Hacker Chronicles 2 (Alt)/The_Hacker_Chronicles_Volume_II-CD2.iso/cud3/cud311b.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 7.2 KB | 164 lines

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

From: Ah, Sordid
Subject: From the Mailbag
Date: 4 April, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.11: File 2 of 5: From the Mailbag                    ***
********************************************************************

From:         John Mignault <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Eagle's Nest Bust
Date:         Fri, 29 Mar 91 15:01:10 EST

>Date:         Fri, 29 Mar 91 10:38:56 EST
>Reply-To:     PMC-Talk <[e-mail]>
>Sender:       PMC-Talk <[e-mail]>
>From:         Editors of PmC <[e-mail]>
>Subject:      Impounding Computers
>To:           John Mignault <[e-mail]>
>
>From: Christopher Amirault <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Boston Eagle's Nest bust
>Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 13:55:51 CST
>
>I haven't seen anything about this on any lists, so if you want to post
>it elsewhere, feel free.
>
>In the March 11-17, 1991 edition of _Gay Community News_, the paper
>reported that Alden Baker was arrested March 1 on rape charges.  Baker
>was the monitor of a list called "Boston Eagle's Nest," which allowed
>for the sharing of various s&m stories, fantasies, etc.
>
>The Middlesex County MA DA's office has seized the computer, and there
>is some concern that the mailing list on it will be made public or be
>handed over to the FBI or something.  Needless to say, this could be
>the start of something bad.
>
>I haven't heard any more news (I don't subscribe to GCN), but I would
>be interested to hear any other info people can get.
>
>I don't know if you've heard anything about this (first I've heard of it), but
>this seems to put a new slant on underground activity, in that it's not so much
>hacker-oriented as it is concerned with obscenity issues...

John Mignault
[e-mail]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Letter to San Jose Mercury News on Len Rose
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:00:28 PST

March 25, 1991

San Jose Mercury News

Dear Editor:

Last Friday's Washington Post bylined story, "'Hacker' pleads guilty
in AT&T case" presented only the prosecutor's and ATT's side of an
issue which has serious implications for the press.

The "crime" for which Leonard Rose, Jr. faces a year and a day in jail
was that of creating a simple example of how a few-hundred-line login
program (a program which allows access) for ATT's Unix system could be
modified to collect passwords, and sending this example over state
lines to the editor of Phrack, an electronic magazine.

Whether Len's example was to instruct criminals on how to obtain
continued access after an initial breakin, or if it was to warn system
operators to look for modified login programs, his intent is not an
issue.  Either case is protected under the First Amendment, or mystery
stories would be illegal.

Pointing out security weaknesses in Unix is certainly a legitimate
function of the press.  The entire phone system and countless other
life- or property-critical computers use this operating system,
designed to be portable (runs on many types of computers) and not
secure.  ATT, of course, prefers that discussion of weaknesses in Unix
be suppressed by getting the government to call them "interstate wire
fraud."  To enlist the computer-ignorant, but long, arm of the law,
they inflated the value of a few hundred lines of trivial code to
$77,000, just as Southern Bell inflated the value of a document
available for $13 to over $79,000 in a related case the government
lost against Craig Neidorf, the editor of Phrack.

The big difference between the cases was that Neidorf had parents who
were able to mortgage their house for the six-figure legal bills, and
Rose had been reduced by ATT and the legal system to abject poverty.
In both cases the message has been sent:  "face jail time or financial
ruin if you expose phone company documents to the press."

Sincerely,

H. Keith Henson

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: The Works BBS Admin <works![e-mail]>
Subject: Is hacking the same as Breaking and Entering?
Date:      Mon, 01 Apr 91 17:58:17 EDT

In response to the question: "Is computer hacking the same as B&E?"

Not by far. Breaking and entering has malicious intent, and usually is
solely to steal things and/or hurt something. Hacking although
portrayed negatively in the press is not like this at all. It is
merely looking around at what is in various systems, and learning from
it. Occasionally someone deletes a file by mistake. A bad apple
meanders in from the the cold and does some harm, but the majority of
hackers (in my opinion) are not trying to hurt anything, and only
allow themselves a little room to look at, and possible a small chair
to sit in from time to time...  Say you find an unknown account
mysteriously pop up? Why not find out who it is, and what they are
looking for first, because as odds go, if they got in there once,
they can do it again, no matter what you do.

So Breaking and Entering cannot even be classified in the same manner
at all.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Dave Ferret          <works![e-mail]>
Subject: Computers and Freedom of Speech
Date:      Tue, 02 Apr 91 23:35:48 EDT

In response to an article in CuD 3.09 on computer publications...

What gives people the right to censor and deem something illegal in
the electronic media when paper, TV, radio, and the spoken word is
perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment.

Q: Shouldn't electronic publications be protected under the same
article of the constitution that allows free presses?

A: Most definitly. The question now is why aren't they?

I have no real clue but this is all I can fragment together... That
people are afraid of people who are 'electronically' inclined and that
if sensitive information reaches say 100 people on an electronic
publication, what is to stop them from giving away all the inside
secrets? Its the same old story. The egregious behavior of the
authorities (Secret Service, et al) is ludicrous. Wouldn't the
reprint in a written publication (hard copy) of PHRACK24 (The E911
issue as it has been known so well for) be perfectly legal, except for
possibly a small copyright infringement? (They shoved a lot more
charges at him than copyright infringement... Mildly..)

So when does it change? Are computer publications covered? Look at
2600, I'm sure they printed even more sensitive things in the past and
I don't see anyone dragging them in... When will people realize we are
entitled to freedom of speech. We have the right to say what we want,
and disagree. That is what was guaranteed to us in the first amendment
of the constitution. The question has been raised... Why are there
different laws governing computers and the physical world? Is this
double standard just? No, on both counts.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************