💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0862.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 11:02:48.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 25, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 62
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.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, #8.62 (Sun, Aug 25, 1996)
File 1--School Hires Student to Hack into Computers
File 2--U.S. Army computer specialist faces spying charges
File 3--Klemesrud settles Scientology copyright lawsuit for $50,000
File 4--Warning from Family Circle Magazine (fwd)
File 5--Anon.penet forced to reveal names
File 6--ACLU Responds to Princeton "Clarification" of Internet Censorship
File 7--London police provide list of Usenet newsgroups to ban
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:17:12 -0500
From: Frosty <sotmesc@DATASYNC.COM>
Subject: File 1--School Hires Student to Hack into Computers
C Y B E R - S P A C E P R O J E C T Email List / Instructions at the end
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL HIRES STUDENT TO HACK INTO COMPUTERS
The Sun Herald
22 August 1996
Palisades Park, NJ - When in trouble, call an expert.
Students at Palisades Park's high school needed their
transcripts to send off to colleges. But they were in the computer
and no one who knew the password could be reached. So the school
hired a 16-year-old hacker to break in.
"They found this student who apparently was a whiz, and,
apparently, was able to go in and unlock the password," School Board
attorney Joseph R. Mariniello said.
Superintendent George Fasciano was forced to explain to the
School Board on Monday the $875 bill for the services of Matthew
Fielder.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:35:53 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 2--U.S. Army computer specialist faces spying charges
Whether or not the espionage charges are true, my first take is this
reinforces the claim that we can't trust the government with our most
intimate secrets. If it's even possible that a 20-year old kid might have
"broken into a supposedly impenetrable" military system, any key-escrow
infrastructure the Feds set up will be similarly vulnerable.
-Declan
Date-- Thu, 22 Aug 1996 13--11--28 -0400
From-- "Thomas C. Allard" <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
source-- http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/960821/news/stories/spy_1.html
U.S. Army Private Faces Spying Charges
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The U.S. Army said Wednesday it had charged a
20-year-old computer specialist with espionage and computer crimes in a
case that the soldier's parents said involved a Chinese national.
Pfc. Eric Jenott of the 50th Signal Battalion at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, was formally charged June 28 and is in a Marine Corps jail in
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, awaiting court-martial, the army said.
"The case involves classified information and matters pertaining to
national security," a three-paragraph statement from Fort Bragg, home
of the Army's 18th Airborne Corps, said. It said many of the case's
details were too sensitive to disclose.
Jenott has been charged with giving "secret computer passwords relating
to the national defense" to a Mr. Lee, "a citizen of a foreign
nation," his lawyer said, reading from the charge sheet. He also faces
charges of destruction of government property and larceny.
The charge sheet alleged Jenott disclosed the passwords between April
and June "with the intent or reason to believe it would be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation."
It said the passwords "directly concerned communications
intelligence," among the most closely guarded U.S. secrets.
Jenott is facing a general court-martial, the most serious kind, and
a possible life sentence if convicted, his lawyer, Timothy Dunn, of
Fayetteville, North Carolina, said in a telephone interview.
He said his client was "not a criminal" but had broken into a
supposedly impenetrable system after advising his superiors of defects
in the security system. Dunn declined to discuss the system because
of what he called the case's sensitive nature and national security
implications.
John Jenott said his son, a fluent Chinese speaker whom he described as
a "computer genius" with a longstanding interest in China, had given a
young Chinese friend what the son described as an unclassified computer
code.
He said his son knew the person to whom he gave the code from one
of several trips he had made to China. His son, "not your average
kid-out-on-a-skateboard-type guy," could read and write Chinese and
lived with a Chinese family in Vancouver, Canada, for about a year when
he was in high school, the father added.
He said his son told him that before giving away the code, he had
been trying to show his superiors a security flaw in a sensitive
communication system and eventually demonstrated he could get secret
data without authorization.
"He was trying to say we have a weakness," John Jenott said in a
telephone interview from his home in Graham, Washington. "This stuff
about being a spy -- it's ridiculous." His stepmother, Kelly Jenott,
said, "They're blowing this way out of proportion."
His father said an Army major at Fort Bragg, whom he declined to name,
had urged him to persuade his son to sign a confession, so prosecutors
would not seek the death penalty.
Jenott said his son had told him, "Dad, I'd rather die than sign
that."
"He said it's not true. He said, 'I'm not a spy. I didn't commit
espionage. And I'm not going to sign something that says I did,"'
Jenott said.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:31:29 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 3--Klemesrud settles Scientology copyright lawsuit for $50,000
Newsgroups--alt.religion.scientology
From--tom.klemesrud@support.com
Date--Thu, 22 Aug 96 11:56:16 -0700
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
8/22/96 -- The holders of copyrights to material authored by
L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the controversial Church of Scientology,
have agreed to dismiss the operator of a Los Angeles-based computer
bulletin board service as a defendant from a lawsuit alleging
copyright infringement over the internet.
Early last year, Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge
Publications sued Tom Klemesrud, the operator of the service, along
with his subscriber, Dennis Erlich, and Netcom On-Line
Communication Services, Klemesrud's internet service provider.
Netcom settled out earlier this month. The lawsuit, which
continues to proceed against Erlich, an ex-Scientologist, alleges
that Erlich infringed copyrights by posting material written by
Hubbard to a Usenet newsgroup known as "alt.religion.scientology."
The internet newsgroup has become widely known for its impassioned
postings by both proponents and critics of Scientology.
In a novel claim that would have tested the limits of
liability in cyberspace, the plaintiffs had contended that
Klemesrud and Netcom should be held legally responsible for the
alleged acts of Erlich because he used their computer services to
make his postings to the internet.
Federal District Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled in November 1995
that Klemesrud could not be found liable for direct infringement,
and could only be found liable for contributory copyright
infringe-ment if there was knowledge of a BBS user's infringement.
"This is the most important thing we have achieved in this
litigation. It has positive ramifications for all of the
Internet," Klemesrud said.
The plaintiffs claimed significant economic damage resulting
from the postings. They alleged that those who might otherwise
have purchased Scientology materials and services were able to
obtain them for free once Erlich posted them to the internet.
The claims against Klemesrud were settled for $50,000, an
amount that is to be paid by Klemesrud's insurance carrier.
Important to Klemesrud, himself a critic of the Church of
Scientology, is the fact that the terms of the settlement include
no admission of liability on his part.
"Settling this case was a business decision by my insurance
company," Klemesrud said. "I would have liked to stay in there and
participate in total exoneration, but I understand it would have
been a lot more expensive to take this case all the way through
trial rather than to pay this token amount now, and be happy with
the positive results we've achieved."
##
For further information call Tom Klemesrud at (818) 985-1750.
------------------------------
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG
Subject: File 4--Warning from Family Circle Magazine (fwd)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
++++++++++++++
Date--Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:58:02 -0400
To--Dave Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu
From--Timothy Barmann <tim@cybertalk.com
Subject--Warning from Family Circle Magazine
Dave,
Got this amusing/disturbing press release from
Family Circle Magazine, apparently to promote an upcoming
article. It reads:
CERTAIN COMPUTER FILE LETTERS
INDICATE PORNOGRAPHY: POLICE CHIEF
New York -- Parents can safeguard their children against
pornography on the internet by watching for files stored
on a computer's hard drive or diskettes that end in the
letters -PCX, -GIF, -GL, TIF, or -JPG, according to the
current (September 17) issue of Family Circle.
"Those are the graphic image files that may be pornographic,
and parents should know what they illustrate," says Police
Chief Alfred Olsen, who monitors online predators in
Pennsylvania.
(End press release).
I'm surprise that TXT was left out, which of course is the
format used to distribute sexually explicit words as
well.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:08:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Shinn <mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Anon.penet forced to reveal names
Don't know if you guys saw this already, but I just read it in a
newsgroup.
Today (August 22nd 1996), the city court in Helsinki ordered
Julf Helsingius to reveal the identity of the anonymous poster
who posted scientology scriptures to a.r.s in March.
In its decision, the court says that anonymous server logs
are not protected by any legislation. Therefore, the information
needed in the police investigation must be provided to the police.
The court also recognized the church's right to control the
publication of the posted documents. Furthermore, the court says
that the anonymous poster, not anyone else, is legally responsible
for the postings.
Julf Helsingius has 30 days to reveal the name. The decision
cannot be appealed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Today on 22nd of August the local court of first instance in
Helsinki decided that Johan Helsingius has to reveal the email
adress asked for by the Police Department of Helsinki. This has to
be done within 30 days when summoned for interrogation.
Since this is merely a part of a case, this decision can't be
appealed. If Helsingius still refuses to reveal the info he will be
repeatedly fined and ultimately jailed for up to six months. The
decisions about fines and jail can be appealed, but an appeal won't
stay the execution of the ordered fine/jail, only a judgement of the
appeals court will. The questions about different appeals in this
case are somewhat complex and regarding the possibility to appeal it
was a split decision (4-1).
The court ruled against Helsingius in this matter. During the
hearing Helsingius argued against this view in many ways: he
objected on constitutional grounds and on grounds relating to
statutes regarding criminal investigation.
This information is based mainly on message <4vi0tt$geq@idefix.eunet.fi>
in the local Finnish newsgroup sfnet.keskustelu.laki, by Kaj Malmberg,
the police officer in charge of the investigation of the matter where
Scientology scriptures were posted through anon.penet.fi.
More reports from this case will probably follow soon.
[posted & mailed to a few individuals]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:45:09 GMT
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, roundtable@cni.org
Subject: File 6--ACLU Responds to Princeton "Clarification" of Internet Censorship
Policy
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
National Legal Department
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Responds to Princeton "Clarification" of Internet Censorship Policy:
End It, Don't Mend It
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, August 23, 1996
Contact: Ann Beeson, ACLU National, 212-944-9800, x788
David Rocah, ACLU of New Jersey, 201-642-2086
NEW YORK--The American Civil Liberties Union today criticized Princeton
University's "clarification" of its policy barring faculty, students and
staff from using the schools' computer network for "political purposes,"
calling on the university to rescind the ban.
The clarification memo was issued after the ACLU contacted Princeton in
an August 15 letter, urging university officials to end its policy.
According to the Princeton clarification, the policy was meant to prevent
students and staff from "personal use" of the network specifically for
"campaign activities."
In a follow-up letter sent today to Princeton officials, the ACLU said
the university's response "still falls short of constitutional
requirements," and would only serve to confuse the issue further." The
letter was signed by Ann Beeson, ACLU national staff attorney and David
Rocah, staff attorney for the
ACLU of New Jersey.
"The clarification is as clear as mud," said David Rocah. "In fact, the
only thing that's clear about Princeton's policy is that it is still
unconstitutional." Rocah said the policy violates free speech protections
in the New Jersey state constitution.
In its memo, issued late yesterday, Princeton conceded that the policy
was "overly broad," and stated that "students, faculty and staff are
generally free to communicate their personal views on political candidates
using e-mail and the Internet." But officials once again cited the
university's not-for-profit status as a rationale for limiting speech,
warning that "the IRS may deem personal use of University resources for
campaign activities, including use of the Internet, to be political
campaign activity by the University itself."
That interpretation is still wrong, the ACLU countered. "As we pointed
out in our initial letter, Internal Revenue Service rulings make clear that
only campaigning by Princeton officials on behalf of the university could
affect its tax-exempt status," said national staff attorney Ann Beeson.
"Just as students have traditionally distributed political campaign
material on the university commons, they have the right to send it through
the Internet," Beeson added. "In fact, campaign literature is arguably the
most fundamental type of speech in our democratic system of government.
There is nothing more important than choosing our political leaders and
knowing what they stand for."
The letter urged Princeton to resolve the issue quickly as the
presidential election approaches, and requested a meeting with Princeton
officials to discuss the matter further. If the university refuses to drop
its censorship policy, the ACLU said it would consider legal action.
Note to Editors: The ACLU's August 23 letter to Princeton follows. Please
contact our national press office at (212) 944-9800, ext. 414, for copies
of the ACLU's original August 15 letter and copies of the Princeton policy
memos. To access this information online, visit the ACLU's website
<http://www.aclu.org> or America Online site (keyword: ACLU).
-30-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEXT OF LETTER FROM ACLU COUNSEL TO PRINCETON UNIVERSITY:
August 23, 1996
BY FACSIMILE, E-MAIL, & REGULAR MAIL
Howard S. Ende
Office of General Counsel
120 Alexander Street, 2nd Floor
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-2086
RE: Computer Use Policy
Dear Mr. Ende:
We believe the clarification you issued yesterday regarding Princeton's
policy on use of the computer network for political purposes still falls
short of constitutional requirements. We suggest a meeting with you and
President Shapiro to discuss the issue further; we are both available for a
meeting during the week of September 9 - 13.
Specifically, the memo issued yesterday will further confuse Princeton
students and staff regarding their political speech rights on the computer
network, and thus will inhibit speech protected by the New Jersey State
Constitution. The memo rightly concedes that the policy statement dated
July 19, 1996 is "overly broad," and that "students, faculty and staff are
generally free to communicate their person views on political candidates
using e-mail and the internet." However, the memo goes on to state that
"Nonetheless, we continue to ask everyone to bear in mind that the IRS may
deem personal use of University resources for campaign activities,
including use of the internet, to be political campaign activity by the
University itself."
This final sentence is inaccurate as a matter of law. As stated in our
letter dated August 15, 1996, personal use of the network for "campaign
activities" is constitutionally protected political speech and in no way
threatens Princeton's tax-exempt status. See ACLU Letter to Princeton,
8/15/96, at 2. Because Princeton provides fair and equal access to the
computer network to all University members, and allows use of the network
for a variety of non-political purposes, the provision of computing
facilities to students and staff, even for campaigning activities, will not
jeopardize the university's 501(c)(3) status. The computer network is
analogous to the Princeton commons, where university students and staff
have long been free to distribute and obtain campaign literature and to
encourage votes for particular political candidates. The fact that this
activity is taking place on the computer network makes it no less protected
political speech. In fact, campaign literature is arguably the most
fundamental type of speech in our democratic system of government. There
is nothing more important in choosing our political leaders than knowing
what they stand for.
The recent statement is also vague and fails to notify university members
clearly as to whether personal use of the network for "campaign activities"
is a violation of university policy. In addition, the University now has
issued at least five separate policies and statements that govern use of
the computer network for political purposes: the August 22, 1996
clarification memorandum; the July 19, 1996 memorandum on "Internet use and
Policy;" the "Computer Use" guidelines at page 11 of the Rights, Rules,
Responsibilities handbook; the "Guidelines Relating to the Tax-Exempt
Status of the University and Political Activities," at pages 14-15 of the
Rights, Rules, Responsibilities handbook; and the 1995-96 "Guidelines for
use of Campus and Network Computing Resources." These conflicting policies
and statements are sure to cause confusion among university members, which
will inhibit students and staff from exercising their right to free speech
on the computer network.
If you continue to believe that 501(c)(3) restrictions prevent certain
political communications over computer networks, we urge you to seek an
advisory ruling on the matter from the Internal Revenue Service. In the
meantime, all five policies and statements must be clearly and
unequivocally suspended, and a statement must be issued clarifying that all
university members and groups may engage in political speech and campaign
activities over the computer network so long as they do not purport to
speak for the university itself.
Because we are nearing the end of an election year, it is crucial that this
matter be resolved quickly in order to ensure that Princeton students and
staff are able to exercise fully their political speech rights.
Thank you for your prompt response to our prior letter and your willingness
to continue this important discussion.
Very truly yours,
Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
National Legal Department
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800 x788
David Rocah, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
of New Jersey
2 Washington Place
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 642-2086
cc: President Harold Shapiro
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:18:34 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 7--London police provide list of Usenet newsgroups to ban
Recently the London police sent a letter to U.K. Internet providers saying
that 133 Usenet newsgroups must be banned.
>From observations at <http://www.uk.vbc.net/censorship>, it's clear that:
the Police regard ISPs as publishers
the publication of obscene materials is an offence
the Police expect ISPs to continuously monitor newsgroups and
to remove those which contain illegal materials
More ominously, the letter says "Furthermore, this list is not exhaustive
and we are looking to you to monitor your Newsgroups identifying and taking
necessary action against those others found to contain such material...
This list is only the starting point..." Also, the police have said they
have the power to arrest Internet providers and seize their equipment.
This move by the Brits is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. I have
background about many more international net-censorship attempts at:
http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/
-Declan
---------------------------------------------------------------------