500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 6/500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 6.iso/start/progs/text/cud7_49.txt

Text File | 1995-06-18 | 46KB | 882 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Jun 14, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 49
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail]
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Triviata:     How many Spams have C&S Done since April '94?

CONTENTS, #7.49 (Wed, Jun 14, 1995)

File 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle
File 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case
File 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens"
File 4-- Tutorial:  Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd)
File 5--Tutorial:  Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:33:53 -0400
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle

 =================================================================
       CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/GORTON COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
        (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)

        Update: -The Latest News: The Senate voted to attach the
                 Communications Decency Act to the Telecom Reform bill.
                 Leahy's alternative was not attached to the Telecom
                 Reform bill.
                -What You Can Do Now


        CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
                           June 14, 1995

      PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
                 REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL June 25, 1995
             REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS

      Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch ([e-mail])

 ___________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
        Background
        The Latest News
        What You Can Do Now
        For More Information
        List Of Participating Organizations

 _________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND

The Communications Decency Act (sponsored by Sen. Exon and Gorton) would
criminalize many forms of expression on online systems.  Many believe
it to be unconstitutional, and a fight to oppose it has been waged
since its introduction.  It was recently attached to the fast-tracked
Telecommunications Deregulation bill, which is moving quickly through
Congress.

 _________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS

Right up until the last minute, callers reported weary Senatorial
staffers continued to report a deluge of incoming calls, almost all
against the Exon/Coats bill and supporting the Leahy alternative.  The
Senate debated the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency Act and the
Leahy alternative today (June 14, 1995) starting at about 3:30pm EST
for 90 minutes.

The debate was opened by Senator Exon who read a prayer to protect
against computer pornography.  Senators Exon (D-NE) and Coats (R-IN)
spoke in favor of their position.  Senator Gorton (R-WA) was
mysteriously absent from the debate.

Exon referred those that signed the petition to prevent his censorship
bill as "selfish".  Exon presented letters from many groups in support
of his bill, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council, the National Law Center for Families.  He also stated that
75% of computer owners have refused the join the Internet because the
obscene material they feared on the Internet.

Senators Byrd (D-WV) and Heflin (D-AL) cosponsored the Exon bill at
the last minute.

Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) spoke passionately about the
First Amendment and the Internet.  Feingold warned against the dangers
of chilling free speech.  Leahy brought out the monster petition in
support of his alternative (it looks pretty impressive on television)
and proceeded to try to debunk the myths Exon promulgated about the
Internet.  He also trumpeted the success of the Internet, and pointed
out it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if the US government had
tried to micro-manage it.

Both Exon and Leahy then gave back extra debating time and went to a vote
on the bill.  The Exon bill was successfully attached to the Telecomm
Reform bill (84-16).  The Leahy alternative was not attached to the
Telecom Reform bill.

Questions and answers:

Q: What does this mean?
A: It means we lost this round.  The unconstitutional Exon Communications
   Decency Act was attached to the Telecomm Reform bill.

Q: What's the next step?
A: Next, we need to ensure that a House equivalent to the Exon
   Communications Decency Act is not attached to the House Telecomm Reform
   bill.

Q: Where can I find more information about the bill?
A: Check below.

 ___________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW -- U.S. and non-U.S. citizens

1. Familiarize yourself with the version of the bill that passed,
   and the transcript of the Senate debate. (directions to obtain
   these are below)

2. Check the voting list below.  It wouldn't hurt to send a nice
   letter, email, or fax to the Senators that voted to defeat the
   Communications Decency Act.  Hateful mail to Senators who did
   not vote your way is not only *bad form*, but likely to become illegal
   soon anyway, under the Communications Decency Act.

   In other words, take some time to cool off.

3. If you don't receive Coalition alerts reliably through mail or news,
   join the mailing list by sending mail to [e-mail] with
   "subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname".  We'll have to fight
   this battle in the House soon and you should be informed.

4. Relax, it's not the end of the world.  We still have this battle to
   fight in the House of Representatives and then in the conference
   committee.  This is a setback, but we haven't lost yet.

 __________________________________________________________________
RESULTS OF THE SENATE VOTE

Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act
(A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech
 rights would be appropriate.)

      D ST Name (Party)               Phone           Fax
      = == ==================         ==============  ==============
      D CT Lieberman, Joseph I.       1-202-224-4041  1-202-224-9750
      D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R.       1-202-224-5042  1-202-224-0139
      D IL Simon, Paul                1-202-224-2152  1-202-224-0868
                                        [e-mail]
      D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol       1-202-224-2854  1-202-224-2626
      D MA Kennedy, Edward M.         1-202-224-4543  1-202-224-2417
                                        [e-mail]
      D MI Levin, Carl                1-202-224-6221  na
      D MN Wellstone, Paul            1-202-224-5641  1-202-224-8438
      D NM Bingaman, Jeff             1-202-224-5521  na
                                        [e-mail]
      D NY Moynihan, Daniel P.        1-202-224-4451  na
      D OH Glenn, John                1-202-224-3353  1-202-224-7983
      R RI Chafee, John H.            1-202-224-2921  na
      D VA Robb, Charles S.           1-202-224-4024  1-202-224-8689
                                        [e-mail]
                                        [e-mail]
      D VT Leahy, Patrick J.          1-202-224-4242  1-202-224-3595
                                        [e-mail]
      R VT Jeffords, James M.         1-202-224-5141  na
      D WA Murray, Patty              1-202-224-2621  1-202-224-0238
      D WI Feingold, Russell          1-202-224-5323  na
                                        [e-mail]


Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act
(They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights.
 Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and
 may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway.  Take some time to cool down.)

      D ST Name (Party)               Phone           Fax
      = == ==================         ==============  ==============
      R AK Murkowski, Frank H.        1-202-224-6665  1-202-224-5301
      R AK Stevens, Ted               1-202-224-3004  1-202-224-1044
      D AL Heflin, Howell T.          1-202-224-4124  1-202-224-3149
      R AL Shelby, Richard C.         1-202-224-5744  1-202-224-3416
      D AR Bumpers, Dale              1-202-224-4843  1-202-224-6435
      D AR Pryor, David               1-202-224-2353  1-202-224-8261
      R AZ Kyl, Jon                   1-202-224-4521  1-202-228-1239
      R AZ McCain, John               1-202-224-2235  1-602-952-8702
      D CA Boxer, Barbara             1-202-224-3553  na
      D CA Feinstein, Dianne          1-202-224-3841  1-202-228-3954
      R CO Campbell, Ben N.           1-202-224-5852  1-202-225-0228
      R CO Brown, Henry               1-202-224-5941  1-202-224-6471
      D CT Dodd, Christopher J.       1-202-224-2823  na
      R DE Roth Jr.  William V.       1-202-224-2441  1-202-224-2805
      D FL Graham, Robert             1-202-224-3041  1-202-224-2237
      R FL Mack, Connie               1-202-224-5274  1-202-224-8022
      D GA Nunn, Samuel               1-202-224-3521  1-202-224-0072
      R GA Coverdell, Paul            1-202-224-3643  1-202-228-3783
      D HI Akaka, Daniel K.           1-202-224-6361  1-202-224-2126
      D HI Inouye, Daniel K.          1-202-224-3934  1-202-224-6747
      D IA Harkin, Thomas             1-202-224-3254  1-202-224-7431
      R IA Grassley, Charles E.       1-202-224-3744  1-202-224-6020
      R ID Craig, Larry E.            1-202-224-2752  1-202-224-2573
      R ID Kempthorne, Dirk           1-202-224-6142  1-202-224-5893
      R IN Coats, Daniel R.           1-202-224-5623  1-202-224-8964
      R IN Lugar, Richard G.          1-202-224-4814  1-202-224-7877
      R KS Dole, Robert               1-202-224-6521  1-202-224-8952
      R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L.        1-202-224-4774  1-202-224-3514
      D KY Ford, Wendell H.           1-202-224-4343  1-202-224-0046
      R KY McConnell, Mitch           1-202-224-2541  1-202-224-2499
      D LA Breaux, John B.            1-202-224-4623  na
      D LA Johnston, J. Bennett       1-202-224-5824  1-202-224-2952
      D MA Kerry, John F.             1-202-224-2742  1-202-224-8525
      D MD Mikulski, Barbara A.       1-202-224-4654  1-202-224-8858
      D MD Sarbanes, Paul S.          1-202-224-4524  1-202-224-1651
      R ME Snowe, Olympia             1-202-224-5344  1-202-224-6853
      R ME Cohen, William S.          1-202-224-2523  1-202-224-2693
      R MI Abraham, Spencer           1-202-224-4822  1-202-224-8834
      R MN Grams, Rod                 1-202-224-3244  na
      R MO Bond, Christopher S.       1-202-224-5721  1-202-224-8149
      R MO Ashcroft, John             1-202-224-6154  na
      R MS Cochran, Thad              1-202-224-5054  1-202-224-3576
      R MS Lott, Trent                1-202-224-6253  1-202-224-2262
      D MT Baucus, Max                1-202-224-2651  na
      R MT Burns, Conrad R.           1-202-224-2644  1-202-224-8594
      R NC Faircloth, D. M.           1-202-224-3154  1-202-224-7406
      R NC Helms, Jesse               1-202-224-6342  1-202-224-7588
      D ND Conrad, Kent               1-202-224-2043  1-202-224-7776
      D ND Dorgan, Byron L.           1-202-224-2551  1-202-224-1193
      D NE Kerrey, Bob                1-202-224-6551  1-202-224-7645
      D NE Exon, J. J.                1-202-224-4224  1-202-224-5213
      R NH Gregg, Judd                1-202-224-3324  1-202-224-4952
      R NH Smith, Robert              1-202-224-2841  1-202-224-1353
      D NJ Bradley, William           1-202-224-3224  1-202-224-8567
      D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R.       1-202-224-4744  1-202-224-9707
      R NM Domenici, Pete V.          1-202-224-6621  1-202-224-7371
      D NV Bryan, Richard H.          1-202-224-6244  1-202-224-1867
      D NV Reid, Harry                1-202-224-3542  1-202-224-7327
      R NY D'Amato, Alfonse M.        1-202-224-6542  1-202-224-5871
      R OH Dewine, Michael            1-202-224-2315  1-202-224-6519
      R OK Inhofe, James              1-202-224-4721
      R OK Nickles, Donald            1-202-224-5754  1-202-224-6008
      R OR Hatfield, Mark O.          1-202-224-3753  1-202-224-0276
      R OR Packwood, Robert           1-202-224-5244  1-202-228-3576
      R PA Santorum, Rick             1-202-224-6324  na
      R PA Specter, Arlen             1-202-224-4254  1-717-782-4920
      D RI Pell, Claiborne            1-202-224-4642  1-202-224-4680
      D SC Hollings, Ernest F.        1-202-224-6121  1-202-224-4293
      R SC Thurmond, Strom            1-202-224-5972  1-202-224-1300
      D SD Daschle, Thomas A.         1-202-224-2321  1-202-224-2047
      R SD Pressler, Larry            1-202-224-5842  1-202-224-1259*
      R TN Thompson, Fred             1-202-224-4944  1-202-228-3679
      R TN Frist, Bill                1-202-224-3344  1-202-224-8062
      R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey      1-202-224-5922  1-202-224-0776
      R TX Gramm, Phil                1-202-224-2934  1-202-228-2856
      R UT Bennett, Robert            1-202-224-5444  1-202-224-6717
      R UT Hatch, Orrin G.            1-202-224-5251  1-202-224-6331
      R VA Warner, John W.            1-202-224-2023  1-202-224-6295
      R WA Gorton, Slade              1-202-224-3441  1-202-224-9393
      D WI Kohl, Herbert H.           1-202-224-5653  1-202-224-9787
      D WV Byrd, Robert C.            1-202-224-3954  1-202-224-4025
      D WV Rockefeller, John D.       1-202-224-6472  na
      R WY Simpson, Alan K.           1-202-224-3424  1-202-224-1315
      R WY Thomas, Craig              1-202-224-6441  1-202-224-3230

 __________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION

We will be archiving the version of the Communications Decency Act
that passed, the roll call vote that went with it, and the transcript
of the Senate debate.

We will make these available through the methods below as soon as
they are available through the Government Printing Office (this usually
takes about 24 hours).  Please try to use the Web or Gopher sites first
before using our email server.

Web Sites
        URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/
        URL:http://epic.org/
        URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
        URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html

FTP Archives
        URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH
        URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/

Gopher Archives:
        URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
        URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts

Email:
        [e-mail] (put "send help" in the subject line)
        [e-mail] (General CDA information)
        [e-mail] (Current status of the CDA)

 ___________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act.


American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Californians
Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology *
Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation
* Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Computer Communicators Association *
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection *
Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens'
Movement * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
Censorship * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands
Off! The Net * Human Rights Watch * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle
Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet
On-Ramp, Inc. * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project *
Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * National Bicycle Greenway *
National Coalition Against Censorship * National Public Telecomputing
Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public
Access Internet * People for the American Way * Rock Out Censorship *
Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network *
The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch

(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
 not EFF chapters or divisions.)

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

From: [e-mail] (David L. Sobel)
Subject: 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:14:28 -0500

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), on behalf of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), has filed
an appellate brief seeking to uphold a lower court decision
ordering the release of information on a controversial "hacker"
investigation.  At issue are documents detailing the Secret
Service's role in the so-called "Pentagon City Mall Raid."

In November 1992, a group of young people affiliated with the
computer magazine "2600" were confronted by mall security
personnel, local police officers and several unidentified
individuals.  The group members were ordered to identify
themselves and to submit to searches of their personal property.
Their names were recorded and some of their property was
confiscated.  However, no charges were ever brought against any of
the individuals.  Although the Secret Service has never formally
acknowledged its role in the incident, it eventually conceded that
it did possess relevant information.

CPSR filed suit in federal court in early 1993 seeking the release
of relevant Secret Service records under the Freedom of
Information Act.  In July 1994, U.S. District Judge Louis
Oberdorfer ordered the Secret Service to release the vast majority
of documents it maintains on the incident.  The government
appealed that decision and EPIC is litigating the appeal that is
now pending.  In the recently filed brief, EPIC and CPSR argue
that the withheld documents demonstrate Secret Service misconduct
and that the FOIA exemptions cited by the agency do not apply.

The Secret Service has maintained that the disputed records were
collected during the course of an investigation of telephone toll
fraud.  In its appellate brief, the agency asserts that
"obviously, a meeting of individuals 'affiliated with 2600
Magazine' would be of interest to such an investigation since
those individuals have, by their conduct, evidenced an interest in
the technical intricacies of the telephone system."  The
government has revealed for the first time that the underlying
investigation was closed on March 14 of this year.

The Pentagon City incident has been described as an example of
over-zealous law enforcement activities directed against so-called
computer "hackers."  The case raises significant issues of free
speech and assembly, privacy and government accountability.  Oral
argument before the federal appeals court is scheduled for mid-
September.

The EPIC/CPSR brief can be accessed via WWW at:

     http://epic.org/computer_crime/2600/

or by FTP/Gopher at:

     cpsr.org/cpsr/computer_crime/2600_brief_6_95.txt

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: craftman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens"

          St. Matthews Teenager "Lured" Away By Computer Pal
              Richard D. Meadows  -  [e-mail]

WRITERS NOTE:  I have used ALLCAPS for my added emphasis and placed  a
few  editorial/social comments in brackets [] in the article.  At  the
end there will additional editorializing.

     The media feeding frenzy, about teens being lured away by  people
they  have met online, in both Washington state and Kentucky has  pro-
vided more fuel for the Exon fire currently burning in the Senate.

     I live in Louisville, KY., and have been following the Tara Noble
runaway closely since it was first reported in the Courier-Journal (C-
J) on Tuesday June 6, a week after MS Noble left her home in St.  Mat-
thews an upper middle class suburb of Louisville.  Tara, 13, ran  away
sometime  on May 30, and yesterday she called the FBI  from  Hollywood
Boulevard  in  Los Angeles, CA., to say she wanted to  go  back  home.
[How many teens have run away to California and ended up on  Hollywood
Boulevard, where they call home or the police?]

     What  makes this runaway case different is the fact  that  Tara's
personal  computer  and AOL are involved.  The headline on  the  front
page story of the C-J on June 6....WOMAN FEARS COMPUTER PAL LURED AWAY
DAUGHTER,  13....sets  the  tone for the entire  article.   The  staff
writer,  John  Voskuhl, calls cyberspace a "shadowy  frontier",  in  a
story  that appears one full week after MS Noble ran away  from  home.
Tara's mother Lisa Noble tells the writer that she thinks her daughter
boarded a Greyhound bus headed west to rendezvous with someone she met
through a ' "chat room" ' on America Online.

     Voskuhl  writes in the story that it is not certain  that  Tara's
computer connections played a role in her disappearance.  In the  next
paragraph however:

 "The computer - that's what started this problem," said Norm
    Mayer, chief of the St. Matthews Police Department, which  is
    investigating  the case.  "And that's the only real  lead  we
    have."

[Excuse  me?  What about the Greyhound bus?  Is that not a lead?   Did
Mrs. Noble just pick that out of the air?]

     The  article  goes  on to tell of her  divorced  parents  turning
Tara's  room upside down in search of information.  They  found  tele-
phone  numbers  from  all across the country of people  Tara  had  met
during  the DOZENS OF HOURS SHE SPENT CHATTING ON  COMPUTER  NETWORKS.
[What networks are interfaced with AOL?]  The article has the  obliga-
tory  mention of "...a series of sexually explicit images  that  found
their  way across the Noble family's modem during the DOZENS OF  HOURS
her daughter spent online since April."    Mrs. Noble is quoted in the
article  about  the  images: "I'm like, 'How can this stuff  be  on  a
computer?"'

     During  her  trip across the country Tara stopped  and  used  the
computer to communicate with computer acquaintances through AOL.   Pam
McGraw  of AOL Fame, indicated that AOL was cooperating with  authori-
ties  investigating the Noble case.  McGraw also pointed out that  AOL
provides  "parental  controls"  that allow parents  to  prevent  their
children  from  using chat rooms.  Mrs. Noble said she  did  not  know
about them before her daughter disappeared.

     Tara  spent  so much time on the computer her  mother  eventually
removed the telephone jack Tara was using.  Her father, Sam Noble, was
quoted  in  the  story: "We encouraged her.  We didn't  know  she  was
talking to MEN all across the country."  He further indicated, "People
talk  about the information superhighway - in my opinion, it ought  to
be  regulated."  The article then goes on to tell about the Exon  bill
and  how  one of Kentucky's Senators, Wendell Ford, voted  for  it  in
committee and would vote for it on the floor.

     The end of the article the writer talks about the image appearing
on the screen to signal the computer was busy -- an hourglass, as Mrs.
Noble sat waiting for word of her daughter's whereabouts.



                          SCUM IN CYBERSPACE

Op-Ed Page Editorial - The Courier-Journal - Wednesday June 7, 1995

     The  volume and content of information that reaches  children  in
their  own  homes  makes parenthood ever  more  challenging.   Movies,
television, printed matter -- they can all influence values and  deci-
sions.
     Every major advance in information technology, from the  printing
press to the cellular phone, has been blamed for misleading the young.
Ideas open up new possibilities,  The results are often trying.
     Now comes the computer, with its awesome power to bring likemind-
ed folks together in a strange realm of cyberspace.  And, regrettably,
to serve as a medium for purveyors of pornography.
     The  recent  disappearance of 13-year-old Tara Noble  could,  her
parents  believe, be connected to contact she made in a computer  net-
work "chat room".  It's a realistic -- and frightening -- possibility.
     But the larger society must not let such occurrences stampede  it
into blaming the technology -- which, like every other, is hurtful  as
well as beneficial -- or resorting to censorship.  Such efforts  can't
work.   And  they  run counter to the laws and traditions  of  a  free
nation.
     A  better  idea  is  to manage the machine  better  --  by  using
electronic  wizardry to help parents decide what their  children  have
access  to.   That's no guarantee of safety, but  it's  preferable  to
controls on what all citizens read and see.
     UNSIGNED



The Courier-Journal -- Wednesday June 7, 1995
        DANGER MAY LURK FOR CHILDREN IN ANONYMOUS ONLINE WORLD
                   By Ric Manning, Business Writer

WRITERS  NOTE:  Ric Manning is a friend of mine and writes  for  other
computer  publications  besides the C-J, where you may have  seen  his
byline.   Doesn't  mean  I won't take him to task when I  feel  he  is
wrong, just ask him. [e-mail]


     This article is a general overview of what can happen and some of
the  techno-wizardry  which  can be used by parents  to  help  prevent
children  going where no parent wants them going.  There is also  men-
tion of both the Washington state and Kentucky runaways.

     The  most interesting to me is SURFWATCH a new  $49.95  screening
program  which prevents access to more than 1000 internet  sites  that
contain sexually oriented material.  <800-458-6600>  When my son  gets
older  and begins to surf around a program like that on  his  computer
seems reasonable to me.

     Again  we  get  the comment, this time from  Tara's  mother  that
online  services should be regulated.  The services respond that  par-
ents  must  assume  most of the responsibility  for  their  children's
activities  online.   (See editorial comments at end.)   The  National
Center  for Missing and Exploited Children along with online  services
have  produced  a brochure called  "Child Safety  on  the  Information
Superhighway", which is available online on Compu$erve or through  the
center's hotline: 800-THE-LOST. [What is their online address?]  If  a
CI$  reader would be so kind as to get this and send it in to CuD,  it
would be nice.



           MISSING GIRL, 13, FOUND UNHARMED IN LOS ANGELES
               Monday June 12, 1995 The Courier-Journal
                       Bill Pike, Staff Writer


WRITERS  NOTE:  I am going to do excerpts from this article, but,  not
the entire thing.

Teen's Flight Linked To Online Contacts

     Unharmed but frightened after being away from home for two weeks,
13-year-old  Tara Noble call the FBI in Los Angeles yesterday  from  a
phone  booth on Hollywood Boulevard to say she wanted to return  home.
[Was it Hollywood & Vine?]
     Tara had been missing since May 30, when authorities feared  that
she  had been lured to California through contacts over her home  com-
puter -- perhaps by a man identified only as George in San Francisco.
     Tara was in "excellent health and apparently unharmed," said Dave
Kohl, the agent in charge of FBI operations in Kentucky.
     (Lisa) Noble and her ex-husband, Sam Noble of Pleasure Ridge Park, found
telephone  numbers  from across the country for people  Tara  had  met
while  chatting  on computer networks.  They also turned  up  sexually
explicit  material and a message from George, who wrote, "We  can  run
around our room naked all day and all night."
     Kohl declined to give details of Tara's whereabouts or activities
during  the past two weeks, although he said she had been in  "several
locations".
     He  acknowledged  that  the  computer played  a  role  in  Tara's
disappearance,  and  he said the case shows the need  for  parents  to
supervise their children's use of computers.
     Kohl  said that TARA DOES NOT FACE ANY CHARGES AND THAT  THE  FBI
WILL CONTINUE INVESTIGATING.
     He  added that "significant media coverage" of Tara's  disappear-
ance,  as  well as an extensive investigation, prompted Tara  to  call
authorities.
     A  story  in yesterday's [Sunday June 11, 1995. I would  like  to
have  a  complete hard copy of this article if someone in  l.a.  could
send it via snail mail to me.]  Los Angeles Times featured Tara and  a
15-year-old  Washington  state boy who was reunited with  his  parents
after making an unannounced trip to San Francisco to visit a friend he
had met through his computer.  [What happened to the MAN who had lured
this boy to San Francisco for gay sex?  Now it is an unannounced  trip
to visit a friend.  Can you say media hype?]
     Five FBI field offices worked on Tara's case, interviewing numer-
ous contacts she had made via computer, Kohl said.
     HE  ALSO SAID A "COOPERATIVE CITIZEN" IN SAN  FRANCISCO  NOTIFIED
THE  FBI  THERE YESTERDAY THAT TARA WAS IN LOS ANGELES. [I  guess  you
would  be  cooperative if Special Agents of the FBI came  knocking  on
your door and asking you questions about a 13-year-old runaway girl]



                            EDITORIALIZING

Without  exception  everyone in the community here,  both  online  and
offline, that I have discussed the Tara Nobles case with have said the
same  things.  There are bigger problems in the family than a 13  y.o.
running  away  because of a friend on AOL.    Kids have  been  running
away  to California for as long as I can remember  reading  newspapers
and  that is a few years now, and the fact that Tara met  this  person
via computer makes it different, but certainly not unique.

How come a parent lets a bright student suddenly spend dozens of hours
online?  They got the computer in April and Tara ran away in May.  She
was on AOL.  Lets see 30 days worth of online fees get charged to  the
old  credit  card.  The credit card bill comes in.  Mom nearly  has  a
heart  attack.   Mom  unplugs the telephone line  from  the  computer.
Daughter gets seriously upset.  Daughter decides to go join her online
friend(s)  so she can stay online.  I dunno maybe my thinking here  is
off.

I am consistently and constantly disappointed in the reporting of  the
C-J on most computer stories.  This is no exception.  Voskuhl shows  a
lack  of understanding of the Information Superhighway when he  writes
about Tara chatting on computer networks, after identifying AOL as the
service  provider.  The final paragraph dealing with a mother  waiting
to find out about her runaway daughter and the hourglass was just  too
sticky for my taste.  The Facts, Just the Facts, in a NEWS article.

I appreciate the C-J's support of personal freedom.  I wish they would
just go further with it.  If the Op-Ed page editorial writers were  as
doggedly  determined on protecting all of us from censorship  as  they
are on open records or preventing the building of an interstate bridge
near  the home of the editor of the opinion pages, Keith Runyon,  per-
haps my two senators would get a clue and vote no on Exon's bill.

We  are getting the same government needs to provide control  relative
to  the internet that has come and gone for years on  controlling  TV,
Movies, Music, et.al., vices that children can come in contact with if
not  supervised.  The key is parenting.  My son does not watch  Beavis
and Butthead, although he would love too, nor MTV, nor violent  movies
on  TV.  He does not listen to music I find offensive.  He  has  never
had  a toy gun, although he has made several with his erector set,  or
sticks,  or whatever is convenient and looks close enough to suit  his
needs  at the moment.  The point is I control  his  socio-environment.
That  is parenting.  That is the responsibility you take on  when  you
decide to bring a life into this world.  When he is older and  skilled
enough  I  will get him online.  But, he is not gonna be  reading  the
alt.sex. news groups.  Well certainly not until he figures out how  to
get  around how I have his system set up.  It is not up to Sen.  Exon,
or  the  guvmint, to control the internet, it is up to the  parent  to
take  back control of their family and instill the morals  and  values
that  they  believe  in, not the values of a senator  or  a  president
wannabe or even a vice-presidents wife.

End of Editorial Comments

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:46:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: 4-- Tutorial:  Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd)

Note: Susan Thunder has also promised to write "her side of the story" as
opposed to what is chronicled in Cyberpunk, (Katie Hafner and John Markoff)

David Smith               *  "Where children dare to tread, the footsteps
[e-mail]            *   of censorship are sure to follow"
President, EFF-Austin     *  Fight the Communications Decency Act.
Board of Directors, CTCLU *  Send e-mail to [e-mail] w/ "send info"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [e-mail] (Susan Thunder )
Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.fan.kevin-mitnick
Subject: 5--Tutorial:  Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion
Date: 3 Jun 1995 06:56:25 GMT


What is the difference between "social engineering" vs "psychological
subversion"???

I will be offering a series of tutorials on these subjects, starting
below, but first I would like to post a challenge to all you REAL
superhackers out there:

Back in the days of 8BBS and other early '80's boards, the hacker ethic
was such that one who imagined him/herself to be a superhacker would
PROVE him/herself by the QUALITY of the posts (s)he left.  If a novice
hacker asked a question, those of us who were of the elite pantheon
would all try to outdo each other in a game of one-upsmanship to see
who could post the most informative and/or useful reply!  We
demonstrated our ability by the reliabiltity of the information we
provided to these newcomer queries, and it made for one HELLUVA
competitive and informative BBS.

So here's my challenge:  Instead of all you so-called experts out there
falling all over each other trying to outflame the novices, let's see
you SHOW YOUR STUFF!  Let's let the cream rise to the top, guys/gals!
Let's get this newsgroup back on track--it's a simple fact of life that
there will be a continuing flood of newcomers to the net, so let's work
together instead of against each other!

Let's face it:  If *WE* don't keep an eye on Big Brother, nobody will.
One of the main goals of communism in its efforts to subvert capitalist
society was to sow dissention and mistrust among the more inquisitive
political organizations--could it be that the feds are trying to do the
same to us, a potentially VERY POWERFUL segment of today's cutting-edge
theorists?  ***>DON'T LET THEM WIN!<***  Let's join together and
disseminate information freely rather than withhold it!

-------[Stepping down from the soapbox...]-------

Tutorial:  Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion Part 1

Social Engineering has been defined as the art of manipulating
information out of a given person with a view towards learning
information about or from a given EDP system.  The techniques are
relatively simple, and I will go into greater detail and provide
examples in a future tutorial.  Essentially, the methodology consists
of pulling off a telephone ruse to get the persona at the other end of
the line to give you passwords or read you data off of their computer
screen.  Sometimes the techniques involve intimidation or blackmail.
Again, I will explore these techniques further in my next tutorial, but
first I want to address the differences between Social Engineering (a
lousy, non-descriptive term IMHO) and Psychological Subversion.

Psychological Subversion (PsySub) is a very advanced technique that
employs neural linguistic programming (nlp), subconscious suggestions,
hypnotic suggestions, and subliminal persuasion.  Essentially, you want
to plant the idea in the subject's mind that it's okay to provide you
with the information you seek to obtain.  the precise methods vary
according to the environment, but I will use the Miliary as an example
since they are very easily manipulated as a result of their inherent
compulsion to obey any directive emanating from a higher-ranking
officer.

If you would like to bypass a tempested system housed inside a SCIF
that employs multi-level/multi-keyed encryption methodology, the most
productive method I have ever encountered is to call inot the SCIF on
the appropriate autovon line (DMS-100, what a joke anyway), and firmly
inform the corporal or sergeant that answers the phone that you are
Specialist So-and-so calling on behalf of General such-and-such (the
base commandant is a good choice to use but be sure you use his
secretary's/("Specialist's) real name) and state that the General would
like to know WHY HE CANNOT ACCESS HIS ACCOUNT!  Naturally, the
low-ranking dupe on the other end of the phone line will be much more
concerned about getting into potential trouble by pissing off the
general than he will be concerned about the established security
procedures.

Often-times, it will be necessary to take him step-by-step through the
already obvious (to you) process of explaining WHY the account isn't
"working..."  (The real reason, FYI, is because Top Secret and higher
systems are not supposed to have any external connections to phone
lines outside the SCIF).  What you need to do is talk the dupe through
the process of creating/enabling a remote access line (i.e. dialup),a
nd it helps to have a definable STU-III dataset to exchange encryption
keys with him.  Failing passession of such a device, you just pretend
that you've tried to access the system anyway, and for some reason the
encryption devices aren't handshaking properly.  At this point you
either convince him that he could be in very big trouble for
insubordination if he doesn't cooperate and give the "general"
immediate access, albeit unencrypted, or you can simply have the poor
sod READ you the data off of his screen!  Oftentimes, you can even get
the fool to print out various materials that you would like to view,
and have him mail/deliver/ftp etc these items via another system.

In other words, to bypass encryption, just have a legitimate user read
and print the data you wish to acquire--intimidation works with some
people.  With others you need to flirt.  Some are simply the helpful
type of person who will accomodate your request with very little
fanfare.  In a couple of cases, I have had to play a subliminal tape
over the phone line as I spoke to the subject.  The tape would embed
instructions and reasurrance into the subject's mind on a subconscious
level that they were not even aware of.

Ususally, if there is something you want very badly, it may take
several contacts to build up rapport and level of trust before you
begin to lay the guilt trips on them about "haven't I been a friend to
you?  I might get in BIG trouble if I don't remember the "general's"
password and username.  Please, help me out of this mess..."  You'd be
surprised at how many people fall for this ruse!

Now I have a comment about how certain persons chose to utilize these
very powerful nlp techniques.  For instance, there is a well-known
hacker who is selling (or trying to, anyway) these awesomely powerful
techniques to men who desire to simply get-laid!  What a fucking waste
of time, effort, and talent.  Evidently the man in question has nothing
better to do with this remarkable knowlegde that compromise an already
vulnerable and probably lonely woman...

If this hacker would apply his substantial knowledge on this subject to
a socially useful endeavor, instead of efforts that lead to nothing
more than brief personal satisfaction at the lonely woman's emotional
expense, then HE could be a force to reckon with!

Pleae address questions and comments to the newsgroup and NOT my email
(unless it's very personal) because I would like to see an intelligent
exchange of useful information in this newsgroup again!

Are any of you so-called superhackers up to the challenge of proving
your knowledge and "pedigree" in a public forum where all can see the
results of your effots?  Let's get this group back on track...after
all, we all started somewhere!  Now this flood of aolers and ixers kind
of makes it necessary to slog though alot of crap, but there ARE useful
and informative posts buried within threads that have long since
migrated away from thier origianl intents.

I will post more specific hacks in my next "tutorial!"

REGARDS,
THUNDER  (Susan)


Hey guys:  Please pray for Kevin's early release from jail, and write
to him too if you can!

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message:  SUB CUDIGEST  your name
Send it to  [e-mail]
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CUDIGEST <your name>
Send it to  [e-mail]
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS [phone] (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) [phone].
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  [phone] (ringdown)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS [phone]:291/[e-mail]
         In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS:  [phone]
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  [phone]

  UNITED STATES:  etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8)  in /pub/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)

  JAPAN:          ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/

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 for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they 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 computer culture and communication.  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. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #7.49
************************************