💾 Archived View for aphrack.org › issues › phrack42 › 14.gmi captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
==Phrack Magazine==
Volume Four, Issue Forty-Two, File 14 of 14
PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN
PWN PWN
PWN Phrack World News PWN
PWN PWN
PWN Compiled by Datastream Cowboy PWN
PWN PWN
PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN PWN
STEVE JACKSON GAMES v. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
Rights To Be Tested In Computer Trial January 20, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Joe Abernathy (The Houston Chronicle)(Page A13)
*Reprinted With Permission*
Summary Judgment Denied In Case
AUSTIN -- A judge Tuesday denied plaintiff lawyers' request for summary
judgment in a case brought against the U.S. Secret Service to set the bounds of
constitutional protections for electronic publishing and electronic mail.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks acted after hearing complicated arguments
regarding application of 1st and 4th Amendment principles in computer-based
communications and publishing. The case will go to trial at 9 a.m. today.
"Uncontested facts show the government violated the Privacy Protection Act and
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act," said Pete Kennedy, attorney for
Steve Jackson Games, an Austin game company that brought the lawsuit.
Mark W. Batten, attorney for the Department of Justice, which is defending the
Secret Service, declined to comment on the proceedings.
Steve Jackson's company, which publishes fantasy role-playing games -- not
computer games -- was raided by the Secret Service on March 1, 1990, during a
nationwide sweep of suspected criminal computer hackers.
Agents seized several computers and related hardware from the company and from
the Austin home of Steve Jackson employee Loyd Blankenship. Taken from the
game publisher was an electronic bulletin board used to play-test games before
they were printed and exchange electronic mail with customers and free-lance
writers.
Another seized computer contained the text of the company's work in progress,
GURPS Cyberpunk, which was being prepared for the printers.
Blankenship's purported membership in the Legion of Doom -- a group of computer
hackers from Austin, Houston and New York -- led the Secret Service to Steve
Jackson's door.
Neither Jackson nor his company was suspected of wrongdoing.
The game publisher is named in two paragraphs of the 42-paragraph affidavit
requesting the 1990 search warrant, which targeted Blankenship -- a fact
Kennedy cited in seeking summary judgment.
Kennedy presented evidence that the original Secret Service affidavit for the
warrant used to raid Steve Jackson Games contained false statements.
Supporting documentation showed that Bellcore expert Henry Kluepfel disputes
statements attributed to him that accounted for the only link between Steve
Jackson Games and the suspicion Blankenship was engaged in illegal activity.
Batten came away visibly shaken from questioning by Sparks, and later had a
tense exchange with Kennedy outside the courtroom.
The lawsuit contends the government violated 1st Amendment principles by
denying the free speech and public assembly of callers to Jackson's bulletin
board system, Illuminati. This portion of the complaint was brought under the
Privacy Protection Act, which also covers the seized Cyberpunk manuscripts --
if the judge rules that such a book, stored electronically prior to
publication, is entitled to the same protections as a printed work.
The government lawyers argued the Privacy Protection Act applies only to
journalistic organizations -- an argument Sparks didn't seem to buy.
The lawsuit also contends 4th Amendment principles providing against
unreasonable search and seizure were violated, on grounds the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act specifies protection for publishers.
The Justice Department contends electronic mail does not enjoy constitutional
protections.
"They (users of Illuminati) had no expectation of privacy in their electronic
mail messages," Batten said. The basis of the argument is that Illuminati's
callers were not sending communications to others, but rather "revealing" them
to a third party, Steve Jackson, thus negating their expectation of privacy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Computer Case Opens; Agent Admits Errors January 27, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Joe Abernathy (The Houston Chronicle)(Page A11)
*Reprinted With Permission*
AUSTIN -- Plaintiff's attorneys wrested two embarrassing admissions from the
U.S. Secret Service on the opening day of a federal civil lawsuit designed to
establish constitutional protections for electronic publishing and electronic
mail.
Special Agent Timothy Folly of Chicago admitted that crucial statements were
erroneous in an affidavit he used to obtain warrants in a 1990 crackdown on
computer crime.
Foley also conceded that the Secret Service's special training for computer
crime investigators overlooks any mention of a law that limits search-and-
seizure at publishing operations.
The case before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks was brought by Steve Jackson
Games, an Austin game publisher, with the support of electronic civil rights
activists who contend that federal agents have overstepped constitutional
bounds in their investigations of computer crime.
Jackson supporters already have committed more than $200,000 to the litigation,
which seeks $2 million in damages from the Secret Service and other defendants
in connection with a March 1990 raid on Jackson Games.
Plaintiffs hope to establish that First Amendment protections of the printed
word extend to electronic information and to guarantee privacy protections for
users of computer bulletin board systems, such as one called Illuminati that
was taken in the raid.
Steve Jackson's attorney, Jim George of Austin, focused on those issues in
questioning Foley about the seizure of the personal computer on which
Illuminati ran and another PC which contained the manuscript of a pending
Jackson Games book release, "GURPS Cyberpunk."
"At the Secret Service computer crime school, were you, as the agent in charge
of this investigation, made aware of special rules for searching a publishing
company?" George asked Foley. He was referring to the Privacy Protection Act,
which states that police may not seize a work in progress from a publisher. It
does not specify what physical form such a work must take.
Foley responded that the Secret Service does not teach its agents about those
rules.
Earlier, Foley admitted that his affidavit seeking court approval to raid
Jackson Games contained an error.
During the raid -- one of several dozen staged that day around the country in
an investigation called Operation Sun Devil -- agents were seeking copies of a
document hackers had taken from the computer system of BellSouth.
No criminal charges have been filed against Jackson, his company, or others
targeted in several Austin raids. The alleged membership of Jackson employee
Loyd Blankenship in the Legion of Doom hacker's group -- which was believed
responsible for the BellSouth break-in -- lead agents to raid Jackson Games at
the same time that Blankenship's Austin home was raided.
Foley's affidavit stated that Bell investigator Henry Kluepfel had logged on to
the Illuminati bulletin board and found possible evidence of a link between
Jackson Games and the Legion of Doom.
But George produced a statement from Kluepfel, who works for Bellcore, formerly
AT&T Bell Labs, disputing statements attributed to him in the affidavit. Foley
acknowledged that part of the affidavit was erroneous.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the Secret Service, contends
that only traditional journalistic organizations enjoy the protections of the
Privacy Protection Act and that users of electronic mail have no reasonable
expectation of privacy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Judge Rebukes Secret Service For Austin Raid January 29, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Joe Abernathy (The Houston Chronicle)(Page A21)
*Reprinted With Permission*
AUSTIN -- A federal judge lambasted the U.S. Secret Service Thursday for
failing to investigate properly before it seized equipment from three Austin
locations in a 1990 crackdown on computer crime.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks' comments came on the final day of trial in a
lawsuit brought by Steve Jackson Games, an Austin publisher, with the support
of national computer rights activists.
The judge did not say when he will issue a formal ruling in the case. In
addition to seeking $ 2 million in damages from the Secret Service and other
defendants, Jackson hopes to establish privacy and freedom of the press
protections for electronic information.
In a packed courtroom Thursday morning, Sparks dressed down Secret Service
Special Agent Timothy Foley of Chicago, who was in charge of the March 1, 1990,
raid on Jackson, one of his employees and a third Austin man. No criminal
charges have been filed in connection with the raids.
"The Secret Service didn't do a good job in this case," Sparks said. "We know
no investigation took place. Nobody ever gave any concern as to whether
(legal) statutes were involved. We know there was damage (to Jackson)."
The Secret Service has seized dozens of computers since the nationwide
crackdown began in 1990, but Jackson, a science fiction magazine and game book
publisher, is the first to challenge the practice. A computer seized at
Jackson Games contained the manuscript for a pending book, and Jackson alleges,
among other things, that the seizure violated the Privacy Protection Act, which
prohibits seizure of publishers' works in progress.
Agents testified that they were not trained in that law at the special Secret
Service school on computer crime.
Sparks grew visibly angry when testimony showed that Jackson never was
suspected of a crime, that agents did no research to establish a criminal
connection between the firm and the suspected illegal activities of an
employee, and that they did not determine that the company was a publisher.
"How long would it have taken you, Mr. Foley, to find out what Steve Jackson
Games did, what it was? " asked Sparks. "An hour?
"Was there any reason why, on March 2, you could not return to Steve Jackson
Games a copy, in floppy disk form, of everything taken?
"Did you read the article in Business Week magazine where it had a picture of
Steve Jackson -- a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen -- saying he was a computer
crime suspect?
"Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Foley, that seizing this material could harm
Steve Jackson economically? "
Foley replied, "No, sir," but the judge offered his own answer:
"You actually did; you just had no idea anybody would actually go out and hire
a lawyer and sue you."
The judge's rebuke apparently convinced the government to close its defense
after the testimony from Foley, only one of several government witnesses on
hand. Justice Department attorney Mark Battan entered subdued testimony
seeking to limit the award of monetary damages.
The judge's comments came after cross-examination of Foley by Pete Kennedy,
Jackson's attorney.
Sparks questioned Foley about the raid, focusing on holes in the search
warrant, why Jackson was not allowed to copy his work in progress after it was
seized, and why his computers were not returned after the Secret Service
analyzed them.
"The examination took seven days, but you didn't give Steve Jackson's computers
back for three months. Why?" asked Sparks.
"So here you are, with three computers, 300 floppy disks, an owner who was
asking for it back, his attorney calling you, and what I want to know is why
copies of everything couldn't be given back in days. Not months. Days.
"That's what makes you mad about this case."
Besides alleging that the seizure violated the Privacy Protection Act, Jackson
alleged that since one of the computers was being used to run a bulletin board
system containing private electronic mail, the seizure violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.
Justice Department attorneys have refused comment on the case, but contended in
court papers that Jackson Games is a manufacturer, and that only journalistic
organizations can call upon the Privacy Protection Act.
The government said that seizure of an electronic bulletin board system does
not constitute interception of electronic mail.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation committed more than $200,000 to the Jackson
suit. The EFF was founded by Mitchell Kapor of Lotus Technology amid a
computer civil liberties movement sparked in large part by the Secret Service
computer crime crackdown that included the Austin raids.
"The dressing down of the Secret Service for their behavior is a major
vindication of what we've been saying all along, which is that there were
outrageous actions taken against Steve Jackson that hurt his business and sent
a chilling effect to everyone using bulletin boards, and that there were larger
principles at stake," said Kapor, contacted at his Cambridge, Massachusetts
office.
Shari Steele, who attended the trial as counsel for the EFF, said, "We're very
happy with the way the case came out. That session with the judge and Tim
Foley is what a lawyer dreams about."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Going Undercover In The Computer Underworld January 26, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Ralph Blumenthal (The New York Times)(Page B1)
[A 36-year old law enforcement officer from the East Coast masquerades
as "Phrakr Trakr" throughout the nation's computer bulletin boards.
As the organizer of the High-Tech Crime Network, he has educated other
officers in over 28 states in the use of computer communications.
Their goal is to penetrate some 3000 underground bbses where computer
criminals trade in stolen information, child pornography and bomb
making instructions.
"I want to make more cops aware of high-tech crime," he said. "The
victims are everybody. We all end up paying for it."]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hackers Breaking Into UC Computers January 23, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by T. Christian Miller (The San Francisco Chronicle)(Page A20)
[According to the University of California, hackers have been breaking
into the DOD and NASA through UC computer systems. The investigation
links over 100 computer hackers who have reportedly penetrated
computers at UC Davis, UC Berkeley, NYU, FSU, and CSU. The FBI stated
that the investigation reached as far as Finland and Czechoslovakia
but did not comment on any arrests.
University officials have asked all users to change to more complex
passwords by April 1.]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Feds Sued Over Hacker Raid At Mall February 5, 1993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Joe Abernathy (The Houston Chronicle)(Page A5)
[A lawsuit was filed 2-4-93 in the Washington, D.C. federal court to
force the secret service to disclose its involvement in the disruption
of a meeting of computer hackers last year. The meeting, a monthly
gathering of readers of "2600 Magazine" at the Pentagon City Mall was
disrupted on November 6, 1992, when mall security and Arlington County
Police questioned and searched the attendees.
The suit was filed by the Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility. "If this was a Secret Service operation, it raises
serious constitutional questions," said Marc Rotenberg, director of
CPSR.
The Secret Service declined to comment on the matter.]
----------
[New Info in 2600 Case - from email sent by CPSR]
One month after being sued under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), the Secret Service has officially acknowledged that
it possesses "information relating to the breakup of a meeting
of individuals at the Pentagon City Mall in Arlington, Virginia."
The admission, contained in a letter to Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility (CPSR), confirms widespread suspicions that
the agency played a role in the detention and search of
individuals affiliated with "2600" Magazine at the suburban
Washington mall on November 6, 1992.
CPSR filed suit against the Secret Service on February 4
after the agency failed to respond to the organization's FOIA
request within the statutory time limit. In its recent response,
the Secret Service released copies of three news clippings
concerning the Pentagon City incident but withheld other
information "because the documents in the requested file contain
information compiled for law enforcement purposes." While the
agency asserts that it possesses no "documentation created by the
Secret Service chronicling, reporting, or describing the breakup
of the meeting," it does admit to possessing "information provided
to the Secret Service by a confidential source which is
information relating to the breakup of [the] meeting." Federal
agencies classify other law enforcement agencies and corporate
entities, as well as individuals, as "confidential sources."
The propriety of the Secret Service's decision to withhold
the material will be determined in CPSR's pending federal lawsuit.
A copy of the agency's letter is reprinted below.
David L. Sobel dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org
Legal Counsel (202) 544-9240 (voice)
CPSR Washington Office (202) 547-5481 (fax)