From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:20:27 +0800
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: HACKER REPORT
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960726215253.16311A-100000@crl9.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Just saw part I of a two-part series on "hackers" being broadcast
by a local San Francisco TV station.  Nothing horrible, in my
opinion.  The adroitly sidestepped the hacker/cracker distinction
by saying the "hacker" has come to mean..." and then gave the
negative, intrusive definition.

The interviewed a spokesman for "InsWeb" an on-line insurance
company that has been the target of "hackers."  During the filmed
segment, they did a trace-route on the intrusion which lead back
to Germany.

The explained "social engineering" and showed how a hacker could
get someone to reveal their password.  They also interviewed a
San Jose computer crime cop named Keith Lowery.  He didn't add
much to the discussion.

At the end, Pete Wilson (the TV guy, not the governor) said
something like, "Hackers tells us that the problem may be 
overblown.  Most people--and this includes most hackers--know 
the difference between right and wrong."

Tomorrow's show should be more interesting (and possibly much
more sensationalistic).  Part II is "The Hacker Underground."
Oooh, scary!


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~