Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/security-fraud/kevin.polsen

Text File | 1990-01-28 | 43KB | 906 lines

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:57:36 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes


'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin Poulsen,
Mark Lottor ([e-mail]), and Robert Gilligan ([e-mail]) have
been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with nineteen counts (mostly
bogus) of telephone and computer crimes.

I got a copy of the 3-page press release from a friendly newspaper
reporter, as well as the 15-page indictment.  Curiously, the
defendents have not been given a copy of the indictment yet, though it
is being blasted out to the press (the reporter got it by fax!).  The
press release is from the US Attorney's office; you can call Robert R.
Crowe at [phone] to complain about it.  The press seems to
have been taken in by this and is giving it a lot of coverage; one
report was that 20 cameramen showed up at the "scene of the crime"
this morning in an attempt to interview a defendent.

The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt
to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch of
separate "counts".  Many of these are completely bogus, e.g.  they are
three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with:

    "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from
    Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to
    deceive, falsely represented his social security account
    number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not
    his social security number".

There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with:

    "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone
    Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a
    fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own
    proper name and received from any post office or authorized
    depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such
    fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper
    name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and
    requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of
    John Billings...".

Not all the charges are this much hot air, but it really looks to me
like the prosecuters are more interested in writing press releases
than in serving justice.

In short, the charges are:

  1 count conspiracy
  1 count "possession of access devices", 18 USC 1029(a)(3), (b)(2)
  1 count "ownership of a test circuit pack", 18 USC 2512
  3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS#
  3 counts giving the phone company a fake name
  1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2)
  1 count use of a testset to intercept a call
  1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation
  1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3)
  1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6)
  1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret
          classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641
  2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a)
  1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of
      PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which
    contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand
    Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641
  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
    POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4),
    (b)(3)

In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal
life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company,
not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it),
having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some
fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment.
I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with
intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI
was doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...but don't
worry, it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on
you.

I'll find a copy of these laws sometime soon and see how bad they are.
18 USC 1029 and 1030 are new laws and are specifically mentioned in
the "press release".  1029, on "access devices", is being used to
charge these folks with possession of keys; use of calling cards
issued under false names; and possession of a POS terminal and
locksmith tools.  Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to
charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked
on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with.  And
the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"!  Last I
heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about
your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them.  Welcome to
New Amerika!


Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 1:37:01 CST
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes


The purpose of this message is NOT to give an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the persons discussed in the original message. Only
the court can rule upon the facts, and detirmine the guilt or
innocence of the defendants. This message is intended ONLY to address
Mr. Gilmore's presentation itself, and discuss what he feels are
frivolous charges.

In volume 9, issue 36 John Gilmore <[e-mail]> writes:

>'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin
>Poulsen, Mark Lottor ([e-mail]), and Robert Gilligan
>([e-mail]) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with
>nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes.

>The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt
>to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch
>of separate "counts".  Many of these are completely bogus, e.g.
>they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with:

>    "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from
>    Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to
>    deceive, falsely represented his social security account
>    number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not
>    his social security number".

>There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with:

>    "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone
>    Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a
>    fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own
>    proper name and received from any post office or authorized
>    depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such
>    fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper
>    name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and
>    requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of
>    John Billings...".

When an application is made for an extension of credit, it is illegal
to misrepresent who you are. In this case, telco would be the
creditor.  Credit is not a *right*. It does not have to be given to
anyone. Telco must provide service to all *qualified* applicants, and
in this instance, a qualified applicant is one who has demonstrated an
ability and willingness to pay for the service. More on this later.

>In short, the charges are:

   (list edited, to address only certain issues)

>  3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS#
>  3 counts giving the phone company a fake name
>  1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2)

Here again, the use of a calling card is the use of an extension of
credit given by telco. It is a crime to apply for credit under a fake
name or using fake credentials, period. No actual loss to the creditor
has to occur. The fact is, the creditor is entitled to set whatever
parameters he desires to define 'credit worthy'; this is not an option
left to the subscriber or purchaser of the service. If you
misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an extension of
credit, you have committed a federal felony. If you place your written
misrepresentation in a US Postal Service receptacle, you have
committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope lands in the basket
inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes the creditor to place
something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your monthly bill, then
again, *you* have committed mail fraud.

By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been
obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money --
or deposit against future charges -- before service was established.
Or, they could have been obliged to make calls from pay stations, on a
pay- as-you-go basis.

>  1 count use of a testset to intercept a call
>  1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation

Interception of calls is illegal, whether it is by a private party or
the government without the permission of a court. If these charges are
proven to be factual, then they are very serious matters. I would ask
Mr. Gilmore if he would like to be the victim of such an intercept.
Even 'security persons' have the right to assume their conversation on
the phone is private.


>  1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3)
>  1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6)
>  1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret
>          classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641

Another way of phrasing it is a charge of attempted burglary; a charge
of attempted theft; plus a charge of theft by deception. If Mr.
Gilmore feels this is not all that serious, perhaps he will share his
modem phone number and personal passwords with us; or not raise too
much of a fuss if someone finds them and uses them.

>  2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a)

As above; only a court can authorize a wire; would you want it any
other way?

>  1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of
>  PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which
>  contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand
>  Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641

So now we have another charge of theft. Yes, that is what it is called
when some sleaze on the subway gets into your pockebook -- why not
call it that when someone rifles an office or a briefcase? Does the
fact that the offender is smart enough he doesn't have to strong-arm
you on the street make a difference in the seriousness of the crime?

>  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
>  POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4),
>    (b)(3)

What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some
other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who
the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless
we are transacting business with each other?

>In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal
>life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company,
>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it),

I would suggest that electronic burglary, i.e. breaking and entering
into the military computers and the theft of the information in the
one computer is a 'computer crime', and a rather serious one at that.
If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer
to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime?

I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a
central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if
indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner.

>mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the
>phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal
>need for it.....

Most people do not try to defraud the phone company. Most people do
not give bogus identification to the phone company. Telco will list
(or not) the service under any name desired, within reason. They will
send the bill to any third party. But the person who ultimatly
guarentees the payment *must* be known to telco, like any other
creditor. If these allegations of the government are found to be
factual, then I'd say these fellows have a problem: if they intended
to deal in good faith with telco, their true identities would have
been part of telco's service record.

>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it.

Legal need is one thing; consideration for an extension of credit is
another; or does Mr. Gilmore assume telco should just take the word of
everyone who comes in that everything will be alright and telco will
get paid?  As stated above, when the creditor *gives consideration to*
your request for credit, he requires something by which to positively
identify yourself and your history of meeting your obligations. It is
a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your creditor's
satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to your request
for credit.

This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you,
or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant?  NO,
YOU DO NOT!  But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with
you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open
account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the
first minute please.....

You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your
credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the
creditor's terms.  And the federal government says if you decieve the
creditor in *any way*, they have a beef with you.

>just like the normal life of a private person...

And as a further example, he gives...

>having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking,

About 95 percent of the public has no idea how phones work, could care
less how they work (until the CO burns down, the employees go on
strike, or the software gets a bug in it), and do not phreak. Most
people do not know anything more than listen for dial tone, dial the
number, talk and hang up. The defendants here are hardly 'normal
living private persons', if their knowledge of telecom is any
indicator.

>some possible phreaking,

Note how casually Mr. Gilmore dismisses this. Instead, substitute the
phrase, 'some possible burglaries; some possible thefts by deception;
possibly some breaking and entering....'

>normal lives of private persons.....

Most people do not burglarize the space of others, be it electronic or
physical in nature. They do not practice theft by deception.

>and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching
>an apartment.

Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching
of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be
found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a
burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic
one.

But perhaps I mis-read this. Perhaps the defendants had been invited
by someone to come to their home and search through their possessions.

>I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with
>intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was
>doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...

The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court; the other
one was not. I personally find all wires distasteful -- particularly
those committed by unauthorized persons -- but at least the FBI took
the trouble to do it legally I assume.

And if the FBI did not do it legally? None of us here have virgin ears
and eyes; we all know about the stink at Cincinnatti Bell; the Chicago
Police Red Squad of the 1960's; the marginal legality of some aspects
of the 'war on drugs', etc.... but is the writer saying the current
defendants were no more naughty than the FBI, therefore they should
not be punished if they are found guilty?

>but don't worry,
>it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you.

Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for
anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government,
and then, only by specific court order. Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost
confessing for the defendants now, by his admission that the alleged
acts were illegal. But that isn't what he meant. He meant since it is
okay for the government to break the law, it should be okay for the
defendants to do so also. I think otherwise.

>use of calling cards issued under
>false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools.
>Sounds like most modern laws --

Maybe, but it hardly sounds like the normal life of your average
private person who typically does not carry credit cards with false
names; does not possess a POS terminal unless he is a merchant using
it in his legitimate business; does not have locksmith tools unless he
is a locksmith by trade; and doesn't go around tapping phones,
burglarizing computers and stealing documents.

>broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get"

Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps? It sounds to me
like the government doesn't need any excuses to 'get' them....if the
claims by the government are factual, then these fellows are hardly
model citizens being persecuted by an evil government.

>And the ones on use of an
>incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"!  Last I heard, it was not
>illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though
>it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them.

It is illegal to deceive anyone for the purpose of obtaining an
extension of credit. If some attorney told you it was not illegal to
deceive your creditor, I suggest you ask for your retainer back and go
find another attorney. Actual loss to the creditor is not required.
The creditor's victimization begins when he grants you credit you
should not (by his standards) be given. He is at risk at that point.
And the feds will back up the creditor *every time* on this. Conduct
business by mail and you can add mail fraud to the rap.

>Welcome to New Amerika!

Isn't that precious..... I'll repeat: quit the game playing and the
role of martyr. If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell
them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a
man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot.
If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court,
that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody
of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead.

And if they are not guilty, and all these things the government has
said about them are just damnable lies, by a government 'out to get
them....'

Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde, who once
said,

     "Injustice? Well I can live with injustice. I've had it heaped
      on me many times...

      But justice.....its justice that stings.....  "



Patrick Townson

**This message was NOT intended to express an opinion about the guilt
or innocence of the defendants. Only the court can detirmine the facts.
It was intended to address tbe recent remarks by Mr. Gilmore.**


From [e-mail] Sun Jan 28 14:59:55 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA11564; Sun, 28 Jan 90 14:59:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26020;
          28 Jan 90 13:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25758;
          28 Jan 90 12:15 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Jan 90 11:49:41 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Computer Crime
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jan 90 11:45:00 CST    Special: Computer Crime

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (J. Gilmore)

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Gilmore sent this rebuttal several days ago to
my piece which appeared last week. It had to be re-written slightly,
with Mr. Gilmore's approval and assistance due to a couple technical
problems which made it incompatible with Digest software. I am sorry
it isn't as timely as I would have liked; it should have been
distributed several days ago.  As he notes in the first paragraph, the
legal issues raised should probably be best continued in misc.legal.
In a Digest later today, a detailed look at Kevin Poulsen.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:08:49 -0800
From: [e-mail] <John Gilmore>


I believe this discussion is moving way beyond the bounds of Telecom.
However when the moderator blasts me, in part over misunderstandings
of my message, I wish a chance to rebut.  If the Moderator wants to
limit discussion to phone-related stuff after this message, I think
it's a good idea.  We can move the rest of the discussion to
misc.legal.

Patrick Townson got quite upset about my message regarding this
indictment.  I do not have an opinion on whether these folks are
guilty or innocent either.  My problem is with some of the charges and
with how the US Attorney is publicity-chasing with this case.

Mr. Townson says that it is a crime to misrepresent who you are for
"an extension of credit", including telephone service.  I believe this
should be a civil matter, not a criminal one -- and actual harm must
be shown before anyone could be penalized for it.  In other words, if
I tell the phone company my name is Joe Blow, and I pay my bill on
time, it's none of their business whether my mama calls me Suzie
Thunder -- and particularly none of the government's business.  Why is
the extension of credit different than any other commercial
transaction in this regard?

If a company wants to implement policies about who can and who can't
get credit, it is *their* job to check up on me.  It is not the job of
the government to spend tax money to chase me down and prosecute me.

As for extension of credit by Pac Bell...  When *I* have gotten band
new service from Pacific Bell, not moved from a previous address in
the same telco (e.g. when moving out of a shared household into my own
house), I had to put up a cash deposit before they would offer me
service.  Under those circumstances, is telco "extending me credit"?
I occasionally receive mid-month bills saying "you used your phone a
lot, we want you to pay it now" or "did you make all those calls or
has somebody been charging calls to your number?".  These mechanisms
let them cut off service til the bill (or a larger deposit) is paid,
and protect them against fraud.  In all cases, when I had had the
phone for a year or two and paid the bills regularly, they refunded
the deposit.  E.g. even if I am "Joe Blow" to them, and TRW doesn't
have a dossier on me, I am still creditworthy to them.

> If you misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an
> extension of credit, you have committed a federal felony.

If a California company extends credit to a California customer, the
Feds have jurisdiction?  (Yes, I know the case law that blew the
interstate commerce clause all to pieces -- after FDR almost succeeded
in emasculating the Supreme Court.  It's just not right.)

> If you place your written misrepresentation in a US Postal Service
> receptacle, you have committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope
> lands in the basket inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes
> the creditor to place something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your
> monthly bill, then again, *you* have committed mail fraud.

It's a good thing the government runs the mail system, so it can turn
a simple communications service into one which makes judgements about
the contents of its 'packets'.  Happily, Federal Express has a policy
diametrically opposed, e.g. unless the cocaine leaking from your
parcel jams their conveyor belt, it goes through and they ask no
questions and threaten no jail terms.  Their job is carriage, not
providing a hook for one more bogus charge to throw at somebody.

> By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been
> obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money --
> or deposit against future charges -- before service was established.

What if they *did* pay a deposit?  That seems to be PacBell policy for
customers with no prior service.

> >  1 count use of a testset to intercept a call
> >  1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation
> Interception of calls is illegal...

I am not defending the interception of calls.  I was listing the
charges, since the newspaper accounts summarize them and leave out the
actual citations from the US Code.

> >  1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3)
> >  1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6)
> >  1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret
> >          classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641

I think that "attempted" access and "conspiracy to" crimes are bogus.
Why should it be illegal for Americans to test the security of the a
US Military network?  Should we just believe them if they tell us it
is secure?  If it is truly secure, they have nothing to fear from us.
If it is not secure, we the public have a damn strong reason to want
to know.  [If we enter and do damage, that is a completely separate
issue.  The issue here is the mere attempt to access.]

Also note that there is no apparent tie between the MASNET charges and
the classified orders, which were apparently found in hardcopy form.
Perhaps the guy was in the Air Force and kept some of his old
paperwork?

> >  1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of
> >  PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which
> >  contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand
> >  Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641
> So now we have another charge of theft.

I am not a believer in theft.

> >  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
> >  POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4),
> >    (b)(3)

> What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some
> other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who
> the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless
> we are transacting business with each other?

I do not believe that possession of a computer terminal should be a crime.

There is no allegation in the indictment that this terminal was used
to commit a crime.  The mere possession of it is apparently illegal
according to this indictment.  There is no allegation that the
terminal was used to verify anyone's credit standing; perhaps it was
bought for parts from a surplus store.

"If POS terminals are outlawed, only department stores will have POS
terminals" :-)

I do not believe there is a law or practice restricting credit
information to people 'transacting business with each other'.  You
want the info, TRW sells it, as far as I know.  Feel free to educate
me if I'm wrong.

> >In short, there is little computer crime in here...
>
> If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer
> to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime?

I said LITTLE computer crime -- that means 2 out of 19 charges.  But
that is most of what the press coverage is focusing on, because it's
"high-tech" to talk about computer crimes and it sells papers.

The indictment mentions only breaking into a network, not into any
military computers, and no theft of information therefrom.

> I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a
> central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if
> indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner.

This is going out on quite a limb.  Nothing I posted, and nothing I
read in the indictment, indicated ESS tampering to wiretap.  Testsets
and 'test circuit packs' were mentioned.

There followed a long flame about normal life being incompatible with
a interest in phone equipment, etc.  My comment along these lines was
also misunderstood by another poster.  Let me restate and clarify:

me>In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal
me>life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company,
me>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it),
me>having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some
me>fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment.

Please read this as "the normal life of a private person (...), AND
having an interest in phones, AND possible phreaking, AND some
[prosecutor's] fantasies about some innocent stuff the PROSECUTOR
found in searching an apartment".

I think that keeping your life private is not computer crime, nor any
crime.  I think having an interest in phones is not computer crime,
nor any crime.  I think phreaking (at least tapping phones) is not
computer crime, though it is definitely a crime.  I think
prosecutorial fantasies about computer terminals are not computer
crimes, nor any crime.

> if they intended to deal in good faith with telco, their true
> identities would have been part of telco's service record.

If you define good faith as paying for services rendered, nothing in
the charge indicates that their bills were unpaid, simply that they
used false names and ss#'s.  A person is free to use any name(s) they
choose as long as it is not for fraud.  My copy of the Uniform
Commercial Code is misplaced, but I think fraud involves *actual
monetary loss* due to false information.

> It is a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your
> creditor's satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to
> your request for credit.

They identified themselves to their creditor's satisfaction --
obviously.  Else their creditor would not have issued them credit,
e.g. provided them with phone service and working calling cards.

> This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you,
> or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant?  NO,
> YOU DO NOT!  But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with
> you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open
> account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the
> first minute please.....

> You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your
> credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the
> creditor's terms.

All OK by me.

> And the federal government says if you decieve the creditor in
> *any way*, they have a beef with you.

That is where I have a problem.  None of the Feds' business.  The
gov't does not exist to intervene in private commercial transactions.

> >I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with
> >intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was
> >doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...

> The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court...
> Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for
> anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government,
> and then, only by specific court order.

You clearly don't know current law in this regard.  Reread the ECPA.
It does not take a court order to tap your phone these days.  A middle
level bureaucrap at the DoJ can legally do it without consulting a
court.

> Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost confessing for the defendants now, by
> his admission that the alleged acts were illegal. But that isn't what
> he meant. He meant since it is okay for the government to break the law,
> it should be okay for the defendants to do so also. I think otherwise.

Certainly if these guys wiretapped people, their acts were illegal.
My statements have nothing to do with "confession" though.  It's the
hypocrisy of the government that says "the act is evil, but if a judge
or bureaucrat does it, it's OK" that I am complaining about.

[As an aside, I believe that if a law is broken by the government, it
should not be able to prosecute people for breaking it.  If the
government is dealing drugs and weapons in violation of the law, any
case against ordinary people for the same charge should be thrown out.
I am quite tired of government employees thinking they are above the
law; the only way to restrain them from this belief is to nullify the
law's effect on us, e.g. if they won't follow the rules that they
themselves lay down, we don't have to either.]

>> broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get"
> Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps?

Why should the government issue press releases about an indictment?
Perhaps somebody wants to make a name for themself in the Dept of
Justice by prosecuting a famous case.  Perhaps it has been decided
that it's time to "get tough" on computer crime, so a case that's
mostly telephone crime has been stretched with bullshit charges and
then billed to the ignorant media as a major computer crime case.
Bureacracy has its own internally generated reasons.  These particular
people may not be targets except that they were handy to "make an
example of" at the right time.

> ...if the claims by the government are factual, then these fellows
> are hardly model citizens being persecuted by an evil government.

Civil rights only apply to model citizens?  That is, model citizens
are permitted to own terminals, but people suspected of other crimes
are not?  If someone plants marijuana refuse (or printouts from
telco's trash bin) in Mr. Townson's trash can and calls the cops, will
his computers and telephone memorabilia, his old copies of
confidential "Telephone Test Code Number Directories" that friends had
given him in violation of telco rules, suddenly become illegal 'tools
of crime' too?  Will his magazine subscription in the name 'Betty
Crocker', so he can identify who is selling his name to mailing lists,
become mail fraud?

> If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell
> them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a
> man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot.
> If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court,
> that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody
> of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead.

Right.  Be nice to the thugs and they might put you on probation.  You
better watch out boy and play the game *our way* whether you're
innocent or guilty.  A couple of years of living as if you were in a
totalitarian state would be a nice change of pace.  Permission to
work, permission to move, permission to drive, permission to associate
with your undesirable friends, given or refused by your probation
officer.  Instant arrest and confinement at the government's whim,
without arraignment or trial.  Gee, if we could get everyone living
under these rules, there'd be no need for all those silly elections
and freedoms and stuff.

> And if they are not guilty...
> Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde...

I would take a lot more comfort in suing the government for harassment
and getting the overzealous US Attorney demoted or fired.  You get the
government you allow to survive.  If you leave petty thugs in there
and go back to reading Wilde, don't complain when thugs run your life.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Computer Crime
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 28 16:45:50 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA15296; Sun, 28 Jan 90 16:45:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08091;
          28 Jan 90 15:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19183;
          28 Jan 90 14:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:16:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Kevin Poulsen
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:15:31 CST    Special: Kevin Poulsen

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Hacker in Trouble: Loner Gone Astray? (Knight-Ridder via TELECOM Moderator)
    Two Surrender in Military Intrusion Case; Third Sought (Joseph Liu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 12:44:00 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hacker in Trouble: Loner Gone Astray?


[Moderator's Note: This is the story issued by the Knight-Ridder
Newspapers Syndicate several days ago on Kevin Poulsen. A backlog of
work here has kept me from presenting it before now.  PT]

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

    SAN JOSE, Calif. -- When Kevin Poulsen's parents bought him his
first computer, they took his interest in it as a good sign,
particularly because their 16-year-old son had recently dropped out of
high school.

The Poulsens couldn't conceive that letting their son cloister himself
in his room all day tapping away at the keyboard could be bad for him.

"He was on it many hours. He would stay up all night. I didn't really
know what he was up to until the law knocked on our door," said his
father, Lee.

The knock by FBI agents was the first brush with the law for Kevin,
then 17. Now 24, he is charged by federal authorities with one of the
country's most widespread cases of computer and telephone crime.

He was charged last week with two others with commandeering the
nation's phone network, monitoring and taping phone conversations and
breaking into government computers, including military installations.
He is still at large. (See next article in this issue.)

In conversations several days ago with Lee Poulsen and the mother of a
former girlfriend of Kevin Poulsen's, a picture emerged of a brilliant
but emotionally troubled loner motivated by a need for attention and
for finding out information that few people knew.

Annette Randol, the former girlfriend's mother, said young Poulsen
became obsessed with her daughter and began stalking her through the
phone lines and taping her family's conversations. She said that he
bragged that his accomplishments as a hacker had landed him a job with
a Silicon Valley company.

Additionally, Randol and Lee Poulsen both said that the FBI had asked
for Kevin Poulsen's help in tracking down computer and telephone
criminals. But they said Kevin refused because of loyalty to his
hacker friends.

Poulsen's father said he had last heard from his son three weeks ago
and that he had refused to give him the address for his Los Angeles
apartment.

Like most hackers, Poulsen started out as a phone phreak, one of those
who pirate the national phone network by obtaining phone numbers and
access codes.

It was through this network that in April, 1978, Kevin met Sean
Randol, a quiet, bookish young girl who turned out to live only a mile
from the Poulsens in North Hollywood, said Sean's mother, Annette.

Responding to a classified ad, Sean and her mother accidentally
stumbled on a telephone bulletin board that gave out the numbers of
phone phreak conference lines. Once a loner, Sean had found a way to
make new friends and quickly took to the phone phreak networks.

Annette Randol describes the two as soulmates who immediatly hit it
off, both avid readers and both loners. "He started out with my
daughter because she was lonely too," she said. "She loved him, but
she loved him as a friend."

Gradually, after three years, her mother says, the friendship faded.
Sean grew interested in other pursuits and other people. But Kevin
didn't share those feelings and wanted to continue the relationship,
her mother said. It ended abruptly when Kevin returned from the Bay
Area for Christmas and took Sean out to dinner. But instead of
bringing her home, Kevin took Sean on a 'wild ride' that frightened
her. After that, she refused to see him again.

But Sean's refusals just fueled Kevin's obsession. He had his sister,
who worked in the same Los Angeles supermarket as Sean, take pictures
of her at work. And two years ago, he allegedly tapped into the
family's phone lines and taped all their conversations without their
knowledge over a two-week period. Those tapes are part of the
indictments against Poulsen in the case pending.

Sean was not Kevin's only obsession. Ally Sheedy, the actress who
played the hacker's girlfriend in the movie 'War Games' became the
object of phone preaks' and hackers' desire, a kind of underground
idol. With his friends, Kevin got Sheedy's number and address and
stalked her through the phone lines and surveyed her house in the Los
Angeles area, Randol said.

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

Date: 27 Jan 90 15:11:47 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Liu)
To: chinet!patrick
Subject: Two Surrender in Military Intrusion Case; Third Sought


Hello Patrick:

I think this article might be of interest to Digest readers.

TWO SURRENDER IN MILITARY COMPUTER INTRUSION CASE; THIRD SOUGHT

     Two of three men accused of conspiring to break into a military
computer network and a phone system surrendered to authorities this
week. Remaining at large, though, is the alleged ringleader,
24-year-old Kevin L. Poulsen.

     As reported last week the three are all either current or former
employees of Sun Microsystems and SRI International consulting firm.
They were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of invading or
trying to invade Pacific Bell Telephone and U.S. Army computers.

     In San Jose, Calif., this week, 25-year-old Mark K. Lottor and
Robert E.  Gilligan, 31, surrendered before U.S. District Court
Magistrate Patricia Trumbull. They entered innocent pleas, were
released on $100,000 bond each and were ordered to return to court
next week.

     The Associated Press says Lottor faces five courts and Gilligan
six in the government's 19-count indictment. The prosecutors contend a
scheme existed to steal military secrets and phone numbers from the
FBI investigation of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

     Federal officials contend the latest computer tampering began in
1985 and started to fall apart in February 1988 when police found
telephone equipment belonging to Pacific Bell in a storage locker
rented by Poulsen.

     The search continues for Poulsen, charged in 16 counts. He faces
up to 37 years in prison if convicted. The other two suspects face 20
years each if found guilty of all charges.

     AP reports Poulsen is believed to have fled to Los Angeles after
leaving a job with Sun. Incidentally, Poulsen also was an unindicted
co-conspirator in the 1984 computer break-in case at the University of
California at Los Angeles.  His friend, Ron Austin, was convicted on
charges related to the break-in. The wire service quotes authorities
as saying that at the time Poulsen used the computer handle "Dark
Dante."

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Kevin Poulsen
*****************************