TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Mar 0 15:16:16 EST Volume 20 : Issue 9Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (Dale Neiburg) Re: Long Lines Bells (Don Kimberlin) Re: Calling-Party Pays (Wireless) (Dave Levenson) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Joel B Levin) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Paul Rubin) Number of Telephones in the U.S. (Greg Erickson) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Daniel Seyb) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Steve Sobol) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Hudson Leighton) Re: Telco 214 Licenced (Michael Sullivan) Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice (Alan Boritz)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. *
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
From:dneiburg@bpr.org Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 06:23:38 EST Subject: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress
FYI.
(I haven't obtained reprint permission, but thought you'd like to see this piece.)
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62010-2000Mar2.html
Hacker Gives Hill a How-To
Just two months ago, America's most notorious computer hacker was wearing prison-issue khakis at California's Lompoc federal penitentiary.
Yesterday, Kevin Mitnick sported a pinstriped navy suit and tie and charmed a panel of U.S. senators as a star witness and respected expert on the art of hacking.
"If somebody has the time, money and motivation, they can get into any computer," Mitnick told members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which is considering legislation to boost the security of the federal government's networks. Mitnick's testimony comes at a time of surging interest in computer security. The recent attacks by cyber-vandals against Yahoo, Amazon and other prominent New Economy companies have shaken consumer confidence in the burgeoning online medium. And while much of the attention has been paid to computer-cracking tools that can be downloaded from the Internet and used by anyone from a teen to a terrorist, Mitnick raised a more fundamental issue in his testimony.
"The weakest link in the security chain," he said, is "the human element." Nobody knows that better than Mitnick, who often was able to get more information by tricking people into giving it up over the phone than by touching a keyboard. Security training and monitoring is as important as improving hardware and software, he suggested.
The 36-year-old computer trespasser, who served nearly five years for cell-phone fraud and unauthorized entry into computer systems all over the globe, regaled the crowded room with tales of hoodwinking employees from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration into disclosing confidential taxpayer information over the telephone. He hastily noted that those exploits occurred in 1992, "which just so happens to be beyond the applicable statute of limitations" for federal computer crimes. Mitnick showed the smooth social skills that helped him to wheedle access to so many computer systems in government and industry, giving earnest advice and engaging in lively banter with star-struck senators.
"My motivation was a quest for knowledge, the intellectual challenge, the thrill and the escape from reality," he said, not damaging computers or making money from his exploits. He compared the urge to break into computer systems to the kick of gambling and the allure of cocaine but demurred when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked if he would consider it as "addictive."
Back in the days when he began learning about computers, hacking was actually encouraged by some teachers as a way to get students to think about security. Mitnick recalled one teacher assigning him to write a program that would trick users into thinking that they needed to enter their names and passwords and then capture that information. "Of course, I got an 'A,'" he said.
Mitnick also railed against the prosecutors who tried him, and against the New York Times, which tracked his case closely; he said he believes that the newspaper goaded the Justice Department into making an example of him.
Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Painter, who won the conviction that put Mitnick away, said the testimony accurately portrayed the threat of "human engineering." "The best security system in the world isn't worth much if you can bypass it by getting security people and other people to give you information and he was very good at that," said Painter, who called Mitnick a "cyber-con man." But he scoffed at Mitnick's complaints about the treatment. "He's the one who created the conduct that's all he was charged with, and all he was prosecuted with." Under the unusually stringent conditions of Mitnick's parole, he cannot use a computer or cellular phone for three years; he said he was not allowed to buy a pocket organizer and even had to get permission from his probation officer to get a pager. "I have to live as if I'm part of the Amish," he said.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is purely up to Kevin where to go on this, and it appears he already went before Congress with his testimony, but I personally would have told them to leap off a very high bridge. The treatment he got from the government was very disgraceful and I personally would have given them no cooperation at all. If anything, I would have gone before Congress and publicly encouraged other hackers to continue their work. PAT]
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:18:46 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin <dkimberlin@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells
....Editing a longish thread (Wed Mar 1, 09:56 -0600)
> Margaret Hill wrote:
>> Are you familiar with LONG LINES? Was this once a telephone company?
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Long Lines" was the informal name
>> for AT&T's long distance operation. PAT]
> Long Lines was shortened name for AT&T Long Lines. Long Lines was the
> long distance arm of the Bell System.
...In actual fact, its proper, complete name was:
Long Lines Department of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company
...Trust me. That's what my paychecks from them said.
Fred Goodwin asked:
> Question on a minor point: didn't the local BOCs own and operate the
*intrastate* LD networks prior to Divestiture? I thought LL owned and> operated only the AT&T *interstate* LD network, and that the BOCs had
to > spin off to LL their own intrastate, interLATA LD plant at Divestiture?
... In fact, there was a Gordian knot of who-owns-which and who-operates-what in the pre-divstiture Bell System. Where I worked in Florida, Southern Bell had Long Lines operate a great deal of its intrastate plant. Even terminal operations like the sixth floor Private Line Testboard in Miami (which was enormous in size, but that's another story) was perhaps 50% Southern Bell circuits, equipment and operations -- all run by "AT&T" people who answered the same phone number (377-9311) for anything ranging from a 10 mile long FX to Perrine or Hollywood to a transcontinental airline data circuit or press service telephoto circuit. Down on the third floor, intemingled with the rows and rows of interstate L-carrier terminals were bays and bays of ON short-haul carrier terminals to cities ranging from Key West to West Palm Beach, housed, maintained and operated by AT&T personnel for Southern Bell. Up on the seventh floor, there was a Collins microwave to Fort Lauderdale that carried about 2400 voice channels for Southern Bell. By and large, Southern Bell ran its own repeatered transmission lines and the terminals in the outlying cities, and the layout engineering was done by Southern Bell at Jacksonville, but the documents always named the "control office" as "Miami 1," which made the AT&T people the focus of operations and maintenance. Of course, accounting for all that meant a heap of paper and records, which was supposedly settled somewhere in the bowels of the books of the integrated Bell System.
... As recently as five years ago, I was in the Southern Bell building on Caldwell Street in downtown Charlotte. There, one could still find many areas of the plant floors that had wandering yellow stripes painted on them demarcating Southern Bell from AT&T space. All these years later, it's still not been feasible to physically separate the plant of the two entities.
Donald E. Kimberlin, NCE
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 08:22:45 -0500 From: Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.com> Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Re: Calling-Party Pays (Wireless)
Calling-party-pays is fine if the caller knows about it. I suggest that CPP wireless numbers be given a distinctive area code (e.g. 900) so that callers will be alerted to the fact that they will be charged an abnormal rate for such calls. This will enable companies who don't want to pay for these calls when made by their employees to block them. It will enable resellers like hotels, payphone providers, and schools to assess the charges correctly to their guests, customers, or students.
If CPP numbers with un-documented charges are hidden among ordinary- looking NANPA numbers, then it gives the wireless providers a license to steal from unsuspecting consumers.
-Dave Levenson, Westmark, Inc.
PS: Pat: it's great to see you back on the net. Hope your recovery continues!
From: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:54:44 -0600 Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
Unless ``calling party pays'' mobile phone charges can be trivially determined from the mobile number, we'd have to expect payphone and hotel telephones to block calls to all of the provider's numbers. Since third-party billing systems cannot listen to recorded fee notifications, they cannot determine how much to charge for a call. Without that information, third party phone operators will have no choice other than to block the calls.
This is a major reason why 500 numbers were a dismal failure. They were blocked from payphones, hotel phones and even some office PBX systems because the charges were unpredictable, and possibly steep. Business travelers, the initial market for 500 one-number services, could not use them from their hotels and airport payphones.
A solution might be to allocate new area codes for ``calling party pays'' mobile telephones, allocate exchanges to mobile carriers, and require mobile phone carriers to give three months' notice of calling party fee changes. The lead time would be necessary for third party operators to update their systems.
Personally, I agree that ``calling party pays'' in the United States would raise the price of calling mobile phones to the point of pain. There is little restraint to imposing fees on non-customers. Witness the explosion of non-customer automatic teller machines fees. In the USA, it is now common to pay about $1.50 to use another bank's ATM. Even though most ATMs were deployed before these fees were permitted.
-Mark
From: Scot E. Wilcoxon <scot@wilcoxon.org> Organization: self Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:35:04 -0600
Of course, Intuit doesn't mind knowing every time you read email which they sent to you. Look at Intuit HTML email with ID codes in URLs.
From: Joel B Levin <levinjb@gte.net> Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:19:20 GMT
In <telecom20.8.14@telecom-digest.org>, John Hines <jhines@enteract.com> wrote:
> In the Chicago metro area, they are power line poles, owned and
> maintained by Commonwealth Edison, and the telephone, and cable
> companies lease space from them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity
> to run the city/village for the lease on the right of way for the
> poles.
In much of New England this was handled by agreements between the local electric companies (especially where an electric company covers much of a state) and New England Tel, when it existed: in alternate towns the utility owned the poles, and in the rest Telco owned them. These were presumably assigned on such a basis that the pole ownership was fairly equal and no one had to pay anyone (well, except the cable TV companies, when they arrived, and they had to pay everyone).
On the main topic, out here in the wide open flat desert, shortly after we arrived here a year ago USWest (or APS, the power company, I don't know which) started using steel or aluminum poles instead of wood. People are moving in quite rapidly (for around here) and it's easy to see where new houses are moving in from the growth of metal among the wood.
/JBL
From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:24:47 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Ryan Shook <rjshook@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> There are several possibilities to get around doubleclick.net.
> [good ideas snipped]
My favorite tool these days is the junkbuster proxy, www.junkbusters.com. It's free, includes source code, is highly configurable, and removes the referer header from outgoing requests (the referer header is even more invasive than a cookie, in some situations).
From: GERICLAW@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:43:10 EST Subject: Number of Telephones in the U.S.
Could you tell me how many telephones are currently in the U.S.A. broken down into Business and Residential or where I can go to research such information?
I went to the Census but they are always having difficulties. Anything you could provide I would appreciate.
Greg Ericksen Bountiful, Utah
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com> Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:36:51 -0500
Bill Horne <bhorne.nouce@banet.net> wrote:
> If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone
> line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be."
Easy -- one that doesn't cause the distortion that a poorly implemented DLC system causes. Specifically, the DLC system should be implemented in such a way that the digital audio signal coming into the switch is passed, *unaltered,* to the end of the DLC system where the subscriber loop begins, and vice versa. If the telcos did that then a DLC system would in fact be superior to a copper loop going back to the switch. But that isn't what they are doing -- they're using the DLC between the loop and a normal line card, so the signal gets converted *three times* instead of once.
> "To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the
> signal" is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would
> spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install,
> insure, and support a DLC system which requires more (and more
> expensive) maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same
> services, and costs more to run."
No, I am saying that BellSouth -- and now apparently Bell Atlantic -- is doing so in an incompetent fashion.
> "All this, so that his V.ridiculous modem wouldn't work? May I suggest your
> reader put some tinfoil around the walls, to keep the cosmic rays at bay?"
Might I suggest that you are making the wrong inferences -- that I'm not accusing the telcos of some nefarious plot, but of simple negligence backed by arrogance?
> "Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money just
> to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive."
And, once again, that is not the claim I am making.
> "This sounds like a complaint that BA didn't design it's VOICE network to
> accommodate net surfers - well, complain all you want, but 56K modems are a
> hack that requires a very specialized set of circumstances..."
No, V.90 modems simply require one D/A conversion rather than several, something that is not a problem for customers served by conventional copper pairs, and would not be a problem with a proper DLC implementation.
> "...and when dial tone demands require DLC equipment, that's what BA uses.
> After all, they get paid to provide dial tone.
No, telcos get paid to provide *communications services,* and if those services are inferior to what they are known to be capable of, they should get called on it.
From: daniel seyb <seybernetx@ameritech.net> Organization: someday, maybe Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 03:52:35 +0000
Hey, Bill, easy up a little.
I'll respond to only a couple of your points:
First, you must have spent your life working for much larger companies than I have, to assume that EVERY business has deep pockets and a pipeline to their congressman.
Second, Mr Ellers was complaining that Bell Atlantic was cutting corners on the installation. You attacked him for complaining, but didn't dispute his claim.
Third, if Bell Atlantic is indeed tearing out cable they installed "less than five years ago", what you have is bad planning. Five years ago was 1995. The cable Mr Horne is talking about was installed in 1996, or even later.
And one tip for Mr Ellers: When i was living in New Jersey, i used BAnet as an ISP, just as Mr Horne is now. I almost never used the service, but i was paying protection money. When i had a problem, (which was often) i would get the same "we don't support the Internet" response Mr Horne is spewing. It was useful to point out that i was using a Bell Titanic product.
dan
Bill Horne wrote:
> Ed Ellers wrote:
>> I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting
>> some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me --
>> namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor
>> imitation of blocks the use of V.90 modem connections.
> If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone
> line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be.
> Perhaps a Picturephone system, with unlimited local calling and free
> installation?
> To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the signal"
> is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would spend
> hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, insure,
> and support a DLC system which requires more (and more expensive)
> maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same services, and
> costs more to run.
> All this, so that his V.ridiculous modem wouldn't work? May I suggest
> your reader put some tinfoil around the walls, to keep the cosmic rays
> at bay?
> Sorry to be the messenger bringing bad new, but the cable conduits are
> full, and the manholes are full: there is no more copper to be had,
> and in some areas, BA has had to rip out copper cables installed less
> than five years ago to accommodate fiber. The FCC and your local
> lawmakers decided that the public interest, convenience, and necessity
> required Bell Atlantic to lease space under the streets at bargain
> basement rates, so that the legions of BUSINESS customers whom make
> campaign contributions may have a choice of DIAL TONE providers to
> serve their BUSINESS communication needs.
> BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service:
> they care only about FAX lines, which work fine over DLC. If they
> need to move data around, they pay for dedicated, diverse, custom
> designed DATA circuits to do it.
> I'm sorry, but civilians whom feel offended about the need for more
> DIAL TONE in businesses have no recourse other than to Internet
> mailing lists, while businessmen are able to pick up the phone, call
> their congressman, and have the call acted on. That's the system we
> live with.
> Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money
> just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. By his own
> admission, your reader is unable to obtain DSL service (it requires
> copper), so where's the motivation? This sounds like a complaint that
> BA didn't design it's VOICE network to accommodate net surfers - well,
> complain all you want, but 56K modems are a hack that requires a very
> specialized set of circumstances, and when dial tone demands require
> DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. After all, they get paid to
> provide dial tone.
News Flash: Microsoft acquires Electrolux, makes extensive design revisions. Finally releases a product that doesn't suck.
From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.Net (Steve Sobol) Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: 4 Mar 2000 03:28:07 GMT Organization: New Age Consulting Service Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA
'Bill Horne' wrote:
> BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service
I beg to differ, Bill. As someone who owns a company that provides such services -- or at least contracts with others to do so :) -- and who has worked for several other companies that also have, I can confirm that while medium-sized and larger businesses tend to prefer leased lines, frame relay, ISDN and other broadband offerings, there are still plenty of smaller companies that are fine with just a computer and a modem.
> Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money
> just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. By his own
> admission, your reader is unable to obtain DSL service (it requires
> copper), so where's the motivation? This sounds like a complaint that
> BA didn't design it's VOICE network to accommodate net surfers - well,
> complain all you want, but 56K modems are a hack that requires a very
> specialized set of circumstances, and when dial tone demands require
> DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. After all, they get paid to
> provide dial tone.
Good points.
North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:33:34 -0600 Organization: MRRP
In article <telecom20.7.5@telecom-digest.org>, Jeremy Greene <celloboy@DIESPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to
> use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires! As
> long as you're digging up the street to lay pavement, sewers, gas,
> water, etc., why not just bury the electricity, coax, fiber, telephone
> cable, etc. along with it? You won't have to worry about drunk
> drivers mowing down poles and knocking out phone and electrical
> service. Your modems won't choke when squirrels start chewing on the
> phone lines. And if the phone/cable companies would just spend the
> extra money for decent infrastructure like fiber optics and good
> watertight conduit, they won't have to come dig up the sidewalk in 10
> years to replace obsolete cables. Why do they sometimes bury
> residential feeder cables bare, with no conduit? Isn't that just
> asking for trouble when a woodchuck decides to burrow through your
> front yard?
> Jeremy
An then you can wait weeks while they dig it all up to find a problem, broken wire lines are real easy to spot, repair, replace.
Check out some of the various New York City area blackout stories.
I seem to remember that buried utilties cost three times more to install and have less that 1/2 the life of pole lines.
Also the locals have a harder time killing themselves when digging fence post holes.
Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
From: Michael Sullivan <avogadro@bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: Telco 214 Licenced Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 04:01:04 GMT
Clay Nanton wrote: > My name is Noel Nanton. I have found your site to be very
> informative through my many searches. This specific search is one that
> has stumped me or possible just been starring me in my face due to poor
> research techniques on my part. I am in search of Telco 214 licensed
> companies. I am starting my own small business and I am in need of
> information on these specific licensed companies because I am looking
> for the same licensing. If possible would you know of any possible
> areas where I might find some information. If this is a shot in the air
> It's ok to tell me. I thank you so much for your help and keep this
> site moving strong. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Noel, the FCC issues Section 214 authorizations to companies wishing to provide international common carrier service outbound from the United States. A list of authorizations and pending applications (and with a click you can view information about the companies and their authorizations) is online at:
http://dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/beta/ib_beta/reports/itc.htm
Be forewarned that the file of Section 214 holders is a very large (multimegabyte) HTML table. Not good news on a dialup connection. Information on applying for a Section 214 authorization for nondominant international carriers is available from the .pdf guide to Electronic Section 214 filings on the same page (this is about a 10 megabyte .pdf file, be forewarned).
Section 214 authorizations are also issued to dominant common carriers providing domestic service -- specifically, local exchange carriers. I don't believe these are available online, but the local exchange carriers' access tariffs are available online at:
http://svartifoss.fcc.gov:8080/prod/ccb/etfs
Good luck.
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com)
From: Alan Boritz <aboritz@cybernex.net> Subject: Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:59:25 -0500 Organization: Dyslexics Untie
David Chessler <chessler@usa.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Content-Location: "http://www.latimes.com/wires/20000302/ tCB00V0757.html"
> Thursday, March 2, 2000
> By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer
> WASHINGTON--The government is seeking advice from the world's
> most infamous computer hacker, just weeks after his release from
> federal prison, about keeping its own electronic networks safe
> from intruders.
> In a bizarre twist to the federal prosecution of Kevin Mitnick,
> a Senate panel today asked him to explain ways hackers infiltrate
> sensitive computer systems, and to suggest solutions to
> lawmakers...
[Details of pointless legislation, political posturing, and general CYA behavior deleted]
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I were in Kevin's position I am
> not sure at all that I would have cooperated. I would have sent
> back a note to the investigative committee and told them "you are
> about five years too late asking for my advice, and furthermore
> the terms of my probation forbid me to use any sort of computer
> necessary to assist you."
No, perhaps you might not. If you were treated like a mushroom for long enough, you might do something to prevent your freedom (what there was of it) from being taken away from you again, if you were in Mitnick's shoes.
> His case left me feeling
> very bitter about the US Government's role in his case. If he does
> decide to 'work along' with Congress I hope he gets up there and
> rips them into shreds for their dishonesty in calculating the
> amount of 'damages' he supposedly caused. PAT]
I think you're missing the point. Many of those "victims" who helped put Mitnick in jail more than likely should have been put on the unemployment line. There's a growing complacency with incompetence that's victimizing the wrong parties in these kind of situations. An organization that experiences a computer security intrusion shouldn't be crying to their lawmakers for legislation, they should be showing their system administrators the door.
Alan
p.s. Good to have you back!
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #9