------------------------------

From: Brock Meeks (Reprinted with permission)
Subject: The FBI Comes Rapping, Rapping at Your BBS
Date: February 21, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.06: File 5 of 6: The FBI Comes Rapping.....          ***
********************************************************************

COPYRIGHT (C) 1991 BROCK N. MEEKS

INDIVIDUALS MAY COPY THIS ARTICLE TO DISK FOR PERSONAL USE.
TRANSMISSION OF ANY KIND IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT CONSENT OF AUTHOR

The FBI Comes Rapping, Rapping At Your BBS
by Brock N. Meeks

(first published in MICROTIMES #44, June 1988)

If that new user on your local bulletin board system (BBS) seems to be
asking a few too many personal questions, you might want to reconsider
answering, unless of course, you don't mind your answers being stored in a
database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

That new user just might be a member of a special FBI task force scouring
the nation's  electronic landscape.  Or so contends Glen L.  Roberts,
director  of _The FBI Project_ which publishes _The FBI and Your BBS_ and a
privacy/surveillance newsletter called _Full Disclosure_.

"Now wait a minute," you say, "That smacks of radical LaRouche-type
paranoid rhetoric!"  OK, so I was a bit leery, too. After all the FBI is
such an easy target.  Then I started rummaging through an old, coffee
cup-ringed file labeled only "FBI/Computer Squad."  In there I found
several old clippings and other documentation that started to back up
Roberts' statements.

If You Dig, You Hit Dirt =========================

In 1984 a short series of discreet advertisements. placed by the FBI,
appeared in a few computer trade publications and in _The Wall Street
Journal_.  The message was simple, and went something like: "We're looking
for computer literate persons to join the Bureau."  There was no mention of
any special task force; however, it was clear that the Bureau wanted to
upgrade their high-tech prowess.

Although the FBI won't confirm the existance of a computerized "hit squad,"
a public relations officer from the Bureau did confirm that they "have made
an extraordinary effort to recruit more technically oriented personnel"
since 1984.

If you dig hard enough, you'll find substantial evidence that the FBI is
most definitely working overtime in its efforts to monitor the electronic
community.  "They are desperately wary of the way information flows so
freely in this medium," says Roberts.

There was a number scrawled on the inside flap of that dog-earred folder.
It was annotated "Former agent; possible source." I called the number; I
got a story.

"I was recruited in 1983 by the FBI for my computer skills," the former
agent told me.  Because he stills does some consulting for the Bureau, he
asked not to be identified, but he laid out a very specific plan by the FBI
to increase their knowledge of the electronic communications world.  He
confided, "If the Bureau is monitoring BBSs, it's a small group."  Much
more likely, he offered, the FBI is drawing on the expertise of a small
band of high-tech freelance snoops to augment their staff, until their
skills are honed.

One member of this freelance team is the well-known John Maxfield.  He's
appeared in everything from the _Washington Post_ to the Today Show to
_MicroTimes_, bragging about his undercover infiltration of "criminal BBSs"
on behalf of the FBI.  (When I asked a 17-year-old hacker from Texas why no
one's taken out Maxfield, via computer, the kid told me: "He's too visible;
he's guarded pretty well as far as his computer records go; we've tried.")

Tradition =========

Certainly the FBI has a tradition of "investigating" groups of people it
deems "unsavory" or threatening.  Recent published reports told of how the
FBI has gathered files on several pro- Sandanista groups here in the U.S.
This type of information gathering process seems to be standard operating
procedure for them.

The _New York Times_ broke a story last year on its front page that
detailed how FBI agents were visiting New York city libraries and asking
the librarians to monitor certain people and keep a record of the books
they checked out; the list would be given to the agent at a later date.
NYC librarians flatly declined the FBI offer.  Perhaps the most startling
aspect of the story was the "it doesn't hurt to ask" attitude that flowed
from the FBI when they were confronted and asked for an explanation.

In Roberts' _The FBI and Your BBS_, the a brief history of the FBI's
willingness to gather all known information on a target group is outlined.

Pulling from the Final Report of the Select (Senate) Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, Book IV,
Supplemenatry Reports on Intelligence Activities, Roberts includes this
excerpt:

"Detectives were sent to local radical publishing houses to take their
books.  In addition, they were to find every private collection or library
in the possession of any radical, and to make the arrangements for
obtaining them in their entirety.  Thus, when the GID (General Intelligence
Division) discovered an obscure Italian born philosopher who had a unique
collection of books on the theory of anarchism, his lodgings were raided by
the Bureau and his valuable collection become one more involuntary
contribution to the huge and ever-growing library of the GID. [pages
87-88]."

Change "any radical" to "any BBS" and "book" to "disk" and quite suddenly
the electronic landscape turns into a winter still-life.

Data Collection ================

Roberts, quoting from his report, says, "Unlike other communications media,
information on a BBS does not get read by anyone before its instantaneous
publication.  Therefore, the FBI has much less of a possibility of
intimidateing the owner of a BBS into _not_ publishing certain information.
The FBI also acts as if BBSs have a monopoly on the distribution of
so-called 'illegal information.'  The FBI often uses this 'danger' as
justification to monitor the activities on these systems.  In reality,
however, BBSs transfer much less 'illegal information' than the phone
system."

Roberts statements are worth noting in light of the government's increased
interest in the marriage of criminal activity and electronic
communications.

A 455-page report issued by the President's Commission on Organized Crime,
dealing with drug abuse and traffiking cites that fact that crime has moved
into the high-tech arena.  The report states "To the extent that law
enforcement agencies' capabilities and equipment are inferior to those of
drug traffickers, immediate steps should be taken to rectify the
situation."  The report then recommends that _data-gathering_ efforts of
several agencies (including the FBI) should be tied together in one
"all-source intelligence and operations center."

The spirit of that document is being embraced by the long-distance phone
companies.  Tired of the multi-million dollar losses due to stolen or
illegally acquired access codes, these companies are circling the wagons in
a spirit of high-tech cooperative surveillance never before experienced in
the commercial world.

Quoting from a _Washington Post_ article, here's what Robert Fox, US
Sprint's director of security, says: "To shut down theft, the companies use
each other's security services and the help of local law enforcement
officials, the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Your major toll carriers may be competitors, but in this one instance we
share information and resourses.  We do everything from technical to
on-street surveillance."

Evidence that the FBI is actively monitoring BBSs also came to light in the
case of a Denver talk show host that was assassinated by a neo-Nazi group,
white supremacy group.

When it was discovered that Robert Miles, one of the defendants, was a
"computer wizard" the FBI began tracking his communications with other
neo-nazi groups;  the FBI found out, and mapped, an intricate network of
BBSs, by placing a bug in his home.  Where was bug placed?  Inside Miles'
modem.  Why there?  Simple.  Any calls he made with his modem would be to
other online sources; in this way, the FBI reasoned, they could chart the
(nationwide) network of neo-nazi BBSs, thus following their standing
tradition of "keeping tabs" on organizations, much like they did in the
'60s when they had agents infiltrate several radical organizations.

Any Problem Here?  =================

There are no laws prohibiting the FBI (or other agencies) from monitoring
the public message traffic on a BBS; the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986 protects private messages and privately stored files only.  But
what about an FBI agent monitoring a BBS solely for the purpose of
gathering information on the board's users?  Any problem here?

The former FBI agent I spoke with raised the concern that such casual
monitoring might be a violation of the 1968 Wiretap Act. "In order for a
wire tap, you have to get a court order.  Now if an FBI agent is monitoring
a BBS to gather information, that becomes an interesting question, because
there are very specific federal rules 'At what point does monitoring turn
into a wiretap-like act?'"

Good point.  And the upshot is: there are no rules.

Unless that agent is asking for private message traffic, he can, without
impunity, monitor, store, and otherwise manipulate your public messages as
he sees fit.

Roberts points out that a BBS with public access is fair game for any kind
of governmental snooping.  But there is a way to make such casual snooping
by a federal agent a crime.

"If you want your BBS readily accessible to the public but want to protect
against unwarranted monitoring, you have to provide a warning to
prospective users," says Roberts.  "It should read: 'This BBS is a private
system.  Only private citizens who are not involved in government or law
enforcement activities are authorized to use it.  The users are not
authorized to divulge any information gained from this system to any
government or law enforcement agency or employee.'"

This does two things.  It makes the board "private" in that the sysop
decides who gets access and who does not.  This isn't so unusual; most BBSs
now have some sort of validation anyway.  Second, it makes any kind of
monitoring by the FBI (or other agencies, such as the Secret Service) a
criminal offense, and forces them to use the established guidelines of
gaining information via a court ordered search warrant.  The warning also
protects you in another way: it stops "freelancers" from doing the Bureau's
work.

Get Real =========

How real is the possibility of the FBI monitoring your BBS?  _Slim_.
Unless of course you happen to run a board dedicated to say, the Sanctity
Movement, or one that supports the Sandanistas or . . . any topic perceived
to be of a questionable nature by the FBI.

The stories provided here bear out, if nothing else, an increased interest
by the FBI in electronic messaging.  How extensive is the FBI's actual fact
gathering by monitoring BBSs?  No one knows really knows.  However, given
the history of Bureau, and the hard facts that crime in the information age
makes full use of all the technology it can get its hands on, it's a small
leap to believe that at least specific monitoring, of certain target
groups, is taking place.  (Given the manpower shortage of the Bureau, and
its overwhelming case load, I would find it hard to argue for large-scale
indiscriminate monitoring.)

Where does that leave you and me in all this?  Back to square one, watching
carefully what we say online.  If you're a member of a "controversial" BBS,
you might pass the concerns of Roberts on to your sysop.  If you are a
sysop, you might want to consider adding a bit of protection to the board .
. . for the rest of us.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Brock
Meeks is a San Diego-based columnist.  His favorite radical BBS is . . .
well . . . private.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************