Computer underground Digest Sun Sep 26, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 46 Editors: Jim Thomas and G

---
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 Sep 26, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 46 Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow-Archivist: Dan Carosone Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdleau, Srr. CONTENTS, #4.46 (Sep 26, 1992) File 1--J Davis response on Piracy File 2--Response to Davis/Piracy (1) File 3--Response to Davis/Piracy (2) File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace File 5--EFF Analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal File 6--Cap't Crunch Discusses Sneakers With Newsbytes File 7--GATEWAY/WINDO ALERT File 8--Model Letter in re S. 2813 / HR 2772 File 9--Police files conference Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.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 in the PF*NPC RT libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and by anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au Back issues also may be obtained from the mail server at mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893. 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 for non-profit 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 computer culture and communication. 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: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 17:27:16 -0700 From: James I. Davis Subject: File 1--J Davis response on Piracy Regarding Robert Woodhead's and Wes Morgan's response (in CUD 4.42) to my earlier posting about software piracy and property rights, there are a few points to which I would like to respond. (As a disclaimer, I am not trying to defend the right to bootleg software, that is, to duplicate and _resell_ software. The discussion below deals with the unauthorized duplication and sharing of software, where no money changes hands.) One common defense raised for intellectual property rights, and against the unauthorized sharing of software, is that it injures the creator by robbing him or her of some deserved reward. And on a related note, the creator is entitled to compensation, and intellectual property rights are required to guarantee that. [Mr. Woodhead writes "[by unauthorized copying of software] you are showing a lack of respect for the creative efforts of other people." Mr. Morgan writes "If I pour 4 years of my life into the development of Snarkleflex, I DESERVE to profit from it." Denise Caruso (now editor of _Digital Media_) wrote a hilarious description a couple of years ago in an _SF Examiner_ column: "Why would some genius programmer, slaving away in a dark den redolent of cheese puffs and body odor, be willing to work for years on a revolutionary new software design if he or she didn't have any guarantee of being able to make money doing it?"] There are several fallacies in this argument. First, the reality of software production in the late 20th century is much different than this image. Most software production is NOT a cottage industry. The industry has quickly matured in the past few years into a typical monopolized industry. Most patent filings are by corporations. Most software is not purchased from the individuals who create the software, it is purchased from companies who have required their engineers to sign away any rights to whatever they come up with, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. So IN MOST CASES, the creator has been separated from the results of his or her creativity. But the image of the sole-proprietor hacker is raised up as a shield by the software industry -- the public can take pity on the "defenseless" hacker; people don't take pity on a Microsoft or an IBM. After invoking the "harm to the individual" argument, Mr. Woodward later says the distinction between creator and financier doesn't matter -- the software sharer is showing disrespect for the person who put up the cash. ("They risked the money, they deserve the rewards.") Here we get to the heart of the matter -- we're really talking about the "rights" of software corporations here; not the hacker, not the consumer, and not society. Nowhere do I argue that the people who write software should not be compensated for their effort. Of course people should be compensated! The question is how, and how much. Paycheck dollars from a corporation, a university, a cooperative or the government all spend equally as well. But the social benefits from the programmer's efforts are constrained by forcing them through the legal contortions of intellectual property rights and private ownership. The model that we have been using is private speculation for private gain, made possible via exclusive monopolies granted by the government, enforced by law. I am saying that other successful models exist and have generated useful products. The subtext in the "I deserve a reward" argument is that someone who comes up with a really useful idea should get a special reward. Fine. I have no problem with public recognition of significant contribution, even including a cash award. Again, this doesn't _require_ intellectual property rights. Third, to repeat my original point, property rights are NOT required to ensure creative activity. Switzerland didn't have a patent system until 1907, and the Dutch abandoned a patent system from 1869 until 1912. George Barsalla, in _The Evolution of Technology_, argues that this did not retard their economic development or their "inventiveness." Both countries eventually adopted patent laws because of pressure from other industrial nations. Mr. Morgan says that "*companies* create for financial gain" (which I certainly agree with), but puts this forward as if the protection of *their* financial gain somehow justifies the rest of us having to suffer under intellectual property rights. Corporations are not necessary for the generation of the software we need. Harlan Cleveland, former diplomat and dean of the University of MN's HHHumphrey Institute of Public Affairs (I mean, he's a mainstream guy), wrote in an essay that appears in _Information Technologies and Social Transformation_ (published by the National Academy of Engineering): "Is the doctrine that information is owned by its originator (or compiler) necessary to make sure that Americans remain intellectually creative?" He answers in the negative, citing the healthy public sector R&D efforts in space exploration, environmental protection, weather forecasting and the control of infectious diseases as counter examples. He concludes the section with a warning. "The notion of information-as-property is built deep into our laws, our economy, and our political psyche... But we had better continue to develop our own ways, compatible with our own traditions, of rewarding intellectual labor without depending on laws and prohibitions that are disintegrating fast -- as the Volstead Act did in our earlier effort to enforce an unenforceable Prohibition." Fourth, the notion of a solitary inventor is a popular falsehood. No one creates in a vacuum. The programmer's skills and creativity rest upon past inventions and discoveries; publicly supported education; the other people who produced the hardware, the manuals and textbooks and the development tools; as well as the artists and accompanying infrastructure who may have inspired or influenced the programmer. In this sense, the developer's product is a social product, and consequently should redound to the benefit of all of society. The practical problem of compensation for effort and reward for outstanding achievement can be addressed outside of "intellectual property rights." Mr. Woodhead dismisses my position as "welfare for hackers." This is a rather cheap shot. First, there is nothing wrong with welfare. But Mr. Woodhead means "welfare for hackers" in a pejorative sense (he adds that he is being heavily sarcastic). No self-respecting hacker, Mr. Woodhead suggests, would accept something from the public or the government. "Any hacker worthy of the name would spurn it." What about every programmer who works for the government, obtains funding from the government (including the defense industry), all programmers who go through school and college (they're subsidized by the taxpayer), and all programmers who work in universities? Who's left? The public is already heavily involved in software production, but as is too often the case, the public finances something, and then turns it over to private corporations to reap all of the profits from it. The "welfare" charge also carries a divisive edge to it, implying that hackers should sneer at welfare. This is a self-defeating position for the programming community. There has been a mythology that programmers are a privileged lot, and immune from the vagaries of the overall economy. Sleeper, awake! All programmers should read the first chapter of Edward Yourdon's new book, _The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer_. He rings an alarm bell that big changes are underfoot in software production. As a current snapshot of the industry, here are some stats which I submitted to the current CPSR/Berkeley newsletter (available in its entirety from the CPSR listserver, listserv@gwuvm.gwu.edu): "40,000 jobs were lost in the electronics industry in the first quarter of this year (compared to 90,000 in all of 1991), including 9,100 jobs at computer component makers. For the first time since the American Electronics Association started reporting software industry figures, software job growth was flat, at 133,400 workers. Wang goes into Chapter 11, with 5,000 workers to be laid off over the next 30 days... Besides Wang, Digital Equipment cut 20,000 jobs over the past two years, and will cut another 15,000 this year; Data General now has 7,100 workers, down from a high of 17,000. Even computer services employment has been dropping, down 7.3% from its peak at the end of 1989. IBM now will probably cut 12,000 additional workers this year, on top of the 20,000 previously announced. (But profits are up at IBM!). Software maker Aldus is laying off 100 workers, the Disney Park Design Unit is laying off 400 imagineers..." (And I've submitted similar figures for the previous two quarterly newsletters as well.) The defense industry is expected to fire 1.2 _million_ people over the next four years, many of them highly skilled engineers. Programmers do get laid off. I know from personal experience. I was glad that there was unemployment insurance. No programmer should be so complacent as to say "it can't happen to me." So be glad that there is a safety net there, and keep it strong. Re: my point that intellectual property rights prevent intellectual effort, including software development, from maximizing its social benefit: If a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 does have use for people, and people are prevented from using it (e.g., because of the price barrier), then its potential benefit is constricted. (For an interesting discussion of this see Natalie Dandekar, "Moral Issues Involved in Protecting Software as Intellectual Property," _DIAC-90 Proceedings_, CPSR, Palo Alto, CA, 1990.) Mr. Woodhead claims that other users are hurt by the unauthorized sharing of software, because they end up paying more for the software. He is too charitable to the software companies. There is no reason to believe that, in the absence of unauthorized duplication, software prices would be reduced. The prime directive of capitalism is maximum profit. That is what pushes the price upwards. He imagines that there is a point at which the capitalist ("free-marketeer") is satiated and retires from the feeding frenzy out there in the market. Maybe on Mars. The capitalist can't say, I've made enough moolah, because he knows that others are also grabbing for the goods, and whoever gets the most wins, and drives the competition from the marketplace. His claim that the purported $24 billion in lost revenue would have been returned to the customer if the "pirates" didn't exist is absurd. What does come out of the pockets of consumers is the cost of financing legal battles between an Intel vs. AMD, or Apple vs. Microsoft, or Ashton-Tate (RIP) vs. Fox, over who exactly does own a design or an interface or a language (!). Mr. Woodhead says that no companies specialize in educational software. If this in fact is the case, then this only reinforces the argument for the necessity of some sort of social or public or community (or whatever you want to call it) funding of educational software development. Just because there is no "market" for quality educational software does not in any way mean that there is no _need_ for it. Woodhead blames the schools for sabotaging the educational market by unauthorized duplication -- this, I would suspect, is more the result of teachers trying to fulfill their professional commitment of educating children, in the face of deep cuts in education spending and the reluctance (or refusal) of vendors to negotiate affordable site licenses. (See e.g., the 9/92 issue of _MacWorld_ for more on this). A similar argument _against_ the market, and _for_ public participation in these matters is powerfully articulated in the work of Prof. Herbert Schiller (most recently in _Culture, Inc.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression_; for a briefer discussion see his article "Public Information Goes Corporate" which appeared in the October 1, 1991 issue of _Library Journal_). He quotes ( in _Culture, Inc._) a 1986 interview with the then president of database vendor DIALOG that appeared in _Information Today_: "We can't afford an investment in databases that are not going to earn their keep and pay back their development costs." When asked what areas were not paying their development costs, he answered, "Humanities." The tag line above the _LJ_ article says "a society is emerging in which only data with a commercial value will be collected." One can extend this to software -- only software with a commercial value will be commercially produced. Marginal markets will be ignored. Re: Mr. Morgan's notion of more aggressively extending patents to software: it's already taking place. I think this topic has been addressed thoroughly by the League for Programming Freedom in their "Against Software Patents" paper (available from league@prep.ai.mit.edu. The interested reader should also look at their "Against User Interface Copyright" paper). 17 years (typical for patents) is an eternity in the evolution of software (as is 10 or 20 years, as suggested by Mr. Morgan). As a sidenote, even the SPA has opposed software patents. Re: fair use -- the point I was trying to make is that the concept of "fair use" has EVOLVED and EXPANDED with increasing ability to easily duplicate various media. "Taping of television programs for personal use appears to have become accepted as fair use of copyright material. This is not in accord with the historical interpretation of fair use, since the programs are taped in their entirety. The use of the doctrine in the past has usually been restricted to copying portions of the work [for purposes of criticism, comment, research, etc.]. The rationale of the court must have been the unlikely efficacy of trying to put Pandora back into the box and the fact that no commercial use of the tapes was either alleged or documented." (Anne Branscomb, "Property Rights in Information", in _Information Technologies and Social Transformation_). The point is that legal constructs like "fair use" are not brought to us by Moses -- they are determined by the balance of social forces through legal, political, economic and other forms of struggle. And therefore they are something which we can affect. If the persistent reader has made it this far, allow me to conclude with a quote from an interview with Bruce Sterling that appeared in the Summer, 91 issue of the excellent and highly recommended print publication _Intertek_ ($8/year, check payable to Steve Steinberg, 325 Ellwood Beach, #3, Goleta, CA 93117; steve@cs.ucsb.edu): "I think that trying to commodify information -- trying to make it like buying a chair from Sears -- is just deeply misguided... It looks good on paper but as you go on year after year, trying to make it a reality, you find it just doesn't work. There are just too many people, like myself, who have very little respect for the idea of intellectual property. I don't pirate software, not because I believe that intellectual stuff is property, but just because I'm law-abiding. Information does want to be free -- it doesn't want to be $5 a baud. There's something stupid about that... I think we'll see a lot more commodification before we see less. But the idea of information as a commodity is just wrong. I mean, people say, 'if you could go into Sears and steal chairs they wouldn't stay in business.' Well if you had a device that could make infinite chairs for free, Sears would never have come into existence." Computer: Earl Grey tea. Hot. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 92 14:27:40 CDT (Tue) From: peter@FICC.FERRANTI.COM(Peter da Silva) Subject: File 2--Response to Davis/Piracy (1) Re: Wes Morgan's article in CuD #4.43 I largely agree with most of his arguments, but I would like to point out one mistake... he says: "The whole concept of copyrights ... is based on the notion that the creator ... is entitled to some compensation for his effort" This is just not true. The whole concept of copyrights and patents in the United States is based on the notion that by making intellectual property a salable commodity subject to market forces, more and better intellectual property will be created and it will be distributed more freely. And, you know what, it works. There's no better refutation, nor need there be a better refutation, of the argument that piracy promotes openness. It doesn't. It promotes encrypted software, dongles, and trade secrets. It discourages publication. It reduces the incentive to create viable products of commercial quality. These are not the result of intellectual property laws, they're the result of the failure to enforce intellectual property laws. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1992 08:45:30 -0800 From: "Michael Stack" Subject: File 3--Response to Davis/Piracy (2) The two responses (CuD 4.43) to James I. Davis's provocative article --"Software Piracy - The Social Context" (CuD 4..42) -- both make the common fault of equating whats good for business with that which is good for society as a whole. They both seem to view copyright and patents as a system guaranteeing a right to profit overlooking the original constitutional intent to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts." Mr. Davis has difficulty with the way property rights are applied with regard to software and information in general (as do I or I wouldn't be writing this), yet both respondents base significant portions of their counter-arguments upon the very object under contention. They use terms like "stealing" and that software/information is "property" etc. To be able to accuse someone of stealing or to claim something as property (and to subsequently grant licenses on how this property is to be used) implies there exists rights of ownership in the first place. The crux of Mr. Davis's article questions this right. The respondents by-pass this altogether. Their articles are but explanations of the existing order in case we didn't already understand. Neither mentions the recent alarming developments in the application of copyright and patent particularly to software (see the literature of the League for Programming Freedom or the recent Barrons "Software Patents Block the Path of Computing Progress" article) which threatens all software written outside the cubicles of major software corporations. The fact that "alls not well in the state of Denmark" in itself punches large holes in the system the two respondents defend. Both belittle the spectre of "police state" raised by Mr. Davis. Amazingly, this is done within the pages of a publication which has spotlighted many instances of "police-state" behavior: doors kicked-in in the early hours of morning, guns drawn, threats, equipment confiscated (permanently?), "guilty till proved innocent," etc. Some specifics on Mr. Morgan's piece: --On the one hand you argue "If I pour 4 years of my life into the development of SnarkleFlex, I DESERVE to profit from it" but then you append a caveat which undoes this assertion "(assuming that people want to purchase/use it)." Doesn't this condition make your capitalized assertion self-destruct? Do you deserve to be rewarded for your work, yes or no, or is it to be let dependent on market caprice? --You ask "Would you make a copy of Webster's Dictionary and give it to a friend?" and you sport(!) "Xerox(tm)[ing] your entire printed library for me..." "...would be just fine, right?" Yes, it would -- if the library and dictionary were in a readily distributable form and the copy cost me near nothing i.e. in digital form. I'd be happy to give you a copy. I could give it to anyone. As to how I'd have a library in the first place we can discuss (perhaps outside of this forum). Michael Goldhaber in his book Reinventing Technology states "Since new information technology includes easy ways of reproducing information, the existence of these [intellectual property] laws effectively curtail the widest possible spread of this new form of wealth." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 21:55:28 EDT From: woj <@netmgr.cso.niu.edu:REWOICC@ERENJ.BitNet> Subject: File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace The following article is transcribed from "Clarkson Closeup", a magazine sent to alumni and such. I thought that CuD might be interested in the subject matter (and perhaps the EFF might be as well). I'm fairly certain that Prof. Ross is reachable via the net. No byline is given. ((MODERATORS' COMMENT: Professor Ross may be reached at: SROSS@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU). +++++ "Studying Rights and Cyberspace" Susan M. Ross, assistant professor of Technical Communications, has been awarded a $3,600 grant from the Canadian Embassy to study the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the U.S. Bill of Rights with respect to computer-mediated communication. Her research involves the study of cyberspace -- the "virtual" or imaginary space within which computer data is stored. Cyberspace can be entered though any computer connected in a network, or via a modem. Within networks, "communities" are formed through the ex-change of data and information. Ross is analyzing the human rights issues within these cyberspace communities to help define the rights of users connected to networks. Her research also assesses the differences in legal structure, regarding electronic communication, between the United States and Canada. Currently, she is looking at specific legal issues which have entered litigation. Last year, for example, a network called CompuServe experienced problems with obscene material posted by users. Courts ruled the network was not responsible for postings by a private user. Concerns have also arisen in both nations over guaranteeing "equal justice" to those accused of committing computer-assisted crimes and those accused of crimes in which computer technology in not involved. Differences in the wording of the constitutions could affect the pursuit of "equal justice." For example, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly extend constitutional protections (e.g. First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights) to citizens who employ or are affected by technologies that its framers could not anticipate. In contrast, Canada does guarantee, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." The research has applications for the Free Trade Agreement with respect to computer information exchange across the border. It also covers the evolution of constitutional civil rights for citizens who enter cyberspace from the U.S. and Canada. Ross received a bachelor of arts degree from Middlebury College, master's degrees from Dartmouth University and the University of Vermont, and her doctorate from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute. ++++++++++ I'd be interested in hearing more about this CompuServe case if anyone has any information on it - I seem to have missed it completely. Also, I think that Prof. Ross should be made aware of CuD, EFF and the telecom-privacy digest as I'm sure that she could find some interesting material there (and possibly save her some work.) Just another Clarkson alum... Reply to: Rob Woiccak - rewoicc@erenj.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 19:15:01 -0400 From: Christopher Davis Subject: File 5--EFF analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal +=========+=================================================+===========+ | F.Y.I. |Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation |Sep 17,1992| +=========+=================================================+===========+ JOINT INDUSTRY/PUBLIC INTEREST COALITION RELEASES WHITE PAPER OPPOSING FBI DIGITAL TELEPHONY LEGISLATION WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), on behalf of a coalition of industry, trade associations, computer users, and privacy and consumer representatives, today released a white paper entitled, "Analysis of the FBI Proposal Regarding Digital Telephony." The FBI has proposed legislation which would require that all telecommunications equipment be designed to allow law enforcement monitoring and is seeking passage in the last few weeks of this congress. The organizations that signed the paper believe that the proposal would cost consumers millions of dollars, damage U.S. competitiveness in the telecommunications marketplace, threaten national security interests, and deny American consumers and American businesses of much-wanted security and privacy on voice and data communications. "Basically, the FBI's legislative proposal is premature. We hope that the white paper demonstrates that there are too many potential dangers inherent in the legislative proposal and that there are other means of addressing this situation," said Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Washington office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Over the past decade a host of new digital communication technologies have been introduced and more are being developed. New telephone services, such as call-forwarding and last number re-dial, are now being offered. The FBI is concerned about the impact these services -- and other digital communications techniques -- will have on its ability to wiretap. In the future, the vast majority of computer communications will also use this technology to transfer information and documents. Signatories included major telecommunications equipment manufacturers, such as AT&T; computer manufacturers, such as IBM and Digital Equipment Corporation; software producers, such as Microsoft and Lotus; network providers, such as Prodigy and Advanced Network and Services, Inc.; trade associations in the telecommunications, computer and electronic mail businesses; and public interest groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group of 955 members of the computer community, has been coordinating an industry/public interest working group on digital telephony. The working group has met with the FBI over a number of months in an effort to work out mutually-agreeable solutions to the challenge that the development of new communications technologies poses to the FBI. David Johnson, a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, drafted the white paper for the working group and serves as its legal advisor. "We have made significant progress and both sides better understand the other's needs and concerns. The bottom line, however, is that those who signed the paper do not see broad-based legislation as the right approach to this challenge. We have worked with the FBI to develop practical, technical solutions to the problems they are anticipating and intend to continue to do so," said John Podesta, of Podesta Associates, Inc., who coordinates the working group on behalf of EFF. # # # For a copy of the white paper, please call +1 202 544-6906, or use anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, file pub/EFF/legal-issues/eff-fbi-analysis. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 17, 1992 For more information contact: John Podesta 202/544-6906 Jerry Berman 202/544-9237 +=====+===================================================+=============+ | EFF |155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 (617)864-0665| eff@eff.org | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 07:06:00 From: John F. McMullen Subject: File 6--Cap't Crunch Discusses Sneakers With Newsbytes NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1992 SEP 18(NB) -- John Draper, author of one of the earliest word processing programs, EasyWriter, and, under his nomme de plume, "Cap't Crunch", one of the first known "hackers", told Newsbytes that while he "really enjoyed Sneakers, people should realize that there is an important message contained within." Draper, who served time in prison for his "phone phreaking", was considered the model on which the role of "Cosmo", played by Ben Kingsley, was based. Cosmo, like Draper, served a prison sentence for his activities and, while in prison, became a collaborator with a nationwide criminal organization, becoming their technical wizard. Draper accepts the identification with Cosmo and says that the movie brings out the problems of technology transfer in prison. He said "While I was in prison, I learned how to pick a master lock. I didn't ask for the knowledge; it was forced on me. Someone would say 'Let me show you this' so you would. "They would wheedle things out of me -- you don't snitch or not go along in prison. I showed them how to build a random code voice scrambler as well as other things about methods of obtaining free phone service. It bothers me that these methods are probably used today by Columbia drug dealers. "We have to be concerned about the fact that prisons are Universities of Crime. We don't want criminals to have the benefit of knowledge that our government doesn't have. We don't want a Robert Morris or a Phiber Optik sharing a cell with a friend of Noreiga's. We should learn from history and come up with procedures to insure that this relationship between the computer underground and true criminals is not allowed to flourish." Draper also told Newsbytes that while he enjoyed the movie immensely, he did not care for violent portions in which guns were used; he said "I hate guns." Draper became "Cap'n Crunch" when he found that whistles given away in Cap't Crunch serial emitted the 2600 tone necessary to "fool" the automatic billing and verification system of the phone companies. Since his release from prison, Draper has written Easywriter and a Forth compiler for the Apple II (while writing the software products, Draper was known as "Cap't Software; he has since resumed Crunch). He has also been employed as a programmer and consultant. (Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/Press Contact: John Draper, crunch@well.sf.ca.us (e-mail)/19920918) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:45:14 CDT From: James P Love Subject: File 7--GATEWAY/WINDO ALERT ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The federal government seems to require dragging, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. On-line access to federal information is *CRUCIAL* to an informed electorate, and we URGE READERS TO WRITE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS)) Gateway/WINDO - SEPTEMBER ALERT =========================================================== Re: S. 2813, the GPO Gateway to Government H.R. 2772, the GPO Wide Information Network for Data Online (WINDO) (two bills that would provide one-stop-shopping *online* public access to federal information systems and databases) =========================================================== September 14, 1992 BACKGROUND Congress is considering two bills (S. 2813; hr 2772) that would require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide one-stop-shopping *online* public access to federal information systems and databases. (For a fact sheet or copies of the bills, send an email message to tap@essential.org). Joint House and Senate hearings were held on July 23, 1992. To become law, the bills must be approved by the House Administration and Senate Rules Committees, and then be approved by the full House and Senate. THE SCOOP On September 10, the Senate Rules committee canceled a scheduled mark-up of S. 2813, the Senate version of the Gateway/WINDO legislation. The official reason for the cancellation was the death of Senator Burdick. Unofficially, the problems have been attributed to house republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, who have threatened to oppose passage of a bill sponsored by Senator Gore, due to the presidential campaign. The alternative strategy is to the move the house bill first, thereby deemphasizing Senator Gore's role. If any bill moves this year it is likely to be a substitute for HR 2772, cosponsored by ranking republicans on the House Administration Committee. WHAT YOU CAN DO Clearly time is running out. The most important thing that you can do is contact your congressional representative and ask them to urge the congressional leadership to move these bills. It is particularly important to contact members of the House of Representatives, including the House leadership and republicans on the House Administration Committee. The names, telephone numbers and address for key legislators are given below. ========================= Congressional Target List ========================= Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives Representative State/District Phone Major Cities DEMOCRATS Charlie Rose NC-7 225-2731 Fayetteville/Wilmington Frank Annunzio IL-11 225-6661 Chicago Joseph Gaydos PA-20 225-4631 McKeesport Leon Panetta CA-16 225-2861 Monterey/Salinas Al Swift WA-2 225-2605 Bellingham/Everett Mary Rose Oakar OH-20 225-5871 Cleveland Bill Clay MO-1 225-2406 St. Louis Sam Gejdenson CT-2 225-2076 Norwich/Middletown Joe Kolter PA-4 225-2565 Beaver Falls/Butler Martin Frost TX-24 225-3605 Dallas Tom Manton NY-9 225-3965 Sunnyside Marty Russo IL-3 225-5736 Chicago Steny Hoyer MD-5 225-4131 Landover/PG County Gerald Kleczka WI-4 225-4572 Milwaukee Dale Kildee MI-7 225-3611 Flint REPUBLICANS Bill Thomas CA-20 225-2915 Bakersfield/Pismo Beach Bill Dickerson AL-2 225-2901 Montgomery Newt Gingrich GA-6 225-4501 Atlanta Pat Roberts KS-1 225-2715 Dodge City/Salina Paul Gilmor OH-5 225-6405 Bowling Green/Sandusky James Walsh NY-27 225-3701 Syracuse Mickey Edwards OK-5 225-2132 Oklahoma City Bob Livingston LA-1 225-3015 Slidell/Metairie Bill Barrett NE-3 225-6435 Scotsbluff/Grand Island HOUSE LEADERSHIP Thomas Foley WA-5 225-2006 Spokane/Walla Walla Robert Michael IL-18 225-6201 Peoria Richard Gephardt MO-3 225-2671 St. Louis Joe Moakely MA-9 225-8273 Boston Mail to House Members should be addressed: The Honorable ______________ U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Committee on Rules and Administration U.S. Senate Senator State Phone DEMOCRATS Wendell Ford KY 224-4343 Claiborne Pell RI 224-4642 Robert Bryd WV 224-3954 Daniel Inouye HI 224-3934 Dennis DeConcini AZ 224-4521 Al Gore TN 224-4944 Daniel Moynihan NY 224-4451 Christopher Dodd CT 224-2823 Brock Adams WA 224-2621 REPUBLICANS Ted Stevens AK 224-3004 Mark Hatfield OR 224-3753 Jesse Helms NC 224-6342 John Warner VA 224-2023 Bob Dole KS 224-6521 Jake Garn UT 224-5444 Mich McConnell KY 224-2541 SENATE LEADERSHIP George Mitchell ME 224-5344 Mail to Senators should be addressed: The Honorable ____________ U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 ================================================================= James Love, Director voice: 215/658-0880 Taxpayer Assets Project fax: call 12 Church Road internet: love@essential.org Ardmore, PA 19003 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 12:10:42 EDT From: LOVE@TEMPLEVM.BITNET Subject: File 8--Model Letter in re S. 2813 / HR 2772 Dear _________ We strongly support the GPO Gateway/WINDO (S. 2813; hr 2772) legislation now pending before the Senate Rules and House Administration Committees. These bills will vastly expand public access to information produced at public expense, and allow ordinary citizens to benefit from billions of dollars in federal expenditures on information technologies. Citizen access to government computer systems and databases through modems and computers is an idea whose time has come. These bills are strongly supported by the American Library Association, academic organizations, and many others in the research community, including citizens groups and large and small businesses. Please tell me what specific steps you take to obtain passage of this important legislation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:00:00 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: File 9--police files conference Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice. National Criminal Justice Information Conference in New Orleans To: City and Assignment desks Contact: Stu Smith of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 202-307-0784 or 301-983-9354 (after hours) WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 -- A national conference on federal-state criminal justice information sharing will be held from Wednesday, Sept. 23, through Saturday, Sept. 26, in New Orleans, the Department of Justice announced today. Jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA), the conference participants will discuss "Federal and State Information Sharing to Effectively Combat Crime and Ensure Justice." Specific topics that will be aired include "New Measures in the Criminal Justice System," "'Weed and Seed' and New Drug and Crime Prevention Initiatives," "Challenges and Reforms to the Justice System in the 90s," "Uses of Incident-based Reporting Systems," "Recent Developments in Criminal History Improvements" and various research issues in corrections, prosecution and law enforcement. Among the approximately 250 people expected to attend will be officials from state and local government and various federal agencies as well as leading criminal justice researchers and scholars. Other participants will be the directors of State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) and other members, associate members and guests of JRSA. BJS has provided funding to state justice statistics and information systems through a network of SACs since 1972. There are currently SACs in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The SACs provide a wealth of data about crime and the operation of the criminal justice system to state and local governments, legislatures, and Attorneys General for policy analysis and planning purposes. This year is the 20th anniversary of the SAC program. It also marks the beginning of a new initiative to establish a truly national system of federal, state and local government information-sharing and readily accessible data bases. Additional information about BJS programs and publications may be obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, Box 6000, Rockville, Md. 20850. The telephone number is 800-732-3277. +++ Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #4.46 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank