textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0113.txt

  ****************************************************************************
                  >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 #1.13 (June 12, 1990)   **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet

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:  Moderators' Editorial: The Chilling Effect Hits Home
File 2:  A Hacker's Perspective (by Johnny Yonderboy)
File 3:  Len Rose Information and Commentary
File 4:  Response to Telecom Digest's Views (by Emmanuel Goldstein)
File 5:  Reprinted Editorial on Steve Jackson Games
--------------------------------------------------------------------


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.11 / File 1 of 5  ***
***************************************************************

                   *** THE CHILLING EFFECT HITS CuD ***

Craig Niedorf was arraigned for a second time on June 12.  CuD 1.14 will
have a detailed article on the arraignment on Friday, but our preliminary
analysis of Tuesday's events suggests that the witch hunt continues in full
force.  Several of the charges were dropped, but new ones were added based
on articles Craig allegedly wrote. It appears that the definition of
"forbidden information" grows wider as the Secret Service and zealous
federal prosecutors show their commitment to law and order by trampling the
First Amendment.  If Craig is convicted, the implications are serious. All
persons who currently, or have in the past, written, distributed, or
received "forbidden knowledge"--knowledge which is defined as illegal only
after the fact--may be vulnerable to prosecution.  More serious is the
possibility that those who agents feel may possess such information may
have their equipment confiscated in the sweep for evidence.

We have found that in attempting to acquire information about the current
indictments, much of the information is "closed," whether officially or
because of the attempt to control information flow by prosecutors. For
example, in the federal district court in Chicago, staff either cannot or
will not release *any* information, and all queries are referred to Bill
Cook.  If Mr. Cook is not available or choses not to return calls,
obtaining accurate information becomes nearly impossible.

In fifteenth century England, the Star Chamber was a powerful tribunal
feared for its often capricious way of dispensing justice, often in
secrecy, and for the political overtones it acquired in suppressing
"enemies of the state." The current handling of federal investigation into
the CU in many ways resembles the dread Star Chamber. Information is
tightly guarded, secrecy is maintained, it seems to function as much as a
device to inspire fear (judging from comments by agents) as to dispense
justice, because those whose equipment has been confiscated without a
subsequent indictment or without reasonable opportunity for successful
appeal have no open trial, and the charges, while seemingly precise on
paper, do not seem to match the facts as presented by the tribunal. In
short, in Operation Sun Devil, the judicial system seems to have broken
down.

In 1985, then-U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese was asked the following by
an interviewer:

    "You criticize the Miranda Ruling, which gives suspects the right to
    have a lawyer present before police questioning.  Shouldn't people, who
    may be innocent, have such protection?

Meese replied:

    Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you
    don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime.  That's
    contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
    suspect.

The power to name the world provides a non-coercive, yet effective, means
of imposing preferred doctrines and corresponding behaviors on others.
Hyper-active law enforcement agents seem to have learned from Meese and are
first defining--after the fact--"crimes" of information acquisition,
control, and dissemination as "illegal," and innocence or guilt do not seem
to matter. Granted, courts may ultimately vindicate one who has been
indicted, but not after considerable financial and emotional hardship.
Those who merely possess evidence may not be indicted, but may nonetheless
suffer, as have Steve Jackson and others, the loss of equipment vital to
their work.

There is also a chilling effect that occurs with a system of justice in
which "crimes" are so loosely defined.  Should sysops and others
self-censor themselves out of fear of possible government reprisals?  We at
CuD provide CU archives for several reasons. First, as a teaching aid, it
provides information for students wishing to write term papers on the CU.
Without this information, they could not learn. CU documents also provide
helpful handouts for lectures, speeches, and other public presentations.
The chilling effect of suppression of first amendment rights and not
knowing in advance what is considered lawful and what is not--even when
nothing appears illegal on its surface--stifles academic freedom.

Second, we offer the archives for research purposes. As professional
scholars, we find that to limit access to what is the *only* source of
material of this kind inhibits inquiry in a way way that is simply
unacceptable in a democratic society.  Much of our own information has come
from the variety of publications put out by various CU groups. To
criminalize publishing this material or making it available to other
like-minded scholars subverts the very principles of scholarship. If we
cite the infamous E911 file, innocuous as it may be, we, as scholars, are
required to have read it and to either produce it or indicate a source
where it can be found. That is the nature of science. We find the current
witch hunt mentality to have a serious repercussions for social science.
Should we adopt the "CYA" syndrome and change research directions? Or
should we pursue our inquiry and risk possible repercussions?

Finally, we make archives available for the layperson who simply wishes to
more fully understand what the fuss is about. An informed public is an
enlightened public, but it seems that the government has decided for us
what the public can and cannot learn.

We have both directly and indirectly invited members of law enforcement to
respond, to participate in dialogue, to give us a reasoned response to the
current "crackdown." None have.  We have no wish to attack those who, in
good faith, may believe they are protecting society. But, neither do we
desire to become victims of the current purge.

Within the past two weeks, there seems to be a backlash--not by
hackers--but by established business persons, computer hobbyists,
academics, politicians, and others, who recognize the danger of the current
sweeps to civil liberties. We hope that others will also understand that,
when freedom of speech and freedom to share information is threatened, a
serious threat does indeed exist.  THIS THREAT DOES NOT COME FROM THE CU!


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
                               END C-u-D, #1.13                             +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 2 of 5  ***
***************************************************************


                    * * * A Hacker's Perspective * * *


                  ...insights into Operation Sun Devil...

                         ...from the OTHER side...

                            by Johnny Yonderboy


    A long time ago, in a land far, far away, hacking and phreaking were
safe, relatively painless hobbies to get into.  People did not have major
law enforcement agencies hunting them down...huge bureaus weren't devoted
to the eradication of this crime.  When caught, the usual punishment was to
simply be billed for the act that you perpetrated.  Even myself, when I was
busted for illegally using AT&T credit cards, only received a stiff bill.
When they did prosecute further, the sentencing was designed to punish you
for your deviance, but also commended you on your cleverness.

    That was a long time ago, and I came in on the tail end of the Golden
Age of Phreaking/Hacking.  Phreaking was easy, and hacking was young.
Those who could hack in those days were also those who got the better jobs.
Those who couldn't, phreaked.  And those who didn't fool around with that
"illegal nonsense" wrote bulletin board software.  Life was simple, and
social divisions were even moreso.

    Today, however, things are quite different.

    An average bulletin board today can expect to be visited by a major law
enforcement agency (the FBI, the SS) about once a year.  Most of the time,
you won't even know who is intruding upon your sacred privacy.  These
visits are standard practice to be expected on the elite boards - a status
symbol, if you will.  But to a normal user, this is terrifying.  And among
non-computer users, this type of practice is totally unheard of.  You might
scoff, but consider this - say you were a member of the NRA, and you had
weekly meetings (if indeed the NRA has weekly meetings).  Suppose a federal
agent started sitting in at your meetings, looking for illegal activity.
Not participating, not speaking, but just watching.  Would the NRA stand
for it?  Not just no, but HELL NO!  But as members (even legitimate ones)
of the computer-using community, we are supposed to accept this, as blindly
and complacently as we accept income tax.  Sure, there is a law being
broken on certain boards, but what about those boards that are legitimate?
Or, what about the times on elite boards that the conversation is centered
around something besides illegal matters?  Are we to always accept these
KGB-like raids upon our homes as well?  Or how about the seizure of our
personal property?  Which, notably, there is no guarantee of it's return if
you are proven innocent.  If we accept these things, (i.e. surveillance,
raids, seizures, etc.) how much farther will we let them go before we have
to put them in check?

    Indeed, it is easy to state that what hackers are doing mandates this
type of personal infringement.  But by all definitions of "personal
rights", the actions taken by the involved law enforcement agencies in
Operation Sun Devil go beyond what is democratic and free, and begins to
step into the formation of a police state.  The distribution of information
is heavily controlled in Communist Russia.  As they take steps towards
democracy with Glasnost, are we also to take steps towards totalitarianism?

    The media used to play us up to be high-tech folk heroes.  With this
new computer-phobia on the rise, we are the electronic mafia.  We, the
Computer Underground, have no say over this - it has happened.  But what
are we, really?  Are we pranksters, attacking in the middle of the night to
scrawl obscenities in email?  Sure, this has happened, and a lot of damage
has been done both to victim computers as well as to the reputation of the
Computer Underground as a whole.  Are we high-tech hooligans burglarizing
systems for their valuable data, to sell to the highest bidder?  The
infamous E911 document which was stolen is proof of that.  Did the involved
parties sell that material?  Indeed not.  They were going to distribute
that information to the general public.  Are we political subversives
trying to overthrow the government?  Indeed not.  While some of us may have
radical political ideas, none of us get tied up in outside government for
any reason beyond what effects us here (sorry for the broad
generalization...some of us ARE political subversives...).  So, what
exactly are we trying to do?

    To go further.  To stay online longer.  To do more.  Not to be able to
destroy more, but to simply be able to do more on the national networks.
The end goal of all this hacking, cracking and phreaking is to be able to
exchange information with people all over the world.  This is not always
economically feasible, so illegal methods have to be employed.  How many of
YOU can say that you would go to any limits to achieve something that you
wanted?  Is this "ambition" a bad thing?  Indeed not.

    Laying judgements down on us doesn't solve a thing.  Saying that you
don't agree with what we do, but you don't like what is being done to us is
supportive, but you have to make your own judgements in the long run
anyhow.  If you have never done it, then you will never be able to
understand why we do this.

   This should about wrap up what I have to say.  If you have any comments
or such, then please mail them to the editors here at CuD.



             -=* Keep the flames burning,

                  AND DON'T LET PHREAKING/HACKING DIE!!! *=-



                     ...  Johnny Yonderboy ...

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 3 of 5  ***
***************************************************************

-----------------
%The contributor of the following requested anonymity%
------------------


 Here is a interesting message I found posted in the Telecom newsgroup on
USENET today ([* are my comments *]:
********************************************************************

Subject: "Legion of Doom" Indictment Date: 30 May 90 16:42:21 GMT Sender:
news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest

Computer Consultant Could get 32 Years If Convicted of Source-Code Theft

Baltimore - A Middletown, Md., man faces as many as 32 years in prison and
nearly $1 million in fines if convicted of being involved in the "Legion of
Doom" nationwide group of Unix computer buffs now facing the wrath of
federal investigators.

[* I thought the LOD was a group interested in all types of computer
 operating systems....I guess now they are Unix gurus *]

The U.S. Attorney's Office here on May 15 announced the indictment of
Leonard Rose, 31, a computer consultant also known as "Terminus," on
charges that he stole Unix source code from AT&T and distributed two
"Trojan Horse" programs designed to allow for unauthorized access to
computer systems. Incidents occurred between May, 1988 and January, 1990,
according to the indictment.

The five-count indictment, handed down by a federal grand jury, charges
Rose with violations of interstate transportation laws and the federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Rose faces as many as 32 years in prison,
plus a maximum fine of $950,000.

He is the third person to be indicted who was accused of being connected
with the so-called Legion of Doom. Robert J. Riggs, a 21-year-old DeVry
Institute student from Decatur, Ga., and Craig M.  Neidorf, 19, a
University of Missouri student from Columbia, Mo., also have been indicted.

[* This is getting pretty ridiculous about Craig Neidorf being in the LOD,
   he was the editor of Phrack magazine. I guess since security and
   commercial types subscribed to Phrack, he is also part of there
   organizations.  Geeshh...I wonder how many groups the editors of CUD
   belong to also based on who their readers are...*]

Rose's indictment stemmed from a federal investigation that began in
Chicago and led investigators to Missouri and Maryland, assistant U.S.
Attorney David King said. While executing a search warrant in Missouri,
investigators uncovered evidence Rose was transporting stolen Unix 3.2
source code, King said. Investigators then obtained a warrant to search
Rose's computer system and found the stolen source code, King added.

He said the Trojan Horse programs were substitutes for a legitimate sign-in
or log-in program, with a separate shell for collecting user log-ins or
passwords.

[* The question is was he caught using those programs to acquire
   pass-words? Or is this an assumption by the government??? I guess
   writing or having specific public domain programs is against the law.*]

"Whoever substituted [the Trojan Horse program] could get passwords to use
the system any way he or she wanted to," King said.

The indictment was a result of a long-term investigation by the U.S. Secret
Service, and was issued one week after federal authorities raided computer
systems at 27 sites across the United States.  Investigators seized 23,000
computer disks from suspects accused of being responsible for more than $50
million in thefts and damages. The Secret Service at that time announced
that five people have been arrested in February in connection with the
investigation.

King said he was unaware if Rose indictment was related to the raids made
earlier this month.

"We don't just go out and investigate people because we want to throw them
in jail. We investigate them because they commit an offense.  The grand
jury was satisfied," King said.

[* I wonder how many copies (non-site licensed) of software exist in the
   State Office building (ie. Word Perfect, Lotus, etc.) or in the homes of
   the employees. That would be considered illegal. *]

The U.S. Attorney's Office said the investigation revealed individuals had
accessed computers belonging to federal research centers, schools and
private businesses. King would not name any of the victims involved.

Rose was associated with the Legion of Doom and operated his own computer
system known as Netsys, according to the indictment. His electronic mailing
address was Netsys!len, the document said.

The Legion, according to the indictment, gained fraudulent, unauthorized
access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing software; stole
proprietary source code and other information; disseminated information
about gaining illegal access, and made telephone calls at the expense of
other people.

 Well that is the latest in the Summer '90 busts. I just hope that everyone
arrested by the government receives as fair a deal that Robert Morris
received for his little prank.  Because I doubt Mr. Morris was given
special treatment because his dad works for the NSA...


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 4 of 5  ***
***************************************************************

     *** CRITIQUE OF TELECOM DIGEST'S POSITON ON THE CURRENT BUSTS ***
                          (By Emmanuel Goldstein)


=====================
It's real disturbing to read the comments that have been posted recently on
Telecom Digest concerning Operation Sun Devil and Mitch Kapor's involvement.
While I think the moderator has been chastised sufficiently, there are still a
few remarks I want to make.

First of all, I understand the point he was trying to get across. But I think
he shot from the hip without rationalizing his point first, thereby leaving
many of us in a kind of stunned silence. If I understand it correctly, the
argument is: Kapor says he wants to help people that the moderator believes
are thieves. Therefore, using that logic, it's okay to steal from Kapor.

Well, I don't agree. Obviously, Kapor DOESN'T believe these people are
criminals. Even if one or two of them ARE criminals, he is concerned with all
of the innocent bystanders that are being victimized here. And make no mistake
about that - there are many innocent bystanders here. I've spoken to quite a
few of them. Steve Jackson, Craig Neidorf, the friends and families of people
who've had armed agents of the federal government storm into their homes and
offices. It's a very frightening scenario - one that I've been through myself.
And when it happens there are permanent scars and a fear that never quite
leaves. For drug dealers, murderers, hardened criminals, it's an acceptable
price in my view. But a 14 year old kid who doesn't know when to stop
exploring a computer system? Let's get real. Do we really want to mess up
someone's life just to send a message?

I've been a hacker for a good part of my life. Years ago, I was what you
would call an "active" hacker, that is, I wandered about on computer systems
and explored. Throughout it all, I knew it would be wrong to mess up data or
do something that would cause harm to a system. I was taught to respect
tangible objects; extending that to encompass intangible objects was not
very hard to do. And most, if not all, of the people I explored with felt
the same way. Nobody sold their knowledge. The only profit we got was an
education that far surpassed any computer class or manual.

Eventually, though, I was caught. But fortunately for me, the witch-hunt
mentality hadn't caught on yet. I cooperated with the authorities, explained
how the systems I used were flawed, and proved that there was no harm done. I
had to pay for the computer time I used and if I stayed out of trouble, I
would have no criminal record. They didn't crush my spirit. And the computers
I used became more secure. Except for the fear and intimidation that occurred
during my series of raids, I think I was dealt with fairly.

Now I publish a hacker magazine. And in a way, it's an extension of that
experience. The hackers are able to learn all about many different computer
and phone systems. And those running the systems, IF THEY ARE SMART, listen
to what is being said and learn valuable lessons before it's too late.
Because sooner or later, someone will figure out a way to get in. And you'd
better hope it's a hacker who can help you figure out ways to improve the
system and not an ex-employee with a monumental grudge.

In all fairness, I've been hacked myself. Someone figured out a way to break
the code for my answering machine once. Sure, I was angry. At the company.
They had no conception of what security was. I bought a new machine from a
different company, but not before letting a lot of people know EXACTLY what
happened. And I've had people figure out my calling card numbers. This gave
me firsthand knowledge of the ineptitude of the phone companies. And I used
to think they understood their own field! My point is: you're only a victim
if you refuse to learn. If I do something stupid like empty my china cabinet
on the front lawn and leave it there for three weeks, I don't think many
people will feel sympathetic if it doesn't quite work out. And I don't think
we should be sympathetic towards companies and organizations that obviously
don't know the first thing about security and very often are entrusted with
important data.

The oldest hacker analogy is the walking-in-through-the-front-door-and-
rummaging-through-my-personal-belongings one. I believe the moderator
recently asked a critic if he would leave his door unlocked so he could drop
in and rummage. The one fact that always seems to be missed with this
analogy is that an individual's belongings are just not interesting to
someone who simply wants to learn. But they ARE interesting to someone who
wants to steal. A big corporation's computer system is not interesting to
someone who wants to steal, UNLESS they have very specific knowledge as to
how to do this (which eliminates the hacker aspect). But that system is a
treasure trove for those interested in LEARNING. To those that insist on
using this old analogy, I say at least be consistent. You wouldn't threaten
somebody with 30 years in jail for taking something from a house. What's
especially ironic is that your personal belongings are probably much more
secure than the data in the nation's largest computer systems!

When you refer to hacking as "burglary and theft", as the moderator
frequently does, it becomes easy to think of these people as hardened
criminals. But it's just not the case. I don't know any burglars or
thieves, yet I hang out with an awful lot of hackers. It serves a definite
purpose to blur the distinction, just as pro-democracy demonstrators are
referred to as rioters by nervous leaders. Those who have staked a claim
in the industry fear that the hackers will reveal vulnerabilities in their
systems that they would just as soon forget about. It would have been very
easy for Mitch Kapor to join the bandwagon on this. The fact that he
didn't tells me something about his character. And he's not the only one.

Since we published what was, to the best of my knowledge, the first pro-hacker
article on all of these raids, we've been startled by the intensity of the
feedback we've gotten. A lot of people are angry, upset, and frightened by
what the Secret Service is doing. They're speaking out and communicating their
outrage to other people who we could never have reached. And they've
apparently had these feelings for some time. Is this the anti-government bias
our moderator accused another writer of harboring? Hardly. This is America at
its finest.

Emmanuel Goldstein
Editor, 2600 Magazine - The Hacker Quarterly

emmanuel@well.sf.ca.us     po box 752, middle island, ny 11953

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


***************************************************************
***  Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 5 of 5  ***
***************************************************************


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

Date: 27 May 90 03:50:07 EDT (Sun)
From: aha@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian Sherwood)
Subject: Steve Jackson Games & A.B. 3280

> Computer Gaming World (Golden Empire Publications)
> June, 1990, Number 72, Page 8
> Editorial by Johnny L. Wilson

                        It CAN Happen Here

  Although Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sinclair Lewis is probably best
known for 'Main Street', 'Babbitt', 'Elmer Gantry', and 'Arrowsmith', my
personal favorites are 'It Can't Happen Here' and 'Kingsblood Royal'.  The
latter is an ironic narrative in which who suffers from racial prejudice
toward the black population discovers, through genealogical research, that
he himself has black ancestors.  The protagonist experienced a
life-challenging discovery that enabled Lewis to preach a gospel of civil
rights to his readership.

  The former is, perhaps, Lewis' most lengthy novel and it tells how a
radio evangelist was able to use the issues of morality and national
security to form a national mandate and create a fascist dictatorship in
the United States.  As Lewis showed how patriotic symbolism could be
distorted by power-hungry elite and religious fervor channeled into a
political movement, I was personally shaken.  As a highschool student,
reading this novel, for the first time, I suddenly realized what lewis
intended for his readers to realize.  "It" (a dictatorship) really CAN
happen here,  There is an infinitesimally fine line between protecting the
interests of society and encumbering the freedoms of the self-same society
in the name of protection.

  Now it appears that the civil liberties of game designers and gamers
themselves are to be assaulted in the name of protecting society.  In
recent months two unrelated events have taken place which must make us
pause: the raiding of Steve Jackson Games' offices by the United States
Secret Service, and the introduction of A.B. 3280 into the California State
Assembly by Assemblyperson Tanner.

  On March 1, 1990, Steve Jackson Games (a small pen and paper game
company) was raided by agents of the United States Secret Service.  The
raid was allegedly part of an investigation into data piracy and was,
apparently, related  to the latest supplement from SJG entitled, GURPS
Cyberpunk (GURPS stands for Generic Universal Role-Playing System).  GURPS
Cyberpunk features rules for a game universe analogous to the dark futures
of George Alec Effinger ('When Gravity Fails'), William Gibson
('Neuromancer'), Norman Spinrad ('Little Heroes'), Bruce Sterling ('Islands
in the Net'), and Walter Jon Williams ('Hardwired').

  GURPS Cyberpunk features character related to breaking into networks and
phreaking (abusing the telephone system).Hence, certain federal agents are
reported to have made several disparaging remarks about the game rules
being a "handbook for computer crime".  In the course of the raid (reported
to have been conducted under the authority of an unsigned photocopy of a
warrant; at least, such was the only warrant showed to the employees at
SJG) significant destruction allegedly occurred.  A footlocker, as well as
exterior storage units and cartons, were deliberately forced open even
though an employee with appropriate keys was present and available to lend
assistance.  In addition, the materials confiscated included: two
computers, an HP Laserjet II printer, a variety of computer cards and
parts, and an assortment of commercial software.  In all, SJG estimates
that approximately $10,000 worth of computer hardware and software was
confiscated.

  The amorphous nature of the raid is what is most frightening to me.  Does
this raid indicate that those who operate bulletin board systems as
individuals are at risk for similar raids if someone posts "hacking"
information on their computer?  Or does it indicate that games which
involve "hacking" are subject to searches and seizures by the federal
government?  Does it indicate that writing about "hacking" exposes one to
the risk of a raid?  It seems that this raid goes over the line of
protecting society and has, instead, violated the freedom of its citizenry.
Further facts may indicate that this is not the case, but the first
impression strongly indicates an abuse of freedom.

  Then there is the case of California's A.B 3280 which would forbid the
depiction of any alcohol or tobacco package or container in any video game
intended primarily for use by minors.  The bill makes no distinction
between positive or negative depiction of alcohol or tobacco, does not
specify what "primarily designed for" means, and defines 'video game' in
such a way that coin-ops, dedicated game machines, and computer games can
all fit within the category.

  Now the law is, admittedly, intended to help curb the use and abuse of
alcohol and tobacco among minors.  Yet the broad stroke of the brush with
which it is written limits the dramatic license which can be used to make
even desirable points in computer games.  For example, Chris Crawford's
'Balance of the Planet' depicts a liquor bottle on a trash heap as part of
a screen talking about the garbage problem.  Does this encourage alcohol
abuse?  In 'Wasteland', one of the encounters involves two winos in an
alley.  Does their use of homemade white lightening commend it to any
minors that might be playing the game?

  One of the problems with legislating art is that art is designed to both
reflect and cast new light and new perspectives on life.  As such,
depiction of any aspect of life may be appropriate, in context.
Unfortunately for those who want to use the law as a means of enforcing
morality, laws cannot be written to cover every context.

  We urge our California readers to oppose A.B. 3280 and help defend our
basic freedoms.  We urge all of our readers to be on the alert for any
governmental intervention that threatens our freedom of expression.  "It"
not only CAN happen here, but "it" is very likely to if we are not careful.


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+                               END THIS FILE                                +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=