**************************************************************************** >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 #1.02 (April 2, 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: File 1: Messages Received File 2: Hacking in England (news article) File 3: The FBI and BBS Surveillance (PHRACK Reprint) -------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the third issue, and if you haven't received either of the first two even though you have subscribed, let us know. It means that mail is not getting through the gateway. If you know of anybody who has added their name to the mailing list but has not received any issues yet, let us know. We apologize for the problems, especially duplicate files, in the CuD 1.02 mailing. We are still working out mailing glitches. As some of you noticed, file headers still contain the addresses of all those to whom the batch is sent. We have broken the batches down into groups of about 25, so you are only seeing a portion of the list. However, this is still unacceptable. We are working on the problem. Until then, we will either break batches down into groups of 5, or, most likely, send them out individually, which is a drag with about 150 subscribers. We are experimenting with LISTSERV, and have asked comserve for suggestions. If you know of anybody who has added their name to the mailing list but has not received any issues yet, let us know. We apologize for the problems, especially duplicate files, in the CuD 1.02 mailing. We are still working out mailing glitches. -------------------------------------------------------------- We have received many, many requests of the files we listed. Providing an archive service may not have been one of our better ideas. At the moment (middle of the term) we don't have the time to comply with the heavy request load. But, we remain convinced that such an archival service is needed, because such files are not currently preserved in libraries. So, we are exploring options. We have encountered the following problems: 1. Time (or lack of it) and digging out files on an ad hoc basis 2. Size: Most of the ascii files are over 100 K, and some systems have kicked these back. A complete set of some files would run as high as 5 megs, and to send these out would jam most systems, even if sent out over a few days. Possible solutions: 1. Upload them to a local (DeKalb) BBS from which they could be downloaded. We would have to obtain university permission, but there is currently a multi-line BBS here that could handle such requests. 2. Send them out by snail mail to anybody who wanted to send disks and a self-addressed, stamped envelop. We could then put them in a ZIP file to reduce space by about 60 percent and return them. Any other suggestions?? From the material we're getting, it looks like we can put an issue out about once a week. We will send them in the early part of the week to avoid weekend mail-jams. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "COMPUTER ABUSE" OR "CONTROLOGY?" In a forthcoming article (CONTEMPORARY CRISES, 1990), Ray Michalowski and Erdwin Pfuhl argue that in the years following the 1986 passage of the federal computer abuse laws, and despite additional state laws, there were very few prosecutions or indictments of hackers. Yet, in recent months, hacker prosecutions seem to be making local and national news. Is there *really* an upsurge in abuse, or are law enforcement authorities over-reacting to media hype and hysteria by dramatizing their "concern" through over-enforcement? Jason Ditton (in his book CONTROLOGY) and Mark Fishman have argued that too often "crime waves" are do not reflect an increase in unacceptable behaviors as much as they do social responses to public fears or publicity surrounding a given type of incident. More simply, there are often not "crime waves," but rather "control waves." To dramatize competency and effectiveness, government agencies and law enforcement officials respond to images of "danger" by dramatizing their concern in the form of "crackdowns." The current Draconian anti-drug legislation is one example. We suppose that the good news is that whenever the government declares war on something, it's been lost (witness the "war on poverty," the "war on crime," the "war on drugs"). This military metaphor does not work well as a social policy, but the repercussions are a fiscal drain and a gradual loss of Constitutional freedoms. If you come across stories in your local papers on any aspect of computer prosecution (use of computers in felonies, prosecution, indictments, or arrests of hackers, confiscation of computer equipment, etc.), please transcribe the articles (including source, date and page numbers), and pass them along. HOWEVER, BE SURE NO COPYRIGHTS ARE INFRINGED. We assume that contributors have checked, because we cannot check every article that comes in. Thanks. J&G -------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.02 / File 1 of 3 *** *************************************************************** From: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu(Mike Godwin) Message-Id: <9003311359.AA25162@vondrake.cc.utexas.edu> To: TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu Subject: Re: Computer Underground Digest, Issue 1.01 Writes Mark Seiden: "(Note for the Tomorrow File: A new source of revenue for lawyers: store your hacker-client's backup tapes, which would then be protected as privileged communication?)" Unfortunately, backup tapes probably are probably not "privileged communication" within the meaning of attorney-client privilege. A court or magistrate could almost certainly order its production by the attorney in whose custody it was. The only possible theory of non disclosure that comes to mind is the work-product doctrine, and even that doctrine would apply only if the backup were made specifically for the purpose of preparing for litigation. In general, attorney-client privilege only applies to things that clients SAY (or write) to their attorneys, not things they GIVE to their attorneys. And, incidentally, the attorney-client privilege cannot, in itself, be "a source of revenue" for lawyers. Once you've contracted for an attorney-client relationship, your attorney has to keep privileged communications secret even if you *don't* ask him to or pay for him to. (You can, of course, give him specific permission to disclose such information.) --Mike ============================================================================== ---------------------------------- Pat Townson of TELECOM DIGEST passed the following along to us. %eds%. Any responses?!? -------------------- Subject: More L.O.D. To: "Submission to comp.dcom.telecom" Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 16:03:54 EST From: Don H Kemp Message-Id: <9004021603.AA12172@teletech.UUCP> As reported in AT&T's Consultant Liason Program electronic newsletter "Newsbriefs": > > LEGION OF DOOM -- ... A government affadavit alleged that in June > hackers believed to be Legion of Doom members planted software > "time bombs" in AT&T's 5ESS switching computers in Denver, Atlanta > and New Jersey. These programs ... were defused by AT&T security > personnel before they could disrupt phone service. ... New York > Newsday, p. 15, 4/1. > -- Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=  Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+