Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:57:36 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes 'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin Poulsen, Mark Lottor (mkl@sri.com), and Robert Gilligan (gilligan@sun.com) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes. I got a copy of the 3-page press release from a friendly newspaper reporter, as well as the 15-page indictment. Curiously, the defendents have not been given a copy of the indictment yet, though it is being blasted out to the press (the reporter got it by fax!). The press release is from the US Attorney's office; you can call Robert R. Crowe at +1 408 291 7221 to complain about it. The press seems to have been taken in by this and is giving it a lot of coverage; one report was that 20 cameramen showed up at the "scene of the crime" this morning in an attempt to interview a defendent. The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch of separate "counts". Many of these are completely bogus, e.g. they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with: "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to deceive, falsely represented his social security account number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not his social security number". There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with: "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own proper name and received from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of John Billings...". Not all the charges are this much hot air, but it really looks to me like the prosecuters are more interested in writing press releases than in serving justice. In short, the charges are: 1 count conspiracy 1 count "possession of access devices", 18 USC 1029(a)(3), (b)(2) 1 count "ownership of a test circuit pack", 18 USC 2512 3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS# 3 counts giving the phone company a fake name 1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2) 1 count use of a testset to intercept a call 1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation 1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3) 1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6) 1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641 2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a) 1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), (b)(3) In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it), having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment. I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...but don't worry, it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you. I'll find a copy of these laws sometime soon and see how bad they are. 18 USC 1029 and 1030 are new laws and are specifically mentioned in the "press release". 1029, on "access devices", is being used to charge these folks with possession of keys; use of calling cards issued under false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools. Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with. And the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"! Last I heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them. Welcome to New Amerika! Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 1:37:01 CST From: Patrick Townson Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes The purpose of this message is NOT to give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the persons discussed in the original message. Only the court can rule upon the facts, and detirmine the guilt or innocence of the defendants. This message is intended ONLY to address Mr. Gilmore's presentation itself, and discuss what he feels are frivolous charges. In volume 9, issue 36 John Gilmore writes: >'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin >Poulsen, Mark Lottor (mkl@sri.com), and Robert Gilligan >(gilligan@sun.com) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with >nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes. >The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt >to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch >of separate "counts". Many of these are completely bogus, e.g. >they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with: > "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from > Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to > deceive, falsely represented his social security account > number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not > his social security number". >There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with: > "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone > Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a > fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own > proper name and received from any post office or authorized > depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such > fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper > name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and > requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of > John Billings...". When an application is made for an extension of credit, it is illegal to misrepresent who you are. In this case, telco would be the creditor. Credit is not a *right*. It does not have to be given to anyone. Telco must provide service to all *qualified* applicants, and in this instance, a qualified applicant is one who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for the service. More on this later. >In short, the charges are: (list edited, to address only certain issues) > 3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS# > 3 counts giving the phone company a fake name > 1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2) Here again, the use of a calling card is the use of an extension of credit given by telco. It is a crime to apply for credit under a fake name or using fake credentials, period. No actual loss to the creditor has to occur. The fact is, the creditor is entitled to set whatever parameters he desires to define 'credit worthy'; this is not an option left to the subscriber or purchaser of the service. If you misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit, you have committed a federal felony. If you place your written misrepresentation in a US Postal Service receptacle, you have committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope lands in the basket inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes the creditor to place something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your monthly bill, then again, *you* have committed mail fraud. By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money -- or deposit against future charges -- before service was established. Or, they could have been obliged to make calls from pay stations, on a pay- as-you-go basis. > 1 count use of a testset to intercept a call > 1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation Interception of calls is illegal, whether it is by a private party or the government without the permission of a court. If these charges are proven to be factual, then they are very serious matters. I would ask Mr. Gilmore if he would like to be the victim of such an intercept. Even 'security persons' have the right to assume their conversation on the phone is private. > 1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3) > 1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6) > 1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret > classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641 Another way of phrasing it is a charge of attempted burglary; a charge of attempted theft; plus a charge of theft by deception. If Mr. Gilmore feels this is not all that serious, perhaps he will share his modem phone number and personal passwords with us; or not raise too much of a fuss if someone finds them and uses them. > 2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a) As above; only a court can authorize a wire; would you want it any other way? > 1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of > PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which > contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand > Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641 So now we have another charge of theft. Yes, that is what it is called when some sleaze on the subway gets into your pockebook -- why not call it that when someone rifles an office or a briefcase? Does the fact that the offender is smart enough he doesn't have to strong-arm you on the street make a difference in the seriousness of the crime? > 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a > POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), > (b)(3) What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless we are transacting business with each other? >In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal >life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company, >not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it), I would suggest that electronic burglary, i.e. breaking and entering into the military computers and the theft of the information in the one computer is a 'computer crime', and a rather serious one at that. If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime? I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner. >mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the >phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal >need for it..... Most people do not try to defraud the phone company. Most people do not give bogus identification to the phone company. Telco will list (or not) the service under any name desired, within reason. They will send the bill to any third party. But the person who ultimatly guarentees the payment *must* be known to telco, like any other creditor. If these allegations of the government are found to be factual, then I'd say these fellows have a problem: if they intended to deal in good faith with telco, their true identities would have been part of telco's service record. >not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it. Legal need is one thing; consideration for an extension of credit is another; or does Mr. Gilmore assume telco should just take the word of everyone who comes in that everything will be alright and telco will get paid? As stated above, when the creditor *gives consideration to* your request for credit, he requires something by which to positively identify yourself and your history of meeting your obligations. It is a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your creditor's satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to your request for credit. This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you, or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant? NO, YOU DO NOT! But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the first minute please..... You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the creditor's terms. And the federal government says if you decieve the creditor in *any way*, they have a beef with you. >just like the normal life of a private person... And as a further example, he gives... >having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, About 95 percent of the public has no idea how phones work, could care less how they work (until the CO burns down, the employees go on strike, or the software gets a bug in it), and do not phreak. Most people do not know anything more than listen for dial tone, dial the number, talk and hang up. The defendants here are hardly 'normal living private persons', if their knowledge of telecom is any indicator. >some possible phreaking, Note how casually Mr. Gilmore dismisses this. Instead, substitute the phrase, 'some possible burglaries; some possible thefts by deception; possibly some breaking and entering....' >normal lives of private persons..... Most people do not burglarize the space of others, be it electronic or physical in nature. They do not practice theft by deception. >and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching >an apartment. Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic one. But perhaps I mis-read this. Perhaps the defendants had been invited by someone to come to their home and search through their possessions. >I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with >intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was >doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments... The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court; the other one was not. I personally find all wires distasteful -- particularly those committed by unauthorized persons -- but at least the FBI took the trouble to do it legally I assume. And if the FBI did not do it legally? None of us here have virgin ears and eyes; we all know about the stink at Cincinnatti Bell; the Chicago Police Red Squad of the 1960's; the marginal legality of some aspects of the 'war on drugs', etc.... but is the writer saying the current defendants were no more naughty than the FBI, therefore they should not be punished if they are found guilty? >but don't worry, >it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you. Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government, and then, only by specific court order. Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost confessing for the defendants now, by his admission that the alleged acts were illegal. But that isn't what he meant. He meant since it is okay for the government to break the law, it should be okay for the defendants to do so also. I think otherwise. >use of calling cards issued under >false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools. >Sounds like most modern laws -- Maybe, but it hardly sounds like the normal life of your average private person who typically does not carry credit cards with false names; does not possess a POS terminal unless he is a merchant using it in his legitimate business; does not have locksmith tools unless he is a locksmith by trade; and doesn't go around tapping phones, burglarizing computers and stealing documents. >broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get" Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps? It sounds to me like the government doesn't need any excuses to 'get' them....if the claims by the government are factual, then these fellows are hardly model citizens being persecuted by an evil government. >And the ones on use of an >incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"! Last I heard, it was not >illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though >it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them. It is illegal to deceive anyone for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit. If some attorney told you it was not illegal to deceive your creditor, I suggest you ask for your retainer back and go find another attorney. Actual loss to the creditor is not required. The creditor's victimization begins when he grants you credit you should not (by his standards) be given. He is at risk at that point. And the feds will back up the creditor *every time* on this. Conduct business by mail and you can add mail fraud to the rap. >Welcome to New Amerika! Isn't that precious..... I'll repeat: quit the game playing and the role of martyr. If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot. If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court, that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead. And if they are not guilty, and all these things the government has said about them are just damnable lies, by a government 'out to get them....' Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde, who once said, "Injustice? Well I can live with injustice. I've had it heaped on me many times... But justice.....its justice that stings..... " Patrick Townson **This message was NOT intended to express an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Only the court can detirmine the facts. It was intended to address tbe recent remarks by Mr. Gilmore.** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 28 14:59:55 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA11564; Sun, 28 Jan 90 14:59:50 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26020; 28 Jan 90 13:21 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25758; 28 Jan 90 12:15 CST Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 11:49:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Computer Crime Message-Id: <9001281149.ab01824@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jan 90 11:45:00 CST Special: Computer Crime Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (J. Gilmore) [Moderator's Note: Mr. Gilmore sent this rebuttal several days ago to my piece which appeared last week. It had to be re-written slightly, with Mr. Gilmore's approval and assistance due to a couple technical problems which made it incompatible with Digest software. I am sorry it isn't as timely as I would have liked; it should have been distributed several days ago. As he notes in the first paragraph, the legal issues raised should probably be best continued in misc.legal. In a Digest later today, a detailed look at Kevin Poulsen. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:08:49 -0800 From: gnu@toad.com I believe this discussion is moving way beyond the bounds of Telecom. However when the moderator blasts me, in part over misunderstandings of my message, I wish a chance to rebut. If the Moderator wants to limit discussion to phone-related stuff after this message, I think it's a good idea. We can move the rest of the discussion to misc.legal. Patrick Townson got quite upset about my message regarding this indictment. I do not have an opinion on whether these folks are guilty or innocent either. My problem is with some of the charges and with how the US Attorney is publicity-chasing with this case. Mr. Townson says that it is a crime to misrepresent who you are for "an extension of credit", including telephone service. I believe this should be a civil matter, not a criminal one -- and actual harm must be shown before anyone could be penalized for it. In other words, if I tell the phone company my name is Joe Blow, and I pay my bill on time, it's none of their business whether my mama calls me Suzie Thunder -- and particularly none of the government's business. Why is the extension of credit different than any other commercial transaction in this regard? If a company wants to implement policies about who can and who can't get credit, it is *their* job to check up on me. It is not the job of the government to spend tax money to chase me down and prosecute me. As for extension of credit by Pac Bell... When *I* have gotten band new service from Pacific Bell, not moved from a previous address in the same telco (e.g. when moving out of a shared household into my own house), I had to put up a cash deposit before they would offer me service. Under those circumstances, is telco "extending me credit"? I occasionally receive mid-month bills saying "you used your phone a lot, we want you to pay it now" or "did you make all those calls or has somebody been charging calls to your number?". These mechanisms let them cut off service til the bill (or a larger deposit) is paid, and protect them against fraud. In all cases, when I had had the phone for a year or two and paid the bills regularly, they refunded the deposit. E.g. even if I am "Joe Blow" to them, and TRW doesn't have a dossier on me, I am still creditworthy to them. > If you misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an > extension of credit, you have committed a federal felony. If a California company extends credit to a California customer, the Feds have jurisdiction? (Yes, I know the case law that blew the interstate commerce clause all to pieces -- after FDR almost succeeded in emasculating the Supreme Court. It's just not right.) > If you place your written misrepresentation in a US Postal Service > receptacle, you have committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope > lands in the basket inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes > the creditor to place something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your > monthly bill, then again, *you* have committed mail fraud. It's a good thing the government runs the mail system, so it can turn a simple communications service into one which makes judgements about the contents of its 'packets'. Happily, Federal Express has a policy diametrically opposed, e.g. unless the cocaine leaking from your parcel jams their conveyor belt, it goes through and they ask no questions and threaten no jail terms. Their job is carriage, not providing a hook for one more bogus charge to throw at somebody. > By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been > obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money -- > or deposit against future charges -- before service was established. What if they *did* pay a deposit? That seems to be PacBell policy for customers with no prior service. > > 1 count use of a testset to intercept a call > > 1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation > Interception of calls is illegal... I am not defending the interception of calls. I was listing the charges, since the newspaper accounts summarize them and leave out the actual citations from the US Code. > > 1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3) > > 1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6) > > 1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret > > classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641 I think that "attempted" access and "conspiracy to" crimes are bogus. Why should it be illegal for Americans to test the security of the a US Military network? Should we just believe them if they tell us it is secure? If it is truly secure, they have nothing to fear from us. If it is not secure, we the public have a damn strong reason to want to know. [If we enter and do damage, that is a completely separate issue. The issue here is the mere attempt to access.] Also note that there is no apparent tie between the MASNET charges and the classified orders, which were apparently found in hardcopy form. Perhaps the guy was in the Air Force and kept some of his old paperwork? > > 1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of > > PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which > > contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand > > Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641 > So now we have another charge of theft. I am not a believer in theft. > > 1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a > > POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), > > (b)(3) > What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some > other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who > the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless > we are transacting business with each other? I do not believe that possession of a computer terminal should be a crime. There is no allegation in the indictment that this terminal was used to commit a crime. The mere possession of it is apparently illegal according to this indictment. There is no allegation that the terminal was used to verify anyone's credit standing; perhaps it was bought for parts from a surplus store. "If POS terminals are outlawed, only department stores will have POS terminals" :-) I do not believe there is a law or practice restricting credit information to people 'transacting business with each other'. You want the info, TRW sells it, as far as I know. Feel free to educate me if I'm wrong. > >In short, there is little computer crime in here... > > If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer > to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime? I said LITTLE computer crime -- that means 2 out of 19 charges. But that is most of what the press coverage is focusing on, because it's "high-tech" to talk about computer crimes and it sells papers. The indictment mentions only breaking into a network, not into any military computers, and no theft of information therefrom. > I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a > central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if > indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner. This is going out on quite a limb. Nothing I posted, and nothing I read in the indictment, indicated ESS tampering to wiretap. Testsets and 'test circuit packs' were mentioned. There followed a long flame about normal life being incompatible with a interest in phone equipment, etc. My comment along these lines was also misunderstood by another poster. Let me restate and clarify: me>In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal me>life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company, me>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it), me>having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some me>fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment. Please read this as "the normal life of a private person (...), AND having an interest in phones, AND possible phreaking, AND some [prosecutor's] fantasies about some innocent stuff the PROSECUTOR found in searching an apartment". I think that keeping your life private is not computer crime, nor any crime. I think having an interest in phones is not computer crime, nor any crime. I think phreaking (at least tapping phones) is not computer crime, though it is definitely a crime. I think prosecutorial fantasies about computer terminals are not computer crimes, nor any crime. > if they intended to deal in good faith with telco, their true > identities would have been part of telco's service record. If you define good faith as paying for services rendered, nothing in the charge indicates that their bills were unpaid, simply that they used false names and ss#'s. A person is free to use any name(s) they choose as long as it is not for fraud. My copy of the Uniform Commercial Code is misplaced, but I think fraud involves *actual monetary loss* due to false information. > It is a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your > creditor's satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to > your request for credit. They identified themselves to their creditor's satisfaction -- obviously. Else their creditor would not have issued them credit, e.g. provided them with phone service and working calling cards. > This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you, > or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant? NO, > YOU DO NOT! But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with > you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open > account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the > first minute please..... > You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your > credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the > creditor's terms. All OK by me. > And the federal government says if you decieve the creditor in > *any way*, they have a beef with you. That is where I have a problem. None of the Feds' business. The gov't does not exist to intervene in private commercial transactions. > >I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with > >intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was > >doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments... > The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court... > Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for > anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government, > and then, only by specific court order. You clearly don't know current law in this regard. Reread the ECPA. It does not take a court order to tap your phone these days. A middle level bureaucrap at the DoJ can legally do it without consulting a court. > Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost confessing for the defendants now, by > his admission that the alleged acts were illegal. But that isn't what > he meant. He meant since it is okay for the government to break the law, > it should be okay for the defendants to do so also. I think otherwise. Certainly if these guys wiretapped people, their acts were illegal. My statements have nothing to do with "confession" though. It's the hypocrisy of the government that says "the act is evil, but if a judge or bureaucrat does it, it's OK" that I am complaining about. [As an aside, I believe that if a law is broken by the government, it should not be able to prosecute people for breaking it. If the government is dealing drugs and weapons in violation of the law, any case against ordinary people for the same charge should be thrown out. I am quite tired of government employees thinking they are above the law; the only way to restrain them from this belief is to nullify the law's effect on us, e.g. if they won't follow the rules that they themselves lay down, we don't have to either.] >> broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get" > Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps? Why should the government issue press releases about an indictment? Perhaps somebody wants to make a name for themself in the Dept of Justice by prosecuting a famous case. Perhaps it has been decided that it's time to "get tough" on computer crime, so a case that's mostly telephone crime has been stretched with bullshit charges and then billed to the ignorant media as a major computer crime case. Bureacracy has its own internally generated reasons. These particular people may not be targets except that they were handy to "make an example of" at the right time. > ...if the claims by the government are factual, then these fellows > are hardly model citizens being persecuted by an evil government. Civil rights only apply to model citizens? That is, model citizens are permitted to own terminals, but people suspected of other crimes are not? If someone plants marijuana refuse (or printouts from telco's trash bin) in Mr. Townson's trash can and calls the cops, will his computers and telephone memorabilia, his old copies of confidential "Telephone Test Code Number Directories" that friends had given him in violation of telco rules, suddenly become illegal 'tools of crime' too? Will his magazine subscription in the name 'Betty Crocker', so he can identify who is selling his name to mailing lists, become mail fraud? > If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell > them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a > man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot. > If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court, > that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody > of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead. Right. Be nice to the thugs and they might put you on probation. You better watch out boy and play the game *our way* whether you're innocent or guilty. A couple of years of living as if you were in a totalitarian state would be a nice change of pace. Permission to work, permission to move, permission to drive, permission to associate with your undesirable friends, given or refused by your probation officer. Instant arrest and confinement at the government's whim, without arraignment or trial. Gee, if we could get everyone living under these rules, there'd be no need for all those silly elections and freedoms and stuff. > And if they are not guilty... > Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde... I would take a lot more comfort in suing the government for harassment and getting the overzealous US Attorney demoted or fired. You get the government you allow to survive. If you leave petty thugs in there and go back to reading Wilde, don't complain when thugs run your life. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Computer Crime ***************************** From telecomlist-request@mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu Sun Jan 28 16:45:50 1990 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP id AA15296; Sun, 28 Jan 90 16:45:46 EST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08091; 28 Jan 90 15:26 CST Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19183; 28 Jan 90 14:21 CST Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:16:39 CST From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Kevin Poulsen Message-Id: <9001281316.ab04870@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Status: RO TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:15:31 CST Special: Kevin Poulsen Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Hacker in Trouble: Loner Gone Astray? (Knight-Ridder via TELECOM Moderator) Two Surrender in Military Intrusion Case; Third Sought (Joseph Liu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 12:44:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Hacker in Trouble: Loner Gone Astray? [Moderator's Note: This is the story issued by the Knight-Ridder Newspapers Syndicate several days ago on Kevin Poulsen. A backlog of work here has kept me from presenting it before now. PT] ================================================== SAN JOSE, Calif. -- When Kevin Poulsen's parents bought him his first computer, they took his interest in it as a good sign, particularly because their 16-year-old son had recently dropped out of high school. The Poulsens couldn't conceive that letting their son cloister himself in his room all day tapping away at the keyboard could be bad for him. "He was on it many hours. He would stay up all night. I didn't really know what he was up to until the law knocked on our door," said his father, Lee. The knock by FBI agents was the first brush with the law for Kevin, then 17. Now 24, he is charged by federal authorities with one of the country's most widespread cases of computer and telephone crime. He was charged last week with two others with commandeering the nation's phone network, monitoring and taping phone conversations and breaking into government computers, including military installations. He is still at large. (See next article in this issue.) In conversations several days ago with Lee Poulsen and the mother of a former girlfriend of Kevin Poulsen's, a picture emerged of a brilliant but emotionally troubled loner motivated by a need for attention and for finding out information that few people knew. Annette Randol, the former girlfriend's mother, said young Poulsen became obsessed with her daughter and began stalking her through the phone lines and taping her family's conversations. She said that he bragged that his accomplishments as a hacker had landed him a job with a Silicon Valley company. Additionally, Randol and Lee Poulsen both said that the FBI had asked for Kevin Poulsen's help in tracking down computer and telephone criminals. But they said Kevin refused because of loyalty to his hacker friends. Poulsen's father said he had last heard from his son three weeks ago and that he had refused to give him the address for his Los Angeles apartment. Like most hackers, Poulsen started out as a phone phreak, one of those who pirate the national phone network by obtaining phone numbers and access codes. It was through this network that in April, 1978, Kevin met Sean Randol, a quiet, bookish young girl who turned out to live only a mile from the Poulsens in North Hollywood, said Sean's mother, Annette. Responding to a classified ad, Sean and her mother accidentally stumbled on a telephone bulletin board that gave out the numbers of phone phreak conference lines. Once a loner, Sean had found a way to make new friends and quickly took to the phone phreak networks. Annette Randol describes the two as soulmates who immediatly hit it off, both avid readers and both loners. "He started out with my daughter because she was lonely too," she said. "She loved him, but she loved him as a friend." Gradually, after three years, her mother says, the friendship faded. Sean grew interested in other pursuits and other people. But Kevin didn't share those feelings and wanted to continue the relationship, her mother said. It ended abruptly when Kevin returned from the Bay Area for Christmas and took Sean out to dinner. But instead of bringing her home, Kevin took Sean on a 'wild ride' that frightened her. After that, she refused to see him again. But Sean's refusals just fueled Kevin's obsession. He had his sister, who worked in the same Los Angeles supermarket as Sean, take pictures of her at work. And two years ago, he allegedly tapped into the family's phone lines and taped all their conversations without their knowledge over a two-week period. Those tapes are part of the indictments against Poulsen in the case pending. Sean was not Kevin's only obsession. Ally Sheedy, the actress who played the hacker's girlfriend in the movie 'War Games' became the object of phone preaks' and hackers' desire, a kind of underground idol. With his friends, Kevin got Sheedy's number and address and stalked her through the phone lines and surveyed her house in the Los Angeles area, Randol said. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 90 15:11:47 EST (Sat) From: josephl@wb3ffv.wb3ffv.AMPR.ORG (Joseph Liu) To: chinet!patrick Subject: Two Surrender in Military Intrusion Case; Third Sought Hello Patrick: I think this article might be of interest to Digest readers. TWO SURRENDER IN MILITARY COMPUTER INTRUSION CASE; THIRD SOUGHT Two of three men accused of conspiring to break into a military computer network and a phone system surrendered to authorities this week. Remaining at large, though, is the alleged ringleader, 24-year-old Kevin L. Poulsen. As reported last week the three are all either current or former employees of Sun Microsystems and SRI International consulting firm. They were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of invading or trying to invade Pacific Bell Telephone and U.S. Army computers. In San Jose, Calif., this week, 25-year-old Mark K. Lottor and Robert E. Gilligan, 31, surrendered before U.S. District Court Magistrate Patricia Trumbull. They entered innocent pleas, were released on $100,000 bond each and were ordered to return to court next week. The Associated Press says Lottor faces five courts and Gilligan six in the government's 19-count indictment. The prosecutors contend a scheme existed to steal military secrets and phone numbers from the FBI investigation of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. Federal officials contend the latest computer tampering began in 1985 and started to fall apart in February 1988 when police found telephone equipment belonging to Pacific Bell in a storage locker rented by Poulsen. The search continues for Poulsen, charged in 16 counts. He faces up to 37 years in prison if convicted. The other two suspects face 20 years each if found guilty of all charges. AP reports Poulsen is believed to have fled to Los Angeles after leaving a job with Sun. Incidentally, Poulsen also was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1984 computer break-in case at the University of California at Los Angeles. His friend, Ron Austin, was convicted on charges related to the break-in. The wire service quotes authorities as saying that at the time Poulsen used the computer handle "Dark Dante." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Kevin Poulsen *****************************