Foothead, Foothead, on the net/Who's the biggest liar yet?
gsm...@brahms.uucp
Oh dear! There I was, snidely implying that Foothead might not understand
the net and UNIX(*) that well, and in particular might not understand the
implications of the phony arndt@prometheus appearing from daemon@ucbvax.
Wrong, wrong, wrongo--and my sincere apologies. Obviously Foothead knew about
all this. He must have. Because Foothead IS the phony Ken Arndt. This would
explain why he was so annoyed at my original pointing out of this, above
and beyond the standard Foothead irritabilities.
Now, I posted an article yesterday "speculating" that this was true, as a
counter to Foothead's duplicitous "speculations". As stated, this was based
on mere stylistic analyses. But in fact, we had done some more checking,
and already knew that Foothead was indulging in a "pseudoposition" of his
own. To use George Greene's more accurate and assertive formulation, Foothead
is a damn liar. Either that, or he is indeed the biggest master baiter on
talk.religion.misc.
First: where are the arndt@prometheus articles really coming from? Would
you believe, Rich Rosen? No, not exactly. Specifically they come from the
account r...@borax.lcs.mit.edu.
We have the following from the ucbvax news log:
Apr 16 06:49:20 ucbvax sendmail[7351]: AA07351: message-id=<6...@prometheus.UUCP>
Apr 16 06:49:20 ucbvax sendmail[7351]: AA07351: from=<r...@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU>, size=5888, class=0
Apr 16 06:49:38 ucbvax sendmail[7371]: AA07351: to=XXXX, delay=00:00:53, stat=Sent
And for confirmation, over at borax:
Apr 16 10:45:53 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 27885 sendmail: AA27885: message-id=<6...@prometheus.UUCP>
Apr 16 10:45:54 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 27885 sendmail: AA27885: from=rlr, size=5772, class=0
Apr 16 10:46:47 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 27887 sendmail: AA27885: to=XXXX, delay=00:00:57, stat=Sent
(The XXXX is put there at Erik Fair's request. It is the standard method
that the bitnetters and certain non-usenet arpanetters use for posting.)
In other words, the phony <6...@prometheus.UUCP> "Ken Arndt" article
actually came from a "Rich Rosen" account at MIT. Did Rich do it? Well, Rich
is in New Jersey, whereas Foothead is at MIT, which even a Californian like
me knows is in a different state. So far, this is just Foothead-style kneejerk
"reasoning". (Either that, or just Foothead-style pseudopositioning.)
But what does Rich have to say about it?
I sent him a letter asking about the rlr@borax account. According to him,
this got set up during the Brahms-Rosen "we are all Rich Rosen" wars. He
now has a password on it, and uses it to forward mail from Massachusetts.
We might wonder, does Foothead know about it? Well, lo and behold, we find
the following from the mail log at borax (and eddie concurred):
Apr 15 18:46:44 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 20516 sendmail: AA20516: message-id=<870415224...@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Apr 15 18:46:45 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 20516 sendmail: AA20516: from=<f...@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, size=1925, class=0
Apr 15 18:46:56 borax.lcs.mit.edu: 20519 sendmail: AA20516: to=<r...@BORAX.LCS.MIT.EDU>, delay=00:00:32, stat=Sent
This was the night before the <6...@prometheus.UUCP> posting!
In other words, we get mail traffic from Foothead to rlr@borax, and then
mail traffic from rlr@borax to ucbvax here in Berkeley. Does Rich Rosen
know that Foothead is sending mail to rlr@borax? rlr@pyuxe, the original
genuine Rich Rosen, says not. He wonders how it is that Foothead is sending
mail to rlr@borax but it isn't reaching him--after all, he "knows" it's
used to forward mail to him. I will take a chance, and leap to the con-
clusion that perhaps Foothead knows how to edit .forward files. I also
notice that Foothead's mail to rlr@borax is 1925 bytes long. The article
that <6...@prometheus.UUCP> was responding to was <93...@decwrl.DEC.COM>,
which was 1663 bytes long on our system. That does leave room for mail
headers. And what a coincidence, were Foothead the perpetrator, he would
read and save the original on eddie, and somehow get it over to borax.
(A suggestion for next time: use something other than e-mail. Magnetic
tape perhaps? :-)
What about the Paul Koloc connection? According to Koloc, his prometheus
was broken into and a phony arndt@prometheus account was set up. This happened
just before April 1, and an April Fools' "joke" seems likely. Paul then had
to remove the account and send out cancel messages on the bogus articles.
He says a number of attempted entries were then rebuffed, the log showing
the following:
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Tue Mar 31 12:45:56 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT ogin: tty02 Wed Apr 1 13:34:36 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Fri Apr 3 11:52:47 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Fri Apr 3 11:53:01 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT hey,_pau tty02 Fri Apr 3 11:53:59 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Fri Apr 3 11:54:18 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Mon Apr 6 16:44:44 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Mon Apr 6 16:44:56 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Tue Apr 7 11:25:03 1987
BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Tue Apr 7 11:25:13 1987
Curioser and curioser! Bogus arndt@prometheus articles, and a bogus
arndt@prometheus login. And simultaneously, valspeak gets run on
pmk@prometheus articles. Since Foothead is strongly implicated in the
first--his insistent attempts to point the finger before anyone even
suggested he was involved are truly laughable--we wonder. And we do
recall, another, just amazing coincidence, Foothead indeed has been on
an anti-Koloc and anti-Arndt rampage from the very beginning of his known
net.existence.
Far be it from us to ask Foothead to explain anything, or exhibit
minimal honesty. For someone who goes around exclaiming how certain
other posters are notorious liars, seeing him go into detail here
would be like getting sex and marriage tips from Tammy Bakker. The
rest of you can draw your own conclusions; those on the ARPANET can
even go telneting around for themselves if they wish to check the above.
We have a question for the system administrators: now what?
Do note that genuine prometheus.UUCP articles are effectively cancelled
by the pre-existence of the phonies at prometheus's feeds. Prometheus
itself did not see them, since the netnews transfer algorithm checks paths
first to avoid "obvious" redundancies.
Let us guess at the answer: nothing. Just sit while the net degenerates
as more and more Feethead join in on the fun. Sounds reasonable.
But in conclusion, we would like to thank Foothead for exposing the
kneejerk inability of many netters to distinguishing the real Ken Arndt's
stated beliefs from an obvious forgery. Oh no, they just had to flame
automatically. WE could tell they were phony from the beginning. And we
think a lot (as in many) of his beliefs are screwy too. Pat Robertson for
President? Like, fer shur, gag us with a pitchfork!
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith /Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Some billion years ago, an anonymous speck of protoplasm protruded the
first primitive pseudopodium into the primeval slime, and perhaps the
first state of uncertainty occurred. --I J Good
(*) UNIX is a registered Trademark of AT&T.
jb...@epimass.uucp
I'm opposed to censorship. Despite all of "Mark Ethan Smith"'s
obnoxiousness, I don't think it was appropriate to throw him? her?
off of well and chinet. However, forging articles, breaking into
machines, altering others' articles, and changing .forward files
to redirect mail are grounds not only for being thrown off the net,
but possibly a criminal case can be made (for the prometheus
breakins).
If even 1/4 of the allegations in the parent article are true,
a certain "Foothead" character should be off the net.
--
- Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck
seismo!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck {pesnta,tymix,apple}!epimass!jbuck
Jean Marie Diaz
In article <10...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>
>However, forging articles, breaking into
>machines, altering others' articles, and changing .forward files
>to redirect mail are grounds not only for being thrown off the net,
>but possibly a criminal case can be made (for the prometheus
>breakins).
The application for tourist accounts on mit-eddie warns people that
their accounts may be deactivated for no reason at all. This
provision has not been invoked here for as long as I can remember, and
it is not being invoked now.
Faking mail and/or news is not tolerated here. The shell scripts in
Foothead's home directory for doing both are ample reason to pull his
account. Whether or not he is the perpetrator of the fake
arndt@prometheus articles is not relevant, although I would add that
files in /usr/rlr on borax seem to bear this out, as they contain the
tell-tale line:
To: (Erik Fair's magic address, which I won't post)
At any rate, we will not tolerate people using mit-eddie as a base for
harassing people. fh@mit-eddie is gone.
Jean Marie Diaz, EECS/ECF Staff
ARPA: am...@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: {backboneslarerol nout3.2rat
Rich Salz
it, as do many others on the net, I'm sure.
/r$
--
--
Rich $alz "Drug tests p**s me off"
Mirror Systems, Cambridge Massachusetts r...@mirror.TMC.COM
{cbosgd, cca.cca.com, harvard!wjh12, ihnp4, mit-eddie, seismo}!mirror!rs
Mikki Barry
>In article <10...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>>However, forging articles, breaking into
>>machines, altering others' articles, and changing .forward files
>>to redirect mail are grounds not only for being thrown off the net,
>>but possibly a criminal case can be made (for the prometheus
>>breakins).
Yes, I heartily agree. But only if someone is actually doing these things,
and it can be proven.
>Faking mail and/or news is not tolerated here. The shell scripts in
>Foothead's home directory for doing both are ample reason to pull his
>account. Whether or not he is the perpetrator of the fake
>arndt@prometheus articles is not relevant, although I would add that
>files in /usr/rlr on borax seem to bear this out, as they contain the
>tell-tale line:
>To: (Erik Fair's magic address, which I won't post)
An important factor that everyone seems to have missed here is that
Foothead's home directory was PROTECTED. I have spoken to foothead on
this issue, and he told me that not only are his directories protected,
but the "shell scripts" in them were created to give net access to
Pooh, and to Paul Zimmerman, a FACT, that I have checked with both of
them. This was done with the full concent of OTHER EECS staff.
Charging somebody with faking mail and news before you have proof, and while
the only evidence you have is obtained by using your root privs to read
other's protected directories is quite the case of the pot calling the kettle
black. This is a certain case of "jumping the gun" at best, and blatent
censorship at worst.
You don't like foothead, fine. Delete his account, but don't make up
lies to justify your actions. By the way, Ambar, did you check with anyone
else on staff before trashing someone else's account?
>At any rate, we will not tolerate people using mit-eddie as a base for
>harassing people. fh@mit-eddie is gone.
And I do not like the fact that you appear to be using your root privs
to look through protected directories. I also don't like faked news and/or
mail articles. If it is proven that fh did it, great. Kick him off the
net forever. But trashing someone before you have proof is reprehensible.
Mikk1Suf il
Edward J Cetron
[...]
->An important factor that everyone seems to have missed here is that
->Foothead's home directory was PROTECTED. I have spoken to foothead on
->
[...]
->
->And I do not like the fact that you appear to be using your root privs
->to look through protected directories. I also don't like faked news and/or
->mail articles. If it is proven that fh did it, great. Kick him off the
->net forever. But trashing someone before you have proof is reprehensible.
->
->Mikki Barry
1. kicking anyone off without proof, i agree, is totally wrong. On the
other hand, TEMPORARILY disabling an account and contacting the owner to
ascertain what has/is happening IS legit. But in OUR shop, if/when it becomes
permanent, you can bet a formal written letter is sent.
but this is my main point, the following is:
2. On the machines that I am responsible for, its my ass on the line.
If one of our users starts to abuse the network, fake mail, run an illegal
escort service :-) or whatever from one of our machines, I'm going to catch it
just as bad as the offender (and you can bet I will pass it on). If AFTER
sufficient evidence or complaints are filed/found, I WILL ABSOLUTELY USE ANY
OF MY ROOT/SYSTEM PRIVILEGES TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SITUATION. This is not
to say I will unilaterally 'trash' a user (even though it is explained to ALL
users that I can and will if I deem it necessary) but it is also understood
that the machines in our facility are the center's NOT the users and that
NOTHING on the machines is considered sacrosanct. Only on two occasions have
I ever had to use those root permissions:
a) The lab was expecting a critical letter from an outside source
(just so happened to be mit :-) ) and the student whose account it was to be
sent to was gone for three days, so i monitored syslog until it arrived and
pulled it out of his directory. NOTE: this was lab business NOT personal mail
and gov't contracting agencies wait for no man.
b) we had a professor in one of the dept's who seemed to be raiding
student accounts for neat programs. After a student complained we monitored
his account. sure enough, several programs auto-magically appeared in his
account which had the same checksum as those in student accounts (and no, the
students were not his). Unfortunately, due to internal politics of this other
dept., in spite of the evidence, we could do nothing (not to mention this prof
had root privs) except cut off his root priv's. (though we finally got even
using a trojan horse program which he then also stole.....:-))
Both times I 'snooped', neither time did I feel guilty. I, and the
lab, expect our personal to be professionals and as such we respect their
privacy as much as possible - UP TO A POINT. If we see abuse or here of it
from reliable channels, I will investigate it using whatever means is
appropriate, if that means snooping, so be it.
If Ambar trashed an account without due reason, then that WAS wrong, but to
complain about using root priv's to obtain evidence is crap.
-ed cetron
Computer Services Manager
Center for Engineering Design
Univ. of Utah
cet...@cs.utah.edu
cet...@utahcca.bitnet
Marcus J Ranum
> a) The lab was expecting a critical letter from an outside source
> (just so happened to be mit :-) ) and the student whose account it was to be
> sent to was gone for three days, so i monitored syslog until it arrived and
> pulled it out of his directory. NOTE: this was lab business NOT personal mail
> and gov't contracting agencies wait for no man.
What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash
an account, or even edit a user's files, but electronic mail is protected.
Note that net postings are not, since they are not addressed to an individual.
If you think I am talking through my hat about this, ask your lawyer. If you
are concerned about covering your ass as much as you seay, you'd think twice
before posting a public admission of guilt in a situation like this. Whether
it is LAB business OR personal mail would be irrelevant in the case that the
student chose to press charges - you'd have to be able to prove that you
KNEW it was addressed to other than him BEFORE you read it, AND then you'd
have to explain why it was mailed to her/his address.
Don't you know it's bad juju to read someone's stuff ? From what I can
gather, though, if you have mailfiles owned by Oliver North it's okay to
give 'em out.
> -ed cetron
> Computer Services Manager
> Center for Engineering Design
Marcus J Ranum
news/uucp admin.
--
Copyright, 1987 - Anarchist Software Foundation - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
In reproducing this document in any form, the licensee (you) agrees to
pay the ASF 5$/copy distributed, and to admit that software law is a
subject better left for lawyers and slimy nerds. Live Free or die !
Edward J Cetron
> What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
>mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
>difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash
Wrongo, there has yet to be a law that specifically addresses e-mail
in the same way as us mail is federally protected. There have/are several
which address 'stealing' of information services and data but ALL of the ones
that I have seen do NOT address the issue of the machines owner 'snooping'.
Given that NONE of our users own any part of the machine, pay not even a penny
for time on the machine, it is very hard to say that they have any RIGHT to
any data on the machines. Now with the copyright laws, I am sure that one
could conceivably be charged with unauthorized reproduction, or with plagarism
if done in an academic environment. However, e-mail to/from our sites are NOT
protected by any such law.
By the way, I DID know in advance that the letter would be sent, I DID
know in advance that the author of the letter was going to send it to a
particular user (note he is NOT a student, not that it matters) and that he
was sending it there since he had an alias to send it there on his computer
and couldn't be persuaded to send it out correctly instead (too many %'s and
and extra 5 words - but then faculty has its rank :-) ).
If anyone DOES know of laws which are intended to put e-mail under
protection similar to us mail, I'd be interested in seeing references.
(and by the way, there ARE several times in which it IS legal for USPS people
to open personal mail)
-ed cetron
Patrick Barron
>mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
>difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash
>an account, or even edit a user's files, but electronic mail is protected.
Haven't we been through this before? No, electronic mail is NOT protected
the same way US Mail is. It's not even really "mail" as such.
If I own the disk it's written on, then I have a perfect right to read any-
thing on that disk, even electronic mail. Whether or not it's the "right"
thing to do is an entirely different question - I think, in the situation Ed
cited, it was certainly a reasonable thing to do.
--Pat.
Joe Buck
>Foothead's home directory was PROTECTED. I have spoken to foothead on
>this issue, and he told me that not only are his directories protected,
>but the "shell scripts" in them were created to give net access to
>Pooh, and to Paul Zimmerman, a FACT, that I have checked with both of
>them. This was done with the full concent of OTHER EECS staff.
Foothead did not own any part of the machine he was using. Ambar was
using her root privs properly; I would do the same on my machine.
The info gathered against Foothead was quite sufficient to justify an
investigation.
>Charging somebody with faking mail and news before you have proof, and while
>the only evidence you have is obtained by using your root privs to read
>other's protected directories is quite the case of the pot calling the kettle
>black.
It is not. The system administrator not only has the right, but the
DUTY, to investigate in cases like this. If she had come across any
confidential information in the process of investigating, it would be
her moral obligation not to reveal it to anyone else. But if she
came across incriminating evidence -- burn the dude!
Joe Buck
>mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
>difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash
>an account, or even edit a user's files, but electronic mail is protected.
>Note that net postings are not, since they are not addressed to an individual.
>If you think I am talking through my hat about this, ask your lawyer.
You are talking through your hat, and obviously have never discussed
this with a lawyer. Just because we call it "electronic mail"
doesn't mean the gov't thinks it's mail. Please don't spread
misinformation on the net when you obviously have no idea what you're
talking about.
>Don't you know it's bad juju to read someone's stuff ?
Yes, it is. But UUCP mail has never been officially ruled to be "mail"
according to the law.
t...@whuts.uucp
} In article <45...@utah-cs.UUCP>, cet...@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) writes:
}
}> a) The lab was expecting a critical letter from an outside source
}> (just so happened to be mit :-) ) and the student whose account it was to be
}> sent to was gone for three days, so i monitored syslog until it arrived and
}> pulled it out of his directory. NOTE: this was lab business NOT personal mail
}> and gov't contracting agencies wait for no man.
}
} What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
} mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
} difference ! It is legal for root to read a user's files, delete them, trash
} an account, or even edit a user's files, but electronic mail is protected.
and even send current case law citations to legal types asking
questions. In addition, I have been known to attend computer
law seminars.
I guess I missed the "Federal Law" or cases that established the
above protection. May I recommend that we all not comment until
Marcus provides us with some "meat", i.e. CFR citations,
Federal Court case citations, etc. to back up his statements.
With the "meat" on the table, then we will have much to discuss.
--
----- Terry Sterkel
-====---- AT&T Bell Laboratories
--------- {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes
----- [opinions are obviously only my own]
ro...@killer.uucp
> In article <55...@eddie.MIT.EDU> am...@eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz) writes:
> >In article <10...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
>
> >>However, forging articles, breaking into
> >>machines, altering others' articles, and changing .forward files
> >>to redirect mail are grounds not only for being thrown off the net,
> >>but possibly a criminal case can be made (for the prometheus
> >>breakins).
>
> Yes, I heartily agree. But only if someone is actually doing these things,
> and it can be proven.
>
> >Faking mail and/or news is not tolerated here. The shell scripts in
> >Foothead's home directory for doing both are ample reason to pull his
> >account. Whether or not he is the perpetrator of the fake
> >arndt@prometheus articles is not relevant, although I would add that
> >files in /usr/rlr on borax seem to bear this out, as they contain the
> >tell-tale line:
>
> Foothead's home directory was PROTECTED. I have spoken to foothead on
> this issue, and he told me that not only are his directories protected,
>
> the only evidence you have is obtained by using your root privs to read
> other's protected directories is quite the case of the pot calling the kettle
> black. This is a certain case of "jumping the gun" at best, and blatent
> censorship at worst.
>
> to look through protected directories. I also don't like faked news and/or
> mail articles. If it is proven that fh did it, great. Kick him off the
> net forever. But trashing someone before you have proof is reprehensible.
>
Mikki,
In all reasonableness, the "tracing" of the origin of the fake articles
was being traced to mit-eddie as the most common point of apparent origin.
Next, if, as you state, his directory was PROTECTED and contained the
utilities to fake articles, alter .forward files, and whatever else they
would do, then this is reasonable proof that either the owner of that
directory or someone who had access to it were the perpetrator(s). If it
is fact that two other people also had access to this directory, it is
possible that one of those *could* have disclosed this information to a
third party who *could* have been the person actually causing the problems.
However, the fact remains that the scripts for creating these fakes and
altering the files did exist (I have to assume they were, in fact, found
there) in a "protected" login directory is ample reason to state that the
articles originated from that login id. Perhaps the statement that the
individual was the one who actually typed the articles could be inaccurate
but that, also, would be virtually impossible to PROVE unless there was a
witness. Even software to monitor the exchange between a terminal device
and the system could not conclusively prove that a particular person was
the one with the "fingers on the keys".
The POSSESSION of the necessary scripts IS ample proof to remove the
login and the directory. I would not hesitate to do exactly the same. I
do not use root privs to "snoop" or for any other purpose than to keep
up with the maintenance of my system and the software. I do monitor the
system performance but that is neccessary to maintain the system and
keep it available for use. However, if there is a question of where
what you may call "snooping" may end and the security of the system and
the net are concerned, I will not hesitate to use whatever means at my
disposal to protect them. I also would not hesitate to remove a login
that contained such scripts as to fake articles, alter them as the ones
in question were, or to access another users files without authorization
from that user.
One other note. I would also not hesitate to give pooh, you, or the
other person access to my system if access to the net was needed. I
would, however, require only that nothing such as the faked articles be
done and would guarantee that your files were secure from me as well as
from the other users. I also must guarantee that if those types of actions
were traced to my system. I would certainly be looking for the origin
with whatever means at my disposal.
Hopefully, you will not view this as a flame - it certainly is not
meant to be.
Charles Boykin
{cuae2,ihnp4}!killer!root
cha...@eris.uucp
>What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
>mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
>difference !
WHOA, THERE! That's one helluva claim...
Care to cite some sources to back up your statement?
Your assertation that you're not just blowing smoke is all well and good, but
I'd rather see you cite a specific Federal statute or state your credentials
as a lawyer or _something_ to give me a little more reason to believe what
you say.
Brent
--
Brent Chapman
cha...@mica.berkeley.edu or ucbvax!mica!chapman
gsm...@brahms.uucp
>Nice work in tracking down what's going on, fellows; I appreciate
>it, as do many others on the net, I'm sure.
Many thanks Rich, but much is still unclear. Certain things would be
nice to clarify. Certain other things will probably never be genuinely
known. The eddie sysadmins are no longer interested. It will probably
never be known whether Lee Harvey Foothead was acting alone...
rlr@pyuxe (the original and genuine Rich Rosen) wishes to declare his
innocence in the whole affair. We know from the logs that fh@eddie was
sending e-mail to both rlr@borax and rlr@pyuxe separately. In particu-
lar, we conjecture that fh@eddie knew that the .forward file at rlr@borax
was changed. The real Rich Rosen tells us further that he has changed
his rlr@borax password since this all broke out in the open.
(This is why we are cross-posting back to *.religion and even posting
again--Rich Rosen has gotten e-mail congratulating him for his clever
Arndt sendups, and wants us to be more explicit.)
We also know, according to the logs, that no one *but* fh@eddie sent
e-mail to rlr@borax the week before the phony article <666@prometheus>
was posted. We should have mentioned this the first time around, but it
did not occur to us that this negative item had separate significance.
Along these lines, we received mail from a long-time reader of *.religion
to the effect that six weeks ago or so he saw fh@eddie remotely logged
on to rlr@borax.
Matthew and I are also a bit taken aback at the abrupt sinking of the
fh@eddie account. We were having our little fun, casting our net of
little clue by little clue, baiting the Fishhead. We're confident he
will flounder in from some other port and muddy the waters well.
(OK, so we've overfished our metaphors. So sue us.)
We do not claim the evidence we found was conclusive of anything, nor
do we believe that "proof", short of a notarized confession, even exists
in any true sense as a philosophical point, so your insistence on such,
Mikki, was completely unrealistic. Hell, it's not generally known who
"Foothead" really is in the first place. For all we can tell, some super
clever hacker who hates fh@eddie to the core was setting him up for the
big fall, confident that the brahms gang would track down the news, mail
and login logs on four machines that he purposely forged just for this
purpose. We doubt it very much. We suspect that fh@eddie, half-bright
boy that he is, was merely half-clever enough to use rlr@borax to half-hide
his tracks. As long-time readers of *.religion all remember, anything is
possible, but only a few things actually happen.
We personally disapprove of eddie's strict policy concerning forged news.
We have posted at times articles apparently from Santa Claus or "the real
Rich Rosen" with a standard brahms gang signature. We don't think anyone
was fooled by them. And we enjoyed the mod.announce April Fools' Day
forging of a "Mark Horton" article, and the fake ubizmo@brahms "UCB Wrath
Dept" articles some time back immensely. The fake "arndt@prometheus"
articles, however, were feet of a different odor entirely. We do not
deny that some people find vicious harassment of others quite hilarious,
but even Mikki has "heartily agreed" that these particular forgeries were
out of acceptable net.bounds.
We also are sorry that Gene Spafford judges talk.* based on Bonehead's
personal campaign to turn talk.religion.misc into a proctological exam-
ination room. From the very beginning he stated that his purpose was to
outflame the brahms gang and anyone else, etc. The grapevine we've heard
says that Foothead wanted to be the big metaflamer of the flamers--we
think he has overdone it for some months now, and this latest has merely
blown up in his face. Unfortunately, talk.religion.misc and talk.* suf-
fers for this.
As a final comment, it was refreshing to see the real Ken Arndt. In case
there was any lingering doubt, do note that it was crossposted to two max-
imally inappropriate groups.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith /Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Those imposters, then, whom they call mathematicians, I consulted without
scruple, because they seemed to use no sacrifice, nor pray to any spirit
for their divinations. --Saint Augustine
sgu...@bacchus.uucp
In article <11...@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsm...@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>rlr@pyuxe (the original and genuine Rich Rosen) wishes to declare his
>innocence in the whole affair. We know from the logs that fh@eddie was
>sending e-mail to both rlr@borax and rlr@pyuxe separately. In particu-
>lar, we conjecture that fh@eddie knew that the .forward file at rlr@borax
>was changed. The real Rich Rosen tells us further that he has changed
>his rlr@borax password since this all broke out in the open.
>....
>Along these lines, we received mail from a long-time reader of *.religion
>to the effect that six weeks ago or so he saw fh@eddie remotely logged
>on to rlr@borax.
A couple of interesting bits...
Every login into fh@eddie which came from borax was preceeded (by 1-2
minutes) by a login into rlr@borax. This for a period of two weeks.
On the night that fh@eddie's account was turned off, rlr@borax had NO
.forward file.
Enjoy!
ma...@cbosgd.uucp
Privacy Act of 1986 (discussed at length on Usenet last year) do essentially
what people are saying - protect disclosure of email? Leahy was the (a)
sponsor, and I think the number was something like S.1875.
Mark
oob...@mit-eddie.uucp
to clarify my views.
First, I admit a big error in being upset about root using privileges
when someone is accused of wrongdoing. I should have thought first.
However, when said "root" then posts to the net that fh was using scripts
in his login to "forge news and mail", this is where I get upset. This
was blatently untrue. The scripts were used to allow Pooh and Paul
Zimmerman news and mail access. I have been told that "time" was the
reason why this was not checked out before action was taken. However, the
time it has taken in posting to the net in the first place, then in
response to complaints from myself and others, seem to indicate that it
would have been much more prudent to check first.
Therefore, the reasons posted to the net for removing fh were bogus.
On the other hand, fh could just as easily (and without so much bullshit)
have been removed for NO reason, or because it sure looks like he at least
had something to do with the phony arndt articles.
Not that I am crushed because fh is no more (quite the contrary), I just
don't like the "act now, check later" attitude, and hope that other sysadmins
do not adopt it.
Mikki Barry
ph...@amdcad.uucp
<In article <4...@gouldsd.UUCP> mjr...@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
<<What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
<<mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
<<difference !
<
<WHOA, THERE! That's one helluva claim...
<
<Care to cite some sources to back up your statement?
After Mr. Ranum's claims about the status of the Lions books, I'm not
much inclined to believe his statements without additional proof either.
--
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Mike Huybensz
him, since his account at eddie has apparently been deleted. --mrh]
The article that follows was written by me earlier this past weekend as a
response to more of the same nonsense from Gene Ward Smith. I would have
posted it myself except that the net effect of Gene's accusations found in this
article has been that my account has been terminated by the people at mit-eddie.
I have no complaint with them, since as described my account was a "tourist"
account and they certainly have every right to terminate it at whim. What is
upsetting is not simply the account being terminated, but the fact that it was
terminated based on a series of lame unsupported accusations by one Gene Ward
Smith, apparently solely in the spirit of vengence (for joking that he might
be the actual perpetrator-- I think I hit a little too close to home!). Gene
speaks pompously in his article about the "dangers" to the net from people who
post bogus articles, as a self-appointed guardian of the glory of the net.
In my opinion, if there is any "danger" to the net, it comes from people like
Gene Ward Smith and his buddy Matt Wiener with their vengeful gameplaying that
they wreak on people they don't like. Waaa, cried the brahms lullaby babies.
Only this time the brahms babies have done something serious: their accusations
cost someone an account. How much longer will the actions of these babies be
tolerated? I reproduce the original intended article here, as it points out
some of the true idiocy in the brahms boys' accusations.
Before we get to that original article, here are some added points:
1. Gene has conjectured that I MUST have extensive knowledge about the network,
about editing .forward files, etc. The fact that in reality I DON'T have such
knowledge doesn't seem to matter much to him. On the other hand, we have seen
that Gene certainly DOES have that knowledge, since he is flitting across the
country checking mail logs and such, and that he has the means to use the
network to play these sorts of games. If people can be indicted because it is
purported that they have certain "knowledge," then Gene is far guiltier than I
could hope to be. He certainly not only had the motive, he had the knowledge
and the means as well. But I like the logic there: I needed to have this
knowledge in order to have done the deed in question, therefore I have that
knowledge! I guess anyone who says this whole argument has nothing to do with
religion is in error. :-)
2. As someone else has already said, the "shell scripts" in my directory were
used to give net access to people other than myself, not for "forging"
articles as was speculated. If the people involved had been contacted, if
I had been contacted, this would have been clear. This trial by conjecture
and guilt until proven innocent is making me ill. I ask again, are the brahms
boys' petty vendettas and their flimsy allegations grounds for deleting
someone's account? Will they pull this sort of stunt again? I've been told
that the brahms boys have been telling people in private mail that this is no
big deal, that they expect me to be back on the net in no time. It's nice to
know that they have such a high opinion of my connections. I, on the other
hand, doubt very much that I will be able to get net access again in the near
future. (I know at least one of the people using my fh account has managed to
get access again, so at least THAT damage is being minimized.) I've also been
told that, as a matter of fact, the brahms boys were THEMSELVES kicked off the
net a short while ago. Any ideas on how THEY might still be posting? Could it
just possibly be that "magic login" they keep talking about? Curioser and
curioser, indeed!
3. As I just said, the damage to other people who also used my account to post
and get mail under their own names may be minimized. I didn't want to get them
involved, since obviously association with the Foothead name at this point is
the electronic equivalent of having leprosy. Since the declared reason for
canceling my account was the existence of the shell scripts for allowing these
people to use the net (scripts assumed to be for an "illicit" purpose-- what is
it they say about assuming?), and since it was admitted that beyond that there
simply isn't any evidence pointing to wrongdoing (perhaps because there WAS no
wrongdoing on my part, though that won't stop Genius Gene from finding more
"proof"), I have to wonder. Was my account terminated simply on the word of
one Gene Ward Smith? It sure seems that way. He has received high praise
for his "investigative" work, and has come out of this a "hero," but what he
has REALLY done is to wreak vengeance on a net adversary based on pisspoor
accusations that someone believed, and in the process two other innocent
people were inconvenienced as well. All this shows is just how good the brahms
gang is at smear tactics. Nothing more. Who will be the next victim of their
babyish games and "investigative" harrassment? In the original article itself
I treated Gene lightly, mocking his so called "investigative" endeavors and
pointing out how stupid they are. I am not treating him so lightly anymore.
Not because my opinion of his abilities has changed, but because people have
taken his claims seriously, and because as a result I lost my account for no
reason other than Gene's seeking to trash it. It's beginning to seem to me
more and more that Gene and Matt set up this whole affair to come off as
"heroes" because they knew their net reputations were basically toilet-bound,
and needed something to acheive elevation in the eyes of the net community.
Pity that sort of thing works. But then again, it means it could be used
again. And what goes around, comes around, or so they say...
--
Foothead
Nfvqr gb Znggl: unira'g tbggra bire ure lrg, unir lbh?
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Mike Huybensz
him, since his account at eddie has apparently been deleted. --mrh]
In article <11...@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsm...@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
> Oh dear! There I was, snidely implying that Foothead might not understand
>the net and UNIX(*) that well, and in particular might not understand the
>implications of the phony arndt@prometheus appearing from daemon@ucbvax.
>Wrong, wrong, wrongo--and my sincere apologies. Obviously Foothead knew about
>all this. He must have. Because Foothead IS the phony Ken Arndt. This would
>explain why he was so annoyed at my original pointing out of this, above
>and beyond the standard Foothead irritabilities.
First, Gene, I was annoyed because you were being your usual obdurate idiotic
self, making speculations and basing them on practically no evidence at all.
I made a mockery of your speculations by suggesting that it just might be you.
(The possibility that you were gloating over having done this seemed quite
likely given your personality.) Of course, at that time, it was all a joke.
I knew as much as you did and made a speculation of my own, pointing at you.
This, of course, got you so riled up that you put on your Hemlock Holmes hat
and started "investigating" your eyes out about this. Gee, what could have
prompted such a sudden rabid defense unless I had hit it right on the nose
with that (then) joke? The second thing, Gene, is that this has moved out of
the area of speculation into the area of slander when you say "Foothead IS the
phony Ken Arndt." No more maybes or possibilities (not that you would EVER
admit that your ideas in any endeavor were less than perfect truth, right?),
"IS." The fact that this doesn't correlate to reality apparently isn't
important to you, you'll stick your foothead in your mouth anyway.
> First: where are the arndt@prometheus articles really coming from? Would
>you believe, Rich Rosen? No, not exactly. Specifically they come from the
>account r...@borax.lcs.mit.edu.
>
insert network log records here
> But what does Rich have to say about it?
> I sent him a letter asking about the rlr@borax account. According to him,
>this got set up during the Brahms-Rosen "we are all Rich Rosen" wars. He
>now has a password on it, and uses it to forward mail from Massachusetts.
>We might wonder, does Foothead know about it? Well, lo and behold, we find
>the following from the mail log at borax (and eddie concurred):
>
insert more of the same here
>This was the night before the <6...@prometheus.UUCP> posting!
... And all through the net, Gene Ward Smith got his pants soaking wet.
Gene, you're all excited here, I wouldn't be surprised if your pants WERE
soaking wet. Wow, you've "got" me, you've "proven" beyond the shadow of a dord
that I did this thing. With your genius logic, you have shown this inevitably
to be true. Let's see how. Let's visit the mind of Gene Ward Smith (a short
stay, of course) and examine his reasoning, his evidence, his conclusions, and
(most important) his OBSESSIONS!
> In other words, we get mail traffic from Foothead to rlr@borax, and then
>mail traffic from rlr@borax to ucbvax here in Berkeley. Does Rich Rosen
>know that Foothead is sending mail to rlr@borax? rlr@pyuxe, the original
>genuine Rich Rosen, says not. He wonders how it is that Foothead is sending
>mail to rlr@borax but it isn't reaching him--after all, he "knows" it's
>used to forward mail to him. I will take a chance, and leap to the con-
>clusion that perhaps Foothead knows how to edit .forward files. I also
>notice that Foothead's mail to rlr@borax is 1925 bytes long. The article
>that <6...@prometheus.UUCP> was responding to was <93...@decwrl.DEC.COM>,
>which was 1663 bytes long on our system. That does leave room for mail
>headers. And what a coincidence, were Foothead the perpetrator, he would
>read and save the original on eddie, and somehow get it over to borax.
>(A suggestion for next time: use something other than e-mail. Magnetic
>tape perhaps? :-)
Wow, well, I surrender. Boy, you sure caught me with your pants down this
time, Genius. Now, check this out. I mail something to rlr@borax. That's
funny, I have been sending mail there for quite a while now. Rich's news feed
has been sporadic for some time (one of the reasons he says he hasn't been
posting, but I think he's had better reasons not to be posting :-) ) So, I
(and apparently others as well) have offered to mail him articles of interest
that might amuse him. And THIS is Gene's "proof?" I guess everyone who has
sent mail to that account is also under Smith's scrutiny! Here's more "proof":
the mail in question was one length and the article in question was slightly
shorter by just about enough (according to the precise Vulcan logical mind of
Smith) to account for mail headers. WOW! (Truth is, the letter in question
may very well BE that particular article, because I DID send it to rlr@borax
(among a few other gems, including articles in the "arndt" series as well as a
few moments of egotism from Genius Gene). How Gene will take this and use it
as more "proof" will surely be an amusement for all.)
Let me make it plain: you are claiming that because I sent mail to rlr@borax,
and because the phony articles are purported (by you?) to have come from there,
I MUST be the one who did it! And people wonder why I flame about
self-proclaimed "geniuses" on the net? Here is a perfect example of one whose
idea of logic is "let's see, what would I like to prove, and what could I say
that would convince people that I've proven it?"
> What about the Paul Koloc connection? According to Koloc, his prometheus
>was broken into and a phony arndt@prometheus account was set up. This happened
>just before April 1, and an April Fools' "joke" seems likely. Paul then had
>to remove the account and send out cancel messages on the bogus articles.
>He says a number of attempted entries were then rebuffed, the log showing
>the following:
>
>BAD LOGIN ATTEMPT arndt tty02 Tue Mar 31 12:45:56 1987 etc.
And the humorous thing here is that you would BELIEVE Paul Koloc. For all we
know, Paul Koloc (who hasn't exactly been known for his honesty) fabricated
this "log" from thin air. I'd sooner believe Richard Nixon than Paul Koloc,
and I think most people who've read his articles would feel the same way. But
YOU, Gene Ward Smith, believe what the man has to say because it matches your
expectations about reality. What's really amusing about all this is Gene's
choice of sources of information: Paul Koloc and Rich Rosen. Now, Koloc is
a known liar, so his claims should be taken with at least a pound of salt.
But imagine Gene Ward Smith using Rich Rosen as a source of information to
"prove" his fantasies! His foremost net.adversary of perhaps ALL time! In
another time and place, Gene would probably be whomping Rich just like in the
"good old days." But this time, since Rich Rosen has said something that
might help him in realizing his little vengefulness, he believes him! I guess
some people pick their sources of information and allocate believability points
to them based on what they want to believe. I guess I'll go ask Rich Rosen
whether or not you and Matty Weener are really the same person, since you trust
his opinion (all of a sudden) so much.
> Curioser and curioser! Bogus arndt@prometheus articles, and a bogus
>arndt@prometheus login. And simultaneously, valspeak gets run on
>pmk@prometheus articles. Since Foothead is strongly implicated in the
>first--his insistent attempts to point the finger before anyone even
>suggested he was involved are truly laughable--we wonder. And we do
>recall, another, just amazing coincidence, Foothead indeed has been on
>an anti-Koloc and anti-Arndt rampage from the very beginning of his known
>net.existence.
Well that chunk of logic makes it all rather interesting, Gene. Why don't I
use the same logic myself to draw different conclusions. Talk about "insistent
attempts to point the finger before anyone even suggested he was involved!"
Who came out first with a declaration about what happened, apparently nothing
but a behind-covering move? And didn't that person gloat about the impact to
the net of all of this with great self-serving pomposity? And let's not forget
the OTHER "amazing coincidence," that the brahmsboys have been on a rampage of
their own, this one an anti-Foothead one (actually one of a continuing series
of rampages against practically everybody), for the longest time. (And by the
way, Gene, I have never come "face to face" with Ken Arndt, so your further
fatuous nonsense about my being on an "anti-Arndt rampage" is yet more crap.
In reality, a good number of people were readily convinced that it was the
"real" Ken Arndt, yet Gene "knew" RIGHT AWAY that it wasn't. Where did HE,
in his GENIUS, get this knowledge?)
I don't have the big guns that these guys seem to have, among them access to
mail logs from machines ALL OVER the country, nor the knowledge to use them if
I had such access. ... Now THAT'S intriguing: who DOES have access to all
the tools to enable them to perpetrate such a fraud on all of us? By their
own admission, using it all in an effort to "prove" their innocence and pin
blame for the whole affair on someone whom they seem to have some vendetta
against? Who else?
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
>ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith /Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Yup, who else? The Olympic world champions of synchronized smearing themselves.
--
Foothead
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Brandon Allbery
+---------------
| >Charging somebody with faking mail and news before you have proof, and while
| >the only evidence you have is obtained by using your root privs to read
| >other's protected directories is quite the case of the pot calling the kettle
| >black.
|
| It is not. The system administrator not only has the right, but the
| DUTY, to investigate in cases like this. If she had come across any
Perhaps we should take heed of something from the BBS world:
As a result of the Tcimpidis case and other similar ``incidents'' involving
CBBS systems, it is a legal REQUIREMENT that a system operator examine all
messages, private or public, for illegal content and remove them if necessary.
This, by extension, applies to electronic mail in general, whether it is on
the Usenet, UUCP or Internet private mail, or an Internet bboard. Not doing
this can get a system operator thrown in jail.
Because of this requirement, electronic mail is dissimilar to USPS mail, to
answer another posting. While the USPS also has this responsibility, they
may not open sealed letters without evidence beforehand that it is necessary.
On the other hand, an SA is required to check even private messages, if I
understand correctly the net result of the BBS incidents.
All I can say for myself is that electronic mail laws are in need of being
worked out and formalized, taking into account the nature of the medium.
There are also (legal? ethical?) questions involved; for example, is an
electronic mailbox as sacrosanct as a sealed envelope, given that it is used
in the same way? Does this remain true when it is considered that as far as
the computer is concerned, a mailbox is like any other data file? What about
the fact that an SA is responsible for the contents of all files on hir system?
This area of law needs quite a bit of work. (In particular: if there *is* a
law stating that electronic mail is equivalent to paper mail for legal pur-
poses, this contradics the experience of BBS sysops with the law. Which law
is correct?)
++Brando
--
Brandon S. Allbery {decvax,cbatt,cbosgd}!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery
Tridelta Industries {ames,mit-eddie,talcott}!necntc!ncoast!allbery
7350 Corporate Blvd. necntc!ncoast!all...@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Mentor, OH 44060 +01 216 255 1080
Edward J Cetron
->I don't have the references handy, but doesn't the Electronic Communications
->Privacy Act of 1986 (discussed at length on Usenet last year) do essentially
->what people are saying - protect disclosure of email? Leahy was the (a)
->sponsor, and I think the number was something like S.1875.
I obliquely referenced this is my intial (somewhat hostile) reaction
to Mikki (who has since come over to OUR way of thinking :-) ).... As I read
it originally (and I admit it was some time ago) email was protected exactly
like any other data - it is the property of the 'owner' and any unauthorized
disclosure, snooping, spying... is illegal. HOWEVER, notice the word 'owner',
the data is NOT necessarily owned by the individual user in the contex of the
ecpa but buy the owner/sponsor of the machine. It gets very murky when the
user PAYS for time/disk space and such as to who the 'owner' is then. But for
most corporate machines where employees get gratis accounts, or academic
environments where accounts are not charged directly to the students, my
interpretaion is that in these cases, the 'owner' is the corp./school.
-ed cetron
man...@mimsy.uucp
worse, not wondering at all) whether this sort of mud-slinging is
characteristic of the group. Unfortunately, it seems to inevitably arise
from time to time. It would not be a problem, however, if people were not
so deadset on return volleys. Over the years, I've used my kill files to
relieve me of any articles by particular persons, exercising my God-given
right to Hang Up The Phone. Foothead continues to be one of these people,
and so does Ken Arndt-- which is why I didn't even realize what was
happening until the articles started showing up in the groups you are
reading this in.
Frankly, I would almost assert that the actions of both parties makes
slander an impossibility. Be that as it may, however, I have to say that
the referenced article leads me to the conclusion that (a) Gene Smith is
obnoxious and (b) Foothead is both obnoxious and probably a liar. We've
already seen an article from the MIT admin type who killed off the account,
and she essentially ratified that things were as Smith said she would find
them.
Foothead supplies a long list of largely irrelevant points and
counteraccusations. Having read Smith's investigation results, I find no
call in them for action. It was the MIT admin person who took them as cause
for action. I have no way of verifying Foothead's claims to net ignorance,
and in any case, they are irrelevant, since he could simply find other
people to help him.
At this point I will summon up Mangoe the Municipal and prognosticate what
Foothead's reply is going to be. He is going to accuse me of being a
supporter of the Smith-Weiner "plot", if not an active party in it. He is
going to bring u run-ins we've had in the past. Well, we did have these
run-ins, and that is why I no longer even see his articles: so I will not
even be tempted to reply.
Frankly, I will be glad to see him go. Gene Spafford has already talked
about this incident as cause for killing the group off at his site, and
given the recent actions in the backbone, I do not doubt that there is
plenty of sympathy for similar action throughout the backbone. The religion
groups cannot afford this sort of accusation trading. To the backbone
people, I would only say that I hope that this will end the firefights, and
that talk.religion.misc can return to discussion of religion instead of the
participants.
C. Wingate
Bill Bogstad
>While I am not a lawyer, I attempt to keep up on computer law,
>and even send current case law citations to legal types asking
>questions. In addition, I have been known to attend computer
>law seminars.
>
>I guess I missed the "Federal Law" or cases that established the
>above protection. May I recommend that we all not comment until
>Marcus provides us with some "meat", i.e. CFR citations,
>Federal Court case citations, etc. to back up his statements.
>
>With the "meat" on the table, then we will have much to discuss.
[How soon we forget...]
Try looking up the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986".
It has specific sections which appear to refer to electronic mail services.
There was quite a bit of discussion about it at the time in various news
groups. As I recall there was some question about whether or not it
applied to only commercial systems, but it was definitely a gray area in
the law. I have an on-line copy of one of the later revisions if you are
interested. I don't think there were any significant changes after it. I
didn't check though since I learned that it had passed and I didn't really
want to know how bad the final version was. (If it isn't obvious, I was
opposed to some of the proposals.
Bill
--
Bill Bogstad bog...@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa
(301)338-8019 seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill
--
Bill Bogstad bog...@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa
(301)338-8019 seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill
Moderator of mod.computers.ridge
gn...@oliveb.uucp
>>And we do
>>recall, another, just amazing coincidence, Foothead indeed has been on
>>an anti-Koloc and anti-Arndt rampage from the very beginning of his known
>>net.existence.
From what I can tell from the non-renounced postings of PMK, he is a
guy who steadfastly into the pro-nuke, fag-bashing, non-christian hating,
SDI-loving line of thought that sounds very similar to the LaRouchies and
other pseudo-neo-nazi groups. Foothead is (was) one of MANY people on the
NET that finds PMK's postings to be flaming, factless and offensive.
Foothead has a motive, therefore he must be guilty!
Because GWS has told us that he is the keeper of the One Whole Truth,
then it IS the truth -- Wait! We've heard that form of logic before!
> I don't have the big guns that these guys seem to have, among them access to
> mail logs from machines ALL OVER the country, nor the knowledge to use them if
> I had such access. ... Now THAT'S intriguing: who DOES have access to all
> the tools to enable them to perpetrate such a fraud on all of us? By their
> own admission, using it all in an effort to "prove" their innocence and pin
> blame for the whole affair on someone whom they seem to have some vendetta
> against? Who else?
> --
> Foothead
Even though Foothead is way-too flamatious, this doesn't mean he is
automatically guilty.
Using computer accounting records for proof in these matters is
like having crooked cops running Internal Affairs.
Who's going to be the next target of the self-appointed Net Vigilantes?
Gary
"Credit Fraud! My God, that's worse than murder!!" -- Cheviot, Network 23
PS- Hey, maybe the netpolice have an A-7 of their own!
pa...@ulowell.uucp
personal attacks of the Brahms Gang, he never denies their accusations.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
Glen L. Roberts
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 amended the 1968
Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2500 et seq) as follows (more or less to look it up):
1) Made it illegal to listen to certain radio transmissions,
2) Made it illegal to tape data transmissions (without a warrant),
2) made it illegal to disclose electonic mail, except to:
a) the intented receipent,
b) any service involved in forwarded the message,
c) the government (without a warrant), or if older than 180 days an
administrative subpeona.
The U.S. Mail privacy is protected by the 4th Amendment, and 18 USC 1700
et seq.
The ECPA also made it illegal for electronic mail or remote computing
services to disclose customer records to the government, except with a
warrant, or an administrative subpoena (prior notice necessary with the
subpoena). Also excepted from this is FBI counter-intelligence requests.
Please use this as only a general outline, and get a copy for yourself
for all the details, exceptions, penalties, definitions, etc.
--
Glen L. Roberts, Box 8275-UN, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
{!ihnp4!itivax!m-net!glr} <-- don't expect a reply, !Mail is brain damaged here
``No government door can be closed against the 1st Amendment and no
government action is immune from its force.'' -Bursey v. US (466 F.2d 1059)
Glen L. Roberts
>In article <4...@gouldsd.UUCP> mjr...@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>>What you are talking about here is a violation of Federal Law. Electronic
>>mail is protected under the same protection as the US Mail, despite the speed
>>difference !
>
>WHOA, THERE! That's one helluva claim...
>
>Care to cite some sources to back up your statement?
>
>I'd rather see you cite a specific Federal statute or state your credentials
>as a lawyer or _something_ to give me a little more reason to believe what
>you say.
>
>
A lot of people don't think that electronic mail is protected. Well, its
not the same protection as US Mail. However, since the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act went into effect on January 17th, 1987, there
are restrictions on reviewing electronic mail and other data, without
authorization.
New section [18 usc] 2701 Unlawful access to stored communications
Subsection (a) of this new section creates a criminal offense for
either intentionally access, without authorization, a facility through
which an electronic communication service is provided, or for intentionally
exceeding the authorization for accessing that facility. Subesection 2701,
also provides that the offender must obtain, alter, or prevent authorized
access to a wire or electronic communiction while it is in electronic
storage in such an electronic storage system in order to commit a violation
under the subsection. The term ``electronic storage'' is defined in section
2510(17) of title 18 [us criminal code] and includes both temporary,
intermediate storage of a wire to electronic communication incidental to
the transmission of the message, and any storage of such a communication by
the electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of
the communication.
This provision addresses the growing problem of unauthorized person
deliberately gaining access to, and sometimes tampering with, electronic
or wire communications that are NOT INTENDED to be available to the public.
...
Subsection (b) of this new section provides punishment for violation
of subsection (a). A distinction is drawn between offenses committed for
purposes of commericial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or
for private commericial gain and all other types of violation. If the
offense is committed for private or commericial gain or for malicious
destruction the subsection provides A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $250,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BOTH, for a first offender....
r...@moss.att.com
> The POSSESSION of the necessary scripts IS ample proof to remove the
>login and the directory. I would not hesitate to do exactly the same. I
>do not use root privs to "snoop" or for any other purpose than to keep
>up with the maintenance of my system and the software. I do monitor the
Rather totalitarian, don't you think? Especially now that certain facts
and methods have appeared in this newsgroup, we may all be finding such
scripts lying around on our systems. Kind of like the long discussion
of "!FUNKY!STUFF!" a few years back, only more damaging. Why? Because
on most of our (meaning the collective net) machines there are these
things called hackers. Hackers like to figure out how things work and
how to circumvent them. Once the puzzle is solved, though, 90% of them
get bored and go on to the next puzzle. I would rather move the scripts
to a protected place and send them mail telling them to call me and talk
about it if they don't want their login removed. Of course, I *DO* use
root priveleges to actively snoop for system breakins and such; and I
do so without reasonable suspicion that anything is going on. I consider
it a moral imperative not to reveal anything of a personal nature that
I find.
> One other note. I would also not hesitate to give pooh, you, or the
>other person access to my system if access to the net was needed. I
>would, however, require only that nothing such as the faked articles be
>done and would guarantee that your files were secure from me as well as
>from the other users. I also must guarantee that if those types of actions
>were traced to my system. I would certainly be looking for the origin
>with whatever means at my disposal.
By all means. You'd be surprised how many sysadmins really don't give
a damn.
> Hopefully, you will not view this as a flame - it certainly is not
>meant to be.
Same here; I just have a different view of system administration.
The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232)
alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj
...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
Oleg Kiselev
With all the flames and thundering declamations about Foothead's alleged
forgeries...
Yes, it was obvious that "ar...@prometheus.UUCP" articles were forged. I think
it's the responcibility of the site administration at prometheus to control
their users. Yes, the "ar...@prometheus.UUCP" articles with <ucbvax> article
ID's look like fakes as well. If it is proven that Foothead is behind it all,
I will be rather dissapointed in Foothead.
Mean while, I would like to remind Gene Ward Smith that the reason *I* nolonger
have an account on LOCUS.UCLA.EDU is because I gave Brahms Gang an access to
News posting at UCLA while brahms.berkeley.edu was off the net. That the same
individual that caused a temporary shut-down of brahms' posting priveleges was
rather displeased to see a few messages with crudely constructed headers come
from UCLA, signed by Brahms Gang. And UCLA was all too happy use these
"forgeries" as an excuse to kill my account, which, with the restrictive
computer access rules at UCLA, they could and should have done anyway since
I was nolonger involved with the project that required a UNIX system access.
But it's one thing to terminate an account on "expiration date reached" basis,
and completely different thing to shut a site (oacvax.ucla.edu) off eathernet
access, deny oacvax.ucla.edu NNTP access to the UCLA News server, launch an
"investigation" into alleged (and absurd) abuses of "system access" and vouch
to never ever allow me any access to any of the UCLA systems for as long as
I live (an empty and impotent threat, but an annoying one). And that's for
letting the Crussaders of the Net Justice have a posting access to the NET by
legitemately setting up an account on a UCLA machine that they could telnet to.
Draw your own conclusions. Tighter security of the NET is a great idea, but
I can look back at the rather injust treatment *I* received and wonder if some
people have been getting over-zealous...
--
Oleg Kiselev -- ol...@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg
DISCLAIMER: All grammatical and spelling errors are inserted deliberately to
test the software I am developing. In fact, that is the only reason I am
posting. Yeah, that's the ticket! All my postings are just test data! Yeah!!
g...@hoptoad.uucp
fix it when the law was proposed last year, but either nobody complained
to their Congresscritters or they didn't listen hard enough, because it
was passed (Public Law 99-508, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986). As far as I know, nobody has yet been prosecuted under it
though, so what it really means is not clear.
There is a section that says:
"(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter
121 of this title for any person--
... "(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the
transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully
operating station, to the extent necessary to indentify the source of
such interference..."
which might cover cases like trying to find out who forged mail (harmful
interference with lawful stations? I'm sure this section was written for
radio though.)
The original case, where a system administrator says he watched the mail
logs until a piece of mail critical to his lab came in, while the recipient
was out of town, is probably legal, but the wording of the bill is so fuzzy
it's hard to say:
"(b) EXCEPTIONS.-- A person or entity may divulge the
contents of a communication--
"(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an
addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the
subscriber in the case of remote computing service;
"(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose
facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;
"(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition
of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
provider of that service"...
One of these three would probably cover the case.
ECPA, we didn't stop it, now we have to figure out what the damn thing means.
--
Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you can redistribute only if your recipients can.
(This is an effort to bend Stargate to work with Usenet, not against it.)
{sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucbvax}!hoptoad!gnu g...@ingres.berkeley.edu
desi...@randvax.uucp
What does all of this have to do with religion?
Why not move this discussion to talk.netboys.masturbation
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| /-------\ | DISCLAIMER: (was a maiden yesterday) |
| / \ | RAND Corp doesn't even know I *have* opinions, so they |
| / ``` ''' \ | certainly couldn't agree with them! |
| | <(*) (*)> | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
| | / \ | | |
| | | | | | THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR FUTURE WITTY SAYINGS |
| | (o_o) | | |
| \ ^ / +-----------------------------------------------------------+
| |\_____/| |USnail@ RAND Corp. 2100 M Street NW, Washington D.C. 20037 |
| \ U / +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| \_____/ | desi...@rand-unix.UUCP | (202) 296-5000 E.S.T. |
+----------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
Josh Siegel
< [...]
>on most of our (meaning the collective net) machines there are these
>things called hackers. Hackers like to figure out how things work and
>how to circumvent them. Once the puzzle is solved, though, 90% of them
>get bored and go on to the next puzzle.
How do you feel about the hacker turned systems adm? We have
several rules here (local group within UNM (not UNM)) concerning hacking.
The rules are:
1) Don't do something that would be considered bad under
any context.
This comes down to telling them not to go into
profs directories and copy homework out. Don't
do anything that we would find in bad taste.
2) Don't be distructive
"You break it... you fix it!"
3) Tell us about it
If you find something new... I'll take ya to lunch.
The rules have worked well for the most part. All of the
systems people in our group have started our lives out as
hackers and were hired. Most of us have strange
things called ethics and morals which seem to set us
apart from "wargame" hackers.
What am I trying to say?
Don't lump hackers together.
I try to stay ahead of the game by trying to break the system even
while I control the system. I have toys that make people break
out in a sweat when demonstrated. This april fools, I showed a
group of people how to break into every machine at UNM. On the
other hand, this work has helped keep many, many machines secure from
others and has made it MUCH easier to catch them when they
are young and still learning.
Personally, I find the whole thing funny but sorta offensive. Its
not very funny to get ones reputation messed up. Sorta ruins it for
us all I guess....
>
>> One other note. I would also not hesitate to give pooh, you, or the
>>other person access to my system if access to the net was needed. I
>>would, however, require only that nothing such as the faked articles be
>>done and would guarantee that your files were secure from me as well as
>>from the other users. I also must guarantee that if those types of actions
>>were traced to my system. I would certainly be looking for the origin
>>with whatever means at my disposal.
>
>By all means. You'd be surprised how many sysadmins really don't give
>a damn.
Or how many sysadmins have given up.
>
>> Hopefully, you will not view this as a flame - it certainly is not
>>meant to be.
>
>Same here; I just have a different view of system administration.
Same here
>
>The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-4295 (Cornet 232)
>alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj
> ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
--
Josh Siegel (sie...@hc.dspo.gov)
(505) 277-2497 (Home)
I'm a mathematician, not a programmer!
Mike Sellers
Wow. You leave the net for a little while (all I did was change
jobs!) and look what happens. I must admit that I'm a little bit
disappointed to have missed this whole thing: fake Ken Arndts,
multiple Paul Kolocs, incisive high tech investigations, accusations
and counter-accusations, etc.
I read both of Foothead's articles posted by Mike H., and I must
agree with Bob. He spends quite a bit of bits attacking, smearing,
and questioning Gene & Matthew (et al), but not once does he say
"I did not do it." Not that the absence of this brings us any closer
to a resolution, but it is more fuel for the fire. In my time
on the net, Gene has been known for his (mostly) authoritative if
sometimes flammable postings (not all of which I agree with), while
Foothead has without exception been known for extreme amounts of
verbiage with much flaming, little reasoning, and less tact.
I see nothing has changed.
Its good to be back.
Mike Sellers
...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers
(I think the above address is correct)
mag...@watdcsu.uucp
[munch...]
>New section [18 usc] 2701 Unlawful access to stored communications
>
> Subsection (a) of this new section creates a criminal offense for
>either intentionally access, without authorization, a facility through
>which an electronic communication service is provided, or for intentionally
>exceeding the authorization for accessing that facility. Subesection 2701,
>also provides that the offender must obtain, alter, or prevent authorized
>access to a wire or electronic communiction while it is in electronic
>storage in such an electronic storage system in order to commit a violation
Hmmm, This raises a rather subtile [ or disturbing ] question.
An aside and a general question to everyone: I wonder, in which cases does
a user have the right to _prevent_ 'authorized' access? Isn't it also an
issue if whether such right to privacy were ever in fact given in the
mit-eddie case that started this discussion ?
[ This could be an interesting loop hole ? ]
Comments ???
[munch...]
> A distinction is drawn between offenses committed for
>purposes of commericial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or
>for private commericial gain and all other types of violation. If the
>offense is committed for private or commericial gain or for malicious
>destruction the subsection provides A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $250,000 OR
>IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BOTH, for a first offender....
>Glen L. Roberts, Box 8275-UN, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107
I would, like to change the topic and ask a few new questions:
If someone made, say a box to defraud the phone company
by altering records and or fake signals, and the phone company used their
'priviledges' to track down said person, then which of the following could
be said to be violating the law:
1) The phone company ?
2) The person obtaining unauthorised access and faking the records ?
3) Neither ?
4) Both of them ?
5) None of the above? [ explain ]
Best Regards,
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
BBS Admin
> Unfortunately this is true. I tried to get the net stirred up enough to
> fix it when the law was proposed last year, but either nobody complained
> to their Congresscritters or they didn't listen hard enough, because it
> was passed (Public Law 99-508, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
> of 1986). As far as I know, nobody has yet been prosecuted under it
> though, so what it really means is not clear.
>
>
AN ACT
relating to the creation and prosecution of offenses
involving computers; providing penalties and an affirmative
defense; adding Chapter 33 to the Penal Code.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 7, Penal Code, in amended by adding
Chapter 33 to the Penal Code.
CHAPTER 33
Section 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter:
(1) `COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIER' means a person
who owns or operates a telephone system in this state that
includes equipment or facilities for the conveyance, trans-
mission, or reception of communications and who receives
compensation from persons who use that system.
(2) `COMPUTER' means an electronic device that
performs logical, arithmetic, or memory functions by the
manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and includes
all input, output, processing, storage, or communication
facilities that are connected or related to the device.
`COMPUTER' includes a network of two or more computers that
are interconnected to function or communicate together.
(3) `COMPUTER PROGRAM' means an ordered set of
data representing coded instructions or statements that when
executed by a computer cause the computer to process data or
perform specific functions.
(4) `COMPUTER SECURITY SYSTEMS' means the design,
procedures or other measures that the person responsible for
the operation and use of a computer employs to restrict the
use of the computer to particular persons or uses or that the
owner or licensee of data stored or maintained by a computer
in which the owner or licensee is entitled to store or main-
tain the data employs to restrict access to the data.
(5) `DATA' means a representation of information,
knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions that is being pre-
pared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and intend-
ed to be stored or processed, is being stored or processed,
or has been stored or processed in a computer. Data may be
embodied in any form, including but not limited to computer
printouts, magnetic storage media, and punchcards, or may be
stored internally in the memory of the computer.
(6) `ELECTRIC UTILITY' has the meaning assigned by
Subsection (c), Section 3, Public Utility Regulatory Act
(Article 1446c, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes).
Section 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) uses a computer without the effective consent
of the owner of the computer or a person authorized to
license access to the computer and the actor knows that there
exists a computer security system intended to prevent him
from making that use of the computer; or
(2) gains access to data stored or maintained by a
computer without the effective consent of the owner or
licensee of the data and the actor knows that there exists a
computer security system intended to prevent him from gaining
access to that data.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intention-
ally or knowingly gives a password, identifying code, person-
al identification number, or other confidential information
about a computer security system to another person without
the effective consent of the person employing the computer
security system to restrict the use of a computer or to
restrict access to data stored or maintained by a computer.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A
misdemeanor.
Section 33.03. HARMFUL ACCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally or knowingly:
(1) causes a computer to malfunction or interrupts
the operation of a computer without the effective consent of
the owner of the computer or a person authorized to license
access to the computer or a person authorized to license
access to the computer; or
(2) alters, damages or destroys data or a computer
program stored, maintained or produced by a computer, without
the effective consent of the owner or licensee of the data or
computer program.
(b) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the conduct did not
cause any loss or damage or if the value of the loss or
damage caused by the conduct is less that $200.00;
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the loss
or damage caused by the conduct is $200.00 or more but less
than $2,500.00; or
(3) a felony of the third degree if the value of
the loss or damage caused by the conduct is $2,500.00 or
more.
Section 33.04. DEFENSES. It is an affirmative defense
to prosecution under Sections 33.02 and 33.03 of this code
that the actor was an officer, employee, or agent of a
communications common carrier or electric utility and commit-
ted the proscribed act or acts in the course of employment
while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to
the rendition of services or to the protection of the rights
or property of the communications common carrier or electric
utility.
Section 33.05. ASSISTANCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. The
attorney general, if requested to do so by a prosecuting
attorney, may assist the prosecuting attorney in the investi-
gation or prosecution of an offense under this chapter or of
any other offense involving the use of a computer.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 1985.
SECTION 3. The importance of this legislation and the
crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
emergency and an imperative public necessity that the consti-
tutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several
days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby
suspended.
> ECPA, we didn't stop it, now we have to figure out what the damn thing means.
> --
> Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you can redistribute only if your recipients can.
> (This is an effort to bend Stargate to work with Usenet, not against it.)
> {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucbvax}!hoptoad!gnu g...@ingres.berkeley.edu
Charlie Boykin
{cuae2,ihnp4}!killer!sysop
Robert Sanders
> If someone made, say a box to defraud the phone company
> by altering records and or fake signals, and the phone company used their
> 'priviledges' to track down said person, then which of the following could
> be said to be violating the law:
>
> # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
> # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
There is an exception in the ECPA which allows system management to monitor/
record traffic in tracing unlawful activities by users...
(I haven't read all of it yet, 53 pages of legalisims by congressmen who
essentially know NOTHING about electronic communications... it wouldn't
suprised me if it was held to prohibit charging for services, somewhere in
the weird and idiotic phrasing... this law will be a major headache until
repealed or rewritten...)
--
Skip Sanders : sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res
Phone : 619-273-8725 (evenings)
t...@ism780c.uucp
that when most people ( such as congressbeings ) think of E-mail, they
think of commercial e-mail services, such as Compuserve, Delphi, etc.
Does UUCP mail qualify?
--
Tim Smith "Learn to juggle while it's still legal"
sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
Edward J Cetron
>In article <20...@hoptoad.uucp>, g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>> Unfortunately this is true. I tried to get the net stirred up enough to
>
>
>Section 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY.
> (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
>
>
> (2) gains access to data stored or maintained by a
>computer without the effective consent of the owner or
>licensee of the data and the actor knows that there exists a
and now here is the rub...... Where is the OWNER of the data defined. This
is the problem that I think is going to cause the most trouble. In our view,
since all lab personnel are given lab accounts (i.e. they don't pay for them)
and since most of what they use the computers for is work-related, who really
'owns' the data in their directories? Given current Univ. policy, any programs
or whatever created by employees using Univ. facilities are 'owned' by the U.
But graduate students aren't contracted employees, but then again they DO get
paid, but then again......
As John Gilmore has written, the ECPA says a lot of stuff - but does
ANYONE really know what it really means....
-ed
he...@mcdchg.uucp
this one needs some help with definitions and the consequences of those
definitions. [whole article == :-)]
BBS Admin (sy...@killer.UUCP) writes:
| (2) `COMPUTER' means an electronic device that
| performs logical, arithmetic, or memory functions by the
| manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and includes
| all input, output, processing, storage, or communication
| facilities that are connected or related to the device.
| `COMPUTER' includes a network of two or more computers that
| are interconnected to function or communicate together.
For example, my wristwatch. Some watches have special programming keypads,
aso well. Maybe they become a "network"? I use my fingers in connection
with the processing, storage, and communication of the data stored in the
watch. What does that make the fingers or the devices attached to them?
| (4) `COMPUTER SECURITY SYSTEMS' means the design,
| procedures or other measures that the person responsible for
| the operation and use of a computer employs to restrict the
| use of the computer to particular persons or uses or ....
I keep my shirt cuff pulled down over the face of the watch and don't
let anybody know what time it is unless they ask me. I also use the wrist
band and clasp as an integral part of the security system to keep it in place
behind my shirt cuff.
| (5) `DATA' means a representation of information,
| knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions ...
| may be stored internally in the memory of the computer.
Like, what time my alarm is set to go off.
| (1) uses a computer without the effective consent
| of the owner of the computer or a person authorized ....
|
| (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
If such person moves my shirt cuff out of the way to check the time.
| (1) causes a computer to malfunction or interrupts
| the operation of a computer ....
|
| (2) alters, damages or destroys data or ....
|
| (b) An offense under this section is:
|
| (3) a felony of the third degree if the value of
| the loss or damage caused by the conduct is $2,500.00 or more.
So, if someone interrupts the operation of the computer on my wrist,
like by stealing it, and I miss an appointment causing me to lose
a business account that is worth more than $2,500, then the pickpocket
has committed a 3rd degree felony by lifting my $40 watch.
(Unless, of course, the pickpocket works for the phone company and needed
to know what time it was in connection with his/her official duties.)
--
Ron Heiby, he...@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix
Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL
"Small though it is, the human brain can be quite effective when used properly"