[Parts of this have been clipped. Relevant parts remain.] [Note: Begin of slander saying Lewis Koch helped Angry Johnny with an email bomb spree. Happy Hacker Digest Feb. 10 -- B, 1997 Special Email Bombing Flame War Issue OK, here goes: people hiding behind their hacker handles speaking up in defense of email bombing. Now remember, Happy Hackers -- don't give these guys a taste of their own medicine. We need to show how real hackers deal with differences of opinion. Email bombing and rming their systems is just lowering ourselves to their level. > From: jericho@dimensional.com > To: "Carolyn P. Meinel" > Subject: Re: Guide to (mostly) Harmless Hacking > > > Email bombs! People like angry johnny [xchaotic], AKA the "Unamailer," have > > What did we say about this, that is not his name. > > (Moderator's note: since the journalist who worked with angry johnny to make > this story happen decided to call him johnny xchaotic, we need to let the > readers know that we are talking about the same case.) Two wrongs don't make a right do they? All of the authors who messed up on his name were corrected at one point or another. > fact, that is THE major reason I object to Koch's ethics. Whether he could > actually be convicted, his behavior is what I interpret as accessory to the > crime.) Accessory? He did nothing to help AJ in his efforts. [snip] > knowledge of what was to come also insults AJ for being stupid in > releasing that information to a journalist. Not because of a trust issue, > but because of the potential of someone trying to stop the attack. > > (Moderator: Koch could step forward at any time and tell us AJ was not that > stupid. But he has refused to do so.) He refused to do so several pieces of mail before this. Lewis has already decided to avoid this because of your continued insults against his integrity, writing, and everything else. I do hope he steps up this time and clears that up though. > From: jericho@dimensional.com > Subject: Re: Happy Hacker Digest Jan. 20, 1997 > > > Certainly the just-released Guide to (mostly) Harmless Hacking on how to > > fight email bombing struck a sore nerve with Lew Koch. He's the journalist > > Unfounded accusations or even hints of those accusations do that to > people. > > (Moderator: founded accusations make people even more upset.) Ahh! So you hint that you have some kind of proof (again). PLEASE back this since you are so fond of wording sentences like this. > (Moderator: the issue is not merely prior knowledge. It is collaboration. > Without Koch's agreement weeks in advance of the crime, the crime would not > have tken place. True, angry johnny might have found another journalist What?! How can YOU be so sure? How do you know what would have happened? Maybe YOU have inside knowledge of what johnny is doing. Did he tell you his plans? You sound so sure of it. According to johnny, the attack was going through regardless of Koch. > willing to help him out. Unfortunately many journalists, such as those who > write for the _National Enquirer_ will do that. But just because others may > share his lack of ethical standards in no way excuses him for his actions.) > Can you please quote where Koch says he hates the list? > > (Moderator: collaborating with angry johnny as publcity manager for his lame > email bomb stunt was an attack on the list. Angry johnny specifically said h > email bombed me because of the list.) WHERE DOES ***************LEWIS*************** SAY HE HATES THE LIST. QUOTE THAT SOURCE PLEASE. Or do you practice guilt by association with everyone and everything? If so, go ahead and turn yourself in for the various crimes people have committed and told you about. And johnny attacked you because of the list, not the list itself. Duh. > (Moderator: so now Kcoh has further blackened the name of hackers by writing > about the vandalism of > angry johnny. Email bombing is incredibly common and done by people who, as > Silicon Toad points out, are not hackers. We don't need yellow journaists > like Koch pretending to befriend the hacker community.) Oh, so we need more journalists who don't even get both sides of the story? Good thinking. > > Angry johnny, Lew Koch, galf -- all of you who keep on trying to shut us > > AGAIN! WE COVERED THIS DAMMIT. You KNOW that johnny did not try to bring > down the HH list. You KNOW that he targeted YOU and YOU ONLY. > > (Moderator: then why in his manifesto did angry johnny claim he targeted me > because and only because of the Happy Hacker list?) YOU STUPID ARROGANT BITCH. THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL COVER THIS BASIC POINT FOR YOUR OBVIOUSLY BLIND ASS. HE TARGETED YOU. HE SAID HE TARGETED YOU. HE GAVE A REASON FOR WHY HE HIT YOU. HE DID NOT SAY HE ATTACKED THE LIST. HE DIDN'T EVEN HIT YOUR ADDRESS ON THE SAME MACHINE THE LIST IS RUN OFF OF. QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. Did I use small enough words there? > (Moderator: the best cure for free speech you don't like is not to shut me > down. It is more free speech. That is why I print material I disagree with > to this list. I moderate this list primarily to keep it from being boring. I > hope this exchange hasn't been boring to you readers.) Ahh, so you believe in lies as a way to deceive the readers of the HH list, and justify it by freedom of speech? Come on! From: Artimage Reply-To: Artimage To: "Carolyn P. Meinel" cc: dc-stuff@dis.org Subject: Re: Happy Hacker Digest Feb. 7, 1997 First, please post this to the HH list. I'd like to start by saying that I've really tried to be fair to you in our past communications, but I do feel a bit slighted that you rarely respond to most of my points. Hence this time I will try to be straightforward, possibly to the point of being blunt. On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Carolyn P. Meinel wrote: > Happy Hacker Digest Feb. 7, 1997 > ____________________________________ > > MEINEL ANNOUNCES WAR AGAINST WEB SITES THAT OFFER EMAIL BOMBER PROGRAM DOWNLOADS > > > Well, guess what, I'm not going to give out those URLs here. I figure most > people on this list could find them really easily. And the ones who can't, > well, I'm not going to help you do irresponsible things. > I completely agree with this, you definately don't have to help people do anything, good or bad. > Now here's my challenge. See if you can beat me at getting those email > bomber sites off the Web. It's something even a beginner can do. > I find this appalling, you are advocating censorship. You have just made yourself an a "cybercop". I don't see what gives you the right to judge what programs are Ok for people to offer on their web sites and which aren't. Many people didn't like the idea of PGP, there are numerous arguments against it being available. (I might note that I disagree with these reasons, but there are those who didn't want it to be distributed) Just becuase you find a program to be questonable doesn't give you the right to try to censor that person. > Have you seen the Guide to (mostly) Harmless Hacking Vol. 1 No. 6 -- How to > Nuke Offensive Webs Sites? I show the legal procedure with step-by-step > hacking techniques for getting rid of bad news stuff. I show myself getting > mightily tempted by a buggy Web server, but backing off and doing the right > thing. > I've read this article. I'll sum it up for the readers. User finger, telnet, and ping to check out a site. Then use your web browser to find somthing you find objectionable. Finally write email to that persons ISP and complain. Yep that is it... You go running to an authority figure and try to impose your will on their users. Sure the article has some technical info in it, but the end result is that you ask for them to be punished by their sysadmin for somthing you don't like. Doesn't sound much like the hacker ethic to me. (Information wants to be free) Now to make this easier to swallow, it was written about kiddie porn. Sure, I don't like the idea of child porn, but now your advocating somthing totally different. Now you want to take down those sites that offer email bombers. > If you want to turbo charge your study of legal hacker techniques to cut a > bad news Web site off from the Internet, you may add to your arsenal the > techniques in GTMHH Vol. 3 No. 2, "How to Map the Internet." > Yeah, you too can do dns lookups so that when you run to their sysadmin you can give them all the facts. But why bother, I'll make it even easier for you. Carolyn has often praised Silicon Toad's web site as being newbie friendly and a great place. Unfortunately she is now going to have to shut it down since it has those terrible email bombing programs. http://www.vcalpha.com/silicon/arch3.html#anon Or maybe Silicon Toad's sys-admin will be a free speech advocate and won't listen to her... We can only hope. The problem with censorship is that if we are allowed to censor others, it won't be long before they are allowed to censor us. > > ************************* > Tip for irresponsible email bombers: not a single one of these programs will > really truly keep you anonymous. Do you really think the programmers of > these weapons would turn them loose and then be helpless to defend > themselves against you guys? No way. Each of the programs has a way the If you can't defend yourself against an email bomb attack you don't deserve to call yourself a hacker. Simple procmail filters are all you need to defend yourself. > victim can get back at you. Do you want to take that gamble? Besides, we all > think email bombing is lame because you don't have to know anything > whatsoever to use them. > ************************* Who is we all Carolyn? Who are you speeking for? Certianly not the "elite" hacker underground. You yourself have said they don't like what you're doing. I'm not saying they think email bombing is cool, but really you shouldn't lead others to believe that you somehow speek for hackers everywhere, or really anywhere. For newbies who believe this list is a good thing I'd like to make a couple points. 1) By being spoon-fed information no one benifits. If you are studying this stuff on your own then you really don't need this list. 2) Much of the information on this list is incorrect or incomplete, at least in the first few printings. You would be much better off buying an O'Rielly book or 3. 3) Many people complain that older hackers won't teach them anything or answer questions. There are two points to this. First, these people taught themselves, no one gave them the information. Second, if you have researched your question to the best of your abilities beforehand, and it is a specific question it will most often be answered. But no one really wants to answer the question "How do I send Fakemail?" since there have been Faq's on this floating about for years. You just need to do a little looking thats all. To sum it up, Hackers teach themselves. That is the whole point... If you want to crack into systems, you can have someone show you how, but to be a hacker means that you explore the system on your own... Chaos.- (double >> is Lewis Koch talking.. single > is Brett Perlas) >> I VERY CAREFULLY MADE NO ANSWER TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT PRIOR >> KNOWLEDGE OF WHO WAS GOING TO BE HIT. You have made the first, >> and worst mistake any junior >> wannbe reporter makes -- you assumed that since I had conversations with >> johnny prior to the email bombing, he also told me about who his targets >> would be. Thus you wrote that I "clearly knew a great deal more >> than I about the list of johnny's targets." You never asked if I knew who >> was going to be hit ahead of the incident and I never commented. If you >> had asked me, "Lew, did you know who johnny's targets would be before they >> were hit?" I would have not answered. You would not have gotten a "Yes" >> or a "No" or even "No comment." You would have received no information >> -- in the same manner other people have indeed asked me the same question >> and garnered the same response -- no response. None what so ever. Period. > > I'll just start off by saying, among the other things I do, I am also a >writer for my school newspaper, so thats makes me the MOST junior of either >of you two. However, >"giving no response" IS no comment. Come on Lewis, your a big journalist, >saying nothing at all is giving no comment, where do you think the term >came from? > No comment, as most everyone knows, is NOT "no" Of course it's not yes, >but it's most importantly not "no" While taking the fifth is your right as >an American, even, and especially you as a journalist must admit that does >not work to your advantage at all. Now, I won't even mention Marc >Fuhrman... I guess the people will have to think what they will eh? I >know what I think. > > >> "clearly" is clearly incorrect. And I am the one with the firsthand >> knowledge. >> >> In terms of prior knowledge, I also mentioned to you that the subject was >> not new to me, that I had taken part in lengthy discussions about the >> whole question of prior knowledge of possible criminal or quasi-criminal >> acts when >> I was covering Vietnam War and student protest demonstrations during >> the 1960s and 70s. I said that a reporter one needed to distinguish >> between the crimes one had prior knowledge of, i.e. disrupting traffic >> and, say, assassination, just as one needs. I knew about lots of >> demonstrations ahead of time and not once did I notify the police. >> I am a journalist, not a cop. > > You're right, your not a cop, so are you saying you would not have told >anybody if you did have prior knowledge of Johnny's targets? (which you do >not deny) > Also, I was not alive then, but I know people very dear to me who were >alive and who did serve in the Vietnam war. The protesting by the people >in the 60's was about protesting an unjustifiable war, not about exercising >first amendment rights. Because something is done in the process of doing >something else, does not make each thing of equal relevance. You, and >organizations like the ACLU support extreme examples of Constitution rights >for the simple purpose of self glorification, and a sensationalist desire >to have a juicy story. It seems to me that you should start practicing >what you preach, if you want to continue to give Carolyn tips on her >journalistic ethics. >This is my opinion and anybody can flame me... > >Brett Perlas >Meltdown >bperlas@earthlink.net (I will not accept any coincidental email bombings >Mr. Koch) > >>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:24:53 -0600 >>To: cmeinel@techbroker.com >>From: Lewis Z Koch >>Subject: Please post when you can >> >>Carolyn: >> >>I would like one thing to be very clear to your list >> >>When you wrote: >> >>>But since Koch tells me he was in contact with angry >>>johnny in the weeks leading up to the mass email bombings of Christmas 1996, >>>he clearly knew a great deal more than I about the list of johnny's targets. >>>I also am a journalist, but deferred to Koch by not trying to beat him to >>>the scoop.) >> >>You are mistaken, wrong -- completely, totally wrong. When you and I >talked, you questioned me in several different ways about what I knew and >when I knew it. You reminded me that in a conversation with Ira Winkler of >the National Computer Security Association about the matter, he commented >that prior knowledge about a crime-to-be-committed made one an accomplice. >>If Winkler believes that I may be guilty of a Federal crime then it may be >his legal or moral obligation to report me to the proper authorities, the >FBI I believe would be a first start. The phone number of his local FBI >office is available through telephone information. >> >>I VERY CAREFULLY MADE NO ANSWER TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF >WHO WAS GOING TO BE HIT. You have made the first, and worst mistake any >junior wannbe reporter makes -- you assumed that since I had conversations >with johnny prior to the email bombing, he also told me about who his >targets would be. Thus you wrote that I "clearly knew a great deal more >than I about the list of johnny's targets." You never asked if I knew who >was going to be hit ahead of the incidednt and I never commented. If you >had asked me, "Lew, did you know who johnny's targets would be before they >were hit?" I would have not answered. You would not have gotten a "Yes" >or a "No" or even "No comment." You would have received no information -- >in the same manner other people have indeed asked me the same question and >garnered the same response -- no response. None what so ever. Period. So >your "clearly" is clearly incorrect. And I am the one with the firsthand >knowledge. >> >>In terms of prior knowledge, I also mentioned to you that the subject was >not new to me, that I had taken part in lengthy discussions about the whole >question of prior knowledge of possible criminal or quasi-criminal acts >when I was covering Vietnam War and student protest demonstrations during >the 1960s and 70s. I said that a reporter one needed to distinguish >between the crimes one had prior knowledge of, i.e.disrupting traffic and, >say, assassination, just as one needs. I knew about lots of demonstrations >ahead of time and not once did I notify the police. I am a journalist, not >a cop. >> >>That is my obligation as a reporter. Just so the people on your list have >a clearer understanding of journalistic ethics. And if Ira needs the FBI >phone number, please give my phone number and I will look it up for him.