They'll be here at the Edsel Comedy Festival in Tulsa, or is it the Tulsa Comedy Festival
in Edsel?
Bernie!
Get out of the way!
Hey, hey, it's not such a bad joke.
Oh, hey, everybody.
Bernie Flesch, an agent for the stars, along with Zippy Jingles, the radio clown, doing
the Kearney Circuit!
Hey, hey!
A horse goes into a bar, and the bartender says, hey, why the long face?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,
The box that connects you to this marvelous service costs a mere $6,000.
So naturally, most of us won't be able to take part in this service.
But we'll hear rumors and read newspaper reports.
And of course, we'll talk about it here on the radio program.
It's expected to be in operation by the end of the year, according to a Cablevision spokesperson.
They will attempt to drive down the cost so that consumers will be able to sign up for such services as home shopping.
Joy and interactive television.
Cable TV is going somewhere.
Not quite sure where it's going, but it's becoming a force to be reckoned with, almost as much of a force as the phone company.
We'll keep you updated on that one.
And finally, out of Anchorage, Alaska, this one today's Washington Post to the story you didn't get in New York.
Alice Witte dialed a phone number.
Actually, she dialed a wrong number, but it wasn't all bad because she wound up saving a life.
That's right. She dialed area code 802, which is Vermont, instead of her sister's area code of 208, which is Idaho.
She reached a 90 year old woman in Vermont who was having a heart attack.
I heard a gasping breath and a weak voice saying, help me, help me.
Well, with the help of a second phone line and several operators, she and her husband, retired firefighter Ray Sinclair,
I'm sure we've all heard of him, tracked down the woman's address and alerted paramedics in Rutland, Vermont.
Mr. Sinclair stayed on the line until the paramedics reached the house.
The woman was taken to a hospital, released a couple of days later.
See, occasionally you can dial a number at random and something good will happen.
Wouldn't it have been something if it was one of those automated machines calling her?
You know, the poor woman is having a heart attack and she gets a phone call saying you've just won a fabulous vacation.
You just have to call this 900 number.
I don't know. Not the way to go out, is it?
Stay tuned.
Okay, testifying before the United States House of Representatives.
Not the kind of thing a normal computer hacker would expect to do.
But strange things happen in this world and last week I received an invitation to go down to Washington, D.C.
and speak before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance is a subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Now, the first thing I had to do was prepare a written statement, which you submit to them, and the statement can be of any length.
But what I found to be surprising, and what I think a lot of other people that have been called to testify found surprising,
is that they expect you to provide them with 200 copies of your written statement by 48 hours before you're supposed to testify.
So, I had to race around like a maniac over the last week, writing up this testimony and making sure it got copied and delivered in Washington, D.C. by the close of business on Monday.
I didn't know what the penalties for not meeting that deadline would be, but I just didn't know it worked that way, you know, and you're called to testify.
You have to provide all this paperwork.
I guess the longer your statement, the worse for you.
Well, that's one thing I learned.
But I wouldn't say it was the most important thing.
I learned a couple of other minor things when we arrived in the hearing room, which was rather a small room.
In fact, there were more seats on the House side than there were spectator seats.
It wasn't the main House room.
It was one of the subcommittee rooms.
And we arrived there a little early, so you got to see the people setting up everything.
Well, this might come as quite a scandal to some people out there, but did you know they walk around with a bucket?
A bucket of water.
Looks like one of those buckets they use to mop the floor, and they pour that water into all the pitchers that are next to all the representatives.
And then they walk around with another bucket, and they scoop ice out of it.
I don't know, it just doesn't look very appealing when you see something like that happen.
But that's just opening observations.
The important stuff, well, how do I begin something like this?
Basically, I learned some rather disturbing things about the way the system works.
Now, it's definitely a good thing to be invited to speak your mind and to try and set the record straight.
Now, this concerned telephone fraud, it concerned access to technology, it concerned all the things that we talk about here on this radio program.
And I welcome the opportunity to bring it to a few more people, a few influential people.
But I found out something rather dismaying, or actually I had something confirmed that I always sort of had in the back of my head,
and that's that they don't really want to listen.
They have a set agenda, they have their minds made up, and really all they want you to do is confirm everything that they already believe.
Well, they ran into a little bit of difficulty as far as that was concerned.
In my case, I tried to stick to issues of access to technology for people that can't afford to be on the internet,
people that can't afford to pay outrageous telephone costs, and people that just aren't part of the process.
You know, I thought this was a really good sign that they were actually willing to listen.
And you know, maybe I'm judging this a little bit too quickly.
Maybe they were overly harsh with the hacker because, well, they just had to be to satisfy their constituents.
But I'll tell you, friends, I felt like I was on trial.
I mean, basically there were two people on the panel.
That's right, two representatives, that's all.
I mean, when you watch this on C-SPAN, you think there's a lot more people there, but two people, that was it.
We had Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, and Representative Jack Fields of Texas, a Republican.
Now, other people walked in and out, but they were the ones that were there the most.
They were the ones that interrogated me the most, and that's really the only word I can use, because that's what it was.
Now, they held up a copy.
Actually, Markey did this.
He held up a copy of 2600 Magazine and basically defined it as a manual for computer crime.
Basically, his interpretation was that we print information that is used solely for the purpose of committing a crime.
I used as an example an article in the Spring Edition called Descrambling Cable, which explains how to build a cable descrambler.
And basically tried to put words in my mouth saying, what other purpose could this possibly be used for but to rip off a cable company?
Well, there's all kinds of purposes an article like this can be used for.
It can be used to figure out how electronics works, how the cable system works.
It can be used by cable companies to figure out how to defeat people who are building these particular descramblers.
It can be used for any one of a number of purposes.
But the fact of the matter is, it's irrelevant.
That's right. The First Amendment allows you to print information like this.
Printing the information does not make you a criminal.
Reading the information does not make you a criminal.
And going out and building something does not make you a criminal.
Using such a device could make you a criminal, I suppose.
But certainly not the kind of criminal that these people are talking about.
They want to send everybody to jail.
They think prison terms should be extended.
It's really kind of frightening.
Another thing they did was they held up the magazine and said,
it's really disturbing how you're printing these codes so people can listen in on cellular phone calls.
Now, we had an article in the Spring Edition called Cellular Magic
where we explained how cellular phones are completely vulnerable.
We've done it on this radio program, too.
And we printed a list of frequencies.
Frequencies that anybody can receive with a scanner.
And also how people can jump from one frequency to another to continue to listen to you.
Now, the real crime here is that this private matter
that is being transmitted over the airwaves is not protected in any way.
It's not encrypted. It's not scrambled.
The cellular companies have no interest in that.
And this law that makes it illegal to listen to an unencrypted frequency
is designed solely to protect these cellular companies.
These cellular companies were not attacked at all.
They were not held accountable for this privacy invasion.
The hackers were. It's all our fault.
Everything is our fault.
TRW has a credit file on you. Well, that's our fault.
We invaded your privacy.
Cellular phone calls being broadcast all over the place,
our fault because we're the ones that figured out how to listen.
It just went on and on like that.
And no matter how many points I would make to try and bring these people back to reality,
like, you know, these aren't codes. These are frequencies.
It just didn't seem to sink in at all.
They were out for the soundbite.
And, you know, they got really kind of patronizing at that point,
especially Representative Markey.
Boy, that guy.
I mean, basically, he gets kind of upset if you don't fall into step right away.
I guess any congressman does.
But I think one of the things that might have unnerved them
was a demonstration that I brought in of what's wrong with the payphone system.
The fact that a phone call to Washington, D.C. from New York City
cost us, from the comforts of our homes, 12 cents for the first minute.
12 cents.
But if you don't have a phone, or if you're homeless,
that same 12-cent phone call from a payphone will cost you $2.20.
That's inequity. That's not freedom.
That issue was not addressed at all.
I also tried to use that as an example of why.
Why fraudulent devices are so popular.
And I held up a device known as a Redbox.
And I said, hear this tone?
That tone represents a quarter.
Press this button on this Redbox, and the phone company
thinks you've deposited a quarter.
It's a system that's existed for decades that the phone company has not
seen fit to close up.
Because I guess it just doesn't represent that much of a loss to them.
It's that easy.
Now, if you're somebody that can't afford to make a phone call for $2.20,
I think the temptation is going to be pretty great
to use a simple device like this.
Do we call these people criminals?
Do we lock them away?
It's a tough call.
One of the solutions is to simply make boxes that
make these horrible sounds illegal.
Fraudulent devices.
Throw them away.
Ah.
But then I whipped out my trusty microcassette recorder,
and I hit a button on it.
And guess what?
It makes the same noise.
And it works, too.
So now we have to outlaw the tone.
Because the tone can be reproduced.
It gets a bit silly.
Just like the cellular phone call business is rather silly.
What I'd like to do is, before we take phone calls and maybe discuss this
a little bit, I'd like to read to you the written statement I submitted.
Because this might be the only time someone has heard what I had to say.
I don't think they would have asked any of these questions
had they read what I wrote.
I just don't see how they could have, because all of these issues
were addressed.
All these issues about hackers being criminals,
and hackers eavesdropping on people.
Hackers don't do that kind of thing.
They're not interested.
They don't break into people's houses.
They don't break into people's home computers.
They do things.
They get corporations very angry, like jump into trash bins
and find information, access mainframe computers,
and see what kind of things companies are doing.
No, I'm not saying that's the kind of thing that just should be legalized.
But you have to wonder.
You have to wonder, if these computers are so important,
how come it's so easy?
How come there's no security whatsoever?
All right.
This is the statement.
We'll be taking phone calls at 279-3400, area code 212.
And keep in mind, I might sound a little weird here,
because that's the way you're supposed to sound when you're
speaking to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on the issue of the rapid growth and changes
in the telecommunications industry.
My name is Emanuel Goldstein.
I am the publisher of 2600 Magazine, which is a journal for computer hackers,
as well as anyone else who happens to be interested in the direction
that technology is taking us.
We tend to be brutally honest in our assessments.
And as a result, we do get some corporations quite angry at us.
But we've also managed to educate a large number of people
as to how their telephone system works, what kinds of computers
may be watching them, and how they can shape technology to meet their needs
rather than be forced to tailor their existence to meet technology's needs.
I'm also the host of a weekly radio program called Off the Hook,
which airs over WBAI in New York.
Through that forum, we have discovered the eagerness and curiosity
that many, quote, ordinary people on the street, unquote,
possess for technology.
At the same time, we have seen fears and suspicions expressed
that would be unwise to ignore.
The next few years will almost certainly go down in history
as those in which the most change took place in the least amount of time.
The computer and telecommunications revolution
that we are now in the midst of is moving full speed ahead
into unknown territory.
The potential for amazing advances in individual thought and creativity
is very real.
But so is the potential for oppression and mistrust,
the likes of which we have never before seen.
One way or the other, we will be making history.
I think we can imagine it best if we think of ourselves
speeding down a potentially dangerous highway.
Perhaps the road will become slick with ice or fraught with sharp curves.
That's a road nobody has ever gone down before.
And the question we have to ask ourselves is,
what kind of a vehicle would we prefer to be in
if things should start getting out of control?
Our own automobile, where we would have at least some chance
of controlling the vehicle and bringing it down to a safe speed?
Or a bus, where we, along with many others,
must put all of our trust behind a total stranger to prevent a disaster?
The answer is obviously different, depending on the circumstances.
There are those of us who do not want the responsibility of driving
and others who have proven themselves unworthy of it.
What's important is that we all have the opportunity at some point
to choose which way we want to go.
Rapidly changing technology can also be very dangerous
if we don't look where we're going or if too many of us
close our eyes and let someone else do the driving.
This is a ride we all must stay awake for.
I am not saying we should be overly suspicious of every form of technology.
I believe we are on the verge of something very positive.
But the members of this committee should be aware
of the dangers of an uninformed populace.
These dangers will manifest themselves in the form of suspicion towards authority,
an overall fear of technology, and an unhealthy feeling of helplessness.
The recent FBI proposal to have wiretap capabilities
built into digital telephone systems got most of its publicity
because American taxpayers were expected to foot the bill.
But to many of the non-technical people I talked to,
it was just another example of Big Brother edging one step closer.
It is commonly believed that the National Security Agency
monitors all traffic on the Internet,
not to mention all international telephone calls.
Between caller ID, TRW credit reports, video cameras, room monitors,
and computer categorizations of our personalities,
the average American feels as if life no longer has many private moments.
Our Social Security numbers, which once were for Social Security,
are now used for everything from video rentals to driver's licenses.
These numbers can easily be used to track a person's location,
expenses, and habits, all without any consent.
If you know a person's name, you can get their telephone number.
If you have their phone number, you can get their address.
Getting their Social Security number is not even a challenge anymore.
And with this information, you can not only get every bit of info
about this person that exists on any computer,
from Blockbuster Video to the local library to the phone company to the FBI,
but you can begin to do things in this poor person's name.
It's possible we may want a society like this,
where we will be accountable for our every movement,
and where only criminals will pursue privacy.
The American public needs to be asked.
But first, they need to understand.
In Germany, there is a fairly new computerized system of identity cards.
Every citizen must carry one of these cards.
The information includes their name, address, date of birth, and nationality.
In other words, the country they were originally born in.
Such a system of national identity can be quite useful,
but in the wrong hands, it can be extremely scary.
For example, if a neo-Nazi group were to somehow get their hands on the database,
they could instantly find out where everyone of Turkish nationality lived.
A malevolent government could do the same,
and since not carrying the card would be a crime,
it would be very hard to avoid its wrath.
Before introducing a new technology that is all-encompassing,
all of its potential side effects and disadvantages should be discussed and addressed.
Opportunities must exist for everyone to ask questions.
In our own country, nobody was ever asked if they wanted a credit file opened on them,
if they wanted to have their phone numbers given to the people and companies they called
through the use of caller ID and ANI,
or if they wanted to be categorized in any manner on numerous lists and databases.
Yet, all of this has now become standard practice.
This implementation of new rules has resulted in a degree of cynicism in many of us,
as well as a sense of foreboding and dread.
We all know that these new inventions will be abused,
and used to somebody's advantage at some point.
There are those who would have us believe that the only people capable of such misdeeds
are computer hackers and their ilk.
But it just isn't that simple.
To understand computer hackers, it helps to think of an alien culture.
We have such cultures constantly around us.
Those with teenage children ought to know what this means.
There are alien cultures of unlimited varieties throughout the globe,
sometimes in the most unexpected places.
I'm convinced that this is a good thing.
Unfortunately, all too often, our default setting on whatever it is we don't understand is bad.
Suspicion and hostility follow, and are soon met with similar feelings from the other side.
This has been going on between and within our cultures for as long as we've existed.
While we can't stop it entirely, we can learn to recognize the danger signs.
The best way that I've found to deal with an alien culture,
whether it's in a foreign country or right here at home,
is to try and appreciate it while giving it a little leeway.
There is not a single alien culture I've encountered that has not been decidedly friendly,
and that includes deadheads, skateboarders, Rastafarians, and hackers.
When we talk about computer hackers, different images spring to mind.
Most of these images have come about because of perceptions voiced by the media.
Too often, as I'm sure the members of this committee already suspect,
the media just doesn't get it.
This is not necessarily due to malice on their part,
but rather a general lack of misunderstanding and an overwhelming pressure to produce a good story.
Hence, we get an abundance of sensationalism, and when the dust clears,
hackers are being compared with bank robbers, mobsters, terrorists, and the like.
I've gotten to the point that the word hacker is almost analogous to the word criminal.
Fortunately, the media is learning.
Reporters now approach hackers with a degree of technological savvy.
For the most part, they have stopped asking us to commit crime so they can write a story about it.
As the technology envelops us,
journalists are developing the same appreciation and curiosity for it that hackers have always had.
Any good reporter is at least part hacker
because what a hacker does primarily is relentlessly pursue an answer.
Computers naturally lend themselves to this sort of pursuit
because they tend to be very patient when asked a lot of questions.
So, where is the boundary between the hacker world and the criminal world?
To me, it has always been in the same place.
We know that it's wrong to steal tangible objects.
We know that it's wrong to vandalize.
We know that it's wrong to invade somebody's privacy.
Not one of these elements is part of the hacker world.
A hacker can certainly turn into a criminal
and take advantage of the weaknesses in our telephone and computer systems,
but this is rare.
What is more likely is that a hacker will share knowledge with people,
one of whom will decide to use that knowledge for criminal purposes.
This does not make the hacker a criminal for figuring it out,
and it certainly doesn't make the criminal into a hacker.
It's easy to see this when we're talking about crimes that we understand as crimes,
but then there are the more nebulous crimes,
the ones where we have to ask ourselves,
is this really a crime?
Copying software is one example.
We all know that copying a computer program and then selling it is a crime.
It's stealing, plain and simple.
But copying a program from a friend to try out on your home computer,
is this the same kind of crime?
It seems obvious to me that it isn't,
the reason being that you must make a leap of logic to turn such an action into a crime.
Imagine if we were to charge a licensing fee
every time somebody browsed through a magazine at the local bookshop,
every time material was borrowed from a library,
or every time a phone number was jotted down from the Yellow Pages.
Yet organizations like the Software Publishers Association have gone on record as saying
that it is illegal to use the same computer program on more than one computer in your house.
They claim that you must purchase it again,
or face the threat of federal marshals kicking in your door.
That is a leap of logic.
It is a leap of logic to assume that because a word processor costs $500,
a college student will not try to make a free copy
in order to write and become a little more computer literate.
Do we punish this student for breaking a rule?
Do we charge him with stealing $500?
To the hacker culture on whose behalf I'm speaking today,
the only sensible answer is to make it as easy as possible
for that college student to use the software he needs.
And while we're at it, we should be happy that he's interested in the first place.
Of course, this represents a fundamental change in our society's outlook.
Technology is a way of life, not just another way to make money.
After all, we encourage people to read books,
even if they can't pay for them, because to our society, literacy is a very important goal.
I believe technological literacy is becoming increasingly important,
but you cannot have literacy of any kind without having access.
If we continue to make access to technology difficult, bureaucratic, illogical,
then there will also be more computer crime.
The reason being that if you treat someone like a criminal, they will begin to act like one.
If we succeed in convincing people that copying a file is the same as physically stealing something,
we can hardly be surprised when the broad-based definition results in more overall crime.
Blurring the distinction between a virtual infraction and a real-life crime is a mistake.
New laws are not needed because there is not a single crime that can be committed
with a computer that is not already defined as a crime without a computer.
But let us not be loose with that definition.
Is mere unauthorized access to a computer worthy of federal indictments,
lengthy court battles, confiscation of equipment, huge fines, and years of prison time?
Or is it closer to a case of trespassing,
which in the real world is usually punished by a simple warning?
Of course not, some will say, since accessing a computer is far more sensitive
than walking into an unlocked office building.
If that is the case, why is it still so easy to do?
If it is possible for somebody to easily gain unauthorized access to a computer
that has information about me, I would like to know about it.
But somehow I don't think the company or agency running the system
would tell me that they have gaping security holes.
Hackers, on the other hand, are very open about what they discover,
which is why large corporations hate them so much.
It is also why they get caught all the time.
Through legislation we can turn what the hackers do into a crime
and there just might be a slim chance that we can stop them.
But that won't fix poorly designed systems whose very existence is a violation of our privacy.
The concept of privacy is something that is very important to a hacker.
This is so because hackers know how fragile privacy is in today's world.
Wherever possible, we encourage people to protect their directories,
encrypt their electronic mail, not use cellular phones,
and whatever else it takes to keep their lives to themselves.
In 1984, hackers were instrumental in showing the world
how TRW kept credit files on millions of Americans.
Most people had never even heard of a credit file until this happened.
Passwords were very poorly guarded.
In fact, credit reports had the password printed on the top of the page.
More recently, hackers found that MCI's Friends and Family program
allowed anybody to call an 800 number
and find out the numbers of everyone in a customer's calling circle.
As a bonus, you could also find out how these numbers were related to the customer,
friend, brother, daughter-in-law, business partner, etc.
Many times, these numbers were unlisted,
yet all that was needed to verify the customer's identity
was the correct zip code.
In both the TRW and MCI cases,
hackers were ironically accused of being the ones to invade privacy.
What they really did was help to educate the American consumer.
And nowhere is this more apparent than in the telephone industry.
Throughout the country, telephone companies take advantage of consumers.
They do this primarily because the consumer does not understand the technology.
When we don't understand something complicated,
we tend to believe those who do understand.
The same is true for auto mechanics, plumbers, doctors, and lawyers.
They all speak some strange language that the majority of us will never understand.
So, we tend to believe them.
The difference with the phone companies,
and here I'm referring to the local companies,
is that you cannot deal with somebody else
if you happen to disagree with them or find them untrustworthy.
The phone companies have us in a situation where we must believe what they say.
If we don't believe them, we cannot go elsewhere.
This is the frustration that the hacker community constantly faces.
We face it especially because we are able to understand
when the local phone companies take advantage of consumers.
Here are a few examples.
Charging a fee for touch-tone service.
This is a misnomer.
It actually takes extra effort to tell the computer
to ignore the tones that you produce.
Everybody already has touch-tone capability,
but we are forced to pay the phone company not to block it.
While $1.50 a month may not seem like much,
when added together, the local companies that still engage in this practice
are making millions of dollars a year for absolutely nothing.
Why do they get away with it?
Because too many of us don't understand how the phone system works.
I try to draw an analogy in this particular case.
Imagine if the phone company decided that a fee would be charged
to those customers who wanted to use the number 5 when dialing.
They could argue that the 5 takes more energy than the 4,
but most of us would see through this flimsy logic.
We must seek out other such dubious practices
and not blindly accept what we are told.
Other examples abound.
Being charged extra not to have your name listed in the telephone directory.
A monthly maintenance charge if you select your own telephone number.
The fact that calling information to get a number
now costs more than calling the number itself.
More recently, we have become acquainted with a new standard
called Signaling System 7, or SS7.
Through this system, it's possible for telephones to have all kinds of new features.
Caller ID, return call, repeat calling to get through a busy signal, etc.
But again, we're having the wool pulled over our eyes.
For instance, if you take advantage of call return in New York,
and that call is the last person who dialed your number,
you are charged 75 cents on top of the cost of the call itself.
Obviously, there is a cost involved when new technologies are introduced,
but there is no additional equipment, manpower, or time consumed
when you dial star 69 to return a call.
It's a permanent part of the system.
As a comparison, we could say that it also costs money to install a hold button.
Imagine how we would feel if we were charged a fee every time we used it.
The local companies are not the only offenders, but it is particularly bad in their case
because, for the vast majority of Americans, there is no competition on this level.
The same complaints are being voiced concerning cable television companies.
Long-distance telephone companies are also guilty.
AT&T, MCI, and Sprint all encourage the use of calling cards,
yet each imposes a formidable surcharge each and every time they're used.
AT&T, for example, charges 13 cents for the first minute of a nighttime call
from Washington, D.C. to New York, plus an 80-cent surcharge.
Since a calling card can only be used to make telephone calls,
why are consumers expected to pay an extra fee as if they were doing something
above and beyond the normal capability of the card?
Again, there is no extra work necessary to complete a calling card call,
at least not on the phone company's part.
The consumer, on the other hand, must enter up to 25 additional digits.
But billing is accomplished merely by computers sending data to each other.
Gone are the days of tickets being written up by hand and verified by human beings.
Everything is accomplished quickly, efficiently, and cheaply by computer.
Therefore, these extra charges are outdated.
The way in which we have allowed public telephones to be operated
is particularly unfair to those who are economically disadvantaged.
A one-minute call to Washington, D.C. can cost as little as 12 cents
from the comfort of your own home.
However, if you don't happen to have a phone, or if you don't happen to have a home,
that same one-minute call will cost you $2.20.
That figure is the cheapest rate there is from a Bell-operated payphone.
With whatever kind of logic was used to set these prices, the results are clear.
We have made it harder and more expensive for the poor among us
to gain access to the telephone network.
Surely this is not something we can be proud of.
A direct result of this inequity is the prevalence of red boxes.
Red boxes are nothing more than tone generators that transmit a quick burst of five tones,
which convince the central office that a quarter has been deposited.
It's very easy and almost totally undetectable.
It's also been going on for decades.
Neither the local nor long-distance companies have expended much effort
toward stopping red boxes, which gives the impression that the payphone profits
are still lucrative, even with this abuse.
But even more troubling is the message this is sending.
Think of it.
For a poor and homeless person to gain access to something that would cost the rest of us $0.12,
they must commit a crime and steal $2.20.
This is not equal access.
Hackers and phone freaks, as some of us are called, are very aware of these facts.
We learn by asking lots of questions.
We learn by going to libraries and doing research.
We learn by diving into phone company trash dumpsters,
reading discarded material, and doing more research.
But who will listen to people like us who have been frequently characterized as criminals?
I am particularly grateful that this committee has chosen to hear us.
What is very important to us is open communications, freedom of information, and educated public.
This puts us at direct odds with many organizations who believe that everything they do is proprietary
and that the public has no right to know how the public networks work.
In July of 1992, we were threatened with legal action by Bellcor,
the research arm of the regional Bell operating companies,
for revealing security weaknesses inherent in Busy Line Verification, or BLV, trunks.
The information had been leaked to us, and we did not feel compelled to join Bellcor's conspiracy of silence.
In April of this year, we were threatened with legal action by AT&T for printing proprietary information of theirs.
The information in question was a partial list of the addresses of AT&T offices.
It's very hard for us to imagine how such information could be considered secret,
but these actions are not surprising.
They only serve to illustrate the wide disparities between the corporate mindset and that of the individual.
It is essential that the hundreds of millions of Americans who will be affected by today's all-encompassing inventions
not be forced to play by corporate rules.
In 1990, a magazine similar to 2600 was closed down by the United States government
because Bell South said they printed proprietary information.
Most people never found out about this because Frack Magazine was electronic,
that is, only available on computer bulletin boards and networks.
This in itself is wrong. A publication must have the same First Amendment rights
regardless of whether it is printed electronically or on paper.
As more online journals appear, this basic tenet will become increasingly critical to our nation's future as a democracy.
Apart from this matter, we must look at what Bell South claimed,
that a document discussing the enhanced 9-1-1 system, which was worth $79,449,
had been stolen and printed by Frack.
Some newspaper accounts even managed to change it into an enhanced 9-1-1 program,
which gave the appearance that hackers were actually interfering with the operation of a 9-1-1 system and putting lives at risk.
In reality, there has never been a report of a hacker gaining access to such a system.
It was not until after the publisher of Frack was forced to go to trial
that the real value of the document was revealed.
Anyone could get a copy for around $14.
The government promptly dropped its case against the publisher,
who to this day is still paying back $100,000 in legal fees.
As further evidence of the inequity between individual justice and corporate justice,
Bell South was never charged with fraud for its claim that a $14 document was worth nearly $80,000.
Their logic, as explained in a memo to then-assistant U.S. attorney Bill Cook,
was that the full salaries of everyone who helped write the document,
as well as the full cost of all hardware and software used in the endeavor
—for instance, $31,000 for a VacStation 2, $6,000 for a printer—
all of that was perfectly acceptable.
It is very disturbing that the United States government agreed with this assessment
and moved to put a pre-law student behind bars for violating corporate rules.
I wish I could stand before this committee and say that we have been successful in stopping all such miscarriages of justice.
While the Frack case may have been the most bizarre,
there are many more instances of individuals being victimized in similar manners.
A teenager in Chicago was jailed for a year for copying a file that was worth millions, according to AT&T,
but was utterly worthless and unusable to a kid.
A bulletin board operator in California, along with his entire family,
was held at gunpoint for hours while authorities seized his equipment
in an unsuccessful attempt to find child pornography.
Three hackers in Atlanta, after being imprisoned up to a year for dialing into a BellSouth computer system
that had no password, were forced to pay $233,000 in restitution
so the company could install a password system.
More recently, a student at the University of Texas at Houston was suspended from school for a year
because he accessed a file that merely listed the users of the system,
a file which the system allows all users to access.
In increasing numbers, young people are being sent to jail not necessarily for something they did,
but rather for something they could have done in a worst-case scenario.
Again, this indicates fear and misunderstanding of technology and its applications,
but this time, those feelings emanate from those in authority.
Locally, meaning in Washington, D.C.,
an ominous happening occurred at a 2,600-monthly meeting last November.
These meetings occur in public areas and cities throughout the nation on the first Friday of every month.
Shortly after it began, the Washington meeting was broken up by Pentagon City Mall security guards.
Without any provocation, people were forced to submit to searches and everybody's name was taken down.
One of the attendees, who was writing down an officer's name, had the paper ripped from his hand.
Another had his film taken from his camera as he tried to document what was going on.
Upon questioning by a reporter from Communications Daily,
the mall security chief claimed that he was acting under orders from the United States Secret Service.
Subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests by computer professionals for social responsibility
have yielded more evidence implicating the Secret Service in this illegal and unwarranted action.
Nothing of a criminal nature was ever found in any of the bags that were searched,
a full list of the attendees wound up in the possession of the Secret Service.
It seems ironic that while hackers are conducting an open gathering in the middle of a shopping mall,
in order to share knowledge and welcome new people,
agents of the Secret Service are lurking in the shadows, trying to figure out ways to stop them.
How can we move forward and talk about exciting new applications of technology when we're off to such a bad start?
The people that are being arrested, harassed, and intimidated
are the people who will be designing and running these new systems.
They are the ones who will appreciate their capabilities and understand their weaknesses.
Through our short-sightedness and eagerness to listen to the loudest voices,
we are alienating the promises of the future.
How many here, who grew up in decades past, remember hearing teenagers talk of how the government is after them,
watching their every move, listening to their phone calls, doing everything one might expect in a totalitarian regime?
Such feelings are the sure sign of an ailing society.
It does not matter if these things are not actually occurring.
Their mere perception is enough to cause lasting harm and mistrust.
The future holds such enormous potential.
It is vital that we not succumb to our fears and allow our democratic ideals and privacy values to be shattered.
In many ways, the world of cyberspace is more real than the real world itself.
I say this because it is only within the virtual world that people are really free to be themselves,
to speak without fear of reprisal, to be anonymous if they so choose,
to participate in a dialogue where one is judged by the merits of their words,
not the color of their skin or the timbre of their voice.
Contrast this to our existing real world, where we often have people sized up before they even utter a word.
The internet has evolved on its own volition to become a true bastion of worldwide democracy.
It is the obligation of this committee and of governments throughout the world not to stand in its way.
This does not mean we should stand back and do nothing.
Quite the contrary, there is much we have to do if accessibility and equality are our goals.
Overregulation and commercialization are two ways to quickly kill these goals.
A way to realize them is to have a network access point in every house.
Currently, network access is restricted to students or professors at participating schools,
scientists, commercial establishments, and those who have access to and can afford local services that link into the internet.
Yes, a lot of people have access today, but a far greater number do not.
And it is to these people that we must speak.
The bigger the internet gets, the better it gets.
As it exists today, cultures from around the globe are represented.
Information of all kinds is exchanged.
People are writing, reading, thinking.
It's potentially the greatest educational tool we have.
Therefore, it is essential that we not allow it to become a commodity that only certain people in society will be able to afford.
With today's technology, we face the danger of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots to a monumental level.
Or we can open the door and discover that people really do have a lot to learn from each other, given the opportunity.
It is my hope that this committee will recognize the importance of dialogue with the American public
in order to answer the questions so many are asking and to address the concerns that have been overlooked.
I thank you for this opportunity to express those issues that I feel relevant to this hearing.
And that is the written statement that I submitted to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance for today's hearing.
And you know, I feel kind of stupid because throughout this statement,
I'm continually saying it's such a good sign that you're willing to listen.
Yet the only thing they wanted to talk about was what kind of criminals hackers were.
Makes you wonder.
Okay, I can't believe I talked for so long.
I feel like that was a State of the Union address or something.
Let's try to get through to as many calls as possible.
Our number is 279-3400, area code 212.
Let's see who's out there.
Good evening.
Emanuel.
Yes, go ahead.
Yes, I just wanted to give you a little update on the, what was it called, 1-900-STOPPER.
Okay.
1-900 number you talked about a few weeks ago.
I noticed, I tried it that same night you talked about it,
and I think that their service can be, they can be of no service to you
if you have your calls blocked by local, by New York Telephone,
because what they do now is I have All Call Restrict.
And when I call it and keep my number blocked with All Call Restrict,
they don't give me the recording where, the same as you got that night, 0-0-0.
It just hangs up on you.
Right.
Yeah, yeah, I've noticed that too.
I guess in a way it's to save money on their part.
They don't have to pay for the call that way.
I guess.
But more importantly,
If it hangs up on you, then it won't give you bad information.
It won't give you your phone number.
Right, but more important than that demonstration,
that leads me to believe that what uses their service to me
if All Call Restrict blocks my number from them.
Do you see what I mean?
It blocks the service to the 800 number.
I'm not sure if it blocks it to the 900 number.
I don't think it does.
You mean for billing purposes?
I was under the impression they were getting my number from ANI,
which is, as far as I understand, a different technology.
Yeah, well, I'm not sure how many 800 numbers are blocked
by you blocking through caller ID.
It's an interesting point, though,
something that we have to test out with other systems.
And now that portability has arrived, who knows?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
All right, thanks for calling.
Good evening.
Hi, good evening.
Yeah, go ahead.
I have a little problem I'd like to talk to you about.
When I go abroad and I want to use my data fax modem in my laptop,
all the phone jacks are different.
Is there any place that you know in New York City
where I can get some adapters so that when I go abroad,
I can plug my data fax modem into their phone system?
I've never had to do that, so I don't know for sure.
I mean, I know there's places in New York City you can do that.
No, I mean, you know, my data fax modem uses RJ11 jacks,
but when I go abroad, the jacks are totally different.
Right.
And an adapter.
Call a computer shop and just explain that to them.
They should be able to at least guide you to some place that has it.
Which one?
I'm not going to recommend a computer store over another.
Just look in the Yellow Pages.
Call any computer store.
Okay.
All right?
Thank you.
Don't call Radio Shack.
How's that?
Okay.
All right.
There, give a negative recommendation there.
Good evening.
Good evening, Emmanuel.
Very good program.
Thank you.
I was really moved by your speech and the depth of your understanding.
The only question I have to ask,
did you think that these men who are supposedly our leaders
could understand that type of thinking?
These are the men that wine and dine with the same corporations
that give you all a hard time.
They play golf with these guys.
They have their head in the same bag.
They will not understand that kind of thinking.
It is counterproductive for them to understand that type of thinking
because really they don't want the poor man to make a call in the street
and get to be charged a small rate.
In fact, as you are explaining to them,
the price of these things should be going down instead of going up.
But if the price goes down,
then their bodies don't get to make the amount of money that they're making.
They call that counter-progress.
They understand things in terms of black and white.
It's a real dilemma whether to speak to them or not
because they cannot understand this type of thinking.
You're thinking of things of a society that's really making progress,
people understanding how the phone system works
and a real educated public being able to demand of the phone companies,
hey, this that you're doing is not costing you anything.
Why is it?
That's not going to make any sense.
So my question is,
did you really think that they would understand your type of thinking?
Did you think that they would read it and understand it and act upon it?
That's my question.
I suppose it was a bit naive on my part
to just assume that they would,
but I thought it was worth the effort to at least try.
The testimony has made it to the permanent written record
for whatever that's worth.
I did have some time to do some soul-searching
and come up with the points that I felt were most important.
Hey, if we can't convince these people,
maybe there's somebody else out there that will hear this
and do something about it and try to educate more people.
At least I sure hope so.
Thanks for calling.
Let's see if we can get another call in.
Good evening.
Anybody there?
Okay, let's try this one up here.
Good evening.
Go ahead.
Okay, let's try over here.
Good evening.
Yeah, hello.
I just wanted to say that was an excellent speech
that you made to the house today.
Thank you.
Quick question for you.
Here's another thing about rip-offs and stuff.
How come a chip for your computer in your car costs like $200
but you can buy like an EEPROM maybe for $12?
Oh, supply and demand.
It's what the consumer will pay.
Yeah, whatever the traffic will allow, huh?
Yeah, well, I mean, you can't really opt not to get a chip for your car.
I mean, you can opt not to get a memory upgrade for your computer,
but without that chip in your car, who knows what's going to happen.
Right.
Okay, good speech.
Okay, thank you.
Bye.
I mean, would it be wrong to make chips, you know,
to make fake chips that worked in a car?
I guess, you know, there's some law you'd be breaking,
but still, it's like building your own carburetor, isn't it?
Good evening.
Anybody there?
Boy, a lot of people fell asleep on the phone this night.
Good evening.
Yeah, hi.
I'm listening to your argument about local phone companies
having us basically at their mercy,
but I have to ask this question.
Okay.
With the advent of a lot of the new, I don't know what you call them,
comfort phones, for lack of a better term,
from competitive phone companies,
I find I have to stop at a minimum of three phones to complete one call.
It's like being in Mexico.
Right.
You're talking about CoCats, customer-owned, coin-operated telephones.
How do you combat that?
Well, now, keep in mind, a lot of times these phones have sprung up
because the local companies, that is, New York Telephone, New Jersey Bell,
what have you, have refused to keep pay phones
in what they consider bad neighborhoods.
They've just pulled out the phones,
refused people with no recourse but to put in other phones.
And these phones notoriously, and in all fairness to those companies,
it's because the phone companies make it very difficult
for a pay phone operator to operate.
They have to pay all these access costs.
So the cost is not going to be lower.
If anything, it's going to be higher.
And a lot of them are very cheaply made, so they break very easily.
They just do not seem to work.
And as far as them being in quote-unquote bad neighborhoods,
I'm in New Jersey,
in suburbia you will see, you know, three phones within the space of a block,
two being what I call the Brand X phones and one being the Bell phone.
Variably, it's the Bell phone that works.
That's true.
But as far as the inequities that we were talking about with pay phones,
those hold true to the Bell phones,
and they hold true to the other phones as well.
Although, you know, there are these CoCuts
that offer one-minute calls anywhere in the United States for 25 cents,
and that's a good example of how a CoCut can be used in a good way.
But how do we force them to keep the quality level up?
Pressure. That's really the only way, you know.
The Public Service Commission, letters to the editor.
And, you know, I still believe writing to your congressman
and trying to educate them on these matters might do something.
It's got to have an effect if a lot of people do it.
Yeah. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks.
Good evening.
Maybe it's just a deadline or something.
I don't know. Good evening.
Hey, good evening. How are you?
How are you doing?
Okay, listen.
I just wanted to ask you a question.
Between New Jersey Bell and AT&T,
how come it costs a dollar to call you with New Jersey Bell, 10652,
and $2.35 to call you with AT&T?
Because it's a little secret you have to know about.
If you don't dial 10NJB, is it?
Yeah, 10NJB.
10NJB before the number, and you're calling from New Jersey,
you'll pay the long-distance rate.
It's just another way that the long-distance companies can get you.
Yeah, that's true.
Also, speaking of code cuts, I'm in Bergen County,
and I recently had the opportunity to watch a couple of code cuts being installed,
and I had the opportunity to talk to the guy at length.
And he says that they haven't really had any problems with vandalism or anything like that.
And I says, well, what about the crappy service?
I said, a lot of the phones are out of order.
And he says, well, we do have problems with vandalism, but it's really not our fault.
And I says, well, whose fault is it?
Well, I mean, you know, if you're supposed to fix the phones,
and you don't fix the phones, it's your fault.
I don't care who broke them.
You know, I'm not saying the repairmen are out breaking phones.
Oh, what'd she say?
Wow, how did you get that recording?
Oh.
Well, how the hell are you supposed to signal these people?
Well, I think you're supposed to...
You're supposed to flash, but I think when you hang up,
your phone will ring, and somebody's going to ask for money.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, you've got that to look forward to.
Computer voice.
Yeah, computer will do that.
So while you're dealing with that moral dilemma,
we have to say goodnight.
We're out of time.
I want to thank everybody for calling in,
and apologize to those people we weren't able to get to.
As far as lobbying...
I don't know.