------------------------------ From: Ah, Sordid Subject: From the Mailbag Date: 4 April, 1991 ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.11: File 2 of 5: From the Mailbag *** ******************************************************************** From: John Mignault Subject: Eagle's Nest Bust Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 15:01:10 EST >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 10:38:56 EST >Reply-To: PMC-Talk >Sender: PMC-Talk >From: Editors of PmC >Subject: Impounding Computers >To: John Mignault > >From: Christopher Amirault >Subject: Boston Eagle's Nest bust >Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 13:55:51 CST > >I haven't seen anything about this on any lists, so if you want to post >it elsewhere, feel free. > >In the March 11-17, 1991 edition of _Gay Community News_, the paper >reported that Alden Baker was arrested March 1 on rape charges. Baker >was the monitor of a list called "Boston Eagle's Nest," which allowed >for the sharing of various s&m stories, fantasies, etc. > >The Middlesex County MA DA's office has seized the computer, and there >is some concern that the mailing list on it will be made public or be >handed over to the FBI or something. Needless to say, this could be >the start of something bad. > >I haven't heard any more news (I don't subscribe to GCN), but I would >be interested to hear any other info people can get. > >I don't know if you've heard anything about this (first I've heard of it), but >this seems to put a new slant on underground activity, in that it's not so much >hacker-oriented as it is concerned with obscenity issues... John Mignault ap201058@brownvm.brown.edu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: hkhenson@CUP.PORTAL.COM Subject: Letter to San Jose Mercury News on Len Rose Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:00:28 PST March 25, 1991 San Jose Mercury News Dear Editor: Last Friday's Washington Post bylined story, "'Hacker' pleads guilty in AT&T case" presented only the prosecutor's and ATT's side of an issue which has serious implications for the press. The "crime" for which Leonard Rose, Jr. faces a year and a day in jail was that of creating a simple example of how a few-hundred-line login program (a program which allows access) for ATT's Unix system could be modified to collect passwords, and sending this example over state lines to the editor of Phrack, an electronic magazine. Whether Len's example was to instruct criminals on how to obtain continued access after an initial breakin, or if it was to warn system operators to look for modified login programs, his intent is not an issue. Either case is protected under the First Amendment, or mystery stories would be illegal. Pointing out security weaknesses in Unix is certainly a legitimate function of the press. The entire phone system and countless other life- or property-critical computers use this operating system, designed to be portable (runs on many types of computers) and not secure. ATT, of course, prefers that discussion of weaknesses in Unix be suppressed by getting the government to call them "interstate wire fraud." To enlist the computer-ignorant, but long, arm of the law, they inflated the value of a few hundred lines of trivial code to $77,000, just as Southern Bell inflated the value of a document available for $13 to over $79,000 in a related case the government lost against Craig Neidorf, the editor of Phrack. The big difference between the cases was that Neidorf had parents who were able to mortgage their house for the six-figure legal bills, and Rose had been reduced by ATT and the legal system to abject poverty. In both cases the message has been sent: "face jail time or financial ruin if you expose phone company documents to the press." Sincerely, H. Keith Henson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: The Works BBS Admin Subject: Is hacking the same as Breaking and Entering? Date: Mon, 01 Apr 91 17:58:17 EDT In response to the question: "Is computer hacking the same as B&E?" Not by far. Breaking and entering has malicious intent, and usually is solely to steal things and/or hurt something. Hacking although portrayed negatively in the press is not like this at all. It is merely looking around at what is in various systems, and learning from it. Occasionally someone deletes a file by mistake. A bad apple meanders in from the the cold and does some harm, but the majority of hackers (in my opinion) are not trying to hurt anything, and only allow themselves a little room to look at, and possible a small chair to sit in from time to time... Say you find an unknown account mysteriously pop up? Why not find out who it is, and what they are looking for first, because as odds go, if they got in there once, they can do it again, no matter what you do. So Breaking and Entering cannot even be classified in the same manner at all. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Dave Ferret Subject: Computers and Freedom of Speech Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 23:35:48 EDT In response to an article in CuD 3.09 on computer publications... What gives people the right to censor and deem something illegal in the electronic media when paper, TV, radio, and the spoken word is perfectly legal and protected by the first amendment. Q: Shouldn't electronic publications be protected under the same article of the constitution that allows free presses? A: Most definitly. The question now is why aren't they? I have no real clue but this is all I can fragment together... That people are afraid of people who are 'electronically' inclined and that if sensitive information reaches say 100 people on an electronic publication, what is to stop them from giving away all the inside secrets? Its the same old story. The egregious behavior of the authorities (Secret Service, et al) is ludicrous. Wouldn't the reprint in a written publication (hard copy) of PHRACK24 (The E911 issue as it has been known so well for) be perfectly legal, except for possibly a small copyright infringement? (They shoved a lot more charges at him than copyright infringement... Mildly..) So when does it change? Are computer publications covered? Look at 2600, I'm sure they printed even more sensitive things in the past and I don't see anyone dragging them in... When will people realize we are entitled to freedom of speech. We have the right to say what we want, and disagree. That is what was guaranteed to us in the first amendment of the constitution. The question has been raised... Why are there different laws governing computers and the physical world? Is this double standard just? No, on both counts. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << ***************************************************************************