Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 16 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

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 Feb 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 16 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Correspondent Extra-ordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Monster Editor: Loch Nesshrdlu CONTENTS, #7.16 (Sun, Feb 26, 1995) File 1--Press Coverage Bloopers in the Mitnick Story (fwd) File 2--NEW: CYBER-RIGHTS - Campaign for Cyber Rights (fwd) File 3--S. 314 and realism File 4--Fascism on line File 5--Dennis Erlich Relates CoS Search and Seizure (Illegal?) (fwd) File 6--Re: Slam of the Internet in STAR File 7--first italian initiative on comp networks File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 26 Feb, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:44:29 -0600 (CST) From: Computer Underground Digest Subject: File 1--Press Coverage Bloopers in the Mitnick Story (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Mon, 27 Feb 1995 22:33:24 -0800 From--Jason Hillyard By now we've all read about the extraordinary events that led to the arrest of Kevin Mitnick. As usual, the press got some things right, got many things wrong, and occasionally just got weird. I was bothered by many of the misconceptions that were played out in the press. Determined to find out more, I went on manic foraging expeditions through the Web, waded through piles of alt.2600 posts, and wheedled juicy tidbits from some of my hacker friends. The result is this playful yet critical romp through the best of the worst of the Mitnick story coverage. "L.A. Hacker to Waive Extradition" Los Angeles Times, February 17, 1995. "The FBI affidavit filed in the case alleges that Mitnick used his hacking prowess to steal files through the Internet, including cellular phone software developed under a grant from the National Security Agency worth $500,000 to $1 million." Whoa! FBI catches hacker with million dollar NSA software! No doubt this sentence confirmed the fears of paranoid conspiracy buffs everywhere. But the affidavit says no such thing. Rather, it says the hacker copied a file called "Berkeley Packet Filter" which was developed under a grand from the NSA. It says the hacker also copied "cellular telephone proprietary software" from Shimomura's computer. This cellular software was valued at $500,000 to $1 million dollars by Andrew Gross, a system administrator at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Apparently the reporter tried to compress all this into one sentence, with rather absurd results. "Tight phone restrictions on suspected cyberthief" News & Observer, February 17, 1995. "A federal judge Friday set strict limits on jailhouse telephone calls for the computer pirate accused of stealing billions of dollars worth of corporate information by tapping into electronic networks." Read that again. Did they say billions? According to the FBI affidavit, Mitnick allegedly copied software worth up to $1 million from Shimomura's computer. Where did this billions come from? Perhaps the reporter was confused after writing a story on federal spending. "A Cyberspace Dragnet Snared Fugitive Hacker" The Los Angeles Times, February 19 1995. "Convinced that they could protect their subscribers' privacy, administrators of the Well agreed to work with Shimomura and the FBI, and set up 24-hour monitoring hoping that Mitnick would break into the system to store more purloined files." According to the FBI affidavit, The hacker had root access on The WELL. The WELL states, in their own FAQ on the subject, that the hacker had access to 11 user accounts. There is no way The WELL could protect their subscriber's privacy during the 18 days they let the hacker roam freely through their system. "Hacker case underscores Internet's vulnerability" New York Times, February 16, 1995. "And just a few hours before his arrest, they say, he delivered a last electronic blow that nearly destroyed the Well and the electronic community it served." Mitnick almost destroyed The WELL? Not quite. According to The WELL's FAQ, the hacker erased one accounting file, probably because of a typing error. The WELL was taken down briefly to restore the file and then brought back online. Miraculously, The WELL and the electronic community it serves remained intact. "Hacker case is a challenge as authorities try to retrace suspect's steps in cyberspace" News & Observer, February 17, 1995 "Proving Mitnick was behind the raids on data banks and thefts of at least 20,000 credit card numbers from computer systems across the nation will be a special challenge involving retracing the alleged hacker's steps in cyberspace." Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this make it sound like Mitnick was raiding credit card numbers from computers across the nation? Mitnick allegedly copied one credit card file. This file belonged to Netcom. There is evidence that this file was compromised as far back as last summer. Actually, the Netcom credit card file was kind of a joke in hacker circles. People had posted bits of it on IRC. Maybe Netcom should explain why this information was online in the first place. "Cyber sleuths nab infamous hacker" San Francisco Examiner, February 16, 1995. "Some clues pointed to the hacker's identity, according to the New York Times. For instance, the stolen material found on The Well and other Internet sites included software that controls the operations of cellular telephones made by Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Novatel, Oki, Qualcomm and other companies. That was viewed as consistent with Mitnick's interests. He made a name for himself by hacking into telephone networks." Mitnick and every other hacker on the planet would probably be interested in this kind of cellular phone software. It does not single out Mitnick as a suspect. But wait, the article points to more evidence: "The computer pirate left voice-mail messages for Shimomura after the December theft. One - using what investigators said was a mock British accent favored by Mitnick - said, 'My technique is the best. . . . Don't you know who I am?'" British accent or not, the voice-mail messages are a dubious source. I think they sound more like some hackers goofing off on a conference call than a serious threat from a lone hacker. (Have a listen for yourself. The reference is given at the end of this post.) But nevertheless, the press insists that Mitnick left these messages. I'd like to see some definitive proof. And the article provides this last bit of evidence: "Finally, the pirate was acting with a recklessness that was one of Mitnick's trademarks. At one point during the inquiry, the Times said, the hacker broke into a Motorola Corp. security computer as investigators monitored the raid." Why is this reckless? Because the hacker broke into a so-called security computer? Because investigators were watching? I'd still really like to know how investigators determined that Mitnick was behind the keyboard. I've yet to hear a convincing answer. "Officials Laud Civilian Cyberexperts in Capture of Hacker" San Francisco Examiner, February 17, 1995 "'The vast majority of citizens in cyberspace are law-abiding and interested in helping the government and stopping cybercrime,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Walker, who helped to coordinate the coast-to-coast Mitnick investigation." I suppose Mr. Walker is entitled to his opinion, but check out his causal usage of cyberwords! I wonder-- if you are caught committing a cybercrime in cyberspace, are you sent to cyberprison? And finally, here's my personal favorite: "Hacker invaded the wrong man's cyberspace" News & Observer, February 17, 1995. "For an unknown reason, agents waited five minutes for Mitnick to answer the door. On Friday, law enforcement officials said it is not their habit to slam down doors on nonviolent criminals." Now that's nice to know. Yet hackers who have been raided in the past often experienced less congenial displays of door-slamming etiquette. Perhaps the FBI has a more conservative door-booting policy than, say, the Secret Service. Gotta go, there's a knock at the door. Only got five minutes to wipe the drive! Additional References John Markoff's story in _The New York Times_: Pictures of Mitnick and Shimomura: The voice-mail messages: Technical details of the attack on Shimomura's machine: ------------------------------ From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 2--NEW: CYBER-RIGHTS - Campaign for Cyber Rights (fwd) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:07:21 -0500 (EST) From--"Richard K. Moore" CYBER-RIGHTS on LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG: Campaign for Citizens Rights in Cyberspace. This list is the "coordination headquarters" for the global Cyber Rights campaign being conducted by CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responisibility.) CPSR is a highly respected public service organization that has an effective track record in influencing legislation and regulation. CPSR contributed to the exposure of the fallacies behind the Star Wars project and helped defeat the Clipper Chip. Additional information about this campaign is included at the bottom of this message. CYBER-RIGHTS is moderated. List owner: Richard K. Moore To subscribe to CYBER-RIGHTS, send the following command to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG in the BODY of e-mail: SUBSCRIBE CYBER-RIGHTS yourfirstname yourlastname For example: SUBSCRIBE CYBER-RIGHTS Joe Shmoe ------------------------ Additional Information ----------------------- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CYBER-RIGHTS FAQ: ============================================ ================================================================= | FAQ :: 19 Feb 95 - | ================================================================= (OK to fwd) ______________________________________________ |>* The Campaign for Rights in Cyberspace *<| |>* *<| |>* Working Group: Computer Professionals *<| |>* for Social Responsibility (CPSR) *<| |_____________________________________________| Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FAQ: 19 Feb 95 The Cyber Rights Campaign is being managed as a Working Group of CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, a highly respected public service organization. CPSR has been effective in influencing Federal legislation re/ the social impact of technology. One purpose of the Campaign is to educate the global public about the beneficial social/political aspects of the current Internet group-communications model: to make everyone aware that preservation of Internet-style communities should be seen as global priority. A second purpose of the Rights Campaign is to alert the USA and global communities to the intense telco-funded legislative campaign currently threatening the Internet's existence: o In the short term, the Censorship Bill (S.314) would require Internet service providers to snoop on and censor all message traffic: this would be devastating to current Internet usage patterns and a fundamental denial of freedom of speech, association, and privacy. o In the longer term, Newt Gingrinch and the telcos are attempting to set up a regulatory framework for a new interactive-media infrastructure which would eliminate the grass-roots uses of interactive communications, and build instead a fully commercialized, 500-channel, mass-media marketplace fully as sterile as today's network TV. ================================================================= ______________________________________________ |>*-----To participate in this campaign -----<| |>* *<| |>* Send the message: *<| |>* subscribe cyber-rights Your Name *<| |>* to *<| |>* *<| |>* Post a self intro to: *<| |>* *<| |>* *<| |>* To unsubscribe, tell the listserv: *<| |>* unsubscribe cyber-rights *<| |>* *<| |>* Questions to WG Coordinator: *<| |>* Richard K. Moore *<| |_____________________________________________| ================================================================= ___________________ # Working Documents # #---> Currently available on request: | | o PFF's "Magna Carta" (2/2) (fwd) | o CR-20Jan> "Magna Carta analyzed" (2/2) | o CR-17Feb> INFO: S.314 Analyses | o CR-3-Feb> Declaration of Rights (draft) (2/2) | o CR-16Feb> Summary: Cyber Rights Campaign | o CPSR's "NII-Document-Serving-the-Community" (5/5) |______ ================================================================= ___________________ # Volunteers needed # #---> Your chance to make a difference: | | o to create OpEd pieces | o to place pieces in worldwide media | o for liaison with other lists and organizations | o to participate in activist discussion process | o to broaden the experience-base of our campaign community |______ ================================================================= ============================================== __---__ (o) ____________________________________________________ - | - / \ />-- posted by: Richard K. Moore --<\ - | - /___\ />--- Wexford Town, Ireland :: Loch Garman, Eire ----<\ - /|\ - /--------------------------------------------------------\ -_/ | \_- />- Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace -<\*Guard your \ --- /*>- CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs! --<*\ Cyber Rights*\ /-> Ask to see >--> CyberRights Campaign FAQ <--\ Beware: TRON \ /________________________________________________________________\ --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: NEW-LIST announcements are edited from information provided by the original submitter. We do NOT verify the technical accuracy nor any claims made in the announcements nor do we necessarily agree with them. We do not warranty or guarantee any services which might be announced - use at your own risk. For more information send e-mail to LISTSERV@VM1.NoDak.EDU with the command GET NEW-LIST README in the body. mgh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:46:11 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: File 3--S. 314 and realism There's been a good deal of complaint about the Exon bill and its proposal to hold communications providers responsible for the content of messages. I think the underlying complaint is well placed, but the most common analogy people use is fundamentally flawed. This is the "provide is just like a bookstore/newseller and they are protected" analogy. The problem here is that there is a fundamental difference between the tradi- tional publishing scenario and the on-line world. The difference is most compelling in the case of libel. If I'm libeled in a book or newspaper, it is straightforward for me to determine the publisher of the book or newspaper. I can usually determine the author directly - but if I can't, that's not normal- ly a problem: Unlike the bookstore, the publisher has no protection against my lawsuit. If he doesn't want to identify the author, that's fine with me - I'll recover all my damages from him. Of course, in practice, he'll be only to glad to refer me to the author, pseudonymous or not, so that the author can share in paying any damages. Note that most newspapers are happy to publish unsigned letters to the editor - but they insist that *they* have receive a signed copy. Sure, a bookstore *could* sell a book with no publication information on it. If I were libeled by such a book, I'd argue that the bookstore had two choices: Tell me where they got the thing, of buy into responsibility for it. I don't know if such a thing ever happened, but I would be very surprised if a bookstore had any right to refuse a demand for information about the source of books it sold. If it sold books with no information about who was writing or publishing them - "Hey, I leave the cash in an unmarked envelope under the doormat and a box of books appears at the back of the store" - well, that would make for an interesting argument for an exception to bookstore's general immunity. Now consider what happens on-line. Many message~~/\~~ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 11:16:13 -0500 (EST) From: anonymous@DELPHI.COM Subject: File 4--Fascism on line PLEASE DO NOT USE my e-mail address or my real name anywhere. ----------------------------------------------------------- The New American Fascism Online By William Smithson Many people who use the online services are too young to remember (and only know what they've read about) the suppressive regimes of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Yet some online services are remarkably similar to these regimes. These services are causing much dissension among youth and other people online, because they use strong repressive tactics. Their assumption is that they--not the users--know what is best for the users. A democracy is ruled by law, with the law written by the representatives of the people, by the people and for the people. In a fascist and socialist government, the law is written by those in power. They must accept this law or suffer the consequences. We need only look at George Orwell's "1984." There we saw how the mind police worked; Big Brother dictated what the people could do and couldn't do. They controlled what citizens could see and could not see, could and could not say. Let's take America Online (AOL) as an example. AOL is basically ruled by one person: Steve Case, CEO. [It should be noted that a member of the AOL Board of Directors is former Secretary of State Alexander ("I'm in charge here") Haig, Jr.] Case's Black Shirts are the TOS (Terms Of Service) Advisors. They have taken rules and regulations set up by themselves, and used them against the people who proliferate on AOL. They tend to suppress what they don't like for what they think is correct. They accept hearsay without corroborating facts. They take manipulated written words, and use it against individuals. They are judge, jury and executioner. Persons can't defend themselves against innuendo, or libel. There's no place or person to whom they can go to express any injustices perpetrated against them. AOL seeks to justify this action by stating they are running a business. Yet they are dealing in people's lives, people who are part of a new type of community. What we appear to have here is the promulgation of a new form of societal repression: a new fascism, a new totalitarianism. The people who access AOL feel this oppression and see it daily, but many are at a loss to understand it. There is a great deal of bigotry online: anti-Semitism, anti-black sentiment, anti-Asian sentiment and anti-Latino sentiment. The majority of Americans are not represented on AOL. The average middle class and lower class person cannot afford to use this service. Some Jewish people fight back, but many have been the subject of anti-Semitic slurs. Gays and lesbians have to put up with daily gay-bashing. African-Americans and Latinos have been subjected to racial epithets. The religious right is also subjected to attacks and made the representative of being the suppressor and the one behind much of what is not their doing or their thinking. There are those who know how to manipulate text in chatrooms, to attribute vulgar words to others who never used them. The ones who suffer the most from these repressive tactics are young children and teenagers, those who are in turmoil and are not too likely to get a sympathetic ear from any adult. AOL claims it is protecting these teens and children, as they are minors and can't think for themselves or protect themselves. So teenagers are given rooms to let them talk with their peers. But children are subjected to endless hours of the same question over and over again, as to their age and sex. The teen rooms are also anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Semitic, ad nauseam--often echoing their parents' thoughts and actions. The gay and bi teens have no place to meet one another. They can't go to the regular teen rooms, because of the anti-gay bias. Gay teens try forming their own rooms but AOL's TOS staffers close them, telling them to go to adult rooms or the regular teen rooms. But in the adult rooms, many are harassed by individuals that AOL is supposedly protecting them from--child molesters. The media has made a big thing about all the people online who are after our children. Much of that reporting (fortunately for our kids) is media hype, designed to sell papers and boost TV ratings. [See Steve Silberman's excellent article in WIRED 2.11 entitled "We're Teen, We're Queer, and We've Got E-mail."] Gay teens are told not to tell others they are gay or bi, because that subjects them to constant badgering and harassment by older adults, pedophiles, mentally ill individuals, and others who despise gay teens. Being a gay teen on AOL is more than difficult. The gay community at large does not want to be seen with them or be seen talking with them, for fear they will be classified as child molesters. This includes the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), which maintains an online presence on AOL, but has basically remained uninterested in the AOL/gay teens conflict. This situation will tend to get worse as time passes, unless it is remedied by local laws or by Congress. Over time as people continue to access these services and they grow in size, it could eat into the very fabric of democracy in the U.S. Here in the U.S., democracy as we know it could disappear and the people controlled online by cyber-fascism and cyber-suppression--and governed by the cyber-police. You can see this in action, and see where it is heading just by becoming a member, and seeing you have no way to redress grievances. This might be your future, America, and that of the world's--taken over by a few who think they as individuals know better than the majority. I write this as a parent, for I listen to what my children tell me. I have sat with them for many hours in front of the computer and seen firsthand what is happening--and I don't like it. I was a teen during WWII and read daily accounts of what the Nazis were doing. I lived through the cold war and the Stalin repression era. I was among the many who felt the bite of McCarthyism, and suffered from that haunting feeling of someone looking over my shoulder, seeing what I was reading and what I was saying. While online, an anonymous person may be spewing lies about someone, and that person has no way to defend himself. There are no safeguards or democratic principles at work in many of the online services. It is an erosion of all that many people hold dear, and what most people want from a democracy. They do not want to have someone rule them, without being a part of the ruling process. Some individuals online have even threatened the parents of children who are online. It's why my own children are told not to give out their real last name, where they live, their phone number, or where they go to school. Children are very trusting of adults, and many of these people are glib talkers and charmers. One child on PRODIGY made the mistake of giving out his phone number, and his parents were receiving calls day and night. There are countless nightmarish stories that the gay teens can tell, but you won't hear nor read about most of them, because on most of the online services, the thinking is Victorian. In their view, the children are precious innocents; the sexually active, heterosexual teen does not exist, and the gay teen doesn't exist, People become so involved and so much a part of the online community that it becomes their world. However, it can be a place of great learning, and a place to meet some wonderful people. It can be a place to interact with others without interacting offline too. However, given the current trend and the reprehensible way the major online services treat people as inanimate objects, it may not be the place that visionaries dream for the coming information superhighway. ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Smithson is a pseudonym for a concerned parent who wishes to remain anonymous. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:36:19 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 5--Dennis Erlich Relates CoS Search and Seizure (Illegal?) (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject--ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SIEZE Date--Mon, 13 Feb 95 22:53:16 -0800 This morning at 7:30 am my doorbell was repeatedly rung by a man in a suit with papers. I didn't open and when he didn't go away I called 911. I was told by the 911 operator of the Glendale Police that I had to let these people (there was a crowd of about 12) into my house because of a search warrant. I went out on the front porch and talked to an on-duty Glendale police officer, Steve Eggett (badge# 12126). He informed me that I was required to permit these people to enter my house and search for copyrighted material. Two armed off-duty officers from the Inglewood police department were working as rent-a-cops (Sgt. Ed Eccles and Officer Mark Fronterotta) for the private investigation firm of Robert Shovlin (PI lic P116086) of RJS Consultants. His firm was in the employ of Thomas Small, atty for Religious Technology Center. Small also entered my house. Warren McShane (an officer of RTC, the plaintiff) and Paul Wilmshurst (a scieno computer expert) also entered. I objected but was told that they would use force if I resisted. They presented me with 6" of legal documents, one of which was a writ of sezure from a Northern Calif. Federal Judge - Ron Whyte. It is case # C-9s-20091 RMW. They were in my house going through my drawers and every computer disk and file from 7:30am to 3pm. They confiscated over 300 floppy disks. Two 120 meg Colorado tape back-ups of my hard disk and deleted any files on my hard disk that they wanted. Potentially they copied all my personal correspondence, mailing lists, financial records and personal notes. Any one who has sent me anything in confidence must assume that it has been compromised. The LA Times will run a story in the 14 Feb issue. Fox had a camera crew who videoed me begging the Glendale Police not to let them confiscate my material without me examining the disks and copies to see specifically what they were taking. I was refused the right to even look at what they had copied from my disk. Criminals being arrested have more rights than these officers of my home town and of the court provided me. I hope this at least shows what type of fascist organization I am attempting to expose. Later, Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1995 08:19:09 -0700 From: ""@PIMACC.PIMA.EDU Subject: File 6--Re: Slam of the Internet in STAR Date--23 Feb 95 08:18:45 MST I would like to mention the article in 2-22-1995 AZ DAILY STAR,sec. B, p. 3 King features business columnist Dale Dauten slams the Internet: Title: "As Information Source Unwieldy Internet Fails to Deliver." Many points that Mr. Dauten makes are the results of 1/2 hr. online, guided by two business colleagues. I beieve his search for knowledge sought a negative outcome. He published this outcome on the babsis of scant acquaintance with the Net in order to discredit it and help "sub-divide" to "service providers." [I base this statement upon the fact that the only refs. comparing the Net to private services make the Net appear worse. The charges are not wholly groundless, but an over-all card catalog IS being developed and Yahoo at stanford works pretty well in the meantime: The argument that not enough resources for business (and the stock market) is belied by Yahoo with its 8000 sites in business and the market. The argument that provider of private Internet access run rings around the Net itself is spurious as well. There are servers claiming full access. When their customers are questioned, they do not even have LYNX or easy access to FTP files. Anyone wishing to contact Mr. Dauten at King Features for a copy of his slam of the Interent may do so at: Compuserve (73654,3711) That translates to a regular Internet address of: (The "E" is important.) Thanks, Gloria McMillan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:45:55 +0000 (CUT) From: Luc Pac Subject: File 7--first italian initiative on comp networks FIRST ITALIAN NATIONAL INITIATIVE IN DEFENCE OF AMATEUR COMPUTER NETWORKS The first Italian national conference of amateur computer networks, held last weekend, ended on a successful note. The central theme of the gathering, ably hosted by the Museo Pecci in Prato (near Florence), concerned 'the right to communicate'. In all, two thousand people took part in the conference, drawn from the whole gamut of Italy's amateur networks and bulletin boards. More than fifty speakers and numerous papers made the proceedings a lively affair. Amongst those participating were a number of internationally renowned figures - from Honoria and Mafalda Stasi to Matthew Fuller - as well as speakers from various Italian institutions, including Prof.Attardi of the University of Pisa. Whatever the differences that sometimes characterised this wide-ranging discussion, the defence of freedom of expression and communication stood out as a common thread running through all the interventions. This sentiment was spelt out concretely in the following document, which was endorsed by virtually all those in attendance. "We, individuals and organisations, gathered on 19/2/95 at the conference on 'Right to Communication at Millenium's End', held at the Museo Pecci in Prato, express our deep concern at the climate of intimidation which currently surrounds the question of electronic communication, both on the legislative and judicial front, as well as in terms of media coverage. "In quick succession two laws have been approved (the first concerning software copyright, the second 'computer crimes') which, lacking all proportion, propose to punish severely - with prison sentences - behaviours which for the most part could best be described as misdemeanours. The inevitable consequence of this approach can only be a re-run of the 'Italian Crackdown', an exercise that has been criticised even by many legal practitioners. "This climate of intimidation has been further aggravated by a number of decisions emanating from other quarters. On the one hand, the Court of Rome has decreed that bulletin boards and computer networks must register with the state as if they were part of the print media - with all the legal ramifications which follow from such registration. On the other hand, the Italian government announced at the beginning of the year that it has appointed itself fit to sit in judgement on matters of legislation concerning privacy and BBS (the latter decision unprecedented in Europe) - all this to be decided through decree, without any preliminary discussion in parliament. "This way of managing information aids and abets the interests of the few. The most trivial violations of the new laws have prompted dozens of newspaper articles and TV programs, with barely any reportage of the insitutions' efforts to impose an evermore rigid regulation of the electronic frontier. Conferences have been held on 'Hackers, terrorism, and organised crime', yet public opinion remains oblivious as to the details. If such links truly exist, and crimes have been committed, we demand that the details be made public. Or is this alarm simply a beat-up - a beat-up whose goal, whilst unclear, can only be a threat to freedom? "Furthermore, it should be noted that neither the institutions nor the media have ever approached the theme of new forms of communication in terms of guaranteeing citizens' rights. Both the bulletin boards and the various experiments with new forms of media constitute a new territory, within which positive elements of social and interpersonal progress, of cultural and scientific solidarity, are rather more pertinent than the behaviours mentioned earlier. "Neither the institutions nor the media seem to have realised that the emergence of the 'electronic citizen' raises legitimate questions of universal significance. The immediate future seems to promise instead the negation of this form of citizenship rights, through the further introduction of new norms and bureaucratic procedures designed to limit the socialisation of information. "Since we are convinced that this issue raises questions pertinent to the civil liberties of all, we call upon not only the various computer network communities, but all members of society to express themselves concretely on the matter. "We note with pleasure the success of this first national conference in defence of amateur computer networks. Since we anticipate a lively debate - both within these networks and outside them - around the role of new information technologies in our society, we extend an invitation to a second common moment of reflection and mobilisation to be held early September in Rome." sTRANO nETWORK communication work group BITs Against The Empire Labs CyberNet 65:1400/1 +39-464-435189 Underground Research & Documentation ECN 45:1917/2 +39-11-6507540 Italy Fidonet 2:333/412 +39-464-435189 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 26 Feb, 1995) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: /mirror/ The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: 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. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, 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. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #7.16 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank