TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (10/05/90)
Seems some of our modem cowpokes out there prefer dismissing issues out of hand rather than addressing them, and about all one can say to Eli after reading his post is: "dipshit" should be hyphenated. Now, let's try again more slowly. The issue isn't whether we like or dislike Cliff Stoll, and judging from the posts, some of those railing against critics of the Nova program seem not to have read Cuckoo's Egg. It was a first-rate "mystery," captivating, and difficult to put down once begun. Stoll also came across quite well in the Nova program---entertaining, lively, and quite photogenic. But, these aren't the issues. The Nova program had the opportunity to clarify for the non-computer literate audience the nature of the hacking community and computer underground. It failed. It re-inforced the image of great danger, distorted the hacking enterprise, and at a time when the Constitutional issues surrounding computerized information is a crucial legal and public issue, presented a set of images that would justify such represesive actions as Operation Sun Devil. The point is not that the Nova producers failed to defend the CU, but rather that--for a Nova program--we should expect something a bit more intellectually stimulating than an uncritical apologia for hacker-hunting. The Cuckoo's Egg, entertaining as it was, presented what can easily be argued as a misinformed attack on the hacker community. The book has been cited and used by law enforcement agencies to justify crackdowns againt the hacker menace. It hardly seems unreasonable to judge a person by the degree of reflection on past statements that have had such an affect, and there was not an iota of evidence from the Nova program that Cliff has had any second thoughts about the impact of his statements. One person may claim he was demonstrably wrong. Another may disagree. This provides the opportunity for dialogue, but dismissing the issue with a silly "get serious" comment is one reason why undergraduates should be required to take a few courses in humanities, especially philosophy. The similarities between Cliff and hackers is not necessarily bad, but rather ironic: Both seem a a bit obsessive, both possess a love of technological problem solving, both are quite adept at "social engineering" to obtain information useful to their purpose. Re-read the Cuckoo's Egg, and, if you taped Nova, re-run it. Is "liberating" equipment from offices any more or less benign than entering a university mainframe without permission? You may think it is, but the fact remains that there is considerable room for honest intellectual disagreement. Also keep in mind that Hess was not a typical hacker, and Stoll made a number of global statements about hackers, not just Hess. It's hardly "whining" to complain about misuse of the term hacker, and it's hardly "old news," at least not to the law enforcement types who define the term as an illegal activity. Check out the indictments from Sun Devil and you'll see how the meaning of the word can be used in a highly prejudicial way. Many of us, including me, would have acted just Stoll acted in tracking down his invader. Hopefully, however, most of us would also reflect on the ethical and other issues raised during a period when technology challenges conventional notions of privacy, freedeom of speech, proprietary information, and other neat stuff that was *totally* ignored in the Nova program.
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (10/06/90)
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for a program (a la Nova) or programs addressing the greater issues of what amounts to "the electronic age". I also think, however, that it is un- reasonable (and unrealistic) to expect a one-hour program to have explained the Stoll story to a technologically naive audience, then delved into the social and ethical issues. It's something that needs hours to get into, and I'm afraid this squeaky wheel ain't squeakin' loud enough to get that done. There just isn't an audience for it. Americans are worried about AIDS because they, or someone they know/love, can get it, and they now know that. They DON'T know that this issue of government intrusion into private databases, and stuff like that, not only CAN happen to them, but DOES. They don't care. PBS is less commercial than commercial tv, but it still has to attract an audience, and I'm afraid the show you people want to see is just not going to happen. ----- Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu Now look inside; what do you see? That's easy: that's a pickle.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/06/90)
In article <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM> TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu writes: > The Nova program had the opportunity to clarify for the non-computer literate > audience the nature of the hacking community and computer underground. It > failed. But that wasn't what it tried to do. I much prefer a program that tells the story first. Other people might like to talk about ethical issues without any facts to base their opinions on, but NOVA did a good job of letting people know what's happened in the real world. You can only put so much information into a television program. > The Cuckoo's Egg, entertaining as it was, presented what can easily be argued > as a misinformed attack on the hacker community. Misinformed? I can't take this statement seriously unless you can say exactly what misiniformation you're referring to. Well? > This provides the opportunity for > dialogue, but dismissing the issue with a silly "get serious" comment is one > reason why undergraduates should be required to take a few courses in > humanities, especially philosophy. Yes, perhaps you should. > The similarities between Cliff and hackers is not necessarily bad, but rather > ironic: Both seem a a bit obsessive, both possess a love of technological > problem solving, both are quite adept at "social engineering" to obtain > information useful to their purpose. These are similarities? I don't know anyone who isn't a bit obsessive--- though I'm surrounded by mathematicians and computer scientists, so this may not be surprising. Who doesn't appreciate the value of technology? And what do you mean by social engineering? A few articles ago, I thought you saw a real similarity in *behavior* between Stoll and Hess, but you just didn't know how to express it. But you haven't said much more than ``they're both programmers who live in the real world.'' Big deal. > Is "liberating" equipment from offices any more or less > benign than entering a university mainframe without permission? You seriously believe that Stoll's behavior that weekend is in the least comparable to, say, providing the KGB with complete source to a major operating system, or changing the system software on a medical computer? I admit that I wouldn't have taken the equipment, but you keep harping on this one incident as if it justifies your cracking someone else's computer. It doesn't. I might install a security camera in my apartment. A thief might videotape my apartment to get an idea of my schedule, so that he can break in at a ``good'' time. You find some similarity between these actions? Grow up. > Also keep in mind that Hess was not a typical > hacker, and Stoll made a number of global statements about hackers, not just > Hess. Let's keep straight that Stoll uses the ambiguous word ``hacker'' the way that some of us use ``cracker.'' Hess was perhaps a better-funded, more determined cracker than usual, but he wasn't really atypical. > Many of us, including me, would have acted just Stoll acted in tracking down > his invader. Hopefully, however, most of us would also reflect on the ethical > and other issues raised during a period when technology challenges > conventional notions of privacy, freedeom of speech, proprietary information, > and other neat stuff that was *totally* ignored in the Nova program. How sweet. Yes, I've reflected on these issues, and like anyone else who's responsible for protecting his users' privacy, I don't need much reflection to conclude that recording the activities of a system cracker is ethically sound. I also don't find it surprising that NOVA puts facts before philosophical crap. ---Dan
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/07/90)
In article <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM> TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu writes: > The Nova program had the opportunity to clarify for the non-computer literate > audience the nature of the hacking community and computer underground. It > failed. *Which* hacker community? The hacker community *I* am part of has nothing to do with: The computer underground. Breaking into systems. Pirating software. Phreaking. etc... I wish I could find it amusing that the folks who misappropriated our good name have found themselves in the same sticky wicket, but I'm all to familiar with the history of witch-hunts to be sufficiently distanced from the subject. Oh well... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) (10/07/90)
In a previous article, Peter da Silva stands up and thumps his chest: >*Which* hacker community? The hacker community *I* am part of has nothing >to do with: > The computer underground. > Breaking into systems. > Pirating software. > Phreaking. > etc... Right Peter.. I bet you never gave someone a piece of software before.. I suppose you never,ever shared a piece of code with a colleague or an associate.. If you really knew the "hacker community" you claim to belong to, you would know that most of them have done at least 2 of the above at some time in the past. Most hackers of the old school were doing some of the above even before it became illegal. Not because they were morally bankrupt, but that it was part of the _original_ ethic. Destroying data, implanting viruses and worms was not part of that ethic. The pursuit of knowledge and even fun were the only goals... I cannot argue with the issue of the semantic corruption, since I too deplore the negative image it has grown to represent. However, I cannot abide by self righteous hypocrisy. Len
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/07/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <188@netsys.NETSYS.COM> TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu writes: }> The Nova program had the opportunity to clarify for the non-computer literate }> audience the nature of the hacking community and computer underground. It }> failed. }I wish I could find it amusing that the folks who misappropriated our }good name have found themselves in the same sticky wicket, but I'm all }to familiar with the history of witch-hunts to be sufficiently distanced }from the subject. I know... the growth and change of language is a real bitch. Think about what the people who were in the old movie "The Gay Divorcee" must think. although I, too, fancy myself something of an old-style 'hacker', I've given up the fight: the word has changed meaning and that's pretty much it. This is not to be happy about it, but to continue to shovel against the tide is silly. As far as I can tell, there *is*no* word at the moment for what we used to call a 'hacker' in the 60's. And essentially no one misses its absence, except for a small number of us. /Bernie\
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/07/90)
In article <59869@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >I know... the growth and change of language is a real bitch. Think >about what the people who were in the old movie "The Gay Divorcee" must >think. Ah, but everybody is aware of the old meaning, and understands it in the proper context. It just doesn't get used in new writing. The public does not know that there is an "old" definition for hacking. I gave up the fight myself, and hard it was to do, considering that I have "hack" licence plates on my hackmobile. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/08/90)
In article <191@netsys.NETSYS.COM> len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) writes: > In a previous article, Peter da Silva stands up and thumps his chest: > >*Which* hacker community? The hacker community *I* am part of has nothing > >to do with: [ The computer underground, Breaking into systems, Pirating software, Phreaking, etc...] > Right Peter.. I bet you never gave someone a piece of software before.. Guilty. > I suppose you never,ever shared a piece of code with a colleague or an > associate.. Now that's an odd accusation. Sharing code is a great way to share the load of developing software. There are whole newsgroups that are full of nothing *but* such shared code... some of it mine. I even ran one for a while. > If you really knew the "hacker community" you claim to belong to, you > would know that most of them have done at least 2 of the above at some time > in the past. Probably so. Oh ye who is without sin and all that. But that's not what hacking used to be *about*. The artists have been pushed aside by the explorers, etc., etc,. etc.... [sermon about creativity deleted] Look, Len, I know you're pissed at being railroaded. I would be, too. But how about reading what I wrote instead of what you want me to have written? That's more of the "us versus them" mentality that motivated the suits at AT&T, you know. > However, I cannot abide by self righteous hypocrisy. Oh ye who is without sin... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) (10/08/90)
Peter was right.. I can't be impartial when it comes to this whole mess and will again withdraw into the background. I will let those of you with more level heads discuss these issues. Lurking somewhere between a rock and a hardplace.... Len
ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) (10/08/90)
In <193@netsys.NETSYS.COM> len@netsys.NETSYS.COM (Len Rose) writes: > > Peter was right.. I can't be impartial when it comes to this whole > mess and will again withdraw into the background. I will let those > of you with more level heads discuss these issues. > > Lurking somewhere between a rock and a hardplace.... Len: You have a fully justifiable anger to deal with here, and *I* for one, will not expect you the be fully impartial when discussing the issues. You, and the other victims of the SS (what an appropriate abbreviation!) and corporate ineptitude and greed (myself included) have been tarred without any chance to face the real accusers. I don't think you need to refrain from comment simply because you hold strong opinions about the topic. Peter: I, too, do not like having the formerly proud label of hacker co-opted and corrupted into a criminal category. To some extent, I have been forced to adopt a new term for myself so that I can describe the level of expertise without making too much claim. The most appropriate words are "guru" or "wizard" (but those are not being subject to a similar co-opting process in news.groups) but find myself uncomfortable with them, so I coined/adopted "cybermancer" instead. Comments in general The Nova program was pretty good as a general television program, it presented a good insight into the emotional and social impact of the event, without letting the esoterical details of computing get in the way. Nova has always presented the basic information necessary to understanding without bogging down in the details that are important only to the experts. Additionally, Cliff Stohl is an admittedly *odd* character, even for the idiosyncratic and peculiar west coast computing community. The interview of Cliff on CNN the other week (where he appropriated the reporters' CNN watch) was a prime example of his particular set of foibles. -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.145439.12991@wolves.uucp> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes:
[ hacker, guru, wizard, cybermancer, quackdoodle ]
Why can't anyone be satisfied with ``expert''? It's a straightforward,
neutral term, and saying ``I'm a UNIX expert'' is not going to start any
arguments. Leave the ego trip words as compliments for other people.
---Dancat@tygra.ddmi.com (CAT-TALK Maint. Account) (10/09/90)
In article <1990Oct8.145439.12991@wolves.uucp> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: } Additionally, Cliff Stohl is an admittedly *odd* character, even }for the idiosyncratic and peculiar west coast computing community. The }interview of Cliff on CNN the other week (where he appropriated the }reporters' CNN watch) was a prime example of his particular set of }foibles. }-- Does Cliff have some sort of a speech impediment or something?? He seemed to be behaving strangly on the CNN interview. I missed the NOVA program last week and it isn't listed this week. Does anyone know how often they re-broadcast NOVA ep's?? (Hi Cliff - I know you're listening...)
mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) (10/09/90)
cat@tygra.ddmi.com (CAT-TALK Maint. Account) writes: |> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: |> } Additionally, Cliff Stohl is an admittedly *odd* character, even |> }for the idiosyncratic and peculiar west coast computing community. The |> }interview of Cliff on CNN the other week (where he appropriated the |> }reporters' CNN watch) was a prime example of his particular set of |> }foibles. |> Does Cliff have some sort of a speech impediment or something?? He seemed |> to be behaving strangly on the CNN interview. I missed the NOVA program |> last week and it isn't listed this week. Does anyone know how often they |> re-broadcast NOVA ep's?? No. I've had the pleasure of meeting him, and I the impression I have is that the man is lucky enough to be *extremely* excited about anything he has chosen to be doing at a given moment.... |> (Hi Cliff - I know you're listening...) If you are, congrats on an interesting NOVA. Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF |"Coffee for my breakfast, whiskey by the side The Good mbrown@osf.org | it's a dark and gloomy mornin', The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| gonna rain outside, outside --- The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | ...and the forecast calls for pain."
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) (10/12/90)
It's time for a new word - one with the old terming of 'hacker', but
without the stigma of the current definition.
people of hack
Eurgh!
Pat
--
This .sig space for rent. cliff@well.sf.ca.us (Clifford Stoll) (10/14/90)
In article <14551@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: > >cat@tygra.ddmi.com (CAT-TALK Maint. Account) writes: >|> ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) writes: >|> } Additionally, Cliff Stohl is an admittedly *odd* character, even >|> }for the idiosyncratic and peculiar west coast computing community. >|> Does Cliff have some sort of a speech impediment or something?? He seemed >|> to be behaving strangly on the CNN interview. I missed the NOVA program >|> last week and it isn't listed this week. Does anyone know how often they >|> re-broadcast NOVA ep's?? >No. I've had the pleasure of meeting him, and I the impression I have is >that the man is lucky enough to be *extremely* excited about anything he >has chosen to be doing at a given moment.... >|> (Hi Cliff - I know you're listening...) >If you are, congrats on an interesting NOVA. Thanks, Greg, Mark, Dan, and the rest of you ... It's strange to be the subject of a Usenet string and I don't want to discourage any discussion. It sounds like I'm being quiet or ignoring Usenet postings. My silence grows from a mountain of e-mail that I'm answering. Additionally, I've been on the road a lot, and have no newsreader when I'm away from home. Finally, certain personal and professional problems demand attention. All the same, I'm amazed at the accuracy of some of the comments posted to comp.org.eff.talk ... and saddened by others. I'll try to reply to any e-mail that comes my way; but for now, I'll keep my mouth shut over the usenet. That doesn't mean that I don't have any opinions! Cheers, Cliff Stoll best reply address is cliff@cfa.harvard.edu
cliff@well.sf.ca.us (Clifford Stoll) (10/14/90)
Making the Nova program ...
The first that I heard of Nova was May, 1989. The director,
Robin Bates, asked if I might be interested in working with him
on making a Nova program. I discouraged him: I was busy in
astronomy and was also finishing writing a book.
He again contacted me in September 1989 ... I agreed to work
with him. There were several other productions being made
around that time including Connie Chung/CBS and Yorkshire Television from
Britain.
Nova's intent was not to discuss the ethics of computing.
Rather, the show was "a documentary based on a story by Cliff Stoll".
It was not a docudrama version of my book, The Cuckoo's Egg.
It was written by Robin Bates and although I had some opportunity
to review/revise the script, the final show was the responsibility
of WGBH TV.
I volunteered to play myself in the show, as did everyone else,
with the exception of the 4 cia spooks (they were played by some
football coaches). It was filmed on location - at my old office
in Berkeley, at my house in Oakland, and in Hannover, Germany.
A few hours after I testified in Hess's espionage trial, they filmed
the Hannover scenes. This was Jan - Feb, 1990.
I ad-libbed my parts. Typically, the script would say one thing,
but it didn't feel natural, was factually wrong, or made a stupid point.
So I'd invent as I went along, without prompts.
Sometimes, this led to tension with the director: typically, he
wanted me to stay in one place and not move around so much.
("Sit still! Don't move your hands! Don't twist your head!")
Other times, he wanted unimportant things (like the shower scene
or the cia spook scene) which, to me, conveyed little information.
The entire production was shot on 16mm film,
which meant that for most scenes, we did exactly one take.
With video work, you can do 5 or 10 retakes of each scene.
Film's more expensive: I didn't have that liberty.
The part I'm most sensitive about is the last scene in the film.
They took me to the forest where hacker Hagbard was found dead.
I was moved by the solemnity of this place and event. The director
suggested that I be more lighthearted, but I couldn't.
On the whole, it was fun. All the same, being momentarily famous
is much less enjoyable than you might imagine. Indeed, if I had it
to do over again, I'd certainly do things very differently.
From Berkeley, my cheers & greetings to all!
Cliff Stoll cliff@cfa.harvard.edudob@einoed.in-berlin.de (Dirk O. Brzezinski) (10/16/90)
cliff@well.sf.ca.us (Clifford Stoll) writes: >("Sit still! Don't move your hands! Don't twist your head!") After enjoying you at the trial, I 've had the impression that perhaps you 've had too many strawberry milkshakes ( :-) ) with your girl friendnd. No hard feelings, dob ( former Satanic Mechanic) email : dob@einoed.in-berlin.de
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (10/17/90)
In article <1990Oct11.201908.1854@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes:
"It's time for a new word - one with the old terming of 'hacker', but
"without the stigma of the current definition.
"
" people of hack
Ugh! ([cough! wrretch!! ourgle gurgle] (other sounds of upchucking))
Gag me with an X-acto Knife! What a disgusting alternative!
--
=============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi=============
"We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin
longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk"
or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain
= = = = = =I haven't the smoggiest notion what my address is!= = = = = =