Hacker Chronicles 1/HACKER1.ISO/cud1/cud101b.txt

Text File | 1992-09-26 | 6KB | 110 lines

  ****************************************************************************
                  >C O M P U T E R   U N D E R G R O U N D<
                                >D I G E S T<
               ***  Volume 1, Issue #1.01 (March 31, 1990)  **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     [e-mail]
SUBSCRIBE TO: INTERNET:[e-mail]@UICVM.uic.edu

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
            views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
            for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
            protections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.01 / File 2 of 4  ***
***************************************************************

Mark Seiden raises some good points in the previous file.  His concerns
cluster around a couple of issues:

    1) Is having one's name on a mailing list sufficient to trigger law
       enforcement interest and subject the listee to possible harassment?

    2) Are there law enforcement agents on this list?

    3) Are the moderators part of a sting operation?

Mark's comments, although partly tongue in cheek, indicate the degree to
which over-zealous law-enforcement actions in recent months have had a
"chilling effect" on the free flow of information.  Let's take each of
these issues in reverse order.

First, the moderators are not part of a sting, nor are we in any way
connected with, cooperating with, or otherwise involved in enforcement. One
moderator works for a computer firm, the other is an sixties-lefty whose
primary work is as a college professor and researcher of prison culture.
But, Mark is quite correct in his concern for stings. It is *not* paranoia!
Gary Marx, in his book  UNDERCOVER: POLICE SURVEILLANCE IN AMERICA,
carefully and convincingly documents the threat of police stings to civil
liberties, their irony in subverting civil rights to protect society, and
the contributions to distrust and openness they create. One reason for the
emergence of this digest is the need many of us feel to raise such issues
at a time when law enforcement seems to be spending as much time
investigating computer users as other forms of crime. The emergence in many
(by now most) federal and state agencies of dedicated "computer crime
units" can too easily lead to the expansion of the definition of "abuse" to
justify the existence of these units. Once units exist, they must
investigate, apprehend and prosecute in order to justify their continued
existence.

Second, we assume from the mailing list that there are at least a few law
enforcement agents on the list. We welcome them, and hope others subscribe
as well. Perhaps they will learn something. Neither moderator is involved
in illicit activity, unless research is considered a crime, and nothing we
distribute will be knowingly illegal, violate copyright, or be knowingly
harmful.  The mailing list reflects  diverse group. The bulk seems to be
computerists employed in the private sector, followed by academics, and
mixed in with students, journalists, and others. We will send CuD to
anybody who requests it, and we welcome the response of law enforcement
agents in the debates.

Finally, Mark asks if having one's name on a mailing list is sufficient to
mark them for an investigation. Unfortunately, if recent history is any
indication, the answer is *YES*!  Mark has already indicated a few examples
of this. The "Red Squads" of the 1960s and 1970s provide a more chilling
example.  There is overwhelming evidence, including documents we ourselves
obtained as part of a class action law suit against the Michigan State
Police, to indicate that law enforcement tactics included gathering lists
by monitoring letters to editors opposing the Viet Nam war or the "social
-isms," listed license plates of cars parked near political meetings, and
by numerous other tactics totally anathema in a democratic society. In once
instance, police in East Lansing, Michigan, actually investigated a
political candidate who publicly denounced the war. The information in
these lists, even if unverified, was shared with employers, state agencies,
and other law enforcement agencies. These lists resulted in loss of
employment, promotion, or--in the case of FBI documents we
obtained--harassment in the FBI's COINTELPRO campaign. This included
anonymous letters to parents or employers of people on the list and even
direct physical harassment.

We, in the U.S., seem to have short memories. Especially because of drug
hysteria, we seem to be willing to enact legislation and permit
investigative tactics that would otherwise be unacceptable.  When the
target is druggies or racketeers, there is little public outrage. But, now
the tactics seem to be applied to other behaviors as creative agents find
new uses for laws that have not yet been tested in the courts.

In the last issue of CuD, we provided a rationale for the use of handles.
We suggest that if anybody has concern about being on a list they use one.
For e-mailing, we retain only the addresses and not names. Our mailing list
of net addresses is encrypted and inaccessible, but even if it were
obtained, there is insufficient information to be of use to anybody except
e-mail hucksters marketing their warez.

Thanks for raising the issue, Mark.



Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+