This article is from NameBase NewsLine, which is distributed to users of


NameBase, a microcomputer database with 170,000 citations and 78,000 names.


This 3-megabyte database is available on floppy disks and is used by over


700 journalists and researchers around the world. For a brochure write to:





             A-albionic Research:  namebase@a-albionic.com





Or send $79.00 to A-albionic Research, PO Box 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220 


for _legal_, _registered_ disks!  A-albionic is an authorized distributor.








>From NameBase NewsLine, No. 2, July-August 1993:








             Cyberspace Wars: Microprocessing vs. Big Brother





                            by Daniel Brandt





     Just ten years ago the issues were so simple, the arguments so clean.


The concept of hackers was cute and quaint, best understood through


Hollywood thrillers like "War Games." The major media had yet to use


the word "cyberspace," a term just then created by William Gibson in


Neuromancer, his first masterpiece in a strange new genre of "cyberpunk"


fiction.





     It was ten years ago that establishment liberal David Burnham wrote


"The Rise of the Computer State" with Ford, Rockefeller, and Aspen


Institute money. This book ignored microprocessing and limited its


nightmarish vision to the dangers posed by Big Brother's mainframes. One


chapter covered the threat posed by the National Security Agency (NSA),


the largest U.S. intelligence agency with the world's best computers, an


agency that is not subjected to any oversight. In the mid-1970s the Senate


Intelligence Committee headed by Frank Church warned that "if not properly


controlled," the NSA's technology "could be turned against the American


people at a great cost to liberty." For thirty years the NSA obtained


copies of most telex messages entering and leaving the U.S., and the CIA


illegally intercepted thousands of first-class letters as they left the


country. If the high-tech NSA were ever turned against us, Church said,


"no American would have any privacy left.... There would be no place to


hide."[1]





     One word -- privacy -- summed up the debate nicely then, because Big


Brother had a monopoly on computing power. But some cracks were already


appearing in this pre-cyberspace version of the problem. In 1978 the


Carter administration admitted that the Soviets were tapping into


microwave links in New York, Washington, and San Francisco; microwave was


like a sieve compared to the old underground intercity telephone cables.


That was only a minor irritant compared to January 15, 1990, when half


of the entire AT&T network crashed due to a single software bug. The


technicians in the hardware lab where I worked used to kid the software


engineers, saying that if civilization had developed the way programmers


write programs, one woodpecker could come along and bring it all down.





     Also in 1978 the NSA began harassing certain mathematicians in


the private sector, claiming "sole authority to fund research in


cryptography."[2] Then came the microprocessor. Within a few years every


mass-market magazine for microcomputer hobbyists was running an occasional


article on new encryption techniques, and the NSA couldn't keep the lid


on. Hackers were experimenting on their crude machines with a technique


called "public key cryptography."[3] A recent estimate has it that "a


buildingful of NSA's specially hot-rodded supercomputers might take a day


to crack a 140-digit code," but from NSA's point of view that's not good


enough. Today's micros are roughly 100 times faster with 100 times the


capacity of the machine I bought ten years ago; the price is lower and it


fits on your lap. They can easily encrypt and decrypt with keys this size.


While the world's most powerful supercomputer grinds all day to crack one


key, "what is it going to do when 100 million people each use 100


different keys per day?"[4] Big Brother has suddenly lost his monopoly on


encryption technology, and hackers everywhere could not be more delighted.





     Yes, the rules of the game have changed, due primarily to the rapid


evolution of microprocessing power. The simple concept of "privacy" no


longer works as well as it did for Frank Church and David Burnham. The


little guy on his microcomputer bulletin board system (BBS) -- by one


estimate there are now 60,000 of these in the U.S.[5] -- wants privacy


from Big Brother, but corporations will also be screaming for privacy as


they adopt the new encryption technology. And then what about


transnational corporations seeking to avoid government intrusion? Or


organized crime and international drug cartels? One, two, many Big


Brothers? Privacy for whom?





     William Gibson's vision in Neuromancer may read like heaven for


hackers, but for the rest of us the term "cyberpunk" seems about right. We


shudder at Gibson's future, where transnational corporations hold all the


wealth and all the information, and outcast data pirates must jack into


their cyberspace decks, maneuver around the "black ice" of corporate data


security systems, and forage for their livelihoods. It's rather like


children stealing food from garbage cans, but it all seems like ice cream


to the hackers who find this inspiring.





     The hacker ethic is a laissez-faire vision of total freedom to


microcompute and telecommute, a world of unbreakable encryption, anonymous


E-Money transfers, and lately talk of a fiber-optic data superhighway,


leading to a place in cyberspace where everyone can connect with anyone.


They even have their own Washington lobby. Electronic Frontier Foundation


(EFF) started out with funding from Mitch Kapor and a few other computer


millionaires, but is now underwritten by IBM, Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, MCI,


Bell Atlantic, Adobe, the Newspaper Association of America, and the


National Cable Television Association.[6] And the word "cyberspace" is


trumpeted in Scientific American, Time, Washington Post, and The New


Republic. We can expect to see it soon in Webster's. This is bigger than


a handful of hackers, and it's time to become conversant with the issues.





     There IS a new reality, and we needed a new word. But more than a


mere reality, it's a massive moving target careening blindly into the


future. No one has a handle on it. Cyberpunk novelist Bruce Sterling


worries about hacker ethics, one narrow slice of the big picture, but he


doesn't pretend to have many answers.[7] The Washington office of Computer


Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) is in the same building as


EFF, and both work against the NSA's efforts to mandate encryption


hardware that the government can break -- the so-called "Clipper Chip"


that was announced by the White House on April 16, 1993.[8] But on other


issues CPSR is suspicious of EFF's pro-corporate leanings. One imagines


CPSR arguing that our government, at least, can be petitioned and our


representatives are elected. Comparatively, how much input are we allowed


by major corporations? Given their priorities, how responsive will they


be to the information needs of the poor and underprivileged? What will


happen, for example, if public libraries and public schools get left


behind in the dust of the data superhighway?





     In Washington DC, the information capital of the world, the newest


game in town is Cyberspace Wars. Unfortunately, it's also the latest


buzzword. Pack journalists in this town are seemingly required to log


in on these, which invariably generates more heat than light.





     I don't have a graduate degree, but I spent three years in grad


school studying something they called "social ethics," which included much


philosophy. My undergraduate degree is in sociology. In high school I


had a ham radio license, and spent many evenings building equipment and


working traffic networks, a Morse Code version of "cyberspace." (These


days my transmitter is hooked to my computer.) After grad school I


retrained in electronics, and during the 1980s I held a variety of


hardware and software jobs in high-tech industries. The hardware ranged


from telephone interface circuits to digital switches at the senior tech


or junior engineer level. The software was generally written using


Assembly, dBase or BASIC to develop hardware control systems or database


programs.





     In other words, my career is so checkered that no one will ever refer


to me as an "expert," which is also why you are reading this in an obscure


little publication. But I am familiar with the territory. And could it be


that too many of the experts are too narrow? Furthermore, I can recognize


high-tech hype when I see it and I can recognize sloppy ethics; there's


too much of both in cyberspace. I can forgive EFF guru and co-founder


John Barlow, a former Grateful Dead songwriter, for being an "acid-head 


ex-Republican county chairman" (Mitch Kapor's description). But when


he invokes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "noosphere" as a model for


cyberspace, a "global brain that would seal humanity's spiritual


destiny,"[9] I have to draw the line. I studied enough of Teilhard to know


that his theology lacks any conception of evil. Where cyberspace and New


Age meet out in California's Silicon Valley somewhere, everything becomes


alarmingly mushy.





     Another example of sloppy ethics is found in the way the word


"privacy" is babbled about without qualification. I have yet to see any


suggestion that the right to privacy ought to be inversely proportional to


social power, and should be balanced against the right to know. Joe


Sixpack deserves more privacy than David Rockefeller, because Joe's simple


livelihood may be affected by Rocky's wheeling and dealing. Joe has more


of a right to know what Rocky is up to than vice-versa. It does not


require a philosophy degree to grasp this; libel law in the U.S., for


example, makes a similar distinction between a public figure and a private


figure. Every journalist knows this, but when writing about privacy issues


the same concept never makes it into print. Then again, my definition of


privacy does not justify hacker ethics (microcomputer vs. mainframe,


little guy vs. Big Brother), because hackers are motivated more by


malicious amusement than by genuine self-defense.





     More hype comes from a bizarre intersection of cyberspace with


conspiracy theory: the incredible PROMIS software by Inslaw, Inc. For


months I was reading accounts of how this software was revolutionary, and


could track everything about everyone. This is crazy, I thought, because


as a programmer I knew that software is painfully developmental, never


revolutionary. After ten years of inputting for NameBase I also knew that


until you key in good data, a mere database program is nothing at all.


Then it came out that there was a "back door" installed in PROMIS. This


made more sense, as a "back door" to get around password protection is


easy for any programmer, and it explained why the intelligence community


might be interested in peddling it to foreign governments.





     Please note, however, that you still need physical access to the


computer, either through a direct-connect terminal or a remote terminal


through the phone lines, in order to utilize a back door. Ari Ben-Menashe


wants us to believe that foreigners (Britain, Australia, Iraq, South


Korea, Canada, and "many others") allow technicians from another country


to install new computer systems in the heart of their intelligence


establishments, and don't even think to secure physical access to the


system before they start entering their precious data.





     Then he claims that PROMIS, "a sinister, Big Brother-like computer


program," can suck in every other database on earth, such as those used by


utility companies, and correlate everything automatically. The rest of his


book is frequently believable, but this example of hype is grating because


publisher Bill Schaap, who is not computer illiterate, should have done


Ben-Menashe a favor by deleting the chapter on PROMIS.[10] I generally


believe that "conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by


normal means,"[11] so I don't like to see whistleblowers like Ben-Menashe


needlessly discredited by their own high-tech gullibility.





     The last example of hype is from a 1988 article, which suggests that


the right also suffers from an overactive technical imagination:





     Retired Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, a member of the board, says


     Western Goals wanted to build a computer data base containing the


     leadership structure and membership of every left-wing group in the


     country. The right, he says, needed to match the left's ability to


     mobilize on short notice and track the activities of conservative


     Americans. 'The radical left,' he claims, 'in this country has an


     incredible, computer-connected network that has enormous files


     connected with them.'[12]





     Singlaub swallowed someone's line the same as Ben-Menashe did, and


just as journalists are inclined to do when it comes to high-tech issues.


It is no longer excusable for major players to remain ignorant of


important high-tech developments. The remainder of this article will


follow the battles and trends of the last few years -- the Cyberspace Wars


that unfolded as microprocessors robbed Big Brother of its monopoly on


data access and manipulation. Then I'll propose a somewhat expanded, more


useful definition of "cyberspace" to include all digitized information,


and consider the issues involved in the potential data networks that


worried Singlaub. His notion of the left was fantastic and his plans for


Western Goals never materialized. But the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai


B'rith, which is beginning to use computers, was caught this year in a


massive spying scandal. Their defense of spying is my ultimate example of


sloppy ethics. In another ten years there might not be scandals, because


the files will have been sucked into cyberspace, complete with unbreakable


encryption and access by anonymous players. It may not be the NSA, or the


ADL, or any current entity. But we will all be at risk, and Ben-Menashe,


Singlaub, and the cyberpunk novelists will finally seem prophetic.





     Privacy and domestic security are a zero-sum game. Society consists


of discrete individuals; if these individuals each have total privacy,


then society has zero security. Conversely, for the body politic to have


total security as an organism, the individuals within must have zero


privacy. Idealists may quibble with this scenario, but today we're


required to coexist with massive national security establishments, and


they tend to see things this way. Realistically, then, it's a useful


handle for understanding Cyberspace Wars.





     A 1992 Harris poll showed that 78 percent of Americans now express


concern about their personal privacy, and 68 percent perceive a threat


from computers. These figures have roughly doubled over the last twenty


years.[13] One area of concern is in the workplace, where U.S. privacy


laws lag behind those in Europe and Japan. Although the 1986 Electronic


Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) prohibits phone and data-line tapping,


law enforcement and employers are exempted, so an E-Mail system that is


paid for or run by the employer might not be secure. Macworld asked 301


companies about snooping, and "about 22 percent of our sample have engaged


in searches of employee computer files, voice mail, E-Mail, or other


networking communications."[14] Job applicants sometimes find that the


company has a contract with a research service to scan credit reports,


workers' compensation claims, medical records, and criminal histories.


Access to some of this data for such a purpose has recently become


illegal, but employers say they need this data because of the rash of


"negligent hiring" lawsuits.





     Personal privacy is a problem outside the workplace as well. Surveys


of the data available from the big three credit bureaus -- TRW, Equifax,


and Trans Union -- find error rates of up to 43 percent. Federal laws have


addressed this issue for years, and more may be on the way. Lately the


credit bureaus have seen their monopoly on personal information eroded


from a variety of commercial information brokers (over 1,253 are listed in


the Burwell Directory). Most of these collect information on companies,


but some specialize in records such as address, marital, salary, driving,


and employment history, as well as corporate affiliations, who your


neighbors are, vehicle and real estate holdings, and civil and criminal


court records. Lotus Development Corporation (where Mitch Kapor made his


millions) and Equifax recently proposed to compile some of this data for


120 million consumers on CD-ROM, and market it for $700 as "Marketplace:


Households." But 30,000 angry letters killed their proposal.[15]





     If it's only name, address, and telephone number that interests


you, then check out ProPhone.[16] This is a set of seven CD-ROM disks


consisting of 70 million residential and 7 million business listings.


The software can access the listings through either the name, address,


or phone number, and the business listings are indexed by SIC code as


well. The listings tend to be at least several years old or otherwise


incomplete, but this will improve over the next few years. We bought it


because most NameBase users are investigative journalists. Zeroing in on a


neighborhood where you lived as a child in a little town in North Dakota,


and getting a printout of today's residents, feels something like what


hackers must feel when they break through password protection. It also


feels like an excellent reason to keep one's own number unlisted.





     While cyberspace trends give privacy advocates plenty to worry about,


the situation is equally alarming from the perspective of the government.


If you live in an apartment building and have a scanner, your neighbors'


cordless telephone conversations are easily monitored. Cellular phone


monitoring became illegal in 1986 but not cordless, which is reasonable


because no one HAS to use a cordless phone. The law against cellular


monitoring was opposed by hams and shortwave listeners, who generally feel


that if the signal makes it into their living rooms, they have a right to


tune it in. Last year President Bush signed a second law, prohibiting the


manufacture or import of scanners that are capable of cellular monitoring.


But in a demonstration for a congressional subcommittee last April, a


technician took three minutes to reprogram a cellular phone's codes so


that it could be used for eavesdropping. It turns out that you don't have


to use a scanner at all: "Every cellular phone is a scanner, and they


are completely insecure," John Gage of Sun Microsystems told the


subcommittee.[17] Congress keeps slipping off the back end of the


cyberspace curve, simply because the curve is moving so fast.





     Congress is caught in the middle, pulled in one direction by privacy


advocates and the other by our national security establishment. In March


1992 the FBI proposed legislation that would require private industry to


provide access ports in digital equipment for the purpose of tapping


specific conversations. Telephone carrier signals are increasingly


digitized and multiplexed, with specific channels interleaved among many


others in a continuous stream of ones and zeros. For decades, the FBI


needed only a pair of alligator clips to tap phones, and now they're


getting panicky. This particular proposal died, but the FBI is going to


try again. Several years ago I worked for a little company that made


analog long-distance equipment for export to Soviet bloc countries.


Frequently the specifications called for an access port for each channel,


which we dubbed the "KGB output." Now it turns out that the FBI wants the


same thing.





     Not to be outdone, the NSA played the major role in the development


of the "Clipper Chip" recently approved by President Clinton, and soon the


government will start requiring industry to provide phones and computers


equipped with it. This chip contains encryption algorithms that can be


broken by two halves of a secret master key. The idea is that someone with


a warrant will then go to each of two agencies to get the portion of the


key in their custody, like two pieces of a treasure map torn in half. This


chip will be used to scramble phone lines used for voice, modems, and fax


machines. Presumably the NSA already has both halves of the key, and


their record for self-restraint is not reassuring. Private industry is


not enthusiastic. For one thing, U.S. products containing NSA-breakable


encryption will not compete well on the international market. One person


asked, "Do you think I'm dumb enough to buy something endorsed by the


NSA?"[18]





     Some worry that the administration may try to ban encryption


altogether if this chip doesn't catch on. Ham radio operators, for


example, have for decades been prohibited from using encryption on the


air, and export of encryption software has been restricted for years


under COCOM regulations. Others are amused that the government is


even bothering along these lines, since encryption that is practically


unbreakable is already easily purchased, or even available as Shareware


by downloading it from a BBS.





     The most dramatic conflict between privacy and security occurred in


1990. Big Brother was already edgy, as BellSouth in Florida had discovered


in mid-1989 that microcomputer intruders had been harmlessly reprogramming


their digital switches. It seems that callers to the Palm Beach County


Probation Department were reaching "Tina," a phone-sex worker in another


state. BellSouth was not amused, and worried that their 911 system was


vulnerable. Then when the AT&T system half-crashed the following January


-- even though this was NOT hacker-related -- the Secret Service, which


had nothing if not an active imagination, began working closely with telco


cops. The federal effort started years earlier after Congress passed the


1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but in May 1990 it culminated in


Operation Sundevil, by far the largest series of high-profile raids ever


conducted against hackers. About 42 computer systems were seized around


the country, along with 23,000 floppy disks.





     Federal anti-hacker strategy involves a dramatic search and seizure.


Agents crash simultaneously through the front and back doors, everyone


is questioned, and then they carry off the evidence: computers, monitors,


keyboards, printers, modems, manuals, disks, notebooks, telephones,


answering machines, and even Sony Walkmans. There are no arrests and even


much later charges are rarely filed. In the meantime, however, the feds


study their "evidence" for months or even years. It's enough to bring many


hackers to their knees.





     EFF began defending these hackers, and by 1991 the steam had gone out


of the crackdown. One document, a description of 911 system administration


called "E911," was found on a BBS and came to the attention of AT&T


security. They considered it hot property worth exactly $79,449. E911


later formed the basis of one of the hacker prosecutions, but the


government's case fell apart when the defense showed that more detailed


information about the 911 system was publicly available from AT&T for the


mere price of $13:





     The right hand of Bellcore knew not what the left hand was doing. The


     right hand was battering hackers without mercy, while the left hand


     was distributing Bellcore's intellectual property to anybody who was


     interested in telephone technical trivia.... The digital underground


     was so amateurish and poorly organized that it had never discovered


     this heap of unguarded riches.[19]





     Another hacker legal victory resulted from a raid against Steve


Jackson Games of Austin, Texas. SJG published games that were played on


paper, with pencils, dice, and books. Jackson and his fifteen employees


used computers to run the business, not for hacking. One of the games he


developed was published as a book titled "GURPS Cyberpunk." Upon seeing


the word "cyberpunk," our fearless G-men assumed that the E911 document


was lurking on SJG's computers. The warrant was sealed, however, so for


months the SS led everyone to believe that they carted off SJG's computers


because SJG presumed to publish a science fiction book. This naturally


resulted in much sympathy for the defense. Without its computers the


company was crippled, and had to lay off half of its employees.





     In 1991 the company sued the government, and on 12 March 1993 a


federal judge in Austin awarded the company $42,000 for lost profits in


1990, plus expenses. He also ruled that the Secret Service violated the


1986 ECPA because it had seized stored messages from many users of the BBS


who were not suspected of anything. Several hackers in other cases have


actually gone to prison over the last few years. But considering how


sociopolitically stunted many hackers were until EFF finally sent in some


lawyers, it's amazing how little the government has to show for all of its


dramatic efforts.





     The term "cyberspace" is normally meant to convey that fuzzy area


between two digital devices, like the term "airwaves" that refers to a


thin slice of the spectrum most often used for communications. But only


a small portion of this accepted notion of cyberspace is in the form of


microwave links; the rest is plain old traces or wires, from inside the


microprocessor chip all the way to the telco office and beyond. Before


"cyberspace" finds its way into the dictionary, I propose an expanded


definition which will place the emphasis on the unique nature of digitized


information. Any digitized information is already in cyberspace, whether


it's in a file on a floppy, a CD-ROM at your local library, or a


minicomputer on an Internet node. Once digitized, information takes on an


entirely new quality; it is this quality that begs for a new word to


describe it.





     First and foremost, digitized information can be copied locally or


remotely an infinite number of times without any degradation. Secondly,


the physical space required for storage is minuscule by previous


standards. And finally, the software required to translate digitized


information between two devices with different functions is usually


trivial. However, if the data is converted to analog form, as when a file


is sent to a printer, then its "cyberspace" quality is lost. Converting


from the printed page back into ones and zeros is not trivial, and


generally causes information to be lost or degraded.





     NameBase resides in cyberspace, then, even though we send disks


through the mail. It's trivial to dump the results of searches into a new


file, and zap them by modem to another computer. Daisy-chain that file


between every computer in the world, and if the transfer software uses


error-correction protocol, at the end of the process you have exactly the


same file you started with. If it didn't infringe on our copyright, every


set of NameBase disks we've distributed could each generate an infinite


number of additional sets. Incidentally, another advantage to disk


distribution as opposed to on-line systems is its decentralized quality.


One of AT&T's computers in Dallas had so much extra capacity that they


generously allowed it to used as a BBS host. But as their paranoia


increased in 1990, AT&T considered it too risky and pulled the plug


without warning, leaving 1,500 little modems out there, searching and


chirping for their disconnected mother.[20]





     Any public or private intelligence agency that uses computers is


potentially more ominous than one that doesn't, and the public has a right


to expect certain standards for collection and dissemination. An example


of an intelligence agency that fails this test is the Anti-Defamation


League, whose San Francisco and Los Angeles offices were caught in a


scandal earlier this year. The tax-exempt ADL has 30 regional offices in


the U.S. (and offices in Canada, Paris, Rome, and Jerusalem), a staff of


400, and an annual budget of $32 million. For many decades they have been


gathering information on U.S. citizens, using public sources as well as


paid infiltrators, informants, investigators, and liaison with local law


enforcement and the FBI. There is also evidence of connections with Mossad


and South African intelligence.





     As a private agency the ADL enjoys no oversight, no requirements for


probable cause prior to political spying, and no Privacy Act or Freedom of


Information Act responsibilities to the public. By contrast, the FBI, CIA,


and some major police departments in the U.S. are held accountable by


various hard-won legal restrictions. Some observers feel that the ADL's


relationship with many local police, the FBI, and intelligence agencies


suggests that they are playing the role of a cutout. Government agencies


might be getting the information they want without incurring any legal


risk, simply by using the ADL. In exchange, the ADL apparently enjoys


privileged access to police and FBI files.





     This is what happened in San Francisco, where a police intelligence


officer (and former CIA agent in El Salvador) named Tom Gerard has been


indicted for passing confidential police intelligence files to the local


ADL office. Another principal in this case is Roy Bullock, who was a


secret employee of the ADL for 40 years, a close associate of Gerard, and


also an FBI informant. After learning that Gerard was meeting with South


African intelligence, the FBI investigated. This encouraged the


involvement of San Francisco prosecutors. They served two ADL offices with


search warrants, and Bullock's computer was seized from his home.


Interviews with Bullock revealed that he had tapped into one group's phone


message system, and his computer contained data on 9,876 individuals and


1,359 political groups, distributed about evenly on both the left and


right.[21] While it's evident that ADL spying is centrally coordinated


from New York by ADL spymaster Irwin Suall, at this writing it's unclear


whether San Francisco authorities will try to prosecute anyone from this


powerful organization.





     The ADL does not hail from any particular portion of the left-right


political spectrum. Such a classification is irrelevant once a group


becomes a private intelligence agency, as then they generally inbreed with


their adversaries and mutate into a peculiar political animal. John


Singlaub's Western Goals, and Political Research Associates (PRA) of


Cambridge, Massachusetts, both extremely tiny compared to the ADL, are two


additional examples of this phenomenon. All three groups identify with


certain constituencies as a flag of convenience: the ADL with the Jewish


community, Western Goals with the right, and PRA with the left. But by


using the same methods of collecting information -- garbage surveillance,


infiltration of target groups, and the use of guilt-by-association in


their propaganda -- each of these three groups has perverted itself with


clandestinism and denunciation for its own sake.





     This opinion of mine is based on statements from John Rees (formerly


of Western Goals and a person with extensive computer files on the left),


Chip Berlet of PRA (formerly a BBS operator, with extensive files on the


right), and testimony from Mira Boland of the ADL (extensive files on


everyone). All admit to attending one or more secret meetings in 1983-1984


with U.S. intelligence operatives such as Roy Godson, representatives from


intelligence-linked funding sources, and journalists such as Patricia


Lynch from NBC. Besides Berlet, other leftists attending included Dennis


King and Russ Bellant. The purpose of these meetings was to plan a


campaign against Lyndon LaRouche. The LaRouche organization was another


private intelligence agency, but they had too many curious foreign


contacts and were getting too close to certain individuals at the National


Security Council. More importantly, LaRouche opposed U.S. intervention in


Nicaragua just as the NSC was planning an expanded role there.[22] In


another ten years, scenarios like this might be played out in cyberspace.


Instead of a fifteen-year prison sentence, a future incarnation of


LaRouche might jack into his cyberspace deck one day, and to his horror,


discover that his collection of hard-won access codes no longer works.





     ADL national director Abraham Foxman defends his organization by


claiming that the ADL's sources "function in a manner directly analogous


to investigative journalists" and "the information ADL obtains is placed


in the public domain."[23] He adds that "the very people making these


charges [of ADL spying] themselves maintain and use such files whether


they be journalists, lawyers or academics."[24] But as we begin to enter


the cyberspace age, his excuses seem particularly inadequate.





     We have only Foxman's dubious word that ADL's information is placed


in the public domain. Various investigative journalists, even those whose


interests parallel the ADL's, have told me that it's difficult to get


access to the ADL's main library in New York; you have to be connected


to their old-boy network before you can see their files. Secondly,


journalists seldom use the methods preferred by ADL's spies: going through


a target's garbage and using deception to infiltrate target groups. On


the rare occasions that a journalist does these things, it is implicitly


balanced against the public interest, and done only to develop a specific


story. Once published, the journalist's targets know what happened and


have recourse to civil litigation. Normally journalists are expected by


the standards of common decency to contact all parties criticized in


a story, and double source any dubious items. Journalists identify


themselves before soliciting any information, in order to provide the


choice of cooperating on the record, not for attribution, on background,


off the record, or refusing comment altogether. Finally, the public


reasonably expects that journalists are not secretly working with law


enforcement and intelligence agencies.





     Foxman is simply blowing smoke on this issue. At Public Information


Research we resent any hint of a comparison between his activities and


ours. NameBase is basically a value-added public library; it has a


citation from the public record for every bit of information, and is


available to every member of the public. The extra value comes from


the enhanced access to the public record. We don't consort with law


enforcement or intelligence agencies, and we don't use deception to


collect information.





     On one occasion in ten years, a person whose name we had indexed


complained to me that the source we cited misrepresented the facts. I


asked him for a copies of published material about him that he considered


more accurate, and cited these under his name along with the original


citation. (If he didn't have such sources, but could convince me that a


source we cited was mistaken, then I would I have deleted the citation.)


On another occasion a person with whom I had worked for two years was


upset to find her name in NameBase after I entered a book about the left


that was published by the right. Her name is still in NameBase because I


knew that the information about her in this book was true. I don't claim


to be objective; my subjectivity is seen in the annotations I write for


the sources, and in the selection of materials for inputting. This level


of subjectivity comes with the territory -- sometimes it's unavoidable,


and other times I like it, feeling that it's my only reason for


continuing. But at the same time I do try to use common sense.





     It would be comforting to have a Cyberspace Bill of Rights and


Responsibilities, if the target wasn't moving so rapidly. Even an issue as


self-evident as "privacy" is tricky, as the transnational corporations


join the chorus in an effort to preclude government regulation. The


international elites who control these corporations are well on their way


toward installing the New World Order, and are no friends of the little


guy who really needs privacy. Then again, our national security apparatus


has an equally poor record. Everyone is waiting to see where the chips


fall before they declare themselves. In the meantime we find ourselves


peering over the edge into cyberspace, surrounded by high-tech hype and


journalistic buzzwords. We need a better-informed public with a keener


sense of their own interests, but there's no time to wait. For those of us


who work in this new cyberspace, our ethical thinking -- the ability to


consider interests beyond our own -- must be honed to a new level.





 1.  David Burnham, The Rise of the Computer State. Forward by Walter


     Cronkite. (New York: Random House, 1983), pp. 124, 130, 206.





 2.  Ibid., p. 139.





 3.  John Smith, "Public Key Cryptography," Byte Magazine, January 1983,


     pp. 198-218.





 4.  Kevin Kelly, "Cypherpunks, E-Money, and the Technologies of


     Disconnection," Whole Earth Review, Summer 1993, pp. 46-47.





 5.  Washington Times, 10 May 1993, p. A3, citing a recent issue of


     Boardwatch, "a leading BBS magazine."





 6.  Robert Wright, "The New Democrat from Cyberspace," The New Republic,


     24 May 1993, p. 20.





 7.  Bruce Sterling, "A Statement of Principle," Science Fiction Eye, June


     1992, pp. 14-18.





 8.  John Mintz and John Schwartz, "Chipping Away at Privacy? Encryption


     Device Widens Debate Over Rights of U.S. to Eavesdrop," Washington


     Post, 30 May 1993, pp. H1, H4.





 9.  Wright, p. 26.





10.  Ari Ben-Menashe, Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms


     Network (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1992), pp. 127-141.





11.  Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War (Berkley Publishing, 1977),


     p. 25.





12.  Doug Birch, "Master of the Politics of Paranoia," Baltimore Sun


     Magazine, 5 June 1988, p. 26.





13.  Charles Piller, "Privacy in Peril," Macworld, July 1993, p. 124.





14.  Charles Piller, "Bosses With X-Ray Eyes," Macworld, July 1993,


     p. 120.





15.  Piller, "Privacy in Peril," p. 126-127.





16.  Produced for IBM-compatibles with a CD-ROM drive by ProCD, 8 Doaks


     Lane, Little Harbor, Marblehead MA 01945, Tel: 617-631-9200, Fax:


     617-631-9299. Suggested list for ProPhone is $449, but several


     mail-order firms offer it for $179 or less.





17.  Cindy Skrzycki, "Dark Side of the Data Age," Washington Post,


     Business Section, 3 May 1993, pp. 19, 28.





18.  Mintz and Schwartz, p. H4.





19.  Bruce Sterling, The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the


     Electronic Frontier (New York: Bantam books, 1992), p. 278.





20.  Ibid., pp. 125-126, 141-142.





21.  I obtained the 700 pages of documents which San Francisco prosecutors


     released on 8 April 1993. For a summary of this case see Robert I.


     Friedman, "The Enemy Within," Village Voice, 11 May 1993, pp. 27-32;


     and Richard C. Paddock, "New Details of Extensive ADL Spy Operation


     Emerge," Los Angeles Times, 13 April 1993, pp. A1, A16.





22.  For an outline of the conspiracy against LaRouche by the ADL and U.S.


     intelligence operatives, see U.S. District Court for the Eastern


     District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, Petitioners' Rebuttal to


     the Government's Response and Memorandum. In United States v. Lyndon


     H. LaRouche, Jr., William F. Wertz, Jr. and Edward W. Spannaus, Case


     No. 88-243-A. Submitted by Odin Anderson, Ramsey Clark, and Scott T.


     Harper, attorneys for the defense, 1 May 1992, pp. 1-16. For a


     description of the secret meetings at the residence of John Train,


     see Herbert Quinde, Affidavit, Commonwealth of Virginia, County of


     Loudoun, 20 January 1992, pp. 1-28. Quinde describes interviews with


     Rees, Berlet, and several others. For confirmation of Chip Berlet's


     role, see Doug Birch, "Master of the Politics of Paranoia," Baltimore


     Sun Magazine, 5 June 1988, p. 27. Birch's description of John Rees'


     career includes a quotation from Chip Berlet, a longtime Rees


     watcher, that inadvertently confirms Berlet's collusion with Rees at


     an anti-LaRouche meeting. Berlet's spying is confirmed by his


     quotations in David Miller, "Letter from Boston," Forward, 22 January


     1993, pp. 1, 14. This article also quotes ADL's Leonard Zakim: "The


     information that Political Research Associates has shared with us has


     been very useful."





23.  Abraham H. Foxman, "Letter to the Editor," Village Voice, 18 May


     1993, p. 5.





24.  Abraham H. Foxman, "It's a Big Lie, Hailed by Anti-Semites," New York


     Times, 28 May 1993, p. A29.





Posted Courtesy of A-albionic Research, authorized distributor of the 


NameBase DataBase:   {$79.00 postpaid}





\\\\\<jhdaugh@a-albionic.com>\\\\\\\*////////<info@a-albionic.com///////////


James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,


Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the


entire political-ideological spectrum.  Quarterly journal, book sales,


rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date


Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. 


**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******


 e-mail: majordomo@mail.msen.com    |  <http://gopher.a-albionic.com:9006/>


message: info prj                   |      <ftp://ftp.a-albionic.com/>


         get prj gopher/keytogopher |      <gopher.a-albionic.com 9006>


////////////////////////////////////*\\\\\\\\\\\<ftp.a-albionic.com>\\\\\\\\