Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/UNDERGRD/VOL_1/CUD113A.TXT

Text File | 1994-11-01 | 8KB | 148 lines

  ****************************************************************************
                  >C O M P U T E R   U N D E R G R O U N D<
                                >D I G E S T<
               ***  Volume 1, Issue #1.13 (June 12, 1990)   **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     [e-mail]

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
            views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
            for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
            protections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


In This Issue:

File 1:  Moderators' Editorial: The Chilling Effect Hits Home
File 2:  A Hacker's Perspective (by Johnny Yonderboy)
File 3:  Len Rose Information and Commentary
File 4:  Response to Telecom Digest's Views (by Emmanuel Goldstein)
File 5:  Reprinted Editorial on Steve Jackson Games
--------------------------------------------------------------------


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.11 / File 1 of 5  ***
***************************************************************

                   *** THE CHILLING EFFECT HITS CuD ***

Craig Niedorf was arraigned for a second time on June 12.  CuD 1.14 will
have a detailed article on the arraignment on Friday, but our preliminary
analysis of Tuesday's events suggests that the witch hunt continues in full
force.  Several of the charges were dropped, but new ones were added based
on articles Craig allegedly wrote. It appears that the definition of
"forbidden information" grows wider as the Secret Service and zealous
federal prosecutors show their commitment to law and order by trampling the
First Amendment.  If Craig is convicted, the implications are serious. All
persons who currently, or have in the past, written, distributed, or
received "forbidden knowledge"--knowledge which is defined as illegal only
after the fact--may be vulnerable to prosecution.  More serious is the
possibility that those who agents feel may possess such information may
have their equipment confiscated in the sweep for evidence.

We have found that in attempting to acquire information about the current
indictments, much of the information is "closed," whether officially or
because of the attempt to control information flow by prosecutors. For
example, in the federal district court in Chicago, staff either cannot or
will not release *any* information, and all queries are referred to Bill
Cook.  If Mr. Cook is not available or choses not to return calls,
obtaining accurate information becomes nearly impossible.

In fifteenth century England, the Star Chamber was a powerful tribunal
feared for its often capricious way of dispensing justice, often in
secrecy, and for the political overtones it acquired in suppressing
"enemies of the state." The current handling of federal investigation into
the CU in many ways resembles the dread Star Chamber. Information is
tightly guarded, secrecy is maintained, it seems to function as much as a
device to inspire fear (judging from comments by agents) as to dispense
justice, because those whose equipment has been confiscated without a
subsequent indictment or without reasonable opportunity for successful
appeal have no open trial, and the charges, while seemingly precise on
paper, do not seem to match the facts as presented by the tribunal. In
short, in Operation Sun Devil, the judicial system seems to have broken
down.

In 1985, then-U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese was asked the following by
an interviewer:

    "You criticize the Miranda Ruling, which gives suspects the right to
    have a lawyer present before police questioning.  Shouldn't people, who
    may be innocent, have such protection?

Meese replied:

    Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you
    don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime.  That's
    contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
    suspect.

The power to name the world provides a non-coercive, yet effective, means
of imposing preferred doctrines and corresponding behaviors on others.
Hyper-active law enforcement agents seem to have learned from Meese and are
first defining--after the fact--"crimes" of information acquisition,
control, and dissemination as "illegal," and innocence or guilt do not seem
to matter. Granted, courts may ultimately vindicate one who has been
indicted, but not after considerable financial and emotional hardship.
Those who merely possess evidence may not be indicted, but may nonetheless
suffer, as have Steve Jackson and others, the loss of equipment vital to
their work.

There is also a chilling effect that occurs with a system of justice in
which "crimes" are so loosely defined.  Should sysops and others
self-censor themselves out of fear of possible government reprisals?  We at
CuD provide CU archives for several reasons. First, as a teaching aid, it
provides information for students wishing to write term papers on the CU.
Without this information, they could not learn. CU documents also provide
helpful handouts for lectures, speeches, and other public presentations.
The chilling effect of suppression of first amendment rights and not
knowing in advance what is considered lawful and what is not--even when
nothing appears illegal on its surface--stifles academic freedom.

Second, we offer the archives for research purposes. As professional
scholars, we find that to limit access to what is the *only* source of
material of this kind inhibits inquiry in a way way that is simply
unacceptable in a democratic society.  Much of our own information has come
from the variety of publications put out by various CU groups. To
criminalize publishing this material or making it available to other
like-minded scholars subverts the very principles of scholarship. If we
cite the infamous E911 file, innocuous as it may be, we, as scholars, are
required to have read it and to either produce it or indicate a source
where it can be found. That is the nature of science. We find the current
witch hunt mentality to have a serious repercussions for social science.
Should we adopt the "CYA" syndrome and change research directions? Or
should we pursue our inquiry and risk possible repercussions?

Finally, we make archives available for the layperson who simply wishes to
more fully understand what the fuss is about. An informed public is an
enlightened public, but it seems that the government has decided for us
what the public can and cannot learn.

We have both directly and indirectly invited members of law enforcement to
respond, to participate in dialogue, to give us a reasoned response to the
current "crackdown." None have.  We have no wish to attack those who, in
good faith, may believe they are protecting society. But, neither do we
desire to become victims of the current purge.

Within the past two weeks, there seems to be a backlash--not by
hackers--but by established business persons, computer hobbyists,
academics, politicians, and others, who recognize the danger of the current
sweeps to civil liberties. We hope that others will also understand that,
when freedom of speech and freedom to share information is threatened, a
serious threat does indeed exist.  THIS THREAT DOES NOT COME FROM THE CU!


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
                               END C-u-D, #1.13                             +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=