Computer underground Digest Sun, Oct 27, 1991 Volume 3 : Issue 38 Moderators: Jim Thomas a

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Sun, Oct 27, 1991 Volume 3 : Issue 38 Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) CONTENTS, #3.38 ( October 27, 1991) File 1: Geraldo's _Now it can be Told_ Revisited File 2: Comment on the Geraldo Show File 3: A Guest's-eye view of the Geraldo Show File 4: Second Thoughts about the "Ingraham Massacre" File 5: Response to CuD #3.37's "Mad Hacker" Issue File 6: Release of Informatik #1 File 7: Second Annual XMASCON 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 (147.31.254.20), chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and dagon.acc.stolaf.edu. To use the U. of Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the quotes) to archive-server@chsun1.spc.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 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: 25 Oct 91 12:19:22 CDT From: Moderators Subject: File 1--Geraldo's _Now it can be Told_ Revisited The fallout from the Geraldo show (see CuD #3.37) that we've received has focused on Alameda County (Calif) Assistant District Attorney Don Ingraham for the reckless manner in which he treated "truth" and Craig Neidorf. Craig provides an insider's view, and the moderators offer a review of Ingraham's made-for-tv performance below. Krista Bradford, Senior Reporter for NICBT, provides a helpful glimpse into production of the show that explains some of the dynamics behind framing topics. Krista also adds a thoughtful commentary on educating the media to the issues of cyberspace. Her lesson is: There is no "media," but rather reporters who do media work. These workers don't "get educated" by some mystical process. Instead, those of us who complain about media misrepresentation have to obligation to find constructive ways to deliver our message to individuals writing on the topic. It is our obligation, she argues, to contact individual reporters, to sign them up on various systems, and to bring the message to them rather than assume they can, on their own, go out and find it. For those interested, Craig is still in debt to Katten, Muchin, & Zavis for close to $50,000.00. Any contributions to his defense fund would be greatly appreciated. Please send a check or money order to: Sheldon Zenner Katten, Muchin, & Zavis 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60606-3693 The checks must be made out to Katten, Muchin, and Zavis and you must put his name on the memo section somewhere or else they will not credit the money to his account. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 91 20:42:40 CDT (Sat) From: peter@TARONGA.COM(Peter da Silva) Subject: File 2--Comment on the Geraldo Show My reaction to Rivera's show was simply that it glorified all the negative connotations of the word "Hacker". It put an obvious bozo up against Neidorf who simply made the government look bad. It also made Neidorf look bad by linking him to things he never did, nor that any other "hacker" ever did (the 911 paper in question was public information, for heavens' sake, and they didn't say that once!). It was a complete loss for everyone except Rivera and the foreign hackers out of reach of Sun-Devil hysteria. No matter what side of the subject you're on... if you live in the U.S. this show hurt you whether you know it or not. Which is typical of Geraldo's flaming. The best part was Cliff Stoll, but of course he never got a chance to refute Goldstein's dismissal of his point about breaking and entering... which is quite valid. If you want to be pedantic, phreak-style crackers are like joy-riding kids. Joy-riding is, rightly, illegal. And so it should be. Of course, you don't get thousands of dollars worth of equipment confiscated and jail terms for joy-riding. The government *and* the apologists for these soi-disant hackers are *both* wrong, and attempting to trivialize *either* side's grievances is counterproductive. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:05:07 -0400 From: Craig Neidorf Subject: File 3--A Guest's-eye view of the Geraldo Show Same Story, New Court Room ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I guess they figured I needed to be tried twice." Now It Can Really Be Told... It was Monday, March 25, 1991 and I was sitting in a conference room at the SFO Marriott Hotel in Burlingame, California. I was attending a tutorial session called "How Computer Crime is Investigated" hosted by Don Ingraham at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. Don Ingraham, an Assistant District Attorney in Alameda County, California was already a nationally-known computer crime prosecutor and I was Craig Neidorf, political science/pre-law student from St. Louis, already nationally-known for being Knight Lightning, editor of Phrack... the guy who published the 911 text file and more. What began as a tutorial and learning session about the use of search warrants on electronically stored evidence changed into a heated debate with Ingraham on one side with some supporters and me on the other side allied with Sheldon Zenner, Mike Godwin, and Sharon Beckman. It was interesting and quite a few constitutional and ethical issues were raised. However, when it was all over, I left with a feeling of respect for Mr. Ingraham even if I disagreed with his views. As the conference continued over the next few days, I found that where I had expected clashes I found conversations. The law enforcement officers and prosecutors were not bad people when you got them in a small group away from the reporters. As odd as this may sound, a whole bunch of them (joined by people like Bruce Sterling and John Perry Barlow) were seated in the lounge when I showed up late one evening and they had been speaking about my future. They had decided that should I choose a career path in law enforcement after I finished law school, they would all be out of work as I became the most feared prosecutor among the entire hacker community and many others. In one sense it was very flattering. Among these prosecutors was Don Ingraham and he was very supportive of the idea of me becoming a prosecutor. In late July 1991, I was just finishing up my last semester at the University of Missouri-Columbia. I had been forced to take a full 12-hour summer school load of classes in order to make the August commencement. I was running a litte behind after William Cook made sure that I could not complete the Spring semester of 1990. As it turns out, the CFP folks had predicted my future rather accurately, I was working for law enforcement. As part of my undergraduate requirements I had to take an internship with some branch of state government. A strong grade point average and critical writing skills had earned me a prestigious position with the Missouri Attorney General's Office in their Public Protection Division (the department that handles consumer fraud). One evening I received a call from Phyllis Zimmerman who represented "Now It Can Be Told." She explained who she was and what their program was all about. "We're going to show how the hackers are really the good guys who are exposing the flaws so the criminals can't exploit them." It sounded like she had been brainwashed by Emmanuel Goldstein of 2600 Magazine to me, but what the hell. I told her that I might be interested, but I could not do anything with her until after August 3rd since I had to finish school and I had some finals coming up for my remaining classes. I didn't hear from the NOW people again until the second week of September. This time I was contacted by Cindy Frei. They didn't want to interview me in a segment anymore, instead they wanted me to take part in sort of a discussion after the main part of the show. She told me that William Cook might be there, as well as Donald Delaney, Wynn Schwartaw[sic], and Chris Goggans. I knew Cook would never show up and hanging out in New York with Bloodaxe (Goggans) sounded like it might be cool since we had so much fun the previous summer at CyberView in St. Louis. So we made plans for me to fly up to New York on Wednesday, September 25th. On Tuesday, I learned that Chris Goggans and Donald Delaney had been cancelled and Don Ingraham had been substituted in as a replacement. I also began to learn a little more about the show. Scenes of Dutch hackers breaking into systems and more. I was concerned that instead of the viewers getting impressions of good guy hackers, the Department of Defense would go on alert and press Congress for stronger legislation against computer hackers. Frei said I was supposed to sort of give my impressions of what I saw, a hacker's viewpoint. I explained that I wasn't a hacker in the sense she was looking for, but this did not present a problem for her. She didn't want me to get into a discussion about the difference of opinion on the use of the word hacker. I began to have second thoughts about doing the show, but I decided that I was probably best suited to try and dispel some of the hacker hysteria that might arise. I was wrong. I arrived in a cold, rainy, unfamiliar and unfriendly metropolis -- New York City. No car waiting or anything special like that. Frei said I should take a cab and just save all the receipts, they would reimburse me. It took seemingly forever, but I arrived at the hotel Empire (Radison). It was a dump. The hallways and rooms looked like they hadn't been remodeled in at least a decade and to make matters worse, there was a mouse loose in my room. The next morning I took a cab to CBS Studios on West 57th street where Now It Can Be Told is shot. They ran me through a little preping and a little makeup. They wanted me to be confrontational with Don Ingraham. This was not on my agenda. I expected we would talk about electronic search and seizure and the dilemmas that computer crime investigation presents to law enforcement. I was not looking for a fight with this man, I thought he was a friend. The studio for Geraldo is actually very tiny despite how the cameras make it look like a large room. I met Geraldo who found it interesting that I was a political science major in school and not computer science. I was told that Geraldo wanted to use my scrapbook in the show to flip to a few of the headlines in the articles... instead he used it to sensationalize. We had to shoot the intro segment at least eight times before there was one they finally liked. Each time Geraldo threw a different question at me. It was funny in a way when they would screw up and Geraldo started cursing a little. Everything was going fine until Don Ingraham came on camera. Ingraham's comparison of hackers to rapists almost made me physically ill. How can a reasonable person draw an analogy between these two types of activity? Ok, sure, if a person's computer is accessed without authorization, there very well might be a feeling of being violated, of vulnerability, but the physical and emotional damage of a rape is almost immeasurable. Although I'm not an expert on psychology, I do know a little about the long-term psychological damage a rape can do to a woman, the fear of ever being intimate again, of going outside, the inability to have a relationship with a man, the constant questions; "Is it my fault?" "Did I encourage this?" How can a man as intelligent as Don Ingraham stoop to such blatant disregard for a true representation of the facts? Of course, I was not given a chance to respond to those remarks. We cut right to a commercial and when we came back, I was busy trying to find a way to respond to Ingraham's other uncalled for remarks. Ingraham called me lucky to have not gotten convicted and he is right. I am lucky that I had a brilliant attorney and a decent judge who made the justice system work despite the efforts of a malicious media-hungry prosecutor. However, he neglected to point out that the government voluntarily dropped the case because there was no case. I hadn't done anything wrong. Furthermore, it was unknown to him that Federal District Court Judge Bua issued a court order to the Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshalls several months ago to expunge all of my arrest records and have them destroyed. And there is a lot more to it than the fact that BellCore published 911 documents. As for the 911 information being public, there have been indepth articles on 911 in magazines like CO, Teleconnect, and Telephone Engineering & Management. Not to mention the fact that the 911 information itself was just a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. Scott Ticer of BellSouth doesn't know what he's talking about. Ingraham also claims that the Federal Court said that the Pentagon Papers (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971) case did not apply to me. This is not exactly true. The Court decided that if someone is committing a fraud and using a publication to commit that fraud, then that activity is not protected by the First Amendment. At the time, the U.S. Attorney's office was alleging that Phrack Newsletter in and of itself from day one was a fraud to begin with. Because of that allegation (which fell completely apart at trial), the Court could not dismiss based on the First Amendment. The main problem here is that I was taken completely by surprise. Frei had promised that this show was not about my case and more than that, I thought I knew Ingraham. I never even considered the possibility of such an attack from him. It was clear that they had set me up for an ambush. Why was Ingraham discussing my case anyway? The case has been over for a long time and he never had anything to do with it. Perhaps if he did have something to do with it, he would have known that the government did not charge me with a conspiracy, did not prove a conspiracy, and in fact my co-defendant Robert Riggs had testified that I had never asked him to break into any computer or copy any document, let alone a Bell South computer or a 911 document. No, Ingraham did not know much about my case and this ignorance was used to my disadvantage. I haven't complained too much about Geraldo here and basically it isn't that Geraldo isn't deserving of a lot of criticism, but unlike Ingraham, he didn't know any better or at least I would not have expected him to know any better. Before I knew what had happened, the show was over. I never had the opportunity to raise ANY civil liberties concerns and I felt like I had just gotten the stuffing beaten out of me on national television. My friends told me not to feel too bad, after all I'm just a guy barely out of college and Ingraham is a prosecutor with over a dozen years of experience. How could I have hoped to prevail against him in this type of confrontation, especially with Geraldo feeding on the allegations like a blood-sucking leech. I didn't come to New York to fight with Don Ingraham, I guess he had a different idea. I didn't feel like hanging out in New York any longer, so I got to the airport and a flight home as soon as possible. Frei and the other staff at NOW did not even have the decency to send me a copy of the show on a videotape and to this day, I have not been reimbursed for the cab fare money that they promised me. This amounts to about $45.00. And that is my story... ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 91 7:43:01 CDT From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 4--Second Thoughts about the "Ingraham Massacre" Craig Neidorf has yet to receive an apology from Bill Cook. Or Tim Foley. Or the BellSouth crowd. They had no case, yet they nearly ruined his life. Even though the case was dropped, prosecutors still seem intent on prosecuting--and convicting--him in the media on the same half-truths and fabrications. This time, Don Ingraham owes Craig Neidorf an apology. But, Don Ingraham, Alameda County Ass't DA, apparently feels no need to apologize to Craig Neidorf. At least, he hasn't to date. But, then, why should the powerful worry about such trivia, even when they distort facts, betray trust, and act unethically in their hatchet job? Ingraham betrayed Craig's trust that no cheap-shots would be taken; He betrayed Craig's trust by bringing in an agenda of his own when Craig expected a legitimate discusion; and he betrayed the public's trust by playing fast and loose with facts. The transcript of the Sept 30 Geraldo show makes Don Ingraham seem less than honorable in the shameless way he exploited Craig for his own ends. >Geraldo: . . . .Don, do you think Craig's lucky that he's >not behind bars right now? > >Don: Yes, I think he's extraordinarily lucky. He was part >of a conspiracy, in my opinion, to take property that wasn't >his and share it with others. They charged him with >interstate transport of stolen property - couldn't make the >threshold -and it came out that it had been compromised by, >unfortunately, released by another BellCore subsidiary. But >was certainly not through any doing of HIS that he is a free >man. Normally, the courts--not publicity-seeking Assistant DAs trying to make a splash on national television--try suspects. There was no evidence that Craig was involved in a conspiracy to "take property that wasn't his." The evidence showed that the E911 documents in question were stolen long before being published in PHRACK, and that Craig had no role in their acquisition. Ingraham used his skills as a glib rhetorician to distort reality in ways that may make good theater, but lousy justice. Ingraham is right about one thing: It wasn't Craig's doing that forced the government to drop the charges. It was a six-figure attorney fee and the volunteer help of John Nagel, Dorothy Denning, the EFF, and others who devastated the government's case. However, it was not on some "threshold" technicality that the case was dropped, as Ingraham implies. The case against Craig was dropped because the government had no case. Craig suggested an analogy between the issues the PHRACK case raised and Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Rather than accept the analogy as a departure point for discussion, Prosecutor Ingraham preferred to hurl a few sleaze-balls: >Geraldo: Do you figure it that way Don? Is he like Daniel >Ellsberg? > >Don: No, Ellsberg went to court to deal with it. Daniel >Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers is the subject of >a published court decision to point out it was a matter of >national security and national interest. The E911 codes, >which is the citizen's link to the police department are not >a matter of national security. They're a matter of the >central service to the community....... > >Geraldo: You broke into the 911 system? He broke into the >911 system! > >KL: No, that's not correct. I never entered any 911 >telephone system. > >Don: I didn't say he entered into it. What I said was that >he and Riggs conspired together to take a code that they >knew was necessary to 911 and to take it apart to see how it >worked. They never had the owner's permission, they never >asked for it. Ingraham first implies that Craig broke into the E911 system, then we waffles back and claims he merely conspired to take code. He is fabricating a role for Craig despite evidence to the contrary, he grossly misrepresents the E911 documents in question, which were text files rather than a "program," and he imputes to Craig motives (taking apart the code) which are not true. Sitting in the presumably quiet confines of his office, Ingraham apparently judges it fully acceptable to besmirch the reputation and feelings of a victim of malicious prosecution. Why? What would possess a normal adult to play the bully-role on national television? And, what would he do with hackers given the chance? Why, what else? Toss 'em in jail--"HARD TIME!" >Don: I don't think they're being punished very much at all. >We're having trouble even taking away their gear. I don't >know one of them has done hard time in a prison. The book, >Hafner's book on _Cyberpunk_, points out that even Mitnick >who is a real electronic Hannibal Lecter ... did not get >near any of the punishment that what he was doing entitled >him to. Isn't Ingraham aware of the hackers who've been sent to prison? What does he mean by "hard time?" Doesn't he think that the devastating consequences of separation of family that Len Rose is experiencing is "hard time?" Nah, better we lop of a hand for the first offense, pluck out the eyes for a second. And, as a commentator observed last issue, it's really a drag that due process gets in the way when Ingraham and his brownshirts try to grab suspects' equipment. Damn! They even had to give Steve Jackson's back. Too bad Doc Ripco and others haven't been as lucky. It is apparent that Ingraham is not on the show to discuss issues, but to perform. Craig is a convenient prop for an anti-hacker soliloquy: >Don: If they stopped at voyeurism they would be basically >sociopathic, but not doing near the harm they do now. But >they don't stop at looking, that's the point. They take >things out and share them with others, and they are not >being accountable and being responsible as to whom they are >sharing this information. That is the risk. (. . .) >Don: What do I think of Craig? I have a lot of respect for >Craig, I think he's probably going to be an outstanding >lawyer someday. But he is contributing to a disease, and a >lack of understanding ethically, that is causing a lot of >trouble. Craig Neidorf, for better or worse, believed he was walking into a discussion of issues. Don Ingraham had a somewhat different agenda, and used his experience to promote it, and allowed "truth" to fall where it may. Don Ingraham may be an adept prosecutor, he may feed the pigeons, and some claim that, on occasion, he even displays concern for civil liberties. But, Don Ingraham's comments do not reflect his own accountability to truth, and he seemed to make up facts to fit his claims. Actually, it is *he* who "is contributing to a disease, and a lack of understanding ethically, that is causing a lot of trouble." Ingraham did a number on Craig that served no purpose. Unfortunately, Ingraham may be one of those who fails to recognize that brutality comes in many forms, and his own sanctimonious bullying of a near-defenseless youth is inexcusable. If Geraldo had been thinking more quickly, he might have toyed with Ingraham's hyperbolic analogy to rape by alluding to a few other examples of older men who've done hatchet jobs on young males. Like John Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. They, too, felt no need to apologize to their victims. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 91 22:15:15 EDT From: Krista Bradford <76436.3200@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 5--Response to CuD #3.37's "Mad Hacker" Issue I briefly will address a few points discussed by critics of the show, and then will address what may ultimately be more helpful and productive. : >"Skillfully juxtaposed film images of terrorism and military >violence with discussions and images of hackers". The first story was dedicated to the hackers in Amsterdam making their way into a US army computer. We aired video of the hackers which Emmanuel Goldstein was so kind to provide, and attempted to explain in layman's terms exactly how they made their way in. I felt that was necessarily to lay to rest any misconceptions about what it is that hackers do. In addition, one of the documents found in the Army computer related to the war with Iraq, and so we used footage from the war. I then intentionally separated the first story from the second with a commercial break...so their would be no confusing hackers with terrorists. The second piece related to computer terrorism. In it we showed footage of Die Hard 2, which was viewed at a congressional hearing as an example of how vulnerable we are, and how what happened in that movie could happen in real life. In both pieces I attempted to show a balance of viewpoints. I strenuously objected to the use of the term Mad Hacker, and to the title "Mad Hackers' Key Party" - which I found out about after the stories aired. (They weren't mad, but are now - and it wasn't a "party" but rather a breech of security.) I'm afraid that was not of my doing, but rather of one of our show's producers. I find the term objectionable and offensive and insulting. I do not believe in name calling, yet that is what occurred, and for that I offer my apologies to Emmanuel Goldstein and to anyone else who took offense. You can be assured that I have addressed the issue internally. As for the comment that we put at least one military computer at risk. We didn't. The military has known of its bug for years, but hasn't fixed it. In addition, we volunteered to show the videotape to the Army for further explanation and protection, but it didn't take us up on the offer. It was well aware of the problem, you can be sure by the number of calls we made to attempt to get an interview. Also, I checked and was told that that particular army computer no longer resides at that address. I realized I might be criticized for actually showing how to hack. We did not show each and every step, but we wanted to show just how easy it was. And I think it was valuable to demystify hacking. As for the alleged hatchet job on Craig - I believe it was less of Geraldo's doing and more of an imbalance between a prosecutor well-versed in expressing himself, and someone who was not as capable. That is what happens when interviews are taped as live - one cannot insert a balance (a little less of the prosecutor, a little more of Craig). While you can criticize Geraldo for his heavy-handedness and sensational style - some credit is due him for giving me the freedom to pursue this story, the funding to produce the pieces and the extraordinary amount of airtime. We spent several months researching and taping the stories. Also, while it is may be hard to imagine - there are many shows that would shy away from such a topic because it was "technical" or "boring" or because the shows didn't understand or don't want to understand computers. The latter still tends to be the norm. While most newsrooms are computerized - most reporters have not turned to computer assisted journalism. But this is a growing area of interest. You can easily tap into computer-literate journalists through the Center for Computer-Assisted Reporting at the University of Missouri Columbia (Professor Elliot Jaspin-reachable on CIS) and the National Institute for Advanced Reporting at the University of Indiana (Scott Abel). How can the media be made more aware of the nuances of the topics? By using computers themselves. Sign your favorite reporter up to Compuserve, and then leave them flattering E-mail. Invite them to call a local BBS. Have sources leave them tips for stories on the BBS, instead of calling. Having running threads giving them feedback on their stories. A reporter really won't understand the nuances unless he gives virtual space a try...sort of like the difference between being a passenger and being in the driver's seat. As for media distortions. They are inevitable. I guess I would go for quantity as well as quality - establish relationships with reporters who will become more educated about hackers/computer issues the more stories they do. Realize the media does uses headlines to capture the rather short attention spans of viewers and readers, so a headline may distort, but the story which follows may clarify. As for an informed public dialog emerging...I believe that Operation Sun Devil is old news. What I care about is what is happening today and tomorrow to hackers and their civil rights, to their computer equipment. What is happening to computer security? Just how safe are we? Find the most compelling examples of your point of view (i.e- a teenage hacker who just had all of his computer equipment, clock radio and VCR seized with no charges filed.) Let me know. Let other reporters know. Let us meet new people, new sources to report on the evolving history of this issue. We can discuss the ethics within the context of each additional story. And as the stories are told, perhaps legislators will hear and think and be more inclined to draft more constructive legislation. And one special note of interest...I am looking for government databases I can obtain by asking or by using the Freedom of Information Act. I then crunch the databases myself and determine whether said Department is enforcing its own laws or regulations...and whether it is misrepresenting its data, cooking the books. If anyone knows of any gov't databases out there that would be worthy of consideration - drop me a line via E-Mail. In addition, story suggestions and tips are always welcome. Cordially, Krista Bradford, Senior Reporter, Now It Can Be Told, CIS 76436,3200 or call (212) 373-6200. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Oct 91 17:58:45 CDT From: duane@SHAKE.TAMU.EDU(Duane) Subject: File 6--Release of Informatik #1 I would like to announce the release of the first issue of 'Informatik'. Informatik #1 is available by anonymous ftp at uunet.uu.net under: tmp/inform1.Z tmp/inform1.txt Below is an excerpt from the issue's header: ** Introduction ** By the Informatik staff Welcome to the inaugural issue of Informatik, an electronic periodical devoted to the distribution of information not readily available to the public, with a particular emphasis on technology and the computing world. First and foremost, this publication is dedicated to the freedom of information. This journal is made possible by The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances. In this and coming issues, we plan to exercise our First Amendment rights to the best of our ability. We will print feature articles on hacking, phreaking, and various other illicit activities. We also plan on bringing you recent news and gossip from the underground, anything news of interest to hackers, phreakers, grifters, cyber-punks, and the like. Informatik will also provide a plethora of information on the inner workings of corporate America and the U.S. Government. DO distribute this freely! Remember this is not illegal, this is information. *Please send submissions and comments to duane@shake.tamu.edu. (for now)* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:50 CDT From: ulowell!nuchat.sccsi.com!samp%harvard@HARVUNXW.BITNET Subject: File 7--Second Annual XMASCON NIA & Phrack Magazine, & dFx International Digest Are Proud To Present: The Second Annual X M A S C O N Who: All Hackers, Journalists, Security Personnel, Federal Agents, Lawyers, Authors and Other Interested Parties. Where: Houston Airport Hilton Inn 500 North Belt East Houston, Texas 77060 U.S.A. Tel: (713) 931-0101 Fax: (713) 931-3523 When: Friday December 27 through Sunday December 29, 1991 Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it right... Xmascon has returned! This will undoubtedly be the telecom event of the year. Unlike certain conferences in the past, Xmascon 91 has a devoted and dedicated staff who are putting in an unmentionable amount of time to ensure a large, vast and organized collection of some of the most diversified people in the telecommunications world. The event will be open to the public so that anyone may attend and learn more about the different aspects of computer security. Hotel Information ----------------- The Houston Airport Hilton Inn is located about 6 miles from Intercontinental Airport. The Xmascon group room rates are $49.00 plus tax (15%) per night, your choice of either single or double. There are also 7 suites available, the prices of which vary from $140 to $250. You can call the hotel to find out the differences and availability of the suites, and you will also NEED to tell them you are with the Xmascon Conference to receive the reduced room rate, otherwise, you will be paying $69.00. There is no charge for children, regardless of age, when they occupy the same room as their parents. Specially designed rooms for the handicapped are available. The hotel provides free transportation to and from the airport, as well as neighbouring Greenspoint Mall, every 30 minutes on the hour, and on call, if needed. There are 2 restaurants in the hotel. The Wicker Works is open until 11:00 pm, and The Forty Love is open 24 Hours. There will also be breakfast, lunch and dinner buffets each day. There is a piano bar, The Cycle Club, as well as a sports bar, Chaps, which features numerous table games, large screen tv, and a disco with a DJ. Within the hotel compound, there are 3 pools, 2 of which are indoors, a jacuzzi, a miniature golf course, and a fully equipped health club which features universal weights, a whirlpool and sauna. A car rental agency is located in the hotel lobby, and you can arrange to pick your car up at either the airport or the hotel. Xmascon attendees are entitled to a discounted rate. Contact the hotel for more information. Xmascon will last 3 days, with the main conference being held on Saturday, December 28, in the Osage meeting room, starting at 12:00 p.m. and continuing on throughout the evening. This year, we have our own complete wing of the hotel, which is housed around a 3,000 square foot atrium ballroom. The wing is completely separated from the rest of the hotel, so we are strongly encouraging people to make their reservations as far in advance as possible to ensure themselves a room within our area. We are hoping to have a number of people speak on a varied assortment of topics. If you would like to speak, please contact us as soon as possible and let us know who you are, who you represent (if anyone), the topic you wish to speak on, a rough estimate of how long you will need, and whether or not you will be needing any audio-visual aids. There will be a display case inside the meeting room which will hold items of telecom interest. Specific items that will be available, or that we hope to have, include the first issues of 2600, Tap, Mondo 2000, and other magazines, non-computer related magazines that feature articles of interest, a wide array of boxes, the Quaker Oats 2600 mhz whistle, The Metal AE, etc. We will also have a VCR and monitor set up, so if you have any interesting videos (such as the Unsolved Mysteries show featuring Kevin Poulsen), or if you have anything you think people would enjoy having the chance to see, please let us know ahead of time, and tell us if you will need any help getting it to the conference. If all else fails, just bring it to the con and give it to us when you arrive. Media support has been very strong so far. Publications that have agreed to print pre-conference announcements and stories include Computer World, Info World, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Austin Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, Independent Journal, Mondo 2000, CuD, Informatik, a leading Japanese computer magazine, NME, Regeneration (Germany), and a few other European based magazines. PBS stations WHNY, WNET, and KQED, as well as the stations that carry their syndicated shows, will be mentioning the conference also. If you are a journalist and would like to do a story on Xmascon 91, or know someone who would, contact us with any questions you may have, or feel free to use and reprint any information in this file. If anyone requires any additional information, needs to ask any questions, wants to RSVP, or would like to be added to the mailing list to receive the Xmascon updates, you may write to either myself (Drunkfux), Judge Dredd, or Lord Macduff via Internet at: nia@nuchat.sccsi.com Or via US Mail at: Hard Data Corporation ATTN: HoHo P.O. Box 60695 Houston, Texas 77205-9998 U.S.A. We will hopefully have an 800 mailbox before the next update is sent out. If someone cares to donate a decent one, that will stay up throughout the end of the year, please let us know. We should also be listing a few systems as an alternative form of reaching us. Xmascon 91 will be a priceless learning experience for professionals, and gives journalists a chance to gather information and ideas direct >from the source. It is also one of the very few times when all the members of the computer underground can come together for a realistic purpose. We urge people not to miss out on an event of this caliber, which doesn't happen very often. If you've ever wanted to meet some of the most famous people from the hacking community, this may be your one and only chance. Don't wait to read about it in all the magazines, and then wish you had attended, make your plans to be there now! Be a part of our largest and greatest conference ever. Remember, to make your reservations, call (713) 931-0101 and tell them you're with Xmascon. In closing... if you miss this one, you're only cheating yourself. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #3.38 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank