

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Oct 8, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 79
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #7.79 (Sun, Oct 8, 1995)

File 1--What Me Worry? "The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook" reviewed
File 2--Re: Minesota laws...
File 3--Re Randal Schwartz (#7.78)
File 4--     Datasphere Cliche Alert / Jargon Patrol #1, Oct. 2, 1995
File 5--     ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update 10/4 (long)
File 6--EYENET: The Loonie's Egg
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 23:17:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: 1--What Me Worry? "The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook" reviewed

While browsing the local bookstore yesterday, Crypt ran across
"Cyberpunk Handbook: The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook" by R.U. Sirius,
St. Jude and Bart Nagel (Random House), writers for MONDO 2000
and other publications that Crypt Newsletter does not understand.

It's a humorous - I'm pretty sure - trade paperback for the
unwashed masses.  It's mission: tell the proles if they're cyberpunks,
how to be one, or <wink-wink> how to fake being one.  Bruce Sterling
wrote the intro and somewhere in there, much to the humor desk's
surprise, CuD and the Crypt Newsletter's Web sites are mentioned as
a k3wel places to hang.

In honor of this grand event and for a short time only, Crypt
Newsletter will be conducting cyberpunk lessons on how to smoke
clove cigarettes, drink Japanese beer, write in _elyte_ script, wear
leather jackets, be sarcastic even while asleep, send the AT command
to your modem, use hacked Celerity BBS software, get arrested for
red-boxing, visit a "sting" board, read alt.2600, ask the password
for Nowhere Man's Virus Creation Lab, get banned from Internet Relay
Chat, watch "Johnny Mnemonic" and pretend to know what's going on,
surf the Web and pretend to know what's going on, choose the correct
hair pomade or coloring, recognize the best places to shop for rubber
bondage wear or ritual scarification paraphernalia and - last - but
most important, leave your credulity in the toilet.

Unusual for this type of book, the authors have written it so that
it's occasionally mean and cutting right around the time you begin
to consider brandishing a virtual bludgeon in their direction. Did
I mention it was a very amusing read for 10 bucks (cheap)??

"The Real Cyberpunk Fakebook" features a photo of Eric Hughes in
cyberpunk raiment on its cover, too.  Right down to the duds, he's a
dead ringer for Greg Strzempka, the singer for an obscure metal band
named Raging Slab.  It's true, by golly!

The book is also loaded with photos of menacing-looking GenX'ers,
cans of Jolt cola, one stuffed cat, an odd-looking leather
device - perhaps used during sado-masochistic floggings, and someone
with a chrome bolt through their tongue.  If you are still bored, there's
also a crossword puzzle or two.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 10:15 PDT
From:  Michael Gersten <michael@STB.INFO.COM>
Subject: 2--Re: Minesota laws...

This is really interesting.

Quote:
    Minnesota's general criminal jurisdiction statute provides as
follows:

         A person may be  convicted  and sentenced under the
    law of this State if the person:

         (1) Commits an offense in  whole  or in part within
    this state; or

         (2) Being without the state,  causes, aids or abets
    another to commit a crime within the state; or

         (3) Being without the state, intentionally causes a
    result within the state  prohibited by the criminal laws
    of this state.

         It is not a defense that the defendant's conduct is
    also a criminal offense under  the laws of another state
    or of the United States or of another country.

Minnesota Statute Section 609.025 (1994).
---
Note that number 2 makes no distinction for common carrier status
-- if a common carrier aids or abets another to commit a crime within
the state, then that's a violation of state law.

If we go after AT&T and the US P.S., then maybe the Minnesota
judges will recognize limits to this law.

As to the web, if I'm outside of minnesota, and someone inside of
minnesota gets my page and reads it, then isn't the crime caused
when they pull my page to them?

This would just about kill usenet though -- that is distributed and
stored within minnesota. Hmm.

Maybe we should just put a header on our web pages that say "Only
approved in <home_state>; if you get this in another state, you are
responsible for following your local laws". But then that might make
us responsible for odd local laws in our state somewhere else.

<SIGH>. Whatever happened to the concept of individual
responsibility in the law? Why am I responsible for every one else?

(no, that's not a serious question :-)

		Michael
p.s. Just realized that there is no distinction of country either. So
someone in another country who posts something on gambling can
be sued in minnesota court even if minnesota has no jurisdiction
over them. Minnesota is claiming jurisdiction over the whole world
with this -- can we challenge the law on those grounds?

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

Date: 05 Oct 1995 21:10:48 -0700
From: merlyn@STONEHENGE.COM(Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: 3--Re Randal Schwartz (#7.78)

>>>>> "John" == jsq@mids.org writes:

John> System Administration as a Criminal Activity
John> or, the Strange Case of Randal Schwartz
[...]
[Quoting my fund@stonehenge.com response...]

John> I regret that I cannot accept credit-card payments.  If you cannot
John> send a check, please buy a copy of the Llama book for a friend or the
John> library (or for yourself)!

There's now another way to help me with my continuing-to-mount legal
bills.  Here's the paragraph from the latest message:

	I also accept payments using the First Virtual Internet Payment
	System.  Send email to info@fv.com for details.  (You can get an
	account with a credit card and a $2 one-time fee.)  If you'd like to
	donate that way, send me your FV buyer identifier and amount in US
	dollars, or visit http://www.teleport.com/cgi-bin/merlyn/donate for an
	on-line form.

Details about the case, including a fairly comprehensive FAQ are
available at http://www.usa1.com/fors.

--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me

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

From:         Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH@LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Date:         Mon, 2 Oct 1995 21:23:34 PST
Subject: 4--     Datasphere Cliche Alert / Jargon Patrol #1, Oct. 2, 1995
To:           list AMEND1-L <AMEND1-L@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>

    All reference counts from NEXIS database, CURNWS file, which
    reflects most of the major U.S. newspapers, a number of major
    foreign English-language ones, and many minor U.S. ones.
    CURNWS articles start in late 1993.  Numbers may include a
    few false positives, plus duplications from articles published in
    more than one newspaper.  [E. Volokh, UCLA.]



                         CLICHE:  DO NOT USE!


"On the Internet, no-one knows you're a dog."  62 references.
CLICHE, but still cute.

"Road-kill on the information superhighway."  232 references, plus a
really silly ad for Joop Jeans.  CLICHE.  Enough already.




                 CLICHE IF YOU THINK YOU'RE BEING COOL,
                    OK IF YOU'RE USING DESCRIPTIVELY


"Cybersmut."  56 references.
"Cyberporn."  339 references.




                      SURPRISINGLY UNDERUSED


"They don't call it the Net of a Million Lies for Nothing."

            No references in NEXIS media, though one reference in a
            law review article.  From Vernor Vinge's SF book "Fire
            Upon the Deep," used by the characters as something of a
            proverb in referring to an Internet-like network of the
            future.

"Datasphere."

            35 references.  Means the data flow that surrounds us, by
            analogy to "atmosphere".  From Dan Simmons's SF book
            "Hyperion."  LESS CLICHE than "cyberspace", but therefore
            LESS ACCESSIBLE.



                  THE INFOBAHN / INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY WARS


"Infobahn" still LESS CLICHE (though it's getting there):
                              53 references in September 1995 alone.

"Information Superhighway":  839 references in September 1995.

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

Date:         Wed, 4 Oct 1995 10:37:44 -0500
From:         Stephen Smith <libertas@COMP.UARK.EDU>
Subject: 5--     ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update 10/4 (long)

October 4, 1995
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE                        **Premiere Issue**
A bi-weekly online e91zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the
state and federal level.
 -------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases)
 ----------------------------------------------------------=
"Virtual" Child Pornography Bill is Overbroad and Fails to Protect Real
Children

Despite the FBI's apparent success in raiding alleged child pornographers
on America Online, Senator Orrin ctions of what "appears to be . . . a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;" and
-visual depictions "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or
distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material
is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct."
In its effort to outlaw "virtual" child pornography, the bill would
criminalize a wide range of constitutionally protected expression.

Hatch attempts to justify the new bill by reference to a widely-publicized
Canadian case in which a pornographer copied pictures of clothed children
from catalogs and morphed them into child pornography.  Senator Hatch
claims that the case would not be covered under the existing federal child
porn statute, but that issue has never been decided by a United States
court.  While the application of the existing statute to these facts is far
from clear, the Hatch bill covers *much more* than just this case scenario.
 The statute would cover *any* image of a child engaged in sexual behavior,
including non-computer-generated drawings, cartoons, and visual images
created without the use of photos of real children or even real adults.

In upholding child pornography laws, the Supreme Court has stated that "the
nature of the harm to be combated requires that the state offense be
limited to works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a
specified age. . . .  [T]he distribution of descriptions or depictions of
sexual conduct, not otherwise obscene, which do not involve live
performance or photographic or other visual reproduction of live
performances, retains First Amendment protection." _New York v. Ferber_,
458 U.S. 747, 764-65 (1982).

Hatch's "virtual child porn" law is clearly unconstitutional because it
would outlaw images produced without any involvement by an actual child.

Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Families and Children argued at
a recent conference at Brooklyn Law School that a "virtual child porn" law
was needed because pedophiles use virtual porn to lure children.  Under
that rationale, if a pedophile used a piece of candy to lure a child into
sex we would have to outlaw candy.  In a free society, we cannot use
censorship laws to try to control "bad thoughts."  Outlawing all images
that might be stimulating to pedophiles would require a massive amount of
censorship and would *not* cure pedophilia.

The ACLU reiterates its position on child pornography laws:

"The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of
all forms of communication.  The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds
laws that restrict the production and distribution of any printed and
visual materials even when some of the producers of those materials are
punishable under criminal law."

"The ACLU views the use of children in the production of visual depictions
of sexually explicit conduct as a violation of childrens' rights when such
use is highly likely to cause:  a) substantial physical harm or, b)
substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm.  Government
quite properly has the means to protect the interest of children in these
situations by the use of criminal prosecution of those persons who are
likely to cause such harm to children."

The Hatch proposal only demonstrates the dangers of trying to protect
children indirectly through censorship laws.
 ---------------------------
Clipper II?  Your electronic privacy rights are at stake . . . again.=


In 1993, the ACLU and an overwhelming majority of industry condemned the
Clipper Chip -- the Administration's key escrow encryption scheme to equip
every telecommunications device with a "chip" that would allow anyone to
secure his private communications as long as the U.S. government held the
descrambling key.  The government insisted that Clipper would be merely a
voluntary standard, but government documents requested under the Freedom of
Information Act now confirm the suspicions of civil liberties advocates
that the government really believes key escrowed encryption will only meet
law enforcement standards if it is mandatory.  (See
URL:http://www.epic.org/crypto/)

Now the Administration has returned with another scheme -- commercial key
escrow ("Clipper II").  At close range, Clipper II is a lot like Clipper I:

Although supposedly "independent" of the government, key escrow agen=
ts
will have to meet standards set by the U.S. government, and will have to
reside in the U.S. or in a country with which the U.S. has entered a
bilateral agreement.
The proposal provides no privacy safeguards to prevent the compromis=
e of
the key escrow agent or the key.
Offered as a "voluntary" standard, the proposal nevertheless forbids
interoperability with non-escrowed encryption in exported products.
While the government says it recognizes industry's need for strong
encryption, the proposal limits exportable encryption to 64 bits -- a
length widely recognized to provide inadequate security.

On September 6, 7, and 15, 1995, the ACLU attended meetings held by the
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersberg,
Maryland.  The meetings were called to solicit input from industry on the
Clipper II proposal.  Draft export criteria were considered on September
6-7, and the general industry response was very lukewarm -- except for a
few industries that have been meeting with the Administration and are
preparing to announce products that would fit the suggested criteria.  The
ACLU led one working group to vote 7-7 in favor of condemning the entire
proposal.

On September 15th, NIST discussed the implementation of a federal key
escrow encryption standard.  By requiring federal agencies to use
commercial key escrow as a FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard),
the Administration clearly hopes to drive industry to accept commercial key
escrow as the export standard as well.

The ACLU issued the following statement on the current key escrow proposal:


The American Civil Liberties Union's Position
on the Administration's Current Key Escrow Proposal:

Encryption is speech protected by the First Amendment.  The
Administration's current key escrow proposal, like the Clipper proposal,
continues to tread on the First Amendment rights of American individuals
and businesses to use encryption technologies to secure their private
communications.  The current proposal, like Clipper, should be rejected on
First Amendment grounds alone.
The current proposal will not accomplish its stated objectives becau=
se a
wide array of encryption is available around the globe and will continue to
be employed in place of American government-approved key escrow software.=

The only key escrow proposal that could begin to satisfy the
government's objectives would be an outright ban on the sale of encryption
technologies other than those approved by the government and key escrowed.=

The ACLU fears that the current proposal, and similar proposals, are merely
the first step towards mandatory key escrow of encryption.  Mandatory key
escrow is completely unacceptable to both industry and privacy advocates.=

The Administration should abandon its fruitless and unconstitutional
efforts to control the export of encryption technology.  No legislation is
needed -- the Administration has the power to lift the regulatory
restrictions that it created.
 ---------------------------
Call for Plaintiffs in Suit to Challenge Online Indecency Legislation=


Most of you know that the House and Senate have now passed two different
versions of the telecommunications bill that would outlaw "indecent" speech
over the Internet and other online services.  This fall, a conference
committee of House and Senate members will work out the differences between
the two telco bills and will probably approve some form of online
censorship legislation. [For a copy of the legislation, send a message to
infoaclu@aclu.org, with "Online Indecency Amendments" in the subject line.]


While the ACLU and other advocacy groups continue to lobby Congress to
remove the censorship provisions from the telco bill, it is highly likely
that some restriction on online indecency will appear in the final bill
that emerges from the conference committee.  A coalition of civil liberties
organizations are preparing a constitutional challenge to this legislation
now.  The coalition includes the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Media Access Project, and People for
the American Way.  We plan to be ready to file a lawsuit as soon as the
statute is signed into law -- which could be as early as October.

An  important first step in planning the lawsuit is the selection of
plaintiffs.  We need to put together a set of plaintiffs that disprove the
stereotype created by proponents of the legislation that people opposed to
the bill are "pedophiles and pornographers."   We believe that the best
plaintiffs for this challenge will be persons or entities that provide
material that some may deem  "indecent" but that has serious artistic,
literary, and educational value to our society.  We need plaintiffs who use
online networks to discuss or distribute works or art, literary classics,
sex education, gay and lesbian literature, human rights  reporting,
abortion information, rape counseling, and controversial political speech.=


Please contact Ann Beeson at the ACLU if your organization is interested in
being a plaintiff in this ground-breaking litigation that will define First
Amendment rights in cyberspace.  212-944-9800 x788, beeson@aclu.org.
 --------------------------------
STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases)
 ----------------------------------------------------------=
Overbroad Searches and Seizures Threaten Electronic Privacy

The latest threat to your civil liberties results from law enforcement's
overzealous attempts to find evidence of crime or wrongdoing in cyberspace.
 As we move into the information age, traditional search and seizure rules
will need to be refined to ensure fairness and respect for electronic
privacy rights.  Several recent cases illustrate how privacy rights can be
violated when law enforcement conducts investigations in cyberspace.
The ACLU recently wrote to America Online to inquire about their
cooperation in the FBI's recent raid of alleged child pornographers who
used the online service.  The ACLU asked, among other things, whether AOL
revealed any information about individual users that was not sought by
subpoena or court order; whether AOL turned over all private e-mail
messages of suspects or whether they turned over only messages related to
the alleged crime; whether AOL also turned over the names, addresses, and
e-mail messages of persons who had communicated with the suspects; whether
AOL set up accounts for the purpose of allowing government investigators to
have access to public chat rooms; and what information AOL regularly keeps
about its users' online activity and how long the information is kept.
In Cincinnati, Ohio, a computer bulletin board operator filed a civi=
l
rights suit  against the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department after the
department raided the BBS and seized computer equipment, files, and
personal communications.  The case argues that the indiscriminate search
and seizures violated the BBS operator's free speech and privacy rights.
See _Emerson v. Leis_, S.D. Ohio, No. C-1-95-608.  The subscribers to the
BBS have filed a separate class action suit against the sheriff's
department.  See _Guest v. Leis_, S.D. Ohio.  Law enforcement seized the
entire BBS -- all the hardware, software, files, and private communications
-- in an effort to obtain 45 files on the BBS that were allegedly obscene.=

The case asserts that the 45 files represented only 3% of the total
resources on the board.
In California, Colorado, and Virginia, the Church of Scientology has
brought three copyright infringement actions against anti-scientologists
who use online communications to criticize the church.  The cases raise
important questions about the breadth of computer communications seizures
in civil cases.  The ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of Colorado
continue to monitor the cases in their states.
 ---------------------------------
Nine States This Year Passed Online Censorship Legislation

While online activists have been busy fighting the pending federal attempts
to censor online communications, state legislatures have been carelessly
crafting online censorship bills at home.  And if you think Congress is
full of Luddites, just wait until to hear what your state legislators have
come up with.

At least nine states (CT, GA, IL, KS, MD, MT, NJ, OK, VA) have passed
legislation this year to regulate online content, and several others
considered such bills, with some still pending.  These bills seek to
criminalize a wide range of online speech and content, including:

speech that "harasses, annoys, or alarms"
materials deemed "indecent," "obscene" or "harmful to minors"
information related to "terrorist acts" or "explosive materials"

The state bills, like the federal bills, raise serious free speech and
privacy concerns.  None of the bills indicates an understanding of the
unique nature of the online medium.  Some bills purposefully, and other
bills inadvertently, fail to clarify that only the initiators of the
illegal images may be held liable -- so service providers can be held
liable for the pedophiles and pornographers that use their networks.

The laws would, at best, require service providers to snoop in private
e-mail in order to avoid criminal liability.  At worst, these laws would
force providers to shut down their networks altogether.

The draconian effect of these state bills doesn't stop at state borders.  A
message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the
fifty states and the globe by tomorrow.  You'd better be careful that the
message isn't "obscene" according to an Oklahoman, "annoying" to a
Connecticutter, "solicitous" of a minor in Illinois, or related to
"terrorism" as defined by a Georgian.

The wave of online censorship at the state level is far from over.  The
ACLU is considering constitutional challenges to the online censorship laws
that passed this year.  But given the continuing media hype over
"cyber-porn," we are certain to see more censorship bills from the states
next year.

With the help of affiliate offices in fifty states, the ACLU continues to
monitor these state attempts to infringe on your online free speech rights.
 [For a synopsis of all the online censorship bills passed or considered by
the states this year, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "Update of
State Bills" in the subject line of the message.]

 --------------------------------------
Saving the Best for Last:  Good News on Cyber-Liberties

ARIZONA:  Another troubling application of existing obscenity laws to
cyberspace was averted when charges were dropped against Arizona Department
of Public Safety Officer Lorne Shantz.  Shantz, who ran a community
bulletin board, lost his job and endured several months of hassle and
humiliation when he was arrested for allegedly "obscene" files on the
board.  Shantz maintains that he was unaware of the existence of the files,
which represented only a minuscule fraction of all the information on the
board.
COLORADO:  Federal Judge John Kane ordered the Church of Scientology to
return computers and hundreds of files seized by Federal marshals and
Scientology officials in a copyright infringement action.  The judge ruled
that the seizures were overbroad, and said that "The public interest is
best served by the free exchange of ideas."
 ------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU
 ------------------------------------
Stay tuned for news on the ACLU's world wide web site, under construction
at http://www.aclu.org.  In the meantime, you can retrieve ACLU documents
via gopher at gopher://aclu.org:6601 (forgive the less-than-updated state
of our gopher -- we've devoted all our resources to WWW construction!).  If
you're on America Online, check out the live chats, auditorium events,
*very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at
keyword ACLU.
 --------------------------------
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update
Editor: Ann Beeson (beeson@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036

To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to
infoaclu@aclu.org with "subscribe ACLU" in the subject line of your
message.  To terminate your subscription, send a message to
infoaclu@aclu.org with "unsubscribe ACLU" in the subject line.

For general information about the ACLU, write to infoaclu@aclu.org.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 20:12 WET DST
From: eye WEEKLY <eye5@interlog.com>
Subject: 6--EYENET: The Loonie's Egg

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye WEEKLY                                              October 5 1995
Toronto's arts newspaper                      .....free every Thursday
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EYENET                                                          EYENET

                           THE LOONIE'S EGG
         How a University of Toronto sysadmin has the power
        to have one student strip searched in a downtown jail
                  and another investigated by the FBI

                                  by
                            K.K . CAMPBELL


At 7:30, Jesse Hirsh (jesse@lglobal.com) flopped on the couch in his
parents' Bloor and Bathurst house to watch a Simpsons rerun. The 20-
year-old was just home from U of T. He studied political science and
literature.

His parents were out for the evening so he didn't know that someone
had called for him around 7. Mom had told the caller her son was still
at school. The caller didn't want to leave a name or message. He'd
call back.

As Homer Simpson flew into action, the phone rang.

Hirsh picked up. "Hello?"

"Hello, is Jesse there?" a voice intoned.

"This is he."

And the caller hung up.

Two seconds later, the doorbell rang. Hirsh went downstairs and opened
the door to find "three tall, slightly overweight white men." They
flashed badges. Plainclothes detectives. Can we come in, sir? Hirsh
nodded.

"We know that you are publishing an anarchist newsletter on the
Internet," they began.

Hirsh admitted he did.

"Do you know what a hacker is?"

"Sure," Hirsh replied.

They nodded knowingly. A-ha!

"Do you have a computer?"

He said he did. It was upstairs.

A-HA! The cops informed Hirsh he was under arrest for "unauthorized
use of a computer system" -- contrary to section 342.1 of the Criminal
Code of Canada. A possible 10 years in prison.

Hirsh was told to get a jacket. As his hand touched the cloth, the
cops grabbed it and searched the pockets, extracting a few nondescript
items. But then they found a patch for Hirsh's online anarchist ezine
The Anarchives. (Hirsh runs The Anarchist Organization
(tao@lglobal.com) at http://www.lglobal.com/TAO .)

It has a little pot leaf on it. The ace cybercops exchanged raised
eyebrows. First a hacker... then an anarchist newsletter... now this
emblem of decadent drug culture.

The cops frisked Hirsh -- all the while commenting on how nice the
house was. He was handcuffed and marched out to the unmarked car
across the street. Paraded in plain view of his neighbors, stuffed
into the back seat, they Went Downtown -- where Hirsh was
fingerprinted, had his mug photographed... and was strip-searched.

                         SECRET HACKER CODES

Hirsh was arrested for using a U of T net account not issued to him.
He was given the passwords to two such accounts by the account holders
-- one of whom was his stepbrother. The accounts were not hacked. He
told the cops this repeatedly. They dumped him in a cell anyway.

When Hirsh was ordered from his home, he asked to bring a book along.
The detectives said sure. He grabbed the nearest tome -- Plato's
Republic. The Officer Friendlies wandered in and out, asking
nonchalant questions of an evil dope-emblazoned, anarchist-peddling,
Plato-reading, civilization-threatening hacker.

"So... who's in this An-ARK-y Organization?" "What's an-ARK-y all
about?" "Why are you into this an-ARK-y stuff, anyway?"

Soon Officer Unfriendly appeared. He held before him a Soul Damning
Talisman: "What are these?!"

Hirsh looked. It was a piece of paper.

"These codes?! What are these codes for?!" Officer Unfriendly barked.

Codes? Then Hirsh realized: it was a piece of paper they had taken
from his jacket. It held reference numbers for books at the U of T
Robarts library.

"Those are library codes," Hirsh replied. "Books for my English
class."

"Don't give me that! What are they?! I know they're for something!"

Hirsh tried to project doe-eyed sincerity. "They're for library books!
They're codes of library books! From the Robarts library!"

"Don't lie to me!"

"I swear! They're library codes! Call the library and check!"

The officer glowered ominously. "I will." He turned and left.

It was the last Hirsh heard about the Secret Hacker Codes.

At 11:30 p.m., Hirsh's dad and a friend got him out.

                            A GORRIE STORY

Here's the background: in October of 1994, Hirsh's stepbrother, a U of
T grad student, said Hirsh could use his school-provided net account.
Hirsh used it to read news. He thought the net fascinating so began
uploading copies of The Anarchives. Hirsh never tried to hide who he
was -- he even included his home phone number, which is how the Super-
Sleuth Sysadmins "found" him. Hirsh made similar use of an account
belonging to "Ms X" -- a female Ph.D. student and friend of Stepbro's.

This would have been a happy and otherwise normal arrangement except
that in January, 1995, U of T engineering prof Jack Gorrie
(gorrie@ecf.utoronto.ca), bossman of U of T's engineering computing
facility computer, received a complaint from someone at the University
of British Columbia about The Anarchives being posted to net news. The
person wanted it stopped.

Gorrie came to notice Ms X wasn't signing these documents, a Jesse
Hirsch was. He also noticed Hirsh and another U of T student (the
stepbro) exchanged email about the accounts. As Hirsh and his stepbro
have different last names, Gorrie concluded a larger hacker conspiracy
was afoot.

Gorrie launched into his Canadian rendition of Cliff Stoll, author of
compu-crime-thriller _The Cuckoo's Egg_ -- in Gorrie's case, _The
Loonie's Egg_. He "tracked" Hirsh for two months, recording every
keystroke -- even though he had all three students' phone numbers.

On March 8, 1995, he asked the cops to intervene. "I checked and found
that the account was indeed being used to broadcast information on
behalf of The Anarchist Organization," he wrote Detective Hugh
Ferguson.

Thus it came to be that Jesse Hirsh was forced to model nude for
Toronto's finest, with the blessing of U of T.

Stepbro got his own taste of U of T six-gun justice. Off in a
Washington, D.C., engineering lab, he came under FBI investigation.
Naturally, the FBI found nothing wrong because there was nothing wrong
-- except for an over-zealous sysadmin using a meat cleaver to scratch
an itch.

                           CHARGES DROPPED

On Sept. 7, minutes before the case was to go to court, the
prosecution dropped all charges. Hirsh agreed to pay a token
settlement of $400 for four months of university computer use. U of T
first claimed it was owed $1,560. Hirsh places the real cost at $60.

Hirsh devoted an issue of The Anarchives to the case. It spread around
cyberspace. In it, Hirsh includes Gorrie's email address and asks
people to send him their opinions. Quite a few did. They were rather
unpleasant. Gorrie, miffed, used the U of T pipeline to have the
stepbro make Hirsh shut up.

After subjecting Hirsh to complete and devastating public humiliation,
U of T was now pleading for discretion.

Gorrie blames Ms X, who panicked and denied knowing Hirsh when first
confronted. She figured they'd just cut the "hacker" off and Hirsh
would find his own account. After all, thousands of U of T students
share accounts every year. But her case was different: she was sharing
with a left-wing anarchist with an attitude. He could not be ignored.
(Ms X is now under "investigation." Stepbro, on the other hand, has
graduated.)

Hirsh wrote Gorrie privately, saying he was sorry Gorrie was getting nasty
mail. Gorrie replied the whole affair was a "big misunderstanding." As
they were _both_ misled, they were _both_ victims: Victim Hirsh was
dragged down the street in handcuffs, fingerprinted, mugshotted,
strip-searched and jailed for hours; Victim Gorrie received email that was
mean to him.




NOTE: Hirsh has since formed his own Internet Service Provider: Local
Global Access at 320 1/2 Bloor St. W. (515-7400).


 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Retransmit freely in cyberspace        Author holds standard copyright
http://www.interlog.com/eye                     Mailing list available
eyeNET archive --> http://www.interlog.com/eye/News/Eyenet/Eyenet.html
eye@interlog.com     "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..."     416-971-8421

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message:  SUB CUDIGEST  your name
Send it to  LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to  LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  +352-466893

  UNITED STATES:  etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8)  in /pub/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)

  JAPAN:          ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/

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 for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  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 computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #7.79
************************************

