS NOW PC-PURSUITABLE After years of promises, Telenet's (SprintNet's) PC-Pursuit service, also known as PCP, has finally installed outdials in Indianapolis. The official announcement from Telenet is still forthcoming, but the outdials are in place. Indy's semi-official BBS list comes from the IUPUI BBoard, and is maintained by sysop Don Smith. This file can be file requested from most of net 231's FidoNet boards as file INDY0301.ZIP. The latest version contains 96 local boards. However, taking all the multi-line boards into account, we have over 150 BBS lines! Some of the multi-line boards of note are: PBS-BBS (Public Brand Software) 317-856-2087, noted for its shareware; Data Central 317-543-2007, files and GIFs; User's Choice 317-894-1378, GIFs; and L.C. Midwest 317-924-2219, a dating/adult board. Those are pay boards. Most other boards are free. Indy is also Telelink/Starlink node 9349. Some people feel that Starlink is a better service than PC-Pursuit. Assuming that the outdial is in the same exchange as PCP's indial, the following exchanges should be accessible according to Indiana Bell's white pages. I include this list for your convenience because PCP has not yet published an official XCH list. Please excuse any typos or errors. These exchanges include Indianapolis proper, Carmel, Zionsville, Noblesville, Speedway, Beech Grove, Greenwood, Plainfield, Brownsburg, Fishers, Greenfield, Mooresville, and New Palestine. Outdial Site: D/ININD 317 222 226 230 231 232 233 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 317 243 244 247 248 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 259 261 262 317 263 264 265 266 267 269 271 272 273 274 276 277 278 283 317 290 291 293 297 298 299 321 322 326 328 335 351 352 353 317 355 356 357 359 422 424 425 431 432 439 441 442 443 445 317 461 462 464 465 466 467 469 470 471 485 486 488 535 539 317 541 542 543 545 546 547 549 556 571 573 574 575 576 577 317 578 579 580 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 681 317 684 685 686 687 691 694 736 738 745 769 773 776 780 781 317 782 783 784 786 787 788 823 831 835 838 839 841 842 843 317 844 845 846 848 849 852 856 861 862 867 870 871 872 873 317 875 876 877 878 879 881 882 885 887 888 889 891 892 894 317 895 896 897 898 899 920 921 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 317 976 994 996 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: L'Accused--a bust is a bust is a bust.... Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 00:26:24 CST I ran across an interesting article in the January 29th, 1991 issue of the Village Voice. The author is Elizabeth Hess. I've included the relevant parts and omitted references to particular art galleries that were showing Sturges' work at the time. The general topic, that of a U.S. citizen penalized without trial or, even now, indictment or charges filed, may be familiar to CUD readers. (article excerpt follows) >From the 1-29-91 Village Voice article, "The Accused", by Elizabeth Hess: The opening of an exhibition of photographs by Jock Sturges would not ordinarily be news. But Sturges, as readers might recall, is currently under investigation for producing child pornography. Last April, members of the San Francisco police and the FBI entered the photographer's home, without a warrant, after receiving a tip from a local film processor (The Village Voice, June 12, 1990). Later that afternoon, a warrant was obtained and the officers carted off an estimated 1 million negatives, various pieces of darkroom and computer equipment, several business and personal files, eight address books, and a few cameras belonging to one terrified Jock Sturges. His life was impounded. Nine months have passed and the photographer has still not been charged with any crime, not have all of his belongings been returned. And, even more insidious, the FBI has launched an international investigation into the artist's work and personal life. While the art world, especially in San Francisco, has rallied around the case, Sturges says he has lost a show, friends, models, and jobs. On November 21, Michael Metzger, Sturges' attorney, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco for the return of the photographer's property; a hearing is scheduled for February 7. Sturges intends to follow up with a civil suit, seeking damages against local and federal authorities. Meanwhile, the photographer is also bringing his case to the public, traveling around the country in an effort to raise money and political support. [ lines on gallery exhibits skipped ] The artist's career was probably going at its proper pace prior to the totally unjustified, if not illegal, invasion into his privacy. It's hard to say how bad the authorities want Jock Sturges, They have certainly been putting a great deal of effort into an investigation of the folks listed in his address books. According to Sturges, the French police have visited and questioned every person who appears in his current Philadelphia exhibition and others: a total of 46 families. American authorities have also been busy making sure that people think twice before modeling in the nude for Sturges, or anybody else. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine, the FBI went to visit a family in California that included a 13-year old daughter whom Sturges has been shooting for the past eight years. During the interview, one of the agents turned to the young girl and asked, "Does this guy ever ask you to spread your legs?" Prior to this moment, no one in the family had ever been embarrassed by the photographs. The daughter recently hid her copies in a trunk. "The FBI has been instructing people in shame." says Sturges. "A visit from the police is traumatizing, and it has a chilling effect.~ Even Sturges recently wrapped a few bodies in towels before shooting them on the beach. {Moderator's note: We view this article as *directly* relevant to the CU for two reasons. First, it suggests how similar policies are filtered through different laws for the same result. The scenario between Sturges' experience and that of Steve Jackson and other is analogous: Media (whether computers or art) that Feds barely understand provides a context for identifying somebody who *appears* (in Fed-think) to be in violation of some heinous "crime of the week." The Feds swoop in, bust them and grab whatever equipment looks suspicious (substitute "computers" for "cameras," or "disks" for "negatives"). The second point is that the CU should be alert to apparent excessive zealousness in the non-computer world, because prosecutors' behavior seems, like cancer, to have a habit of spreading. In a recent federal drug bust on a Southeastern college fraternity, three fraternity houses were seized by the government because a few members were caught with drugs. This absurdity is reminiscent of J. Cousteau's yacht, The Calypso, being seized a few years ago because a crew member was found with a "roach" in his cabin. Federal agents and their supporters will argue for the necessity of such action, but in a free society, such seizures--which resemble tyrannies rather than democracies--affect us all. These are ALL CU issues. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << ***************************************************************************