CSTROM@SIMTEL20.ARPA (05/22/84)
Interesting that the originator of the message neglected to mention
the nature of the message or messages that caused such a reaction from
the {_California authorities. Needless to say, a lot of people are
asking this question and I am trying to determine same with no
response as yet.ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID.ARPA (05/22/84)
Good grief! Don't put that message on this net! I don't want the local Ersatz Gestapo crashing in here and confiscating my terminal! (Not to mention them trying to haul away your lovely DEC-20!!) (Now if you'd like to slip me a bootleg copy -- assuming we don't run afoul of Federal Interstate Traffic laws...) David Kirschbaum Toad Hall
ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.ARPA (05/22/84)
Agreed. After all the misleading/deceiving/WRONG information I get in ads, political speeches, and even the voting information from California (I'm a non-resident voter)... If I called the local responsible agents and mumbled obscenities, would they arrest/impound all the phone exchanges and relays that transferred my call? And the telco district manager for not (illegally) monitoring my call? David Kirschbaum Toad Hall
SFH@CMU-CS-C.ARPA (05/22/84)
I'd also like to know the text of the original message and the charge facing the sysop, Tom Tcimpidis. Considering that Pacific telephone made the complaint, perhaps the message contained information sensitive to them. Such as how to get around billing or such. Was the charge conspiracy to commit theft of services? Reguardless of the text, I seems (to me) that the seizure was inappropriate. The form of a communications system is irrelevant. Freedom of speech (expression) is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. The burden of requiring the sysop to examine (and censor) every message is an unfair burden. In the case of private messages this examination is clearly an invasion of personal privacy. This law does not seem to be applied evenly. Consider the information that passes through the mail and over the phone lines. Not to mention other computer systems used by universities and the government. -------
ron@BRL-VGR.ARPA (05/22/84)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-VGR.ARPA> Although I suspect that they justify siezure of the system the same way they would sieze a tape recorder that they felt had evidence on it. Doesn't seem right to me either. -Ron
earl@BRL-VAT.ARPA (05/22/84)
From: Earl Weaver (VLD/ATB) <earl@BRL-VAT.ARPA> Public apathy is one of the reasons for the problem. Theoretically the government can only do what we allow it to do (that is, we, collectively). We are allowing the constitution to be virtually rewritten by the judicial branch of government by its "modern" interpretations of old laws. Frankly, I'm disturbed.
jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA (05/22/84)
From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA> Although it's probably useless to speculate on the exact nature of the message that caused the phone company to file the complaint, one may still make some guesses. The telecom discussion list once had an interesting discussion on the subject of blue boxing and the legal implications thereof. Someone pointed out that it was a violation of federal law to have such a discussion (at the technical level), and the moderator promptly suspended the discussion, with the wry note, "let's not have any more felonies on telecom, okay?" I trust that I'm not doing a disservice by bringing that discussion (which was a while ago) under public scrutiny, but it does serve to point out that CENSORSHIP IS ALIVE AND WELL UNDER OUR DEMOCRACY! If it were to come to a legal test, it is quite possible that the first amendment would win out, but one never knows. If it's legal to publish plans for building a thermonuclear device, I suspect that the crime of describing the workings of a blue box pales by comparison. -jns
KYLE.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (05/23/84)
IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, I'M ALARMED. IT SEEMS WE HAVE A PRIORITY PROBLEM HERE. THE LOSS OF PUBLISHING BLUE BOX PLANS IS DOLLARS FROM MA BELL (OR WHAT EVER IT'S CALLED NOW). THE LOSS IN PUBLISHING PLANS TO A THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE IS THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE IF IT TRIGGERS WWIII. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!
jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA (05/23/84)
From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA> Refer to the November 1979 issue of The Progressive for a description of the construction of a thermonuclear device. It is not actually a "plan" per se. However, the description is probably adequate to permit construction by appropriately skilled persons. The problem would be to obtain sufficient fissile material. To be fair to the phone company, the analogous components for a blue box can be bought "off the shelf" as it were. However, I do not agree that the phone company (or congress, acting on its behalf) should be permitted to abridge first amendment rights any more than The Progressive should have been prevented from publishing its article (as it was not). -jns
jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA (05/23/84)
From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet@UCI-750A.ARPA> While I will agree that the judicial branch has managed to reinterpret laws so as to decrease personal freedoms, you are mistaken in pointing the finger at the judiciary in this case. This appears to be a law designed specifically to protect the phone company. No interpretation by the judicial branch will be rendered until law is challenged. I'd be curious to know exactly which law was violated in this BBS case and what steps the sysop can take to recover his system. If this case were taken all the way to the supreme court, it could be ten years before the system is returned. There are still some kids here in Irvine whose systems are in the custody of the FBI, although to my knowledge these juveniles have yet to be formally charged with a crime--MONTHS and MONTHS after the fact. Gee, it never ceases to amaze me how easily democracy is eroded by the forces of apathy, bureaucracy, and ignorance. -jns
steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA (05/24/84)
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA> >> However, I do not agree that the phone >> company (or congress, acting on its behalf) should be permitted to >> abridge first amendment rights any more than The Progressive should >> have been prevented from publishing its article (as it was not). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, yes it was! Morland's article was originally scheduled for the April, '79 issue, but on March 26 Federal judge Robert W. Warren "..did what no Federal judge had ever done before in the 203-year history of the American republic" when he issued a preliminary injunction barring publication, and had all copies of the article, its proofs, sketches &c. locked up. Sanity did not prevail until September 28, when the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Warren's incredible injunction. The article was printed in November. The Progressive was, in fact "prevented" from printing it (by Warren's injunction) for more than six months. A last note: While this was only a minor random aberration on the Government's part, nearly five years later The Progressive is still struggling to get out of debt from the costs it incurred in defending the first amendment to the Constitution.
lat@stcvax.UUCP (05/24/84)
A few people have mentioned the 1st amendment regarding this issue.
That amendment does not guarantee you the right to say just anything
anywhere, regardless of the medium, etc.
Like just about everyone else on the net, I must warn you that I'm
not a lawyer and so I don't really know all the details. However, a
conversation or communication to commit a crime is classified as a
conspiracy. The level of the conspiracy is, I believe, the same as
that of the crime under discussion. This means that if you and I are
standing on the street corner making plans to jay walk, it could
technically be considered a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor
(or however jay-walking is classified). If we were talking about
plans to murder someone, or to rob a bank, it would be a felony. I
think the discussion in telecom about blue boxes might have been
in the conspiracy category.
Regarding publishing plans for atomic bombs, that issue would depend
on how the information was classified by the government. If I remember
correctly the original posting was from information that was all
declassified and in the public domain. To that extent it would then
be like publishing the plans to build a rifle, which is no less of a
weapon. I'm probably on more shakey ground here.
--
{decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat Larry Tepper
{allegra, amd70, ucbvax}!nbires!stcvax!lat 303-673-5435ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (05/25/84)
Next time you receive a chain letter through the mail, call the Feds and demand that they confiscate the Post Office! -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags "Against people who give vent to their loquacity by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."
gnome@olivee.UUCP (05/25/84)
Information, by itself, is not illegal. If you want to build a blue box just get back issues of TAP magazine (NYC) and away you go! What should be done is a countersuit against PACTEL stating that if it were not for their phone system such-and-such a crime would not have happened (pick a crime, any crime)! Then try to confiscate their equipment because it has the billing records you will need to prove your case in court. Harassment works both ways - now we just need someone with enough money to pull it off. Yow! It's 1984! (Zippy, of head pin)
rtb@ihuxi.UUCP (todd) (05/25/84)
I wonder how many illegal drug deals (are there legal drug deals?) are made on Pacific Telcom or any phone network every day. Using the logic that a sysop could have his equipment confiscated because of questionable discussions on that BBS I suppose that the DEA could confiscate about every switching office (local and toll) in the U.S. R.T. Bradstrum ihuxi!rtb
brad@bradley.UUCP (05/27/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-106600:bradley:1100001:000:108 bradley!brad May 26 19:12:00 1984 Does this mean that the local phone companys will get confiscated when you receive a crank phone call? :-)
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (05/28/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-106600:trsvax:53400034:000:245 trsvax!mikey May 28 10:09:00 1984 Someone needs to file a multi-million dolllar lawsuit against the phone company the next time one of those automated dialers disturbs them. "But judge, my wife and I only have sex every seven years, and the phone company ruined it!" mikey
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (05/31/84)
If a person passes a stolen calling-card number to someone else during a phone
call, is the phone company going to have itself arrested and its equipment
confiscated? The BBS activity seems to fall into the same category of
communications.
The alternative (monitoring all communications) is too frightening to
contemplate.
--
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc
"I'm a citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"bowles@fortune.UUCP (Mark Bowles) (05/31/84)
We have seen a great number of glib analogies concerning this issue attempting to show the unreasonable nature of the confiscation (e.g.: do drug deals conducted over the phone require confiscation of the phone system). Other postings (e.g. lauren's) have suggested that BBS operators have "some" responsibility to police their postings for content and delete those which clearly have illegal intent (e.g. Calling Card numbers). To suggest that the phone company should monitor calls in order to avoid illegal activities on "the net" would bring cries of "BIG BROTHER" from everybody. The basic difference between these two points of view is: responsibility of the service operator for the content of the messages. The issue is similar to another of our favorites: software duplication services. To what extent does a copier of floppy disks (or stock certificates by xerox) have to police his clients as to copyright infringements? Unfortunately, I am afraid the answer is determined by the Golden Rule: them that has the Gold, makes the Rules. Would the police have been able to intervene if the BBS had been, for example, The Source? Or would the police bothered to intervene if, for example, the offending posting had been something like: "for a good time, call [my phone no]"? In other words, the distinction between hands-off communication service (e.g. phone company) and self-policing discussion group (BBS) has primarily to do with how big you are and how vulnerable you are to someone bigger beating the %$#& out of you.
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (06/01/84)
[*************=8>:) (snort)]
I heard recently that the system-manglers are even attacking
the BBS's! Apparently a number of the local BBS's have been brought down
intentionally by people calling in. Are there any sysops out there who
have encountered this, or heard about it?
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barrymckeeman@wivax.UUCP (06/04/84)
My guess is that both BBSs and police are going to evolve
away from this problem. The police will do better tapping
the lines of "underground" sources to see who is using the
objectionable information. The BBS folks will find it in
their interests to report illegal activities that come to
their attention, without laboriously wiping away the
evidence. Shortly the abuse will stop.
/s/ Bill McKeeman.Wang-Inst at CSNet-Relay
...decvax!wivax!mckeeman
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies, Tyngsboro, MA 01879merlyn@sequent.UUCP (06/05/84)
> From: barry@ames-lm.UUCP > Message-ID: <292@ames-lm.UUCP> > Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 00:09:45 PDT > > I heard recently that the system-manglers are even attacking > the BBS's! Apparently a number of the local BBS's have been brought down > intentionally by people calling in. Are there any sysops out there who > have encountered this, or heard about it? My brother manages the Portland [Oregon] Atari Club BBS {(503)245-9405}. He's had lots of trouble lately with a guy who calls himself "Boy George". "BG" logs in to the PACBBS, giving false login information (sometimes obscene), and attempts to tie up the BBS for long periods of time and send useless (and sometimes obscene) messages to the SYSOP. I've electronically chatted with this guy for a good couplea hours now (although I still don't know who he is), and it appears that he is just today's electronic equivalent of the guys with their spray paint cans doing vandalism to the bridges and walls. He's apparently been kicked off from other Portland-area systems, and has done no specific damage, other than the loss of a lot of access time for our single-user BBS. He hasn't managed to bring the BBS down (although we've had a couple people do that by finding software bugs). Yes, given a media, some people will find means, motive, and opportunity to abuse it. That's life. -- A particularly personal and original observation from the thought-stream of Randal L. ("not a BBS") Schwartz, esq. (merlyn@sequent.UUCP) (Official Legendary Sorcerer of the 1984 Summer Olympics) Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. (503)626-5700 (sequent = 1/quosine) UUCP: {decwrl,ogcvax,pur-ee,rocks34,shell,unisoft,vax135,verdix}!sequent!merlyn
bob@islenet.UUCP (06/08/84)
Kenn Barry asks, > I heard recently that the system-manglers are even attacking >the BBS's! Apparently a number of the local BBS's have been brought down >intentionally by people calling in. Are there any sysops out there who >have encountered this, or heard about it? Yes. The BBS's out here regularly undergo attacks by self-styled "systems crashers". If there are any loopholes in the BBS software that allow the system to be brought down, they will be found. Passwords easily broken, are. Control characters that might create a program interrupt or hang the modem are regularly tried. Stable systems without passwords (Conference Tree clones and some of the RBBS systems) tend to get a surprising amount of pointless obscene messages posted. Messages posting various cracking techniques and phone numbers show up regularly. It takes a considerable amount of time and patience on the part their SYSOPs to keep this stuff pruned off. All sorts of subterfuges and phoney names are tried to obtain passwords. Out of the 1000 or so people out here who use the public BBS's, it seems 1% to 2% of them enjoy trying to mangle systems. -- Bob Cunningham ..{dual,ihnp4,uhpgvax,vortex}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (06/09/84)
From: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Federal law prohibits the use of the telephone system to make obscene phone calls. If you call the phone company and tell them you are getting such calls, they will put a call monitor on your line which will automatically log the phone number of the caller. When you receive an obscene call make a note of the time and date and then contact the phone company. They will take it from there, sending a letter to the caller notifying them that if such calls do not cease, their phone service will be terminated. --Keith
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (06/15/84)
Here in Maryland, the offender is not sent a letter. If the offended party agrees to prosecute the offender or to testify against him/her (I think the Police actually charge the person), the offender is in fact prosecuted. If you do not agree to charges being placed, neither the Phone Company nor the Police will waste their resources on your problem. Other than that, it's exacttly as you described. Brint