Computer underground Digest Wed Jun 14, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 49
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.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
Triviata: How many Spams have C&S Done since April '94?
CONTENTS, #7.49 (Wed, Jun 14, 1995)
File 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle
File 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case
File 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens"
File 4-- Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd)
File 5--Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 18:33:53 -0400
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@PANIX.COM>
Subject: 1--INFO: Senate passes Decency Act 84-16; House is the next battle
=================================================================
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/GORTON COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
(SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END)
Update: -The Latest News: The Senate voted to attach the
Communications Decency Act to the Telecom Reform bill.
Leahy's alternative was not attached to the Telecom
Reform bill.
-What You Can Do Now
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
June 14, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL June 25, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)
___________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Background
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
For More Information
List Of Participating Organizations
_________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The Communications Decency Act (sponsored by Sen. Exon and Gorton) would
criminalize many forms of expression on online systems. Many believe
it to be unconstitutional, and a fight to oppose it has been waged
since its introduction. It was recently attached to the fast-tracked
Telecommunications Deregulation bill, which is moving quickly through
Congress.
_________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
Right up until the last minute, callers reported weary Senatorial
staffers continued to report a deluge of incoming calls, almost all
against the Exon/Coats bill and supporting the Leahy alternative. The
Senate debated the Exon/Coats/Gorton Communications Decency Act and the
Leahy alternative today (June 14, 1995) starting at about 3:30pm EST
for 90 minutes.
The debate was opened by Senator Exon who read a prayer to protect
against computer pornography. Senators Exon (D-NE) and Coats (R-IN)
spoke in favor of their position. Senator Gorton (R-WA) was
mysteriously absent from the debate.
Exon referred those that signed the petition to prevent his censorship
bill as "selfish". Exon presented letters from many groups in support
of his bill, including the Christian Coalition, the Family Research
Council, the National Law Center for Families. He also stated that
75% of computer owners have refused the join the Internet because the
obscene material they feared on the Internet.
Senators Byrd (D-WV) and Heflin (D-AL) cosponsored the Exon bill at
the last minute.
Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) spoke passionately about the
First Amendment and the Internet. Feingold warned against the dangers
of chilling free speech. Leahy brought out the monster petition in
support of his alternative (it looks pretty impressive on television)
and proceeded to try to debunk the myths Exon promulgated about the
Internet. He also trumpeted the success of the Internet, and pointed
out it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if the US government had
tried to micro-manage it.
Both Exon and Leahy then gave back extra debating time and went to a vote
on the bill. The Exon bill was successfully attached to the Telecomm
Reform bill (84-16). The Leahy alternative was not attached to the
Telecom Reform bill.
Questions and answers:
Q: What does this mean?
A: It means we lost this round. The unconstitutional Exon Communications
Decency Act was attached to the Telecomm Reform bill.
Q: What's the next step?
A: Next, we need to ensure that a House equivalent to the Exon
Communications Decency Act is not attached to the House Telecomm Reform
bill.
Q: Where can I find more information about the bill?
A: Check below.
___________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW -- U.S. and non-U.S. citizens
1. Familiarize yourself with the version of the bill that passed,
and the transcript of the Senate debate. (directions to obtain
these are below)
2. Check the voting list below. It wouldn't hurt to send a nice
letter, email, or fax to the Senators that voted to defeat the
Communications Decency Act. Hateful mail to Senators who did
not vote your way is not only *bad form*, but likely to become illegal
soon anyway, under the Communications Decency Act.
In other words, take some time to cool off.
3. If you don't receive Coalition alerts reliably through mail or news,
join the mailing list by sending mail to listproc@vtw.org with
"subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname". We'll have to fight
this battle in the House soon and you should be informed.
4. Relax, it's not the end of the world. We still have this battle to
fight in the House of Representatives and then in the conference
committee. This is a setback, but we haven't lost yet.
__________________________________________________________________
RESULTS OF THE SENATE VOTE
Senators who voted to defeat the Communications Decency Act
(A polite letter to congratulate them for defending your free speech
rights would be appropriate.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
D CT Lieberman, Joseph I. 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139
D IL Simon, Paul 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868
senator@simon.senate.gov
D IL Moseley-Braun, Carol 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626
D MA Kennedy, Edward M. 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
D MI Levin, Carl 1-202-224-6221 na
D MN Wellstone, Paul 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438
D NM Bingaman, Jeff 1-202-224-5521 na
Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
D NY Moynihan, Daniel P. 1-202-224-4451 na
D OH Glenn, John 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
R RI Chafee, John H. 1-202-224-2921 na
D VA Robb, Charles S. 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Senator_Robb@robb.senate.gov
vascr@CapAccess.org
D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
R VT Jeffords, James M. 1-202-224-5141 na
D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238
D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na
russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Senators who voted to support the (CDA) Communications Decency Act
(They voted for the CDA and to curtail your free speech rights.
Writing them an impolite and nasty letter would be a bad idea, and
may soon be illegal under the CDA anyway. Take some time to cool down.)
D ST Name (Party) Phone Fax
= == ================== ============== ==============
R AK Murkowski, Frank H. 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301
R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
D AL Heflin, Howell T. 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149
R AL Shelby, Richard C. 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
D AR Bumpers, Dale 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435
D AR Pryor, David 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261
R AZ Kyl, Jon 1-202-224-4521 1-202-228-1239
R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702
D CA Boxer, Barbara 1-202-224-3553 na
D CA Feinstein, Dianne 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954
R CO Campbell, Ben N. 1-202-224-5852 1-202-225-0228
R CO Brown, Henry 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471
D CT Dodd, Christopher J. 1-202-224-2823 na
R DE Roth Jr. William V. 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805
D FL Graham, Robert 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237
R FL Mack, Connie 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
D GA Nunn, Samuel 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
R GA Coverdell, Paul 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783
D HI Akaka, Daniel K. 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126
D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
D IA Harkin, Thomas 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
R IA Grassley, Charles E. 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020
R ID Craig, Larry E. 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573
R ID Kempthorne, Dirk 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
R IN Coats, Daniel R. 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
R IN Lugar, Richard G. 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952
R KS Kassebaum, Nancy L. 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514
D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046
R KY McConnell, Mitch 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 na
D LA Johnston, J. Bennett 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525
D MD Mikulski, Barbara A. 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
D MD Sarbanes, Paul S. 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651
R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853
R ME Cohen, William S. 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834
R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-224-3244 na
R MO Bond, Christopher S. 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na
R MS Cochran, Thad 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
D MT Baucus, Max 1-202-224-2651 na
R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406
R NC Helms, Jesse 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588
D ND Conrad, Kent 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776
D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193
D NE Kerrey, Bob 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645
D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213
R NH Gregg, Judd 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952
R NH Smith, Robert 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
D NJ Bradley, William 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567
D NJ Lautenberg, Frank R. 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
R NM Domenici, Pete V. 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
D NV Reid, Harry 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327
R NY D'Amato, Alfonse M. 1-202-224-6542 1-202-224-5871
R OH Dewine, Michael 1-202-224-2315 1-202-224-6519
R OK Inhofe, James 1-202-224-4721
R OK Nickles, Donald 1-202-224-5754 1-202-224-6008
R OR Hatfield, Mark O. 1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
R OR Packwood, Robert 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576
R PA Santorum, Rick 1-202-224-6324 na
R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920
D RI Pell, Claiborne 1-202-224-4642 1-202-224-4680
D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
R SC Thurmond, Strom 1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047
R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259*
R TN Thompson, Fred 1-202-224-4944 1-202-228-3679
R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062
R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
R TX Gramm, Phil 1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
R UT Bennett, Robert 1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717
R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331
R VA Warner, John W. 1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393
D WI Kohl, Herbert H. 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787
D WV Byrd, Robert C. 1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 na
R WY Simpson, Alan K. 1-202-224-3424 1-202-224-1315
R WY Thomas, Craig 1-202-224-6441 1-202-224-3230
__________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION
We will be archiving the version of the Communications Decency Act
that passed, the roll call vote that went with it, and the transcript
of the Senate debate.
We will make these available through the methods below as soon as
they are available through the Government Printing Office (this usually
takes about 24 hours). Please try to use the Web or Gopher sites first
before using our email server.
Web Sites
URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon/
URL:http://epic.org/
URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html
FTP Archives
URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH
URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
Gopher Archives:
URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts
Email:
vtw@vtw.org (put "send help" in the subject line)
cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information)
cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA)
___________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act.
American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Californians
Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology *
Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation
* Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Computer Communicators Association *
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection *
Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens'
Movement * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation
* Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
Censorship * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands
Off! The Net * Human Rights Watch * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle
Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet
On-Ramp, Inc. * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project *
Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * National Bicycle Greenway *
National Coalition Against Censorship * National Public Telecomputing
Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public
Access Internet * People for the American Way * Rock Out Censorship *
Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network *
The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch
(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
not EFF chapters or divisions.)
------------------------------
From: sobel@epic.org (David L. Sobel)
Subject: 2--Repost: EPIC Files Brief in 2600 Case
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:14:28 -0500
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), on behalf of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), has filed
an appellate brief seeking to uphold a lower court decision
ordering the release of information on a controversial "hacker"
investigation. At issue are documents detailing the Secret
Service's role in the so-called "Pentagon City Mall Raid."
In November 1992, a group of young people affiliated with the
computer magazine "2600" were confronted by mall security
personnel, local police officers and several unidentified
individuals. The group members were ordered to identify
themselves and to submit to searches of their personal property.
Their names were recorded and some of their property was
confiscated. However, no charges were ever brought against any of
the individuals. Although the Secret Service has never formally
acknowledged its role in the incident, it eventually conceded that
it did possess relevant information.
CPSR filed suit in federal court in early 1993 seeking the release
of relevant Secret Service records under the Freedom of
Information Act. In July 1994, U.S. District Judge Louis
Oberdorfer ordered the Secret Service to release the vast majority
of documents it maintains on the incident. The government
appealed that decision and EPIC is litigating the appeal that is
now pending. In the recently filed brief, EPIC and CPSR argue
that the withheld documents demonstrate Secret Service misconduct
and that the FOIA exemptions cited by the agency do not apply.
The Secret Service has maintained that the disputed records were
collected during the course of an investigation of telephone toll
fraud. In its appellate brief, the agency asserts that
"obviously, a meeting of individuals 'affiliated with 2600
Magazine' would be of interest to such an investigation since
those individuals have, by their conduct, evidenced an interest in
the technical intricacies of the telephone system." The
government has revealed for the first time that the underlying
investigation was closed on March 14 of this year.
The Pentagon City incident has been described as an example of
over-zealous law enforcement activities directed against so-called
computer "hackers." The case raises significant issues of free
speech and assembly, privacy and government accountability. Oral
argument before the federal appeals court is scheduled for mid-
September.
The EPIC/CPSR brief can be accessed via WWW at:
http://epic.org/computer_crime/2600/
or by FTP/Gopher at:
cpsr.org/cpsr/computer_crime/2600_brief_6_95.txt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: craftman <craftman@IGLOU.COM>
Subject: 3--Media Feeding Frenzy on "runaway internet teens"
St. Matthews Teenager "Lured" Away By Computer Pal
Richard D. Meadows - craftman@iglou.com
WRITERS NOTE: I have used ALLCAPS for my added emphasis and placed a
few editorial/social comments in brackets [] in the article. At the
end there will additional editorializing.
The media feeding frenzy, about teens being lured away by people
they have met online, in both Washington state and Kentucky has pro-
vided more fuel for the Exon fire currently burning in the Senate.
I live in Louisville, KY., and have been following the Tara Noble
runaway closely since it was first reported in the Courier-Journal (C-
J) on Tuesday June 6, a week after MS Noble left her home in St. Mat-
thews an upper middle class suburb of Louisville. Tara, 13, ran away
sometime on May 30, and yesterday she called the FBI from Hollywood
Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA., to say she wanted to go back home.
[How many teens have run away to California and ended up on Hollywood
Boulevard, where they call home or the police?]
What makes this runaway case different is the fact that Tara's
personal computer and AOL are involved. The headline on the front
page story of the C-J on June 6....WOMAN FEARS COMPUTER PAL LURED AWAY
DAUGHTER, 13....sets the tone for the entire article. The staff
writer, John Voskuhl, calls cyberspace a "shadowy frontier", in a
story that appears one full week after MS Noble ran away from home.
Tara's mother Lisa Noble tells the writer that she thinks her daughter
boarded a Greyhound bus headed west to rendezvous with someone she met
through a ' "chat room" ' on America Online.
Voskuhl writes in the story that it is not certain that Tara's
computer connections played a role in her disappearance. In the next
paragraph however:
"The computer - that's what started this problem," said Norm
Mayer, chief of the St. Matthews Police Department, which is
investigating the case. "And that's the only real lead we
have."
[Excuse me? What about the Greyhound bus? Is that not a lead? Did
Mrs. Noble just pick that out of the air?]
The article goes on to tell of her divorced parents turning
Tara's room upside down in search of information. They found tele-
phone numbers from all across the country of people Tara had met
during the DOZENS OF HOURS SHE SPENT CHATTING ON COMPUTER NETWORKS.
[What networks are interfaced with AOL?] The article has the obliga-
tory mention of "...a series of sexually explicit images that found
their way across the Noble family's modem during the DOZENS OF HOURS
her daughter spent online since April." Mrs. Noble is quoted in the
article about the images: "I'm like, 'How can this stuff be on a
computer?"'
During her trip across the country Tara stopped and used the
computer to communicate with computer acquaintances through AOL. Pam
McGraw of AOL Fame, indicated that AOL was cooperating with authori-
ties investigating the Noble case. McGraw also pointed out that AOL
provides "parental controls" that allow parents to prevent their
children from using chat rooms. Mrs. Noble said she did not know
about them before her daughter disappeared.
Tara spent so much time on the computer her mother eventually
removed the telephone jack Tara was using. Her father, Sam Noble, was
quoted in the story: "We encouraged her. We didn't know she was
talking to MEN all across the country." He further indicated, "People
talk about the information superhighway - in my opinion, it ought to
be regulated." The article then goes on to tell about the Exon bill
and how one of Kentucky's Senators, Wendell Ford, voted for it in
committee and would vote for it on the floor.
The end of the article the writer talks about the image appearing
on the screen to signal the computer was busy -- an hourglass, as Mrs.
Noble sat waiting for word of her daughter's whereabouts.
SCUM IN CYBERSPACE
Op-Ed Page Editorial - The Courier-Journal - Wednesday June 7, 1995
The volume and content of information that reaches children in
their own homes makes parenthood ever more challenging. Movies,
television, printed matter -- they can all influence values and deci-
sions.
Every major advance in information technology, from the printing
press to the cellular phone, has been blamed for misleading the young.
Ideas open up new possibilities, The results are often trying.
Now comes the computer, with its awesome power to bring likemind-
ed folks together in a strange realm of cyberspace. And, regrettably,
to serve as a medium for purveyors of pornography.
The recent disappearance of 13-year-old Tara Noble could, her
parents believe, be connected to contact she made in a computer net-
work "chat room". It's a realistic -- and frightening -- possibility.
But the larger society must not let such occurrences stampede it
into blaming the technology -- which, like every other, is hurtful as
well as beneficial -- or resorting to censorship. Such efforts can't
work. And they run counter to the laws and traditions of a free
nation.
A better idea is to manage the machine better -- by using
electronic wizardry to help parents decide what their children have
access to. That's no guarantee of safety, but it's preferable to
controls on what all citizens read and see.
UNSIGNED
The Courier-Journal -- Wednesday June 7, 1995
DANGER MAY LURK FOR CHILDREN IN ANONYMOUS ONLINE WORLD
By Ric Manning, Business Writer
WRITERS NOTE: Ric Manning is a friend of mine and writes for other
computer publications besides the C-J, where you may have seen his
byline. Doesn't mean I won't take him to task when I feel he is
wrong, just ask him. ricman@iglou.com
This article is a general overview of what can happen and some of
the techno-wizardry which can be used by parents to help prevent
children going where no parent wants them going. There is also men-
tion of both the Washington state and Kentucky runaways.
The most interesting to me is SURFWATCH a new $49.95 screening
program which prevents access to more than 1000 internet sites that
contain sexually oriented material. <800-458-6600> When my son gets
older and begins to surf around a program like that on his computer
seems reasonable to me.
Again we get the comment, this time from Tara's mother that
online services should be regulated. The services respond that par-
ents must assume most of the responsibility for their children's
activities online. (See editorial comments at end.) The National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children along with online services
have produced a brochure called "Child Safety on the Information
Superhighway", which is available online on Compu$erve or through the
center's hotline: 800-THE-LOST. [What is their online address?] If a
CI$ reader would be so kind as to get this and send it in to CuD, it
would be nice.
MISSING GIRL, 13, FOUND UNHARMED IN LOS ANGELES
Monday June 12, 1995 The Courier-Journal
Bill Pike, Staff Writer
WRITERS NOTE: I am going to do excerpts from this article, but, not
the entire thing.
Teen's Flight Linked To Online Contacts
Unharmed but frightened after being away from home for two weeks,
13-year-old Tara Noble call the FBI in Los Angeles yesterday from a
phone booth on Hollywood Boulevard to say she wanted to return home.
[Was it Hollywood & Vine?]
Tara had been missing since May 30, when authorities feared that
she had been lured to California through contacts over her home com-
puter -- perhaps by a man identified only as George in San Francisco.
Tara was in "excellent health and apparently unharmed," said Dave
Kohl, the agent in charge of FBI operations in Kentucky.
(Lisa) Noble and her ex-husband, Sam Noble of Pleasure Ridge Park, found
telephone numbers from across the country for people Tara had met
while chatting on computer networks. They also turned up sexually
explicit material and a message from George, who wrote, "We can run
around our room naked all day and all night."
Kohl declined to give details of Tara's whereabouts or activities
during the past two weeks, although he said she had been in "several
locations".
He acknowledged that the computer played a role in Tara's
disappearance, and he said the case shows the need for parents to
supervise their children's use of computers.
Kohl said that TARA DOES NOT FACE ANY CHARGES AND THAT THE FBI
WILL CONTINUE INVESTIGATING.
He added that "significant media coverage" of Tara's disappear-
ance, as well as an extensive investigation, prompted Tara to call
authorities.
A story in yesterday's [Sunday June 11, 1995. I would like to
have a complete hard copy of this article if someone in l.a. could
send it via snail mail to me.] Los Angeles Times featured Tara and a
15-year-old Washington state boy who was reunited with his parents
after making an unannounced trip to San Francisco to visit a friend he
had met through his computer. [What happened to the MAN who had lured
this boy to San Francisco for gay sex? Now it is an unannounced trip
to visit a friend. Can you say media hype?]
Five FBI field offices worked on Tara's case, interviewing numer-
ous contacts she had made via computer, Kohl said.
HE ALSO SAID A "COOPERATIVE CITIZEN" IN SAN FRANCISCO NOTIFIED
THE FBI THERE YESTERDAY THAT TARA WAS IN LOS ANGELES. [I guess you
would be cooperative if Special Agents of the FBI came knocking on
your door and asking you questions about a 13-year-old runaway girl]
EDITORIALIZING
Without exception everyone in the community here, both online and
offline, that I have discussed the Tara Nobles case with have said the
same things. There are bigger problems in the family than a 13 y.o.
running away because of a friend on AOL. Kids have been running
away to California for as long as I can remember reading newspapers
and that is a few years now, and the fact that Tara met this person
via computer makes it different, but certainly not unique.
How come a parent lets a bright student suddenly spend dozens of hours
online? They got the computer in April and Tara ran away in May. She
was on AOL. Lets see 30 days worth of online fees get charged to the
old credit card. The credit card bill comes in. Mom nearly has a
heart attack. Mom unplugs the telephone line from the computer.
Daughter gets seriously upset. Daughter decides to go join her online
friend(s) so she can stay online. I dunno maybe my thinking here is
off.
I am consistently and constantly disappointed in the reporting of the
C-J on most computer stories. This is no exception. Voskuhl shows a
lack of understanding of the Information Superhighway when he writes
about Tara chatting on computer networks, after identifying AOL as the
service provider. The final paragraph dealing with a mother waiting
to find out about her runaway daughter and the hourglass was just too
sticky for my taste. The Facts, Just the Facts, in a NEWS article.
I appreciate the C-J's support of personal freedom. I wish they would
just go further with it. If the Op-Ed page editorial writers were as
doggedly determined on protecting all of us from censorship as they
are on open records or preventing the building of an interstate bridge
near the home of the editor of the opinion pages, Keith Runyon, per-
haps my two senators would get a clue and vote no on Exon's bill.
We are getting the same government needs to provide control relative
to the internet that has come and gone for years on controlling TV,
Movies, Music, et.al., vices that children can come in contact with if
not supervised. The key is parenting. My son does not watch Beavis
and Butthead, although he would love too, nor MTV, nor violent movies
on TV. He does not listen to music I find offensive. He has never
had a toy gun, although he has made several with his erector set, or
sticks, or whatever is convenient and looks close enough to suit his
needs at the moment. The point is I control his socio-environment.
That is parenting. That is the responsibility you take on when you
decide to bring a life into this world. When he is older and skilled
enough I will get him online. But, he is not gonna be reading the
alt.sex. news groups. Well certainly not until he figures out how to
get around how I have his system set up. It is not up to Sen. Exon,
or the guvmint, to control the internet, it is up to the parent to
take back control of their family and instill the morals and values
that they believe in, not the values of a senator or a president
wannabe or even a vice-presidents wife.
End of Editorial Comments
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:46:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: 4-- Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion (fwd)
Note: Susan Thunder has also promised to write "her side of the story" as
opposed to what is chronicled in Cyberpunk, (Katie Hafner and John Markoff)
David Smith * "Where children dare to tread, the footsteps
bladex@bga.com * of censorship are sure to follow"
President, EFF-Austin * Fight the Communications Decency Act.
Board of Directors, CTCLU * Send e-mail to vtw@vtw.org w/ "send info"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: thunders@ix.netcom.com (Susan Thunder )
Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.fan.kevin-mitnick
Subject: 5--Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion
Date: 3 Jun 1995 06:56:25 GMT
What is the difference between "social engineering" vs "psychological
subversion"???
I will be offering a series of tutorials on these subjects, starting
below, but first I would like to post a challenge to all you REAL
superhackers out there:
Back in the days of 8BBS and other early '80's boards, the hacker ethic
was such that one who imagined him/herself to be a superhacker would
PROVE him/herself by the QUALITY of the posts (s)he left. If a novice
hacker asked a question, those of us who were of the elite pantheon
would all try to outdo each other in a game of one-upsmanship to see
who could post the most informative and/or useful reply! We
demonstrated our ability by the reliabiltity of the information we
provided to these newcomer queries, and it made for one HELLUVA
competitive and informative BBS.
So here's my challenge: Instead of all you so-called experts out there
falling all over each other trying to outflame the novices, let's see
you SHOW YOUR STUFF! Let's let the cream rise to the top, guys/gals!
Let's get this newsgroup back on track--it's a simple fact of life that
there will be a continuing flood of newcomers to the net, so let's work
together instead of against each other!
Let's face it: If *WE* don't keep an eye on Big Brother, nobody will.
One of the main goals of communism in its efforts to subvert capitalist
society was to sow dissention and mistrust among the more inquisitive
political organizations--could it be that the feds are trying to do the
same to us, a potentially VERY POWERFUL segment of today's cutting-edge
theorists? ***>DON'T LET THEM WIN!<*** Let's join together and
disseminate information freely rather than withhold it!
-------[Stepping down from the soapbox...]-------
Tutorial: Social Engineering vs Psychological Subversion Part 1
Social Engineering has been defined as the art of manipulating
information out of a given person with a view towards learning
information about or from a given EDP system. The techniques are
relatively simple, and I will go into greater detail and provide
examples in a future tutorial. Essentially, the methodology consists
of pulling off a telephone ruse to get the persona at the other end of
the line to give you passwords or read you data off of their computer
screen. Sometimes the techniques involve intimidation or blackmail.
Again, I will explore these techniques further in my next tutorial, but
first I want to address the differences between Social Engineering (a
lousy, non-descriptive term IMHO) and Psychological Subversion.
Psychological Subversion (PsySub) is a very advanced technique that
employs neural linguistic programming (nlp), subconscious suggestions,
hypnotic suggestions, and subliminal persuasion. Essentially, you want
to plant the idea in the subject's mind that it's okay to provide you
with the information you seek to obtain. the precise methods vary
according to the environment, but I will use the Miliary as an example
since they are very easily manipulated as a result of their inherent
compulsion to obey any directive emanating from a higher-ranking
officer.
If you would like to bypass a tempested system housed inside a SCIF
that employs multi-level/multi-keyed encryption methodology, the most
productive method I have ever encountered is to call inot the SCIF on
the appropriate autovon line (DMS-100, what a joke anyway), and firmly
inform the corporal or sergeant that answers the phone that you are
Specialist So-and-so calling on behalf of General such-and-such (the
base commandant is a good choice to use but be sure you use his
secretary's/("Specialist's) real name) and state that the General would
like to know WHY HE CANNOT ACCESS HIS ACCOUNT! Naturally, the
low-ranking dupe on the other end of the phone line will be much more
concerned about getting into potential trouble by pissing off the
general than he will be concerned about the established security
procedures.
Often-times, it will be necessary to take him step-by-step through the
already obvious (to you) process of explaining WHY the account isn't
"working..." (The real reason, FYI, is because Top Secret and higher
systems are not supposed to have any external connections to phone
lines outside the SCIF). What you need to do is talk the dupe through
the process of creating/enabling a remote access line (i.e. dialup),a
nd it helps to have a definable STU-III dataset to exchange encryption
keys with him. Failing passession of such a device, you just pretend
that you've tried to access the system anyway, and for some reason the
encryption devices aren't handshaking properly. At this point you
either convince him that he could be in very big trouble for
insubordination if he doesn't cooperate and give the "general"
immediate access, albeit unencrypted, or you can simply have the poor
sod READ you the data off of his screen! Oftentimes, you can even get
the fool to print out various materials that you would like to view,
and have him mail/deliver/ftp etc these items via another system.
In other words, to bypass encryption, just have a legitimate user read
and print the data you wish to acquire--intimidation works with some
people. With others you need to flirt. Some are simply the helpful
type of person who will accomodate your request with very little
fanfare. In a couple of cases, I have had to play a subliminal tape
over the phone line as I spoke to the subject. The tape would embed
instructions and reasurrance into the subject's mind on a subconscious
level that they were not even aware of.
Ususally, if there is something you want very badly, it may take
several contacts to build up rapport and level of trust before you
begin to lay the guilt trips on them about "haven't I been a friend to
you? I might get in BIG trouble if I don't remember the "general's"
password and username. Please, help me out of this mess..." You'd be
surprised at how many people fall for this ruse!
Now I have a comment about how certain persons chose to utilize these
very powerful nlp techniques. For instance, there is a well-known
hacker who is selling (or trying to, anyway) these awesomely powerful
techniques to men who desire to simply get-laid! What a fucking waste
of time, effort, and talent. Evidently the man in question has nothing
better to do with this remarkable knowlegde that compromise an already
vulnerable and probably lonely woman...
If this hacker would apply his substantial knowledge on this subject to
a socially useful endeavor, instead of efforts that lead to nothing
more than brief personal satisfaction at the lonely woman's emotional
expense, then HE could be a force to reckon with!
Pleae address questions and comments to the newsgroup and NOT my email
(unless it's very personal) because I would like to see an intelligent
exchange of useful information in this newsgroup again!
Are any of you so-called superhackers up to the challenge of proving
your knowledge and "pedigree" in a public forum where all can see the
results of your effots? Let's get this group back on track...after
all, we all started somewhere! Now this flood of aolers and ixers kind
of makes it necessary to slog though alot of crap, but there ARE useful
and informative posts buried within threads that have long since
migrated away from thier origianl intents.
I will post more specific hacks in my next "tutorial!"
REGARDS,
THUNDER (Susan)
Hey guys: Please pray for Kevin's early release from jail, and write
to him too if you can!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST <your name>
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/
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 for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. 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 computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.49
************************************