Computer underground Digest Fri, Jan 29, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 04 Moderators: Jim Thomas a
Computer underground Digest Fri, Jan 29, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 04
Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Associate Moderator: Etiam Shrdlu
CONTENTS, #4.04 ( Jan 29, 1992)
File 1: Media Watch (Moderators)
File 2: User Bill of Rights Introduced
File 3: The Casolaro Murder--The Feds' Theft of Inslaw Software
File 4: PRA and Owens Bill
File 5: EFF on PRA/Owen bills
File 6: PRA/Owens Bill (response to EFF response)
File 7: Re: CuD 402--Law Enforcement, the Government & You
File 8: The Harsh Reality of Life
File 9: Len Rose seeks Unix work upon release
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 (184.108.40.206),
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au. To use the U. of
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
quotes) to firstname.lastname@example.org.
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: Thu, 27 Jan 92 18:32:10
Subject: File 1--Media Watch (Moderators)
BOARDWATCH: The Jan/Feb issue of _Boardwatch_ technical information of
interest to BBS hobbyists and modemers with legal news and general
information useful to students of cyberspace. For law buffs, three
stories (Virginia telecom vs. Virginia BBSs, the American On-Line
pornography case, and Lance Rose's piece on Whistleblowers' BBS)
provide a concise summaries of legal issues. The issue also includes
a BBS listing of boards in Denver and in what used to be East Germany.
Although $36 a year for 12 issues, it's a great bargain and an
invaluable resource. For info, contact email@example.com
PHRACK: The latest (Jan '92) "Diet Phrack" (#36) is out, and is the
best issue since Knight Lightning left two years ago. The issue can
be obtained from the CuD ftp archive site (see header, above) or by
contacting the PHRACK editors directly (see CuD #4.02 for details).
Table of Contents for Phrack 36:
1. Introduction to Diet Phrack (Phrack 36) by Compaq Disk and Dr. Dude
2. Diet Phrack Loopback by Phrack Staff
3. In Living Computer starring Knight Lightning
4. The History ah MOD by Wing Ding
5. *ELITE* Access by Dead Lord and Lord Digital (Lords Anonymous!)
6. The Legion of Doom & The Occult by Legion of Doom and Demon Seed Elite
7. Searching for speciAl acceSs agentS by Dr. Dude
8. Phreaks in Verse II by Homey the Hacker
9. Real Cyberpunks by The Men from Mongo
10. Elite World News by Dr. Dude
11. Elite World News by Dr. Dude
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 11:07:44 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf
Subject: File 2--User Bill of Rights Introduced
USER "BILL OF RIGHTS" INTRODUCED January 23, 1992
TAMPA, FLORIDA.-- .The North American Directory Forum (NADF)
introduced a "User Bill of Rights" to address security and privacy
issues regarding entries and listings concerning its proposed
cooperative public directory service. NADF members also approved
continuing efforts on an experimental publish directory pilot at their
eighth quarterly meeting.
The "User Bill of Rights" addresses the concerns of the individual
user or the user's agent, and is in response to issues brought to the
attention of the NADF.
Final plans were completed for the X.500 directory pilot scheduled to
begin in the first quarter of this year. The pilot will be used by
the NADF to validate its technical agreements for providing a publish
directory service in North America. The agreements have been recorded
in standing documents and include the services that will be provided,
the directory schema and information sharing required to unify the
directory. It will test the operation of X.500 in a large-scale,
All NADF members are participating in the pilot. The members are
AT&T, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth Advanced Networks, Bellcore
representing US West, BT North America, GE Information Services, IBM,
Infonet, MCI Communications Corp., Pacific Bell, Performance Systems
International, US Postal Service and Ziff Communications Co. Joining
the NADF at this meeting are Canada Post Corporation and DirectoryNet,
The NADF was founded in 1990 with the goal of bringing together major
messaging providers in the U.S. and Canada to establish a public
directory service based on X.500, the CCITT recommendation for a
global directory service. The forum meets quarterly in a
collaborative effort to address operational, commercial and technical
issues involved in implementing a North American directory with the
objective of expediting the industry's transition to a global X.500
This quarter's meeting was hosted by the IBM Information Network,
IBM's value-added services network that provides networking,
messaging, capacity and consulting services.
USER BILL OF RIGHTS (for entries and listings in the Public Directory)
The mission of the North American Directory Forum is to provide
interconnected electronic directories which empower users with
unprecedented access to public information. To address significant
security and privacy issues, the North American Directory Forum
introduces the following "User Bill of Rights" for entries in the
Public Directory. As a user, you have:
I. The right not to be listed.
II. The right to have you or your agent informed when your entry is created.
III. The right to examine your entry.
IV. The right to correct inaccurate information in your entry.
V. The right to remove specific information from your entry.
VI. The right to be assured that your listing in the Public Directory will
comply with US or Canadian law regulating privacy or access information.
VII. The right to expect timely fulfillment of these rights.
Scope of Intent - User Bill of Rights
The North American Directory Forum is a collection of service
providers that plan to offer a cooperative directory service in North
America. This is achieved by interconnecting electronic directories
using a set of internationally developed standards known as the CCITT
In this context, the "Directory" represents the collection of
electronic directories administered by both service providers and
private operators. When an entry containing information about a user
is listed in the Directory, that information can be accessed unless
restricted by security and privacy controls.
A portion of the Directory -- The Public Directory -- contains
information for public dissemination. In contrast, other portions of
the Directory may contain information not intended for public access.
A user or user's agent may elect to list information in the Public
Directory, a private directory, or some combination. For example, a
user might publicly list a telephone number or an electronic mail
address, and might designate other information for specific private
The User Bill of Rights pertains to the Public Directory.
Source: NADF, January 1992
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 21:29:00 LCL
Subject: File 3--The Casolaro Murder--The Feds' Theft of Inslaw Software
((Moderators' note: The following excerpts from a WBAI-FM interview
were sent to us by a reader whose header was maliciously garbled by an
experimental editing program. Our new associate moderator, Etiam
Shrdlu, assumes full responsibility and apologizes. The poster
indicated that the interview originally appeared on Activist-L bitnet
hotline. Background information on the Inslaw case, in which the U.S.
government is suspected by some of conspiring to steal software and
cover up its theft, see CuDs 3.30, 3.31, and 3.33)).
The following interview was broadcast over Pacifica Radio Network station
505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707
on September 29, 1991.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We go to our next guest, Harry Martin, who is the publisher of
the Napa Sentinel [Napa, California] and who has been doing an
extraordinary amount of investigatory work around the Inslaw affair.
We will begin by welcoming Harry Martin back to WBAI. Good morning.
Just to let you know that I'm in the studio with Paul DeRienzo.
[deleted some previously discussed information]
The person who is awaiting criminal prosecution is Michael
Riconosciuto, of course. But mind you, he was not arrested at the time
he made the deposition. He gave a deposition to Congress, and he
indicated to the committee that if he went ahead and testified --as he
did -- therefore, he would be subject to arrest within a short period
of time. Within seven days he was arrested! But Ari Ben-Menashe is
certainly not under any criminal arrest. He is a member of the Israeli
Mossad [intelligence agency]. And the other people who have come
forward and testified to these various things are not in jail. Michael
Riconosciuto is a man who has signed an affidavit, and yes, he is in
jail awaiting criminal charges of supposedly owning a methamphetamine
lab in Pearce Conty, Washington. However, after he was arrested --
while I was on a Seattle radio show, I was on hold and the news came
on -- there were three methamphetamine labs broken up in Pearce
County, Washington, not associated with him whatsoever. And it would
lead to the suspicion that perhaps they were all connected to one
thing and had nothing to do with Michael, but they decided to hang one
on him right after his testimony.
Why don't you give us some background on who Ari Ben-Menashe is,
because his name has come up on a number of different issues.
His name has turned up on the October Surprise and everything else.
He is a member of the Mossad and he apparently indicates that he is a
witness to the exchange of the PROMIS software to the Iraqis in
Santiago, Chile. Now there was also a British Air Force officer who
was a witness to that thing, supposedly, and he was hung. And they
declared that to be suicide. That was in Chile. Ben-Menashe has come
forward on a lot of things, but you have to understand that the
Israelis, at the present time, are also very irritated with the Bush
Administration. And you cannot be sure how much information and
disinformation is being passed around.
How about Mr. Riconosciuto? We discussed the legal problems he got
himself in after he spoke out. But what is his history?
He's a very brilliant computer scientist. He has worked inside the CIA
for a long time. And nobody can deny this fact. Nobody is challenging
that particular role. He was the man who had the access keys to almost
any computer situation: monies, who's who and everything else. He's
very dangerous in the aspect that he has all that knowledge of the key
players in many, many things. And, of course, his affidavit stated
that he converted the PROMIS software using the Cabazon Indian
reservation, in Indio, California to do this. And Dr. Earl Brian was
very much involved there. That place was also used for the manufacture
of biological warfare and chemical warfare to be used by the Contras
in Nicaragua. Testimony has come forward from many people that that
whole Indian tribe and those people running it are shown by the
California Department of Justice to have Mafia and CIA ties. This is
a documented situation. But jurisdiction becomes a problem because it
is an independent Indian nation.
We have reports that have come out in COMPUTERWORLD and other sources
based on these statements made by Mr. Ben-Menashe and Mr. Riconosciuto
that Robert McFarlane, who was the former National Security Advisor,
was involved in giving the Israeli Government copies of this software.
Bill Hamilton says that he found out, quite by accident, that Canada
was using it widely; that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were using
it in their intelligence facilities.
Now, what was the role of the Indian reservation?
Well, there are several Indian reservations that are being used by the
Wackenhut Corporation and intelligence agencies to do things like
manufacture equipment or ..... They can skip a lot of corners because
these nations are technically independent. For instance, one
reservation is in New Mexico, but it also goes across the Mexican
border. Therefore, it becomes an open corridor where you don't use
customs or anything because part of your properties are in one country
and part is in another. And they have used these Indian tribes for
everything from the manufacture of weapons to the software situation,
opening up gambling casinos. And understand, a lot of the money
involved in the savings and loan scandal came from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs puts out money to be
invested on short-term notices, and this is how a lot of the savings
and loans that went down started up. And that's where a lot of their
money came from.
There could be a lot of inter-ties in there. It is so complex, and of
course, Danny Casolaro referred to it as "the Octopus". You can
understand why now, because it gets into .... You see, the trouble is,
you can't isolate Inslaw by itself. Inslaw by itself is just a minor
thing compared with the overall package. The total corruption that
seems to have played around --Iran/Contra gets involved, and the
October Surprise gets involved. There are just so many players that
keep coming across each other, and it's a really massive story. I
don't know anybody who is going to get the whole picture.
What I'm trying to get at are the connections that might lead to
an investigation, or try to force an investigation into these
things because it seems that when you have a reporter who is
found dead under mysterious circumstances, by anybody's definition,
it deserves being looked into further rather than a simple ruling
that this was a suicide because .....
You have to understand now, Inslaw was sort of on the back burner of
the public limelight. In other words, I'm getting letters now from
your program last week in which people say they haven't heard too
much about this thing on the East Coast. Originally, Inslaw was
carried by the Washington Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and
ourselves. And we're the only three newspapers in the whole nation
giving any credence or concentration to it.
Actually, Barron's also.
The Sam Nunn Committee got nowhere because the Justice Department
refused to turn over any records whatsoever. And Jack Brooks's
Committee, which is in our Congress, has already had some hearings
and some of the testimony is from Judge Bason and so forth. But
again, the Justice Department is stonewalling it in refusing to
give documentation up. And, of course, my question is: Who's in
control, the Congress or the Justice Department? The thing is
that the death of Danny Casolaro has opened this to the fact that
you're seeing more and more questions asking: What is this Inslaw
case? And that in itself is going to open up more questions into
other things. See, if they open up the Inslaw case, it's just
going to be the tip of the iceberg, and they may find a lot of
other things involved and interconnected. Perhaps Danny's death
is going to give more impetus to the Brooks Committee. It's
certainly beginning to wake up the national media which really
slept on this thing. These things take time. Look how long it took
Watergate. And Iran/Contra really never got anywhere.
We want to let our listeners know that we are speaking with
Harry Martin who is the publisher of the Napa Sentinel, and as
you've been hearing, we're focusing on a rather intriguing story --
which involves some major players in the political affairs of
this society -- but which isn't receiving the kind of attention
that the issue deserves. We here at WBAI are attempting to do so
today and we will continue to do so.
Paul, I want to ask Harry to go back to a point which he alluded
to earlier. We had been talking about the breadth of this issue,
that it's not simply the disappearance of Danny, that there are
many others who have been killed in similarly mysterious
circumstances, although some perhaps less mysteriously than others.
Could you discuss that again for us, Harry Martin, and show what
was a common thread linking these various deaths?
Well, much of the common thread is Danny Casolaro himself. We have
Standorf, who worked for a secret [government] communications
division outside of Washington [D.C.]. He was funneling documents
to Danny at all times, and he was found beaten to death in his car
at National Airport in Washington. And of course, Danny indicated
that his sources had [since] dried up. Apparently, they had set up
a thing in the Hilton Hotel, in room 900, in which they had
high-speed equipment, and they were duplicating everything as
quickly as possible to get them back in [returned to] the files.
Then of course, we have Mr. Ng who was in Guatemala. He worked
for the Financial Times of London. He was working on this case,
but he was also working on the Wackenhut Corporation and following
a key witness to the murders of some Cabazon Indians. And he was
found shot to death in Guatemala.
And then, of course, Michael Riconosciuto's attorney -- Eiselman,
I think it is. I don't have my notes in front of me -- from
Philadelphia, was en route to pick up material proving that
Riconosciuto was, in fact, telling the truth. And he was found
shot to death.
All these things, with the exception of Standorf, were written off
as suicides. And Michael May, who we wrote of as being tied into
that, and who had had communications with Casolaro .... and also,
he was the man who supposedly filtered the forty million dollars
to the Iranians as the down payment on the "October Surprise" --
we wrote about him on a Friday in June, and on a Wednesday in
San Francisco he was found dead. They said it was a heart attack.
Later on, the autopsy revealed that it was polypharmaceuticals
that were in his system, and it was not a heart attack.
Michael Riconosciuto's arrest, of course .... It would take me
forever to explain them all, but that gives you a synopsis of
some of the things that have happened to people associated with
that particular case.
Let's concentrate on one of the more outrageous of these murders.
And that, besides Casolaro's death (many people, including
Bill Hamilton call that a murder) ....
We refer to them as deaths. We're not taking the total line yet
that they were murders.
There is conflict on these [deaths], but they are very suspicious.
One actual murder that nobody will deny was that of Mr. Alvarez,
the crusading member of the Cabazon Indians who opposed the ....
Absolutely! And he was shot with two other people, execution style.
Jimmy Hughes was a man who worked for Wackenhut and who was the
bag-man to bring the money over [to pay for the contract murders
of Fred Alvarez and company]. And he has testified to the
Riverside County [California] District Attorney's office. He is
now in hiding in Guatemala, of course. That's where Mr. Ng
was down to see him. He also carried a lot of other information
which was extremely damaging. We were able to talk to people who
helped him escape, because he came up this way at first, and now
he's down in Guatemala. The Indian situation itself is its own
scandal. Then there's the Wackenhut Corporation, and you get
into Inslaw .... Like I say, its just so wide you would need a
massive computer just to do a chart.
Can we focus now on Alvarez? Can you tell us that story?
Alvarez was basically the head of the Cabazon Indians, and when
Wackenhut and Dr. Brian and people came in to take over and create
the gambling parlors and to convert the Inslaw software and to
manufacture chemical warfare weapons and so forth, he protested.
He wanted control of the Indian tribe back. And he was summarily
executed. The money came from the people who were running that,
according to the testimony of Jimmy Hughes, which is on file with
the State of California in the Riverside County D.A.'s office.
Incidentally now, after all these years they have finally reopened
that case in Riverside because of the publicity associated with
the Inslaw case.
At first, there was a grand jury investigation and there were no
indictments or suspects mentioned in that first investigation.
And yet, Hughes testified to names, places, events, everything.
Mr. John P. Nichols, who was at that time the head of the tribe
and who now is an advisor to the Cabazon Indians, said that the
death of Mr. Alvarez and two non-Indian companions, who were found
shot to death with him, had nothing to do with what's going on in
the Cabazon reservation.
Yet, Jimmy Hughes has testified to the Riverside people that
John Nichols is the one who gave him the money to deliver to the
hit-man in Palm Springs. Also, Mr. John Nichols was later on
convicted for murder-for-hire and his sons are now technically
running the tribe.
He was actually convicted rather than charged? I heard he was
brought up on charges. But he was actually convicted of that?
But Mr. Nichols seems to have a tremendous amount of support.
>From what I understand, he's getting a lot of support from
liberal figures such as James Aboureszk, the former senator from
You have to understand, Mr. Nichols, by his own boasting and
through other publications, indicates that he was involved in
the assassination of [democratically elected President of Chile,
Salvador] Allende, and he was involved in the attempted
assassination of [Cuban Premier Fidel] Castro. His links as a
C.I.A. contractor -- his links with the Mafia are well documented
with the State of California. Therefore, obviously he's going to
get some support from groups that are probably within that channel.
Harry Martin, we'd like to thank you very much for joining us
again here on WBAI. Any closing points that you would like to make?
Well, just that Danny's concept of an "Octopus" .... you can see
exactly what he was talking about. The tentacles went everywhere,
and he seemed to be on the verge of breaking a lot of that
information. And then all of his records, everything disappeared.
And he died. To say that a journalist would commit suicide when
he's on the verge of breaking a big story is ludicrous because
anybody knowing a journalist knows that once they are on a drive,
neither food nor anything else matters but to get that story
across. He was very close to it, and you don't cash in the chips
on the verge of winning the jackpot.
So true. Harry Martin, publisher of the Napa [California] Sentinel,
thank you very much for joining us here on WBAI, non-commercial,
listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio at 99.5 FM in New York.
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1992 11:44:21 CST
From: Cayman Zahn
Subject: File 4--PRA and Owens Bill
((Your readers might be interested in the following that came
across the nets))
++++ Original Message ++++
>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 16:23:42 EST
>From: James P Love
>Subject: PRA and Owens Bill
A number of persons have asked me how the Owens Bill (HR 3459) and the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) relate to each other. From our point of
view, they represent competing approaches to federal information
policy. Not only do these bills accomplish different things, but it
is highly unlikely that both bills will be acted on by Congress.
The sections of the PRA that deal with the dissemination of government
information largely reflect IIA's vision of federal information
1. Agency mandates to disseminate information are qualified by the
existence of private sector "equivalent" products and services.
2. The law limits agency prices for information "products," which
vendors buy, but not "services," which would include such things
as online access to government information systems.
3. While the PRA would benefit data users and vendors by prohibiting
royalties on government information, it may also prohibit
agencies from limiting the prices vendors charge for access to
services such as CENDATA or the FEC database.
4. The PRA only requires public notice when agencies start or
terminate "significant" new information products and services.
These are when privatization issues are important. There are no
provisions for public notice to review an existing policy to see
if it is adequate in light of changing technologies, or to raise
hundreds of user concerns over things like standards for file
formats, query command structures, user interfaces, indexes or
other important features of information dissemination programs.
5. The PRA strengthens OMB's role in setting federal information
policy. OMB has a long record of promoting the privatization of
federal information resources.
THE OWENS BILL
The Owens bill was drafted from the point of view of data users.
1. Agency have an unambiguous mandate to disseminate information
using modern technologies. Not only is the intent as expressed
in the findings quite good, but the bill specifically mentions
such things as the use of national computer networks.
2. Agency prices are limited for goods _and_ services.
3. The Owens bill bans agency royalties or fees for the
redissemination of information, but it doesn't place other
restrictions on federal agencies.
4. The public notice sections of the Owens bill are extensive, and
they address, on an annual basis, issues such as standards for
file formats, query command structures, user interfaces, and
indexes, as well as agency product lines, prices, outlets, and a
number of other things.
5. OMB will be constrained by the Owens bill, since the bill
carefully sets out agency mandates to disseminate information,
but OMB isn't given powers to make federal information policy.
NIST and NARA are asked to become more involved in federal
POLITICS OF THE TWO BILLS
1. IIA wants a bill that addresses the pricing of government
information. Vendors are disturbed by the recent attempts to
place royalties on the redisseminate of ocean tariff information.
Both bills would address this issue.
2. The IIA has told its membership that the Owens bill is consistent
with IIA principles.
3. The PRA probably can't pass without the support of the library
4. IIA is asking the library community to cut a deal on the PRA.
5. The PRA is a political tar baby, because it gets into many
unrelated subjects, such as OMB's authority to review agency
regulations before they are published, or the authority of
agencies to require firms to disclose health warnings to third
parties. The heavy hitters in those disputes don't care about
the information dissemination parts of the bill, and federal
information policy ends up being lost in the public debates.
We have opposed the passage of the PRA and we have supported the
passage of the Owens bill. We don't think OMB has much to recommend
it as a maker of federal information policy. If you disagree, ask
yourself this questions: Who else in the federal government would
want OMB to set policy? Do education groups want OMB to set education
policy? Do scientists want OMB to set science policy? OMB is
primarily staffed by accounting and management types who have little
background or commitment to the development and use information
resources or technologies. Why put them in the drivers seat?
James Love, Director VOICE: 609-683-0534
Taxpayer Assets Project FAX: 202-234-5176
7-Z Magie, Faculty Road bitnet: Love@pucc.bitnet
Princeton, NJ 08540 internet: Love@pucc.princeton.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 15:29:46 EST
From: Bennett Crook
Subject: File 5--EFF on PRA/Owen bills
The Electronic Frontier Foundation strongly disagrees with the Jamie
Love/Taxpayer Assets project interpretation of the Paperwork Reduction
Act Information Dissemination Sections. We support PRA. It is not
perfect legislation but it embodies postive obligation of goverment
agencies to disseminate public information in all formats and supports
a diversity of information sources.
Make no mistake. The TAP/Love Approach sometimes appears to envision
the government as the sole producer of government information.This is
inconsistent with free flow of information, diversity of sources for
government originated information.We dont want goverment to monopolize
info as we do not want private sector to do the same.
EFF, ACLU, OMB Watch, support PRA.
But we also support OWENS BILL!!!! Problem is that owens does little
except require agencies to report on dissemination activities. Good.
But also amends FOIA (Freedom of Info Act) which is fine but not easy
and cannot be considered independent of S 1939, Leahy (DVT, SEn) bill
to create Electronic Freedom of Information Act. PRA is in public
interest. Owens is in public interest. Electronic Foia in public
interest. Lets support them all.
J. Berman, EFF Wash Office Director.
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 14:20:09 EST
From: James P Love
Subject: File 6--PRA/Owens Bill (response to EFF response)
January 27, 1992
Director, Washington Office,
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
RE: PRA/Owens Bill
Here are my suggestions regarding the principles that should
prevail in a PRA (and/or) Owens bill.
1. Agencies should have an unambiguous mandate to provide
access to federal information in a variety of formats and
modes. The agencies should make reasonable efforts to
respond to requests for access to data stored in electronic
formats. This should include requests that data be
disseminated in ways that make it convenient to receive and
use (i.e. floppy disks, CD-ROMs, standardized record
2. Agencies should have a clear mandate to provide online
access to government information, and to use computer
networks, such as the Internet, for dissemination.
3. Agencies should provide information products and services to
the federal depository library program.
4. The agency should provide access to underlying records of
databases, as well as to value added services, including
those that are developed for use by government employees.
5. The agency's mandate to disseminate information should not
evaporate simply because there are private sector
alternatives. (i.e. the PRA "check list").
6. The government should charge no more than the incremental
cost of dissemination for information products _and_
7. Agencies should be encouraged to embrace standards for such
things as record formats and query commands.
8. The public should have frequent and regular opportunities to
review agency policies and practices and offer criticisms.
Agencies should be required to say what they have done about
9. The legislation should not enhance OMB's role in setting
federal information policy. 11 years of ORIA work in this
area should be enough to convince anyone that OMB is a
terrible choice for this role.
10. The legislation should not become embroiled with battles
over OMB's powers to review federal regulations or the
federal government's authority to require firms to post
health and safety notices. These are important issues, but
when the legislation embraces these issues no one pays any
attention to the information dissemination issues. Federal
information policy is too important to be decided in an
environment where every move is determined by players who do
not care or know about information policy issues.
In my mind, the Owens bill addresses these issues better than the
PRA. Perhaps it is possible to incorporate features of the Owens
Bill in the PRA legislation, while avoiding the negative baggage
that the Paperwork Reduction Act carries with it. I'm not
convinced, but I have an open mind.
Date: 18 Jan 92 11:55:48 GMT
From: nick@KRALIZEC.ZETA.ORG.AU(Nick Andrew)
Subject: File 7--Re: Cud 402--Law Enforcement, the Government & You
Jon Pugh writes:
> If you were assigned to track down computer criminals and you
>didn't know a bit from a scuzzy disk controller, where would you start
>looking? On bulletin boards and at computer club meetings, of course.
The above statement presupposes that "where there are bulletin boards
and computer club meetings, there is computer crime". That may be true
in certain places, however for the general case it is certainly
If I might make an analogy, it is akin to the logic of saying "People
sometimes smoke Grass. Most people who smoke Grass drive cars.
Grass-smoking drivers often carry Grass in their cars. So therefore we
should search a lot of cars at random, in the hope of finding Grass
The analogy leads to an undesirable situation - that of law officials
interfering with people going about their business and searching their
personal property without any suspicion of wrongdoing. They _hope_ to
find grass, and they know if they stop 1 car in X, they will find
The situation with computer hobbyists is as undesirable. Nobody wants
law officials peeping into computer clubs trying to find a hint of
wrongdoing. The logic is backwards. Firstly find the wrongdoing - the
crack, or phreaking, then work towards the perpetrator. Not the other
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 11:27:32 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf
Subject: File 8--The Harsh Reality of Life
THE HARSH REALITY OF LIFE
by Craig Neidorf firstname.lastname@example.org
January 18-19, 1992 marked the two-year anniversary of my visit from
and subsequent raid by the United States Secret Service, Southwestern
Bell Security, and the University of Missouri Police Department.
The publicity and attention that once surrounded United States v.
Craig Neidorf has long been over, and; for most people involved life
has returned to normal and those events are history.
Unfortunately things are not quite as simple for me.
After my trial concluded, I went back to school at the University of
Missouri, and hit the books hard. I earned a 4.0 (straight A average)
that semester, focusing on political science and pre-law courses. I
did almost as well the following spring and summer semesters. I
graduated on August 2, 1991.
However, my legal bills remained very high. In fact, my parents and I
still owe close to $50,000.
I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of actually making a
direct appeal to people to send donations in to my defense fund, but
over the last year and a half, my idealism about the future has faded
and been replaced with reality.
At the end of my trial, my legal fees totaled about $108,000 and this
figure does not include travel expenses in going back and forth to
Chicago from St. Louis and Columbia or any other related expenditures
that I had to make during that 7 month period.
- This figure does not include the money I lost by having to drop most
of my classes at the University of Missouri that semester because I
could not consistently attend class during my ordeal.
- This figure does not reflect the pain and suffering that my family
and I were put through by a malicious and ignorant prosecutor and
other similarly unpleasant people at Bellsouth, Illinois Bell,
Bellcore, and AT&T.
- This figure does not include the traumatic incidents of my
suspension from the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity or the threats of
expulsion I received from the Chancellor's office of the University
- And finally this figure does not include the additional $900 I had
to spend to finally get my arrest records expunged. That fee could
and should have been avoided altogether except as with the trial,
William Cook (the assistant U.S. attorney) opposed my motion for
expungement and so several more motions and court appearances were
necessary for me to achieve victory.
The number one MYTH about my legal fees is that they were paid by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. This is complete fiction. Although I
appeared to have been somewhat of a spokesperson and "poster-child"
for the EFF throughout 1990 and 1991, and despite what you may have
read anywhere else, there were no monetary contributions granted to me
by that organization. NONE. There was a private and very generous
donation made by Mitch Kapor personally, but this is separate from the
EFF did pay for some legal motions to be filed in my case regarding
the First Amendment, but since these motions were denied, they
impacted only slightly on the outcome of my trial. The most
beneficial outcome of the EFF's involvement with my case was the
general increase in awareness in the community at large to the issues
my case presented.
Well more than a year has passed since the day my trial ended...
My entire life savings that I had stored for college and law school
was needed as a downpayment on my legal fees and my parents of course
had to give up most of their savings as well. A payment plan was
arranged over what looks to be a 10 year period. We had no choice,
but to accept that these were the cards life had dealt us and after
all things could be much worse. I have my health and my freedom (such
as it is) and such things are worth more than money.
However, I am a young person starting out in life. I have applied to
several law schools across the country, both public and private.
Unfortunately, after reviewing my financial options, I have discovered
that the expense of a legal education may now place it very far beyond
Like a very large number of Americans, the recession has hit home,
putting my father out of work and keeping my mother in a job beneath
It seriously pains me to have to do this, but trust me when I tell you
that I've thought about this for a long time. I need YOUR HELP to get
my legal bills paid. I need to be able to live my life without this
debt hanging over my head. There are at least 343 people on the
Phrack emailing list alone: If each person only contributed $30 it
would save me over $10,000. You see helping me out is not beyond the
reach of our community if we all work together. Consider it an
investment in your future, because what happened to me can happen to
anyone and with a legal education I'll be back to return the favor.
If you find that you can afford to help me, you have my most sincere
thanks and appreciation. I know a lot of you are in tight financial
situations like me and can sympathize with what I am going through.
If you are unable to help me because you are having problems of your
own then you have my sympathy as well.
Please make checks or money orders payable to: Katten, Muchin, &
Send them to: Sheldon Zenner
Katten, Muchin, & Zavis
525 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606-3693
And do not forget to write my name in the memo section or enclose a
letter explaining what the check is for. If you neglect to do that,
KMZ will not credit my account for the amount of the check.
PS - I'd also appreciate any tips or leads on potential sources of
financial aid, grants, and scholarships available for an aspiring law
Subject: File 9--Len Rose seeks Unix work upon release
Date: 23 Jan 92 06:03:13 GMT
((Readers might be interested in the following posted on the nets
by Mark Hittinger--a.a.))
>From time to time I've corresponded with Len Rose, mostly trying to
get him through his bad times and to get him thinking about the future
in the right way.
Time does fly when you are having fun, even the time you make a plea
bargain for. It is time for Len to start thinking about employment so
I'm posting an "ad" that Len wrote. Len does not know where in the
"food chain" he may find himself, so the chance to obtain heavy Unix
time at a discount exists! Len will very much appreciate any leads or
offers. He's got two little ones at
Unix work desired.
Systems administration or general consulting.
Will be released from Federal prison soon.
(See Computer Underground Digest Archives or the Electronic Frontier
Foundation Archives for more details).
Extensive experience: System V, AIX (RS/6000), SCO
Communications: TCP/IP, UUCP, ect.
'C' programming language.
Security auditing, general system administration.
Extensive 'anti-hacker' experience.
Extensive MS-DOS background.
Heavy hardware experience including installations from the ground up.
Willing to travel widely, relocation at your desire, including international.
Please send inquiries to:
FPC Seymour Johnson AFB
Caller Box 8004, PMB 187
Goldsboro, NC 27531-8004
End of Computer Underground Digest #4.04
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank