Date: 13 Dec 92 14:00:21 EST
>From: Emmanuel Goldstein <
[email protected]>
Subject: File 10--Comments on the Nov. 2600 Disruption in D.C.
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Following is a letter to the editor of the
Washington Post that they chose not to print as a "Viewpoint."
The author, Emmanuel Goldstein, is editor of the magazine 2600,
which can be contacted at 2600 Magazine - PO Box 752 -
Middle Island, NY 11953. A yearly subscription is only $21 (US)).
While managing to convey some of the facts concerning the Pentagon
City Mall hacker incident on November 6, "Hackers Allege Harassment at
Mall" (November 13, page A1) fails to focus on the startling
revelation of federal government involvement and the ominous
implications of such an action. The article also does little to lessen
the near hysteria that is pumped into the general public every time
the word "hacker" is mentioned. Let us take a good look at what has
been confirmed so far. A group of computer hackers gathered at a local
mall as they do once a month. Similar meetings have been going on in
other cities for years without incident. This gathering was not for
the purposes of causing trouble and nobody has accused the hackers of
doing anything wrong. Rather, the gathering was simply a place to meet
and socialize. This is what people seem to do in food courts and it
was the hackers' intention to do nothing more.
When mall security personnel surrounded the group and demanded that
they all submit to a search, it became very clear that something
bizarre was happening. Those who resisted were threatened with arrest.
Everyone's names were written down, everyone's bags gone through. One
person attempted to write down the badge numbers of the people doing
this. The list was snatched out of his hand and ripped to pieces.
Another hacker attempted to catch the episode on film. He was
apprehended and the film was ripped from his camera. School books,
notepads, and personal property were seized. Much of it has still not
been returned. The group was held for close to an hour and then told
to stay out of the mall or be arrested.
This kind of treatment is enough to shock most people, particularly
when coupled with the overwhelming evidence and eyewitness accounts
confirming no unusual or disruptive behavior on the part of the group.
It is against everything that our society stands for to subject people
to random searches and official intimidation, simply because of their
interests, lifestyles, or the way they look. This occurrence alone
would warrant condemnation of a blatant abuse of power. But the story
doesn't end there.
The harassment of the hackers by the mall police was only the most
obvious element. Where the most attention should be focused at this
point is on the United States Secret Service which, according to Al
Johnson, head of mall security, "ramrodded" the whole thing. Other
media sources, such as the industry newsletter Communications Daily,
were told by Johnson that the Secret Service was all over the mall
that day and that they had, in effect, ordered the harassment.
Arlington police confirm that the Secret Service was at the mall that
day.
It is understood that the Secret Service, as a branch of the Treasury
Department, investigates credit card fraud. Credit card fraud, in
turn, can be accomplished through computer crime. Some computer
hackers could conceivably use their talents to accomplish computer
crime. Thus we arrive at the current Secret Service policy, which
appears to treat everybody in the hacker world as if they were a
proven counterfeiter. This feeling is grounded in misperceptions and
an apprehension that borders on panic. Not helping the situation any
is the everpresent generation gap - most hackers are young and most
government officials are not.
Apart from being disturbed by the gross generalizations that comprise
their policy, it seems a tremendous waste of resources to use our
Secret Service to spy on public gatherings in shopping malls. It seems
certain to be a violation of our rights to allow them to disrupt these
meetings and intimidate the participants, albeit indirectly. Like any
other governmental agency, it is expected that the Secret Service
follow the rules and not violate the constitutional rights of
citizens.
If such actions are not publicly condemned, we will in effect be
granting a license for their continuance and expansion. The incident
above sounds like something from the darkest days of the Soviet Union
when human rights activists were intimidated by government agents and
their subordinates. True, these are technology enthusiasts, not
activists. But who they are is not the issue. We cannot permit
governmental abuse of any person or group simply because they may be
controversial.
Why do hackers evoke such controversy? Their mere presence is an
inconvenience to those who want so desperately to believe the emperor
is wearing clothes. Hackers have a tendency of pointing out the
obvious inadequacies of the computer systems we entrust with such a
large and growing part of our lives. Many people don't want to be told
how flimsily these various systems are held together and how so much
personal data is readily available to so many. Because hackers manage
to demonstrate how simple it is to get and manipulate this
information, they are held fully responsible for the security holes
themselves. But, contrary to most media perceptions, hackers have very
little interest in looking at other people's personal files.
Ironically, they tend to value privacy more than the rest of us
because they know firsthand how vulnerable it is. Over the years,
hackers have gone to the media to expose weaknesses in our credit
reporting agencies, the grading system for New York City public
schools, military computer systems, voice mail systems, and even
commonly used pushbutton locks that give a false sense of security.
Not one of these examples resulted in significant media attention and,
consequently, adequate security was either delayed or not implemented
at all. Conversely, whenever the government chooses to prosecute a
hacker, most media attention focuses on what the hacker "could have
done" had he been malicious. This reinforces the inaccurate depiction
of hackers as the major threat to our privacy and completely ignores
the failure of the system itself.
By coming out publicly and meeting with other hackers and non-hackers
in an open atmosphere, we have dispelled many of the myths and helped
foster an environment conducive to learning. But the message we
received at the Pentagon City Mall tells us to hide, be secretive, and
not trust anybody. Perhaps that's how the Secret Service wants hackers
to behave. But we are not criminals and we refuse to act as such
simply because we are perceived that way by uninformed bureaucrats.
Regardless of our individual outlooks on the hacker issue, we should
be outraged and extremely frightened to see the Secret Service act as
they did. Whether or not we believe that hackers are decent people, we
must agree that they are entitled to the same constitutional freedoms
the rest of us take for granted. Any less is tantamount to a very
dangerous and ill-advised precedent.
------------------------------
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
