**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 1, Issue #1.00 (March 28, 1990) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. -------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST was begun with the encouragement of Pat Townson, moderator of TELECOM DIGEST. Pat received far to many responses to the recent Legion of Doom indictments to print, and many of the issues raised were, for reasons beyond Pat's control, unable to be printed. This, the initial issue of CuD (as in "stuff to ruminate over") will reprint some of the initial responses to provide the background for those who missed the earlier discussions. Preliminary interest in this forum has been relatively good. We received about 50 inquiries in the first 12 hours. We anticipate initial problems in linking bitnet with usenet and other outlets. Doug Davis (in Texas) has thoughtfully volunteered to serve as a go between between Usenet and other links, so, by trial and error, we'll try to contact everybody who has expressed interest. We will set line length at 78 characters. If there are problems in reading this, let us know and we will shorten it. STATEMENT OF INTENT CuD encourages opinions on all topics from all perspective. Other than providing a context for an article if necessary, the moderators *will not* add commentary of agreement or disagreement. We see our role as one of facilitating debate, although we will undoubtedly take part in discussions in separate articles. From the inquiries, interest seems to gravitate around a number of issues related to the "computer underground," by which we mean the social world of phreaks, hackers, and pirates. Judging from the comments, we encourage contributions of the following nature: 1. Reasoned and thoughtful debates about economic, ethical, legal, and other issues related to the computer underground. 2. Verbatim printed newspaper or magazine articles containing relevant stories. If you send a transcription of an article, be sure it contains the source *and* the page numbers so references can be checked. Also be sure that no copyright violations are infringed. 3. Public domain legal documents (affidavits, indictments, court records) that pertain to relevant topics. In the next issue we will present documents from the Alcor (California) E-mail law suit. 4. General discussion of news, problems, or other issues that contributors feel should be aired. 5. Unpublished academic papers, "think pieces," or research results are strongly encouraged. These would presumably be long, and we would limit the size to about 1,500 lines. Those appropriate for distribution would be sent as a single file and so-marked in the header. Although we encourage debate, we stress that ad hominem attacks or personal vituperations will not be printed. Although we encourage opinion, we suggest that these be well-reasoned and substantiated with facts, citations, or other "evidence" that would bolster claims. CuD *is not* a preak/hacker forum, and it is not a replacement for PHRACK magazine. However, our initial model for this forum is a combination of PHRACK WORLD NEWS and CNN's Cross-Fire if moderated by Emo Phillips. The first few issues are exploratory. If there is continued interest, we will continue. If not, so it goes. We *strongly* encourage suggestions and criticisms. -------------- In this issue: -------------- 1. Moderator's Introduction 2. Background of the LoD debates 3. Use of Aliases in the BBS world 4. LoD Indictment 5. Press Release Accompanying LoD indictment =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= =================================================== === Computer Underground Digest - File 1 of 5 === =================================================== Welcome to the first "issue" of Computer Underground Digest. Jim and I thought it would appropriate if we both wrote a few words as a sort of "hello" and introduction. I'll keep this brief for now as I believe the "good stuff" will be found in the other inclusions. However since this is the first of what could be several (or perhaps few) issues it is appropriate at this time to offer some thoughts, more or less off the cuff, on the so-called "computer underground" (CU). Over the past few years I've often been asked to justify the use of "computer underground" when referring to the realm of hackers, phreakers, and pirates. Certainly the "computer" part is easy to justify, or at least accept as valid. No, it's the "underground" that has been criticized. Now I certainly don't claim to have invented the term, in fact it is taken from the vocabulary of the p/hackers themselves. However "underground" does imply, at least in common usage, some characteristics that are not necessarily accurate. Some of these are organization, criminality (or at lest marginality), unity, and purposiveness. Does the CU display these characteristics? Discussing each would take much more room than I intend to use today. My M.A. thesis of August 1989 addressed the issues of organization and unity, from a sociological viewpoint. The articles included in this issue of the Digest address all of the a fore mentioned issues from another viewpoint, one formed largely by cultural outsiders. The issue that faces us now is who gets to define what the CU is all about? Do we rely on the Federal Justice department to identify and label the intent, organization, and purpose of the CU as conspirical? Do we rely on the media to define the CU as reckless and unlawful? Do we, as citizens, trust those in power to make decisions that will forever impact the way our societal institutions of control approach those whose application of technology has out paced our conceptions of private property and crime? Am I an advocate _for_ the computer underground? No, I'm not "one of them" and I don't speak for "them". However I do think it is in the best interest of all if the "problem" of the CU is approached from the new perspective it deserves. If our society is to ultimately decide that CU activity is every bit as terrible as puppy-whipping then that decision should be made, not forced upon us by lawmakers (and others) who are assuming, from the very beginning, that CU activity is threatening and criminal. To this end I hope that the CU Digest can provide information and discussion from a variety of perspectives. The assumptions and changes in definitions are subtle but hopefully we can begin to get a handle on many aspects of the CU. Gordon Meyer Internet: 72307.1502@compuserve.com 3/27/90 ============================================================================== Recent media depictions of phreaks, hackers, and pirates have created an image of evil lads (is it *really* a male bastion?) out to wreak havoc on society (the studies of Erdwin Pfuhl and Ray Michalowski, Dick Hollinger and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Meyer and Thomas). Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce have argued that one reason that Draconian anti-computer abuse laws were passed in the past few years is because of distorted images, lack of understanding of the computer world, and a lack of a strong constintuency to point out the potential abuses of restrictive legislation. We see CuD as an antidote to the current--yes, I will call them WITCH-HUNTS--of law enforcement agents and media hysteria. There is also a perceived need of commentators with some sympathy toward the computer underground to preface their comments with "I don't agree with their behaviors, but. . ."! I see no need to adopt a defensive posture. All predatory behavior is wrong, and that type of disclaimer should be sufficient. However, it remains to be seen whether *all* computer underground activity is as predatory as the media and law enforcement agents would have us believe. Yes, crimes are committed with computers. But, crimes are also committed with typewriters, cars, fountain pens and--badges. Computer Underground digest will attempt to provide an antidote to current beliefs by creating an open forum where they can be debated by all sides. Our intent, as Gordon indicates, is not to serve as apologists, but rather as gadflies. Technology is changing society faster than existing norms, values, beliefs, or laws, can match, and by airing issues we hope to at least provide insights into the new definitions of control, authority, privacy, and even resistance. Data from our own studies indicate that sysops of some BBSs have been exceedingly cautious in putting up documents that are quite legal. The sysop of one of the world's largest legitimate BBSs has told us of the chilling effect on freedom of speech that even a casual visit from the FBI can produce. Our hope is to present facts, stimulate debate, and above all, to create an awareness of the relationship between the computer underground, which is currently a stigmatized passtime, and the rest of society. We are not concerned with changing opinions, but we do hope to sharpen and clarify what, to us, are highly complex issues for which there is no simple solution. Jim Thomas Sociology/Criminal Justice Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 (TK0JUT1@NIU.bitnet) =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=  Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+