------------------------------
From: Various
Subject: The CU in the News (Thackeray; Cellular Fraud; Privacy)
Date: 27 June, 1991
********************************************************************
*** CuD #3.23: File 4 of 4: CU in the News / Thackeray;Privacy ***
********************************************************************
From: Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen (Reprinted from Newsbytes)
Subject: Gail Thackeray & Neal Norman Form Security Firm
Date: June 21, 1991
NORMAN & THACKERAY FORM SECURITY FIRM 06/21/91
DALLAS, TEXAS U.S.A., 1991 JUNE 21 (NB) -- Neal Norman, a veteran of
34 years with AT&T, has announced the formation of GateKeeper
Telecommunications Systems, Inc. The new firm will introduce a
product which it says "provides an airtight defenses against
unauthorized computer access."
Norman told Newsbytes "we think we have a product that will
revolutionize telecommunications by stopping unauthorized access to
computer systems." Norman said that the system, which is scheduled to
become available in the early fall, will provide protection for
terminals, mainframes, and PBXs.
Norman also told Newsbytes that Gail Thackeray, ex-Arizona assistant
attorney general known for her activities in the investigation of
computer crime, will be a vice president of the new firm. "I am
extremely happy to have someone of Gail's ability and presence
involved in this endeavor right from the beginning. Additionally,"
Norman said, "we have enlisted some of the industry's most well known
persons to serve on a board of advisors to our new company. These
respected individuals will provide guidance for us as we bring our
system to market. Among those who have agreed to serve in this group
are Donn Parker of SRI; Bill Murray, formerly of IBM; and Bob Snyder,
Chief Computer Crime Investigator for the Columbus, Ohio, police.
Synder told Newsbytes "I am excited about working with such bright
people on something of real importance and I hope to contribute to an
improvement in computer security."
(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910621)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Anonymous
Subject: Cellular Phone Fraud
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 13:35:41 CDT
From: The Wall Street Journal, June 6, 1991. Pp. A-1, A-7.
By John J. Keller
DIALING FOR FREE
****
Thanks to Hackers, Cellular Phone Firms Now Face Crime Wave
***
An Altered Computer Chip is Permitting Easy Access to Networks Nationwide
***
Mr. Sutton's Crucial Error
***
Robert Dewayne Sutton wants to help stop the tide of fraud sweeping the
cellular telephone industry. The 35-year old clearly knows plenty about
fraud. After all, he helped spark the crime wave in the first place.
Mr. Sutton is a computer hacker, a technical whiz who used an
acquaintance's home-grown computer chip to tap into the local cellular
phone network and dial for free. Mr. Sutton went into business selling the
chips, authorities say, and soon fraudulent cellular phone calls were
soaring nationwide.
In February, 1989, police finally nabbed Mr. Sutton in his pick-up truck at
a small Van Nuys, Calif., gas station. He was about to sell five more of
the custom chips to a middleman. But by then it was too late. The wave of
fraud Mr. Sutton helped launch was rolling on without him.
((stuff deleted explaining that industry currently loosing about $200
million a year, "more than 4% of annual U.S. revenue" to cellular phone
fraud, and could rise to %600 million annually. Celluar system first
cracked in 1987, by Kenneth Steven Bailey an acquaintance of Sutton from
Laguna Niguel, Calif. Bailey used his PC to rewrite the software in the
phone's memory chi to change the electronic serial number. By replacing the
company chip with his own, Bailey could gain free access to the phone
system.))
((More stuff deleted, explaining how drug dealers use the phones, and small
businesses sprung up selling free calls to anyplace in the world for a few
dollars. Sutton denied selling the chips, but apparently sold his program
for a few hundred dollars, and anybody with a copy could duplicate it. This
is, according to the story, an international problem.))
When the dust settled in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles this April, Mr.
Sutton pleaded guilty to production of counterfeit access devices and, after
agreeing to cooperate with investigators, was sentenced to three years'
probation and a $2,500 fine.
((stuff deleted))
But in adversity there is opportunity, or so believes Mr. Sutton. He says
he's got a marketable expertise--his knowledge of weaknesses in cellular
phone security systems--and he wants to help phone companies crack down on
phone fraud. He'll do that, of course, for a fee.
** end article**
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: <Silicon
[email protected]>
Subject: How Did They Get My Name?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 91 19:09 EDT
How Did They Get My Name?
By John Schwartz
Newsweek: June 3, 1991
When Pam Douglas dropped by Michelle Materres's apartment, Michelle
was on the phone--but Pam knew that already. She and her son, Brian,
had been playing with his new walkie-talkie and noticed the toy was
picking up Michelle's cordless-phone conversation next door. They had
come over to warn her that her conversation was anything but private.
Materres was stunned. It was as if her neighbors could peek through a
window into her bedroom-except that Michelle hadn't known that this
window was there. "It's like Nineteen Eighty-four ;" she says.
Well, not quite. In Orwell's oppressive world, Big Brother-the police
state-was watching. "We don't have to worry about Big Brother
anymore," says Evan Hendricks, publisher of the Washington-based
Privacy Times. "We have to worry about little brother." Until
recently, most privacy fears focused on the direct mail industry; now
people are finding plenty of other snoops. Today's little brothers
are our neighbors, bosses and merchants, and technology and modern
marketing techniques have given each a window into our lives.
Suddenly privacy is a very public issue. A 1990 Harris poll, conducted
for consumer-data giant Equifax, showed that 79 percent of respondents
were concerned with threats to their personal privacy-up from 47
percent in 1977. Privacy scare stories are becoming a staple of local
TV news; New York City's ABC affiliate showed journalist Jeffrey
Rothfeder poking into Vice President Dan Quayle's on-line credit
records-a trick he had performed a year before for a story he wrote
for Business Week. Now Congress is scrambling to bring some order to
the hodgepodge of privacy and technology laws, and the U.S. Office of
Consumer Affairs has targeted privacy as one of its prime concerns.
Advocacy groups like the Consumer Federation of America and the
American Civil Liberties Union are turning to privacy as one of the
hot-button issues for the '90s . "There's a tremendous groundswell of
support out there," says Janlori Goldman, who heads the ACLU Privacy
Project.
Snooping boss: Concern is on the rise because, like Materres,
consumers are finding that their lives are an open book. Workers who
use networked computers can be monitored by their bosses, who in some
cases can read electronic mail and could conceivably keep track of
every keystroke to check productivity. Alana Shoars, a former e-mail
administrator at Epson America, says she was fired after trying to
make her boss stop reading co-workers' e-mail. The company says
Shoars got the ax for in subordination; Shoars counters that the
evidence used against her was in her own e-mail--and was
misinterpreted. Other new technologies also pose threats: cordless and
cellular phones are fair game for anyone with the right receiver, be
it a $1,000 scanner or a baby monitor. Modern digital-telephone
networks allow tapping without ever placing a physical bug; talented
"phone phreaks" can monitor calls through phone companies or corporate
switchboards.
Such invasions may sound spooky, but privacy activists warn that the
bigger threat comes from business. Information given freely by
consumers to get credit or insurance is commonly sold for other uses
without the individual's knowledge or consent; the result is a flood
of junk mail and more. Banks study personal financial data to target
potential credit-card customers. Data sellers market lists of people
who have filed Worker Compensation claims or medical-malpractice
suits; such databases can be used to blackball prospective employees
or patients. Citicorp and other data merchants are even pilot testing
systems in supermarkets that will record your every purchase; folks
who buy Mennen's Speed Stick could get pitches and discount coupons to
buy Secret instead. "Everything we do, every transaction we engage in
goes into somebody's computer, " says Gary Culnan, a Georgetown
University associate professor of business administration.
How much others know about you can be unsettling. Architect David
Harrison got an evening call from a local cemetery offering him a deal
on a plot. The sales rep mentioned Harrison's profession, family size
and how long he had lived in Chappaqua, N.Y. Harrison gets several
sales calls a week, but rarely with so much detail: "This one was a
little bizarre."
High tech is not the only culprit. As databases grow in the '80s, the
controls were melting away, says Hendricks. "Reagan came in and said,
'We're going to get government off the backs of the American people.'
What he really meant was, 'We're going to get government regulators
off the i backs of business.' That sent signals to the private sector
that 'you can use people's personal information any way you want'"'
The advent of powerful PCs means that the field is primed for another
boom. Today companies can buy the results of the entire 1990 census
linked to a street-by-street map of the United States on several
CD-ROM disks.
Defenders of the direct-marketing industry point out that in most
cases companies are simply, trying to reach consumers efficiently-and
that well targeted mail is not "junk" to the recipient. Says Equifax
spokesman John Ford: "People like the kinds of mail they want to
receive." Targeting is now crucial, says Columbia University professor
Alan Westin: "If you can't recognize the people who are your better
prospects, you can't stay in business." Ronald Plesser, a lawyer who
represents the Direct Marketing Association, says activists could end
up hurting groups they support: "It's not just marketers. It's
nonprofit communication, it's political parties. It's environmental
groups. "
E-mail protest: Consumers are beginning to fight back. The watershed
event was a fight over a marketing aid with data on 80 million
households, Lotus MarketPlace: Households, proposed by the Cambridge,
Mass.- based Lotus Development Corp. Such information had been readily
available to large corporations for years, but MarketPlace would have
let anyone with the right PC tap in. Lotus received some 30,000
requests to be taken off the households list. Saying the product was
misunderstood, Lotus killed MarketPlace earlier this year. New York
Telephone got nearly 800,000 "opt out" requests when it wanted to
peddle its customer list; the plan was shelved.
With the MarketPlace revolt, a growing right-to-privacy underground
surfaced for the first time. Privacy has become one of the most
passionately argued issues on computer networks like the massive
Internet, which links thousands of academic, business nd military
computers. Protests against MarketPlace were broadcast on the Internet
and the WELL (an on-line service that has become a favorite electronic
hangout for privacy advocates and techie journalists), and many
anti-MarketPlace letters to Lotus were relayed by e-mail.
Consumers are also taking new steps to safeguard their own privacy
often by contacting the Direct Marketing Association, which can remove
names from many mailing lists. But compliance is voluntary, and relief
is slow. In one chilling case, an unknown enemy began flooding
business manager Michael Shapiro's Sherman Oaks, Calif., home with
hundreds of pieces of hate junk mail. Suddenly Shapiro, who is
Jewish, was receiving mail addressed to "Auschwitz Gene Research" and
"Belsen Fumigation Labs." Shapiro appealed to the DMA and the mailing
companies directly but got no responses to most of his calls and
letters. "They ignore you, throw your letter away and sell your name
to another generation of people with computers," he complains. Finally
one marketing executive publicized Shapiro's plight within the DM
industry. Eight months after the onslaught began, the letters have
slowed-though some companies still have not removed him from their
lists.
How else can privacy be protected? It doesn't have to mean living like
a hermit and only paying cash, but it does mean not saying anything
over cellular and cordless phones that you wouldn't want others to
overhear. Culnan of Georgetown uses her American Express card
exclusively, because while the company collects voluminous data on its
cardholders, it shares relatively little of it with other companies.
Some privacy activists look hopefully, across the Atlantic Ocean. The
European Community is pushing tough new data rules to take effect
after 1992. The Privacy Directive relies on consumer consent;
companies would have to notify consumers each time they intend to pass
along personal information. The direct-marketing industry claims the
regulations would be prohibitively expensive. The rules may be
softened but could still put pressure on U.S. marketers who do
business abroad.
U.S. firms might find another incentive to change. Companies don't
want to alienate privacy-minded customers. "We're in the relationship
business," says James Tobin, vice president for consumer affairs at
American Express. "We don't want to do anything to jeopardize that
relationship." Citicorp's supermarket plan makes privacy advocates
nervous; but Citicorp rewards customers for giving up their privacy
with incentives like discount coupons, and it reports that no
consumers have complained. Eventually, strong privacy-protection
policies could make companies more attractive to consumers, says
Columbia's Westin-and may even provide a competitive edge. Then
consumers might get some of their privacy back-not necessarily because
it's the law, or even because it's right, but because it's good
business.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: <Silicon
[email protected]>
Subject: Would New Laws Fix the Privacy Mess?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 91 19:09 EDT
Would New Laws Fix the Privacy Mess?
By Annetta Miller and John Schwartz with Michael Rogers
Newsweek: June 3, 1991
Congress is scrambling to catch up with its constituents in the battle
over privacy. It has a daunting task ahead: to make sense of the
jumble of laws that have been passed-or are currently under
consideration-to regulate privacy. Why, for example, is it legal to
listen in on someone's cordless phone conversation but illegal to
listen to a cellular call? Why are video-rental records protected but
records of health-insurance claims largely unprotected? (That one has
to do with an impertinent reporter revealing the video-renting habits
of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.)
The present foundations of privacy law have their roots in the U.S.
Constitution. Although the word "privacy" does not appear in the
document, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to grant
individuals a right of privacy based on the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Ninth and Fourteenth amendments. Since the mid-1960s, Congress has
enacted no fewer than 10 privacy laws-including the landmark 1974
Privacy Act. And yet a national right to privacy is far from firmly
established. On its face, for example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act
limits access to credit reports. But it also grants an exception to
anyone with a "legitimate business need." The Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1978 severely restricts the federal government's
ability to snoop through bank-account records; but it exempts state
agencies, including law-enforcement agencies, and private employers.
"It's easy to preach about the glories of privacy," says Jim Warren,
who organized a recent "Computers, Freedom & Privacy" conference. But
it's hard to implement policies without messing things up."
That hasn't stopped people from trying. James Rule, a State University
of New York sociology professor, says that new legislation is
warranted "on the grounds that enough is enough . . . [Privacy
infringement] produces a world that almost nobody likes the look of."
Data board: The newest efforts to regulate privacy range from simple
fixes to a full-fledged constitutional amendment. Last week a Senate
task force recommended extending privacy laws to cover cordless
tele-phones. One bill, proposed by Rep. Robert Wise of West Virginia,
would create a federal "data-protection board" to oversee business and
gov-ernmental use of electronic information. Another, being prepared
by Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would apply the Freedom of
Informa-tion Act to electronic files as well as to paper. Rep. Andy
Jacobs of Indiana has held hearings on the misuse of social-security
numbers to link computerized information. And several bills have been
introduced to stop credit reporters from selling personal data to junk
mailers.
Possibly the most sweeping proposal for change comes from Harvard
University law professor Laurence Tribe. In March, Tribe proposed a
constitutional amendment that would, among other things protect
individuals from having their private data collected and shared
without approval. "Constitutional principles should not vary with
accidents of technology," Tribe said at the "Computers, Freedom &
Privacy" conference earlier this spring. He said an amendment is
needed because the letter of the Constitution can seem, at the very
least, "impossible to take seriously in the world as reconstituted by
the microchip."
But some experts argue that well-meaning reform could do more harm
than good. Requiring marketers to get permission every time they want
to add a name to a mailing list would make almost any kind of mass
mailing hopelessly expensive. "It's nice to talk about affirmative
consent, but it really will kill the industry," warns Ronald Plesser,
who represents the Direct Marketing Association. "And then people who
live out in the country won't have access to the L.L. Bean catalog and
the services they like." In this technological age, how much privacy
Americans enjoy will depend partly on how high a price they are
willing to pay to keep it.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #3.23**
********************************************************************
