Hacker Chronicles 1/HACKER1.ISO/cud1/cud102a.txt

Text File | 1992-09-26 | 9KB | 194 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 #1.02  (April 2, 1990)  **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     [e-mail]
SUBSCRIBE TO: INTERNET:[e-mail]@UICVM.uic.edu

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:  Messages Received
File 2:  Hacking in England (news article)
File 3:  The FBI and BBS Surveillance (PHRACK Reprint)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the third issue, and if you haven't received either of the first
two even though you have subscribed, let us know. It means that mail is not
getting through the gateway.  If you know of anybody who has added their
name to the mailing list but has not received any issues yet, let us know.
We apologize for the problems, especially duplicate files, in the CuD 1.02
mailing.  We are still working out mailing glitches.

As some of you noticed, file headers still contain the addresses of all
those to whom the batch is sent. We have broken the batches down into
groups of about 25, so you are only seeing a portion of the list. However,
this is still unacceptable. We are working on the problem. Until then, we
will either break batches down into groups of 5, or, most likely, send them
out individually, which is a drag with about 150 subscribers.  We are
experimenting with LISTSERV, and have asked comserve for suggestions.

If you know of anybody who has added their name to the mailing list but has
not received any issues yet, let us know. We apologize for the problems,
especially duplicate files, in the CuD 1.02 mailing.  We are still working
out mailing glitches.

--------------------------------------------------------------

We have received many, many requests of the files we listed.  Providing an
archive service may not have been one of our better ideas. At the moment
(middle of the term) we don't have the time to comply with the heavy
request load.  But, we remain convinced that such an archival service is
needed, because such files are not currently preserved in libraries.  So,
we are exploring options. We have encountered the following problems:

1. Time (or lack of it) and digging out files on an ad hoc basis

2. Size: Most of the ascii files are over 100 K, and some systems have
kicked these back. A complete set of some files would run as high as 5
megs, and to send these out would jam most systems, even if sent out over a
few days.

Possible solutions:

1. Upload them to a local (DeKalb) BBS from which they could be downloaded.
We would have to obtain university permission, but there is currently a
multi-line BBS here that could handle such requests.

2. Send them out by snail mail to anybody who wanted to send disks and a
self-addressed, stamped envelop. We could then put them in a ZIP file to
reduce space by about 60 percent and return them.

Any other suggestions??

From the material we're getting, it looks like we can put an issue out
about once a week. We will send them in the early part of the week to avoid
weekend mail-jams.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"COMPUTER ABUSE" OR "CONTROLOGY?"

In a forthcoming article (CONTEMPORARY CRISES, 1990), Ray Michalowski and
Erdwin Pfuhl argue that in the years following the 1986 passage of the
federal computer abuse laws, and despite additional state laws, there were
very few prosecutions or indictments of hackers.  Yet, in recent months,
hacker prosecutions seem to be making local and national news. Is there
*really* an upsurge in abuse, or are law enforcement authorities
over-reacting to media hype and hysteria by dramatizing their "concern"
through over-enforcement?  Jason Ditton (in his book CONTROLOGY) and Mark
Fishman have argued that too often "crime waves" are do not reflect an
increase in unacceptable behaviors as much as they do social responses to
public fears or publicity surrounding a given type of incident.  More
simply, there are often not "crime waves," but rather "control waves." To
dramatize competency and effectiveness, government agencies and law
enforcement officials respond to images of "danger" by dramatizing their
concern in the form of "crackdowns." The current Draconian anti-drug
legislation is one example. We suppose that the good news is that whenever
the government declares war on something, it's been lost (witness the "war
on poverty," the "war on crime," the "war on drugs"). This military
metaphor does not work well as a social policy, but the repercussions are a
fiscal drain and a gradual loss of Constitutional freedoms.  If you come
across stories in your local papers on any aspect of computer prosecution
(use of computers in felonies, prosecution, indictments, or arrests of
hackers, confiscation of computer equipment, etc.), please transcribe the
articles (including source, date and page numbers), and pass them along.
HOWEVER, BE SURE NO COPYRIGHTS ARE INFRINGED. We assume that contributors
have checked, because we cannot check every article that comes in.  Thanks.

J&G

--------------------------------------------------------------------



***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.02 / File 1 of 3  ***
***************************************************************

From: [e-mail](Mike Godwin)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Computer Underground Digest, Issue 1.01

Writes Mark Seiden:

"(Note for the Tomorrow File: A new source of revenue for lawyers: store
your hacker-client's backup tapes, which would then be protected as
privileged communication?)"

Unfortunately, backup tapes probably are probably not "privileged communication"
within the meaning of attorney-client privilege. A court or magistrate could
almost certainly order its production by the attorney in whose custody it was.
The only possible theory of non disclosure that comes to mind is the
work-product doctrine, and even that doctrine would apply only if the backup
were made specifically for the purpose of preparing for litigation.

In general, attorney-client privilege only applies to things that clients
SAY (or write) to their attorneys, not things they GIVE to their attorneys.

And, incidentally, the attorney-client privilege cannot, in itself, be "a
source of revenue" for lawyers. Once you've contracted for an attorney-client
relationship, your attorney has to keep privileged communications secret even
if you *don't* ask him to or pay for him to.

(You can, of course, give him specific permission to disclose such information.)


--Mike

==============================================================================

----------------------------------
Pat Townson of TELECOM DIGEST passed the following along to us. %eds%.
Any responses?!?
--------------------

Subject: More L.O.D.
To: "Submission to comp.dcom.telecom" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 16:03:54 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>

As reported in AT&T's Consultant Liason Program electronic
newsletter "Newsbriefs":

>
>          LEGION OF DOOM -- ... A government affadavit alleged that in June
>          hackers believed to be Legion of Doom members planted software
>          "time bombs" in AT&T's 5ESS switching computers in Denver, Atlanta
>          and New Jersey.  These programs ... were defused by AT&T security
>          personnel before they could disrupt phone service. ... New York
>          Newsday, p. 15, 4/1.
>

--
Don H Kemp                      "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT                      why.  Then do it."
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                             Lazarus Long



=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+