TK0JUT1%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (jt) (07/23/90)
In TELECOM DIGEST V10, #505, Pat Townson writes: >You say it might well be 'a major turning point in the future of >electronic communications', but I don't think it will be quite that dramatic. Unlike simple "access" cases, Craig Neidorf's trial raises, for the first time to my knowledge in a federal court, the Constitutional protections accorded to electronic journals. Depending on how the issues are presented and on Judge Bua's rulings, the consequences could be minimal. On the other hand, they could be dramatic, and those who have read Judge Bua's memorandum order in denying Craig's motions to dismiss believe that the judge would like to establish some precedent on at least some of the issues. No single case in a federal district court is likely to be a "landmark" decision, but it can establish precedent for several years within the court's jurisdiction and also shape law in other federal and state jurisdictions. A decision that weakens the protections of electronic communication could encourage over-zealous prosecutors to continue their witch hunts by targeting such digests as TELECOM Digest. This Digest has been far more helpful in learning the techology of the telecom companies than any of the hacker journals. And, if memory serves, the Moderator quite explicitly advocated ripping off Lotus solely for the purpose of retaliating against Mitch Kapor's EFF participation, and not for the challenge of learning more about the software. How does this differ from the actions of those he criticizes? >The name 'Phrack' seems to be a combination of the two words 'phreak' >and 'hack', two words with a derogatory inference even to many of the >people who use them to describe themselves. It is almost as though it >was being stuck up under the government's nose with the attitude >'see if you can stop us'. The name "PHRACK" is, indeed, a combination of those two "nasty" words. But, the claim that these have a "derogatory inference" (perhaps Pat means "derogatory connotations," because words don't "infer") is ludicrous. The term combines two separate activities which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory. PHRACK first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen). It may be comforting to impute motives to those you dislike many years after the fact, but more often than not such imputation reflects more about our own motives than those of our adversary. >Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant >(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some >misplaced reverence to the telephone network. This is a whole topic in >itself: the swapping of /f/ and /ph/ to make some point to readers could be >discussed in detail. If one group, even if that group is law-enforcement, becomes annoyed at the language usage of another, so what? Should a culture be shaped in accordance with the preferences of some more powerful group lest we displease that group? Pat invokes a pathological imagery ("SICK?? -- c'mon!) to discredit a form of language use. Gordon Meyer and I have argued in a recent article (in Frank Schmalleger's volume on Computers in Criminal Justice) that there is a postmodernist component to the computer underground reflecting, among other things, a playful irony in word use. One needn't agree with us, but it's difficult to dispute that, like it or not, the CU is a separate culture with specific norms, language use, and other characteristics that set it apart from those who modem (yes, "modem" is a verb). One aspect of this culture is a tweak at common conventions of language. Technological changes impel social responses, and one response has been to move beyond "modernist" conventions that seem anachronistic as we move into the 21st century. We can send a copy of this paper to anybody who wants it (ask for "The Baudy World of the Byte Bandit: A Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer Underground). Pat does us all a service by keeping this issue alive and by having the courage to voice opinions that others might share but are hesitant to do lest they be flamed. Despite his occasional comments that some of us find maddeningly off-the-wall, he is also to be commended for his unequivocal support of allowing "the other side" to air issues (specifically, his supportive interview of Len Rose and many of his other articles that have been invaluable in providing information not otherwise available). Sometimes I cannot but wonder if his comments aren't in fact intended to be ironic, a way of raising an issue knowing that others will respond with counter-arguments that further clarify the issue. He would have made a good co-editor of PHRACK (suppressed grin). Jim Thomas /TK0JUT1@NIU.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Mr. Thomas is one of the Moderators of the Computer Underground Digest, and our correspondent at the trial now going on. PT]
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/27/90)
In article <10056@accuvax.nwu.edu> TK0JUT1%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (jt) writes: > The term combines two separate activities > which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory. PHRACK > first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their > early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen). I don't know about you, but I don't think of 1985 as being so long ago. And my opinion of phreakers and that particular type of hackers hasn't changed any in those five years. If you have that sort of spare time, how about creating some new code instead of figuring out ways to grab old stuff? > >Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant > >(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some > >misplaced reverence to the telephone network. On the other hand, I think our esteemed Moderator is way out in left field on this one. Personally, I'm sure that Neidorf must have done something worth prosecuting him for ... but if they can't find it out or prove it they should certainly not be hitting him with this bogus 911 file business. And the freedom of speech issues bring to mind the hypocritical ravings of our own {Houston Chronical}. They believe in freedom of speech ... so long as it's not in a competing medium. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/31/90)
In article <10154@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.ferranti.com I said: > Personally, I'm sure that Neidorf must have done something worth > prosecuting him for ... It occurs to me that this sounds awfully authoritarian. I don't mean it that way. Other information that has been published about the people involved in this has brought up indications that they've had copies of AT&T source code, and things like that. That's certainly illegal, but hardly unusual: the source to "cb" and other AT&T proprietary code has even popped up on the net from time to time. I'm not trying to imply that Craig is getting off on a technicality or any such BS. As I said: > but if they can't find it out or prove it they > should certainly not be hitting him with this bogus 911 file business. That is, they "know" he's done something, but they don't have the proof so they decided to create a crime. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>