Computer underground Digest Wed Jun 14, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 49 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 Wed Jun 14, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 49 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Triviata: How many Spams have C&S Done since April '94? CONTENTS, #7.49 (Wed, Jun 14, 1995) File 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle File 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case File 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens" File 4--Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd) File 5--Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:33:53 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" Subject: 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle ================================================================= CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/GORTON COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END) Update: -The Latest News: The Senate voted to attach the Communications Decency Act to the Telecom Reform bill. Leahy's alternative was not attached to the Telecom Reform bill. -What You Can Do Now CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT June 14, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL June 25, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org) ___________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS Background The Latest News What You Can Do Now For More Information List Of Participating Organizations _________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND The Communications Decency Act (sponsored by Sen. Exon and Gorton) would criminalize many forms of expression on online systems. Many believe it to be unconstitutional, and a fight to oppose it has been waged since its introduction. It was recently attached to the fast-tracked Telecommunications Deregulation bill, which is moving quickly through Congress. _________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Right up until the last minute, callers reported weary Senatorial staffers continued to report a deluge of incoming calls, almost all against the Exon/Coats bill and supporting the Leahy alternative. The Senate debated the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency Act and the Leahy alternative today (June 14, 1995) starting at about 3:30pm EST for 90 minutes. The debate was opened by Senator Exon who read a prayer to protect against computer pornography. Senators Exon (D-NE) and Coats (R-IN) spoke in favor of their position. Senator Gorton (R-WA) was mysteriously absent from the debate. Exon referred those that signed the petition to prevent his censorship bill as "selfish". Exon presented letters from many groups in support of his bill, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, the National Law Center for Families. He also stated that 75% of computer owners have refused the join the Internet because the obscene material they feared on the Internet. Senators Byrd (D-WV) and Heflin (D-AL) cosponsored the Exon bill at the last minute. Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) spoke passionately about the First Amendment and the Internet. Feingold warned against the dangers of chilling free speech. Leahy brought out the monster petition in support of his alternative (it looks pretty impressive on television) and proceeded to try to debunk the myths Exon promulgated about the Internet. He also trumpeted the success of the Internet, and pointed out it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if the US government had tried to micro-manage it. Both Exon and Leahy then gave back extra debating time and went to a vote on the bill. The Exon bill was successfully attached to the Telecomm Reform bill (84-16). The Leahy alternative was not attached to the Telecom Reform bill. Questions and answers: Q: What does this mean? A: It means we lost this round. The unconstitutional Exon Communications Decency Act was attached to the Telecomm Reform bill. Q: What's the next step? A: Next, we need to ensure that a House equivalent to the Exon Communications Decency Act is not attached to the House Telecomm Reform bill. Q: Where can I find more information about the bill? A: Check below. ___________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW -- U.S. and non-U.S. citizens 1. Familiarize yourself with the version of the bill that passed, and the transcript of the Senate debate. (directions to obtain these are below) 2. Check the voting list below. It wouldn't hurt to send a nice letter, email, or fax to the Senators that voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act. Hateful mail to Senators who did not vote your way is not only *bad form*, but likely to become illegal soon anyway, under the Communications Decency Act. In other words, take some time to cool off. 3. If you don't receive Coalition alerts reliably through mail or news, join the mailing list by sending mail to listproc@vtw.org with "subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname". We'll have to fight this battle in the House soon and you should be informed. 4. Relax, it's not the end of the world. We still have this battle to fight in the House of Representatives and then in the conference committee. This is a setback, but we haven't lost yet. __________________________________________________________________ RESULTS OF THE SENATE VOTE Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act (A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech rights would be appropriate.) D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax = == ================== ============== ============== D CT Lieberman, Joseph I. 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750 D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139 D IL Simon, Paul 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868 senator@simon.senate.gov D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626 D MA Kennedy, Edward M. 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417 senator@kennedy.senate.gov D MI Levin, Carl 1-202-224-6221 na D MN Wellstone, Paul 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438 D NM Bingaman, Jeff 1-202-224-5521 na Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov D NY Moynihan, Daniel P. 1-202-224-4451 na D OH Glenn, John 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983 R RI Chafee, John H. 1-202-224-2921 na D VA Robb, Charles S. 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689 Senator_Robb@robb.senate.gov vascr@CapAccess.org D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov R VT Jeffords, James M. 1-202-224-5141 na D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238 D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act (They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights. Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway. Take some time to cool down.) D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax = == ================== ============== ============== R AK Murkowski, Frank H. 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301 R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 D AL Heflin, Howell T. 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149 R AL Shelby, Richard C. 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416 D AR Bumpers, Dale 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435 D AR Pryor, David 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261 R AZ Kyl, Jon 1-202-224-4521 1-202-228-1239 R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702 D CA Boxer, Barbara 1-202-224-3553 na D CA Feinstein, Dianne 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954 R CO Campbell, Ben N. 1-202-224-5852 1-202-225-0228 R CO Brown, Henry 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471 D CT Dodd, Christopher J. 1-202-224-2823 na R DE Roth Jr. William V. 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805 D FL Graham, Robert 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237 R FL Mack, Connie 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022 D GA Nunn, Samuel 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072 R GA Coverdell, Paul 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783 D HI Akaka, Daniel K. 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126 D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 D IA Harkin, Thomas 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431 R IA Grassley, Charles E. 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020 R ID Craig, Larry E. 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573 R ID Kempthorne, Dirk 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893 R IN Coats, Daniel R. 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964 R IN Lugar, Richard G. 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952 R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L. 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514 D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 R KY McConnell, Mitch 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499 D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na D LA Johnston, J. Bennett 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952 D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 D MD Mikulski, Barbara A. 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858 D MD Sarbanes, Paul S. 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651 R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853 R ME Cohen, William S. 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693 R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834 R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-224-3244 na R MO Bond, Christopher S. 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149 R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na R MS Cochran, Thad 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576 R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 D MT Baucus, Max 1-202-224-2651 na R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406 R NC Helms, Jesse 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588 D ND Conrad, Kent 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776 D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193 D NE Kerrey, Bob 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645 D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 R NH Gregg, Judd 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952 R NH Smith, Robert 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353 D NJ Bradley, William 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567 D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R. 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707 R NM Domenici, Pete V. 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371 D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 D NV Reid, Harry 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327 R NY D'Amato, Alfonse M. 1-202-224-6542 1-202-224-5871 R OH Dewine, Michael 1-202-224-2315 1-202-224-6519 R OK Inhofe, James 1-202-224-4721 R OK Nickles, Donald 1-202-224-5754 1-202-224-6008 R OR Hatfield, Mark O. 1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276 R OR Packwood, Robert 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576 R PA Santorum, Rick 1-202-224-6324 na R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920 D RI Pell, Claiborne 1-202-224-4642 1-202-224-4680 D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 R SC Thurmond, Strom 1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300 D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047 R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259* R TN Thompson, Fred 1-202-224-4944 1-202-228-3679 R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062 R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 R TX Gramm, Phil 1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856 R UT Bennett, Robert 1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717 R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331 R VA Warner, John W. 1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295 R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 D WI Kohl, Herbert H. 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787 D WV Byrd, Robert C. 1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025 D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 na R WY Simpson, Alan K. 1-202-224-3424 1-202-224-1315 R WY Thomas, Craig 1-202-224-6441 1-202-224-3230 __________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION We will be archiving the version of the Communications Decency Act that passed, the roll call vote that went with it, and the transcript of the Senate debate. We will make these available through the methods below as soon as they are available through the Government Printing Office (this usually takes about 24 hours). Please try to use the Web or Gopher sites first before using our email server. Web Sites URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/ URL:http://epic.org/ URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html FTP Archives URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ Gopher Archives: URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts Email: vtw@vtw.org (put "send help" in the subject line) cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information) cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA) ___________________________________________________________________ LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act. American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Computer Communicators Association * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against Censorship * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Human Rights Watch * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * National Bicycle Greenway * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch (Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities, not EFF chapters or divisions.) ------------------------------ From: sobel@epic.org (David L. Sobel) Subject: 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:14:28 -0500 The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), on behalf of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), has filed an appellate brief seeking to uphold a lower court decision ordering the release of information on a controversial "hacker" investigation. At issue are documents detailing the Secret Service's role in the so-called "Pentagon City Mall Raid." In November 1992, a group of young people affiliated with the computer magazine "2600" were confronted by mall security personnel, local police officers and several unidentified individuals. The group members were ordered to identify themselves and to submit to searches of their personal property. Their names were recorded and some of their property was confiscated. However, no charges were ever brought against any of the individuals. Although the Secret Service has never formally acknowledged its role in the incident, it eventually conceded that it did possess relevant information. CPSR filed suit in federal court in early 1993 seeking the release of relevant Secret Service records under the Freedom of Information Act. In July 1994, U.S. District Judge Louis Oberdorfer ordered the Secret Service to release the vast majority of documents it maintains on the incident. The government appealed that decision and EPIC is litigating the appeal that is now pending. In the recently filed brief, EPIC and CPSR argue that the withheld documents demonstrate Secret Service misconduct and that the FOIA exemptions cited by the agency do not apply. The Secret Service has maintained that the disputed records were collected during the course of an investigation of telephone toll fraud. In its appellate brief, the agency asserts that "obviously, a meeting of individuals 'affiliated with 2600 Magazine' would be of interest to such an investigation since those individuals have, by their conduct, evidenced an interest in the technical intricacies of the telephone system." The government has revealed for the first time that the underlying investigation was closed on March 14 of this year. The Pentagon City incident has been described as an example of over-zealous law enforcement activities directed against so-called computer "hackers." The case raises significant issues of free speech and assembly, privacy and government accountability. Oral argument before the federal appeals court is scheduled for mid- September. The EPIC/CPSR brief can be accessed via WWW at: http://epic.org/computer_crime/2600/ or by FTP/Gopher at: cpsr.org/cpsr/computer_crime/2600_brief_6_95.txt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:45:02 -0400 (EDT) From: craftman Subject: 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens" St. Matthews Teenager "Lured" Away By Computer Pal Richard D. Meadows - craftman@iglou.com WRITERS NOTE: I have used ALLCAPS for my added emphasis and placed a few editorial/social comments in brackets [] in the article. At the end there will additional editorializing. The media feeding frenzy, about teens being lured away by people they have met online, in both Washington state and Kentucky has pro- vided more fuel for the Exon fire currently burning in the Senate. I live in Louisville, KY., and have been following the Tara Noble runaway closely since it was first reported in the Courier-Journal (C- J) on Tuesday June 6, a week after MS Noble left her home in St. Mat- thews an upper middle class suburb of Louisville. Tara, 13, ran away sometime on May 30, and yesterday she called the FBI from Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA., to say she wanted to go back home. [How many teens have run away to California and ended up on Hollywood Boulevard, where they call home or the police?] What makes this runaway case different is the fact that Tara's personal computer and AOL are involved. The headline on the front page story of the C-J on June 6....WOMAN FEARS COMPUTER PAL LURED AWAY DAUGHTER, 13....sets the tone for the entire article. The staff writer, John Voskuhl, calls cyberspace a "shadowy frontier", in a story that appears one full week after MS Noble ran away from home. Tara's mother Lisa Noble tells the writer that she thinks her daughter boarded a Greyhound bus headed west to rendezvous with someone she met through a ' "chat room" ' on America Online. Voskuhl writes in the story that it is not certain that Tara's computer connections played a role in her disappearance. In the next paragraph however: "The computer - that's what started this problem," said Norm Mayer, chief of the St. Matthews Police Department, which is investigating the case. "And that's the only real lead we have." [Excuse me? What about the Greyhound bus? Is that not a lead? Did Mrs. Noble just pick that out of the air?] The article goes on to tell of her divorced parents turning Tara's room upside down in search of information. They found tele- phone numbers from all across the country of people Tara had met during the DOZENS OF HOURS SHE SPENT CHATTING ON COMPUTER NETWORKS. [What networks are interfaced with AOL?] The article has the obliga- tory mention of "...a series of sexually explicit images that found their way across the Noble family's modem during the DOZENS OF HOURS her daughter spent online since April." Mrs. Noble is quoted in the article about the images: "I'm like, 'How can this stuff be on a computer?"' During her trip across the country Tara stopped and used the computer to communicate with computer acquaintances through AOL. Pam McGraw of AOL Fame, indicated that AOL was cooperating with authori- ties investigating the Noble case. McGraw also pointed out that AOL provides "parental controls" that allow parents to prevent their children from using chat rooms. Mrs. Noble said she did not know about them before her daughter disappeared. Tara spent so much time on the computer her mother eventually removed the telephone jack Tara was using. Her father, Sam Noble, was quoted in the story: "We encouraged her. We didn't know she was talking to MEN all across the country." He further indicated, "People talk about the information superhighway - in my opinion, it ought to be regulated." The article then goes on to tell about the Exon bill and how one of Kentucky's Senators, Wendell Ford, voted for it in committee and would vote for it on the floor. The end of the article the writer talks about the image appearing on the screen to signal the computer was busy -- an hourglass, as Mrs. Noble sat waiting for word of her daughter's whereabouts. SCUM IN CYBERSPACE Op-Ed Page Editorial - The Courier-Journal - Wednesday June 7, 1995 The volume and content of information that reaches children in their own homes makes parenthood ever more challenging. Movies, television, printed matter -- they can all influence values and deci- sions. Every major advance in information technology, from the printing press to the cellular phone, has been blamed for misleading the young. Ideas open up new possibilities, The results are often trying. Now comes the computer, with its awesome power to bring likemind- ed folks together in a strange realm of cyberspace. And, regrettably, to serve as a medium for purveyors of pornography. The recent disappearance of 13-year-old Tara Noble could, her parents believe, be connected to contact she made in a computer net- work "chat room". It's a realistic -- and frightening -- possibility. But the larger society must not let such occurrences stampede it into blaming the technology -- which, like every other, is hurtful as well as beneficial -- or resorting to censorship. Such efforts can't work. And they run counter to the laws and traditions of a free nation. A better idea is to manage the machine better -- by using electronic wizardry to help parents decide what their children have access to. That's no guarantee of safety, but it's preferable to controls on what all citizens read and see. UNSIGNED The Courier-Journal -- Wednesday June 7, 1995 DANGER MAY LURK FOR CHILDREN IN ANONYMOUS ONLINE WORLD By Ric Manning, Business Writer WRITERS NOTE: Ric Manning is a friend of mine and writes for other computer publications besides the C-J, where you may have seen his byline. Doesn't mean I won't take him to task when I feel he is wrong, just ask him. ricman@iglou.com This article is a general overview of what can happen and some of the techno-wizardry which can be used by parents to help prevent children going where no parent wants them going. There is also men- tion of both the Washington state and Kentucky runaways. The most interesting to me is SURFWATCH a new $49.95 screening program which prevents access to more than 1000 internet sites that contain sexually oriented material. <800-458-6600> When my son gets older and begins to surf around a program like that on his computer seems reasonable to me. Again we get the comment, this time from Tara's mother that online services should be regulated. The services respond that par- ents must assume most of the responsibility for their children's activities online. (See editorial comments at end.) The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children along with online services have produced a brochure called "Child Safety on the Information Superhighway", which is available online on Compu$erve or through the center's hotline: 800-THE-LOST. [What is their online address?] If a CI$ reader would be so kind as to get this and send it in to CuD, it would be nice. MISSING GIRL, 13, FOUND UNHARMED IN LOS ANGELES Monday June 12, 1995 The Courier-Journal Bill Pike, Staff Writer WRITERS NOTE: I am going to do excerpts from this article, but, not the entire thing. Teen's Flight Linked To Online Contacts Unharmed but frightened after being away from home for two weeks, 13-year-old Tara Noble call the FBI in Los Angeles yesterday from a phone booth on Hollywood Boulevard to say she wanted to return home. [Was it Hollywood & Vine?] Tara had been missing since May 30, when authorities feared that she had been lured to California through contacts over her home com- puter -- perhaps by a man identified only as George in San Francisco. Tara was in "excellent health and apparently unharmed," said Dave Kohl, the agent in charge of FBI operations in Kentucky. (Lisa) Noble and her ex-husband, Sam Noble of Pleasure Ridge Park, found telephone numbers from across the country for people Tara had met while chatting on computer networks. They also turned up sexually explicit material and a message from George, who wrote, "We can run around our room naked all day and all night." Kohl declined to give details of Tara's whereabouts or activities during the past two weeks, although he said she had been in "several locations". He acknowledged that the computer played a role in Tara's disappearance, and he said the case shows the need for parents to supervise their children's use of computers. Kohl said that TARA DOES NOT FACE ANY CHARGES AND THAT THE FBI WILL CONTINUE INVESTIGATING. He added that "significant media coverage" of Tara's disappear- ance, as well as an extensive investigation, prompted Tara to call authorities. A story in yesterday's [Sunday June 11, 1995. I would like to have a complete hard copy of this article if someone in l.a. could send it via snail mail to me.] Los Angeles Times featured Tara and a 15-year-old Washington state boy who was reunited with his parents after making an unannounced trip to San Francisco to visit a friend he had met through his computer. [What happened to the MAN who had lured this boy to San Francisco for gay sex? Now it is an unannounced trip to visit a friend. Can you say media hype?] Five FBI field offices worked on Tara's case, interviewing numer- ous contacts she had made via computer, Kohl said. HE ALSO SAID A "COOPERATIVE CITIZEN" IN SAN FRANCISCO NOTIFIED THE FBI THERE YESTERDAY THAT TARA WAS IN LOS ANGELES. [I guess you would be cooperative if Special Agents of the FBI came knocking on your door and asking you questions about a 13-year-old runaway girl] EDITORIALIZING Without exception everyone in the community here, both online and offline, that I have discussed the Tara Nobles case with have said the same things. There are bigger problems in the family than a 13 y.o. running away because of a friend on AOL. Kids have been running away to California for as long as I can remember reading newspapers and that is a few years now, and the fact that Tara met this person via computer makes it different, but certainly not unique. How come a parent lets a bright student suddenly spend dozens of hours online? They got the computer in April and Tara ran away in May. She was on AOL. Lets see 30 days worth of online fees get charged to the old credit card. The credit card bill comes in. Mom nearly has a heart attack. Mom unplugs the telephone line from the computer. Daughter gets seriously upset. Daughter decides to go join her online friend(s) so she can stay online. I dunno maybe my thinking here is off. I am consistently and constantly disappointed in the reporting of the C-J on most computer stories. This is no exception. Voskuhl shows a lack of understanding of the Information Superhighway when he writes about Tara chatting on computer networks, after identifying AOL as the service provider. The final paragraph dealing with a mother waiting to find out about her runaway daughter and the hourglass was just too sticky for my taste. The Facts, Just the Facts, in a NEWS article. I appreciate the C-J's support of personal freedom. I wish they would just go further with it. If the Op-Ed page editorial writers were as doggedly determined on protecting all of us from censorship as they are on open records or preventing the building of an interstate bridge near the home of the editor of the opinion pages, Keith Runyon, per- haps my two senators would get a clue and vote no on Exon's bill. We are getting the same government needs to provide control relative to the internet that has come and gone for years on controlling TV, Movies, Music, et.al., vices that children can come in contact with if not supervised. The key is parenting. My son does not watch Beavis and Butthead, although he would love too, nor MTV, nor violent movies on TV. He does not listen to music I find offensive. He has never had a toy gun, although he has made several with his erector set, or sticks, or whatever is convenient and looks close enough to suit his needs at the moment. The point is I control his socio-environment. That is parenting. That is the responsibility you take on when you decide to bring a life into this world. When he is older and skilled enough I will get him online. But, he is not gonna be reading the alt.sex. news groups. Well certainly not until he figures out how to get around how I have his system set up. It is not up to Sen. Exon, or the guvmint, to control the internet, it is up to the parent to take back control of their family and instill the morals and values that they believe in, not the values of a senator or a president wannabe or even a vice-presidents wife. End of Editorial Comments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:46:06 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: 4-- Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd) Note: Susan Thunder has also promised to write "her side of the story" as opposed to what is chronicled in Cyberpunk, (Katie Hafner and John Markoff) David Smith * "Where children dare to tread, the footsteps bladex@bga.com * of censorship are sure to follow" President, EFF-Austin * Fight the Communications Decency Act. Board of Directors, CTCLU * Send e-mail to vtw@vtw.org w/ "send info" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: thunders@ix.netcom.com (Susan Thunder ) Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.fan.kevin-mitnick Subject: 5--Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion Date: 3 Jun 1995 06:56:25 GMT What is the difference between "social engineering" vs "psychological subversion"??? I will be offering a series of tutorials on these subjects, starting below, but first I would like to post a challenge to all you REAL superhackers out there: Back in the days of 8BBS and other early '80's boards, the hacker ethic was such that one who imagined him/herself to be a superhacker would PROVE him/herself by the QUALITY of the posts (s)he left. If a novice hacker asked a question, those of us who were of the elite pantheon would all try to outdo each other in a game of one-upsmanship to see who could post the most informative and/or useful reply! We demonstrated our ability by the reliabiltity of the information we provided to these newcomer queries, and it made for one HELLUVA competitive and informative BBS. So here's my challenge: Instead of all you so-called experts out there falling all over each other trying to outflame the novices, let's see you SHOW YOUR STUFF! Let's let the cream rise to the top, guys/gals! Let's get this newsgroup back on track--it's a simple fact of life that there will be a continuing flood of newcomers to the net, so let's work together instead of against each other! Let's face it: If *WE* don't keep an eye on Big Brother, nobody will. One of the main goals of communism in its efforts to subvert capitalist society was to sow dissention and mistrust among the more inquisitive political organizations--could it be that the feds are trying to do the same to us, a potentially VERY POWERFUL segment of today's cutting-edge theorists? ***>DON'T LET THEM WIN!<*** Let's join together and disseminate information freely rather than withhold it! -------[Stepping down from the soapbox...]------- Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion Part 1 Social Engineering has been defined as the art of manipulating information out of a given person with a view towards learning information about or from a given EDP system. The techniques are relatively simple, and I will go into greater detail and provide examples in a future tutorial. Essentially, the methodology consists of pulling off a telephone ruse to get the persona at the other end of the line to give you passwords or read you data off of their computer screen. Sometimes the techniques involve intimidation or blackmail. Again, I will explore these techniques further in my next tutorial, but first I want to address the differences between Social Engineering (a lousy, non-descriptive term IMHO) and Psychological Subversion. Psychological Subversion (PsySub) is a very advanced technique that employs neural linguistic programming (nlp), subconscious suggestions, hypnotic suggestions, and subliminal persuasion. Essentially, you want to plant the idea in the subject's mind that it's okay to provide you with the information you seek to obtain. the precise methods vary according to the environment, but I will use the Miliary as an example since they are very easily manipulated as a result of their inherent compulsion to obey any directive emanating from a higher-ranking officer. If you would like to bypass a tempested system housed inside a SCIF that employs multi-level/multi-keyed encryption methodology, the most productive method I have ever encountered is to call inot the SCIF on the appropriate autovon line (DMS-100, what a joke anyway), and firmly inform the corporal or sergeant that answers the phone that you are Specialist So-and-so calling on behalf of General such-and-such (the base commandant is a good choice to use but be sure you use his secretary's/("Specialist's) real name) and state that the General would like to know WHY HE CANNOT ACCESS HIS ACCOUNT! Naturally, the low-ranking dupe on the other end of the phone line will be much more concerned about getting into potential trouble by pissing off the general than he will be concerned about the established security procedures. Often-times, it will be necessary to take him step-by-step through the already obvious (to you) process of explaining WHY the account isn't "working..." (The real reason, FYI, is because Top Secret and higher systems are not supposed to have any external connections to phone lines outside the SCIF). What you need to do is talk the dupe through the process of creating/enabling a remote access line (i.e. dialup),a nd it helps to have a definable STU-III dataset to exchange encryption keys with him. Failing passession of such a device, you just pretend that you've tried to access the system anyway, and for some reason the encryption devices aren't handshaking properly. At this point you either convince him that he could be in very big trouble for insubordination if he doesn't cooperate and give the "general" immediate access, albeit unencrypted, or you can simply have the poor sod READ you the data off of his screen! Oftentimes, you can even get the fool to print out various materials that you would like to view, and have him mail/deliver/ftp etc these items via another system. In other words, to bypass encryption, just have a legitimate user read and print the data you wish to acquire--intimidation works with some people. With others you need to flirt. Some are simply the helpful type of person who will accomodate your request with very little fanfare. In a couple of cases, I have had to play a subliminal tape over the phone line as I spoke to the subject. The tape would embed instructions and reasurrance into the subject's mind on a subconscious level that they were not even aware of. Ususally, if there is something you want very badly, it may take several contacts to build up rapport and level of trust before you begin to lay the guilt trips on them about "haven't I been a friend to you? I might get in BIG trouble if I don't remember the "general's" password and username. Please, help me out of this mess..." You'd be surprised at how many people fall for this ruse! Now I have a comment about how certain persons chose to utilize these very powerful nlp techniques. For instance, there is a well-known hacker who is selling (or trying to, anyway) these awesomely powerful techniques to men who desire to simply get-laid! What a fucking waste of time, effort, and talent. Evidently the man in question has nothing better to do with this remarkable knowlegde that compromise an already vulnerable and probably lonely woman... If this hacker would apply his substantial knowledge on this subject to a socially useful endeavor, instead of efforts that lead to nothing more than brief personal satisfaction at the lonely woman's emotional expense, then HE could be a force to reckon with! Pleae address questions and comments to the newsgroup and NOT my email (unless it's very personal) because I would like to see an intelligent exchange of useful information in this newsgroup again! Are any of you so-called superhackers up to the challenge of proving your knowledge and "pedigree" in a public forum where all can see the results of your effots? Let's get this group back on track...after all, we all started somewhere! Now this flood of aolers and ixers kind of makes it necessary to slog though alot of crap, but there ARE useful and informative posts buried within threads that have long since migrated away from thier origianl intents. I will post more specific hacks in my next "tutorial!" REGARDS, THUNDER (Susan) Hey guys: Please pray for Kevin's early release from jail, and write to him too if you can! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to 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 CUDIGEST Send it to 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 comp.society.cu-digest 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) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/ 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 #7.49 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank