informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0205.txt

777 lines
36 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

****************************************************************************
>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 2, Issue #2.05 (September 30, 1990) **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet)
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith
USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is
cited. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be
reprinted, unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit
reasoned articles relating to the Computer Underground.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONTENTS:
File 1: Moderators' Corner
File 2: Re: The CU in the News (Mail reading)
File 3: Anarchist Times, Inc. (ATI)--background
File 4: The status of the electronic forum (BBS)
File 5: Another experience with the law
File 6: Some views on what to do if questioned by LE agents
File 7: The CU in the News
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05, File 1 of 7: Moderator's corner ***
********************************************************************
Date: September 30, 1990
From: Moderators
Subject: Moderators' Corner
++++++++++
In this file:
1. CuD SURVEY
2. CuD FORMAT
3. EURO-AMERICAN BBS
4. RIGGS SENTENCING
++++++++++++++++++
CuD Survey
++++++++++++++++++
Bob Krause has sent out the CuD survey, and the responses have been
excellent. We thank all those who are cooperating, and urge you to return
the survey if you have not yet done so. If you have misplaced it, drop Bob
a note at:
KRAUSER@SNYSYRV1
We will publish the results as soon as they are coded and analyzed.
++++++++++++
CuD Format
++++++++++++
Most people seem relatively unconcerned with our format, but those who are are
quite adamant. The overwhelming majority of responses indicate that the
current style should remain, so we will stick with it until opinion shifts the
other way.
+++++++++++
Euro-American Connection
+++++++++++
For those wondering what has happened to Euro-American Connection, and why
there is a voice message instead of Hot Mix's familiar logon logo: We are told
that the disconnection is temporary, and he is simply moving. Word is that he
will be back up and running when he's settled in a few weeks, and will try to
get the same familiar number.
++++++++++++
Riggs Sentencing
++++++++++++
For those wondering what happened in the sentencing of the "Atlanta Three"
who pled guilty a few months ago, we are told that the sentencing has been
delayed for at least a few weeks. No reason was given for the delay.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:17:18 EDT
From: David Waitzman <djw@BBN.COM>
Subject: Re: The CU in the News (Mail reading)
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 2 of 7: From the Mailbag ***
********************************************************************
In CUD Volume 2, Issue #2.04, you talk about email being intercepted
intentionally. In some Internet email systems, the postmaster may receive
email messages that were unable to be properly delivered by the email
system. It is difficult for a person acting as the postmaster not to read
such email, since some portions of the email messages may contain delivery
error reports. This differs from the usual case in the US Post Office,
where the address and actual message text are clearly separated by an
opaque envelope (except, for instance, on postcards).
Any laws passed regarding email interception must take this matter into
account, I believe.
-david
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 02:36 EDT
From: groundzero@TRONSBOX.XEI.COM
Subject: Anarchist Times, Inc. (ATI)--background
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 3 of 7: Anarchist Times, Inc.- Background ***
********************************************************************
Underground Electronic Newspaper For Your E-Reading Pleasure.
E-Written by PA and GZ.
WARNING: The story following may contain explicit thoughts descriptive
of, advocating, or encouraging one or more of the following:
television
sadomasochism
folk music
freedom
democracy
nudity
drinking or eating healthfood
satanism
guitar playing
antidisestablishmentarianism
tobacco chewing
use of COBOL for object-oriented programming
cross-dressing
peace
murder
nose hair
insanity
morbid violence
rock n roll
the illegal use of drugs
the use of alcohol
new ideas
or the use of hi-fi stereo equipment.
The writers of ATI oppose censorship of any kind.
ATI is going on its third year as your first source of underground news.
ATI is Activist Times Inc., an underground online newsletter with a
mission: to present information and opinion in a socially relevant and
stimulating context. ATI features articles about and for the computer
underground, telecom, BBSing, anarchy, current events, social issues, humor ,
entertainment and more. ATI is into Politics, the environment, technology,
the telephone, and mostly the First Amendment.
Prime Anarchist is the originator of ATI and its co-editor along with
Ground Zero, who is also its publisher. Prime began ATI around February,
1988 as an online newsletter on bulletin boards in Rhode Island and New
York, in addition to producing a few issues on hard copy. Soon ATI spread
to the downloading sections of bulletin boards across the country, most
notably The Phoenix Project and P-80 Systems.
ATI has a long list of present and past contributors, and has been known
to present articles that conveyed a unique twist of humor. The titles speak
for themselves: "Terrorism of a 976 Phone Sex Line", "Quantum Mix-Up", "Mall
Terrorism", "Fun in Rich Rural Towns", and many others.
In fact, some of the originators of YIPL/TAP magazine ghostwrote some
articles in 88 and 89. Some of the ghosts' initials (for you yipsters) were
RF, norfolk Virginia; CC, NYC; AH, Penn; FS, NYC; FS, Rhode Island; & A1,
NYC.
Issues of ATI may be obtained from many bulletin boards in the US, Europe
and around the world, including Ripco BBS at 312-528-5020. You may also be
added to ATI's net distribution list by e-mailing Ground Zero at:
> uunet!tronsbox!akcs.groundzero or akcs.groundzero@tronsbox.xei.com if you <
have a smart mailer.
To receive back issues of ATI, email Ground Zero or access the ftp
distribution site at 128.95.136.2 and enter 'cd tmp/ftp/ATI'. Details are
available in ATI #49 on how to receive back issues on disk.
So demand ATI on your nearest BBS, inside your favorite mainframe, or right
to your modem. But whatever you do, demand it. =)
The makers of ATI would like to thank: Brother Jack, Dr. Timothy Leary,
Jello Biafra, Johanna Lawrenson, Spin Magazine, Spy Magazine, Ronald and
Nancy Reagan, Dirk Hitler, Manuel Noriega, Saddam "sodom" Hussein, The 1910
FruitGum Company, Samuel Clemens, Jim and Tammy Baker, Oliver North,
Ferdinand and Imelda and her shoes, and all the little people Leona
Helmsley talked about.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
%Moderators' comment: ATI is a nice antidote to those who see no political
consciousness amongst the CU. Like most e-mail mags, the substance has slowly
changed and matured over the years, and it is becoming a nice mix of
political, technical, and other information of relevance to computerists.
Thanks to Ground Zero and Prime Anarchist for putting out a nifty publication.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: brad@LOOKING.ON.CA(Brad Templeton)
Subject: The status of the electronic forum (BBS)
Date: 27 Sep 90 00:57:23 GMT
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 4 of 7: The Status of the BBS ***
********************************************************************
People keep trying to figure out what an electronic forum (or bulletin
board) is in traditional terms -- common carrier or publication.
I think that it is not analogous to any of the old forms, and a new type of
law has to be created to apply to it.
There are 4 types of BB today:
A) The completely open BB with no supervision (USENET newsgroup,
some BBS operations)
B) The supervised open BB. (most BBS, GEnie, CIS forums, etc.) C) The
heavily supervised BB. (Prodigy, moderated USENET group) D) The fully
edited electronic publication
D is a direct analog of the traditional publication. C is very close, but
not quite. A is close to the "common carrier" model, but does not match
it exactly. B has little analog in traditional publishing.
All four are of course(*) deserving of constitutional protection of free
speech. For all are published forms of expression.
The closest thing to A is common carrier or enhanced service provider
status, where the carrier is not liable for what is transmitted. However
there are many differences. For one, I have not heard of a "public
broadcast" common carrier, where messages are sent to arbitrary members of
the public who request the material. The closest analog might be Ham
radio, although Hams are licenced and thus not classed as general public.
They are also restricted in use. Of course "Ham radio" is a thing, not an
organization.
In addition, most type A systems do have some controls and checks and
balances. They do not have the "service to anybody who asks is mandatory"
rule of common carriers.
I would view each individual author as the publisher, and the system owner
as a tool in this case. On the other hand, I would support the right of
system owners to restrict *who* has access, if not necessarily what they
say.
Type B is also a new animal. Such systems are supervised, but supervised
after-the-fact. ie. any user can post any message, but the
SYSOP/supervisor/moderator can delete things after the fact. The amount of
this deletion ranges from almost none to moderate. Sometimes it is there
as an option, but never actually practiced. This needs a new type of law.
Type C is very close to a publication, and may not need a new type of law.
In this case, all messages must be approved before they go out -- ie. they
pass through a human being first. This is not too different from a
classical publication. However, in most such cases, the editors do not
truly act as editors. They merely select material based on
appropriateness to a forum. Only because the law requires it do they also
sometimes attempt to remove libel and criminal activity. The editors
almost never select material to match their own views, and it is not
assumed that postings reflect the editor's views.
Thus in A and B it is clear that the author is the publisher and the system
is the medium. In C the author and system operator are jointly involved in
publication. In D the system operator is the publisher, and the author is
just the author.
What new types of law? This we can discuss.
Type A:
Authors fully responsible for their postings. No liability for SYSOP
unless illegal activity deliberately encouraged. (ie. "The Phone Phreak
BBS" might have a liable SYSOP, but "Joe's Amiga BBS" would not be liable
if somebody posts a phone credit card number.)
NO complete anonymity. Author's names need not be revealed in the forum
itself, but a record should exist for the authorities in case of libel or
other illegal activity by an author. The sysop must maintain this list in
return for the limit of SYSOP's liability.
(Note SYSOPS still have the right to delete material, but not the
obligation.)
Type B:
Authors continue to be responsible for their postings. SYSOPS responsible
for illegal material which they are aware of but do not delete in a timely
fashion. Anonymity possible, if desired.
Type C:
Authors responsible together with SYSOPS for postings. If Author warrants
to SYSOP that material is legit, most liability goes to Author. SYSOP
must not permit any obviously illegal material, and delete any material
found to be illegal ASAP.
Type D:
Standard publication. No new law.
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
Subject: Another experience with the law
From: mailrus!iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!watcher@UUNET.UU.NET(watcher)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 04:01:01 EST
------------------------------
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 5 of 7: Another Experience with the Law ***
********************************************************************
regarding the fbi investigation of the nuprometheus source theft:
i was a victim of this investigation. i lost my position at apple for
"mysterious reasons" that neither my agency nor my supervisor could
clarify. i was not "fired", as i was able to collect unemployment
following the incident. however, exactly what happened remains a mystery to
me. my story:
in approximately mid-to-late february of 1990, the feds (steven e cook and
his unnamed partner who didn't say much) went to one of apple's cupertino
facilities (vg6 to be precise) to visit my (now ex-) roommate. as he was at
home with the flu, they were not able to question him. two days later (this
would be a friday), they paid a visit to our house after not having found
him at work earlier that day. they proceeded to ask him many questions,
mostly about who he knew and how he knew them, and whether he had visited
certain individuals, such as henry s dakin. (dakin, as in dakin plush toys,
who operated an endeavour known as the 3220 gallery in san francisco, where
many interesting parties are known to take place.) they then asked him to
come to their office in s.f. for a polygraph examination. he told them he
would get back to them about this after consulting an attorney. attorney
said such examination was meant to trip him up, that they had no hard
evidence, and that he should decline and give them his (attorney's) phone
number if they had any questions. the following week, they called on each
of monday, wednesday, and friday (friday being the day he was to have gone
in) to make sure he didn't miss his appointment; all three times they were
given that "on the advice of my attorney..." he would not be there.
following monday at 8 am, the county sheriff appeared at the door to
arrest him on a four year old bench warrant. (county sheriff was required
instead of the city police as we lived in an unincorporated section at the
time, where city police would not have had jurisdiction.) he was arrested
and left to sit in a holding cell for many hours while paperwork was done.
it is interesting to note that the sheriff had a form with him with all
the pertinent information (name/address, etc), which noted steven e cook of
the fbi should be called (included phone number) if there were any
problems. the officer was not too pleased when he found that he was "doing
the fbi's work for them". i, however, stayed home (i guess this means i had
no warrants). the next day, at around three in the afternoon, i was told
that "some friends of mine were here to see me" and that i should get down
to the lobby immediately. lo and behold, steven e cook had appeared in my
building, having first determined my whereabouts from questioning my
roommate. i was questioned for about 45 minutes, mostly on the same
subjects as my roommate, along with several new and interesting twists
indicating that they had done very thorough homework, including examining
all the sign-in logs. i went back to my desk. i called my roommate.
someone answered his phone (whom i knew) and told me "i guess he doesn't
work here anymore." shortly after that, i went home for dinner, and as we
(some friends had appeared by this time) were all standing around just
about to leave, the phone rang, i answered it, and it was my agency
explaining that i was to go in TONIGHT and finish my project, and i was not
to go back tomorrow or thereafter. when asked from whom these orders had
come, the agency was unable to provide any details. this was tuesday, march
13th, nearly ten months after the nuprometheus incident.
some of the questions they asked me during my "interview" (the details are
fuzzy and i have forgotten most of the questions): do you know john draper?
how do you know him? how did you meet him? do you know henry dakin? how do
you know him? how did you meet him? who owns the house you live in? (we
were renting at the time, through an agency, i had no idea) since the phone
bill wasn't rightfully in anybody's name (phone company's mistake) it was
implied that we might be trying to defraud the phone company by providing
false billing information (never mind that we had always paid it in the
previous months).
after the incident and its resultant newspaper article (see san jose
mercury news, 15-march-1990, business section, front page), i found it
extremely difficult to obtain work, since any agency that heard about the
incident would "misplace" my resume and never call me again, and any
attempts to secure employment at apple resulted in purchasing and cch
telling the agency that i was "not allowed back", even before i had gotten
an interview. all this seems to have been started by an old, vicious,
enemy of my then-roommate's, who (it is assumed) claimed to the fbi that he
had overheard my roommate bragging about his involvement in nuprometheus at
a party. which amounts to heresay and witch-hunts.
one thing's for sure: if the fbi later determines it was wrong, i know damn
well that they're not going to go back and undo the damage. as of this
time, no charges have ever been filed, nor any search warrants served, nor
any equipment confiscated. perhaps i should consider myself lucky...? after
all, all i lost was my job ($52K/year) and my credibility.
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: September 30, 1990
From: Assorted
Subject: Some views on what to do if questioned by LE agents
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 6 of 7: Responses to "When the Law Comes..."***
********************************************************************
%A recent discussion on a newsnet (efftalk@netsys.com) covered the problem
of how to respond if questioned by law enforcement. The following synopsis
was distilled to cover only a few of the main points. The consensus there,
and from other sources, seems to be "don't volunteer anything" and to be
cautious when implied promises are made in turn for pre-Miranda
cooperation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My general impression was "call your lawyer first, talk later." You aren't
incriminating yourself by refusing to say anything without a lawyer
present.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, some good simple rules that apply to any adversary or
investigator (press or police) are:
a) Don't talk if you have any reason to believe that they *think* or
suspect you of any wrongdoing. (Wrongdoing by their definitions, not
yours.)
b) If you must talk, *ask* questions, do not answer. And take care to make
sure your own questions do not contain answers. If you remember to always
ask a question, you put them on the defensive and confuse them, because
they think they are there to ask the questions. They may not be fazed,
but sometimes this is more fun than "no comment."
c) Be "fully" cooperative, but insist that everything take place in
writing. Say, "If you would be prepared to give a *complete* list of your
questions in writing, I will give them due consideration." This makes
them stop and think. (With the press, it also can add a delay which makes
them go away. If they insist on speed, tell them to fax the questions.
You are under no obligation to fax the answers back, even if you do
answer.) In this situation, you can't be accused of refusing to comment.
You are just being careful and getting documentation -- an admirable trait.
Get a complete list of questions -- make them understand they don't get to
ask any more -- that way you can sometimes figure their intent.
d) If you can slow it down, slow it down. Using writing is just one
example of this. Slowing it down is almost always in your advantage, and
not in theirs.
e) Scare 'em. It may not work, but tell them you are turning on your
camcorder or tape recorder while they do what they do -- for your records.
It may have no weight in evidence, and they may tell you to shut it down
(legally or not) but it will scare 'em. And it looks bad if they refuse
you your right to document events. These guys live by documentation and
paperwork. But they don't like it if they are stepping over the line.
And of course, if you think you are in serious shit, call your lawyer. Ask
if you are under arrest, and under what charge. If you are under arrest,
you have a right to call a lawyer (eventually). If you are not, you are
free to call a lawyer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best advice. *NEVER* volunteer *ANYTHING*. When they show up, you'll
probably be under stress -- and your mistakes will count against you. Get
A Lawyer.
|> b) If you must talk, *ask* questions, do not answer. And take care to make
|> sure your own questions do not contain answers. If you remember to always
|> ask a question, you put them on the defensive and confuse them, because they
|> think they are there to ask the questions. They may not be fazed, but
|> sometimes this is more fun than "no comment."
This won't last long; they think they are there to ask the questions and
will usually enforce this concept. This might work if you are not a
suspect.
|> c) Be "fully" cooperative, but insist that everything take place in writing.
|> Say, "If you would be prepared to give a *complete* list of your questions
|> in writing, I will give them due consideration." This makes them stop and
This will only work if you are not a suspect.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The first thing to do when talking with the police/SS/etc, is DON'T LET
THEM INTO THE HOUSE! Do your talking on the porch, sidewalk, their office,
etc. The SC has held that once the police are in your home, they are free
to walk through the house. Bring a lawyer if the questions are
questionable (so to speak).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> camcorder or tape recorder while they do what they do -- for your records.
If you're really desperate, you can get one of those home security systems
that (among other things) continuously films various rooms from hidden
cameras. Then you'll have a videotape of them telling you to turn off your
tape recorder. :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A funny thing happened to me one day when I came home from school! There's
this car in my driveway a Crown Victoria with a siren in the front seat.
Well I speak from my own experience. Say Nothing unless you are confident of
your abilities to handle yourself. 90% of police work is done because
people rat on each other, and 10% is done cause the police (pick one)
harass, coerce, trick, etc people into admitting what they did. In my case
I talked the whole time rather threateningly too. The cop said "We know
you did it so why don't you admit it it will make it easier on you, your
parents, a nd us and if you make it easier on us the Judge will go easy on
you. Well I stood up and said you dont know Sh*t. And all of this was
infront of my parents and the cop wanted a lie detector and everything when
he said this my dad went crazy. "A Lie Detector?!!!" Well anyway to make a
long story short I didn't take a lie detector I didn't go to jail (I was
18) and I got an apology out of it...So If you didn't do anything don't say
anything or else say something unpolite! It will make you feel beter!
********************************************************************
>> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 30 September, 1990
From: Various Contributors
Subject: The CU in the News
********************************************************************
*** CuD #2.05: File 7 of 7: The CU in the News ***
********************************************************************
%"The items for CU in the news come from various contributors. We
especially thank Mike Rosen, who draws our attention to various items, and
Brian Kehoe. We also appreciate all of those contributors who submit
articles that we cannot print because of space constraints, duplication, or
other reasons. Even if they do not appear, they are beneficial and keep us
informed (moderators)%.
------------------------------
From: chron!magic703!edtjda@UUNET.UU.NET(Joe Abernathy)
"Computer Network gets Overseer"
(9/24/90, Houston Chronicle, Business Page 1)
By JOE ABERNATHY
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle
A newly formed non-profit corporation will bring Fortune 500 management
talent to the nation's increasingly troubled computer network matrix,
according to government and industry sources.
The corporation, Advanced Network & Services, is designed to bring order to
the vast Internet data telecommunications system, which has become a
frequent companion to controversy while enjoying a six-fold increase in use
since January.
The action is expected to pave the way for congressional approval of the
Federal High-Performance Computing Act, a comprehensive law that would,
among other things, pay to vastly expand the communications capacity of the
system. The legislation bogged down after the Houston Chronicle disclosed
the controversial aspects of Internet.
"We have a very valuable tool in the network and if we use it properly, it
can be a very valuable asset to the country," said Allan H. Weis, chief
executive officer of Advanced Network and a 30-year veteran of IBM, one of
three corporate partners in the new management firm.
Weis said that Advanced Network will provide day-to-day management and
monitoring of the Internet, which connects thousands of military,
educational and private computer networks. It also will serve as a model
for other such partnerships that could help develop and promote the
network's services.
The company was formed by IBM, MCI Communications, and Merit Inc. Merit is
a Michigan consortium that previously has managed the network under the
supervision of the National Science Foundation and will continue to fill
this role under the supervision of American Network.
There are still questions to be answered about the roles the various groups
will play in managing this system.
IBM and MCI, both of which sell equipment and services vital to networking,
provided $5 million each in seed money for the new corporation. It will
actively seek further investment by industry, and will impose the first
formal fee structure on the network, which only recently evolved from an
elite communications tool for scientists.
"Just as private contractors helped build the interstate highway system,
this new corporation will help build the national information superhighways
that today's information age demands," said Sen. Albert Gore Jr., D-Tenn.,
the sponsor of the legislation.
The heart of the computing act is the expansion of Internet into a "data
superhighway" that would link researchers, educators, homes and businesses
into a vast network of computing resources. The expanded Internet would be
called the National Research and Education Network, or NREN. It has been
likened to the telephone in terms of its expected impact on American life.
Internet first gained notoriety as the vehicle for the infamous Morris
Worm, a destructive program that paralyzed many of the nation's
high-performance computers in November 1988.
Pieced together over the course of 20 years on the tradition of trust
within the research community, the network is a tempting target for abuse
and the favored arena for hackers. At least 5 million people have access to
Internet, which links dozens of nations and which is scheduled to be
brought into the secondary schools of Texas.
In June, the Chronicle reported that the network was being used widely and
openly for purposes well outside its research mandate, such as political
activism and the distribution of pornographic art and literature.
Despite an investigation by the science foundation - which has been the
primary distributor of federal dollars for networking - the controversial
use continues, although reduced in scope.
"We observed the growth over the past few years and we looked at the
structure that we had ... and decided that a more formal structure on the
national level" should be put into place, said Weis. "Something this big
moves slowly, but it moves." The science foundation's future role in the
network is one of the few remaining aspects of the legislation that must be
decided. The NSF is well-respected for its leveraging of funds, and the
network infrastructure it molded is reliable and capable. But the
foundation has given scant attention to content, bringing it under fire for
the network's current state of virtual anarchy.
The Department of Energy wants future control of the network, but the
agency's viewpoint is considered too narrow, according to congressional
sources.
The vision of the Science Foundation combined with the IBM-style management
of Advanced Network is expected to satisfy critics.
"The NREN is such a big effort that the government can't do it by itself,
industry can't do it by itself, and academia can't do it by itself," said
Weis. "To make it successful it's going to take the joint effort of
government, industry and academia."
Advance Network will draw management expertise from MCI, IBM, Merit,
McGraw-Hill, and Merck, the pharmaceutical company known for its ability to
find practicality in cutting-edge research. McGraw-Hill, best known as the
owner of Business Week, is also in the textbook and information services
businesses.
"Wouldn't it be nice if we were able to provide, over the network, the
newest physics textbook, but the textbook was a living textbook in that you
could watch what happened when you applied additional weight to a fulcrum?"
said Weis, offering one example of an educational use for the superhighway.
Advanced Network will have an eight-person board of directors, initially
consisting of: Weis; Joe Dionne, president of McGraw-Hill; Joe Wyatt,
president of Vanderbilt University; Myra Williams of Merck; Richard West,
University of California system; Dr. John Armstrong, chief scientist of
IBM; Richard Leibhaber, executive vice president of MCI; and Dr. Douglas
Van Houweling of Merit.
Gore's computing act, which has the support of the Bush administration,
would allocate $2 billion over the course of five years to ensure the
nation's continued dominance in the field of high-performance computing.
The National Research and Education Network would receive $400 million of
this amount, with the rest going for related infrastructure.
"The interstate highway system would not have been built without a federal
commitment," said Gore in behalf of the package. "The federal government is
an essential catalyst for developing and demonstrating this technology."
The Federal High-Performance Computing Act is scheduled to be considered by
the full Senate before it adjourns in October.
A companion House bill, which was suspended following the Chronicle's
disclosure of Internet's misuse, will be returned to consideration after
approval of the Senate plan.
------------------------------
HACKER'S HOLIDAY ENDS
The Computer Misuse Act is now law, bringing into force three new criminal
offences.
Michael Colvin, the Conservative MP for Romsey whose successful Private
Member's Bill brought about the new Act has added his own stern warnings to
the computer world.
" The Act can only complement and not replace security procedures", he
said. "Users will have to examine their existing security procedures and
possibly redefine the authority of users of their systems if they are to
receive the full support of the law.
" My message to computer users is that Parliament has done its bit - now it
is up to you to do yours. It will provide a coherent regime for the
prosecution of those who misuse computers.
" This legislation has been framed specifically to deal with the new
mischiefs that modern technology has brought and the police now have the
power to prosecute computer misuse without the need, in some cases, to try
and stretch the existing criminal law.
" The legal position is plain. The Act gives a clear signal to the future
generations of would-be hackers that computer misuse is no longer tolerated
by society".
The new offences which came into force on August 29 are one of basic
unauthorised access with a penalty of up to six months imprisonment and
fines of up to two thousand pounds; unauthorised access with the intention
of committing a more serious crime and unauthorised modification of
computer data, both of which carry up to five years imprisonment with
unlimited fines.
Slightly modified from the original Law Commission Report on computer
misuse, the Act includes new jurisdiction rules to cover international
hacking.
Any offence will be prosecutable if it is conducted from or directed
against any system in the UK.
------------------------------
From: Computerworld, September 17, 1990, p. 150, Inside Lines:
"Steal this Modem"
Leemah Datacom Security Corp. recently wrapped up its second annual
challenge to hackers, who were given the chance to retrieve a secret
message stored in two PCs protected with a Leemah callback modem. While
hackers failed to break in, the challenge was not as big a success as
officials predicted. Even though the company added a second PC and
challenge site to accommodate what they thought would be a mass hacker
attack, only 2,009 hackers tried and failed to hack into the PCs compared
with nearly 8,000 failed attempts last year. Apparently, many hackers
feared that the company was cooperating with the government in a sting
operation.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #2.05**
********************************************************************

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink