Dec 302017
Computer Underground Digest #6.38.
File CUD638.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category Various Text files
Computer Underground Digest #6.38.
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
CUD638.TXT 42173 17114 deflated

Download File CUD638.ZIP Here

Contents of the CUD638.TXT file

Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 27, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 38
ISSN 1004-042X

Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Suspercollater: Shrdlu Nooseman

CONTENTS, #6.38 (Apr 27, 1994)

File 1--Public Morality, Civil Disobedience, and Piracy
File 2--White House tech & Crime
File 3--Comment on the Lamacchia case
File 4--hacking congress
File 5--I hope this saves someone's buttons ("Dstry your data")

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup:

Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to [email protected] or [email protected]
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-
6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU,
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493

/pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/
EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: /mirror/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate
of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as
long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless
otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned
articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily
represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors
assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted
do not violate copyright protections.


Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 15:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dennis Shayne Weyker
Subject: File 1--Public Morality, Civil Disobedience, and Piracy

I wanted to pass along some email responses I received that made
factual corrections or additions to my article (on the social ethics of
piracy, hacking, and phreaking) which might be of interest to CuD
readers. Since I didn't ask all these people for permission to repost
I've removed their names from their comments.

I would also like to respond to some of public comments about my
article. Hopefully the content of these responses is of broad enough
interest to make them worth publishing in CuD. I have attempted to
keep quoting to minimum in the two articles I respond to.

+>email message 1
>One point that you didn't make regarding pay-phones. -
>Manufacturing, installing and maintaIning payphones is not an
>inexpensive task. Apparently in some areas the payphone companies
>are getting out of the payphone business because they can't make
>money at it.

+>email message 2
>I detected one definite factual error. Dir. asst. calls from payphones
>are not necessarily free. They may be in MD, and in DC as well as I
>learned, but they are not in all areas. Before relocating out here, I'd
>never gotten a free dir asst. call in my life. In New Mexico, these
>calls are 50 cents or so (more than the actual phone call in most
>case, as E.G. pointed out.) I tend to suspect that NM is the norm not
>the exception. I've also been charged for such calling is AZ, CO, TX
>and Miss.

+>email message 3
> You mentioned a much heard argument
> that by pirating WP (or whatever) by indivduals, such companies
> gain market acceptance in the long term.
> That's undeniably true. But, if WP was not pirated, say it was not
> possible, people have to buy it. WP is expensive (that's one
> reason to pirate it), so they are going to buy some cheaper
> package, likely a shareware one or so. They won't have done this
> if it was possible to pirate WP.
> Therefore, pirating software not only `hurts' the pirated company
> (pirating by indiduals very likely does not hurt, but other
> pirating does), but also shareware authors or other competitors.

And now for the two responses.

+>From: [email protected](Chris Hind)
>You gave an example about if phreakers printed and article in Phrack
>about how to hack such-and-such equipment then that might change
>a telco's mind about which brand of equipment they should buy. Now
>that this information is released, there's a whole new ball game!
>Now phreakers will use this as power over the market. They could
>use reverse psychology to screw up the telco's and then that would
>open up a huge window for phreakers to hack into a telco and pick
>it's bones clean.

True. And by your message you've just warned telco engineers to
beware of such reverse psychology attacks on their procurement

What was more interesting to me about this scenario was not so much
the net effect on the telco's security but rather Phrack's power to
almost unilaterally take wealth (sales) away from one company and
give it to another. Doesn't this strike anybody as unfair? And how long
will it be before Northern Telecom or Fujitsu start *paying* hackers to
find and report in phrack on the security weaknesses of their
competitor's products?

Next you'll tell me I've hurt the telcos again by showing hackers
there's money to be made in hacking. It was going to happen sooner
or later, and unless *all* companies make a practice of using hackers
to analyze and attack their rivals' products in the above-ground
hacker-media, those few companies who choose to do this are doing
something which distorts the market in their favor (because their
competitors' stuff gets torture-tested by ingenious hackers while
their own stuff doesn't) and probably should be punished either
through the judicial system or their business community. And we have
to know this threat of illict behavior is there before we can think of
ways to counter it.

But there's another way to look at this. Telco's may *want* to buy the
'compromised' switch over the uncompromised one since they know
what's wrong with the 'compromised' one and can (try to) fix those
holes before installing them while they can't fix the holes in the
'uncompromised' switch until they discover them the hard way.

<[email protected]>
>If you live in a society where there are absolute moral standards,
>you're probably pretty well off, because you can use those standards
>like theorem and hypothesis to draw some conclusions. That isn't the
>United States, though. In our society there are no absolute morals
>anymore. . . . The point is simple: in a world without absolutes,
>power is the only rule, and all men do what they can get away with.

I think your first error is saying that just because christian morality
has been widely devalued (has lost its ability to control the behavior
of the masses) there are no longer *any* standards of behavior worth
following. I disagree. Perhaps I'm unusual because I've had more
exposure to secular moral philosophy than most folks, but I can think
of several of moral standards one could choose to live by which would
give one's life meaning and prevent the conclusion that I should only
do what's good for me without considering the effects on other
people. A few of the better known ones:

Utilitiarianism, which says you should always try to bring the greatest
good to the greatest number, either on a case by case basis or by
creating rules to serve that purpose.

Kantian/Deontological ethics, which say you should only act in ways
that you would approve of every acting in the same way. Also, that
you should never treat other persons as merely a means to some end,
that every person has rights to be treated with the respect due a
human being and your own desires and rights have to take account of
those other persons' rights.

Virtue ethics say you should try to live a life of excellence. Try to
live up to the big ideals; honesty, fairness, industriousness, charity,
self-reflection, etc. etc.

And nobody said just because society and the government have
abandoned Christian morality that you have to. It may require more
willpower and effort on your part to be a good christian when you
have to live under a government and society that offends some of
your values, but that's no excuse for giving up. The same goes for
Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. believers.

I'm sure most of even the hardcore libertarians out there think there
are some moral principles (respecting other people's freedom and
property?) that one ought to follow in the absence of pressure to be

>The founding fathers plainly appealed to God in
>the Declaration of Independence and many less noticed writings. Yet
>any such claims are patently false, in as much as our government
>now subverts the constitution and the original intent of the fathers
>at will. . . .

Historical trivia: I've heard Thomas Paine was a fire-breathing atheist.

I would say the government has acquired lots of power, but that this
alone does not mean it is unrestrained. You seem to feel that since
government no longer plays by the moral rules laid down in the Bible
or the original interpretation of the constitution that it has become an
amoral power-grabbing monster.

I think that while govt. has regulated our lives more, and in doing so
offended the values of both traditionalists like you (who think
officeholders' sexual ethics and welfare-state mindset will be the
death of mankind) and liberals (who would like to see a lot more
government action on bigotry, economic/racial inequality,
corporations' abuse of people/animals/the environment, reproductive
freedom, and so on). But I don't think it mindlessly stomps on
*everybody's* values in some monomaniacal lust for power. The
power of the vote would have to come in and halt this somewhere,

As for original intent interpretations of the constitution being morally
authoritative. . . Think how the world has changed since 1776:
industrial corporate capitalism with huge disparities of income has
replaced the Jeffersonian community of relatively-equal small-
landholders, we've adopted equality-in-theory for women and
minorities, and so on. I don't think there's anything morally compelling
or desireable about living in a society regulated by original-intent
ideas favoring very restricted taxation, property qualifications for
voting, second-class citizenship for women and minorities, etc.

>Furthermore, our government
>is the chief purveyor of immorality. [because it supports condom
>distribution, doesn't discriminate against homerotic art in federal
>funding of the arts, uses deadly force against those it arbitrarily
>determines to be a threat to the public, and permits white-collar
>criminals, philanderers, and homosexuals to hold office.]

One of these things (white collar criminals in govt.) is a pet peeve of
mine too and makes me anxious about the government's integrity (ex.
Ed Meese, INSLAW). I try to keep in mind though that separation of
powers and a bloodthristy free press supposedly act as a check on
corrupt officials.

But for sexual ethics, I think you are confusing government's
devaluation of *your* sexual ethics in its pursuit of equal treatment
for homosexuals (NEA funding, civil rights protections) and a means of
protecting teenagers and the poor from AIDS (condom distribution) as
a broad denial of *any* ethical standards. I think both of these
policies are compatible with the secular moral standards
(utilitarianism, etc.) I provided above.

As for arbitrary govt. use of deadly force (too much in Waco, too little
in LA riots, you seemed to feel) I can only say that I don't yet see a
pattern where govt. is crushing all religious minorities and is
indifferent to riots in the cities. Waco was probably too much, and the
early police response in LA too little. But like the line goes, "Never
attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity".
Lack of prepartion in LA and bad judgement in Waco may explain them
better than a conspiracy theory about the government gunning for
religious groups while coddling rioters and looters. And also regarding
Waco, I heard the siege was costing the government a million or two
*every day*. How many millions have to be spent paying 50 FBI
agents overtime to sit around Waco rather than using that money to
provide other much-needed police services (catching serial killers,
dope dealers, bank robbers, kidnappers, etc.) before the government
is entitled to take a calculated risk in order to end the siege? The risk
in Waco was miscalculated, but the idea of riskily ending sieges
because of the huge costs to the taxpayers of letting them continue
indefinitely has to be considered.

>As such, the law as a statement of prevailing morality is purely the
>tool of the powerful. If you have power, you consolidate it into law
>and give it the name of morality. Machiavelli.

I sometimes fear (like you) that money and the power associated
with it dominate lawmaking. But this feeling comes and goes. I
believe a fair number of laws get passed that seem to conform as
much to secular ideas of the good as they do to the interests/desires
of those with the most cash. I don't see the moral void out there that
you do, in which it's O.K. to do anything and only the power of others
prevents you from abusing them.

>There are two sources of power: first, there's power where the
money >is: e.g. the software developers. Second, there's power where
the >technology is. And the technology favors the pirates.

Yep. You've hit on a pretty accurate description of why piracy is so
common. But as the philosophers like to say, "you can't derive what
you ought to do from what is". We don't live in a moral void. Just
because piracy is easy and common doesn't make it right. You have to
have some kind of abstract moral standard (or maybe a Christian one)
that tells you *why* piracy is ok. You yourself appeal to the Bible,
indicating it's lack of mention of intellectual property, I could counter
that respect for intellectual property is implied in respect for physical
property since the underlying idea is that one should be able to enjoy
the fruits of their labor. And why were you so forceful about noting
that you pay for the software you use and noting the necessity of
violating copyright to supporting your customers' obsolete software?
I suspect its not because you feared the SPA but rather because you
felt there was something wrong about not paying for software you

>Money has made the law. Technology has made a farce of the law.

Good line. The rise of social power of the technology elite at the
expense of money elite gives the world an opportunity to fix some of
the injustices inherent in a money-controlled system. But in doing so
we really need to figure out which of those legal and moral laws that
"money" made are bogus and which are worth keeping.

Your techno-nihilism, if widely adopted, could lead to the
institutionalized exploitation of the people by the techno-elite just as
the industrial revolution saw the exploitation of the people by the
business-elite. That would be bad.

>Now, the essence of tyranny is to put everyone in violation of a
>draconian law at all times . . . Our software piracy law seems to fit
>well in line here.

Indeed, the current penalties are harsh, and the expectation that
they'd only be used to attack big-scale pirates-for-profit (i.e. DOS and
Windows counterfeiters) has been destroyed by the SPA. Piracy
penalties should be proportional to the real damage done to the
copyright holder (see my prior post, and the email comment above
about harming competing shareware authors) and should take
account of the social good that the piracy in each case is associated
with (allowing the testing/comparison of software before buying,
allowing the support of obsolete/unsupported programs, shorter
development times for new applications, etc.).

>Mr. Weyker [said] . . . "We are all morally bound to obey
>the law" except in a public protest [except in extreme
>cases like Nazi Germany].
>I'll plainly disagree. . . . I mean, whose morals are we talking about
>here? America's? Then might makes right, and you can do what you

I've already pointed out that I think you're confused society's
divergence from your Christian values with the U.S. being an amoral
place in which might and the pursuit of one's own desires are the only
relevant guides to behavior. The former may be true, the latter does
not follow. And in any event, living in an amoral place doesn't
necessarily give you the license to be amoral yourself, you have to
duty to live morally except *maybe* in some cases where assuring
your very survival may force you to passively or actively violate your
moral principles (like in say, Nazi Germany). And Christian ethics give
believers less slack in this department than secular moral systems.

But interesting question is: Why should we break the law publicly
rather than privately? Because if the law is wrong, everyone benefits
by a brave individual stepping forth to risk their neck in the hopes of
getting the courts to strike the law down or weaken it. Breaking the
law in secret may help you get what *you* want while minimizing
*your* risks, but it does nothing to help the many others who feel the
law is wrong but lack your advantage of secrecy or who have much
more to lose by confronting the law head-on. That's why Doc
Kevorkian and the Civil Rights protest movement have a heroic cast to
them, they risked themselves for the benefit of others.

On the other hand, pressure for public confrontation of the law makes
those who are tempted to deceive themselves (convincing themselves
that it is not just that the law inconveniences *them* but also that it
is a bad law for *everyone* that deserves to be broken and held in
contempt) into justifying criminal behavior to themselves that really
isn't justifiable. This tends to take the tool of civil disobedience out
of the hands of the average person and restrict it to very zealous
folks who really hate the law and strongly believe that it will fall if
exposed to public scrutiny in a famous court case. In return for
accepting this restriction, we as a society get a lot fewer people
using self-serving, faulty, logic to justify criminal behavior to
themselves and turn their well-deserved feelings of guilt into blame
for the government or business. Thus there's a trade off, one that may
or may not be good on balance. Libertarians and anarchists would
probably like to have civil disobedience be more broadly
available/less risky so more people can get in the habit of bucking the
system. But the value of forcing people to be accountable for their
actions, not just to the government--but the community, shouldn't be
forgotten. That's why I get a bit antsy about the
anonymity/cryptography craze sometimes.

>I think most people try to be fair to vendors most of the time. For
>the most part, they have been to my company, even though there is
>a cadre who aren't.

Not having a law prevents abusive enforcement of that law by the
state. But not having a law also sets up abuse of the trust that must
take the place of the law.

This is like the classic libertarian vs. welfare-liberal debate about
what happens if you stop redistributing wealth and depend on
people's charitable instincts to take the redistribution scheme's place.
The libertarian says charity will do as well or better for the poor than
redistribution. The liberal thinks just the opposite. Here, the
libertarian thinks trusting folks to pay for software will do just as
well for those who write code for a living as a law requiring folks to
pay up. Again, liberals are doubtful. We need good solutions, social,
technical, or a mixture of the two to get out of this dilemma.

>It's not the little guy who will get hurt in such a scheme. He can
>still sell software because chances are his neighbor won't have that
>package anyhow. The big guy will get hurt though. But is that
>necessarily so bad? It sounds to me like a good way to keep
>monopolies out of the software industry.

See my earlier comment about weighing the social benefits of
particular cases (or perhaps classes of cases) of piracy as well as the
real amount of harm to the producer. I think not punishing piracy of
Windows and MS-DOS while punishing an identical case of piracy of
MondoBase+ just because Microsoft is "too damn big and has all the
money anyway" probably runs afoul of constitutional guarantees of
'equal protection under the law' for the company and moral
expectations of equal treatment by innocent employees of Microsoft
(low-level programmers?) who are in no way responsible for their
employer's reputedly aggressive and sneaky legal behavior and who
don't make all that much more than similarly employed people in
other companies.

We have laws about monopoly in the U.S. and Microsoft has gotten to
know them up close and personal because its size and aggressiveness
have made them a Federal Trade Commission target. Time will tell
whether this is enough, or whether the software using community
will out of fear of another monopoly reminiscient of IBM at its peak
(which also got busted hard by the monopoly laws, if I remember
right), conspire to drag Microsoft down through purposeful and
targeted violation of their copyright and/or discrimination against
their products when deciding what to buy.

Shayne Weyker
[email protected]


Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:18:26 -0800
From: [email protected](James I. Davis)
Subject: File 2--White House tech & Crime

Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release April 20, 1994

Vice President Announces Inter-Agency Agreements

WASHINGTON -- To illustrate how the use of technology
can help fight rising crime, Vice President Al Gore today
(4/20) joined Administration officials in a demonstration of
wireless and dual-use technologies that can be used for law
enforcement purposes. He also announced two inter-agency
agreements that will increase cooperation between the
Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Defense in using
technology to help combat crime.

"The technologies demonstrated today provide powerful
new weapons in the war against crime," the Vice President
said. "Technological advances make it possible to fight
crime safer and smarter than ever before. They increase
safety, enhance productivity for our law enforcement
officials, and save taxpayer dollars."

The Vice President joined Treasury Secretary Lloyd
Bensten, Attorney General Janet Reno, Deputy Secretary of
Defense John Deutch, and Office of National Drug Control
Policy Director Lee Brown in the demonstration, which
included a wide variety of technologies that will help fight
crime or support law enforcement.

In addition, the Vice President announced two inter-
agency Memorandums of Understandings. The first MOU,
between the Departments of Justice and Treasury, establishes
an agreement to develop a wireless telecommunications
network for use by federal, state, and local law enforcement
officials. This agreement implements one of the
recommendations of Vice President Gore's National
Performance Review to make the federal government work
better and cost less. The second MOU, between the
Departments of Defense and Justice, is a five-year agreement
to jointly develop and share technologies that are necessary
for both law enforcement and military operations other than

Secretary Bentsen said, "We want to invest in crime-
fighting technology, we want to do it so local and state
police benefit, and we want to do it so costs don't go
through the roof. That's why I'm so eager to sign up
Treasury in a partnership with Justice to develop cost-
effective and efficient technology."

"New technologies increase the effectiveness of law
enforcement, offer police officers greater options for
apprehension, and improve the safety of the public," said
Attorney General Reno. "Today's agreements will unite the
efforts of the Justice Department with those of Defense and
Treasury to help make these technologies available to our
nation's law enforcement community."

Deputy Secretary Deutch said, "Today's Memorandum of
Understanding formalizes our ongoing relationship with the
Department of Justice. It comes at a time when budgets are
decreasing and yet we need different capabilities and
equipment to accomplish our peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions. We are finding that these requirements are
similar in many cases to the needs of law enforcement
agencies, and we look forward to cooperating in this area."

The demonstrations included an automated booking system
to electronically record fingerprints and mug shots, laser-
assisted computer imaging equipment for examining
ballistics, and a portable/hand-held/single-step device to
retrieve more readable fingerprints at crime scenes. They
also viewed technology that provides police cars with
mainframe database information such as criminal records and
traffic violations, and allows them to file reports from
their cars. Several non-lethal weapons for use in pursuit
of a suspect or while a suspect is in custody also were


Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 11:07:13 -0700
From: "J. Eric Townsend"
Subject: File 3--Comment on the Lamacchia case

In response to: An Issues Primer for the Lamacchia Case (#6.32)

> 1. Under current criminal statutes, may a systems operator
> ("SYSOP") of a computer BBS be held criminally responsible for
> what *users* of the system do while logged onto the network,
> including the exchange of copyrighted software or indeed, the
> publication of other copyrighted materials?

If the SYSOP actively encourages others to use the system, doesn't
that somehow change this? This is something like saying that
because a bar owner isn't responsible for the activities of prostitutes,
they should go out and encourage prostitutes to frequent their bar.

Providing a place for, and encouraging criminal activities is not
protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution (at least it
wasn't when I went to J-school :-).

> covers for high-class *prostitution* rings. Yet only the people
> who actually run the prostitution services are prosecuted for
> those violations of law.

But what about instances where the editors or publishers actively
sought out 'escort services' to advertise in their paper, with full
knowledge that the 'escort services' were prostitution rings?

> In the case of a SYSOP (like David LaMacchia) of a computer BBS,
> the First Amendment would appear to protect him from criminal
> liability for the arguably illegal actions of other people using (or
> mis-using) his system to upload, download, transfer, copy, and use
> copyrighted software.

Even though the SYSOP provided a place specifically for, and
encouraged such illegal activity?

In short, I don't buy the 1st Amendment defense in this case. A
publisher *IS* culpable if they knowingly or with malice publish
libelous material. A publisher *IS* culpable if they knowingly steal
materials to publish legal material (if I use my US Fed. Gov computer
to put out a newsletter, the 1st doesn't prevent me from being
charged with theft of government resources).

IMHO, the 1st Amendment is being severely abused in this particular


From: [email protected](Fernando Bonsembiante)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 19:17:14 -0200
Subject: File 4--hacking congress

I'm organizing a congress about virus, hacking and computer

The congress will be in october, in Buenos Aires, and 3 days long. It
will be free or cheap (under u$s 20), and oriented to discuss things
related to hacking, viruses, and the technology impact in the society
of now and in the future. We will also have discussions about
cyberpunk, virtual reality, the internet, the phone system,
programming, etc. The speakers will be both from the 'official' world,
and the 'underground' world. We expect Emmanuel Goldstein (2600
magazine), Mark Ludwig (Little Black Book of Computer Viruses), and
Rop Gonggrijp (Hack-Tic, Holland) to attend. The people coming from
other countries will be offered free rooming at volunteer's homes. We
can't afford plane tickets for anyone, so the travel expenses are up
to you. The official languages will be spanish and english, with
simultaneous translation.

We expect the congress to be as open as possible, offering freedom to
speak to all attendants, being from the 'bad' or 'good' side of the
discussed issues. As we in Argentina don't have yet laws against
hacking or virus writing/spreading, I think it is very important to
discuss all those items as freely and deeply possible.

Saludos, Fernando


Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Ketchersid
Subject: File 5--I hope this saves someone's buttons ("Dstry your

This material is to the best of my knowledge, TOTALLY original except
for a very short quote from a previous issue of CUD. I hope you find
it of use and if just one MORE of us is spared LONG down time by this
work, that alone will be enough for me. I am quite sure that all of
us who have ever been creative enough to create an entire reality
within our minds, i.e. written Fiction based upon our own experiences
or the knowledge we have obtained through the efforts of other
authors, have had fleeting thoughts criminal in nature, maybe, but
just as essential to the existence to the alternate Fictitious reality
as the effort, research and many hours of keying by the author.

The basis of this subject is not the mental dexterity of such authors,
rather it is the preface to methods that only a character in a book
would have to employ in order to protect him/herself within the
confines of a ficticious reality, where all of the gonvernmentlaists
have found that they do not have complete control of the worldnet.
They have discovered that there are people who have higher access
then they have. Hence they have instated a network security force
comprised mostly of personnel who have been beating the streets
tracking down drug dealers and other less than savory types in an
attempt to remove these ungrateful and dangerous information
thieves from the face of their fair land.

Sound familiar? Mmmmmm Could beeee.

Methods used in protecting data from seizure by "The Authorities"
How to instantly destroy the data on floppies and HD's Keep in mind
the HD will probably never work again once it has been subjected to
this method of data destruction. But which do you prefer? (1.)
Multiple years in the Gov.s' Jug. (2.) I gotta get another HD. **** If
you are sane, then obviously (2.) **** This being the case you will
need the following items to destroy the data on as many floppies you
could ever have.

If you already have a place for your media, which I assume is the
case. Let us for the sake of this work you presently store your media
in a containment area with these dimensions, 18" from front to back,
18 inches from side to side and 12 inches top to bottom. You will
need: 24 feet of 1/4" steel rebar if you are un familiar with rebar
just go to your nearest hardware store and ask for it, they will be
able to explain.

1000 feet of single core 18 gauge audio wire
with thin insulation. (radio shack about $10.00
1 200W "UPS" Uninterruptable Power Supply with
outputs. IMPORTANT!
(You will know why soon enough)
1 Radio shack home command center. i.e. a
remote control for home appliances.
3 MINIMUM of three receivers for the above item.
1 roll of electrical tape.
1 9 volt transistor battery.
1 17.5" length of piano hinge. (HARDWARE STORE)
10 1/4 taper head phillips head wood screws
1 piece of quarter round 1/2" molding
Some wood glue.
1 electrical cord with an AC plug on the end.
1 bulk tape eraser. (Radio Shack)
1 small low wattage oscillating fan
1 small low wattage night light
1 pinwheel.

What you are about to construct is a cubical electromagnetic matrix.
First you will cut the rebar into the following lengths: (16) 18 inch
sections Next you will wrap each of the sections with a coil of the
audio wire from one end to the other and then back again leave 3-4"
of excess wire hanging off end of the rebar.

[It is easier to do the wrap if you tape one end of the wire to one
end of the section of the rebar leaving the 3-4 inches of excess wire,
hang the wire spool from a coat hanger on a door knob or the back of
a chair. This will keep the wire in a manageable state. Then simply
work your way end of the rebar and back again just remember to
leave the excess 3-4inches of wire at the end of your return coil. and
tape the loose end so as to keep it from uncoiling. The coils should be
tight, but be careful not to break the conductor by pulling to hard.]

Now that you have all of your sections coiled you will arrange four of
the 18 inch sections pointing from front to back in the bottom of the
containment area. Then you will connect the wires at the ends of the
bars in this formation.

Next you will install the sections that will run from front to back
inside either side of the containment area. How you affix the rebar
to the inside is up to you. I prefer to drill 3 holes about 5 inches
apart starting about 1.5 inches from either end of the container along
the line that the rebar will be placed then use some of the audio wire
strung through the holes and around the rebar.

Now you will connect the ends of the wires coming from bar 1 and 4
to the ends of the two wires coming from the two outside bars. Once
you have mounted and connected the bars on both sides of the
containment you will create a lid for your containment area, that
done, you will affix the final four bars to the inside of the lid. A piece
of 1/4" inch ply wood is usually good for this. Making the lid.

If you go to the hardware store and ask them to cut an 18x18 sheet
of ply 1/4" inch ply wood you'll find they probably won't charge
anything for the cutting. Attach your lid via the piece of piano hinge
using the 10 wood screws to the top inside edge of the container and
to the rear underside of the lid. At the front of the containment
measure 1/4" from the top of the containment and glue your piece of
molding at that point, this will serve as a stop for the lid. (NOTE) you
should let the glue cure for 24 hours before you close the lid.

Now that you have made your lid you can attach the top bars to the
inside of the lid and connect and tape the left or right loose top
wire to it's mate. Now you have two loose wires. These will be the
lead wires that get connected to the power leads, connect these
wires to the ends of the AC power cord.

Now for the Bulk tape eraser. This is for the HD's. Disable the off
switch by either bridging the switch or gluing it in the on position.
Now Hot glue it to the side of your PC case right next to the HD's.
Now you will take your oscillating fan, night light and pinwheel.
Tape, hot glue, super glue or any other solid method of attaching the
night light to the top of the oscillating fan, attach the pinwheel in
such a position that it is just in front of the night light and will
be affected by the air flow of the fan. Now that all of the wiring is
complete we are at the plug in stage.

Plug the UPS into the wall outlet let it charge for the length of time
suggests in the ops-man. Plug the Radio shack home command
receiver into the UPS. Plug a power strip into the UPS's. Plug in two of
your receivers into the UPS powered power strip. Plug the third into a
standard wall outlet for use with a lamp, TV or Stereo system. Test
your UPS and Remote.

(A) Plug the night light and fan into one of your
RadShack Receivers via the power bar.
(a) Insure that the fan and night light are on.
(B) Unplug the UPS from the wall.
(C) Hit the button on the remote control
corresponding to the setting of the receiver.

If all is well the night light will light up the fan will start and
the pinwheel will create some pretty random shadows. Try the other
receivers that you have. Make sure each of them are set for a
different channel. Now plug your two data killers into the same
receiver, this way flops die with the HD's (Why should I buy a UPS
they COST!)

Well my friend. Most GOV boys KNOW that you
will try to run a kill file!
That is why they will either try to stop you
before you get into your domain. i.e.
"U.S. Computer Investigation Targets Austinites" by Kyle Pope
({cr} Austin-American Statesman, March 17, 1990: Pp A-1, A-12). The
article summarizes the background of the Legion of Doom indictments
(see CuD, 1.00, files 4, 5). In the continuing investigation, federal
agents and Austin police appeared at the home of a Steve Jackson
Employee, greeting him with guns drawn at 6:30 a.m. They confiscated
his equipment, and also took a number of books and other documents.
Picture this:

I come home from a hard days work. I have my home command
remote with me so I can turn the lights on from outside the house I
approach the house, they appear. Instead of pressing 1,2,3 or 4 to
activate indoor or outdoor lighting, I press 8 that fires up the big hum.

Or this:
I come home from a hard days work. I have my home command
remote with me so I can turn the lights on from outside the house
before I approach the house, I press 1 on the remote. But nothing
happens, I look at the other houses, they have electricity, must be a
blown bulb, so I hit #2 again nothing happens. I step back into the
shadows and hit #4 on the remote.

You see with any decent UPS you can connect a power strip and power
two or three devices for a very long time.

Well #4 turns on an oscillating fan with a night light and a pinwheel
attached, this creates enough random movement from within that at
least one of the govs will make a move. If so I hit 8. and the data
goes the way of political promises. Also you can create a second
activation circuit connected to your home security system. Hence if
some one breaks in all they get is NOTHING!

OR they will hit you while you are asleep. KEEP YOUR REMOTE WITH YOU
AT ALL TIMES! Of course sense they expect that you will try to run a
kill batch, they will normally cut the power to the domicile, hence
the UPS again! If the govs wonder why you may have nuked the data.
"I use it to keep my journal and I don't
want people reading my PRIVATE thoughts
on religion."
"I use it to keep my journal and I don't
want people reading my PRIVATE thoughts
on politics."
"I use it to keep my journal and I don't
want people reading my PRIVATE thoughts
on sexual practices."
"I use it to write songs about subjects
that could be considered controversial."

I also suggest keeping a set of Backup tapes in a safe place, like in
the hands of someone whom you would trust with your life, that
thinks they are some new kind of VHS tape. i.e. NON TECH.

I could go on for many more pages but I assume that you would
become WAY board with me, so I'll leave the dosage as it is. All thing
in excess, except of course for governmental control and loss of


End of Computer Underground Digest #6.38

 December 30, 2017  Add comments

Leave a Reply