Computer underground Digest Wed Jan 28, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 07 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #10.07 (Wed, Jan 28, 1998) File 1--FC: Student expelled for writing hacking article, from Netly News File 2--Hacking article case -- circuit court decision File 3--EFF Appointments to CEO & President File 4--"Come to Grief", Dick Francis File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:49:17 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--FC: Student expelled for writing hacking article, from Netly News The "So You Want To Be A Hacker" article in question: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/019821.html -Declan ****** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1699,00.html The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/) January 21, 1998 Hacking 101 by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) The end of senior year for most high school students is a time for college decisions, vacation planning and beer-tinged teenage revelry. Not so for Justin Boucher. Today the Milwaukee, Wisconsin-area native will be expelled from Greenfield High School because of an article he wrote entitled "So You Want To Be A Hacker." Published under a pseudonym in an unofficial student newspaper, it described in colorful (and sometimes profane) language how enterprising snoops could break into the high school's computer network. The advice ranged from the glaringly obvious ("Some commonly used passwords at very stupid schools are...") to the Hacker Code of Ethics ("Never harm, alter or damage any computers"). The finer points of hacker morality and teenage toomfoolery, however, were lost on irate school officials, who expelled Boucher for one year. [...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:10:16 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 2--Hacking article case -- circuit court decision Here's the relevant portion of the 7th Circuit's decision vacating the preliminary injunction. --Declan ******** JUSTIN J. BOUCHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-3433 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT December 10, 1997, Argued January 9, 1998, * Decided * This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 97-C-915. John W. Reynolds, Judge. DISPOSITION: Preliminary injunction VACATED. COUNSEL: For JUSTIN J. BOUCHER, Plaintiff - Appellee: Peter Koneazny, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTY UNION OF WISCONSIN, Milwaukee, WI USA. F. Thomas Olson, HALL, PATTERSON & CHARNE, USA. For SCHOOL BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENFIELD, Defendant - Appellant: K. Michael Cooley, WHYTE, HIRSCHBOECK & DUDEK, Milwaukee, WI USA. JUDGES: Before CUDAHY, FLAUM, AND MANION, Circuit Judges. OPINIONBY: CUDAHY [snip -dnm] We derive our jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal from 28 U.S.C. @ 1292(a)(1). Our review of the grant of a preliminary injunction is confined to "whether the issuance of the injunction, in light of the applicable standard, constituted an abuse of discretion." Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932, 45 L. Ed. 2d 648, 95 S. Ct. 2561 (1975); see also University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 393, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175, 101 S. Ct. 1830 (1981) (indicating applicable standard supplied by reviewing-circuit precedent). A district court abuses its discretion when it grants an injunction because of "an erroneous view of the law or . . . a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359, 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990); see also Vencor, 33 F.3d at 844. The district court made its decision on the basis of stipulated facts, the parties' briefs and oral argument. The [*9] stipulations included the transcript of the expulsion hearing and the administration's exhibits filed in that proceeding. At the expulsion proceeding, after hearing testimony by Greenfield's principal, its technology support specialist, the plaintiff and a technology consultant speaking at the plaintiff's request and reviewing the exhibits (including Boucher's article), the Board concluded that the article "provided instruction to the public and unauthorized persons on how to access the school district computer programs and disclosed restricted access information to the school district's computers" in violation of Wisconsin's computer crimes law, Wis. Stat. @ 943.70(2); n3 the Board policy on the use of Greenfield's computers, computer network and the Internet; and "general school rules for behavior and communications by its students with its computers." The Board found that "Justin wrote the article outside the school" and it "then appeared with his knowledge . . . for distribution at school," and that this endangered school property. The Board resolved that this conduct demanded the ultimate school sanction: expulsion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n3 The law provides, in relevant part: Offenses against computer data and programs. (a) Whoever wilfully, knowingly and without authorization does any of the following may be penalized as provided in par. (b): . . . (6) Discloses restricted access codes or other restricted information to unauthorized persons. (b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of: 1. A Class A misdemeanor unless subd. 2., 3, or 4 applies. . . . Wis. Stat. @ 943.70(2). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*10] In support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, Boucher argued that he had a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits, that he would suffer irreparable and incalculable harm from being prohibited from attending Greenfield and graduating with his class and that permitting him to begin his senior year pending a decision on the merits would impose only a slight burden on the Board. In handicapping his own chances on the merits, Boucher argued that his article was "mere advocacy," which was protected under the First Amendment. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 449, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430, 89 S. Ct. 1827 (1969) (per curiam). He noted that the Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth Amendment) applies to students in public schools: Students in the public schools do not "shed the constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises--"whether in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours"--unless the authorities have reason to believe that such expression will "substantially interfere with the work of [*11] the school or impinge upon the rights of other students." Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266, 98 L. Ed. 2d 592, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 509, 512-13, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969)) (internal citations omitted). Boucher maintained that his conduct did not violate Greenfield's policies regarding student use of its computer resources, because those policies only concerned actual tampering with and misuse of school computers; he had not been charged with improper use of the computers. He denied that he disclosed restricted access codes, and indicated that, although the Board had referred his case to the police, no criminal proceedings had been brought against him. In opposing the injunction before the district court, the Board argued that Boucher had no reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits: the article was not shielded by the First Amendment because it disclosed restricted access codes in violation of Wisconsin's computer crimes law. The Board also contended that Boucher's conduct created a reasonable perception of the threat of hacking, having the potential for unauthorized access to confidential school information. During [*12] the expulsion hearing, Greenfield's technology specialist testified that someone following the article's instructions could view (and alter) students' grades and any disciplinary information entered by individual teachers. According to the Board, writing the article therefore violated Greenfield's computer policies even if it were not a criminal act. The Board also contested Boucher's claim that he would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, suggesting temporary alternative schooling in private schools, nearby public high schools, home schooling or schooling via the Internet. The Board claimed that it would be harmed by the injunction by being "forced . . . to endure a demonstrably disruptive student" whose "prior retaliatory motivations against the school have likely only escalated" and would also suffer "intangible harm" because the injunction would "jeopardize the school's authority to control this type of . . . conduct," Tr. Prelim. Inj. Hr'g at 28. The district court indicated that its decision on the injunction motion would be based on 1) whether Boucher had some likelihood of success at a trial on the merits, 2) whether Boucher had an adequate remedy at law or would [*13] suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, 3) whether the irreparable harm the expulsion order would cause Boucher outweighed the irreparable harm the injunction would cause the Board, and 4) the public interest in the outcome. See TMT North America, Inc. v. Magic Touch GmbH, 124 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir. 1997). The district court concluded that Boucher had "some likelihood" of prevailing on the merits. The court observed that Boucher had not been charged with a computer crime and did not appear to have violated the statute since some of the passwords he mentioned were apparently inactive and he may have guessed the others. Therefore, according to the court, any disclosure of restricted access codes had not been shown to be wilful and knowing, a required element of the alleged computer crime. The district court was not persuaded that Boucher had violated Greenfield's computer policies: "The policies deal with computer use; the hearing testimony was that there was no indication that Boucher had actually performed any of the procedures discussed in the Article, and he was being suspended only for authoring the Article." Citing Ayres v. City of Chicago, 125 F.3d 1010, [*14] 1013 (7th Cir. 1997), the court correctly observed that "even if Boucher does not have a very high probability of prevailing on the merits, if he would suffer extensive irreparable harm and the Board little harm (and no third parties would be harmed), he is entitled to a preliminary injunction." The district court agreed with Boucher that he would suffer irreparable harm because expulsion for a year "would have negative implications which cannot be seriously challenged." Turning to the potential harm to the Board from granting the injunction, the district court declared that its "review of the record finds no support for the conclusory assertion" that an injunction would force Greenfield to "'endure a demonstrably disruptive student'" bent on retaliating against the school. The district court mentioned without analysis or findings the Board's concern that an injunction would undermine its disciplinary authority and pose a risk to the security of its computer system. Finally, the district court decided to grant the motion because under the circumstances, the one-year expulsion is an extreme response. The Board has not established that any harm it will suffer if Boucher attends [*15] school outweighs the harm to Boucher from being denied attendance at his senior year of high school. The district court apparently concluded that the injunction would not significantly affect the public interest. Neither party addressed the public interest, although the Board now argues that the public interest coincides with its interest. n4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n4 The Board's brief notes that "the text of the [district court's] opinion is entirely devoid of any consideration as to how entry of the injunction would affect the public interest. . . ." Br. & App. of Appellant at 22. This observation, however, applies equally to the Board's brief to the district court. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Although the court's order of September 19, 1997, is not entirely clear, the court seemed to conclude that the Board would suffer only negligible harm from the injunction. Perhaps the court simply meant that the Board's harm with the injunction does not outweigh the injury to Boucher without one. n5 Or the court may have meant to assess the balance of harms [*16] as adjusted for the respective odds of winning on the merits. From the judge's citation of authorities and remarks in court, we believe he concluded that, even if the expulsion order's injury to Boucher were discounted significantly by an apparently modest chance of success on the merits, the discounted harm still outweighed the insignificant harm that an injunction would impose on the Board. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n5 Although we think that this interpretation is incorrect, if the district court did mean only a weighing of the undiscounted harms, the granting of the injunction would have been an abuse of discretion. Under the circumstances of this case, it would have been an error of law for the district court to weigh the parties' harms without taking into account the likely victor on the merits, see Vencor, 33 F.3d at 845. A movant's mere showing of a non-negligible chance of success (which is all the district court recognized), together with a potential injury that does not substantially exceed the injury caused to the nonmovant by an injunction, would not support an injunction in this circuit or in any other. In those circuits, such as this one, that do not require the movant to establish that success on the merits is more likely than not, the movant must compensate for the lesser likelihood of prevailing by showing the balance of harms tips decidedly in favor of the movant. See e.g., Ayres, 125 F.3d at 1014; compare, e.g., Sweeney v. Bane, 996 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1993) ("A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish: (a) irreparable injury and (b) either (i) a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim or (ii) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of the claim as to make it a fair grounds for litigation and a balance of the harms tipping decidedly toward the movant."); Eng v. Smith, 849 F.2d 80, 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that in Second Circuit "likelihood of success" alternative requires showing probability of prevailing on merits exceeds fifty percent); see generally 13 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice @ 65.05 (3d ed. 1997) (surveying circuit standards for granting preliminary injunctions); Joseph T. McLaughlin & Harmeet K. Dhillon, Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the Federal Courts, 540 PLI/Lit 503 (1996) (same). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*17] While the district court's statement that a year's expulsion is extreme is understandable, we cannot accept the conclusion that the harm the injunction imposes on the Board is insignificant. As the district court recognized in the October 1 hearing, see Br. & App. of Appellant at App. 31, an injunction could remain in force through the remainder of Justin Boucher's tenure at Greenfield, at which point the issue of punishment would be moot. n6 Under the circumstances, we think the Board is correct in characterizing the injunction as undermining the authority of the Board to take disciplinary action for what it believed to be a serious threat to school property. Boucher argues that the Board has failed to present evidence that enjoining his expulsion undermines its authority, "save the unsupported conjecture in the District Superintendent's affidavit." Br. of Pl.-Appellee at 16. But the potential harm to the Board's authority "cannot seriously be challenged." The utter defeat of the Board's disciplinary efforts when confronted by a self-proclaimed "hacker" is clearly a substantial harm. Yet the district court failed to articulate a reason for discounting this injury to the Board. [*18] It never addressed the issue. We do not believe that the district court, with its somewhat dismissive view of the Board's injury, could have struck a correct balance. Under the district court's analysis, a school often would be powerless to expel a student able to mount a nonfrivolous legal challenge to the expulsion, unless the school could prove that the student's continued attendance actually presents a current threat of tangible injury. The Supreme Court "has emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools." Tinker, 393 U.S. at 507. "Without first establishing discipline and maintaining order, teachers cannot begin to educate their students." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 350, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, 105 S. Ct. 733 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring). We think that, in this procedural posture, it is enough to show that school discipline, undertaken reasonably and in good faith to protect the school's vital interest, is being undermined. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n6 A preliminary injunction that would give the movant substantially all the relief he seeks is disfavored, and courts have imposed a higher burden on a movant in such cases. See Selchow & Righter Co. v. Western Printing and Lithographing Co., 112 F.2d 430, 431 (7th Cir. 1940); Phillip v. Fairfield University, 118 F.3d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 1997); SCFCILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Ever Best Ltd, 944 F.2d 438, 440 (8th Cir. 1991); Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1963). Of course, whether the expulsion order becomes part of the student's record may be an issue of some importance even if an injunction prevents the school from its enforcement through the remainder of the student's high school career. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 575, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725, 95 S. Ct. 729 (1975). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*19] Further, although the point is not essential to our decision, in our judgment the district court's statement that there is no evidence in support of the other, tangible harm asserted by the Board--having to endure a "demonstrably disruptive student"--is untenable. At the expulsion hearing, Greenfield's technology expert testified that after the article appeared the school called in computer experts to conduct four hours of diagnostic tests on the computer system. The school changed all of the passwords mentioned in the article. (The diagnostic tests revealed signs of tampering, although the tampering could not be tied to the article.) This is, at a minimum, some evidence of past disruption, which would support an inference of potential future disruption--especially in light of the article's promise to "teach you more." Returning, however, to the undermining of discipline, the district court's failure to credit the injunction's harm to the Board's disciplinary authority might not be decisive if Boucher were likely to win the trial on the merits. Although we need not question the district court's conclusion that Boucher has "some likelihood" of winning on the merits, on the record [*20] before us it seems more likely than not that the Board will prevail. The Supreme Court has determined that "the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court has indicated that in the case of student expression. the relevant test is whether school authorities "have reason to believe" that the expression will be disruptive. See id. (emphasis added); see also Tinker, 393 U.S. at 514 (indicating standard was the existence of "facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption . . . or material interference with school activities"). Boucher claims that a "reason to believe" or "reasonable forecast" standard applies only in prior-restraint cases, and is "irrelevant to punishing disruption that never occurred." He suggests that, except in a prior-restraint case, the appropriate criterion is actual harm. But this court, sitting en banc, has applied the reasonable forecast [*21] standard to punishment after publication. See Scoville v. Board of Educ. of Joliet Township High Sch. Dist. 204, 425 F.2d 10, 13 (7th Cir. 1970) (en banc) (describing standard as "a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption of school activity"). Although in Scoville the court's judgment would have been the same if it had applied an "actual disruption" standard instead of a "reasonable forecast" standard--a distinction Boucher in any event ignores--on the record before us we are not persuaded that Scoville is distinguishable. Further, the principal case cited by Boucher for confining the reasonable forecast standard to prior restraint cases, Shanley v. Northeast Indiana School District, 462 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1972), concludes that the appropriate standard for analyzing the propriety of suspensions imposed after distribution of an underground student newspaper is whether "disruption actually occurred or was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances." Id. at 975 (emphasis added); see also id. at 970. Remarkably, however, Boucher does not even argue to this court that disruption was not reasonably foreseeable. Under existing case law, on the record [*22] before us, a reasonable forecast of disruption is all that would be required of the Board. The article is neither an essay on computers in the abstract nor a mere hostile critique of Greenfield High School. Instead, it purports to be a blueprint for the invasion of Greenfield's computer system along with encouragement to do just that. n7 It is a call to action detrimental to the tangible interests of the school. Although we express no judgment on the ultimate merits of the case, see Doran, 422 U.S. at 934, on the basis of the current record it appears that Greenfield was justified to interpret the article as what it purported to be. Boucher does not contend that the article was intended merely as some sort of parody of anarchist high school hackers n8 -- a defense that might have been more promising than the ones offered. Instead, spiced with warnings, emphasizing stealth, the article's agenda is palpably transgressive. At the expulsion hearing, Boucher testified that his motive in writing the article was to increase computer literacy among students so that when, in the future, something went awry on Greenfield's computer network, the pool of suspects would be expanded beyond [*23] a very narrow one that included Boucher. If the information in the article were truly innocuous and easily perceived as such, however, it is hard to see how its dissemination could deflect attention from the usual suspects. The district court found that the article "does encourage activity which could be invasive and destructive to the School's computer system and the information on it." It is largely irrelevant that the article may not have actually (and in hindsight) provided as valuable advice as purported or that the information disclosed may not have been as secret as represented; on the facts before us a reader might reasonably take the article at face value. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n7 Persons who are not students at Greenfield may consult the full text of the article in the appendix. n8 For a discussion of possible meanings of the term "hacker," see United States v. Riggs, 739 F. Supp. 414, 423-24 (N. D. Ill. 1990). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finally, Boucher argues that school officials' authority over off-campus expression is much more [*24] limited than it is over expression on school grounds. Based on the record developed so far, however, the cases cited for this proposition, Bystrom by Bystrom v. Fridley High School Independent School District, 822 F.2d 747, 751 (8th Cir. 1978) and Thomas v. Board of Education of Granville Central School District, 607 F.2d 1043, 1050 (2d Cir. 1979), do not appear relevant. Thomas involved off-campus distribution of an underground newspaper containing allegedly indecent material. The Second Circuit concluded that the expression lacked the potential to disrupt school activities. See Thomas, 607 F.2d at 1052 n. 17; id. at 1054 n.2 (Newman, J., concurring in the result). The statement in Bystrom is merely dictum distinguishing Thomas on the grounds that in Bystrom an underground newspaper was distributed on school grounds. As might be expected with an underground newspaper, The Last is not sponsored by Greenfield, but the parties have stipulated that the article was distributed on campus. Boucher suggests that the Board's arguments, as a matter of logic, would have to be the same if the article had not been distributed on school grounds, and thus the [*25] legal analysis should also be the same. Since the article was in fact distributed on campus, however, we need not reach that issue--particularly at this stage in the case. In addition, the district court found that the article advocates on-campus activity. Thus, on the record before us, it appears the case law applicable to student expression will apply, making it unnecessary to consider the application of the test of Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447 ("The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.") (footnote omitted). The preliminary injunction is VACATED. The mandate shall issue seven days after the date this opinion is issued. The filing of a petition for rehearing within seven days after the filing of this opinion will stay the mandate until disposition of the petition. If the petition is denied, the mandate shall issue immediately or, if later, after the end of the seven-day period following the issuance of this opinion, unless the time is enlarged [*26] by subsequent order of this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a), 41(a). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:42:00 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Godwin (mnemonic@well.com) Tue 13 Jan 98 10:40 Subject: File 3--EFF Appointments to CEO & President For Immediate Release EFF Announces Appointment of Barry Steinhardt as President and CEO, and Election of Lori Fena as Chairman SAN FRANCISCO, January 12, 1998 -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced that its Board of Directors has appointed Barry Steinhardt to President and Chief Executive Officer. Steinhardt is currently the Associate Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. The appointment was made at an EFF Board meeting held today in San Francisco. He replaces Lori Fena, who has been elected Chairman of the Board of EFF. Resigning Chairman Esther Dyson remains an active, enthusiastic member of the Board. "We are very pleased to appoint Barry Steinhardt as our new President," said Esther Dyson, former Chairman of the EFF Board of Directors. "Steinhardt has a wealth of experience with both our issues and the operation of non-profit organizations." "Barry's background is exactly what we were looking for," Dyson continued. "We expect him to be able to help us continue to build EFF as a premier organization that can take on the daunting challenge of defending and defining civil liberties and structures to protect them in the electronic world." As Associate Director of the ACLU, Steinhardt formed and chaired its Cyber-liberties Task Force, which coordinates the ACLU's extensive program on information technology issues. He was a co-founder of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), the world's first international coalition of on-line rights groups and one of the originators of the Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA), which was recently formed to monitor issues related to Internet content rating and filtering. Steinhardt has spoken and written widely on cyber-liberties issues. Most recently he was the co-author of "Fahrenheit 451.2 - Is Cyberspace Burning?", the ACLU White paper on Internet content rating and blocking. He is currently at work on the ACLU handbook on "The Rights of Persons On-line." In addition to his cyber-liberties work, Steinhardt has coordinated the ACLU policy development process and efforts to strengthen structure and management of the ACLU's 53 state affiliates. He has been with the ACLU for 17 years and previously served as Executive Director of its Pennsylvania and Vermont affiliates. "This is a tremendous opportunity for Barry, who has shown talent and imagination in the cyber-liberties arena," said ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. "It is also an opportunity for the ACLU to work even more closely than we have with EFF on many issues where we share common goals and values." Steinhardt succeeds outgoing EFF Executive Director Lori Fena, who will become Chairman of EFF's Board of Directors, and will resume her career in private industry as a venture investment advisor and consultant. "Lori Fena has done a superb job of building EFF over the past two years," Dyson said. "She demonstrated great vision in her stewardship of TRUSTe and a host of other projects and is an excellent choice as incoming Chairman. The Board of Directors is very grateful for her leadership and looks forward to working with Lori in her new capacity," Dyson concluded. EFF appointment Fena noted that EFF and ACLU have a long history of cooperative action that has ranged from the successful challenge to the Communications Decency Act in the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Reno v. ACLU, to ongoing efforts to promote the privacy of communications through the use of strong encryption. Most recently, the two organizations joined together to support legislation to remove the restrictions on the use of encryption. They also have cooperated in Bernstein v. Department of State, in which EFF is challenging the constitutionality of the US Government's restrictions on the export of encryption technology. Fena further noted that EFF and ACLU have been regular coalition partners, including common membership in the GILC and IFEA coalitions. "Hiring Barry is a natural step for EFF," Fena said. "It will strengthen the bond between two dedicated civil liberties organizations. We expect the two groups to work together even more closely to leverage our respective strengths to protect free speech and privacy in the information age." Steinhardt said he is "grateful for the opportunity to play a leadership role in the next phase of EFF's development." "EFF was the pioneer defender of the rights of on-line users," he continued. "With the explosive growth of the Internet and other information technologies, the need for a strong and vibrant EFF is greater than ever." Steinhardt said that he expected to concentrate his efforts on expanding EFF's membership and financial resources, maximizing EFF's already strong public presence, organizing grassroots support for cyber rights, enlarging EFF's role in the global movement for on-line rights and providing support for EFF's pioneering work to adapt traditional concepts of civil liberties for new mediums. Steinhardt will formally assume his new role on February 2. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) is a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to promote privacy, free expression, and social responsibility in new media. For further information please contact: Barry Steinhardt barrys@aclu.org (212)549-2508 Lori Fena lori@eff.org (415)436-9333 Esther Dyson edyson@edventure.com (212)924-8800 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:32:15 -0800 From: "Rob Slade......." Subject: File 4--"Come to Grief", Dick Francis BKCM2GRF.RVW 971003 "Come to Grief", Dick Francis, 1995, 0-515-11952-0, U$6.99 %A Dick Francis %C 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 %D 1995 %G 0-515-11952-0 %I Ace/Berkley/Boulevard/Charter/Diamond/Jove Books %O U$6.99 +1-800-788-6262 http://www.berkley.com/berkley %P 368 %T "Come to Grief" OK, I've already admitted that I like Dick Francis, OK? But I *do* have a reason for reviewing this one as well as "Driving Force" (cf. BKDRVFRC.RVW). Yes, a *technical* reason. Two or three, actually. First, this book involves the use of cell phones, and the interception of cell phone conversations. As in "Driving Force", Francis' technical details are a mixture of good and bad. It is good to see that he is making the public more aware of the vulnerability in using cellular phones to conduct confidential or private business. (Or, as Prince Charles found out to his chagrin, pleasure.) However, in this story, the lead character is told that getting a digital cell phone, as opposed to analogue, is an automatic guarantee of security. Granted, a digital scanner is a lot harder to build than an analogue one but without the use of spread spectrum or encryption, or both, digital communications alone cannot ensure security. Second, the main character admits that he is not keen on computers, and uses them as little as is consitent with his business. Fair enough. We can, though, therefore rule out the possibility that his home computer is even moderately sophisticated, let alone running a multiuser operating system. In fact, we can probably assume that, like most people, he turns the computer off when he is not using it. So how come he can call up his home computer from the office of the bad guys, and transfer files from theirs to his? (In fact, given the lengths to which they have gone in order to secure and hide their machine, how come it even has a modem?) OK, as long as we're here, how about one more? You know how in all the movies, when the good guys get into the bad guys' office/hideout/headquarters, and they discover the secret files/computer, that as soon as they put the disk with the secret data into the floppy drive the prompt "PASSWORD" appears on the screen? Yup, you guessed it ... copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCM2GRF.RVW 971003 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest 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); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ 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. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #10.07 ************************************