From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: Wanna See Something Really Scary?
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: Illini Mastication Society
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:05:27 GMT

farbrent!ajr3@ms.uky.edu writes:

> Recently accounts on the WELL and Portal were cracked and used to  
> post some  offensive, inflammatory, racially motivated statements to  
> a large and diverse list of newsgroups. (ie, flamebait) The ensuing  
> flame war lasted about a week and pretty much ended with apologies  
> and explanations from the folks at Portal and the WELL along with  
> their actions to prevent further access to the offending accounts.  
> Just as it was dying of natural causes, however, the article attached  
> below was posted. For me, it was like watching some awful car wreck  
> in slow motion. For me,the implications of Congressional interest in  
> the net and the possibility of Steve Jackson Games like investigative  
> techniques being applied to all of the machines involved are  
> staggering.

> I thought I'd pass it along for your opinions.

Imminent death of the net predicted...  This is a scary thought, but
I doubt there will be much fallout over it.  Besides, if I was going
to forge something, I wouldn't do it from a machine they'd check,
anyway -- I'd do it from a Macintosh or a PC, with no logins, there's
no way to check who I was, and no record kept.  Of course, the FBI and
the SS aren't known for being logical.  (Witness Steve Jackson, Sundevil,
etc.)  Anyway, I do have a few comments about the posting:

>[Quoted material, excerpted:]

> Over the last week, our boards have been attacked
> by messages from two "anonymous" people a/k/a Jeff Spandenberg
> and Hugo Gonzalez. The racist and divisive statements 
> contained in their forged messages created a wave of anger and  
> emotion that echoed throughout the Internet.

I usually hate to pick straws about terminology details, but there's
more to USENET than the Internet, and these postings were certainly
spread well away from the Internet.  The FBI/FCC/whatever, as mentioned
below, don't even have jurisdiction over all of the Internet, which 
spans many countries, they certainly don't have jurisdiction over vast
chunks of USENET.

> Further, there is belief that these acts were conducted
> to agitate the "silent majority" 
> (i.e., the perpetrators believe those who remained silent
> were in agreement).

Bullshit.  I didn't respond because I ignore pointless drivel.  Most
people who've been on USENET for any period of time learn to do the 
same.

> I ask each and every one of you that is an American
> to join me in demanding the FBI, FCC and other investigative units
> continue their efforts in this regard
> and better safeguard us from similar such events.

Does anyone know if the FCC has any jurisdiction over Internet?  I suppose
they have some authority over the U.S. UUCP portions of USENET, but I've
never heard of the FCC actually doing anything about individual phone calls,
only the phone networks as a whole.

> I have written my United States Senators to make them aware of the
> violations that have taken place and made demand upon them to contact
> the FBI with their expressed concern.

> In the lines that follow is a portion of my letter.
> Feel free to clip this letter or compose your own.

> Dear Senator,

> This letter is to advise you of the violations that have taken place  
> on the Internet (an international computer network for academic,  
> research and government institutions). Messages posted from within  
> the United  States are in direct violation of a variety of Federal  
> laws and  regulations, beginning with the FCC regulations regarding  
> the use of  profanity, and extending through total disregard to the  
> Civil Rights  Amendment. Further, the forged messages were designed  
> to inflame and  incite specific minorities. The flood of responses  
> that followed these  outrageous messages wasted an estimated  
> thousands of dollars in  taxpayer funds and rendered many boards on  
> the Internet inoperable. 

I doubt the Civil Rights Amendment can actually be applied.  Also, there
is no precedent for enforcing FCC content regulations on a computer
network.  I think most reports of this nature exaggerate the cost of 
posting, and much of the money is private.  I also find it hard to believe 
that an internet BBS would be disabled by a bunch of postings in a few 
groups.  Are there even _many_ Internet BBS's?  I know of less than a 
dozen.
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow