Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple2:8462 comp.sys.amiga:71651 comp.sys.mac.misc:5728 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3635 misc.legal:22595 alt.censorship:1037 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!mojo!russotto From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick) Message-ID: <1990Nov14.183455.1825@eng.umd.edu> Date: 14 Nov 90 18:34:55 GMT References: <14087@arisia.Xerox.COM> <56332@brunix.UUCP> Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System) Followup-To: misc.legal,alt.censorship Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park Lines: 78 In article <56332@brunix.UUCP> man@cs.brown.edu (Mark H. Nodine) writes: >I know I'll probably get flamed, but I have to agree with Martin here, that >you *NOT* post information about cracking programs on the network (though I >have in the past hinted that some programs could be cracked and responded >privately by e-mail). The reason is not a legal one, but a practical one. >Let me give an example. > >In March, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the Secret Service and had much >of their computer equipment confiscated along with all copies of a book called >"GURPS Cyberpunk" and the BBS run by SJG. The reason for the seizure was that >one person who worked on the book for a short time had been associated with >the Legion of Doom, and the SS believed that he was using the BBS and the book >to disseminate information about cracking computer systems. There is, in fact, >a section of the book that deals with gaming rules for "cracking" but with no >details about how to do it. The last I knew, the equipment has not been >returned, even though the SS agreed later that there was no evidence of illegal >activity. The loss to the company was substantial, and was almost enough to >put them out of business. They are currently involved in a court battle to >try to recover damages. > >If this were the only incident I had heard of where BBSs had been shut down or >impounded for the suspicion of spreading cracking information, then I would >dismiss it as a fluke. Steve Jackson Games was raided and the BBS impounded due to a warrant issued relating to the BellSouth E911 papers. Not due to 'suspicion of spreading cracking information) > But you have to look at the way the larger culture views >the computer network, which it does NOT understand (witness the flap that happened >over rec.humor.funny about a year ago that resulted in some very negative press >against the net and the moderator of that group). He's still there, isn't he? > If the media report that the >network is a tool of Satan for disseminating pornography, encouraging the use >of illegal drugs and gambling, and teaching people how to infiltrate Pentagon >computers and fire off nuclear missiles, the vast majority of the public is going >to give some credence to the report. Many people will believe it because it >makes a good story. If enough people in Congress believe it, perhaps legislation >could be passed to "pull the plug" on the net, though I doubt it. WARNING: IMMINENT DEATH OF USENET PREDICTED > >One of the changes that has occurred in our culture over the last few years is >that people, especially law enforcement officials, are getting much more worried >about computer crime and "cracking". When you post cracking information to the >net, you give ammunition to those unstable people who do not understand the net, >but are looking for some "righteous" cause, or maybe just a good story for their >newspaper. This is no reason to give in. >So as I say, it has nothing to do with the legality of possessing or spreading >the information, although even there one might make a case Free speech is a right >under the constitution, but if I use my right of "free speech" to form a >conspiracy to overthrow the government ^^^^^ requires an overt act against the government. Just talk won't cut it. , or to slander somebody, then I have still >done something illegal. But mostly I am making a plea to protect what freedom we >currently have on the network. We can't protect freedom by guessing what the censors would do if they found out, and acting as if they had censored us. That is simply acting like a sheep. ---- The software which came with The Recognizer, used a wierd scheme that didn't seem to use sync bytes, and was slow and unreliable. I was unable to read the disk directly. However, all the programs could be transfered by saving them to cassette tape, rebooting under standard DOS, and re-loading them. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.