|
Geraldo's _Now it can be Told_ Revisited, Comment
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer underground Digest Sun, Oct 27, 1991 Volume 3 : Issue 38
Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
CONTENTS, #3.38 ( October 27, 1991)
File 1: Geraldo's _Now it can be Told_ Revisited
File 2: Comment on the Geraldo Show
File 3: A Guest's-eye view of the Geraldo Show
File 4: Second Thoughts about the "Ingraham Massacre"
File 5: Response to CuD #3.37's "Mad Hacker" Issue
File 6: Release of Informatik #1
File 7: Second Annual XMASCON
Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news
group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG,
and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414)
789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.20),
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and dagon.acc.stolaf.edu. To use the U. of
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
quotes) to [email protected].
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. Some authors do copyright their material, 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 the
Computer Underground. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Oct 91 12:19:22 CDT
From: Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--Geraldo's _Now it can be Told_ Revisited
The fallout from the Geraldo show (see CuD #3.37) that we've received
has focused on Alameda County (Calif) Assistant District Attorney Don
Ingraham for the reckless manner in which he treated "truth" and Craig
Neidorf. Craig provides an insider's view, and the moderators offer a
review of Ingraham's made-for-tv performance below.
Krista Bradford, Senior Reporter for NICBT, provides a helpful glimpse
into production of the show that explains some of the dynamics behind
framing topics. Krista also adds a thoughtful commentary on educating
the media to the issues of cyberspace. Her lesson is: There is no
"media," but rather reporters who do media work. These workers don't
"get educated" by some mystical process. Instead, those of us who
complain about media misrepresentation have to obligation to find
constructive ways to deliver our message to individuals writing on the
topic. It is our obligation, she argues, to contact individual
reporters, to sign them up on various systems, and to bring the
message to them rather than assume they can, on their own, go out and
find it.
For those interested, Craig is still in debt to Katten, Muchin, &
Zavis for close to $50,000.00. Any contributions to his defense fund
would be greatly appreciated. Please send a check or money order to:
Sheldon Zenner
Katten, Muchin, & Zavis
525 West Monroe Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60606-3693
The checks must be made out to Katten, Muchin, and Zavis and you must
put his name on the memo section somewhere or else they will not
credit the money to his account.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 91 20:42:40 CDT (Sat)
From: [email protected](Peter da Silva)
Subject: File 2--Comment on the Geraldo Show
My reaction to Rivera's show was simply that it glorified all the
negative connotations of the word "Hacker". It put an obvious bozo up
against Neidorf who simply made the government look bad. It also made
Neidorf look bad by linking him to things he never did, nor that any
other "hacker" ever did (the 911 paper in question was public
information, for heavens' sake, and they didn't say that once!). It
was a complete loss for everyone except Rivera and the foreign hackers
out of reach of Sun-Devil hysteria.
No matter what side of the subject you're on... if you live in the
U.S. this show hurt you whether you know it or not.
Which is typical of Geraldo's flaming. The best part was Cliff Stoll,
but of course he never got a chance to refute Goldstein's dismissal of
his point about breaking and entering... which is quite valid. If you
want to be pedantic, phreak-style crackers are like joy-riding kids.
Joy-riding is, rightly, illegal. And so it should be. Of course, you
don't get thousands of dollars worth of equipment confiscated and jail
terms for joy-riding. The government *and* the apologists for these
soi-disant hackers are *both* wrong, and attempting to trivialize
*either* side's grievances is counterproductive.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 01:05:07 -0400
From: Craig Neidorf <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--A Guest's-eye view of the Geraldo Show
Same Story, New Court Room
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I guess they figured I needed to be tried twice."
Now It Can Really Be Told...
It was Monday, March 25, 1991 and I was sitting in a conference room
at the SFO Marriott Hotel in Burlingame, California. I was attending
a tutorial session called "How Computer Crime is Investigated" hosted
by Don Ingraham at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom, and
Privacy.
Don Ingraham, an Assistant District Attorney in Alameda County,
California was already a nationally-known computer crime prosecutor
and I was Craig Neidorf, political science/pre-law student from St.
Louis, already nationally-known for being Knight Lightning, editor of
Phrack... the guy who published the 911 text file and more.
What began as a tutorial and learning session about the use of search
warrants on electronically stored evidence changed into a heated
debate with Ingraham on one side with some supporters and me on the
other side allied with Sheldon Zenner, Mike Godwin, and Sharon
Beckman. It was interesting and quite a few constitutional and ethical
issues were raised. However, when it was all over, I left with a
feeling of respect for Mr. Ingraham even if I disagreed with his
views.
As the conference continued over the next few days, I found that where
I had expected clashes I found conversations. The law enforcement
officers and prosecutors were not bad people when you got them in a
small group away from the reporters. As odd as this may sound, a
whole bunch of them (joined by people like Bruce Sterling and John
Perry Barlow) were seated in the lounge when I showed up late one
evening and they had been speaking about my future. They had decided
that should I choose a career path in law enforcement after I finished
law school, they would all be out of work as I became the most feared
prosecutor among the entire hacker community and many others. In one
sense it was very flattering. Among these prosecutors was Don
Ingraham and he was very supportive of the idea of me becoming a
prosecutor.
In late July 1991, I was just finishing up my last semester at the
University of Missouri-Columbia. I had been forced to take a full
12-hour summer school load of classes in order to make the August
commencement. I was running a litte behind after William Cook made
sure that I could not complete the Spring semester of 1990. As it
turns out, the CFP folks had predicted my future rather accurately, I
was working for law enforcement. As part of my undergraduate
requirements I had to take an internship with some branch of state
government. A strong grade point average and critical writing skills
had earned me a prestigious position with the Missouri Attorney
General's Office in their Public Protection Division (the department
that handles consumer fraud).
One evening I received a call from Phyllis Zimmerman who represented
"Now It Can Be Told." She explained who she was and what their
program was all about. "We're going to show how the hackers are
really the good guys who are exposing the flaws so the criminals can't
exploit them." It sounded like she had been brainwashed by Emmanuel
Goldstein of 2600 Magazine to me, but what the hell. I told her that
I might be interested, but I could not do anything with her until
after August 3rd since I had to finish school and I had some finals
coming up for my remaining classes.
I didn't hear from the NOW people again until the second week of
September. This time I was contacted by Cindy Frei. They didn't want
to interview me in a segment anymore, instead they wanted me to take
part in sort of a discussion after the main part of the show. She
told me that William Cook might be there, as well as Donald Delaney,
Wynn Schwartaw[sic], and Chris Goggans. I knew Cook would never show
up and hanging out in New York with Bloodaxe (Goggans) sounded like it
might be cool since we had so much fun the previous summer at
CyberView in St. Louis. So we made plans for me to fly up to New York
on Wednesday, September 25th. On Tuesday, I learned that Chris
Goggans and Donald Delaney had been cancelled and Don Ingraham had
been substituted in as a replacement. I also began to learn a little
more about the show.
Scenes of Dutch hackers breaking into systems and more. I was
concerned that instead of the viewers getting impressions of good guy
hackers, the Department of Defense would go on alert and press
Congress for stronger legislation against computer hackers. Frei said
I was supposed to sort of give my impressions of what I saw, a
hacker's viewpoint. I explained that I wasn't a hacker in the sense
she was looking for, but this did not present a problem for her. She
didn't want me to get into a discussion about the difference of
opinion on the use of the word hacker. I began to have second
thoughts about doing the show, but I decided that I was probably best
suited to try and dispel some of the hacker hysteria that might
arise. I was wrong.
I arrived in a cold, rainy, unfamiliar and unfriendly metropolis --
New York City. No car waiting or anything special like that. Frei
said I should take a cab and just save all the receipts, they would
reimburse me. It took seemingly forever, but I arrived at the hotel
Empire (Radison). It was a dump. The hallways and rooms looked like
they hadn't been remodeled in at least a decade and to make matters
worse, there was a mouse loose in my room.
The next morning I took a cab to CBS Studios on West 57th street where
Now It Can Be Told is shot. They ran me through a little preping and
a little makeup. They wanted me to be confrontational with Don
Ingraham. This was not on my agenda. I expected we would talk about
electronic search and seizure and the dilemmas that computer crime
investigation presents to law enforcement. I was not looking for a
fight with this man, I thought he was a friend.
The studio for Geraldo is actually very tiny despite how the cameras
make it look like a large room. I met Geraldo who found it
interesting that I was a political science major in school and not
computer science. I was told that Geraldo wanted to use my scrapbook
in the show to flip to a few of the headlines in the articles...
instead he used it to sensationalize.
We had to shoot the intro segment at least eight times before there
was one they finally liked. Each time Geraldo threw a different
question at me. It was funny in a way when they would screw up and
Geraldo started cursing a little. Everything was going fine until Don
Ingraham came on camera.
Ingraham's comparison of hackers to rapists almost made me physically
ill. How can a reasonable person draw an analogy between these two
types of activity? Ok, sure, if a person's computer is accessed
without authorization, there very well might be a feeling of being
violated, of vulnerability, but the physical and emotional damage of a
rape is almost immeasurable. Although I'm not an expert on
psychology, I do know a little about the long-term psychological
damage a rape can do to a woman, the fear of ever being intimate
again, of going outside, the inability to have a relationship with a
man, the constant questions; "Is it my fault?" "Did I encourage
this?" How can a man as intelligent as Don Ingraham stoop to such
blatant disregard for a true representation of the facts? Of course,
I was not given a chance to respond to those remarks. We cut right to
a commercial and when we came back, I was busy trying to find a way to
respond to Ingraham's other uncalled for remarks.
Ingraham called me lucky to have not gotten convicted and he is right.
I am lucky that I had a brilliant attorney and a decent judge who made
the justice system work despite the efforts of a malicious
media-hungry prosecutor. However, he neglected to point out that the
government voluntarily dropped the case because there was no case. I
hadn't done anything wrong. Furthermore, it was unknown to him that
Federal District Court Judge Bua issued a court order to the Secret
Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshalls several months ago to expunge all of
my arrest records and have them destroyed. And there is a lot more to
it than the fact that BellCore published 911 documents.
As for the 911 information being public, there have been indepth
articles on 911 in magazines like CO, Teleconnect, and Telephone
Engineering & Management. Not to mention the fact that the 911
information itself was just a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. Scott
Ticer of BellSouth doesn't know what he's talking about.
Ingraham also claims that the Federal Court said that the Pentagon
Papers (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971) case
did not apply to me. This is not exactly true. The Court decided
that if someone is committing a fraud and using a publication to
commit that fraud, then that activity is not protected by the First
Amendment. At the time, the U.S. Attorney's office was alleging that
Phrack Newsletter in and of itself from day one was a fraud to begin
with. Because of that allegation (which fell completely apart at
trial), the Court could not dismiss based on the First Amendment.
The main problem here is that I was taken completely by surprise.
Frei had promised that this show was not about my case and more than
that, I thought I knew Ingraham. I never even considered the
possibility of such an attack from him. It was clear that they had
set me up for an ambush. Why was Ingraham discussing my case anyway?
The case has been over for a long time and he never had anything to do
with it. Perhaps if he did have something to do with it, he would
have known that the government did not charge me with a conspiracy,
did not prove a conspiracy, and in fact my co-defendant Robert Riggs
had testified that I had never asked him to break into any computer or
copy any document, let alone a Bell South computer or a 911 document.
No, Ingraham did not know much about my case and this ignorance was
used to my disadvantage.
I haven't complained too much about Geraldo here and basically it
isn't that Geraldo isn't deserving of a lot of criticism, but unlike
Ingraham, he didn't know any better or at least I would not have
expected him to know any better.
Before I knew what had happened, the show was over. I never had the
opportunity to raise ANY civil liberties concerns and I felt like I
had just gotten the stuffing beaten out of me on national television.
My friends told me not to feel too bad, after all I'm just a guy
barely out of college and Ingraham is a prosecutor with over a dozen
years of experience. How could I have hoped to prevail against him in
this type of confrontation, especially with Geraldo feeding on the
allegations like a blood-sucking leech. I didn't come to New York to
fight with Don Ingraham, I guess he had a different idea.
I didn't feel like hanging out in New York any longer, so I got to the
airport and a flight home as soon as possible.
Frei and the other staff at NOW did not even have the decency to send
me a copy of the show on a videotape and to this day, I have not been
reimbursed for the cab fare money that they promised me. This amounts
to about $45.00.
And that is my story...
------------------------------
Date: 27 Oct 91 7:43:01 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--Second Thoughts about the "Ingraham Massacre"
Craig Neidorf has yet to receive an apology from Bill Cook. Or Tim
Foley. Or the BellSouth crowd. They had no case, yet they nearly
ruined his life. Even though the case was dropped, prosecutors still
seem intent on prosecuting--and convicting--him in the media on the
same half-truths and fabrications.
This time, Don Ingraham owes Craig Neidorf an apology.
But, Don Ingraham, Alameda County Ass't DA, apparently feels no need
to apologize to Craig Neidorf. At least, he hasn't to date. But,
then, why should the powerful worry about such trivia, even when they
distort facts, betray trust, and act unethically in their hatchet job?
Ingraham betrayed Craig's trust that no cheap-shots would be taken; He
betrayed Craig's trust by bringing in an agenda of his own when Craig
expected a legitimate discusion; and he betrayed the public's trust by
playing fast and loose with facts.
The transcript of the Sept 30 Geraldo show makes Don Ingraham seem
less than honorable in the shameless way he exploited Craig for his
own ends.
>Geraldo: . . . .Don, do you think Craig's lucky that he's
>not behind bars right now?
>
>Don: Yes, I think he's extraordinarily lucky. He was part
>of a conspiracy, in my opinion, to take property that wasn't
>his and share it with others. They charged him with
>interstate transport of stolen property - couldn't make the
>threshold -and it came out that it had been compromised by,
>unfortunately, released by another BellCore subsidiary. But
>was certainly not through any doing of HIS that he is a free
>man.
Normally, the courts--not publicity-seeking Assistant DAs trying to
make a splash on national television--try suspects. There was no
evidence that Craig was involved in a conspiracy to "take property
that wasn't his." The evidence showed that the E911 documents in
question were stolen long before being published in PHRACK, and that
Craig had no role in their acquisition. Ingraham used his skills as
a glib rhetorician to distort reality in ways that may make good
theater, but lousy justice.
Ingraham is right about one thing: It wasn't Craig's doing that forced
the government to drop the charges. It was a six-figure attorney fee
and the volunteer help of John Nagel, Dorothy Denning, the EFF, and
others who devastated the government's case. However, it was not on
some "threshold" technicality that the case was dropped, as Ingraham
implies. The case against Craig was dropped because the government had
no case.
Craig suggested an analogy between the issues the PHRACK case raised
and Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Rather than accept the
analogy as a departure point for discussion, Prosecutor Ingraham
preferred to hurl a few sleaze-balls:
>Geraldo: Do you figure it that way Don? Is he like Daniel
>Ellsberg?
>
>Don: No, Ellsberg went to court to deal with it. Daniel
>Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers is the subject of
>a published court decision to point out it was a matter of
>national security and national interest. The E911 codes,
>which is the citizen's link to the police department are not
>a matter of national security. They're a matter of the
>central service to the community.......
>
>Geraldo: You broke into the 911 system? He broke into the
>911 system!
>
>KL: No, that's not correct. I never entered any 911
>telephone system.
>
>Don: I didn't say he entered into it. What I said was that
>he and Riggs conspired together to take a code that they
>knew was necessary to 911 and to take it apart to see how it
>worked. They never had the owner's permission, they never
>asked for it.
Ingraham first implies that Craig broke into the E911 system, then we
waffles back and claims he merely conspired to take code. He is
fabricating a role for Craig despite evidence to the contrary, he
grossly misrepresents the E911 documents in question, which were text
files rather than a "program," and he imputes to Craig motives (taking
apart the code) which are not true.
Sitting in the presumably quiet confines of his office, Ingraham
apparently judges it fully acceptable to besmirch the reputation and
feelings of a victim of malicious prosecution. Why? What would
possess a normal adult to play the bully-role on national television?
And, what would he do with hackers given the chance? Why, what
else? Toss 'em in jail--"HARD TIME!"
>Don: I don't think they're being punished very much at all.
>We're having trouble even taking away their gear. I don't
>know one of them has done hard time in a prison. The book,
>Hafner's book on _Cyberpunk_, points out that even Mitnick
>who is a real electronic Hannibal Lecter ... did not get
>near any of the punishment that what he was doing entitled
>him to.
Isn't Ingraham aware of the hackers who've been sent to prison? What
does he mean by "hard time?" Doesn't he think that the devastating
consequences of separation of family that Len Rose is experiencing is
"hard time?" Nah, better we lop of a hand for the first offense, pluck
out the eyes for a second. And, as a commentator observed last issue,
it's really a drag that due process gets in the way when Ingraham and
his brownshirts try to grab suspects' equipment. Damn! They even had
to give Steve Jackson's back. Too bad Doc Ripco and others haven't
been as lucky.
It is apparent that Ingraham is not on the show to discuss issues,
but to perform. Craig is a convenient prop for an anti-hacker
soliloquy:
>Don: If they stopped at voyeurism they would be basically
>sociopathic, but not doing near the harm they do now. But
>they don't stop at looking, that's the point. They take
>things out and share them with others, and they are not
>being accountable and being responsible as to whom they are
>sharing this information. That is the risk.
(. . .)
>Don: What do I think of Craig? I have a lot of respect for
>Craig, I think he's probably going to be an outstanding
>lawyer someday. But he is contributing to a disease, and a
>lack of understanding ethically, that is causing a lot of
>trouble.
Craig Neidorf, for better or worse, believed he was walking into a
discussion of issues. Don Ingraham had a somewhat different agenda,
and used his experience to promote it, and allowed "truth" to fall
where it may.
Don Ingraham may be an adept prosecutor, he may feed the pigeons, and
some claim that, on occasion, he even displays concern for civil
liberties. But, Don Ingraham's comments do not reflect his own
accountability to truth, and he seemed to make up facts to fit his
claims. Actually, it is *he* who "is contributing to a disease, and a lack
of understanding ethically, that is causing a lot of trouble."
Ingraham did a number on Craig that served no purpose. Unfortunately,
Ingraham may be one of those who fails to recognize that brutality
comes in many forms, and his own sanctimonious bullying of a
near-defenseless youth is inexcusable. If Geraldo had been thinking
more quickly, he might have toyed with Ingraham's hyperbolic analogy
to rape by alluding to a few other examples of older men who've done
hatchet jobs on young males. Like John Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. They,
too, felt no need to apologize to their victims.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Oct 91 22:15:15 EDT
From: Krista Bradford <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Response to CuD #3.37's "Mad Hacker" Issue
I briefly will address a few points discussed by critics of the show,
and then will address what may ultimately be more helpful and
productive.
<In response to the moderators criticism of>:
>"Skillfully juxtaposed film images of terrorism and military
>violence with discussions and images of hackers".
The first story was dedicated to the hackers in Amsterdam making their
way into a US army computer. We aired video of the hackers which
Emmanuel Goldstein was so kind to provide, and attempted to explain in
layman's terms exactly how they made their way in. I felt that was
necessarily to lay to rest any misconceptions about what it is that
hackers do. In addition, one of the documents found in the Army
computer related to the war with Iraq, and so we used footage from the
war.
I then intentionally separated the first story from the second with a
commercial break...so their would be no confusing hackers with
terrorists. The second piece related to computer terrorism. In it we
showed footage of Die Hard 2, which was viewed at a congressional
hearing as an example of how vulnerable we are, and how what happened
in that movie could happen in real life.
In both pieces I attempted to show a balance of viewpoints.
I strenuously objected to the use of the term Mad Hacker, and to the
title "Mad Hackers' Key Party" - which I found out about after the
stories aired. (They weren't mad, but are now - and it wasn't a
"party" but rather a breech of security.) I'm afraid that was not of
my doing, but rather of one of our show's producers. I find the term
objectionable and offensive and insulting. I do not believe in name
calling, yet that is what occurred, and for that I offer my apologies
to Emmanuel Goldstein and to anyone else who took offense. You can be
assured that I have addressed the issue internally.
As for the comment that we put at least one military computer at risk.
We didn't. The military has known of its bug for years, but hasn't
fixed it. In addition, we volunteered to show the videotape to the
Army for further explanation and protection, but it didn't take us up
on the offer. It was well aware of the problem, you can be sure by
the number of calls we made to attempt to get an interview. Also, I
checked and was told that that particular army computer no longer
resides at that address. I realized I might be criticized for
actually showing how to hack. We did not show each and every step, but
we wanted to show just how easy it was. And I think it was valuable
to demystify hacking.
As for the alleged hatchet job on Craig - I believe it was less of
Geraldo's doing and more of an imbalance between a prosecutor
well-versed in expressing himself, and someone who was not as capable.
That is what happens when interviews are taped as live - one cannot
insert a balance (a little less of the prosecutor, a little more of
Craig).
While you can criticize Geraldo for his heavy-handedness and
sensational style - some credit is due him for giving me the freedom
to pursue this story, the funding to produce the pieces and the
extraordinary amount of airtime. We spent several months researching
and taping the stories. Also, while it is may be hard to imagine -
there are many shows that would shy away from such a topic because it
was "technical" or "boring" or because the shows didn't understand or
don't want to understand computers. The latter still tends to be the
norm. While most newsrooms are computerized - most reporters have not
turned to computer assisted journalism. But this is a growing area of
interest. You can easily tap into computer-literate journalists
through the Center for Computer-Assisted Reporting at the University
of Missouri Columbia (Professor Elliot Jaspin-reachable on CIS) and
the National Institute for Advanced Reporting at the University of
Indiana (Scott Abel).
How can the media be made more aware of the nuances of the topics? By
using computers themselves. Sign your favorite reporter up to
Compuserve, and then leave them flattering E-mail. Invite them to
call a local BBS. Have sources leave them tips for stories on the
BBS, instead of calling. Having running threads giving them feedback
on their stories. A reporter really won't understand the nuances
unless he gives virtual space a try...sort of like the difference
between being a passenger and being in the driver's seat.
As for media distortions. They are inevitable. I guess I would go for
quantity as well as quality - establish relationships with reporters
who will become more educated about hackers/computer issues the more
stories they do. Realize the media does uses headlines to capture the
rather short attention spans of viewers and readers, so a headline may
distort, but the story which follows may clarify.
As for an informed public dialog emerging...I believe that Operation
Sun Devil is old news. What I care about is what is happening today
and tomorrow to hackers and their civil rights, to their computer
equipment. What is happening to computer security? Just how safe are
we? Find the most compelling examples of your point of view (i.e- a
teenage hacker who just had all of his computer equipment, clock radio
and VCR seized with no charges filed.) Let me know. Let other
reporters know. Let us meet new people, new sources to report on the
evolving history of this issue. We can discuss the ethics within the
context of each additional story. And as the stories are told,
perhaps legislators will hear and think and be more inclined to draft
more constructive legislation.
And one special note of interest...I am looking for government
databases I can obtain by asking or by using the Freedom of
Information Act. I then crunch the databases myself and determine
whether said Department is enforcing its own laws or regulations...and
whether it is misrepresenting its data, cooking the books. If anyone
knows of any gov't databases out there that would be worthy of
consideration - drop me a line via E-Mail. In addition, story
suggestions and tips are always welcome.
Cordially, Krista Bradford, Senior Reporter, Now It Can Be Told, CIS
76436,3200 or call (212) 373-6200.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 91 17:58:45 CDT
From: [email protected](Duane)
Subject: File 6--Release of Informatik #1
I would like to announce the release of the first issue of 'Informatik'.
Informatik #1 is available by anonymous ftp at uunet.uu.net under:
tmp/inform1.Z
tmp/inform1.txt
Below is an excerpt from the issue's header:
** Introduction **
By the Informatik staff
Welcome to the inaugural issue of Informatik, an electronic
periodical devoted to the distribution of information not readily
available to the public, with a particular emphasis on technology and
the computing world. First and foremost, this publication is
dedicated to the freedom of information. This journal is made
possible by The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
redress of grievances.
In this and coming issues, we plan to exercise our First Amendment
rights to the best of our ability. We will print feature articles on
hacking, phreaking, and various other illicit activities. We also
plan on bringing you recent news and gossip from the underground,
anything news of interest to hackers, phreakers, grifters,
cyber-punks, and the like. Informatik will also provide a plethora of
information on the inner workings of corporate America and the U.S.
Government.
DO distribute this freely! Remember this is not illegal, this is
information.
*Please send submissions and comments to duane@shake.tamu.edu. (for
now)*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 91 18:50 CDT
From: ulowell!nuchat.sccsi.com!samp%[email protected]
Subject: File 7--Second Annual XMASCON
NIA & Phrack Magazine, & dFx International Digest Are Proud To Present:
The Second Annual
X M A S C O N
Who: All Hackers, Journalists, Security Personnel, Federal Agents, Lawyers,
Authors and Other Interested Parties.
Where: Houston Airport Hilton Inn
500 North Belt East
Houston, Texas 77060
U.S.A.
Tel: (713) 931-0101
Fax: (713) 931-3523
When: Friday December 27 through Sunday December 29, 1991
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read it right... Xmascon has returned!
This will undoubtedly be the telecom event of the year. Unlike certain
conferences in the past, Xmascon 91 has a devoted and dedicated staff
who are putting in an unmentionable amount of time to ensure a large,
vast and organized collection of some of the most diversified people
in the telecommunications world. The event will be open to the public
so that anyone may attend and learn more about the different aspects
of computer security.
Hotel Information
-----------------
The Houston Airport Hilton Inn is located about 6 miles from
Intercontinental Airport. The Xmascon group room rates are $49.00 plus
tax (15%) per night, your choice of either single or double. There are
also 7 suites available, the prices of which vary from $140 to $250.
You can call the hotel to find out the differences and availability of
the suites, and you will also NEED to tell them you are with the
Xmascon Conference to receive the reduced room rate, otherwise, you
will be paying $69.00. There is no charge for children, regardless of
age, when they occupy the same room as their parents. Specially
designed rooms for the handicapped are available. The hotel provides
free transportation to and from the airport, as well as neighbouring
Greenspoint Mall, every 30 minutes on the hour, and on call, if
needed. There are 2 restaurants in the hotel. The Wicker Works is open
until 11:00 pm, and The Forty Love is open 24 Hours. There will also
be breakfast, lunch and dinner buffets each day. There is a piano bar,
The Cycle Club, as well as a sports bar, Chaps, which features
numerous table games, large screen tv, and a disco with a DJ. Within
the hotel compound, there are 3 pools, 2 of which are indoors, a
jacuzzi, a miniature golf course, and a fully equipped health club
which features universal weights, a whirlpool and sauna. A car rental
agency is located in the hotel lobby, and you can arrange to pick your
car up at either the airport or the hotel. Xmascon attendees are
entitled to a discounted rate. Contact the hotel for more information.
Xmascon will last 3 days, with the main conference being held on
Saturday, December 28, in the Osage meeting room, starting at 12:00
p.m. and continuing on throughout the evening. This year, we have our
own complete wing of the hotel, which is housed around a 3,000 square
foot atrium ballroom. The wing is completely separated from the rest
of the hotel, so we are strongly encouraging people to make their
reservations as far in advance as possible to ensure themselves a room
within our area.
We are hoping to have a number of people speak on a varied assortment
of topics. If you would like to speak, please contact us as soon as
possible and let us know who you are, who you represent (if anyone),
the topic you wish to speak on, a rough estimate of how long you will
need, and whether or not you will be needing any audio-visual aids.
There will be a display case inside the meeting room which will hold
items of telecom interest. Specific items that will be available, or
that we hope to have, include the first issues of 2600, Tap, Mondo
2000, and other magazines, non-computer related magazines that feature
articles of interest, a wide array of boxes, the Quaker Oats 2600 mhz
whistle, The Metal AE, etc. We will also have a VCR and monitor set
up, so if you have any interesting videos (such as the Unsolved
Mysteries show featuring Kevin Poulsen), or if you have anything you
think people would enjoy having the chance to see, please let us know
ahead of time, and tell us if you will need any help getting it to the
conference. If all else fails, just bring it to the con and give it to
us when you arrive.
Media support has been very strong so far. Publications that have
agreed to print pre-conference announcements and stories include
Computer World, Info World, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle,
Austin Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, Independent Journal, Mondo 2000,
CuD, Informatik, a leading Japanese computer magazine, NME,
Regeneration (Germany), and a few other European based magazines. PBS
stations WHNY, WNET, and KQED, as well as the stations that carry
their syndicated shows, will be mentioning the conference also. If you
are a journalist and would like to do a story on Xmascon 91, or know
someone who would, contact us with any questions you may have, or feel
free to use and reprint any information in this file.
If anyone requires any additional information, needs to ask any
questions, wants to RSVP, or would like to be added to the mailing
list to receive the Xmascon updates, you may write to either myself
(Drunkfux), Judge Dredd, or Lord Macduff via Internet at:
[email protected]
Or via US Mail at:
Hard Data Corporation
ATTN: HoHo
P.O. Box 60695
Houston, Texas
77205-9998
U.S.A.
We will hopefully have an 800 mailbox before the next update is sent
out. If someone cares to donate a decent one, that will stay up
throughout the end of the year, please let us know. We should also be
listing a few systems as an alternative form of reaching us.
Xmascon 91 will be a priceless learning experience for professionals,
and gives journalists a chance to gather information and ideas direct
>from the source. It is also one of the very few times when all the
members of the computer underground can come together for a realistic
purpose. We urge people not to miss out on an event of this caliber,
which doesn't happen very often. If you've ever wanted to meet some of
the most famous people from the hacking community, this may be your
one and only chance. Don't wait to read about it in all the magazines,
and then wish you had attended, make your plans to be there now! Be a
part of our largest and greatest conference ever.
Remember, to make your reservations, call (713) 931-0101 and tell them
you're with Xmascon.
In closing... if you miss this one, you're only cheating yourself.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #3.38
************************************
|
|
