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

From: Moderators, Joe Abernathy, and "4 8"
Subject: Media and the CU
Date:  December 4, 1990

********************************************************************
***  CuD #2.15: File 6 of 7: Media and the CU                    ***
********************************************************************

{Moderators' note: We received a number of responses, including logs from
various net sources, about the DEA/PBX story in CuD 2.14. We invited Joe to
respond, and received another, unsolicited, commentary. We add a final
concluding comment at the end of this file}.

*****************

From: chron!magic322!edtjda@UUNET.UU.NET(Joe Abernathy)
Subject: A Response to recent critics by Joe Abernathy
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 20:35:30 CST

The debate of the word hacker, while worthy and fascinating, is not
something that makes proper material for a daily newspaper. The fact is
that the force of society has made "hacker" into the bad guys, despite the
fact that it used to refer to people like myself, who sit around playing
with modems and assembly language. Most people in the press possess more
knowledge about things like this -- and things like the difference between
worm and virus, or usenet and Internet -- than they're given credit for.
What the critics always miss is that reporters don't write just for
computer scientists --they write for their grandmothers, their children,
and for the public record. So what happens is that the reporters always
choose the most accurate word or description that can be understood by the
largest number of people.

Screaming at reporters, or suggesting their ignorance, won't change the way
hacker is used in stories. That definition is already written in the public
consciousness, and in the laws of the land.

Jack Minard, the second correspondent, invalidated his complaint by failing
to read my article. I don't have time to do his reading for him, but I will
respond to the one thing he alluded to that really does matter from a
standpoint of journalist ethics: why the "hackers" weren't identified. They
weren't because they wanted it that way ... which raises the issue of why
anyone would allow one's accusers to go faceless. The answer is that we
didn't -- the facts of that story were provided by the DEA itself, albeit
upon my request, with the members of the computer underground identified
only to provide color and perspective.

Best Regards.

***************************************************

From: 4 8 (Figure it out)
Subject: In regards to the comments about the "DEA article" in the last CuD
Date: 11/30/90 @ 4:43 PM

In regards to the comments about the "DEA article" by Joe Abernathy of the
Houston Chronicle:

I find that what you have stated is limited in your knowledge to the story
and exactly what happened.

I'm very upset at the fact that you present Joe Abernathy as an
"anti-hacker" journalist.  Furthermore, you continue to present the quotes
in the article as also being "anti-hacker".

As it may be, I tipped off Joe about the story and it's background so he
could publish it.  Now, you may not know who wrote this, but if you did--
I'm almost positive you wouldn't dare to call me an "anti-hacker".  Hell
man, I'd make you eat those words. [And trust me, you don't want that]

(Thank you for letting my ego surpass yours for that last paragraph)

The PBX that was mentioned was abused ridiculously to the point at which
someone had to come forward and tell who owned the lines.  As many as 200+
were using this PBX nationally.  The story wasn't done to "thrash" hackers,
nor to embarrass the government (Well..  maybe a little bit!), it was done
to show how stupid toll fraud can be if not exposed over a period of time.

Now, I have something to say regarding the author of the article.  Joe
Abernathy is a very important symbol of these times.  He what the community
needs more of:  A journalist who sees "grey" and has the power to reach
people.

I think you've made a great mistake in publicly voicing your opinion on the
article and Joe.  We need more Journalists like Abernathy who do see "grey"
in this community.

It appears to me that you didn't actually read the story.  Otherwise, it
would be obvious to you that it wasn't one sided.  The quotes taken were
from REAL hackers, ones that fed up with the BS of the current state of the
community.

You are "ragging" on a very good ally of this community, the press.  In the
past the press "bashed" hackers.  I seldom see journalists hacker-bash
anymore.

Furthermore, the 1.8 million figure that Joe published was incorrect.
Hell, I think it was more than 1.8 million!  The PBX was accessable for
about 1 year.  And don't tell me that it would take 9.7 hackers dialing 24
hours a day to get that total.  Hell!  One hacker could EASILY surpass that
total.

I suggest you re-evaluate your views.  YOU ARE THE ONE-SIDED STORY.

Take heed to this warning:

Your comments were taken personally by me.  I believe that if YOU continue
to bash the "grey-journalists" of this period, than you'll destroy a needed
link between these journalists and the community.

Regards,
4 8

PS: Most of the material that was in your comments came directly from various
other news-posts around the net


************************************

{Moderators' Comment}:
An important goal of CuD remains that of stimulating debate, and we try to
print, uncensored and without commentary, the views as expressed by
contributors, whatever they may be.  The media stands in an ambiguous
relationship with the CU. One one hand, we encourage them to print
favorable, or at least factual, stories but, on the other, we are
suspicious or hostile when those stories are not to our liking. Reporters,
like the rest of us, learn, and when we feel they are in error, it's most
helpful to engage in dialogue and let the "dialectic of knowledge" take its
course, keeping an ever-watchful eye that the course paints a clearer
picture not only of "reality," whatever and wherever that may be, but also
tries to understand the "reality" of others as well.  The danger in
criticizing individual reporters, especially those who are actively
reporting on issues in which we are interested, is that we remain blind to
their positive contributions and remain focused on a perceived past
grievance. This, in the long run, seems unproductive. We run the risk of
becoming our own worst enemy, fragmenting into splinter groups supporting,
opposing, squabbling, over sometimes important , but--more
often--short-term issues. When this happens, we divert attention from the
broader issues of Constitutional rights, civil liberties, crackdowns, and
the rest. Rather than castigate an individual, we would, as moderators,
prefer to see reasoned alternatives developed, argued, examined, and
clarified.

We printed both articles in the last issue because they typified the
shorter concerns we read. One contributor identified four points that,
despite the tone of the post, we thought legitimate for debate. Borrowing
from that article, and paraphrasing (perhaps beyond the original meaning of
the post), we identify:

1. What is a hacker, and who gets to define the term? This is a crucial
issue, and not merely a semantic quibble, because law enforcement defines
hackers as felons by definition.

2. What is the relationship between law enforcement and media?  We tend to
agree that the figure of $1.8 seems high when one calculates it. This is an
issue that extends beyond our own interests (as the recent uncritical
articles of the "earthquake scare" and other stories indicate). The
question, as we see it, is:  To what degree do those with an interest in
prosecuting hackers manipulate the media by distorting definitions, the
English language, and facts and figures to create an alternative reality
more to their liking? It would seem we should be working to alert the media
to be more critical of the information they receive.

3.  News media tend to rely on law enforcement sources because most do not
know any hackers and because many reports perhaps give law enforcement more
credibility than to their targets.  Punching them in the nose is not likely
to make the media want to get to know us.  Like all of us, most reporters
are just doing their job, and most who write these stories cover a variety
of other topics as well.  Therefore, they are often simply not computer
literate.  One of our goals is to expand their literacy.  Sometimes this is
successful, but other times not. But, the struggle must continue, and
struggle is as long as history.  We see most of the CU issues (privacy,
judicial process, who gets to define "crime") as broader issues, and our
collective participation is not simply an attempt to make the world safe
for hackers, a rather silly and myopic goal, but to address broad issues in
one tiny slice of our existence, that of cyberspace, and hopefully the
implications will, in the aggregate, contribute to a more tolerable world.

When aging radicals begin to sound like moderate liberals, perhaps they've
fought one fight too many. Nonetheless (there's always a "nonetheless"), we
find it more productive to "keep our eye on the prize" rather than continue
internal bickering over "who's right" or "who's wrong."

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