home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Hacker Chronicles 1
/
HACKER1.ISO
/
cud2
/
cud214h.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-09-26
|
7KB
|
140 lines
------------------------------
From: Various
Subject: Response to DEA/PBX News Story
Date: November 29, 1990
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.14: File 8 of 8: Responses to DEA/PBX News story ***
********************************************************************
From: Defensor Vindex <anonymous@usa>
Subject: Response to Joe Abernathy's article in CuD 2.13
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:49:44 cst
Mr. Abernathy:
This response is to your column about the theft of telephone services,
recently reprinted (with your permission, as I understand it) by the
Computer Underground Digest.
I agree that a major theft, including a theft of telephone services, is
news. As such, it was entirely legitimate for you to write your story.
What I find disturbing is your use of the generic term "hacker" for any
criminal or alleged criminal that knows how to spell electron or technical.
It inflames without informing.
Unfortunately, it appears to sell papers. My complaint is probably
useless, since language is constantly evolving, but it still disturbs me
that a misunderstood part of our society is defamed needlessly.
Sorta like Asimov (as Dr. X) wrote in "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man" a few
years ago, wrote about the meaning of "gay":
[ paraphrased with apologies ]
"The dictionary says 'gay' means 'excited with merriment, lighthearted.' So
you go up to an NFL linebacker who's just made his fourth sack of the day
and is obviously 'excited with merriment, lighthearted,' and you say:
'You're gay, aren't you?'
"Whether he is or he isn't, you'll almost certainly be surprised by the
response."
"Hacker", like "gay", is perhaps becoming redefined--no matter what its
roots, it is acquiring a new meaning and life of its own, and true
"hackers" may need to find a new label (unfortunately, it, too will likely
be subverted), but I wish you wouldn't sensationalize ordinary theft in
order to carry out a private crusade.
Besides, those crooks weren't "hackers," no matter what they called
themselves. At best they were "phone phreaks." And Joe, by now you ought
to know the difference.
*************************************
From: Jack Minard <deleted>
Subject: I have in my hand a list of hackers....
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 11:42:57 cst
(Sigh!). Why does CuD print articles from Joe Abernathy? His articles on
the Great Porno Netscam have hurt the entire electronic community, and he
hasn't made many friends with this latest article. It's another scare
story about hackers (and others?) and gives only one side of hackers.
Here's what pisses me off about the article.
No self-respecting hacker is going to rip-off, especially after Sun Devil.
Technically, the people breaking into the DEA's pbx were fone phreaks,
hardly the same as hackers. But does Tail-gunner Joe check? No, he just
tosses out a label that the public finds sexy and convenient. Doesn't he
realize how inaccurate and simplistic his story is? Maybe somebody
originally hacked out the PBX number and gave it out, but once somebody
gets the number there's no need to hack. It's a contradiction in terms, and
ripping off a L-D company by carding just ain't hacking. Repeat: THAT
AIN'T HACKING!
Where does this $1.8 million cost come from? I think he just multiplied 18
months by the $100,000 figure that an "Arizona Prosecutor" game him. At
about a quarter a minute, it would take 9.25 kids dialing 24 hours a day, 7
days a week for 18 months to run up this figure. Why didn't our
hard-hitting investigative reporter start asking some obvious questions
like either how can so much be done so long so often by so many or why
couldn't the DEA figure out something was wrong if there was so much use?
Dimes to donuts says the prosecutor he quoted was Gail Thakeray, always a
good source for exaggeration when it comes to hacker hysteria. Why didn't
he try to check out these figures? What do they mean? I think carders are
scum, but I also think they are accused of trumped up charges. The disuse
doctrine might be debated, but using ld lines isn't quite the same thing as
stealing them. If the crime is so serious, why did it take 18 months to
find it out, and then only incidentally during the investigation of another
crime? Didn't our intrepid journalist think about asking these kinds of
questions?
The article is filled with quotes, stories, and comments by people who are
anti-hacker. This may be fine in a story attacking hackers. But since the
suspects don't seem to be hackers, and since the quotes are so one-sided,
it seems like another hatchet job. If he has ins with all these
unidentified hackers he mentions, you'd think he could at least try to
either get his facts straight and present another side.
If Joe had asked me, I'd say yeh, I'm a hacker, and so are my friends, and
we, and people like us, don't rip off. You may like us or not, disagree
with what we do or not, but most of us draw a line at that kind of ripoff
and the line's not ambiguous. It's clear--carding is wrong and using a pbx
isn't what hacking's all about. But from Joe's slanted article, you'd think
that we're the world's greatest menace.
Finally, he says that some of his info came from people identifying
themselves as hackers in late night conference calls. Did these people
trust Joe not to say anything they revealed to him? Why doesn't he tell us
about his other sources of info and who initiated the calls?
Most of us are still pissed about his stories about porn and the nets which
were yellow journalism that sells papers and gets attention. It's great
that the cud editors print all sides so let's see if they print this.
*******************************
{Moderators note: We have not read the earlier stories to which this author
alludes. As to why we printed the story, we encourage Joe to send his
CU-related stories to us, and he sent that at our request. Whatever
political or ideological differences may exist, in phone conversations and
e-mail we have, without exception, found Joe to be decent and helpful. We
learn by discussing issues, and we strongly encourage people to respond
with substantive critiques. The term "hacker" is something worth debating,
because, according to many of the indictments we have read, hacking is
defined a priori as a criminal act. As a consequence, if one claims to be
a hacker, this claim could conceivably be used as evidence in a trial.
After all, if explaining Kermit is evidence of collusion, as it was to
justify the raid on Steve Jackson Games, debates over what constitutes a
hacker are not trivial -- moderators}.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #2.14**
********************************************************************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+