Computer underground Digest Fri, Jan 29, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 04 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 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 (147.31.254.132), 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 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: Thu, 27 Jan 92 18:32:10 From: Moderators 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 jrickard@boardwatch.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, multi-vendor environment. 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, Inc. 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 directory. 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 X.500 series. 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 use. The User Bill of Rights pertains to the Public Directory. Source: NADF, January 1992 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 21:29:00 LCL From: sender@garbled.by.new.batch.program 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 WBAI-FM 505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl. New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707 on September 29, 1991. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SAMORI MARKSMAN: 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] HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: 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. HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: How about Mr. Riconosciuto? We discussed the legal problems he got himself in after he spoke out. But what is his history? HARRY MARTIN: 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. ..... PAUL DeRIENZO: 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? HARRY MARTIN: 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. ........ PAUL DeRIENZO: 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 ..... HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: Actually, Barron's also. HARRY MARTIN: 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. SAMORI MARKSMAN: 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? HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: 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) .... HARRY MARTIN: We refer to them as deaths. We're not taking the total line yet that they were murders. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PAUL DeRIENZO: 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 .... HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: Can we focus now on Alvarez? Can you tell us that story? HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: At first, there was a grand jury investigation and there were no indictments or suspects mentioned in that first investigation. HARRY MARTIN: And yet, Hughes testified to names, places, events, everything. PAUL DeRIENZO: 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. HARRY MARTIN: 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. PAUL DeRIENZO: He was actually convicted rather than charged? I heard he was brought up on charges. But he was actually convicted of that? HARRY MARTIN: Absolutely. PAUL DeRIENZO: 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 South Dakota. HARRY MARTIN: 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. ..... SAMORI MARKSMAN: 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? HARRY MARTIN: 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. SAMORI MARKSMAN: 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 PRA The sections of the PRA that deal with the dissemination of government information largely reflect IIA's vision of federal information policy. 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 information policy. 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 community. 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Original message++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Original message++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ January 27, 1992 Jerry Berman Director, Washington Office, EFF 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Suite 303 Washington, DC 20003 RE: PRA/Owens Bill Dear Jerry: 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 structures). 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_ services. 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 those criticisms. 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 incorrect. 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 smokers." 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 some. 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 way around. ------------------------------ 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 kl@stormking.com 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 of Missouri. - 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. 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 my means. 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 her talents. 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, & Zavis Send them to: Sheldon Zenner Katten, Muchin, & Zavis 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 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 student. ------------------------------ From: anonymous@name.deleted 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 home. 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: Len Rose/27154-037 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