Hacker Chronicles 1/HACKER1.ISO/cud3/cud309a.txt

Text File | 1992-08-27 | 18KB | 318 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 3, Issue #3.09 (March 19, 1991)   **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer  ([e-mail])
ARCHIVISTS:   Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Bob Kusumoto
RESIDENT GAEL: Brendan Kehoe

USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest.
Back issues are also available on Compuserve (in: DL0 of the IBMBBS sig),
PC-EXEC BBS (414-789-4210), and at 1:100/345 for those on
FIDOnet.  Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (or
192.55.239.132) (back up and running) and (2)
[e-mail] E-mail server:
[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, however, do copyright their material, and those
authors 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. Contributors assume all
            responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CONTENTS THIS ISSUE:
File 1: "Hollywood Hacker" or More Media and LE Abuse?
File 2: Computer Publication and the First Amendment

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

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

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.09, File 1 of 2: Hollywood Hacker or Media Hype?      ***
********************************************************************

From: Jim Thomas / CuD
Subject: "Hollywood Hacker" or More Media and LE Abuse?
Date: March 20, 1991

In CuD 3.08 we asked for information on the Hollywood Hacker.
Here's what we've learned so far.

Stuart Goldman, a freelance investigative reporter, was raided on
March 8, 1990, by Secret Service agents and the Los Angeles Police.
According to news stories in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere,
Goldman was working on an expose of "sleaze-tv" shows such as Current
Affair and Hard Copy, shows for which he had also provided written
material. According to the news accounts, Goldman was caught
attempting to access Fox computers in New York and Los Angeles
containing files relevant to Current Affair.  He was charged with the
usual litany of allegations (fraud, theft, etc) under Section
502(c)(2) of the California Penal Code.  Section 502(c)(2) is
sufficiently vague to make any number of acts a felony:

     s 502 (c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person
     who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public
     offense:
     (1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters,
     damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data,
     computer, computer system, or computer network in order to
     either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to
     defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or
     obtain money, property, or data.
     (2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies,
     or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system,
     or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting
     documentation, whether existing or residing internal or
     external to a computer, computer system, or computer
     network.

Conviction carries the following:

      (d) (1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of
      paragraph (1), (2), (4), or (5) of subdivision (c) is
      punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars
      ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
      months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and
      imprisonment, or by a fine not exceeding five thousand
      dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not
      exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

Piecing together the various news accounts and info from some of the
legal documents we have obtained, the following seems to be the
gist of the matter:

--Goldman had contributed material both to Fox's Current Affair and
Paramount's Hard Copy, two competitors in the "sleaze-tv" school of
journalism.

--According to various news articles, he was an articulate gadfly,
specializing in "expose" pieces for both tv and hardcopy media.  He
was working on a story about tabloid tv, including the content and
practices of Hard Copy and Current Affair when arrested.

--As near as can be interpreted from the search affidavit and news
accounts, it appears that Goldman possessed access to a computer
account at Fox, which he may or may not have had legitimate (or
believed he had legitimate) access to.  If we are interpreting the
public information correctly, it appears that no password was required
to access the accounts, only the log-on id. Tracey Miller, of KFI's
Live Line in Los Angeles, described Goldman as some one who "had
managed to infiltrate the world of tabloid journalism and then got
caught up in a sting operation involving Fox Television computers."

--The search affidavit indicates that Paul Smirnoff, of Fox tv in New
York, noticed attempted logins to the Fox computer in New York used by
Current Affair writers. The account had a null password (meaning no
password is required to gain access to the system) and the person to
whom the account belonged indicated that she had not changed the
password "for sometime." Smirnoff directed that a "bait" story be left
in the LA computer.  Using a phone trap and caller logs, investigators
gathered evidence for their allegations against Goldman.  On March 8,
1990, local police and Secret Service agents burst into Goldman's
apartment. However, unlike other raids, of which we have had
second-hand reports, there was an added twist to this one:  FOX
TELEVISION WAS PRESENT WITH REPORTERS AND CAMERA CREW!

HACKING OR MEDIA HYPE?

Why was Fox tv present on this raid? The Secret Service has been
surprisingly reticent about their procedures to the point of
revealing little information in interviews, let alone allowing
video tapes to be made. We are repeatedly told that the time and dates
of raids are "secret." Yet, not only was Fox present, but they seemed
to have full cooperation from the agents present.  Is collusion in
media events a standard practice between law enforcement and the
media? Were other news agencies invited? How does Fox rate? If CuD
asked to participate and report on a raid, my guess is that the
response would be less than enthusiastic.  The video was hyped on Fox
on March 8 and shown on the news, teasing the audience with
sensationalistic promos and dubbing Goldman "The Hollywood Hacker." In
the current climate of media hyperbole and so-called crackdowns, this
strikes us has highly prejudicial.

The news broadcast of the tape comes across like a segment from
"COPS" or a Geraldo Rivera segment. There are the usual
teases "Its not military espionage and it's not corporate
spying," and the caption "HOLLYWOOD HACKER" graphically frames
for the audience how to interpret the events: This is not simply
a suspect, it is....THE HOLLYWOOD HACKER. Not "alleged" HH, but
the real McCoy!

The tape opens with agents outside a door in bullet proof vests
with guns drawn, hanging menacingly in a "hacker's might be
dangerous so we'd better be ready to blow the suck fuck away"
position. Granted, this was not as dramatic as the tapes of the
magnum-force beating of a Black LA motorist, but the sources of
such violence are more readily understandable when the force
of a raid is graphically depicted. One wonders whether Keating,
Ollie North, and others more preferentially situated stared down
a phallus surrogate when they were arrested. LE agents tell us
drawn weapons are standard procedure, because they never know
what may lie on the other side of the door. But, in case after
case of hacker raids, one wonders how many computerists shot it
out with the cops? And, if the situation was so dangerous, one
wonders why the tv crowd was allowed to charge in amidst the
officers.

On the tape, loud voices can be heard yelling: "Open the Door!!!!"
several times, and police and camera crowd enter, police with guns
drawn, Fox Folk with cameras rolling. Agents are yelling "Hands up!!
Against the Wall!" several times. The cameras are panning around and
focus on Goldman sitting on a couch, reading the arrest warrant.
Goldman's face was not, as it seems to be in shows such as COPS,
blocked out, and from all appearances, he could pass for an IBM senior
executive in his mid 40s.

WHY SHOULD THE CU CARE?

As with so many of the so-called hacker raids in the past year, it is
neither guilt nor innocence, but the questions raised by procedure
that should bother us:

1.  The role of the media in inflaming public conceptions of hacking
seems, in this case, to exceed even the cynical view of
sensationalistic vested interests. The presence of a Fox news team and
the subsequent hacker hyperbole for what the indictment suggests is a
trivial offense at worst, makes one wonder whether some other motive
other than computer access might not have led to the raid. We have
seen from the events of 1990 that "victims" of computer intruders tend
to grossly over-state losses.  Only further inquiry will reveal
whether Fox had motives for challenging an investigative journalist
doing exposes on the type of tabloid tv they have made popular. It
is worth noting that the Secret Service was involved in part because
of a claim of a "federal interest computer," but, according to news
accounts, they withdrew from the case almost immediately. Given the
tenacity with which they have pursued other cases on less evidence
(such as Steve Jackson Games, where part of the "evidence" was an
employing explaining in a BBS post that Kermit is a 7-bit protocol),
one wonders why they apparently ducked this case so quickly?

2.  A second issue of relevance for the CU is the definition of
"hacker." By no stretch of the imagination can the acts of whoever
allegedly accessed the Fox computers be called hacking.  From the few
legal documents we have obtained and from media accounts, the action
seems more akin to a graduate student using the account of another grad
student without "official" authorization. We do not defend computer
trespass, but we do strongly argue that there must be some distinction
between types of trespass and what is done once a trespass occurs.

3. We have not yet contacted Ralph Greer, the apparent attorney of
record in this case, so we can only surmise on a few possible issues.
We wonder if the case is being treated as a typical criminal case or
whether it is recognized that there are issues here that extend far
beyond the "normal" crime of "theft," "fraud," and other metaphoric
definitions brought to bear on computer cases?  We also wonder if,
like some others, there is any pressure to "cop a plea" because of the
lack of a creative defense that Sheldon Zenner, The EFF and others
have introduced in some other cases? Again, for us the concern is not
who is or is not guilty in this case, but with the problem of
defending against charges that seem far in excess of the act.

4. The matter of defense also raises the issue of California law.
Parts of Section 502 and 502.7, as we (and others) have argued
previously, see overly vague, excessively punitive, and could make
even the most trivial form of trespass a felony.  To non-lawyers such
as ourselves, it seems that the alleged acts would, in most states, at
worst be a misdemeanor and not subject a potential offender to three
or more years in prison.

5. We have argued long and loud against the current tactics employed
by agents on computer raids. Yes, we recognize that there are standard
procedures and we recognize that police do face potential danger in
raids. However, to raid an alleged computer offender in the same way
that a crack house is raided seems over-kill and dangerous. There are
many ways to arrest suspects, and raids, although dramatic, do not
seem justified in any single case of which we are aware. The tv tape
suggests that, if the suspect made an improper move (especially in the
confusion of everybody yelling at once, the suspect perhaps responding
to one set of commands and ignoring another, tv camera people in the
thick of things), a tragic consequence could have occured.  We should
all be concerned with the "police state" mentality in such instances.
Yes, there may be times when caution and full operative procedures on
computer criminals is justified, but suspected hackers are not your
typical computer criminals. One wonders what the response will be if a
young teenager makes a "furtive gesture" and is blown away. One
credible teenager once told us that when he was arrested, the police
burst into his room with guns drawn. He was at the keyboard of his
computer, and the agent in charge, perhaps to impress her male
colleagues, allegedly pointed the gun to his head and said, "Touch
that keyboard and die!"

6. The search warrant for Goldman's apartment authorizes seizure of a
variety of material that seems--as it has in other cases--far in
excess of what could even by a computer illiterate be used for any
related offenses. This raises the issue of what constitutes "evidence"
in such cases. We have seen from other raids that posters, personal
letters unrelated to computers, news clippings, telephones, video
tapes, science fiction books, research notes, and other artifacts were
taken. Law enforcement agents readily justify this, but when raiding
forgers, car thiefs, or even drug dealers, the scope of seized
equipment is much narrower.  Police, to our knowledge, do not
confiscate all the spoons in the house, the matches, or the stove,
when arresting suspected junkies. Yet, this is the mentality that
seems to guide their seizures of equipment in computer cases.

In a recent issue of RISKS Digest, moderator Peter G. Neumann observed
"that there is still a significant gap between what it is thought the
laws enforce and what computer systems actually enforce." I interpret
this to mean simply that the law has not caught up to changing
technology, and old, comfortable legal metaphors are inappropriately
applied to new, qualitatively different conditions.  Calling simple
computer trespass (even if files are perused) a heavy-duty felony
subjecting the offender to many years in prison does not seem
productive.

The point seems to be that emerging computer laws are archaic. Neither
those who write the laws nor those who implement them have a clear
understanding of what is involved or at stake. When mere possession
(not use, but possession) of "forbidden knowledge" can be a felony (as
it is in California), we must begin to question what the law thinks
it's enforcing.

Few objected to the enactment of RICO laws, and fewer still to the
laws allowing confiscation of property of drug suspects. The attitude
seemed to be that harsh measures were justified because of the nature
of the problem. Yet, those and similar laws have been expanded and
applied to those suspected of computer abuse as we see in the cases of
Steve Jackson Games, RIPCO BBS, the "Hollywood Hacker," and others
have been raided under questionable circumstances.

I'm wondering: What does law think it's enforcing? What is the
appropriate metaphor for computer trespass? What distinctions should
be made between types of offense? Please remember, nobody is
justifying trespass, so continual harangues on its dangers miss the
point.  I am only suggesting that there is a greater risk from
misapplication of law, which--like a virus--has a historical tendency
to spread to other areas, than from computer hackers.  It's easier to
lock out hackers than police with guns and the power of the state
behind them, and we have already seen the risks to people that result
from over-zealous searches, prosecution, and sentencing.

And, at the moment, I suggest that it's law enforcement agents who are
the greatest danger to the computer world, not hackers. Why? Because
"there is still a significant gap between what it is thought the laws
enforce and what computer systems actually enforce." As Edmund Burke
once (presumably) said, the true danger is when liberty is nibbled way
for expedience and by parts.

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