Computer Underground Digest Volume 3, Issue #3.08 (March 12, 1991)

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

**************************************************************************** >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 #3.08 (March 12, 1991) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet) 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 (back up and running) and (2) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. 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: Moderators' Corner File 2: From the Mailbag File 3: "Hollywood Hacker" Info Wanted File 4: What the EFF's Been Doing! File 5: Book Review--COMPUTER ETHICS File 6: The CU in the News: SPA Settlement ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.08, File 1 of 6: Moderator's corner *** ******************************************************************** From: Moderators Subject: Moderators' Corner Date: March 12, 1991 +++++++++++++++ Timing of CuD Issues +++++++++++++++ In the last CuD, we indicated that there would be a longer time lag between issues. Now, a few days later, comes the next issue. We suddenly seem to have a good bit of material ranging from special issues on FOIA/Constitutional stuff to a few longer articles that will take the bulk of an issue. Thanks to all the contributors, AND KEEP THE STUFF COMING. We especially want blurbs from news papers (or summaries for longer stories that assure no copyright protections are violated). A number of recent mailings have bounced--nobody seems to know why. All uucp addresses in the CuD 3.07 mailing, but this seems to have been fixed for most addresses. Vacation seems to have resulted in other stuff being returned. Best way to receive CuD is off the nets (alt.society.cu-digest) or ftp (see header). +++++++++++++++ CuD FTP Additions +++++++++++++++ The CuD ftp sites currently include a variety of University computer policies, additional papers, and a variety of state and federal (and a few foreign) computer abuse statutes. law/ Current computer crime laws are online for: AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, MD, MN, NJ, NY, TX, VT, VA, and WV. (Everyone [law students especially] is encouraged to send along other statutes...we want to build this area up to [hopefully] a full set.) We still needed: AR, DC, KS, KY, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, WI, WY +++++++++++++++++ 2600 and Full Disclosure Magazines +++++++++++++++++ 2600 and Full Disclosure are out. Characteristical, 2600 has its usual collection of interesting articles, including a nice story on Republican Party hacking into Democratic Party computers, "The Hacker Reading List," and one of the last articles to come out of the Legion of Doom, "Central Office Operations" (by Agent Steal). As a number of people have observed following increased exposure of the rip-off of COCOTS (Coin Operated, Customer-Owned Telephones), 2600 was instrumental in documenting various abuses in the past. It's a mag well worth the modest investment. Contact: 2600@well.sf.ca.us or write 2600 Magazine; PO Box 752; Middle Island, NY 11953 (USA). We also received the latest issue of Full Disclosure (#22). Articles include a summary of the Ripco Seizure, the "Atlanta Three" Sentencing Memorandum, and numerous articles on government surveillance. It's a great issue, and a steal for only $18 for 12 issues. Contact: Full DIsclosure, Box 903-FD22, Libertyville, IL 60048. The Mag's Glen Roberts (publisher) and Bill Vajk (professional gadfly), remember, are the ones who dug up the Ripco seizure warrant when nobody else could. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Ah, Sordid Subject: From the Mailbag Date: March 12, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.07: File 2 of 6: From the Mailbag *** ******************************************************************** Subject: SWBell PUC ruling a bad precedent. Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 16:11:22 CST From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) > From: Visualize Whirled Peas > Subject: Sounds good... court ruling on BBS in SW Bell The associated ruling is *not* a good precedent for future cases or law, because it establishes that the phone company can charge based on the type of information shipped over a phone line, rather than on the usage patterns, whether the customer is running a business, or one of the established bases for discriminating between customers. With the phone companies trying to get into the information provider business this is a bad precedent indeed. I understand that Hirsch and co had other concerns, but we're all going to have to watch the various PUCs like a hawk for references to this. Don't let it become an accepted practice, or the future may see BBSes charged out of existence while the phone companies push videotext services like Prodigy or SWBell's "Sourceline". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: P.A.Taylor@EDINBURGH.AC.UK Subject: Re: QUick quesiton Date: 09 Mar 91 13:04:32 gmt Hi, I'm a 2nd year postgrad doing a PhD on the rise of the computer security industry, system break-ins, browsing and viruses. 1. Would any of you be prepared to answer a questionnaire with the possibility of a more in-depth e-mail discussion if you are amenable to it? 2. Is there anyone out there in The Netherlands or Germany who would be prepared to brave a face-to-face interview with me. I was planning to go to those countries in 3-4 weeks time and possibly again in the summer. Obviously, I would also be keen to interview anyone in the U.K. at any time. ALL RESPONSES ETC. WILL BE TREATED WITH THE UTMOST CONFIDENCE AND ANY FINDINGS WILL ONLY BE USED FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES AND NEVER WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE SUBJECT. I CAN SUPPLY BONA FIDES OF MY ACADEMIC STATUS IF REQUESTED. Thanks very much in advance, Paul A. Taylor Department of Politics, Edinburgh University. P.S. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO *BOTH* SIDES OF THE SECURITY DEBATE. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: zane@DDSW1.MCS.COM Subject: Civil Disobedience" and Freedom in the 90's Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 19:54:47 CST Our freedoms today are being rapidly eaten up. The RICO laws and Operation Sundevil are examples of this. Eric Postpischil (edp@jareth.enet.dec.com) has written a very good article giving examples of our rights and how the government is observing them in this the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. But I will not dwell on what is going wrong; I think that many of you already know that we live in a near-police state and those of you who don't are quite the optimists. Many people are complaining about these rights and their loss, yet no one seems to be doing anything. On the RipCo, I was commended for my bravery for writing a letter to my Senator. There is nothing brave about this. What is brave is actively protesting, such as those who are currently protesting the War in Iraq, or, even more brave, those who are trying to make their views on abortion known, from lying in the paths of potential abortions, to simply marching on the capitol. We in the Electronic Frontier have no such people. Most people in the Electronic Frontier are people who WANT something done, but are not willing to go about doing it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a prime example. The EFF has done quite a bit for Freedom in the Electronic Frontier, but it is just waiting, waiting for change to come about slowly by petitioning the legislator. This is very slow, and by the time that works, it will be out of date. I had thought that what the EFF was doing was good enough, until I read "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. Then I realized that more must be done. One person can make a difference, and we are many. We do not have to wait until we convince the majority, says Thoreau, all we have to do is do what we feel is right, and change will come about. Thoreau, because he did not want to pledge his allegiance to the State, did not pay his poll tax for six years. He did not like the actions of the government, so therefore did not want to support them with his money. (The actions at that time were the Mexican-American War, and slavery.) He did not wait until his petitions to his legislators were answered, they are sluggish. He constituted a "majority of one." Something must be done to protect our freedoms in this nation. We have a great code in our Bill of Rights. We must protect that. That is our obligation as citizens and patriots. Current actions are very slow, and more MUST be done. "Civil Disobedience" can be obtained at the CuD archive at cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu, ftp.cs.widener.edu, or by archive server at archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu. Read it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Rambo Pacifist Subject: Computers, Movies, Media, and Madness Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 21:28:21 PST Bob Izenberg's summary of bad computer flix reminded of a few others. Who can forget that giant system in the tv show The Prisoner? Anybody ever see that system, that probably didn't have the capacity of a 386 s/x, actually DO anything? And what about the computer banks in all those B-movies? Lots of lights with some poor schlub sitting in front of them--what are all those lights for? They're all designed alike. Wonder if AT&T owns the proprietary source code for the set design. There is a merciful god, because I've forgotten the name of the flick where the computer falls in love with some kid and tries to subvert his romance with a real-life bimbette who prances around with mindless dialogue and rice-pudding for brains--the sad thing is, it's not intended to be so mindless. And anybody remember the Lost in Space computer? But my favorite all time computer is from Bad Science--I'm typing this during a thunder storm hoping something will get zapped and it will clone another Rachel Ward. With my luck, tho, I'd get a coupla' Unix. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Jim Thomas Subject: "Hollywood Hacker" Info Wanted Date: March 11, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.07: File 3 of 6: "Hollywood Hacker" Info Wanted *** ******************************************************************** About a year ago, if memory serves, a reporter dubbed the "Hollywood Hacker" made the news when the Secret Service and Los Angeles police raided his home with a television crew present. I think his name was Stuart Goldman. My recollection of the facts is rather cloudy, but I have seen little follow-up on this case, and it hasn't been mentioned among the "abuses" of the raids of that period. The gist of the case, I think, was roughly this: The "Hollywood Hacker" was a freelance investigative reporter for Fox who was accused of accessing computers while investigating a story. He was raided in a media-event atmosphere, the story made a few tabloids and the Fox News for a day or two, and then was forgotten. Has anybody been following this? Were there indictments? Did the case go to trial? Will it go to trial? Is this still a federal case, or did they turn it over to local agencies? The issues the case raises seem critically important for the CU, and it seems surprising, if this broad summary is reasonably correct, that there has not been more information of follow-up on it. For example, what are the implications for freedom of the press in applying computer abuse laws (and in California, if prosecuted under state law, some of the law is rather Draconian)? If a reporter was working on other stories and the info was confiscated, was this information ever returned? If there were tv cameras present, why? The SS and most local police are usually quite reticent about such things, so this kind of action, if it occured, seems rather odd. If anybody has any information (indictments, affidavits, news articles, tapes of the original broadcasts or other documents), perhaps you could send them over. Because the principle was a reporter, and because--if memory serves--it was labelled hacking and wasn't--the implications may be important. Like the cases of Ripco, Steve Jackson, Craig Neidorf, and others, there may be issues here that, if unaddressed, will create bad-law and legitimize increasing (and unnecessary) controls of the government over Constitutional protections for ALL computer hobbyists. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: EFF (excerpts from EFF NEWS #3) Subject: What the EFF's Been Doing! Date: March 11, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.07: File 4 of 6: What the EFF's Been Doing *** ******************************************************************** {Moderator's Note: We have received, and seen on the nets, a number of inquiries wondering about what the EFF has been doing. Some of these inquiries have been critical, suggesting the EFF hasn't been doing anything except seeking publicity. This seems unfair, because it puts them in a catch-22 situation: If they don't publicize their activities, they are accused of doing nothing; If they do publicize their activities, they are accused of grand-standing. In a recent post on comp.org.eff.talk, Mike Godwin indicated that the reason EFF does not publicize their activities more fully is tactical: Why let the opposition know what the defense is planning? When General Schwartzkopf used this strategy in planning the campaign in Iraq, he was a hero. We suggest that EFF is every bit as heroic, because they, too, are protecting the Constitution and "American Way," but in a longer, slower, and much less glamorous campaign. In the latest EFF News (#3), Mike and Mitch outlined what the EFF has been up to, and for those who haven't seen it, the following should be sufficient evidence that those legal eagles are busy little beavers (even if they do hate mixed metaphors).--J&G}. *** CASE UPDATES, by Mike Godwin*** Len Rose EFF's support and Mitch's independent funding of Len's defense have led to good results. Our efforts have limited the extent to which Len is being made an example of, and the extent to which he can be used as justification for increased law-enforcement activity in this area. Had we not intervened in Len's support, it seems likely not only that he would have faced far harsher penalties after a plea bargain or trial, but also that bad law would have been made by his federal and state cases. Acid, Optik, and Scorpion "Acid Phreak" and "The Scorpion" received preindictment letters from federal prosecutors in New York, while "Phiber Optik" was indicted by a state grand jury. Phiber's case has been resolved; he pled guilty to a misdemeanor count, and at this writing his sentence is expected to be limited to community service when he is sentenced on April 4. EFF has chosen not to become involved in these cases at this early stage, primarily because it is unclear whether the cases will raise important Constitutional or civil-liberties issues, but we are tracking them closely. Washington v. Riley Although we initially favored involvement in this case, EFF's legal committee later decided that prudent management of our financial and legal resources dictated that we withhold our formal involvement here. This case raises important issues, but control of our costs and management of our time has forced us to make some hard decisions about investing in new cases, and in this light we determined that this case would not represent the best investment of our limited resources. We have remained in touch with Riley's attorney, however, and we have offered to act informally as a legal and technical resource for her to the extent it does not detract from our work on other projects; she has accepted our offer. Other Other important legal matters are currently receiving considerable attention. Because these are of a sensitive nature, we will not be able to disclose details until some time in the future. Please bear with us. *** LEGAL CASE MANAGEMENT, by Mitch Kapor *** On February 6, Harvey Silverglate, Sharon Beckman, Tom Viles, and Gia Baresi (all of Silverglate and Good), Mike Godwin, and I all had dinner together at Harvey's house. We reached a number of important conclusions about improving the effectiveness and reducing the cost of the legal programs of the foundation. S&G want are willing to allocate additional people to the EFF account in order to have some extra capacity to handle peak loads. Tom Viles will be working with us. He's very ACLU-knowledgeable. He is serving on a national ACLU committee which has just recommended that the ACLU take a position on national info infrastructure. S&G sees EFF as being its ongoing client, as opposed to their usual mode of operation which is to represent an individual or organization for a particular case. In essence, S&G is becoming the EFF's outside litigation counsel. With both parties located in Boston, it will make coordination more convenient and less expensive. They have also agreed to work at a very large discount from their usual client fee schedule. We discussed streamlining the legal review process. Everyone felt that it's wasteful and inefficient to have several lawyers looking into each possible new case and to have conference calls for making decisions. Mike and Sharon are going to prepare a joint plan on how we will manage the legal process efficiently. Now that there are fewer parties involved and that all of the lawyers are in town, it should be simpler. *** LEGAL AND POLICY PROJECTS, by Mitch Kapor *** Sysop liability We are engaged in an internal discussion about the limits of sysop liability. We hope to build a consensus on what the law should be in this area in order to provide a philosophical framework for whatever action we choose to take in current and future BBS seizure cases. Massachusetts Computer Crime Bill We are once again working with the Mass. Computer Software Council in an effort to pass a progressive computer crime bill which protects civil liberties as well as security interests. Two different bills have been filed: one is our bill, while the other has serious problems of overbreadth. Sharon, Mike, and I are all working on this. Sharon has prepared testimony which will be used in public hearings nest week. There will be a series of briefings for legislators and other other parties as well. Guidelines for Computer Search and Seizure Previously Terry Gross and Nick Poser of Rabinowitz, Boudin had developed a series of guidelines for the conduct of computer-based searches for an ABA sub-committee working on this issue. Subsequently, Mike Godwin revised those for a paper and presentation to be given at the Computer Virus conference upcoming shortly. At the recent CPSR Policy Roundtable, it became apparent that we needed to take more of top-down approach in order to gain adoption and implementation of these guidelines by federal and state law enforcement agencies. We are now in the process of structuring an important project, to be led by Mike, which will target the FBI and other key agencies for a series of events to formally develop and present our finding and recommendations. Jerry Berman of the ACLU has offered to assist us in navigating our way through the bureaucratic maze in Washington. Computer Bulletin Boards, Computer Networks, and the Law In addition to the computer crime bill work and development of search guidelines, the third major legal project is to develop a position on the legal issues surrounding computer bulletin boards. There has already been a great deal of discussion about this issue on the net on the Well's EFF conference. There have been a small number of law papers published on the subject as well. Nothing to date though has offered a comprehensive proposal as to how to place BBSes and network carriers in the same legal framework as print publications, common carriers, and broadcasters. This project, which will involve a collective effort of all EFF principals, and which is being driven by Mike, will seek to identify both the fundamental common aspects and differentiating attributes of digital computer media as compared with their predecessors. This will be done in order to propose basic approaches to issues of government censorship, rights and restrictions of private network carriers and system operators to control content ("private" censorship) and liabilities of system operators and users for activities and communication using network facilities. This is an ambitious undertaking, which will commence with a formal issues development process, the deliverable of which will initially take some written form such as a published paper or position statement. We will attempt to incorporate input from many groups in this process in order to develop a consensus. As a starting point, I offer the notion that a computer bulletin board ought to be treated as a legal hybrid. For certain purposes, e.g., the right of the publisher to be free from government censorship of content, it should be treated as though it were a print publication. But a BBS operator should have less liability for the content of the board than the publisher of a magazine. In many cases it is simply impossible, given the volume of posting, for a sysop to review new postings in advance. The principled way to defend such a hybrid approach would be to show that the elements of the legal treatment desired are related to the particular attributes of the system itself and reflect, in each case, a desirable public policy goal. The ACLU is beginning to take an interest in this area. We will work cooperatively with them. Other There are other worthwhile projects competing for attention as well. In an informal feedback session to the EFF held at the CPSR Roundtable, there was a great deal of interest in a project to educate users of computers networks about their rights and responsibilities. There is also interest in understanding successful techniques in the self-management of "virtual communities" which lessens the necessity for external sanctions. My current judgment is that our "policy research" plate is already full and that undertaking these or other subjects will have to be deferred. CPSR FOIA Requests Mike Godwin attended a meeting in Washington between representatives of the Secret Service and David Sobel and Marc Rotenberg of CPSR. This meeting, initiated by the Secret Service, took place for the purpose of helping the agency define the scope of CPSR's two FOIA requests concerning, respectively, Sundevil and non-Sundevil computer-crime investigations by the Secret Service. Mike took part in the discussion, and is supporting CPSR's FOIA effort by seeking privacy releases from individuals who may be named in the files CPSR is seeking. The EFFECTOR The first issue of the EFFector print newsletter is at the printer. Gerard van der Leun contributed much time and energy to seeing this through. I think we will all be very pleased with its maiden voyage. EFFector is aimed at an audience not already assumed to be intimately familiar with issues on the electronic frontier. The newsletter will be distributed to people on our mailing list who have sent us postal addresses, every Well subscriber, and all participants at the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference. We are printing about 10,000 copies. The production values are very professional without looking too slick or glitzy. (Gerard was able to persuade a graphic designer to develop the format and design the first issue for virtually nothing). I think it communicates our basic concerns and positions quite well. There is a piece by Barlow on the origins of the EFF. I have my "Why Defend Hackers" article. There are features on "20 Things You Can Do to Advance the Electronic Frontier" culled from postings on the Well, a Washington update by Marc Rotenberg, and many other worthwhile items. We are aiming for a four times yearly publication frequency. Beginning with issue two we will work out a subscription / membership plan and arrangement. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Jim Thomas Subject: Book Review--COMPUTER ETHICS Date: March 8, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.07: File 2 of 6: From the Mailbag *** ******************************************************************** Review of COMPUTER ETHICS: CAUTIONARY TALES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN COMPUTING, by Tom Forester and Perry Morrison. 1990. Oxford (Eng.): Basil Blackwell. 193 pp. (np). (Reviewed by Jim Thomas, Northern Illinois University). The questions raised in the U.S. by Secret Service procedures in so-called "computer crime" investigations such as Operation Sun Devil, the growth in public computer literacy, and the general public recognition that computers are moving from the periphery to the center of social control and organizational operations make COMPUTER ETHICS a timely and worthwhile tome. Although both authors resided in Australia when the book was written (Tom Forester remains at Griffith University in Queensland and Perry Morrison is now at the University of Singapore), the work focuses primarily on the U.S. for examples, but draws as well from international data to argue that society has yet to confront the twin dilemmas of hardware and software malfunctions and misuse by humans. In some ways, the book is misnamed. The themes are not restricted to those of ethics, but include as well risks to society by over-reliance on computer technology (especially when it fails) and to thornier social issues, such as privacy, the social implications of artificial intelligence, and the potential problems of the increasingly computerized workplace. The authors organize each of the eight chapters around a specific issue (Our Computerized Society, Computer Crime, Software Theft, Hacking and Viruses, Unreliable Computers, The Invasion of Privacy, AI and Expert System, and Computerizing the Workplace), summarize the problems by drawing from an impressive wealth of data from conventional and other media, and conclude each chapter with a hypothetical example and set of questions that enhance the value of the work for college graduate and undergraduate classes. About one third of the book directly confronts computer crime and "computer underground" activities, such as piracy and hacking. There is no obvious ax-grinding, and especially with piracy the authors raise issues in a generally non-judgmental manner. They observe that an increasing number of software authors have recognized the general ineffectiveness of program-protecting their products and have increasingly moved away from the practice. However, the focus of the discussion avoids the type of "warez sharing" that occurs on pirate BBSs and begs the issue of swapping copyright programs without purchasing them. The discussion example focuses on the ethical issue of copy-protecting programs with a disk-wiping virus rather than using an example that teases out the nuances of using unpurchased software. I am also a bit troubled by the cursory attention given to the different types of piracy. Participants enmeshed in the "pirate culture" on BBSs would agree that theft of proprietary source code for profit or reselling copied programs is clearly wrong. Further, even within the computer underground, pirates range from "kids" who crack and swap games to older and more sophisticated users who simply enjoy collecting and examining various types of programs. Without teasing out the complexity of the pirate culture, many of the important issues are glossed over, such as the ethics of "fair use" to pre-test a program, the harm (or lack of it) in using a program that would not have been purchased, but whose use expands a product's visibility and reputation (thereby expanding the market), and the problem of an increasing array of available software that if purchased would be exceed the resources of all but the most affluent computerists. In fairness, not all relevant ideas can be addressed in a single chapter, and the authors satisfactorily provoked enough questions to make this an interesting and useful section. The most troublesome chapter, "Hacking and Viruses," simplifies the phreak/hacking community and alludes to studies that do not accurately reflect the computer underground. Although a relatively short and seemingly innocuous discussion, the section "why do hackers 'hack'?" cites studies suggesting that "severe social inadequacy" typifies many hackers. The authors do make it clear that there is no simple answer to explain motivation, they tend to ignore the primary reasons cited by most hackers: The challenge, the excitement, and the satisfaction of success and increased knowledge. Granted, these reasons, too, are simplistic as a satisfactory explanation but they provide an antidote to the general imagery portrayed by law enforcement officials that hackers are dangerous social misfits and criminals who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Also troublesome is the inclusion of virus writers and spreaders with hacking activity. Hackers are as vehemently opposed to spreading viruses as law enforcement. In fact, hackers, because of their use of networks and reliance on smoothly functioning hardware, have far more to lose than the average computer user by their spread. Nonetheless, the authors do raise a few questions about the differences in the various types of activity, asking, for example, whether system-browsing should be criminalized in the same way as other predatory behavior. The degree to which this chapter provokes disagreement and challenge to some of the claims (or vehement responses to some of the questions) is simply an indicator of the utility of this work both for stimulating thought and for generating discussion. Although the remainder of the book is not as directly relevant to the CU community, it nonetheless provides interesting reading. The authors continually remind the reader that despite their benefits, computers possess numerous demonstrable dangers. The value of the work is not simply the admonition of the risks of computer misuse, but more importantly, that social attitudes, ethical issues, governmental policies, and social control strategies have lagged far behind in the need to be aware of how computers change our lives and how these changes may usher in new forms of social interaction for which we are unprepared as we cross into the cyber-frontier. The authors' scholarship and documentation, although impressive, does not tempt them to fall back into academicese. The volume reads like a novel and--even where one might disagree with claims or conclusions--the provocations are stimulating rather than combatative. In short, Computer Ethics is fun and worth reading. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: The CU in the News: SPA Settlement SPA Settlement Date: 10 Mar 91 02:54:32 EST ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.07: File 6 of 6: The CU in the News *** ******************************************************************** - Washington, D.C. SPA STRIKES AGAIN! --------------- Last week the Software Publishers Association (SPA) reported a settle- ment with Davy McKee Corp. concerning illegal use of software (CPU Status Report #10), this week the SPA has announced a raid on Parametrix Corp., an engineering consulting firm, that "unveiled a substantial number of illegal copies of software in use." After obtaining an exparte writ of seizure and a temporary restraining order, on February 26, the SPA's attorneys, along with some federal marshals paid a surprise visit to the Bellevue and Sumner locations of Parametrix and conducted an audit of the personal computers at these locations. SPA Executive Director Ken Wasch said, "The raid on Parametrix is part of the industry's stepped-up campaign against software piracy in corporate America. The SPA now receives dozens of piracy reports each week, and we are filing new lawsuits every few days." [Moderators' note: Those of us heavily into the matrix tend to forget that most "real people" aren't using the same tools to obtain information, etc. Here are some interesting numbers that may help to understand the next time the general public fails to get too excited about encroachments on our electronic freedoms.] - Stamford, Connecticut OVER 1/2 OF US HOUSEHOLDS DON'T ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ USE PC, FAX OR CELLULAR PHONES According to a survey of 45,000 U.S. households done by Comtec Market Analysis Services of the Gartner Group, 52% of Americans haven't used a PC, fax machine or cellular phone, either at home or at work. Only 3% of households use all 3 technologies while cellular phones are in 7% and 42% use PCs. Source: STReport March 08, 1991 No.7.10 Reprinted with permission. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ **END OF CuD #3.08** ********************************************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank