**************************************************************************** >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 #1.01 (March 31, 1990) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet SUBSCRIBE TO: INTERNET:TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu 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 Issue #1.01 / File 2 of 4 *** *************************************************************** Mark Seiden raises some good points in the previous file. His concerns cluster around a couple of issues: 1) Is having one's name on a mailing list sufficient to trigger law enforcement interest and subject the listee to possible harassment? 2) Are there law enforcement agents on this list? 3) Are the moderators part of a sting operation? Mark's comments, although partly tongue in cheek, indicate the degree to which over-zealous law-enforcement actions in recent months have had a "chilling effect" on the free flow of information. Let's take each of these issues in reverse order. First, the moderators are not part of a sting, nor are we in any way connected with, cooperating with, or otherwise involved in enforcement. One moderator works for a computer firm, the other is an sixties-lefty whose primary work is as a college professor and researcher of prison culture. But, Mark is quite correct in his concern for stings. It is *not* paranoia! Gary Marx, in his book UNDERCOVER: POLICE SURVEILLANCE IN AMERICA, carefully and convincingly documents the threat of police stings to civil liberties, their irony in subverting civil rights to protect society, and the contributions to distrust and openness they create. One reason for the emergence of this digest is the need many of us feel to raise such issues at a time when law enforcement seems to be spending as much time investigating computer users as other forms of crime. The emergence in many (by now most) federal and state agencies of dedicated "computer crime units" can too easily lead to the expansion of the definition of "abuse" to justify the existence of these units. Once units exist, they must investigate, apprehend and prosecute in order to justify their continued existence. Second, we assume from the mailing list that there are at least a few law enforcement agents on the list. We welcome them, and hope others subscribe as well. Perhaps they will learn something. Neither moderator is involved in illicit activity, unless research is considered a crime, and nothing we distribute will be knowingly illegal, violate copyright, or be knowingly harmful. The mailing list reflects diverse group. The bulk seems to be computerists employed in the private sector, followed by academics, and mixed in with students, journalists, and others. We will send CuD to anybody who requests it, and we welcome the response of law enforcement agents in the debates. Finally, Mark asks if having one's name on a mailing list is sufficient to mark them for an investigation. Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, the answer is *YES*! Mark has already indicated a few examples of this. The "Red Squads" of the 1960s and 1970s provide a more chilling example. There is overwhelming evidence, including documents we ourselves obtained as part of a class action law suit against the Michigan State Police, to indicate that law enforcement tactics included gathering lists by monitoring letters to editors opposing the Viet Nam war or the "social -isms," listed license plates of cars parked near political meetings, and by numerous other tactics totally anathema in a democratic society. In once instance, police in East Lansing, Michigan, actually investigated a political candidate who publicly denounced the war. The information in these lists, even if unverified, was shared with employers, state agencies, and other law enforcement agencies. These lists resulted in loss of employment, promotion, or--in the case of FBI documents we obtained--harassment in the FBI's COINTELPRO campaign. This included anonymous letters to parents or employers of people on the list and even direct physical harassment. We, in the U.S., seem to have short memories. Especially because of drug hysteria, we seem to be willing to enact legislation and permit investigative tactics that would otherwise be unacceptable. When the target is druggies or racketeers, there is little public outrage. But, now the tactics seem to be applied to other behaviors as creative agents find new uses for laws that have not yet been tested in the courts. In the last issue of CuD, we provided a rationale for the use of handles. We suggest that if anybody has concern about being on a list they use one. For e-mailing, we retain only the addresses and not names. Our mailing list of net addresses is encrypted and inaccessible, but even if it were obtained, there is insufficient information to be of use to anybody except e-mail hucksters marketing their warez. Thanks for raising the issue, Mark.  Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+