Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD1.iso/cud3/cud306f.txt

Text File | 1992-08-18 | 8.9 KB | 170 lines

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Some Thoughts on Government Actions
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 07:36:12 PST

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.06: File 6 of 6: Some Thoughts on Gov't Actions      ***
********************************************************************

In CuD 2.15, the moderators ask "What is the relationship between law
enforcement and the media?"  Later, they state "One of our goals is to
expand their literacy." I have combined (and slightly modified) these two
ideas and arrived at the central theme of this article.

THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

We of the CU tend to see our cyberworld as an extension of the real world.
Even the terminology in use among computer folks supports this.  By merely
sitting at your system and striking keys or manipulating your rodent, you
can "enter" another system, "take" or "move" files and programs.

Beyond the way we picture these things and the terminology we use, the
courts have enacted laws (at all levels of government) that give a legal
basis to the idea that the whole of a computer file is more than merely the
sum of its individual electronic bits.

Let's look at this idea from another angle.  No one will dispute that an
author should be able to copyright a book or that an inventor should be
able to patent a widget.  But what is a program (or text file) other than a
new means of representing the author's printed word or the work of a clever
inventor?  So, aside from a few subtle issues (thoughtfully discoursed by
the likes of Dark Adept, Offer Inbar, David Daniels, et al), we all agree
on the need for laws that protect electronic property and privacy just as
we have laws that protect personal property and privacy.

THE ABUSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES (LEAs)

As a self-styled libertarian, it makes me sick to read about the continued
abuses perpetrated by overzealous LEAs upon the members of the computing
community.  I am an optimist at heart and I find it hard to believe that
the people who work in these LEAs are as vindictive, or at least as
ignorant, as they at first glance appear.  As ever more reports of their
abuses mount, however, I find it hard to maintain a positive attitude.  No
reader of this journal needs to be reminded of all the LEA abuses of the
last few years.  Two acts, however, stand out in my mind as worth
recounting.

The first involves the seizure of, among many other things of questionable
use to an investigation, a laser printer at Steve Jackson Games.  The
reason given buy the US Secret Service (SS) for its confiscation was that
it had RAM.  One of two things must be true here.  Either the agents
serving the warrant were so ignorant of computer technology that they
believed that printer RAM could be used in illegal activities (in which
case they shouldn't have been working on this type of case), or the seizure
of the printer was committed as a punitive act against the EMPLOYER of a
SUSPECTED perpetrator of a criminal act.  If the latter is the case, and I
believe it is, then it is an utterly reprehensible (and possibly illegal)
act.

The second act that stands out in my mind is the use by the SS of a paid,
volunteer informant in the E911 case.  The details about the exact nature
of how the SS used this informant are not yet clear.  From what is
currently known, however (see CuD 3.02), it appears that the SS's use of
this miscreant borders very closely on entrapment.  I won't even get myself
started commenting on the kind of detestable SLIME that would *volunteer*
to due this kind of work.

AN EXAMINATION OF WHAT MOTIVATES LEA'S

To say that LEAs have been overzealous in their investigations of computer
crime is a gross understatement.  It won't do us any good merely to point
fingers at the first "bad guy" we see; identifying the culprit won't solve
the problem.  We need to look beyond the immediate problem; we need to look
at the underlying causes of the problem if we are to discover what we can
do to improve the situation.

LEAs are run by Directors who sit in Washington fighting for funds with
which to run their organizations.  Inasmuch, they are heavily influenced by
politicians on Capitol Hill who are, in turn, primarily influenced by
public opinion.  Now, on the subject of computer crime (among many others),
the public is predominantly influenced by the media.  Therein lies the
problem.

The media have seldom shied away from writing about a subject, even when
the facts are slim or when their understanding of an issue is nil.  This
becomes painfully apparent when you read articles about computer crime,
viruses, hackers, etc.

Until last year, I worked in security, concentrating on computer security.
I considered it a professional responsibility to read every article I could
find on topics relating to computer security.  With few exceptions, these
articles merely rehashed material from previous articles, perpetuated
misconceptions, and consistently fed the public hysteria that computer
hackers were hell-bent on destroying Western Civilization.

I am reminded of a line from the movie Ghostbusters.  After informing the
group that it would be "bad" to cross the beams on their nuclear
accelerators, Egon is asked to define "bad."  "Imagine every molecule in
your body exploding at the speed of light" he explains, "and all life as we
know it ceasing to exist."  It is in just such a manner that the media
portrays the issue of computer crime.

So that is the scenario:  A uninformed media has whipped an ignorant public
into a frenzy.  The public puts pressure on politicians (who are
genetically incapable of accepting responsibility) who, in turn, pressure
LEAs for results.  LEAs, no more computer literate than the media or
public, react by seeking immediate results.  Civil rights are trodden upon.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

The underlying theme in the scenario that I have described is ignorance or
a lack of even a minimal amount of computer literacy.  The media, the
public, and the LEAs are all ignorant of the technologies, as well as the
associated social issues, relevant to this matter.  These social issues in
particular can only be truly appreciated and understood by those with a
level of computer literacy that is plainly absent in most of the parties to
this problem.

I have now stretched the blame for this problem from the LEAs, to
politicians, and on to the media and public.  But the responsibility for
the problem does not entirely end there.  A good argument can be made that
we in the computing community, too, must take a measure of responsibility.
For too long we have been content to live in our own little piece of
cyberspace, enjoying the blinding pace of advances in computing
technologies, and ignoring the problems and issues that accompanied these
technologies.  We can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch.  These
issues are real, they affect us all, and we must all work to solve them.

WHAT WE CAN DO

So what can we, as individuals, do to help solve this problem?  If you
accept the premise that a lack of computer literacy (including the related
social issues) is the underlying problem, then the answer is clear.  It is
incumbent upon us to educate the uneducated.  In summing up his article in
CUD 2.15, Dark Adept enjoined us to help out the EFF, fight for our rights
using only legal means, not to hack security but to build public access
systems, and to expose the truth every chance we get.  I couldn't agree
with him more.

In his excellent book "The Cuckoo's Egg", Cliff Stoll makes the point that
the mere *impression* of computer crime endangers the thin veil of trust
upon which most networks are built.  We cannot be content with merely
maintaining current networks, we need to encourage creation of more and
larger networks.  We must lead exemplary electronic lives; we cannot
tolerate criminal activity or any other activity that puts at risk our
access to information networks.

Beyond this, however, we must strive to educate all others involved with
this issue:  the media, the public, and the government.  "But that's
everyone!", you say?  That's right.  We have to do our best to raise
everyone's level of computer literacy to the point where the average Joe
(or Jane) on the street would experience the same level of disgust as the
rest of us at acts such as the seizure of a laser printer.

IN SUMMARY

So there it is.  We must continue to discuss these issues (hats off to
CUD), keep our electronic delvings legal, and educate the world.  The first
two are easy.  Educating the world will be the real challenge.  To once
again quote Dark Adept, "The only way to conclusively affect the existence
of the underground is to affect society."

********************************************************************

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

                           **END OF CuD #3.06**
********************************************************************