Play and Learn 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Play and Learn 2 / 19941.ZIP / 19941 / PUBE / CUD205.TXT < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-05 | 36.3 KB | 777 lines

**************************************************************************** >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** ********************************************************************