"Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@cs.uiuc.edu> (08/12/90)
How come in Craig Neidorf's indictment the "Legion of Doom" is defined as a "closely knit group of computer hackers", but in Len Rose's indictment it is a "loosely-associated group of computer hackers."? [Moderator's Note: I suspect its part of the government plot to persecute Mr. Rose. PAT]
TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> (08/13/90)
Another copy of the Len Rose indictment has been forwarded to us, and this copy includes the legal references missing from the first version. Mr. Rose said the person employed to transcribe the first version for us was unaware that all the legal notations were important. Rather than enter the whole thing again here, I have forwarded the more detailed version direct to the Telecom Archives, to the section entitled 'telecom.security.issues', where it is filed with other related cases and commentaries. For your reference, here are the specific cites: The five counts are almost identical in wording, and each refers to: 18 USC S 1030 (a) (6) - Computer Fraud. 18 USC S 2314 - Transportation of Stolen Property 18 USC S 2 - Aiding and Abetting. In this latest version, the name 'America' was correctly spelled, without the /k/ replacing the /c/ as in the original version. Please append this note to the special issue of the Digest you have already received. By the way, I've seen an advance copy of the next issue of Computer Underground Digest, and it contains a lengthy interview with Len Rose. You will want to read it. Patrick Townson
mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) (08/13/90)
I noticed that the indictment of Len Rose includes mention of a Trojan that collects root passwords. It seems to me that you have to have root to install such a trojan. Am I missing something here? Dave Internet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv [Moderator's Note: You do have to be root, but some sysadmins would probably install the mods inadvertently, and there are some other folks with the root password who would install the code secretly merely to gather additional passwords for use as needed. PAT]
mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) (08/13/90)
I use USA Direct all the time to phone up companies in the U.S.
collect. I've still to use it on my Card. :-) The operators speak
excellent English, I always assumed that they were in the States.
Here are access numbers from my USA direct card (11/89), as
reproduced from AT&T literature. Copyright AT&T. To get more info,
dial 1 800 874 4000 ext 359:
Australia 0014-881-011 Guatemala (t) 190
Austria (t) 022-903-011 Hong Kong (t) 008-1111
Bahamas (2) 1-800 872-2881 Hungary (t) 00*36-0111
Bahrain 800-001 Italy (t) 172-1011
Belgium (t) 11-0010 Jamaica (2) 0 800 872 2881
Brazil 000-8010 Japan(t2) 0039-111
Br. Virgin Is. 1-800 872 2881 Korea 009-11
Cayman Is. 1872 Liberia 797-797
Chile 00*-0312 Netherlands (t) 06*-022-9111
Colombia (2) 980-11-0010 New Zealand 000-911
Costa rica (t) 114 Norway(t) 050-12-011
Denmark (t) 0430-0010 Philippines (t2) 105-11
Dominica 1 800 872 2881 Singapore (t) 800-0011
Dom. Rep. 1 800 872-2881 St. Kitts 1 800 872-2881
Finland (t) 9800-100-10 St. Maarten (2) 800-10011
France (t) 19*-0011 Sweden (t) 020-795-611
Gambia (t) 001-199-220-0010 Switzerland (t) 046-05-0011
Germany/Frg (1t) 0130-0010 U.K. 0800-89-0011
Greece (t) 00-800-1311 Uruguay (t) 00-1161
Grenada (2) 872
* = await second tone t = Public phones require coin or card
1 = trial basis only 2 = limited availability
I hope AT&T doesn't tell the SS that this is a internal secret
document that costs millions ... I got mine for free from the 800
number above.
Disclaimer: I don't work for AT&T, though that isn't too bad an idea.
To Cornell, I'm just a number and a source of money.
All typos are most probably mine. Use with care.hkhenson@cup.portal.com (08/13/90)
One aspect of the Len Rose case which has been discussed on the Well is the concept of "fair use" of copyrighted material. I know that ATT has put "This is copyrighted, but we don't intend to ever publish it" notices on Unix source code (and a lot of other chunks of binary unix copies too.) However, with thousands of copies of it sold, and at least that many in the hands of CS majors, a jury might well rule that ATT had effectively published the code. If so, then what Len had on his machine is very likely to fall under the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law. As is clear from the affidavit supporting the warrant under which Len's computers and reference materials were taken, ATT is the motivating force in the Len Rose case, just as Bell South was in the Neidorf case. It seems possible that this case might blow up in their faces even worse than the Neidorf case did, making Unix source code freely available as reference material (which might not be that bad for ATT). Another thing, I have been a faithful ATT LD customer since the breakup, but their role in this case is making me reconsider. Keith Henson hkhenson@cup.portal.com