The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud342.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 39.9 KB | 811 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun, Nov 30, 1991   Volume 3 : Issue 41

       Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])

CONTENTS, #3.42 ( November 30, 1991)
File 1-- Moderators' Corner
File 2-- CPSR FOIAs Secret Service
File 3-- Responses to CPSR's FOIA Requests
File 4-- Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong

Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news
group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG,
and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414)
789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.132),
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au.  To use the U. of
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
quotes) to [e-mail].

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 as long as the source
is cited.  Some authors do copyright their material, 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 the
Computer Underground.  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.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 91 9:39:58 EST
From: Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1-- Moderators' Corner

We promised Sheldon Zenner's response to Bill Cook's opening statement
in the Phrack/Knight Lightning trial, but a backlog of material will
delay it for about two issues. This issue is devoted to the revelation
of Secret Service covert surveillance of legal public activity
announced by CPSR (see Craig Neidorf's file below). A lively
discussion appeared in Telecom Digest (to subscribe via e-mail,
contact moderator Pat Townson at:  [e-mail]), which we
reprint for the many readers who lack Usenet access.

From information slowly emerging from FOIA requests by CPSR, Glen
Roberts (publisher of _Full Disclosure_), and CuD, it appears that the
Secret Service clearly overstepped its bounds. Gordon Meyer, co-editor
of CuD, was investigated as a "hacker" on the basis of his association
with "suspected hackers" when collecting information for his M.A.
thesis. It is clear from released files that Secret Service
investigators had little understanding of what the information they
obtained, and this led to exaggerated interpretations and demonizing
of activity that was otherwise legal.

Because cyberspace is a new frontier in which the norms and laws
governing it are still emerging, it is crucial that the limits
establishing what law enforcement may or may not do in the new frontier
be examined and debated. For those who feel that Constitutional
protections should extent into computer-mediated communication, the
Secret Service actions are of special concern.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 16:51:43 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2-- CPSR FOIAs Secret Service

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

Craig Neidorf - Washington Intern
Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Suite 303
Washington, D.C.  20003
[phone] Voice
[phone] FAX

     *** Attribute no comment contained in this message to the     ***
     *** Electronic Frontier Foundation unless explicited stated!  ***

The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has
raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the agency's
"computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to CPSR
reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent across
the Internet.  The materials released through the FOIA include copies
of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups including
"comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground Digest"
(alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom Technical
Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "Telecom  Digest (comp.dcom.
telecom)".  Currently, there is no clear policy for the monitoring of
network communications by law enforcement agents.  A 1982 internal FBI
memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider monitoring on a
case by case basis.  That document was released as a result of a
separate CPSR lawsuit against the FBI.

Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New Jersey
passed copies of Telecom Digest to the Secret Service.

The material (approximately 2500 pages) also suggests that the Secret
Service's seizure of computer bulletin boards and other systems may
have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and
the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

Two sets of logs from a computer bulletin board in Virginia show that
the Secret Service obtained messages in the Spring of 1989 by use of
the system administrator's account.  It is unclear how the Secret
Service obtained system administrator access.  It is possible that the
Secret Service accessed this system without authorization.  The more
likely explanation is that the agency obtained the cooperation of the
system administrator.  Another possibility is that this may have been
a bulletin board set up by the Secret Service for a sting operation.
Such a bulletin board was established for an undercover investigation
involving pedophiles.

The documents we received also include references to the video taping
of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in St.
Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend the
conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.  The
documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
each individual.

CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation
concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret
Service.  These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA
lawsuits and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal
agencies in the course of such investigations.

For additional information, contact:

     [e-mail] (David Sobel)

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 91 10:44: 41 CST
From: Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Responses to CPSR (Reprinted from Telecom Digest)

((Moderators' note: The following responses to the CPSR FOIA notice
appeared in Telecom Digest. The posts raise crucial issues of
monitoring public behavior in the grey area of legitimate
investigation and unacceptable law enforcement behavior).

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 15:43:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service

In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]> tells of
efforts by the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility to
seek out evidence of U.S. Secret Service activity relating to
investigations that agency has undertaken. TELECOM Digest was
mentioned as one electronic journal apparently examined as part of one
or more investigations. Perhaps Craig thought that seeing this journal
in the agency's files would somehow excite (or incite?) me to action.
Well, he is right. I was motivated to write this response.

> The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for Social
> Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request has
> raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the agency's
> "computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to CPSR
> reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent across the
> Internet.

Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in
cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it
is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided
that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are
the various e-journals and newsgroups.

Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

>   The materials released through the FOIA include copies of
> many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups including
> "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground Digest"
> (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom Technical
> Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.
> telecom)".

Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

> Currently, there is no clear policy for the monitoring
> of network communications by law enforcement agents.  A 1982 internal
> FBI memorandum indicated that the Bureau would consider monitoring on a
> case by case basis.

Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'?  That which is available
to the public is available to anyone, including employees of
government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling
it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why
can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the
same way and report the matter?  Or conversely, why can't any member
of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by
it and forget the matter.

> Additionally, we have found papers that show Bell Labs in New
> Jersey passed copies of TELECOM Digest to the Secret Service.

FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of
people associated with various government agencies, including the
Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from
people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy
and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications
in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid
and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will
share their understanding and ideas with others.

If Craig's implication here is that there was something sneaky about
the passing of the Digest to the Secret Service, then he is entitled
to think that way; my answer is that had I known someone at Bell Labs
was going to all that trouble (passing along issues of the Digest) I
would have added the names of the interested parties to the matrix
here, or started yet another expansion mailing list (there are
currently over 100 such expansion mailing lists serviced from the main
list here).

> Another possibility is that this may have been a bulletin board set
> up by the Secret Service for a sting operation.  Such a bulletin board
> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles.

I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles.

>      The documents we received also include references to the video
> taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in
> St. Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend
> the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.

Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely
and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the
eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a
camera for strictly that reason alone.

> The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
> database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
> contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
> associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
> each individual.

Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
interests like your own ....:)

> CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation
> concerning computer crime investigations conducted by the Secret
> Service.  These efforts include the litigation of several FOIA lawsuits
> and attempts to locate individuals targeted by federal agencies in the
> course of such investigations.

Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do
not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may
speak for various readers of the Digest who have asked you to
represent them or speak for them. I have no problem whatsoever with
the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I
publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it.

> For additional information, contact:
> [e-mail] (David Sobel)

By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
the right to participate in any public forum.
Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it
once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists.

Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 21:09 EST
From: Paul Coen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service

Sorry, Pat.  While I often agree with what you say, I'm going to have
to disagree on a few points here.

> Since the Internet is a government-owned and managed resource in
> cooperation with numerous publicly funded institutions and others, it
> is fair game for anyone who wishes to 'monitor' its traffic, provided
> that traffic is intended for public consumption and display, as are
> the various e-journals and newsgroups.

That's a matter of perception.  My description is that the Internet
started as a DARPA project, and quickly grew.  Now, only a portion of
it is under government control.  The international sites certainly
aren't.  While I agree that the federal government has a vested
interest in what's on the .mil and .gov sites, or what is going over
lines that the federal government is paying for, that's not a whole
lot of the net these days.  I'd certainly stop short of saying that it
is "government owned."

> Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
> network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
> e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
> Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

You're right -- anyone is free, including the Secret Service.  More on
this later, as this actually raises questions about the Secret
Service's behavior.

> Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
> problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it
could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation?

> Well, why should there be a 'clear policy'?  That which is available
> to the public is available to anyone, including employees of
> government agencies. If I can read it, take offense to it and (feeling
> it might be a criminal action) report it to authorities, then why
> can't an employee of the Secret Service read something here, feel the
> same way and report the matter?  Or conversely, why can't any member
> of the public read something here, be disinterested in it or bored by
> it and forget the matter.

This is a tough issue -- if the net is considered "public behavior,"
and statements made here are not criminal in nature (none in TELECOM
Digest have been to date -- ie, no credit card numbers :), then why
should it end up in a Secret Service file?  Doesn't it then become
government monitoring legal public activities/statements by citizens?
Sorry, that's a bit too much like a police state for my liking, in
flavor if not degree.

> FYI, I have numerous names on the mailing matrix for TELECOM Digest of
> people associated with various government agencies, including the
> Secret Service, the IRS and many others. I ask for one thing from
> people who wish to subscribe: an interest in telecommunications policy
> and practice; and an enthusiasm for understanding telecommunications
> in an intellectually and ethically honest way. I specifically forbid
> and repudiate copyright of TELECOM Digest in the hopes people will
> share their understanding and ideas with others.

Do you really think the people who placed those excerpts in the files
were interested in telecom issues?  Or in who was saying what?  Not
the people who passed them on, but the "investigators."  (Using the
term loosely -- Foley certainly wasn't much of an investigator IMO.)

> Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
> interests like your own ....:)

Of course, who knows how many people are in that database that
shouldn't be -- considering that the Secret Service seemed to think
that the statement that Kermit is a file transfer protocol used on
mainframes was so serious.  I'm surprised that they haven't busted
Digital Press and confiscated the MS-Kermit User's Guide :).

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
> the right to participate in any public forum.

The problem is that you are dealing with two different entities here.
On the one hand, you have the individual government employee, who has
a right to participate in a public forum, and on the other, you have a
governmental investigation agency, represented by that individual.

Unless it clearly relates to the commission of a crime, or it falls
under the heading of "expert opinion," relating to an issue under
investigation (and no copyrights are violated), the government should
not be placing legal, public statements in the record of a criminal
investigation is out of line.  Sure, they can read it -- but to place
it in that file implies that there is something wrong with the
statement.  Considering law-enforcement infiltration of legal lobbying
groups who disagree with policy, and other abuses, you really have to
wonder who is more paranoid -- extreme privacy advocates who would
deny the government any role, or the agents of the government.  These
folks really seem to feel that anyone is a potential threat.  And
winding up, even by accident or chance, in one of their files is not a
trivial matter.  It can cost you security clearance, it can cost you a
job, a promotion, or an appointment.

It's very easy for a paper-pusher to get the idea that "it's all
criminals on these here groups," based on the appearance of excerpts
in files (why else would they be there -- remember Ed Meese's
"innocent people aren't accused of crimes" comment?) -- so anyone who
posts must not be trustworthy.  The government understanding of the
net is not yet mature enough to assume that they're not going to react
that way.  So far, they've been pretty predictable.

Paul Coen,   [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 01:09 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service

On Nov 23 at 16:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> I have no problem whatsoever with
> the Secret Service or any other government agency reading what I
> publish here. They don't have to sneak around reading it.

They why do they behave in this manner? The fact is they DO sneak
around when indeed getting a subscription would be no problem at all.
After dealing with FBI and telco security types for the past couple of
years, I have come to believe that they would figure out a complex and
covert way to glean some information even if it was painted in
ten-foot high letters on Shasta Dam.

The fact of the matter is that many of these gum shoes are in way over
their heads on a lot of this computer stuff and it is a full time job
to keep from looking like the horse's ass. And most of the time they
are not successful. Secret Service and FBI types have no idea what is
"sensitive" and what is garbage. I have seen agents pore over
documents in a case that I would not even fish out of the trash. Most
amusing was watching a telco security person fawn over a box of
"evidence" that was filled with stuff supposedly "stolen" from
Pac*Bell that I would pay you to remove from my garage. It was garbage
that even Pac*Bell has not used in any way for over thirty years.

Unlike Patrick, I have little or no faith and confidence in law
enforcement when it comes to "hackers". Even the "experts" I have met
on that side of the fence tend to drool a bit and would have not a
clue concerning who and what was "dangerous" or not. For all the
seizures and raids that have occurred we have seen precious little in
terms of court action and that which actually has landed in court has
proven my point.

It is unfortunate that more enlightenment has not managed to find its
way into government's enforcement arm in the form of knowledgeable
personnel. But what can you expect when even the laws dealing with
these "crimes" are confusing and inadequate. You have policemen
enforcing laws they do not understand, serving warrants issued by
judges who have not a clue, and occasionally, courts dispensing
justice in the dark.

Until you have personally witnessed the wheels of enforcement and
justice grind away on the field of computers and telecommunications,
you cannot grasp the pitiful nature of these processes, nor comprehend
the damage that is being done to rights and protections that we all
used to take for granted. I cannot believe that Patrick would be so
gung-ho on this matter if he could see the reality of what he
euphemistically refers to as "enforcement" and "justice". It could not
be a bigger joke.

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users.

Surely you cannot be referring to any of the efforts to date. I have
personally looked into many of these efforts, some in great detail,
and am horrified at what misguided efforts these are. To be honest,
these efforts are also as ineffective as they are unnecessarily harsh.

> I do not support organizations which would deny the government
> the right to participate in any public forum.

Since when is sneaking around obtaining covert copies of a forum's
output "participation"? I support organizations that strive to ensure
that the government operate within the framework of laws and the
constitution, regardless of how "important" and "urgent" the matters
under investigation may be represented by that government.

> Email is a whole different matter ... notice I have not mentioned it
> once today. I am talking about newsgroups and public mailing lists.

A thin line, to be sure. A line that most (if not all) enforcement
agencies have no problem crossing.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:22:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service

Pat's rebuttal to Craig Neidorf's article fits my perspective 100%
when it comes to using a public access media such as Usenet.  I feel
that if I put something onto it, then I'm willing to have anyone read
what I want to say.

Conversely, if I don't want anyone to see it, then I don't post it.

Good show, Pat.

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

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 11:52:16 EST

Pat writes:

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more
> information, but  as for myself, I support government efforts to
> crack down on computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by
> unauthorized users. I do not support organizations which would deny
> the government the right to participate in any public forum.

It should be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has never
argued that there is a principled rationale for denying the government
access to public forums. Moreover, both EFF and CPSR have hosted
public forums on computer crime, civil liberties, and privacy matters
at which government representatives have been informative and
enthusiastic participants.

> But let me make it perfectly clear you do not speak for Patrick
> Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may speak for various
> readers of the Digest who have asked you to represent them or speak
> for them.

This seems to me to be an odd comment. I don't know of anyone,
including Craig Neidorf, who has claimed to "speak for" TELECOM Digest
or Pat Townson.

You seem to be expressing opposition to CPSR's efforts to find out the
contours of the government's efforts to fight computer crime. This
surprises me, since I'd have thought that anyone in a democratic
society would be interested in knowing how the government is spending
our tax money -- not to mention whether some of its efforts might affect
the exercise of the Constitutional right to free speech in a public
forum.

[Telecom Moderator's Note: Readers who are interested in more information
about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and/or membership should
contact Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael A. Covington)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 91 19:08:46 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig
Neidorf) writes:

>     The Secret Service's response to Computer Professionals for
> Social Responsibility's (CPSR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
> request has raised new questions about the scope and conduct of the
> agency's "computer crime" investigations.  The documents disclosed to
> CPSR reveal that the Secret Service monitored communications sent
> across the Internet.  The materials released through the FOIA include
> copies of many electronic newsletters, digests, and Usenet groups
> including "comp.org.eff.talk," "comp.sys.att," "Computer Underground
> Digest" (alt.cud.cu-digest)," "Effector Online," "Legion of Doom
> Technical Journals," "Phrack Newsletter," and "TELECOM Digest
> (comp.dcom.telecom)".  Currently, there is no clear policy for the
> monitoring of network communications by law enforcement agents.

Two of these are unfamiliar to me, but all the rest are forums which
everyone is welcome to read.  You might as well complain that the
Secret Service reads your local newspaper.

Seriously, I am concerned about possible violations of people's rights
by over-zealous agents.  But reading comp.dcom.telecom hardly counts
as snooping!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Coen) writes:

>> Anyone is free -- even members of CPSR -- to interconnect with this
>> network and read the newsgroups or subscribe to the various
>> e-journals. Craig makes it sound, in his context, like the Secret
>> Service did something wrong. In this instance, they did not.

>> Well I don't know about those other guys mentioned here, but I have no
>> problem with TELECOM Digest being in anyone's files.

> Yes, but did all of the people who made contributions realize that it
> could end up in a file pertaining to a Secret Service investigation?

This is something we have had a hard time hammering into the heads of
the users here at the University of Georgia.  A newsgroup is a public
forum.  Posting something in a newsgroup is like publishing it in a
major newspaper.  The person posting it should expect that it will be
read by practically anybody anywhere.

"I've just posted this for 100,000 people, but don't tell anybody!" is
unfortunately a common attitude.  People seem to think that the
newsgroups are some kind of underground society where everyone is
sworn to secrecy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: CPSR FOIAs U.S. Secret Service
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 21:27:49 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> telecom (TELECOM Moderator)
writes:

> In TELECOM Digest V11 #953, Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]> tells of

 ...Long inclusion deleted, consult the previous articles...

I think Pat is attacking a straw man here.  Craig Neidorf's posting
offered no evaluation of the purpose, danger, or legality of the
included material; Pat only assumed that CPSR/CN/EFF object to the
government keeping such files.  A more appropriate response would be
"why should this matter?", since no reason for caring was offered.
I'll offer two reasons I care:

1) Further evidence that the government investigators are operating in
the dark.

2) The use by demagogues of "presence in a file" as evidence for
guilt.  "Ah, yes, Mr. Townson, but we have seen your name in the FBI's
computer crimes file.  Now stop telling us you don't know any credit
card thiefs."  This tactic is the reason the John Birch society used
to send out postcards accusing people of being communists.  The
postcards were sometimes used by HUAC as evidence of guilt.  Among the
people who were the subject of such postcards were John Kenneth
Galbraith and Amitai Etzioni (they weren't investigated by HUAC).

>> was established for an undercover investigation involving pedophiles.

> I think that's an admirable goal ... investigating pedophiles.

On the surface.  I must admit that I know next to nothing about
pedophilia.  However, I'm fairly certain that it is a condition
requiring treatment more than a crime requiring punishment.  And it
seems likely to me that the Secret Service's bulletin board would very
likely be an entrapment; would very likely result in the arrest of
people who never touch a child despite their condition; and almost
certainly will do nothing whatsoever to contribute to the safety of
children.  On the other hand, an investigation of the Diocese of
Chicago would, it seems, be of great value.  For some reason, that
investigation has not yet begun.

>> The documents we received also include references to the video
>> taping of SummerCon, a computer hackers conference that took place in
>> St. Louis in 1988.  The Secret Service employed an informant to attend
>> the conference and placed hidden cameras to tape the participants.

> Well again, a public event is a public event. It was advertised widely
> and people were invited to attend. That which can be seen with the
> eyes does not become forbidden to view later through the lens of a
> camera for strictly that reason alone.

Not all events at a conference are public.  Most of the interesting
work goes on in private meeting rooms and bedrooms.  People have a
right to privacy where they might reasonably expect it; if a meeting
room is labelled private, taping there would violate privacy.  Taping
in anyone's hotel room would certainly be a violation of privacy,
lacking the permission of the people present.  It has been a long time
since Summercon '88 was a current topic, but I recall that the taping
occurred in someone's hotel room.

>> The documents also show that the Secret Service established a computer
>> database to keep track of suspected computer hackers.  This database
>> contains records of names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, known
>> associates, a list of activities, and various articles associated with
>> each individual.

> Not that you would ever keep any computer database of people with
> interests like your own ....:)

Again, no evaluation of the data was offered, Pat.  You're barking at
the mailman.  The point was to give a clear idea of the amount of effort
the Secret Service has expended.  I would expect them to construct
such a database.  What concerns me is the quality of information in
the database.

I think CPSR's efforts are clearly worthwhile.

>> CPSR is continuing its efforts to obtain government documentation

> Fine ... you do your thing. But let me make it perfectly clear you do
> not speak for Patrick Townson and/or TELECOM Digest, although you may

> By all means, dear readers, contact CPSR if you want more information,
> but as for myself, I support government efforts to crack down on
> computer crime, and electronic invasion of computers by unauthorized
> users. I do not support organizations which would deny the government
>the right to participate in any public forum.

The straw is flying now!

Of course the government has a right to participate in c.d.t, and to
record articles.  Of course it should crack down on computer crime,
provided that in so doing it respects the Constitution and the law,
and provided (1) that the crackdown is directed at substantial crimes,
not at teenage pranks that should be dealt with by parents and
relevant local authorities, and (2) that the crackdown has some chance
of success.

The problem with Secret Service efforts is that they SEEM to be a
bunch of Keystone Kops.  Since they are apparently unable to approach
the real problems, they are spending time collecting massive
quantities of irrelevant material to pad their files.  I suspect that
they are also padding their suspect lists, which makes the matter of
their database of suspected hackers AND ASSOCIATES a bit of a worry.

One might ask, "How SHOULD the SS proceed?"  My prescription: for
decades there have been persistent rumors of computer thefts by
insiders.  The perpetrators, once caught by their employers, would be
let go for minimal restitution and silence.  The SS should track some
of those rumors down, and if any turn up correct, prosecute.  The
effort, of course, would be substantial.  The probability of success
is not 100%.  But, by all accounts known to me, this is the best way
to get at the real bulk of computer crime.

[Telecom Moderator's Note: One glaring inaccuracy in your response was your
comment that 'an investigation of (pedophilia in) the Archdiocese of
Chicago would be of great value and it has not begun.' The truth here
is that following several detailed articles in the %Chicago Sun Times%,
the %Chicago Reader%, a couple articles by myself in misc.legal which
drew considerable attention, and several news reports on television,
the 'pedophilia problem' in the Archdiocese of Chicago WAS investigated
at the church level and IS being investigated by the Cook County State's
Attorney now. During the past two weeks, six priests have been removed
from their positions, and more are expected to be removed soon.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 91 01:20 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 4-- Why Covert Surveillance is Wrong

Criticism of Craig Neidorf's report of CPSR's investigation into
Secret Service covert surveillance of net-media, use of informants,
and other intrusive observations justifies law enforcement actions on
several grounds, including:

1) Anything public is fair game for covert surveillance.
2) People with nothing to hide shouldn't worry about what they say in
   public.
3) Computer crime isn't cool, and the government has both the right
   and the responsibility to target evil-doers.  Therefore, law
   enforcement need not have clear policies circumscribing the limits
   of covert intrusion.

First, it is categorically false that *anything* done in public is
fair game for covert surveillance. As anybody from the Chicago area
should know, Judge Getzendammer (US District Court, Northern District)
made it quite clear in several rulings against the Chicago police in
political surveillance cases that covert surveillance of lawful
activity in public is not to be tolerated in a free society. Further,
anybody with even a high school civics knowledge of covert
surveillance in the US understands the distinction between legitimate
participation in a public event and participating in that event for
the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and storing information on
law-abiding citizens.

Scrounging through Usenet traffic to compile dossiers on people not
under investigation for wrongdoing is as reprehensible as targeting
license plate numbers from cars in a parking lot at an anti-nukes
rally as a way of creating a list of possible "subversives." Frank
Donner's _Protectors of Privilege_ lays out the the historical
consequences of and responses to covert law enforcement surveillance.
Blanket intrusion by agents into Constitutionally protected realms
that include freedom of speech, privacy, and assembly, are not only a
demonstrable threat to democracy -- they are not generally tolerated
by the courts.

Second, while law enforcement agents have every right to read whatever
public document they wish, this misses the point. It is not that
agents subscribe to and/or read documents. The point is what they do
with what they read. A 1977 class action suit against the Michigan
State Police learned, through FOIA requests, that state and federal
agents would peruse letters to the editor of newspapers and collect
clippings of those whose politics they did not like. These news
clippings became the basis of files on those persons that found there
way into the hands of other agencies and employers. The preliminary
CPSR information suggests that the Secret Service is conducting their
investigation in an analogous manner. This has a chilling effect on
free speech that is arguably (judging from court cases) not only
illegal, but dangerous. As somebody wrote in CuD recently:

     The basis of a democratic society rests on the ability of
     citizens to openly discuss competing ideas, challenge political
     power and assemble freely with others.  These fundamental First
     Amendment rights are subverted when, through neglect, the state
     fails to protect them.

Covert collection of information, whether from TELECOM Digest, CuD, or
newspaper editorials, and the subsequent compilation of secret
dossiers moves us from a democracy to a police state.  The issue isn't
whether any specific person has something to hide, but rather whether
somebody might, because of secret information gathering, wish they had
hidden what they had previously said.  We shouldn't have to worry
about whether what we say pleases law enforcement lest we become
entries in some database of undesireables.

Finally, few people disagree with the claim that computer crime is
wrong. But, because a given behavior is wrong hardly justifies carte
blanche to investigate that behavior. The government should have clear
policies about the scope of surveillance because it protects *all*
citizens from the dangers of intrusion by law enforcement into
Constitutionally protected behavior.  Like gravity, specific
limitations on covert intrusion by law enforcement into our lives
isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

Computer-mediated communication is relatively new, and the law has not
caught up with changing technology. CPSR should be commended for its
efforts to track what appear to be clear violations of existing laws
and policies in investigation of "computer crime." There is nothing
noble in acquiescing to the erosion of Constitutionally protected
activity as those who defend the Secret Service actions seem willing
to do.

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #3.42
************************************