That's right, personal communication services.
Yeah.
Sorry, this whole place is falling apart.
It's all these moments of silence here.
Okay, 500, 500 area code.
What is the 500 area code going to mean to you?
Well, basically, picture this.
Picture having a telephone number where you carry it around with you all your life.
I know that's what the people at AT&T said only a year or so ago
concerning the 0700 numbers that they introduced.
Well, guess what?
They're going to have to change those numbers
because now they've come up with a brand new standard
and those 0700 personal easy reach numbers that you ordered
so that you'd never have to get another phone number in your life.
Well, you're probably going to have to change those to the 500 area code.
I'll tell you what they say in this Belcourt release.
For the purpose of the 500 SAC personal communication service
as defined in the assignment guidelines
is a set of capabilities that allows some combination of personal mobility,
terminal mobility, and service profile management.
These capabilities enable each personal communication service user
to participate in a user-defined set of subscribed services
and blah, blah, blah.
Boy, they can't talk English here.
Basically, it means that you're allowed to have a particular instrument,
whether it be a cellular phone or a steady phone,
the phone that doesn't connect to, well, it does connect to wires,
assigned to this particular phone number
that you would carry around with you all the time.
Something else it says in here, which is rather interesting,
is that the 600 area code has already been assigned.
The telecommunications industry has identified the need
for the assignment of a singular non-geographic code
for personal communication services
because the currently assigned special area codes
of 600, 700, 800, and 900
are already recognized by the public.
I didn't know that.
Anybody out there in the public that recognizes the 600 area code?
I can't even recognize the 700 area code.
Nobody seems to know what that one's for.
But here at Belcourt,
they seem to think it's all figured out already.
Well, as soon as we figure out what the 600 area code is all about,
we'll let you know about that.
But right now, this is what the 500 area code seems to be all about.
And as far as charging for it,
here's a quote.
Absent a uniform industry-wide charging plan,
charging will be service provider-specific.
Service providers are encouraged to develop a method of caller-slash-user charge awareness,
particularly if and where calling-party-paying arrangements exist.
You just know that's going to work out just great.
And 500-555 will be reserved pending a decision by the industry on whether and how
to use it for personal communications service number directory assistance.
So, those companies interested in applying for a 500 area code exchange,
they have to do it by June 17th.
Not much time at all.
They have to fill out a PCS-N00NXX code form.
That's what it's called.
Yeah, a PCS-N00NXX code form.
And I sure hope they know how to fill that out.
That's the 500 area code update.
Now, something even more interesting than that, I think,
is the plan for the 555 exchange.
Now, those of you that use the telephone, and I think most of you do,
know that 555 is generally used for information.
Well, there's a plan afoot to expand that in a dramatic way.
Anybody will be able to get a 555 number,
any business that is, that provides any kind of informational service.
So, some numbers that might have 976 numbers now
could very well find themselves moved over to a 555 exchange.
And it could be nationwide.
The way they define it, they say if a particular number
is used in more than 30% of the country,
one particular number, then it will be known as a national number,
and not a local number.
And that number will be reserved for them throughout the entire country.
A non-national number, obviously, is one that only would work, say,
in New York City or in a particular area code,
or something less than 30%.
555-1212 will always be used for information.
That is, phone company information, but 555-2323 could be used for anything.
Whatever people apply for.
So, again, the deadline to apply for this,
and I don't know why they're sending these forms out so late,
June 17th, 1994.
So, that's going to be kind of a thrilling thing to have happen.
There is something known as fictitious numbers.
They even address this, fictitious numbers.
A few people have asked about this already before we even brought this up.
What about those numbers on TV that you see advertised all the time?
You know, the fake numbers, the numbers that you can't call
because, you know, the numbers that they give out on TV shows.
Oh, call me at 555-6934.
Well, a 555 line number in the range between and including 555-0100 to 555-0199.
These numbers will not be assigned to be placed in service.
They, therefore, may be used by the entertainment-slash-advertising industries
in advertisements, publications, radio, television, movies, etc.
Calls to these numbers placed accidentally or, by curiosity seekers, will not complete.
Well, being a curiosity seeker,
we have a dial tone here, and we're going to be calling 555-0100.
And let's see if there's anything there.
Theoretically, there should not be anything here.
What listing, please?
I'm sorry, who's this?
Uh, 9-Nex directory assistance.
Oh, I'm calling a fictitious number.
I wasn't expecting to get somebody.
Are you calling the one off the TV?
Uh, yeah.
How'd you know?
Chris, whenever you dial 555, you're going to get me.
You dial 555-0100.
Yes, I did.
Yeah.
I see.
So, is this an information operator?
Yes.
I see.
They told me that I wouldn't get anybody, actually.
I was wondering if I'd get a recording.
Yeah, you get, whenever you dial 555, it just jumps right into us.
Okay.
So, you're just regular information, then.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, thanks anyway.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
They just made 45 cents for doing absolutely nothing, and I hope they fix that, because
fictitious numbers should not charge you, should they?
All right.
June 17th, 1994.
We'll be watching that deadline.
Yeah.
Okay.
Something else I wanted to call up.
Remember last week, we did a little experiment with 9X's new service of Call Mover Plus.
Well, let's call up the number that took them two days to install.
Apparently, when you make a new recording, you have to have your message approved.
You can't just tell them what your new number is.
They have to listen to the message and make sure that it makes sense and follows all the
rules.
So, let's see what they...
Okay.
That didn't work out.
Let's try this again.
We should get a recording with my voice that we recorded right here at BAI last week.
Hello.
You have reached a number which is no longer in service, but do not fret.
The new number for the voicemail system is area code 516-473-2626.
And that's not all.
Here's my assistant to give you more information.
Please hold on and the number 473.
816-473-2626 will be automatically dialed for you.
Okay.
That's what happens if it's busy.
So, we saw a completion of that experiment, which took two weeks to complete, but it did
work.
And that's another 9X invention.
It's 12 minutes after 10 o'clock, and we have Ed from Long Island on the telephone.
Ed, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
Okay.
Ed had a misadventure with the brand new New York City MetroCard system, that being the
new system that allows you to pay for your subway fare in advance and use a neat little
magnetic card.
And, well, tell us exactly what happened to you.
Okay.
Well, I purchased the card in April.
I don't know which date exactly.
It was probably the second week of April.
And I purchased a $5 MetroCard.
And I purchased it at the subway station at 34th Street and 6th Avenue.
So, I usually use my MetroCard to travel to and from Rockefeller Center from that station.
Well, I had used the card twice, once to get to work in the morning, once to get back.
I came in the next morning, went into the 34th Street subway station, and ran my card through, and the balance was zero.
Now, I had only used $2.50 of it, so that means there was $2.50 still on my account.
But, when I ran the card through, the balance came up zero.
What really bothered me was when I went to the station and asked them, you know, could you straighten this out?
Because they had reassured us early on that if anything ever went wrong with the card, we'd just go to the station and they would verify our balance.
Well, they told me that there was nothing on my account, and that there was no way I could have proven that there was any money still left on my account.
And so, essentially, I was out $2.50.
So, basically, one day you just had nothing on your card the day before you did, and your card was in your possession the entire time?
Yes.
Okay, that's interesting, and I've heard it said before that such things have happened.
This is the first documented case that I've come into contact with.
I do know that the subway system was having a problem with double swipes.
In other words, you would go through and swipe your card, and instead of counting once, it would count twice.
However, in this particular case, we'd have to have something like a triple swipe.
And I believe you told me that it told you what your balance was after you finished swiping at that time.
Is that right?
Yes, it did.
And, in fact, each time I had used it, the first time I had used the card, my balance was $3.75.
The next time I had used it, it said my balance was $2.50.
That was just leaving work that day.
Uh-huh.
The next morning, I ran the card through, and the balance was $0.00.
It said insufficient fare.
And your card was not tampered with, was not wiped out, erased, or anything like that?
It sat in my wallet all night.
Uh-huh.
What I suspect happened is that somehow somebody gained access to the computer system, whether they had authorized access or non-authorized access,
and changed the account that your card was attached to.
We did a little experiment here at WBAI.
We took one of those Metro cards, and we tried to erase it.
We have magnetic erasers here at the radio station, and we ran it over really good.
If you put any kind of a magnetic medium on what's known as a bulk eraser, you will wipe it out completely.
A videotape, an audio tape, if you just put it on there and hit the button, it's completely wiped out in a second.
Well, we did that to the card.
This will also work with credit cards and digital watches, too, I understand.
And we did it to this particular Metro card.
It did not erase it.
We went down to the subway, and it was still in perfect working order.
So that adds some questions as to how exactly this system works.
Is it, in fact, a magnetic strip at all, or is it some other kind of a strip that cannot be tampered with in that particular way?
And the question still remains, of course, how was your account tampered with?
What I have heard is that it's one giant Unix system where every single card is an account.
And, of course, that adds the question as to how can they possibly have so many different questions going on as to how much does this card have going through the entire subway system.
So it seems that the technology for that is monumental and may not even exist yet.
However, that seems to be the most likely scenario, that they are using some sort of a centralized, redundant database.
And that's where all the information is kept, not on your card.
The card simply has the serial number, and it's not updated on that particular card.
Again, I should point out at the Hope Conference in August, we will have a seminar, a workshop, if you will,
that will do nothing but try and figure out this card and try and beat this card.
We'll be having maybe 1,000 hackers coming from around the world with that in mind.
So that's something that the transit authorities should probably take note of,
because one way or another we will figure out this system.
Ed, I want to thank you for dropping in, and sorry about losing the $250 like that.
Okay, thank you.
All right, keep us updated if anything else happens.
No.
All right.
Also on the phone with us tonight, Brock Meeks, reporter from Washington, D.C.
Brock, are you with us?
Yes, I'm right here.
Okay.
Now, a couple of interesting things have happened, both to you and involving the clipper chip
over the past couple of weeks and a couple of months, actually.
Why don't we start with the clipper chip?
Now, some of us have read in the newspapers of the last week or so that there was some sort
of a compromise, a potential compromise.
What exactly is going on?
Yeah, the National Security Agency gave out some TESSRA cards, which are kind of a cousin
to the clipper chip, asking people to test them and run all kinds of beta tests on them
with the intent of trying to compromise them somehow.
Now, the thing that is common to both of the clipper chip and to this TESSRA card, the clipper
chip is used for voice, fax, and data communications.
And this TESSRA card is a PCMCIA credit card size device that is used mainly for electronic mail.
Both of these use something called a law enforcement access field, which is just a 16-bit data stream
that transmits what amounts to the social security number of the specific chip.
And once that leaf is obtained by law enforcement, they can then take that to the government and
get the correct keys to de-scramble a clipper-encoded conversation or whatever.
Now, an AT&T scientist, Matt Blaze, found out that that 16-bit leaf was susceptible to being
thwarted or compromised.
And once that has been thwarted or compromised, the law enforcement agents then can't identify
the correct keys and the whole system goes down the drain.
Now, how was that 16-bit leaf able to be compromised?
Well, what Matt did was, because it's only 16-bits long, that means that any random sequence of
16-bits has a 1 in 65,000 chance of passing.
It's just a simple checksum test.
And so what he did was he just hooked these two chips together and started running checksum
sequences until he hit one that passed the test.
And it took him less than 30 minutes to do so.
And is this something that is not just a one-time thing?
This can happen consistently?
Yeah, but according to Matt, he actually wrote a paper on this, and it's floating around
someplace on the Internet.
Every time that you would establish a connection, you would have to run this checksum program
against the chip each time, but if somebody is security conscious or the fact that this
flaw even exists at all, when the government has told us and has asked us essentially to
place all of our privacy in the hands of this one chip, the fact that this flaw exists is
pretty disturbing.
I've heard various agencies coming to the defense of the clipper chip saying that that's not
really that serious, that it's something that only could potentially in the future be a
problem, but they caught it early.
Do you buy that at all?
Well, I've heard some people say that also, and some other people like Dorothy Denning, who
was an expert, an independent expert that checked out the clipper chip algorithm to make sure
that it had no back doors and so forth, she has said that this won't work against the
clipper chip, against the telephone conversation, because it would take too long that the chip
would actually, what she said, would time out before this whole checksum routine ran, and
so that it wouldn't be possible.
But what most people are saying is that it wouldn't be practical.
Now, the fact that they've caught it this early means that they will probably beef it up
or whatever, but the fact is that the National Security Agency actually knew that this flaw
existed before they even sent it out for testing.
They just withheld that information from the public.
And I published an article in Cyber Wire Dispatch the day after the first flaw was ran in the
New York Times, I ran a Cyber Wire Dispatch article that broke the story that NSA knew about this
flaw, but just didn't tell anybody.
That brings, that begs the question, you know, what the hell else is there wrong with this
thing that they're just not telling people?
Or what other hidden features might they have that they don't want us to know about as well?
Exactly.
Now, this particular flaw, bear with me here because I'm trying to understand this.
Would this allow you to simply not be able to transmit data or would this allow you to
actually listen in?
No, all this does is it fouls up the law enforcement agencies being able to identify your particular
chip.
And if they can't identify what particular chip is in your phone or in your computer or
whatever, then they have no way of asking, of going to the government escrow agents to
hold the other keys and getting the keys to decrypt your encoded conversations or whatever.
So this would hurt law enforcement more than anybody else?
Oh, yeah.
It essentially ties their hands.
They can't do anything.
So how does law enforcement feel about this being revealed?
Are they happy that they caught it this early or are they kind of angry?
Well, they're embarrassed more than anything else that this was found.
Frankly, I think they were just hoping that nobody would find this and they wouldn't have
to expend the time and the resources to beef this thing up because now what they can...
I believe it's a relatively trivial matter to turn this from a 16-bit checksum into a
32-bit or 64-bit or whatever.
But then isn't it just a question of technology catching up?
Probably.
I mean, I'm not your hardcore hacker, so you'd probably be in a better position to do that.
But as one person told me on the cypherpunks list, you know, any lock that's made, somebody's
going to be able to break it sooner or later.
Right.
I mean, 10 years ago, how long would it have taken to crack a 16-bit code of this sort?
Probably would have taken a very long time.
Probably would have taken a week.
Yeah.
And 10 years from now, probably a 32-bit won't be much of a challenge either.
Right.
So, yeah, it doesn't seem like it's very reassuring as far as that particular thing goes.
Well, imagine a world, and this is a world I'm sure that very few of us actually want,
but a world where the clipper chip is in use all over the place.
What would have happened had this been revealed then?
Would everything have just completely fallen apart?
Well, you know, this question was asked at a privacy panel that was held by the Electronic
Privacy Information Center just last week, and it was asked to one of the people that
works for the National Information Standards and Technology Agency that is kind of running
point on this whole clipper thing.
They said, what would happen, just like you said, what would happen if there was a hundred
thousand, a million of these chips out there, and we find this flaw in it?
And he basically said, well, they'd be out of luck.
We would just have to find something else.
So the entire system would have been worthless at that point?
The entire system would have been worthless at that point, exactly.
Uh-huh.
And he just kind of put up his hands and said, well, that's just the way that it goes.
Because the other question was asked, well, what happens if we get this whole clipper chip
program in place, and then we find a better way to do it?
And again, he just kind of shrugged his shoulders and said, well, we'll cross that bridge when
we come to it.
Now, mind you, this is a program that just to get this whole key escrow BS set up is going
to cost $16 million just to set the whole program up, and then it's going to cost $12
million a year at least to keep it running.
That's a lot of wasted money.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm sure our nation's defense can probably use that somewhere, right?
Somebody can use it.
Yeah, definitely.
That's quite a story, and I'm sure it's not the last we'll be hearing about that.
In a way, it's almost a favor to the people putting out this thing, that this was caught
at this stage, because if it was caught later, the ramifications would have been potentially
fatal for anything that they wanted to indulge in, I would think.
Yeah, well, it kind of goes both ways.
You know, it's a two-edged sword, because it definitely does give the people developing
this a chance to correct this flaw, but it's also an incredible embarrassment, and it just
adds more fuel to the fire, and it just adds more weight behind the speculation of people
asking, well, how come the whole algorithm isn't made public?
Now, I talked to Dorothy Denning just this week on Tuesday and asked her, I said, didn't
you have any idea, when you were reviewing this, the clipper chip, the leaf in the clipper
chip is the same as the leaf in this Tessera card that was actually compromised?
I said, it's the same 16-bit.
Didn't you think to check this?
And she just shook her head, and she goes, well, frankly, she goes, I'm just really embarrassed
to say, we didn't even ask about it.
I saw that it was 16-bits, it kind of bothered me in the back of my head, but we were so focused
on the actual skipjack algorithm that we didn't even bother to ask the right questions.
Can you believe that?
Well, it sounds very similar to when you're watching one of those films on TV where the,
I guess war games is a good analogy, where they're so confident that the computer program
will work, they refuse to listen to all the naysayers, and they just plod along on their
way blindly, and then, of course, something catastrophic happens in the end, and, you know,
the naysayers are proven right.
That's right.
Same old story.
It's happening all the time, in real life and in fiction.
Right.
That's really something.
So what in the immediate future is going to be happening with regards to clipper chip?
Well, I think in the immediate future, the big question is now,
what Leahy, Senator Leahy, is going to do out of the Judiciary Committee, also Senator
Biden, and Leahy is chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, who's already held hearings on
Clipper, and he is not at all convinced that the system is a good one.
The rumor that is going around now is that Clipper will die of starvation, meaning that the Office
of Management and Budget, it's rumored, is recommending that the key escrow agents from NIST
and Treasury do not get the funding that's needed.
They don't get that $16 million startup and then the $12 million a year to keep it running.
So if they don't get those funds appropriated in the budget, then the system dies of starvation,
essentially.
There's one possible side effect to this that I think could be very bad, and that's if it
kind of renews a sense of, well, let's find something that's really, really secure then
since this thing has obvious problems.
Do you sense any kind of renewed vigor on their part?
No, I don't. I don't think that anybody is going to actually pull the Clipper program.
They may try and revamp it or do something else or put their efforts into just trying to get
the digital telephony thing through.
Frankly, I think that the Clinton administration has too many other issues in Congress right now,
and I don't think anybody wants to expend the political capital to try and ram Clipper through.
It's just not that high on their priority list.
I think maybe they'll hang back, let some of the Fuhrer die, and then bring it up again.
And maybe in that time they'll get something that's even stronger, but nobody really knows.
That's kind of what I'm worried about, that they actually learn from their mistakes.
It is possible.
Yeah, it is possible that they'll learn from their mistakes and they'll get something stronger.
Or maybe next time they'll simply won't let anybody test it at all.
You know, they'll just say, you know, screw it.
We're just going to put this thing out, and, you know, who knows?
Fascinating story.
Brock Meeks is with the Communications Daily, and what was that other publication you mentioned?
It's my own newswire that I run on the Internet.
It's called Cyber Wire Dispatch.
Okay, and that comes out, is that a mailing list?
No, that's just, it's uploaded to the ComPriv mailing list, and it's located on the, at wired.com gopher and well.com gopher.
I see.
Okay, now you had an interesting run-in with a particular entity a couple of months ago.
You want to tell us about that?
Yeah, the, I have the distinct privilege of becoming the first journalist to have been sued for something that was published on the Internet.
One of my Cyber Wire Dispatch articles did an investigation into a mysterious service that popped up in February called Electronic Postal Service, EPS.
And this EPS promised free access to a mailbox that in turn gave you free access to the Internet.
Everything was free, no online time, absolutely free.
The EPS sweetened the pot further by saying that all you had to do to get all this free access was agree to receive electronic junk mail in your free mailbox.
And for every piece of electronic junk mail you received, you would be paid six and a half cents.
And the solicitation further said you could make $500 or more just by receiving electronic junk mail and then deleting it and going on your merry way with your free Internet access.
Well, it sounded much too good to be true.
I followed the directions in the solicitation that said send for more information, both electronically and through an 800 number.
I never got any information back electronically.
What I did receive through the regular postal mail about a week later was a six-page solicitation from somebody called Sfores Corporation Industries out of Canton, Ohio,
that said if I spent $159 to buy a piece of software and a book that I could become a millionaire just like this guy, Benjamin Suarez.
Well, I did some more investigation and found out that Suarez Corporation Industries was really the entity behind this electronic postal service,
that electronic postal service was nowhere near existent as they claimed.
It has no Internet access and so on and so forth.
It's merely a bulletin board system that sits at the end of an 800 number.
And furthermore, that Sfores Corporation Industries had run into trouble with state and law enforcement agencies in at least four different states
over questionable direct mail marketing practices and that he'd been forced to either change or stop doing certain kinds of business in at least four different states.
And so I wrote about all of this.
Everything is on the record.
Everything was true.
I pulled out of court documents.
And I used some very opinionated language.
I mean, my cyberwire dispatch is kind of an opinion slash reporting.
And so I called it like I saw it.
I said, you know, let's flip this latest Internet adventure over on its soft white underbelly and let's gut this thing.
And I just told people what I found out and Suarez, who is an extremely litigious person, sued me.
And so now I'm in the midst of a huge libel suit.
And because I did this all on my own, I don't have a big, you know, deep pockets corporation behind me.
And so now it's me against Suarez and Suarez from all of his questionable direct mail marketing practices and so forth.
He actually does run a hundred million dollar company.
So it's a hundred million dollars.
It's kind of a David and Goliath battle going on.
Now, what does he say in the lawsuit against you that you did to him?
Well, he says, actually, he makes it sound like I'm some kind of Internet master of the universe because he says, he makes it sound like I have single-handedly thwarted all commercial use of the Internet.
And that he'll never, ever be able again to do any kind of commercial venture on the Internet, all because of this single article.
He even implies, wrongly, of course, that my CyberWire Dispatch article acted as some kind of magic bullet and wove its way through the Internet, deleting his original EPS solicitations.
I kid you not.
That's what it is.
Wow.
He has a true understanding of what the net's all about, doesn't he?
Yeah, right.
Now, what exactly was this organization trying to do, though?
They had this thing called EPS.
Now, what was the hook?
They got people to say they'd accept junk mail, but what was in it for them?
Well, this is what I've never been able to find out.
I mean, I've sat through a seven-hour deposition with their lawyers.
I've asked them repeatedly for information on EPS, which I still, to this day, have not received.
And so I – and they won't answer any of my questions.
I have no idea what their ulterior motive for setting up this EPS thing was.
The only thing that I can speculate is that Suarez saw or perceived this 20 million users of the Internet as some kind of virgin territory for electronic direct mail marketing,
and that as the people bit on this offer of a free Internet access, what he was doing was creating a huge database at no cost that he could pitch various direct mail marketing schemes to.
And do they still exist to this day?
EPS?
Yes.
EPS still exists to this day, yes.
So people can still –
People can still call, but people that I've talked to, I think some people have gotten information about it,
but they also get this six-page offer that says, hey, spend money on my book and my software, and you too can become a millionaire.
Uh-huh.
Wow.
That's quite a story.
Now, how can people help you out here, and what are you facing?
Well, we've – I have a committee that has been set up for me to try and raise money to offset my legal fees.
And this thing's only been going on for a month, and my legal fees now are already up over $12,000.
So if people want to help out, and I certainly would enjoy and appreciate anything they could do for me,
they could send any amount of money that they want.
There's two ways you can do it.
If you just want to put some money in an envelope, a check, or whatever, and you don't care about a tax write-off,
you can write the check out or just send the money to the Meeks Defense Fund, that's M-E-E-K-S, Defense Fund,
care of IDI at 901 15th Street Northwest, Suite 230, Washington, D.C., 20005.
Now, if you want to contribute to my legal defense fund and have it tax deductible,
what you need to do is send a check or money order or whatever to the Meeks Defense Fund,
care of the Point Foundation, that's P-O-I-N-T, Foundation, at 27 Gate 5, and that's the word 5 spelled out,
Gate 5 Road, Sausalito, that's S-A-U-S-A-L-I-T-O, California, 94560.
Okay.
And those two groups are helping me out.
They've volunteered their time and their resources, and anything you can send, 100% of it,
and nothing's taken off the top or goes to fundraisers or anything else, 100% of that money will go to help me fight this thing.
Now, what's important about this is that there's several different aspects here that have never been established in the electronic realm.
First of all, does electronic publications have the same First Amendment rights as hard copy publications?
Well, if this were a hard copy publication, what would we expect to see happen?
Well, we would see the fact that the libel laws and the First Amendment laws that have at least 100 years of case history behind them
would immediately apply, and it would be a much cleaner case.
Right now we don't know if such landmark cases as the New York Times v. Sullivan First Amendment case applies to electronic realm.
We don't know exactly what constitutes a public figure in the Internet.
Now, if Suarez had been a mayor or a public official and I had written about him, it would be no contest.
He would be a public figure.
But on the Internet, there is a good deal of legal theory that anybody that contributes to a mailing list or to a public forum is by de facto making themselves a public figure.
But we don't know yet.
My lawyers think that the fact that he sent the solicitation out to millions of people makes him a public figure.
Well, it's just a question of whether or not you have the right to say that you believe something is a ripoff if that's what you believe.
We do that all the time here, and imagine if that right were taken away from us.
Exactly.
Also, if Suarez were successful, I mean, who is to say, for example, the green card incident with the lawyers Cantor and Siegel,
they are now threatening to sue anybody that says anything bad about them.
Sue them for libel.
Get me to a terminal.
I'll be happy to be the first one for that.
So, I mean, what they're doing is saying that anybody that says anything critical about them is turning themselves into an automatic publisher or whatever.
And just like you said, it's taking away our right to criticize, to write opinions, and to be this kind of open and free discourse on the Internet.
It would have an incredibly chilling effect.
Anybody that would send out millions of messages unsolicited to people on the Internet have to be the biggest half-witted, dim-witted idiots that ever existed.
There.
Now I've said it.
The address here is WBAI, 505 8th Avenue, New York, New York, 10018.
If you need to send a certified letter or something, I'm sure that Fred can sign for it at the main desk.
Okay, now we have lawsuits started.
Brock, is there an email address people can write to you at?
There sure is.
It's Brock, B-R-O-C-K, at well, W-E-L-L, dot S-F, dot C-A, dot U-S.
Do you know well.com also works?
Well, or well.com.
Yeah, I just discovered that recently.
No, I didn't know well.com works.
Yeah, one of those freaks of nature, I guess.
All right, do you want to hang around and take some phone calls?
Sure.
Okay, let's take some phone calls at 212-279-3400.
Good evening, you're on the radio.
Hi, I guess I just have one specific question for your guest, and then if I can ask you two unrelated questions.
That's three questions altogether, so you better get started.
Okay, just to play devil's advocate and not to be disrespectful, but I guess why don't you just go the course of a public defender?
I mean, obviously you don't have millions of dollars in assets, so even if they do win, you wouldn't be able to pay the judgment.
But just in terms of your defense, I mean, don't you believe a public defender would be, you know, suitable to deal with it?
Well, public defenders only handle criminal cases.
This is a civil case.
And the ACLU wouldn't want to get involved?
No, the ACLU didn't want to get involved.
The lawyer that I have is probably the premier First Amendment attorney in the nation, and we just didn't want to take, frankly, we didn't want to take any chances with this.
Now, he's not charging me at his usual $250 an hour.
He is charging me at a reduced rate.
But because the case has a potential to be a precedent-setting landmark case for all cyberspace, the people that I talked to, I was in contact with EFF and several other organizations, we thought it was wise to get the heaviest hitter we could get.
Are you being sued for a monetary amend or just like a public apology?
No, I'm being sued for punitive damages, although he didn't specify what punitive damages are.
But he says in his complaint that I have ruined his business on the Internet, and the fact that he has a legitimate $100 million a year business to claim that I've ruined his business on the Internet, I'm sure he's going to be asking for a substantial amount of money.
Well, I mean, what kind of businesses exist on the Internet other than Internet providers that have every right to be there?
I don't know.
I mean, there's a growing number of commercial efforts growing on the Internet.
What they're worth is, I mean, who knows?
I mean, you've got to remember that we're going to be sitting before a judge in Cleveland, Ohio.
The judge, I understand, has probably never sat down on a keyboard in his life.
Oh, boy.
So that's the kind of thing that we're facing, and we don't want any bad law.
Emmanuel, just my two brief questions to you, just about directory assistance.
I don't know if other people have been reporting this to you, but I find lately a lot when I call 411, it rings once or twice.
Sometimes it, like, connects, but there's no one at the other end, and I'm forced to hang up, and I'm charged for it.
And also, sometimes it rings, and two operators at once enter.
Has anyone been telling you of those occurrences lately?
Well, I know 411 has call routers in place, particularly late at night.
You might see this, where you dial 411, and you hear the beginning of a ring, then immediately it transfers to another ring, and yet again to a third ring.
And this all happens within the space of a second.
It's possible that somewhere with all those transfers, something is fouling up, and you're getting connected to two people at once, or even disconnected, or possibly put into limbo.
How long do you hang on when they throw you into silence?
Well, I just say hello, hello, and it's like dead air, but I know that the connection went through because I'm charged for it.
And then I, like, call three or four times, and I finally get through.
And when I call the operator for credit, I say I need four directory assistance credits.
You know, she sounds suspicious.
Right.
The last thing, how about organizing a field trip of BAI listeners to visit Fiber?
You think that's a good idea?
Well, about the best you could do would be wave to them from the distance, because you have to be registered as a visitor.
They have to do a complete check of you.
How about a party for, like, when he comes out, we're going to have, like, a public party or something?
That would be great.
That would be amazing.
Okay, well, I wish your guests good luck in this lawsuit.
Hopefully, it won't drag on for years, and, you know, who knows what will happen.
Thanks for calling.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
And one thing I think is very important in this case is publicity.
Are you getting any publicity about this?
Yeah, well, radio shows like this.
I just got through taping a segment from McNeil Lair.
I don't know when that's going to air.
That's actually going to be part of a broader show on the Internet that is being done for McNeil Lair by Time Television, the owners of Time Magazine.
I've had that Wall Street Journal article, and New York Times hasn't done anything yet.
That's very interesting.
But, yeah, I've been on some radio talk shows and marketplaces and stuff like that, so the publicity is there, but it could be ratcheted up a few notches, so I take every opportunity to speak about, like, radio shows like this.
Well, a lot of the publicity takes place on the net itself.
Right.
And we have to be careful with that.
Exactly.
Because it seems that a lot of people know about it, but it's really people within our world, and there are a lot of people out there that know nothing about it.
And as you say, the New York Times is something you'd expect to see this kind of thing in, and hopefully they'll pay attention to this.
Let's go back to the phones.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi, Emmanuel.
This is Jayhawk.
A couple of comments on Clipper and some other stuff.
Okay.
On one, you can get Matt's paper via FTP on the internet from research.att.com in slash dist slash m-a-b.
That's slash d-i-s-t slash m-a-b for Matthew A. Blaze.
Thank you.
Can you give that address one more time?
It's research.att.com in slash d-i-s-t slash m-a-b.
I don't remember the exact filing.
It starts with an e, and it's a postscript file.
And those of you that don't understand FTP, well, shame on you for one thing, and stay tuned.
We'll explain it at some point.
Or ask someone who knows how.
Next, about Clipper and Tessera.
It's actually not the leaf that's 16 bits, but merely the checksum for the leaf.
So the leaf is quite a bit more than 16 bits, and it includes the session key and stuff.
And more importantly, the checksum is dependent on the session key, so it's only good for one
particular session between two particular things that talk skipjack, or two particular
Tessera cards.
So you're saying the actual number that you figure out would change each time?
Yeah, basically.
That's why I said you have to change it every time.
You have to run the program or whatever against it every time.
And the other thing is that it does take around 30 minutes, so it can be impractical for things
like voice calls.
However, some people have pointed out that if you have a bunch of Tessera cards, you can
probably run them in parallel.
So if you have four Tessera cards, instead of taking 30 minutes, it takes 30 divided by
four.
That's very interesting, because somebody asked Dorothy Denning that same question when
I was standing right by her, and she just kind of got this quizzical look on her face,
and she said, you know, that's a very, very interesting question.
I had never thought about that before.
And this is one of the experts that our government, that our, Dorothy Denning's a very nice person
and extremely intelligent, but these are the types of people that our government asked
us to put all of our trust in to make sure that this thing was safe and secure.
And no one really, most people look at Dorothy Denning and know that she's a clipper advocate.
Right.
Compared to lots of other people who aren't.
I think what it comes down to is these people are only human, and they don't have all the
knowledge, and there's a lot of things they're going to be overlooking.
Yeah, actually, I think also the review was focused so much on the algorithm, rather
than the stuff that was concerned with transporting the algorithm.
So the encryption itself is secure, but the fact that the lease is compromised means that
the enforcement people can't compromise the encryption, but the encryption itself is
still probably secure.
Right.
As far as we know.
I would agree.
Okay, thanks for the call.
One other thing about the MetroCard stuff.
Actually, you're supposed to take it to this place called the MetroCard Service Center,
and they actually have a log of every time a card was used.
Also, the card does carry a balance on the card itself, in addition to whatever balance
is stored in the central system.
If it doesn't perform a lookup each time, that's too computationally intensive and all
that kind of thing, it probably don't have the sufficient bandwidth to do it.
So instead, it looks at the card each time, and then, like, lightly or something, the card
readers dump their information to the central system.
Are you saying that that information is written to the card each time you take something out?
Yeah.
How is it written?
It's my understanding it's a magnetic strip.
It may have some, you know, high coercivity so that your normal bulk of research won't
erase it.
I haven't heard anything about the bulk of research is not working, but one thing that
does happen is if you call them up, they can tell you each time you use the card.
It's like 1-800-METRO-CARD, but it doesn't work in New York City, oddly enough.
You have to call there.
Oh, really?
It doesn't work in New York City.
Okay, well, if you call them, they can actually tell you where and when your card was used.
I don't know about when.
I mean, I don't know about where.
I assume so.
I haven't actually done this, but I do know they will tell you when.
Okay, they certainly should, because that information is not reflected on your card in
a way that you can read.
Right.
Unlike the DC system.
Right.
Okay, well, we'll be spreading information about this.
I'll be just don't know.
Uh-huh.
Too new or something.
Yeah.
Okay, well, we'll see how this system goes.
We'll keep you informed.
Oh, goodbye.
Thanks.
Let's go back to the phones.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Howdy.
Okay, I just want to mention to you, I have an interesting little story about my visit
to CompUSA.
I just want to see your reaction to it.
Okay, can you speak up just a little?
I said I have an interesting little story about my visit to CompUSA.
Okay.
Okay, all right.
I went there trying to pick up a laptop there, okay, and I, let's see, I played around with
a couple of these laptops, and let's see, and what ended up happening was I formatted
one, and they gave me a summons for it, and...
They gave you a summons?
Yeah.
CompUSA can give you a summons?
For trespassing, no.
Well, they called in the police, and...
Oh.
They gave you a summons.
They weren't happy with my response that I didn't know what happened, and I think it's
their fault because they didn't remove the command from the hard drives, and it's publicly
accessible, you know, for everyone because it's a public area, right?
Well, that's true.
I don't recommend people do that, but, I mean, theoretically, you could have been checking
out the system and seeing how well the format command works, and you got an answer, I guess.
But, again, I wouldn't recommend that because their reaction to that is likely to be hostile.
So what did they wind up charging you with?
Trespassing.
Trespassing.
Computer...
A cop came in and charged you with computer trespass.
Yes, that's right.
You're probably the only person in the world to actually get a cop to come in and write
you a citation for that.
Do you realize that?
Yeah.
All right.
Well, it won't be much.
I mean, it's only a violation, I found out, but still, they publicly...
Only a violation?
Wait, they're sending people to prison for this.
What do you mean it's only a violation?
That's incredible.
I mean, I know people have gone to prison for computer trespass.
Five years.
I don't know if it lasts under computer trespass, but it's definitely trespass.
They publicly humiliated me.
I was thinking about taking them to court, but, well, it's not really worth it, so...
Uh-huh.
What did they do?
Huh?
Oh, no.
They just made a big deal about it when they called the cops.
They told them that I destroyed the hard drive, and I talked to someone later on, and he told
me, oh, all this information could be recovered.
Yeah, what about Unformat?
Yeah, that's right.
And, uh...
Did they detain you in any way?
Uh, yeah.
They detained me.
They wouldn't let me out until I gave them a straight answer, and I didn't, so they called
the cops.
You know what I like doing?
I mean, I don't do this, but I like doing it.
I mean, I like people that...
I just like talking about it, all right?
You go into a store, and you change the prompt on the DOS machine.
You change it to, this machine is too expensive or something crazy like that, so that every
time you hit return, that's the message you get.
And then, you go into, um, uh, config.sys, which is where, or is it, um, autoexec, whichever
file you set your prompt with, and you, you make that unerasable using the atrib command.
And very few people in RadioShack can figure out how to erase a file that is locked, or even
to find a file that they can't see.
So, I've gone into stores weeks later and seen the same nasty, insulting message that
I left there.
Well, that somebody else might have left there.
Or, and it's incredible that, um, that they don't know enough about the computers they
sell to fix that little thing.
Yeah.
And the machines were too expensive, too.
That's right.
They're not that, uh, great.
Anyway, before I go, I just wanted to say what's up to the guys at 2600.
Uh, what's up to Roman.
Uh, by the way, I got a picture of the, uh, thing for you, of that guy from the meet.
And what's up to Nick?
And, uh, you run a great show, guys.
Okay.
Thanks for calling.
Let's, um, see if we can fit in one more phone call.
Good evening.
You're on.
Hi.
Uh, oh.
I've got to turn it on the radio.
Yep.
Um, all right.
You were, uh, the, you're, the followers being sued by Suarez was saying, well, what could
this guy's, uh, motivation be?
I think that it's kind of self-evident.
He wants to sell like $100,000, uh, $129, uh, books.
I mean, he's been, gotten in trouble for that before, you know, doing, uh, selling direct
mail things that were, um, that didn't do what they said or whatever.
Right.
So, uh, I think that, you know, that, that he, that he, that the mystification should
be cleared up right now.
He was trying to peddle a whole bunch of $129 packages.
Right.
Well, I, I don't, I don't disagree with that.
But he was, the system, he actually did go, go to some, some, uh, expense and, and some,
uh, uh, trouble to set up this, uh, at least a bulletin board system.
Um, but I think, but I think you're right.
I mean, he, he, he was doing this to, to grab a specific audience and, uh, to, to, to compile
this database and obviously sending out these, uh, uh, these solicitation letters to spend
$159 for his book and software for the first round.
Right.
What his, I mean, that, that was obvious, like you say, what was not obvious and what I was
talking about with, uh, with the manual was why he even set up EPS in the first place.
I have no idea what he intends eventually to do with that electronic system.
Yeah.
Well, it might just be a, uh, you know, just kind of a, um, window dressing.
It might not even really, he might not really have intended to make it work because he's
a crook.
Right.
With the, um, you said he was a crook.
Um, and you are certainly entitled to that opinion under the first amendment.
Oh, excuse me.
That's right.
You can't say these things.
Well, it's a good thing we don't have caller, caller ID.
We'd be forced to reveal all the information about you so they could sue you, but we don't.
See, I, I, uh, I called the EPS thing, uh, bait and switch because I had asked for one
piece of information.
Right.
Yes.
And then I got this, this totally different solicitation.
And that's one of the things that, that they say was libelous that I, that I called it bait
and switch.
Well, I imagine you have copies of every bit of communication that you had between them,
right?
Right.
So, uh, it's, uh, documentation on, on the things that he found out about this guy.
You know, I mean, it's documentation on the things that he wrote about this guy.
I have all the, I mean, my, my lawyers are, are, are, are confident that if we go into
court that, uh, it can make a good case, but you just never know because it, it, those.
What about the, the nuisance law, there's some kind of nuisance, uh, some kind of protection
against nuisance lawsuits.
You don't, you're not under that.
You're not protected under that.
I don't know.
See, because it's, this is, I've asked that too.
I said, well, why can't we counter sue and blah, blah, blah.
And because it's the first type of the first kind of it's, of it, uh, first kind of its
case, we, a judge doesn't know if it's frivolous.
A judge doesn't know if it's, um, you know, uh, uh, being malicious or whatever, because
it's the first one.
So there is nothing to judge it against.
Yeah.
Well, it's so analogous though, to a bunch of other things.
Well, all right.
So they have to run it through the courts.
Yeah.
But the law is, is just so, uh, this is, see, I've never really dealt, I've never been
sued, I've never dealt hardcore with the law and it really is screwed.
I mean, even, you know, I just hate dealing with lawyers, even the ones that are on my
side.
But as they said, you know, the, the legal system isn't perfect and the good guy doesn't
always win.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But it's, you know, it sounds like as long as, you know, like you, you feel pretty sure
you, I mean, you're stuck to the truth in what you said and you have proof and, uh,
Nothing that I wrote was wrong.
The lawyers feel good.
I, you know, uh.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
We're out of time.
So we're going to have to, we're going to have to cut this off here.
Okay.
Bye-bye.
So thanks for calling.
Uh, I just want to give out the address for, uh, for Brock Meeks' defense fund one more
time and that's, uh, the, uh, that's the Meeks defense fund.
Will that do?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I turned you down.
You there?
Yeah.
Meeks defense fund.
Okay.
Care of IDI 901 15th Street Northwest Suite 230, Washington, D.C., 20005.
That's if you don't care about the, uh, uh, tax deductible thing.
And if you do want it to be tax deductible, send it to Meeks defense fund, care of the
Point Foundation, 27 Gate 5 Road in Sausalito.
That's S-A-U-S-I-L-I-T-O, California, 94560.
And, uh, Brock, your email address again was?
Was brock at well.com.
Okay.
And that's B-R-O-C-K.
B-R-O-C-K.
Okay.
And is there anything you can tell us about EPS?
Where they're located?
Their internet address?
Maybe people can find out more about them.
Um, EPS, if you want to find out more information, they have a, an 800 number someplace in North
Canton, Ohio.
You know, you'd probably just ask for the, for the, uh, 800 number for Suarez Corporation
Industries.
Their email address is EPS at world.std.com.
Okay.
And that's a, that's a commercial system that anybody can get an account on.
Right.
So, um, all right.
Maybe some of our, our private eye friends can, uh, can find out more about what they're
really up to and, uh, we'll let you know.
Okay.
Brock, thanks very much for joining us.
Thanks for being a part of the show and, uh, best of luck to you.
We'll, we'll, uh, be updating people on your case.
Okay.
Thanks very much.
Okay.
Take care.
Bye.
And, and that's going to just about do it for us here tonight on, uh, Off the Hook.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in.
Please be with us again next week, next Wednesday night at 10 o'clock as we delve into the world
of high technology and, uh, the fun and thrills that go with it.
That's next week here on WBAI.
All right.
For now, stay tuned for a rebroadcast of the WBAI evening news.
Good night.
It couldn't get much worse.
But if they could, they would.
Bundy, they bombed for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood.
Bundy, they bombed.
We'll be right back.
Good evening.
In the news tonight, Capitol Hill takes a look at whether sending in the military is an option in Haiti.
We'll talk to a Holocaust survivor who's upset with President Clinton.
Is the public getting fair reporting on the health care debate?
And in New York, are gays and lesbians boycotting the Civilian Complaint Review Board?
With these and other stories, I'm David Sears in New York with Verna Avery Brown in Washington,
and this is the news for Wednesday, June 8, 1994.
First to Washington for these stories topping the news.
South Korea's president has charged that North Korea's refusal to allow nuclear inspections leaves only one option,
international sanctions against North Korea.
Kim Yong-sam says the North's nuclear development is aimed at South Korea,
and so Seoul must use all its means to block that development.
But a key voice in the U.N. Security Council, China, remains opposed to sanctions,
saying sanctions would only aggravate the crisis.
Meanwhile, North Korea's foreign minister says his country will guarantee inspection at its nuclear facilities,
including testing, measuring, and preserving nuclear fuel, if U.S. talks with Pyongyang are renewed.
But a U.S. State Department spokesperson says North Korea must comply with international nuclear inspections,
and that issue would not be settled by a third round of U.S.-North Korean talks.
Some Gulf War veterans are suing chemical companies who supplied Iraq before the Gulf War.
Brian Hill in Houston has the story.
A Houston lawyer has filed suit against 11 companies,
firms allegedly responsible for the mysterious health problems reported by thousands of Gulf War veterans.
The class action lawsuit seeks a billion dollars for disabilities suffered allegedly
from biological and chemical weapons used by the Iraqis during the war.
Attorney Frank Spagnoletti says this is a first-of-its-kind lawsuit.
He's hoping for a timely settlement, but Spagnoletti says if necessary he's prepared for a lengthy fight.
The lawsuit, filed in the Houston suburb of Angleton, could be expanded to as many as 17,000 plaintiffs.
It targets companies that allegedly sold technology or chemical agents to Iraq.
Meantime, the Pentagon is trying to determine whether soldiers in the Persian Gulf War
were warned about the danger of burning oil fields.
Soldiers interviewed by the El Paso Times newspaper say they were not advised about exposure
to the smoke and fumes from the fires.
The paper has obtained a classified document that said such fires would be a threat to human life.
Brian Hill for Pacifica Network News, Houston.
Palestinian activist Hanan Ashraoui has announced the launching of the Independent
Palestinian Commission for Citizens' Rights.
Daoud Kutab reports from East Jerusalem.
The commission which Ashraoui established is made up of well-respected Palestinian individuals.
Thank you.