Dear root administrator -
The following message was posted to dfw.general by an employee of your
company. I really do not appreciate this slanderous message and I do
not know what your company's policy is, but please see if you can do
something about it. He has also accused me in email of using 'stolen
equipment' that i have worked hard for. This was also the same person
who tried to sell me a 700mb ESDI drive with a bad spindle motor for
$550.
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> Newsgroups: dfw.general
> Path: convex!news.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!shared!sp
> From:
[email protected] (Steven Parker)
> Subject: sdf.lonestar.org: The REAL story
> Summary: a crime against the public
> Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 02:32:06 GMT
> Distribution: dfw
> Expires: Dec 31, 1994
> References: <
[email protected]>
> Organization: Shared Systems Corporation, Dallas, TX
> Keywords: sdf
> Lines: 136
>
> Someone asked, "What ever happened to sdf?"
>
> I know I should have written this months ago, but the whole thing was
> so distasteful to me I preferred to abandon it altogether. However,
> continuous urging from the very few who already know the real story,
> combined with the apparent lack of evidence that the knowledge has
> spread on it's own, has convinced me that I must tell this now to fully
> discharge my public obligations.
>
> First, a little history...
>
> Some of you may remember me from the days of "killer", where I served
> as assistant administrator and archive librarian up until its services
> were terminated. In the Summer of 1991 a couple of teenage killer
> alumni, Ted Uhlemann and Daniel Finster, turned to me for help in
> converting a PC-based BBS into a public access Unix system. The three
> of us formed an administrative council to establish and begin operating
> the system known as sdf.lonestar.org. Additional administrators were
> soon added to the council, and all were mature adult Unix professionals
> except for Ted's roommate, Stephen Jones.
>
> After two years of operation, as the administrative council changed,
> I remained as the only original member. Ted had lost interest, and
> Daniel had been expelled by unanimous vote in February of 1993 for
> continuous instances of "conduct unbecoming a trustee of a public
> resource" (such as repeatedly using root privileges to read other
> user's mail). This was the only case of forced expulsion, as the
> council operated primarily on the basis of mutual trust and respect
> among its members, and deviations from agreed-upon policy were usually
> treated with tolerance and mild reprimands from other members.
>
> About that same time I began a campaign to encourage system donations,
> which included implementation of system policies that had been selected
> by the entire usership via an open vote. The involvement of the users
> in establishing policy had long been considered by the council, but
> always obstructed by Daniel because of his strong personal opposition
> to any kind of democratic process. At the same time, I was actively
> seeking corporate sponsorship, which I first obtained in the form of
> donation "premiums".
>
> Stephen Jones had volunteered for, and had been trusted with the
> responsibility of accepting system donations, and reporting the amounts
> received to the administrators and to the users at large via system
> files. It was understood that donations were not to be used by anyone
> personally, and amounts in excess of monthly expenses were to be used
> for much-needed system improvements as decided upon by the
> administrative council. But despite my continuous efforts to improve
> donations, Stephen reported month after month that donations only
> adequately covered the expenses with none left over.
>
> I first assumed my efforts had failed, but after doing some research to
> try to figure out what had gone wrong, I collected enough contrary
> information to become suspicious of the donation reports. This was
> compounded by Stephen Jones' failure to appear at administrator's
> meetings once the decision had been made by the council to formalize
> ourselves as an incorporated public utility. I finally confronted him
> last September, and after half an hour of bush-beating, he confessed to
> me that he had received donations well in excess of the expenses and
> not reported it. Shocked, I asked why, and all he would say was, "it's
> nobody's business but mine". I pointed out that he was violating a
> public trust (not to mention my personal trust), and suggested that if
> he did not feel he needed to be responsible in reporting the donations
> accurately, then perhaps he should not be a member of the
> administrative council. I hoped he would change his mind in short
> order, and took no further action for the moment.
>
> But his reaction was to use his access to the equipment to remove the
> administrative privileges of the entire remainder of the council, and
> to delete all files stored in my personal account. Shortly afterwards,
> he suddenly removed the system to an unknown location, simultaneously
> changing his address, and chosing not to have a listed telephone
> number. I suspect he was already considering this even before I
> confronted him, and the unreported hundreds of donation dollars were
> earmarked for the expenses involved and equipment acquisitions he
> intended to be made only in his own name.
>
> Unfortunately, and due in part to his delaying the more formal plans
> of the council, there is insufficient documentation to make a legal
> case against his commandeering of the equipment and claiming to be sole
> owner. The police consider this as a "domestic matter" and will not
> get involved. The remaining council members, disgusted by this breach
> of trust and lack of recourse, have disbanded.
>
> Ironically, despite his participation in the expulsion, Stephen placed
> Daniel Finster in charge of technical administration. Within a week or
> so, Daniel was caught (for the third time) making unauthorized access to
> other systems; and this time using sdf to receive files obtained during
> those sessions. The administrator of one of the city's larger Unix
> installations told me that his legal department was pursuing Federal
> agency involvement to confiscate sdf, and prosecute for the intrusion.
> I suspect this hasn't happened only due to insufficient evidence.
>
> I was not entirely surprised to hear that Stephen has begun to again
> solicit donations for "free" dial-up services, but this time with a
> P.O. box as the only means of contact. I have heard that all of the
> user-directed policies have been abandoned; replaced by a restrictive
> screening process to prevent access by prior council members and law
> enforcement officials.
>
> His attitude is that on the basis of physical possession, he is the
> sole owner and authority over the operation of the system from now on.
> Free from the guidance of the mature professionals that made up the
> rest of the council, he can now return to the practices for which he
> was often reprimanded when he was only a junior (but treated fully as a
> peer) member. These practices included arbitrary removal of user
> accounts and/or files, deliberately causing downtime when he was upset
> about something a user did or said while on-line, and the censorship of
> usenet news groups and articles based on his personal opinions of their
> source and/or content.
>
> Of course, the administrator of the system that was previously
> providing the news feed to sdf is aware of the situation, and has
> indicated that there is "no way" he would again deal with Stephen
> Jones. But no doubt someone can always be found who doesn't know or
> doesn't care about what happened to get a feed from, or a feed can be
> purchased, to keep sdf in operation. The bottom line is whether or not
> users will still want to keep putting their support in that direction.
>
> Again, I apologize for not posting this before; and I deeply regret
> having to inform you of the loss of a responsible, professionally
> managed public resource as a result of one person's greed.
>
> - Steven Parker, formerly
[email protected]
>
>
> P.S. Even though this whole matter has left a foul taste in my mouth,
> I still believe in the concept of a truly publicly-supported networking
> resource. I have had an interest in shared resources long before even
> "killer" came to be. If there are enough people who would like to help
> make this a reality, I would still consider contributing my experience
> and support towards it. Let me know if you are interested.
> - --
> Steven Parker, Sr. Platform Engineer Shared Systems Corporation
>
[email protected] | uunet!shared!sp Subsidiary of Stratus Computers
> Phone: 214-458-3896 Fax: 214-458-3876 Dallas, Texas
> ------>>> My opinions may not always be shared by Shared <<<------
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
