A Political Hacking Scandal

According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, a Republican staff member gained access to as many as 1,000 computer files and documents belonging to Democrats.  The GOP staffer, Jeffrey Land, is reported to have admitted tapping into their files "many, many times" between July 1988 and the spring of 1990.  Land was apparently able to gain access to files detailing "campaign contributions and the 1991 campaign strategy of the New Jersey Senate Democrats."

What's particularly appalling is that a secret legislative report indicates that his activities were known by his superiors who saw nothing wrong with what he was doing.  "No one thought it appropriate to bring this fact to anyone's attention or deemed this to constitute an ethical breach," the report said.

A letter recently received by 2600 claims to reveal some inside information on this case.  We'll let you be the judges.

I'd rather not divulge my real name, nor can I divulge my employers' names, not in light of an ongoing criminal investigation.  Suffice it to say that I work for one of the two major political parties within the State of New Jersey and that, for the time being, I wish to maintain this job for a little while longer.

I report to the party leadership.  I have been involved in politics for quite some time and now do a wide range of duties, among them issues of telecommunications security.

My telecommunications security skills, though hardly noteworthy in the presence of 2600's readership, are somewhat respectable and tremendously aided by publications such as yours.  This is why I wish to return a favor and contribute some of my insight for everybody's benefit.

Up front, I have been privy to much of what is going on in regards to the Jeffrey Land case.

Mr. Land was a former Assembly Aide to an Assemblyman, an assemblyman who, coincidentally, was among those implicated in the Pete Rose scandal (this assemblyman wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of the guy who was indicted for participating in a cocaine ring selling to Rose).

Land was smart.  We were considered to be among the "bright boys."

Back in 1988, we inadvertently broke through the user system of the WANG Legislative Network Systems and had found ourselves within the Systems Administrators' controls.

I didn't stick around for too long.  The only information I gained was a better understanding of how the system worked, but not the contents of the individual files stored within.

Land also busted through the users' system but didn't back out.  He kept going on his own, all through 1988, 1989, and up to February of 1990 when he finally got caught.

The Land case is fascinating.  It's been in the news around here for some time.  Land had not only gotten into the system, but had also taken out interesting information, like contributor listings, campaign strategies, and such - all from the opposing political party:

The Legislative Network, you see, is one system divided into sub-systems.  It isn't too hard to get into one sub-system and out the other.  This is essentially what Land did.

Inquiries by the State Ethics Committee determined that the party leadership whom Land was working for was not only aware of this, but "saw nothing wrong in what he was doing."

Incredible.  What's even more fascinating is that the opposing political party whose files have been exposed are not seeking to press any charges and wish to instead "forget about the whole thing."  This, despite the acknowledged fact that Land managed to see and/or obtained well over 1,000 individually protected files!

Why back down?

Here's why.

Land uncovered solid, hard evidence including:

1.)  State staff, hired solely for the benefit of service to the public were working solely for the benefit of the elected officials on public money and time using public facilities, notably computer databasing facilities and the like.  Public tax money for state staff salaries was therefore used to keep elected officials in office.  Everybody does this, but it's not supposed to be known outside of the office.

2.)  Land's computer evidence directly correlates between given contributions and posted legislation.  The major stumbling block for election-law overseers is that you cannot readily tell who is being given what.  Political Action Committee (PAC) money is handed out in such a way that election law reports do not readily tell who actually benefits from these contributions.  PACs are deliberate fronts for corporations and others who do not want to leave a trail.  Land obtained evidence showing what corporation gained what piece of legislation - tax breaks, funding loopholes, etc. - in a manner never done before.

More Weirdness

Election-law controls are obviously in need of expansion.  In light of what happened in the fall of 1989, the Land case underlines this point.  During October of 1989, the current majority leadership members were implicated in a so-called "shake-down" of a lawyer's PAC.  Among the so-called statements said to the lawyer's PAC representatives during that fateful dinner meeting was the now famous line: "Your members are going to be upset if your bills don't get posted."  The FBI and the Attorney General's office later exonerated them of the allegations, but a bad taste still lingers.

We've all known about this shit; corruption is as old as the human race.  A politician taking money - so what else is new?  The catch is how can we reasonably expect our legislators to legislate on our behalf on such crucial telecommunications matters when they are, in fact, among those breaking the law?  Our legislators are among those encouraging partisan hacking!

I recall vividly what our director for our legislative staff said to me: "It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win.  Winning is, after all, everything."

Great.

It is utterly ironic that, when approached upon the issue of "hackers" and the like, legislators crank out their "total distaste toward these individuals" while all along whatever information hackers cull they greedily accept, seeing "no apparent ethical wrongdoing" as Land's superiors so stated.

The State Attorney General's office announced that they "see no need to further investigate the matter."  The Speaker of the House said that "the public doesn't give a tinker's damn about the situation."  The argument flowing to the newspapers about the "fundamental separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branch of government" is garbage.  The separation argument is, actually, a means of ducking the real issue: election funding reform.  Ironically, both partisan political parties, Republican and Democrat, do agree upon avoiding this one issue as next year's elections are looming on the horizon.

I write this because you state in your article on "Operation Sundevil" that we should write to our legislators.  Actually, as one who works closely with legislators, they really don't "give a tinker's damn," unless, of course, you're a large, multi-national PAC.  After helping to set up the fundraisers, I've watched the legislative bills get posted and know there's no such thing as coincidence at the state capital.

I, for my part, feel that this country is rapidly becoming a tremendously twisted nightmare; it's one thing to have soldiers goosestepping down Pennsylvania Avenue, but something else when we're living within a giant David Lynch sitcom.

It is time that we start politicizing ourselves.  (Ha!  A hacker's PAC, anyone?!)  It's time to start working together before more shit comes down the pike.  Expect to see regulations, BBS licensing, and the like to come about, all in the name of raising taxes for these "tough economic times."  Taxation and operational regulations are what the Secret Service and the legislators want, both as a means of a "better regulatory/law enforcement" and for raising more money to channel into other programs or job perks for relatives on the payrolls.

Never mind, though, that most of the boards would go under due to lack of sufficient funds to keep them going.  This scenario also doesn't mention that those remaining BBSes would do so only by charging or increasing their operational charges.  Our cutting edge gets dull and us with it - unless, of course, you've become a member of The New Movement, the Underground Net.

It's Getting Cold Around Here

Several other trends are becoming evident: the winnowing of Freedom of Information Act file acquisitions (see June of 1990 American Bar Association Journal), the lack of accountability on the part of credit bureaus obtaining private information from branches of the U.S. government (isn't it an amazing coincidence that TRW, the credit bureau, is also TRW, the major defense industry corporation?), and now the crackdown on BBSes - yep, surf's up: the stormtide's rising, gang.

The Lords of Disorder

Watergate lives on.  I was recently hired by a congressperson on their campaign telecommunications/databasing system.  Somebody broke into this congressperson's system and got a listing of the major databases.  No disks were stolen or damaged, not that anything ever is, and the office doors were, interestingly enough, not forced open.  After an "inter-office investigation," custodial staff was found to have been "lax" and, although not proven, it appears that it was a primary election candidate's worker who managed to get in and check out the files.

This was bad.  Once you know when, where, who, and what voting block your opponent is gunning, well, then you're fu*ked.  Political strategy must then be shifted accordingly, and this can be a real pain in the ass.

This last story and the Land case illustrates how the computer expert is becoming the samurai of these petty lords, particularly those experts who stand on "the edge."  Perhaps herein lies our true strength.

We are far stronger than what we're given to be; this is why the SS is strong-arming us and why corrupt politicians employ our skills while yet taxing our life's blood.