JJ's Revenge -- Part II
John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,
about that.]
He's back!!!!
First it was the "Terror of Portal"! Now its the "Scourge of Cleveland"!
What's next, the "Curse of Chinet"??? [ semi :-) ]
You've all seen the message before, so there's no need to repeat it. I fear
this is the start of another epidemic. Here are the headers from this latest
net.infestation:
[I "folded" lines longer than 80 characters]
From article <78...@ncoast.UUCP>, by jay...@ncoast.UUCP (Jay Orr):
>Path: uwmcsd1!bbn!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!hal!\
>ncoast!jayorr
>From: jay...@ncoast.UUCP (Jay Orr)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf-lovers,rec.arts.startrek,rec.arts.tv,\
>rec.arts.wobegon,rec.audio,rec.autos,rec.autos.tech,rec.aviation,rec.food.drink
>Subject: HELP ME!!!
>Keywords: money college help
>Message-ID: <78...@ncoast.UUCP>
>Date: 30 May 88 00:33:58 GMT
>Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
>Lines: 34
>
>Poor College Student needs Your Help!! :-(
I have already send a long e-mail letter to usenet, news, postmaster, and
root at ncoast asking that they investigate this situation and report back
to these newsgroups.
Is this really JJ, Part II? How many *other* "public access" news sites
are there out there that he can pervert?
[Chinet: Are you listening? Does this "person" have an account on
*your* system?]
--
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
UUCP: {ihnp4|uwvax}!uwmcsd1!jgd
INTERNET: j...@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
--
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
UUCP: {ihnp4|uwvax}!uwmcsd1!jgd
INTERNET: j...@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
Erik E. Fair
contact name or voice phone number in the UUCP map for someone like
myself to call and discuss the behavior of that system's users.
The best I was able to do was to call the system at +1 216 781 6201
(apparently a 1200/2400 baud modem), login as "gripe" (no password),
and then attempt to articulate my concern over the latest attempt
of this Rob Noha person to flagrantly abuse the USENET for his
personal gain.
I hope that the system administrator of ncoast reads these newsgroups.
If so, I would like to know why you do not list your name and phone
number in the UUCP map like everyone else?
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fa...@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
Dan clip Bush in 88... Smith
>
>He's back!!!!
>
>First it was the "Terror of Portal"! Now its the "Scourge of Cleveland"!
>What's next, the "Curse of Chinet"??? [ semi :-) ]
Arggh... This is just my 2 cents, I really hope this whole thing
dies down soon.
The Portal can't be held responsible for what goes out of their
system, but they're responsible for how they followup when one of their
users, er, uh, f-x up. I think they've done fine, considering the
circumstances. Hopefully ncoast will handle the situation appropriately,
and will post a proper net map entry (with an electronic tip of my hat
to Mr. Eric Fair :-).
Now, as for JJ, I hope the IRS catches up to you, for starters.
They're always *real* interested in people who suddenly accumulate money.
Perhaps the (fictional?) school you go to should get wind of this mess
you have made for yourself, as well - it doesn't reflect well on them.
I have my own long drawn out college student story, complete with
a really serious student loan payback situation that I need to take care of.
I'm taking time off of school to work, and am learning all kinds of things
at Island that I'd never learn at school, bla bla bla. The point is
that there are *thousands* of us on the net that have to put of our "official"
college education for a while, in order to deal with "real life" (food,
rent, and so on). You sure didn't present your cause effectively, or to
the right audience! Get a grip, get a job, but don't grovel.
dan
dan smith, island graphics, marin co, ca, good natured infonaut, hoopy frood
4000 civic center dr., san rafael 94903 | dis: they're solely my opinions...
uucp: {ucbvax!ucbcad,sun}!island!daniel | ph: +1 (415) 491 1000 (W), 332 FAST,
uucp: {pacbell,pixar}!unicom!daniel | 332 EASY (H)| unix/films/rock/feasts
Phil Hughes
Does anyone know if the FCC would be interested in JJ? He is using
stuff regulated by them to continue his scam.
--
Phil uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl
Dr. Nethack
> Does anyone know if the FCC would be interested in JJ? He is using
> stuff regulated by them to continue his scam.
Well, it is a whole lot easier than that. Just put an ad in the
classifieds of Soldier of Fortune. That ought to generate some
persons interested in the "rmuser" procedure.
Of course it will cost.. so if you just all send a dollar to this
p.o. box..... ;-)
--Don't even reply..it is not worth it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ uop!to...@uunet.uu.net +
+ cogent!uop!to...@lll-winken.arpa +
+ {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Webber
>
> stuff regulated by them to continue his scam.
Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping
around Usenet trying to figure out how to use his postings in court and
incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over
such a visable underground communications system as Usenet?
Geez.
----- BOB (web...@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
Stephen Samuel
> [World distribution, but that's what the "original" message was. Sorry
> about that.]
>
> He's back!!!!
stuff it: Sue the bastard with a class action lawsuit for breach of trust
(do you know of anyone who could give a cheap opinion on this?? I live in
canada). Usenet survives on trust, and this jerk is blowing that trust
all to hell.
--
-------------
Stephen Samuel
{ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
or user...@uofamts.bitnet
Super user
> Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping
> around Usenet trying to figure out how to use his postings in court and
> incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over
> such a visable underground communications system as Usenet?
>
> Geez.
Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Finally someone shows some sanity in this bull
about JJ and his dollar bills.
I can't believe how many people are actually asking for the government to
come in to "punish this evil JJ." Do you guys really want the FCC to come
and regulate this whole thing just because you have a problem with one
simpleton who can't even pull a real scam off?
Geva_Apple-...@cup.portal.com.uucp
> I think "Rob Noha" = "Jay Orr" and that the latter is the true name of
> party. I mean, what kind of a crazy name is Rob Noha?
Well, it's quite simple, really:
The most common way of expressing laughter is through the monosyllable 'ha'
Now, quite obviously, nobody human is laughing at this jerk, so we have
a no-ha situation. As for 'Rob', well, to rob is a crime and this chap is
obviously a despicable criminal!
%%%%
Geva
%%%%
Disclaimer: The views expressed may or may not be my own, depending on who
I am today!
Andre Franklin
> >
> > He's back!!!!
>
> stuff it: Sue the bastard with a class action lawsuit for breach of trust
> (do you know of anyone who could give a cheap opinion on this?? I live in
> canada). Usenet survives on trust, and this jerk is blowing that trust
> all to hell.
Do everybody a favor and, if you absolutely HAVE TO post on subjects you
know nothing about, read up on them first. The legal concept of trust may
be based on the concept of trusting someone, but that's about all. You
can't sue someone for breach of trust because you can't trust him.
Sheesh!
Meg Geddes
>
>He's back!!!!
>
>First it was the "Terror of Portal"! Now its the "Scourge of Cleveland"!
>What's next, the "Curse of Chinet"??? [ semi :-) ]
uh.... beg pardon ??
>Is this really JJ, Part II? How many *other* "public access" news sites
>are there out there that he can pervert?
>[Chinet: Are you listening? Does this "person" have an account on
> *your* system?]
Could be. So what? He/She might have an account on M-Net, or Igloo or
ddsw1, or any number of systems. That's what *PUBLIC* access is all about.
Personally, I'm rather curious as to whether or not it worked (whether he
got any money)
--
Meg Geddes - Chinet Public Access Unix - Chicago, Illinois
{ihnp4|att}!chinet!meg CHINET WOMEN WILL INHERIT THE EARTH
Don't take life so seriously... it ain't nohow permanent...
Bruce Becker
I for one agree with Bob. First of all, 'JJ' wasn't running a 'scam', just
being a dink... Secondly, it would have to be a really serious felony-type
problem that the UseNet system itself could not handle, and which threatented
the well-being of the net and/or its participants.
I don't think that 'JJ' has caused that sort of problem...
Cheers, Bruce Becker
UUCP: ...!ncrcan!ziebmef!becker!bdb
BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER
I don't think 'JJ' h
Stephen Samuel
> In article <Jun.1.18.23....@aramis.rutgers.edu>, web...@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes:
>> Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping
>> incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over
>> such a visable underground communications system as Usenet?
> Do you guys really want the FCC to come
> and regulate this whole thing just because you have a problem with one
> simpleton who can't even pull a real scam off?
I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like
what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively.
Don't think that the FCC don't know about us: I'd be rather surprised if
there were no USENET sites within the FCC right now. It's better that they
know now that we're willing to help them than for us to find out that they're
trying trying to regulate us because of a flowering of jerks like JJ.
(Ghish, what a fight THAT would be..)
--
-------------
Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha!
{ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
BITNET: USERZXCV@UQV-MTS
Bob Webber
> > In article <Jun.1.18.23....@aramis.rutgers.edu>, web...@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes:
> >> Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping
> ...
> >> incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over
> >> such a visable underground communications system as Usenet?
> I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like
> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively.
> Don't think that the FCC don't know about us: I'd be rather surprised if
> there were no USENET sites within the FCC right now. It's better that they
> know now that we're willing to help them than for us to find out that they're
> trying trying to regulate us because of a flowering of jerks like JJ.
Actually, I have seen no evidence that the net reaches any government
places outside of research labs and the FBI. If the FBI is monitoring
the net for purposes other than just its computer people doing what
computer people everywhere do, then it is not clear that they would
actually want to increase the regulation. Of course, if we start
passing around encrypted news, they might change their mind :-}
It is inevitable that the net will not be able to keep on forever
under the current communications laws and such. Eventually some
one like portal's customer service department will manage to haul
the net into the courts. On the flip side, ISDN and a few other
obvious technological advances could turn the net into something
as difficult to regulate as printing presses would be today. Someday
we may stop relying on ``the company equipment'' to support the net.
In the mean time, to ignore a few messages like JJ's costs us nothing.
To go calling the postal authorities and the FCC to dump on someone
who posted a few messages that weren't even ibm pc binaries of demo
software seems counterproductive in the extreme.
---- BOB (web...@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
chris kevlahan
Really folks, JJ at his worst only had about three postings. But the
follow up postings total more than a hundred. ( Including this one -) )
Thats all I want to say.
Chris. -------- Just say no! --------
Super user
>
> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively.
> Don't think that the FCC don't know about us: I'd be rather surprised if
> there were no USENET sites within the FCC right now. It's better that they
> know now that we're willing to help them than for us to find out that they're
> trying trying to regulate us because of a flowering of jerks like JJ.
I am about to write something that I would venture to say 99% of readers
will take the wrong way. Go ahead, flame away. I'm ignoring it. :-)
What I am reading here is that we should "stomp" on someone like JJ, who
has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional
claptrap but hard statute or binding precedent - would be welcomed), yet
we should infringe on his freedom of expression, which has been guaranteed
to him under the constitution, so that the federal government, whose sole
purpose it is to enforce this constitution, will not come in and illegally
violate our right to self expression.
About 40 years ago there were a group of people who did that also. In
fear of being hunted and illegally persecuted, a group a Jews in Nazi
Germany became informers for the Nazi government against other Jews in
exchange for preferential treatment. Do we want to become the same kinds
of people as that?
Mark H. Colburn
>In article <31...@edm.UUCP>, st...@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes:
>>
>> I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like
>> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively.
>has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional
>claptrap but hard statute or binding precedent - would be welcomed)
Not too long ago there was a similar case of an individual which ran
an ad in the paper which read something like JJ's message. Basically
the gist of it was that you should send him a dollar just 'cause he
was a nice guy.
There were no promises of services, no advertisment of products, etc.
Just a plea for cash.
This individual was stopped by the post office for mail fraud. I
don't beleive that they ever sued, but they did make him stop running
his add, which netted him a fair amount of money.
At this particular time, I can not remeber the case, but it was
publicized a great deal.
The precedent for this is that "chain letters" are illegal. If you
think about it, given a standard chain letter where no money is
involved, there is no reason why it should be illegal. It does not
represent a hazard to anybody's morals, or hurt anybody. Directly.
However, it does tie up the post office, thereby slowing everybodies
mail down.
If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a
chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the
system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters
multiply exponentially.
Imagine that you sent a letter to 5 friends, and they sent it to five
friends, etc. After about only a few itterations there are litterally
millions of letters in the post office, asking for yet more letters to
be written.
Think about what this would do to the mail service in your area.
Would you like it?
(By the way, chain letters that involve money are a different ball of
wax altogether. There is somebody out there getting rich, and
somebody is being soaked, but they don't know it. This, therefore, is
mail fraud.)
What JJ did was not illegal according to his rights to express
himself, but it is illegal according to laws which were developed to
allow mail to flow throughout the world with as little problems as
possible.
Although the chain-letter law does impose a "limit" on our freedom of
expression, it is not a limit which people going about normal
day-to-day business are going to find bothersome, and in the long run,
it helps us all.
--
Mark H. Colburn ma...@jhereg.chi.il.us
ma...@jhereg.mn.org
..!chinet!jhereg!mark
Andre Franklin
> Not too long ago there was a similar case of an individual which ran
> an ad in the paper which read something like JJ's message. Basically
> the gist of it was that you should send him a dollar just 'cause he
> was a nice guy.
>
> There were no promises of services, no advertisment of products, etc.
> Just a plea for cash.
>
> This individual was stopped by the post office for mail fraud. I
> don't beleive that they ever sued, but they did make him stop running
> his add, which netted him a fair amount of money.
Makes you wonder about this great, free nation we live in, doesn't it?
I mean, let's call it as it is, shall we? As you said quite correctly,
there were no promises that weren't kept, no advertisements or false offers
of products or services, he simply asked for money. So??? What's wrong with
that? It is NOT illegal, NOT fraud, and frankly, I can't really say that I
can see anything immoral about it. Contrary to the protestant work ethic
maybe, but that's about it.
So why does the Post Office, an official government agency, violate this
man's constitutionally guaranteed right to self expression by blackmailing
him or using other extortion techniques resembling more the Mafia than the
free nation we claim to be?
>
> The precedent for this is that "chain letters" are illegal.
Please, if you can, show me how this is based on the precedent of chain
letters? If I put an ad into a newspaper and ask for money and give my
address to send it to, there are not chain letters involved. In fact, I
didn't send ANY letters at all, chain or otherwise.
> given a standard chain letter where no money is
> involved, there is no reason why it should be illegal. It does not
> represent a hazard to anybody's morals, or hurt anybody. Directly.
Directly or indirectly. And frankly, I am not really concerned how some
preacher in Tennessee feels, the constitution specifically forbids the
government from establishing religion, and morality fall right under that
heading. But you are right, it shouldn't be illegal. There is no hazard
to anyone, everything is voluntary, and the government should keep its
nose out of people's personal affairs. Period!
> However, it does tie up the post office, thereby slowing everybodies
> mail down.
And each person sending a letter is paying 25 cents for that privilege.
What's next? Shall we make greeting cards illegal too? How about love
letters? Anything except official business mail, does that sound good to
you? As long as I put my postage stamp on that letter, it is as important
and has as much right to being delivered as your love letter, your bill,
or your greeting card. Your argument that chain letters should be illegal
because they slow the delivery of someone else's love letter down is, for
want of a better word, bullshit!
> If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a
> chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the
> system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters
> multiply exponentially.
So do pen-friendship letters. When I was 10, I at one time was corresponding
at the same time with 114 people worldwide. Again, as long as the post
office is a public utility that accepts to deliver mail for a fee, it is
required to do so. Suggesting that someone else's mail should not be
delivered because you don't like the contents of the letter is stupid,
selfish, and inconsiderate in the extreme. I happen to feel that bills
and invoices unnecessarily tie up mail delivery and that if everybody
stopped sending them, the rest of the mail would get delivered a lot
faster. An even more applicable point is sales junk literature. Let's
get rid of all of the government propaganda they send to us paid for by
our tax dollars, and then maybe we can talk about getting rid of mail
that is paid for by private citizens.
> (By the way, chain letters that involve money are a different ball of
> wax altogether. There is somebody out there getting rich, and
> somebody is being soaked, but they don't know it. This, therefore, is
> mail fraud.)
Ummm, did you bother to think before writing this paragraph? IF someone
is getting rich, then that proves that chain letters can work. Otherwise
the only one who'd get "soaked" is the poor sap sending the letters off
in the first place. Remember, most of them send out 200-500 letters in
the hope that someone will reply, each at 25 cents. Even if this was not
the case, I have received (though never mailed) dozens of chain letters.
Each and every one of the explains in detail that mathematically the
scheme can work, but that there is no guarantee. Anyone who replies to
such a scheme does so voluntarily. I have real problems understanding where
fraud enters the picture. It seems a lot more fraudulent to me when someone
cons 250 million people into electing him president with a bunch of pretty
sounding lies, the vast bulk of which he has no intention of ever fulfilling.
Now THAT is fraud.
> What JJ did was not illegal according to his rights to express
> himself, but it is illegal according to laws which were developed to
> allow mail to flow throughout the world with as little problems as
> possible.
Care to cite chapter and verse? (Quote the applicable statute please)
> Although the chain-letter law does impose a "limit" on our freedom of
> expression, it is not a limit which people going about normal
> day-to-day business are going to find bothersome, and in the long run,
> it helps us all.
I have heared that same argument used in connection with freedom of
religion, freedom to travel, freedom to vote, and so many dozens of others.
Each totalitarian regime imposes its restrictions because they will, in
the long run, help us all.
Sorry, I'm not sold on it. But welcome to the next totalitarian dictatorship.
Stephen Samuel
> In article <31...@edm.UUCP>, st...@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes:
>>
>> I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like
>> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively.
> I am about to write something that I would venture to say 99% of readers
> will take the wrong way.
>
> What I am reading here is that we should "stomp" on someone like JJ, who
> has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional
>
> About 40 years ago there were a group of people who did that also. In
> fear of being hunted and illegally persecuted, a group a Jews in Nazi
> Germany became informers for the Nazi government against other Jews in
> exchange for preferential treatment. Do we want to become the same kinds
> of people as that?
You have some valid points (I'm sure) but to clarify: In 'stomping on' JJ
I referred to helping the Govt. agencies figure out IF JJ had done something
wrong and, if so, how to get him. If what JJ did was perfectly legal, then
there isn't much that the authorities could do to him anyways.
JJ is free to speak up, but If he made false representation about his
financial/student status in his plea for money, then this could constitute
fraud (which IS illegal). This is part of why it might be useful to find
out who he really is... to find out just how much of what he said is TRUE.
3: The NAZIs: On the other hand, if people had fought Hitler and the
NAZIs when they STARTED (rather than waiting until he had half of Europe),
we might have had a few million less dead and mutilated bodies as a result.
It is an double blade you invoke. The question is: is JJ more like an
innocent victim or vivious threat? If you let everybody do what they
want until too many people die (how many is too many? your mother?)
then you will sooner or later end up with another hitler/stalin.
If you let NOBODY do what they want, then you could, all to easily,
end up BEING one your self. You have to fid a reasonable border between
the two. In my mind, JJ may have crossed that border.
--
-------------
Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha!
{ihnp4,ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
BITNET: USERZXCV@UOFAMTS
Michael H. Warfield
>If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a
>chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the
>system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters
>multiply exponentially.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened to IBM last December with the little
Christmas tree message that brought their Email system down to it's knees. The
article was in the Wall Street Journal sometime in December. The self repli-
cating little monster was turned loose by someone who thought it was a cute way
to send EVERYBODY a little Christmas greeting. :-) HE DID THAT ALRIGHT! That
greeting quickly became the world's largest chain letter. According to the
article, the message replicated itself to the point where traffic on IBM's
world-wide network slowed to a standstill and had to be shutdown while they
cleaned the beasty out of the individual mail systems by hand.
---
Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
(404)-329-8139 | m...@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!