e-mail to world from jim warren  in defense of "the hackers"

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0002&L=foi-l&F=&S=&P=9484

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: [email protected] (Unverified) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:43:27 -0800 Reply-To: Jim Warren Sender: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues From: Jim Warren Subject: who's doing what, with which, to whom, for why? X-To: [email protected] In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Let's see ...

On January 27th, Clinton said he wants to make electronic "law enforcement" a high priority, in his State of the Union speech.

By January 30th, the *always*-silent National Security Agency suddenly *alleges* very publicly, that its main computers -- that process covert communications interceptions from around the nation and world -- had inexplicably crashed from January 24th to the 28th.

Escalating the issue, in the first week of February, Clinton's budget proposes to spend $240-million to massively expand his undetectable, at-a-keystroke, remote wiretapping facilities, to be able to secretly snoop on any phone in the nation. And half of the $240-million is Defense Dept loot -- perhaps from secret NSA appropriations (after all, wiretapping is what they *do*!). Note that another President thought that wiretapping his political opponents was so important that he risked -- and lost -- his presidency, trying to install them.

By February 7th, the world's most prominent online information service -- Yahoo (I don't count AOL as a service :-) -- suffers a massive attack and crashes for hours.

By February 8th, Missouri and Oklahoma phone systems have crashed. It illustrates the horrors of vile cyber-terrorists, but without bothering "important" people in Washington or on the East and West coasts.

Now, also on the 8th, the normally *very* reliable mail-server at Concentric Networks -- a large national ISP -- has been refusing to respond for more than an hour.

What better way to "prove" the need for massively expanded government surveillance, and create a fenzy of support for it?!

Suddenly crackers seem to have become far better than any have ever been before. But then again -- what organization has the best computer and phone-system crackers in the world?! There is "No Such Agency."

--jim-the-paranoic

2600 News, anonymous  (Hacker's Quarterly)http://www.2600.com/news/2000/0209.html

HACKERS TO BLAME? DOUBTFUL

02/09/00

We feel sorry for the major Internet commerce sites that have been inconvenienced by the Denial of Service attacks. Really, we do. But we cannot permit them or anyone else to lay the blame on hackers.

So far, the corporate media has done a very bad job covering this story, blaming hackers and in the next sentence admitting they have no idea who's behind it. Since the ability to run a program (which is all this is) does not require any hacking skills, claiming that hackers are behind it indicates some sort of knowledge of the motives and people involved.

This could be the work of someone who lost their life savings to electronic commerce. Or maybe it's the work of communists. It could even be corporate America itself! After all, who would be better served by a further denigration of the hacker image with more restrictions on individual liberties?

Let's look at the headlines:

"Government sees cyber-attacks as disruption of commerce."

"Justice Department wants more funds to fight cyber crime."

Didn't take them long, did it? And later in the same story: "But the FBI may never know who is responsible for the cyber-attacks, due to the difficulty in tracing the electronic trails, a senior law enforcement source told CNN."

How convenient. An unseen villain. No need for any actual FACTS to be revealed, but plenty of blame to be cast on hackers everywhere. We find it to be a bit too contrived.

Whoever is responsible is either completely clueless or knows EXACTLY what they're doing. It's the latter that should concern hackers everywhere.

 


Number of times hackers were named or implied as culprits on these sites:

cnn.com14
msnbc.com13
zdnet.com 4
abcnews.com 0