The End
He doesn't know what he's saying
Cool it, Charles
Well, you don't want to lose your welfare benefits, do you?
Oh, don't worry about my benefits, Charles
Mr. Woburn
It's all right, Emily
Let us hear from Mr. Woburn
One of the world's greatest solitaire players
Who do we cheat if we cheat at solitaire?
And if we cheat, why do we cheat?
And when do we cheat?
He never cheats at solitaire
I've watched him for hours
Please sit down
We are having a transcendental moment
Sit down, Charles, transcendental moment
Please continue, Mr. Woburn
If your aces are out, but your deuces are buried
And you're nearing the end of play
Why not try laying a red seven on a red eight?
You might find out something important
If there are any officials here tonight from the welfare department
I'd just like to point out that Mr. Woburn doesn't know what he's saying
You've been warned not to interrupt
Who do you cheat if you cheat at solitaire?
You cheat yourself, Mr. Woburn
No, Charles
At solitaire, you cheat yourself if you don't cheat
Poison Arts with Janet Coleman, David Dozer, Jim Freund, Simon Locley, and Peter Zanger
It's written by David Dozer, directed by NRT
Radio Technique by Peter Zanger
This program is produced in the United States of America
And you're listening to radio station WBAI in New York
It's ten o'clock Wednesday night
Time for Off the Hook
The telephone keeps ringing
So I ripped it off the wall
I cut myself while shaving
Now I can't make a call
It couldn't get much worse
But if it could, it would
Bum-Billy Bum
For the best, expect the worst
I hope that's understood
Bum-Billy Bum!
Ooh
Want to get?
You can't cook a caseroom
Not again
I can't have to
Be up
I can't make that
Pero
I can't think
I'm funny
You can't
it
Abomazioni
Have
I'm
You can't
Come
Fun
Come
Take
Number
And
I
Em
Sea
You can
demonstrate
Are
confronted
Ready
Can
See
In
Their
And good evening, everybody.
This is Emmanuel Goldstein.
The program is Off the Hook, where we congregate every week to talk about the latest in the
net, internet, and telephone systems, and various other high-tech gizmos that are out
there, and what's going on with them, how they affect you, and, of course, we have the
opportunity to communicate amongst ourselves in various ways.
Well, it's been a busy couple of weeks here at BAI.
It's amazing, amazing what people getting together can do.
So, we raised, according to this little calculator that's being transmitted on the camera here,
$820,000.
Actually, $820,301.
Some wise guy pledged a buck.
Well, okay, that's great.
That's, I think, more than we've ever raised before.
It's almost a million dollars.
Can you believe that?
Wow.
So, we've gathered a few people here tonight just to say thanks.
No, they left the phone off the hook.
Let's try over here.
Thank you.
There we are.
Thank you.
Thank you very, very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Gracias.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Un millón de gracias.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Com absumnidad.
Thank you very much.
Why, thank you.
Merci.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
That's only a few of us here at WBAI saying thanks for all the help
for getting us to where we are now.
And please, if you did pledge, pay your pledge.
If you get a little reminder from us in the next couple of days,
please send us a check to the appropriate address,
and we'll be here for a long time to come.
Wow.
I'm really heartened to see that,
to hear how people support this radio station.
Hey, there could be a hundred Newt Gingriches out there,
but I think we're going to survive if we all stick together.
Yeah, this is Off the Hook,
and we've got a lot of special things to talk about today,
including a bit of a crisis,
a crisis that will affect just about everybody,
might have already affected everybody.
You don't know. You don't know until it's happened.
It may have already happened.
We'll be speaking about that in case you didn't read the newspapers
well, you'll know what we're talking about when we get to it.
Here's a little funny news item,
which showed up on the internet.
This was posted to all 2600.
This guy was apparently watching his TV set,
and what he does, what a lot of us do is,
even though he doesn't need it,
watches the closed captioning on TV.
You ever do that? You ever watch closed captioning?
It's kind of funny to see all the words that they miss.
You know, sometimes they miss entire bits of dialogue,
and sometimes the words don't even reflect anything at all,
what people are saying.
But in this particular case,
the person was watching it and it was live.
In other words,
somebody was actually typing it in
while the person on the TV set was talking.
And so the person was watching this
on the bottom of the TV screen,
and then all of a sudden,
the scrolling that you get,
you know, line to line scrolling stopped,
and the caption said,
no carrier.
Of course, those of you with computer modems
know what that means.
That means the phone got hung up somehow,
and then about 45 seconds later,
it said, ring,
meaning the incoming phone line was ringing,
then connect,
and then the scrolling started all over again.
So apparently,
the person was connected somehow,
on a computer,
they lost their connection,
and they had to call back,
and that's how the whole thing works.
Now imagine if we had beaten them to it,
if we knew the phone number,
and we called in there.
I don't know if they need a password,
or anything like that,
but you could just type whatever you want
over these closed captioning.
That's something to investigate a little further.
If anyone has any information on that,
they know how to reach us.
All right,
those of you that,
for whatever reason,
and we won't cry,
but those of you who subscribe to Wired
may have seen a letter in there by me.
Well, okay.
Yes and no.
Yes, I did write a letter to Wired,
and no,
I didn't quite write what they said,
or at least I wrote a whole lot more
than what they said.
So what we have tonight,
we have a very special presentation for you.
We have rented at great expense,
and an awful lot of trouble,
the voice of Wired.
The voice of Wired is here.
Does the voice of Wired have a microphone working?
I hope so.
Okay, that is the voice of Wired.
Whenever you see Wired out there on the newsstands,
associate that voice with it,
because that is the official voice of Wired.
Don't try using that voice without permission of Wired,
or you'll get sued.
And if you have a voice similar to that,
you better go in for some surgery or something
to change the tones.
Okay,
enough said about that.
What we're going to do here,
and this is just for the benefit of those people
that have read the letter
and think that I didn't really come down hard enough
on that blockhead that wrote the article
a couple of months ago
about the Hackers on Planet Earth conference.
He basically said that the conference was lame,
the conference was filled with people
that didn't really know what they were doing,
and various other insults like that.
And he said some personal things too,
and I just sort of felt that someone
had to set the record straight.
And I was happy to hear
that they were going to print this letter,
setting the record straight.
But what happened instead was
they printed what you'd call highlights of the letter,
and they weren't even that.
They were basically just the beginning and the end,
and maybe a sentence or two in the middle.
So what we're going to do
is we're going to have the official voice of Wired
read the letter as it appeared there,
and then I'm just going to hop in
whenever there's a gap
and fill it in with what I really said.
So take it away.
A voice of Wired starting from the top.
The article, or letter, is Hack the Hope.
At first glance, Charles Platt's review
of the Hackers on Planet Earth Hope conference,
Hackers, Threat or Menace,
in issue Wired 2.11, page 82,
appears to be a parody of itself.
Here is an article that makes fun of journalists
attending the conference,
searching unsuccessfully for criminals,
is written by a journalist doing just the same,
and ends up with genuine disappointment
at not finding any crime.
Now, if I could just butt in there for a second,
Ms. Wired,
I sort of phrased that a little differently.
I said,
here is an article that makes fun of journalists
attending the conference
searching unsuccessfully for criminals
that is written by someone
who is genuinely disappointed
at not finding any crime.
I don't know,
I just felt that sentence sort of rolled a little better,
but you guys, you know,
if that's how you want to do it,
fine, rewrite it.
First of all,
you called him a journalist,
and I didn't go that far,
but who cares?
Okay, I'm sorry.
It doesn't take long to realize
that Platt takes his judgmental little discourse
very seriously, however.
I didn't put a however there,
but okay.
Like so many before him
who have attempted to cover the hacker world,
he just doesn't get it.
All right,
I have to butt in now
because there's a couple of things
I believe you left out.
Now, I'm going to fill that in right here.
Urgh.
Just be patient there.
Platt is perplexed by the fact
that hackers are trusting individuals
who are open to diverse opinions,
such as those set forth
by former CIA operative Robert Steele.
Only a very limited and narrow view
of this segment of society
would result in Platt's righteous indignation
that we don't act like the criminals
he imagines us to be.
Perhaps 10 years ago,
this Geraldo outlook
would have been understandable,
but now that we're halfway through the 90s,
the readers of WIRE deserve a bit more
than the chance to watch Charles Platt
discover what color the sky is.
The article is filled with hints of things
being not quite right in the hacker world,
although Platt can never seem to put
any of his fingers directly upon the problem.
Is it the material we publish in 2600?
Platt seems to disapprove of our motives,
saying that we print,
quote,
a lot more answers than questions, unquote,
and that my, quote,
air of innocence doesn't jive
with the attitude and content, unquote,
of the magazine.
As a forum for hackers,
it wouldn't be quite right
if we stopped in our tracks
every time there was a chance
of someone's moral sensibilities
being offended,
and so we answer as many questions
as we can.
As for my having an air of innocence,
I suppose I have one
because I don't feel guilty of anything,
despite Platt's crazy allegation
that I'm constantly looking over my shoulder,
expecting to be arrested at any moment.
If I was really doing that,
then it would sort of deflate
the air of innocence accusation now,
wouldn't it?
It's rare to be condemned
for being guilty and innocent
at the same time,
but in this article,
nothing short of an accurate fact
would surprise me.
Platt strongly implies
that 2600 corrupts people
by providing a forum for hackers,
an accusation I find offensive
and typical
of those sensationalist reporters
who will concoct any fact
to sell a story.
2600 provides a vital service
to people who are curious.
It disseminates obscure information.
Okay, I have to butt in again
because that's all that Wired printed,
but there's a bit more
that you guys didn't print.
As well,
to add on to your last sentence,
as well as a means
of disseminating information
for people who wouldn't be able
to reach an audience otherwise.
Kind of like that sentence
that wasn't able to reach an audience.
Referring to our meetings
as 2600 franchises
is the same height of stupidity
that the federal government
resorts to
when they accuse us
of engaging in conspiracies
at each and every one
of our get-togethers.
If Platt had bothered
to do some research,
he would have found
that these franchises
are loosely knit groups
of people throughout the world
who share a common interest.
It's got nothing to do
with profit,
big business,
or the growth industry
that Platt defines us as being.
On a personal level,
Platt seems especially enthralled
by the fact that I use
more than one name.
He latches onto this fact
as if it's the evidence
he needs to prove
the point he never makes.
Even the subtitle
of the article,
Wired,
discovers who
Emanuel Goldstein
really is,
points to the importance
of this,
quote,
revelation,
unquote.
The fact is
that I've never made
my use of multiple identities
a secret.
I strongly believe
in the right to choose
whatever name
suits you.
What's particularly ironic here
is that Platt would probably
have missed this little fact
if I hadn't told him
about it in the first place.
Too bad, Platt,
you missed the real
sinister subplot here.
Hacker editor
seeks to discredit self.
Charles Platt found me
to be,
quote,
one of the most evasive
human beings,
unquote,
he ever attempted
to interview.
I am honored,
but in all fairness,
when one is organizing
and running a conference,
there isn't an abundance
of time to do
one-on-one interviews.
We tried to accommodate
Mr. Platt,
an hour-long interview
and answers to all
of his follow-up questions,
but he wanted us to focus
all of our attention
upon him
and walk him through
the entire hacker world.
There were reporters
from dozens of countries
in attendance.
Even if we believed
Platt's repeated assertion
that his Wired article
was more important
and would get us
tons of publicity,
we didn't believe
such preferential treatment
was fair to anybody.
Wired people requested
and received more
free passes to Hope
than any other organization.
It was our assumption
that with 1,400 people
to talk to
and so many reporters,
you folks would have
been able to piece
a semi-accurate story together.
It's too bad Mr. Platt
defined Hope
as being very bland,
lame,
and devoid
of subversive content.
Perhaps this is why
he saw fit to disrupt
a lively seminar
on cryptography
by repeatedly shouting,
where's the crime?
We're here to see crime!
While chugging Azima.
I'm completely unmoved
by his dismay
because anyone
with such a narrow view
of the hacker world
is clearly incapable
of ever appreciating it.
And, uh,
oh, back to you, Wired.
Uh, of all those
in attendance,
the vast majority
were captivated
by something
or someone
at some time
during the conference.
The rather simple moral here
is that if you spend
all your time
looking for things
that don't exist,
you'll wind up
being very disappointed.
It's too bad
Wired readers
were robbed
of the chance
to see the significance
of the largest
hacker event
in history.
Well, okay,
so that was
the official voice
of Wired
with the, uh,
official transcript
of how the letter
appeared in Wired
and, of course,
my voice was
the parts that did not appear.
And, um,
I don't know.
I guess I'll defer to them
and I guess they knew
what to cut
and what not to cut.
I'd say they cut
about 80% of it out.
But, uh,
that's just the nature
of publishing.
Anyway, uh,
I guess that's a lesson
that if you, uh,
if you read something
anywhere,
see it on the,
on the,
on the TV,
hear it on the radio,
you may not be getting
the whole story.
There may be more to it.
So always ask questions
and dig a little bit deeper.
In a moment,
we'll be back
talking to Fiber Optic
about, uh,
what's going on
on the net.
But first,
this little musical break.
Let's sei Hinter
Oh,
too much with I
too much with I
How
Too much with I
Too much with I
Too much with I
Too much with I
Too much with I
Too much pressure!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Everybody's vulnerable, and it can happen at any time, and it may have already happened,
and nobody really knows what's going on, the kind of story you like to sink your teeth
into, right?
Thank you.
Well, that's just a little bit of what's been going on.
We're going to get an update from FiberOptic, who is currently joining us on the telephone.
Fiber, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
Okay.
Well, since you're on the phone, you can't see what it is I'm holding up in my hands here
now, can you?
I guess I can't.
No, you can't.
That's one of the disadvantages, but I'm holding up something, a magazine that just came out
this week that names you as one of the 100 most intelligent people in New York City.
Is that something, or what?
Yeah, that's really silly.
Boy, you're in here with such people as David Letterman, and who else?
I don't know.
Mishukaku is in here, too, you know.
Yeah, I saw that.
Yeah, and Alphonse D'Amato, very, very nice company there, and Madonna.
You know, it's an interesting story, because I don't know if you know this, but I was in
the running for this thing myself.
In fact, I wound up in a sudden death playoff with Madonna.
Can you believe that?
Wow.
As far as being one of the most, I actually ranked 102, unfortunately, and they only go
up to 100.
But they asked Madonna these, well, asked me and Madonna these questions, and I don't know
if they're entirely fair, one of them being, who was it who shot, what's his name, in Reservoir
Dogs?
The guy who shot.
Nice Guy Eddie, you know.
Who shot Nice Guy Eddie?
And, you know, I always thought it was Mr. Pink.
But she answered that, no, it was Harvey Keitel.
And, you know, afterwards, after the competition, I was thinking, you know, Chris Penn played
Nice Guy Eddie, you know, and that's sort of the brother of the guy she married.
She could have found out that way that it was Harvey Keitel.
It didn't seem fair.
And then they asked a physics question, and I don't know if you know this, but Madonna is
a physicist as well as an artist.
In fact, she is, this is true.
I'm not making this up.
This is true.
If Michio cannot do his show on Wednesday nights here, she is on the telephone list as
somebody to call to substitute.
And so when they asked, what is the furthest planet from the sun?
I, like a jerk, answered Pluto, and she knew that it was Neptune, because they sort of,
the orbits intersect, and it happens to be one of those times when Neptune is the furthest
planet.
That's why she's in there and I'm not.
So that's the reason, huh?
That's the reason, yeah.
But, you know, I'm not bitter about it.
I'm not bitter.
Madonna could use the publicity, I think, you know.
But, yeah, you must be getting all kinds of, of, of, of admiring people following you
all over the place, being in that group of 100.
Yeah.
You all, you all get together for a group photo, I imagine.
Hello?
Yeah.
You there?
Okay.
One of those hundred people bothering you right now, right?
Uh, yeah, I guess.
Okay.
Wow.
There's just smart people everywhere.
Yeah.
Hey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's in there, too.
Now, I understand when you, when you become one of these hundred people, you can, you can
call on the other 100 people at any time.
It's sort of like a support group.
It's kind of like the Fortune 100.
Uh-huh.
That's, uh, that's, that's, that's really great.
Maybe we could have our own magazine.
Yeah.
We'll call it Fortune.
Wow.
Anyway, you're stuck down there at Echo.
Yeah.
Uh, the, the system that never crashes, according to, according to, uh, what was it, Time Magazine?
The system that never sleeps.
Yeah.
Well, um, it's sleeping right now, I think, right?
Well, it's, it's back up for the time being.
Okay.
And it's gonna stay up?
Uh, hopefully.
That's good.
That's good.
It's, uh, it's not always as cooperative as it should be.
Hey, Henry Kissinger's in this list, too.
You know, I'm glad Henry made it.
He was having a bit of trouble in the playoffs, too, you know?
Yeah.
But, uh, he made it.
That's good.
And he, his occupation is international consultant.
Really?
Yeah.
That's, uh, so if you need any consulting on international issues, make sure you call Hank.
Like if we wanted to, uh, say, take a trip to Tahiti, we should?
Yeah, I imagine he knows all the restrictions, you know, the best airfares and things like
that.
They don't need consultation on, on anything of international, you know, customs or, or
the best food to eat, that kind of thing.
Hmm.
What language they speak in, in, in Burma, for instance.
What language do they speak in Burma?
Is it like...
I don't know.
Yanmarese or something?
I think it's Burmese, I think.
But it's not anymore.
Well, you know, I can look this up.
Yeah?
I have a computer with all this information.
Really?
Yeah.
Hang on, let me, let me, I'll, I'll, I'll boot it up while I'm talking to you.
Okay.
Uh.
Those CIA world fact book computers?
It's sort of like that.
Uh, you know, you can't hear this machine booting up.
You might hear it beep if you're lucky.
Um, but the, the motor is very, very quiet.
Ah, there we go.
There we go.
Okay.
Um, yeah, I'll, I'll look up.
In fact, we'll be able to, um, we'll be able to hear a bit of their national anthem,
too.
Really?
Which I think is really kind of neat.
Of course, we're completely, uh, off the topic here, but, but that's just the nature.
Oh, wait a minute.
Uh, apparently I entered my password incorrectly.
On my own machine.
How do you like that?
Okay, I'm in now.
Um, okay, so we're booting up the system and we'll, we'll check on what language they speak
in Burma.
Um, in the meantime, tell us what's going on with the internet.
Well, I don't know if anyone noticed, but there was, uh, a screaming headline in the
New York Times, uh, fairly recently written by John Markoff.
I noticed.
And, oh, good.
You noticed.
I sure did.
Well, I don't know how many other people noticed.
A lot of people noticed.
It's that, it's that crazy internet stuff again.
But, um, actually, uh, this time it's serious.
And it turns out that this problem has always existed and no one ever really thought that,
no one ever really thought that it would be taken advantage of, frankly.
Uh huh.
Recently it has.
Uh huh.
It has been.
And the particular problem in question would allow certain malcontents and deviant characters,
basically, to gain access to any connection on the internet at all, basically hijack a
connection, so to speak.
Okay, now, how could you hijack a connection on the internet?
How would you physically do it?
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Well, the way that they actually do it is that every IP datagram that, that's every
packet.
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Has a sequence number.
Okay.
And the way the sequence numbering works is that it starts at some arbitrary number
that both sides of the connection are aware of, and it counts upwards by ones.
This is the current packet number, this is the next packet number, and so on and so forth.
Okay.
Well, let's just say for example, that you had some scheme by which you could guess what
sequence number a certain connection out there on the net was currently in, what sequence
number it was up to.
Uh huh.
And you kind of just popped on, and you started mimicking the sequence number because you knew
what it was.
I don't know how much sense that really makes.
Well, okay, you're basically pretending that you're that packet of data.
Yeah, you're basically pretending that you're in sequence.
What happens to the real data though?
The real data, assumingly, would kind of be squelched.
Uh huh.
Would it be received someplace else?
Yeah.
Actually, um...
See, I haven't actually tested this myself.
Uh huh.
I know for certain that it does work because it was done in a number of cases.
Only fairly recently over the past few weeks.
Uh huh.
Okay.
Okay.
Now, is there a way to get this information easier?
Can anybody figure out what it is, or do you have to be able to...
Actually, what happened was that there's a, um, there's an FTP site in Colorado called
corrupt.security.com, and it's security spelled with a K instead of a C. Uh huh.
But, uh, you can anonymous FTP to that site, and I know that at some point in the recent
past, the, uh, the actual software necessary to do this was posted up there, as are usually
lots of security-related tools.
Now, in this particular case, the, um, the code posted that allowed this to happen was
in technical terms a replacement for a device driver that was for Sun Machines.
And, uh, as, as we know, Sun is notorious for, uh...
Notorious, yes.
Yeah, it's notorious, let's just say that.
Yeah.
In, uh, in terms of security.
But, um...
Is this, uh, specifically 413, or is this, uh...
This is just, uh, Sun in general.
Sun in general, okay.
Yeah, we're talking about Sunos, not Solaris.
Okay.
So, yeah, in practical terms, it would be, uh, Sun 413 and below.
Okay.
But, uh, it's a device driver replacement for the internet protocol in the way that it
actually constructs datagrams.
Uh huh.
And basically, it allows the user to spoof datagrams.
Uh huh.
So now, before, while we had packet sniffers...
Uh huh.
...which were actually sniffing ethernet packets...
Uh huh.
Okay.
Now we have, basically, internet protocol spoofers, where we can literally hijack a connection
and spoof internet protocol datagrams.
Now, can a sniffer help you to become a spoofer?
No, no, not at all.
It can't.
We're talking about two different things, basically.
The ethernet is over your local network.
Right.
Out over the net, everything is internet protocol.
Okay.
What can people do to prevent this?
Uh, actually, there is not a whole lot that can be done right now.
What we're attempting to do, myself and a couple of people locally at least, is we're attempting
to set up what would be called a tunneled IP network.
Uh huh.
Which means that we're setting up a firewalled local network.
And within that network, what we're doing is that we're authenticating all IP datagrams.
And the way that we're doing that is, there's a number of ways that that can be accomplished.
One particular way is using a piece of software known as Swipe, that's SW capital IP lowercase e.
What that is, is again, it's an internet protocol device driver replacement.
What it does is that it allows you to use encryption for all IP datagrams, excuse me.
Uh huh.
Now, you might say to yourself that that must be really costly and time consuming.
It must slow down the net connection a lot.
I did say that, yes.
Do you say that to yourself?
I'm going to ask myself right now.
If everything is encrypted end to end.
Are you going to prove me wrong?
No, actually, that is true.
Okay.
Trials that are being done at the current time by some people that I know, on some local
sites, is not necessarily using full-blown encryption for every IP packet, but simply authenticating
it by using a hash, using the MD5 hashing, MD5 being Message Digest 5, which for those of you
who are unfamiliar, you might have heard of MD5 because it's used in PGP, in order to generate
what's called basically a footprint of your public key.
Uh huh.
But an MD5 is a hashing algorithm that's supposed to generate a secure sequence of numbers that
should not be able to be duplicated.
Well, just to give you an example, a certain IP datagram should create, should generate,
when run through MD5, should generate a unique footprint that another IP datagram never could,
in theory.
I see.
So, basically, what you can say is, here's the IP datagram, and the other side does an
MD5 hash, and then it says, is this the footprint that we got compared with the one that we should
have gotten?
Okay, but this is something that has not yet been perfected.
Right.
This is something that's still in the works, basically.
If we're talking about the larger global internet, everyone's at risk.
Uh huh.
Everyone.
No exceptions.
And do you have to even use your machine to be at risk?
Uh, how do you mean?
Well, I mean, let's say you don't even log on to your machine at all.
Can you still be spoofed?
You can, any, any open connection can be spoofed.
Uh huh.
Basically.
So, as long as you're connected to the internet in some manner.
As long as you're, say, telnetting out somewhere, as long as you have a socket connection to
another machine.
Okay.
Then, that connection between those two sockets, the socket on your machine and the socket on
the other machine.
Right.
The traffic can be intercepted and spoofed.
Fascinating.
And I don't think people are aware of this on such a large scale that it can be done at.
Supposing you just dial into a local system and you don't telnet out anywhere.
Well, then there's nothing really to be spoofed.
And then, of course, the problem is worrying about being sniffed.
Uh huh.
Right.
And you have to be sniffed.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, uh, you have a choice.
Either be sniffed or spoofed or both.
Okay.
If you're making connections out over the net, then you have the potential to be spoofed.
Well, I think with all this talk of sniffing and spoofing, a lot of people are just going
to opt to, uh, to stand back a while and see how it all turns out.
Um, that's, that's really something.
I guess probably the best thing to do at this point would be to figure out how to do it.
You know, figure out how to spoof if you're able to, uh, you know, show the world how
it's done.
Well, the thing that, uh, people should bear in mind is the actual sequence number, if
I recall, is an int, which in English terms means it's a 32-bit number.
Uh huh.
An integer, which basically has the range of zero to roughly four billion.
And, uh, obviously the number is not going to be very large.
It's going to be a relatively small number.
At least in a number of cases I've heard of, they simply start numbering at zero.
Uh huh.
There's no real guesswork involved.
You can guess how old the connection is and judging by knowing that information.
Say, say for example, you're watching a particular socket on a foreign machine that no one's connected
to yet.
All of a sudden someone's connected to it.
So it's a brand new connection.
Do you follow?
Obviously the sequence number is going to be very small.
Okay.
Because the connection is new.
The sequence numbers, as the age of the connection gets higher, the sequence number gets higher.
Does that mean there's a limit on how long a connection can last?
No, not at all.
In fact, uh, well technically yeah, but you'd never have, I've never heard of a, uh, a connection
overflowing because it reached four billion.
Well how long would it take to reach four billion?
A very, very, very long time.
Are we talking years?
Yeah.
Well, what would be your estimate on overflowing a long int on sequence numbers?
It just starts back at zero?
All right, it recycles.
Okay.
Okay.
That's what I suspected.
All right, let's, uh, we're gonna open this up to the phone lines.
Do you have, uh, a bit of time, Mark?
You there?
Yeah, sorry.
Do you have a bit of time or do you have to get back to work?
No, actually sure, go ahead.
Okay, first let me just tell you that, uh, Burmese has spoken by 69% of the people in, uh,
in, uh, actually it's called Myanmar now.
It's not even called Burma anymore.
Right.
And the secondary language is Karen, K-R-E-N, 10%.
Then there's Shan, uh, Tibeto-Burman, uh, there's a language called Mon, M-O-N, uh, Jingpo,
uh, Mon Khmer, as in, uh, Khmer Rouge, uh, Parukh, and they speak something called Other,
1%.
Um, now, if, uh, you wanna hear the, uh, the actual, uh, national anthem here, we can do that as well.
Sort of winds up like that.
Here we go.
Okay, I think we get the idea.
That's, uh, I assume they have better sound over there too.
Could you hear that at all, Mark?
Oh, yeah, I heard it loud and clear.
In fact, uh...
Pretty, uh...
Pretty stirring, isn't it?
It brings a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat.
It brings a tear to my throat.
It is.
It's, uh, it's called, uh, Gaba Maje Burma, which means, of course, we shall love Burma.
Uh, and that is, that is what it means.
Okay, enough of that.
Okay, 212-279-3400.
Good evening, you're on the radio.
Good evening, you're on the radio.
This is the Amnax operator.
Do you have a collect call when you accept the charges?
You're not a 9X operator.
Amnax, sir.
That is what it means.
Okay, enough of that.
Our phone number is 212-279-3400.
You know, I can just imagine somebody tuning in right now wondering why we did that.
I won't tell if you don't tell.
Okay, 212-279-3400.
Good evening.
You're on the radio.
There's an Amnex operator.
You have a collect call.
Will you accept the charges?
You're not an Amnex operator.
Amnex, sir.
You have a collect call from Joe.
Will you accept the charges?
Yeah, you're not an Amnex operator either.
Come on.
Excuse me, sir?
You're not an Amnex operator, are you?
Yes, this is an Amnex operator.
Okay, where are you located?
Florida, sir.
What part of Florida?
Tampa.
Tampa, Florida?
That's correct.
What's the area called in Tampa, Florida?
05.
Okay, you're an Amnex operator.
Big deal.
Next call.
Good evening.
You're on.
I had a comment on the Internet problem.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
I was looking up on the CERT advisory, and apparently one of the ways to get around that
is to basically get your router to know that machines with one number will only send packets
from one side of your network, whereas certain other numbers can only come from the other side.
So the idea is if you have multiple machines that, say, are trusted and talk to each other
on your local network, then you basically program your router so it knows that any kind of IP number
for those machines cannot come from the outside socket of your router.
Okay, Mark, how would you get around that?
Well, so you're saying that how do you trust traffic on your local land?
Well, you would have to have the trusted things on your land, but this means that someone, say,
outside your local land could not masquerade as one of your machines.
Well, okay, but let's say, for example, that someone from out on the net is telnetting to your machine
and would be anyway.
Then you have a problem.
Oh, of course you do.
But this is, I mean, what this fix would supposedly take care of is, say, you have someone with a Macintosh
or an IBM somewhere directly on an internet hookup.
It keeps them from at least, because with those machines, all you have to do is go into the driver
and tell it what the IP number is, and you can masquerade as anything you want.
Right.
And that would take care of that.
At least that's what near as I can tell from the CERT thing.
And they gave a, so the defense that CERT was advising was basically to program your router
to know what IP numbers should or should not come from each side.
Okay, thanks for the info.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
That doesn't really address the whole problem, though, does it, Mark?
No, actually, all it does is protect someone from being spoofed into thinking that a machine
on their local LAN, which may or may not be trusted, is actually a machine not on the local LAN,
but some devious site out on the net.
Right.
But that certainly doesn't protect the bigger problem of any legitimate user out on the net
connecting to your system.
Do you think CERT has been forthcoming in the hazards here?
That I couldn't tell you since I never read CERT advisories anyway because they're always
long and useless.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Good evening.
You're on the radio.
Yeah.
I am familiar with a phenomenon called vote scam.
Vote scam?
Vote scam.
Well, why don't you tell us about it?
It's the title of a book by two brothers who said that they're aware of certain kinds of
tampering in Florida, like 25 years ago and more, and where, through electronics and computer,
entire, you know, votes were stolen because...
25 years ago?
Yeah.
There was electronic voting 25 years ago?
Well, there's been...
Well, no, I'm sorry.
There was vote tampering, but the electronic type is more recent.
In fact, in the times of Wednesday, today is Wednesday, I guess it was Monday, the same
day that you saw the article having to do with internet, there was an article on the op-ed
page about introducing a computer vote recording in New York, and they talk about how that is
so easily tampered with, and I don't know that it's not already in existence in some
other cities.
Are you aware of anything like that at all?
Well, I'm not aware of it per se.
Of course, you know, tampering with votes is certainly something that you have to accept
the possibility of.
Well, according to them, it's been something that, if it's not just, if it's not just electronic
and computer, it's been going on.
Well, we know that, that that does exist on a fairly wide scale, and they have some various
exposés.
But now, they, they say that it is going on to computers, and that, that, that election
results are being stolen.
Well, now, let's, let's mix these two stories together, right, we're, we're talking about
here today, where we're moving, uh, computer, uh, moving elections onto computers, and we're
talking about how it's possible now on the internet to, uh, masquerade as virtually anybody
you choose to.
Uh, and you can see there's a bit of a, there's a bit of a danger in moving too fast on that.
Did you, did you, did anybody, did any of you happen to read that, uh, op-ed article
on Monday, Monday?
I didn't, I didn't see it myself, no.
Yeah, well, it was quite a, you know, it was almost half a page, and it's something that's
being contemplated being instituted in New York City.
I don't know if there's an actual track record among other cities that has actually happened,
that they've instituted this thing in other cities, but according to these brothers, the
brothers who wrote the book, uh, that it's fairly widespread.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, you see, how do you approve something like that when the vote is supposed to be anonymous
to start with?
Well...
What do you check against?
Uh, let me see, the polls are very far off, for instance, from the actual voting results.
Uh-huh.
And then, uh, I'm quoting Michael Parenti, are you familiar with Dr. Michael Parenti?
He's just sort of a regular on WBAI.
Yeah.
Yes?
I've, I've, I've heard him.
Well, he's the one who, who mentioned it about two weeks ago, and I, and I got a hold
of this book called Vote Scam.
Uh-huh.
And he said that, uh, that it's almost unprecedented history for so many Republicans who have gotten,
you know, re-elected.
There's so many incumbent Republicans, incumbent Republicans who have gotten elected no matter
what kind of landslide.
Yeah, but that implies that Republicans have a handle on technology, which I don't think
is anything near the truth.
In their turn, this is, who knows?
Yeah.
We're not, I'm not, I don't know who it was this time.
But I, I think it's something that, that, uh, that should, that should be looked into.
Anyhow, the book is called Vote Scam, one word, V-O-T-E-S-C-A-M.
The authors are Ken and Jim Collier, C-O-L-L-I-E-R.
And the publishers are, uh, how was it, uh, Press, uh, Victoria Press.
Okay.
New York City.
Oh, thanks for the information.
It's something to, it's something to definitely think about.
Okay.
Okay, take care.
I don't know, uh, what do you think, Fiber?
Well, uh, uh, I'm not allowed to vote, but, uh, if I was, I think I'd be concerned.
Now, what's the deal with that?
I've read in various newspapers and magazines that you're not allowed to ever vote again,
or is it just like, oh, you're on probation?
For my duration of being on probation.
Which is, uh, for the next three years.
Next three years.
So, uh, you won't have a say in whether Clinton gets a second go-round.
No, well, then again, I've never voted, even when I could.
Oh, really?
Yeah, I never was, uh, quite interested in voting.
Uh-huh.
Well, there are a lot of fine choices out there.
Unfortunately, most of them aren't running.
But that's just the nature of it.
Um, a lot of, uh, a lot of press recently in the last couple of weeks.
What's going on here?
I see your face and name everywhere.
Time, Newsweek, New York, Newsday, New York Times.
Uh, Back Party.
Yeah, yeah.
That was, uh, that was an interesting time we had a couple of weeks ago.
I haven't had a chance to talk about it.
Yeah, actually, it was lots of fun, except for the initial paparazzi.
Uh-huh.
Lots of, uh, really obnoxious cameramen.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, we spent a lot of time just running away from the media.
I was a lot more successful, because I was able to stay out of their sights completely.
Yeah.
Although I did, at one point, just open up a laptop to see if they'd crowd around.
And sure enough, without even asking permission, they were filming the screen.
Right.
And, of course, when they saw it, the screen set.
I guess they couldn't air that over the TV.
But, uh, that's one way around it.
Um, yeah, but, uh, where was all, what I'm tempted to ask is, where were all the media
people when you were going away?
You know?
Yeah, I don't know.
I guess, uh, they just said it.
Back in January.
Yeah, well, I don't know.
They didn't seem to really care that much.
I think you said it pretty well in New York.
Um, what was that line you had?
Uh, yeah, initially, uh, they wanted to make me look like scum when I got indicted.
Now they all want to be my friend.
Right, right.
It's kind of weird how it works.
So, um, that's the media for you.
But at least it's good news that they're reporting now and fun times and things like that.
Yeah, really.
Boy, but yeah, that was a madhouse there.
Yeah, it definitely was.
Yeah, you know, also, I gotta say this.
We had the thing at Irving Plaza.
And, uh, you know, I swore that when I got back out of Irving Plaza, I would tell people
about this.
Do you know they have pay phones inside that place that charge you to call 800 numbers?
It wouldn't surprise me.
And the thing is, you know, most of us can't get to those pay phones because you have to
pay to get in in the first place.
But, uh, yeah, they charge you, I think, uh, 25 or 75 cents to call an 800 number.
And then on top of that, they turn off your touchstones.
So, um, problem is I can't find out the pay phone numbers.
Otherwise, I'd report them.
So I have to, uh, somehow figure out how to get in there and get those pay phone numbers.
If someone at Irving Plaza is listening, please give us a call and tell us what your pay phone
numbers are.
Do us, uh, do us a favor there.
Thanks.
212-279-3400.
The program is off the hook.
Good evening.
You're on the radio.
Uh, yes, hi.
I can ask the, uh, the, uh, guy a question.
Well, speak up.
I'm sorry.
The guy who's doing the radio right now for computers and...
Go ahead, you're on.
Go ahead, you're on.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay.
I'm a first-time, um, user.
Uh-huh.
Let me just turn this radio off here.
Yeah, that's a very good idea.
Turn the radio down.
Okay, yes, hi.
Hi.
First-time user in computers, and, uh, I'd like to know and ask maybe a fiber.
You can answer this question.
Uh, what kind of material should I be reading and, uh, to understand, uh, you know, in and
out of, uh, computers?
Well, I don't know.
It could be a little bit more general.
Uh, well, um, basically working with the, uh...
I was joking, but go ahead, fiber.
Oh, me?
Yeah, go ahead.
Answer this question.
Yeah, internet.
And, um, earlier you were talking about, uh, spoofs and that kind of, uh, lingo.
Well, you're not interested in spoofing, I hope.
No, I'm not.
Because if you were, we'd have to tell you, uh, you know, not to talk to us about that.
Some sleazier radio program might deal with that kind of issue, but, uh, we're here to
tell you how not to be spoofed.
Right.
Not how to spoof.
No, I try to listen to your radio, uh, program every time I go to work, and, uh, you know,
I find it, uh, interesting to have some kind of, uh, information like this on radio.
Uh, maybe you can just give me some more detail in understanding more of, uh, computers.
Well, fiber, where would you send them?
Well, I hate to say it, but there's no, uh, one-stop shopping for, uh, spoofs, uh, spoof
sniffers and things that go bump in the night.
I mean, it's, uh, not something written about in books.
I see.
Are you interested in just general knowledge of computers, period?
Well, yeah, but, uh, like, you know, like, good, good information for first-time beginners.
Well, what, what kind of system are you using?
Uh, uh, I'm using a brand name, um, it's the, uh, well, Compact Visario.
Uh-huh.
And, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's pretty good, uh, but, uh, sometimes I get stuck on
certain things, and, uh, like, trying to read regarding DOS and, and stuff like that.
It's, uh, the, the books that, that, uh, they come with, it's kind of, uh, profound.
Well, no, you don't want to read those manuals.
They, they generally are terrible.
Uh, what I would suggest is go to a bookstore and go to the computer section.
You'll see all kinds of, uh, of, uh, well, they have a series, you know, whatever for
dummies.
Not that you're a dummy, but, uh, that's just what they call them, and they, they're kind
of easy to, uh, to understand, and they, they have a good sense of humor, and they, they,
they talk about various things.
That might, that might be what you're looking for.
Well, when is Fiber gonna write a book?
When am I gonna write a book?
Well, the story's still going.
That's right.
When the story is over, that's when you write the book.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I see.
We're about to chapter three now, I think.
Yeah, the story might never end, though.
That's true.
It might be a never-ending story, and, uh, in which case, uh, I don't know.
We'll need a team of writers to write the book.
Uh, get a, get a, get a book contract, and then just write a page every so often.
Yeah.
Publish a page.
Well, get a page contract.
There you go.
That might work.
I wonder if you can do that.
Just write a page now and then, and release that.
A lot easier to carry, you know.
Yeah.
Good evening.
You're on the radio.
Hello?
Hello?
I think they fell asleep.
Okay, let's try this one.
Good evening.
You're on the radio.
Hello?
Yes, go ahead.
Uh, first off, I'd like to compliment you on your music.
Thanks, uh, but you'll need to speak up.
Oh, um, sorry.
That's better.
Uh, I'd like some general information on, uh, where to start some periodicals or some books
on, uh, hacking.
Okay, another beginner here.
Uh, well, you're interested in beginning hacking, is that right?
Yes.
Uh, are you on the net?
I'm on America Online.
You're on America Online.
My condolences.
Where are you located?
Uh, in Long Island.
You're on Long Island?
Uh, where in Long Island?
Nassau or Suffolk?
Nassau.
Nassau.
I think, um, uh, Panix has local dial-ups in Nassau County.
Does Echo, Mark?
Mark, you there.
Yeah.
Oh.
You don't need to scream.
Uh, does Echo have local dial-ups?
Oh, yes, we do.
In Nassau County?
No.
Well, okay.
Never mind, then.
As far as I know, Panix is the only system, and there's also something called LINet, uh,
which I think...
LINet.
Yeah, they're in Suffolk County.
They might have something in Nassau.
You might want to contact them as well.
Uh, but that's real internet access, you see.
I have access to internet from my friend's account, but...
Uh-huh.
I have it, though.
Well, you know, you can also go in through a school.
Is that what you're referring to?
School?
Yeah, you know, if your friend has a school account, you can access the internet from there.
A university.
Yeah.
That's what it is.
Okay.
Well, that's one way of doing it.
But you just want more information on hacking.
Well, you know, if you're on the net, obviously, if you, if you, uh, get on some news groups,
that's one way of finding out.
Uh, of course, you have to realize that maybe one in ten answers there is serious, uh, to
any question that you might ask.
Uh, there's also various sites.
I don't have any of them handy, uh, right now, but, uh, you know, sites where you can get
hacking documentation and things like that.
We'll be putting up a site pretty soon, in the next, uh, month or so, at 2600.
So, um, that's one thing.
You can also read hard copy, go back down to a bookstore like we told the other caller
and, uh, and, and try that.
I've been reading, uh, the latest Wired and the latest 2600.
Uh-huh.
And I subscribe to the 2600 sometime soon, so, uh, that'll help, I guess.
Well, that should help.
That'll, that'll, that'll at least get you, you know, started in, in, in some ways.
But you have to remember, the hacker world is huge.
Yeah.
And there's all kinds of different things going on all the time.
Okay?
Uh, you, you're fading fast, so I'm gonna let you go.
Boy, I don't know what it is with the phone lines tonight, uh, Fiber.
What about them?
I don't know.
You're very loud, and they're very low.
I don't quite know why that is.
You still have the feedback line?
No, the feedback line has, has been disconnected.
We now have just a regular line in its place.
Pretty, pretty wild here.
Okay, let's go to another phone call.
Good evening, you're on.
Yeah, um, I was wondering, uh, what do you think of the, of the first class BBSs?
Um, are you familiar with that?
First class BBSs, tell us what that is.
Hello?
Yeah, oh, well, it's, it's, uh, well, you, you make fun of America Online.
This is sort of like an alternative to that.
It's, it's a, it gives you the graphical interface, but, you know, it's, it's, uh, you know, you can do two things at different times and so on.
And, um, there's one right here in New York, it's called New York Online.
Okay.
Do you know that one?
I've heard of that.
I've never used it myself.
Um, it's really, it's really cool.
I mean, uh, I, the best, uh, the best thing about it, um, is that it's first class.
Um, I was wondering if there were any others here in New York.
I'm not sure what you mean by first class.
First class is, it's a, it's a software.
It's, it's a software that runs it.
Okay.
It isn't just that one, I mean, like, America Online has their own software, which is lousy, but, uh, this one, it will, like, it will allow you to open up your mailbox, uh, read your messages.
While you're reading your messages, you might be able to, you, you'll be able to, to, uh, chat.
And, um, uh, that's, uh, that's, uh, and that's attached to New York Online?
What's that again?
That's attached to New York Online.
Um, no, New York Online is just one of them.
And there, there's, like, there, there must be hundreds of them, because the software is available to anybody who, who will want to set up a BBS.
Mm-hmm.
Um.
How does one get the software?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It's, I don't think you have to, you, you probably have to buy it or, or, or get a license for it or something, but it's probably not, it's probably, uh, on the level of shareware.
Uh-huh.
No, again, the only thing you have to do is have the hardware to, uh, to take advantage of it and set up your own BBS.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, uh, Mark, have you had any dealings with first class?
I've never heard of it.
Never heard of it either.
Okay.
First class?
All right, well, we'll look into it.
Yeah, yeah, it's cool.
Let's have a think about it.
Okay, you take care.
All right, thanks for calling.
All right, let's, uh, take another phone call.
Good evening, you're on.
Oh, yes, hi, thanks for taking the call.
Sure.
Uh, a couple of questions, the simpler one.
First, uh, concerning caller ID.
Yeah.
Um.
Recently, my wife received, you know, a pretty abusive phone call, and so we're considering getting caller ID.
But when I took a look at it with the phone company, they explained that, uh, well, you know, if somebody wants to block it, they'll just block it.
So I guess I could, I could, uh, capture the stupid callers.
Right.
But if somebody was planning to do it, I wouldn't be able to get the information.
Uh, it also depends on where they're calling from.
Do you suspect they're calling locally or from some other part of the country?
Well, I just don't really know, uh, yeah.
See, what you have to understand is there's always a way, if the person is halfway intelligent, there's always going to be a way of, of blocking the number from going through.
They can call through an operator.
They can call through another long-distance company.
They can call through a, a PBX someplace.
They can call from a pay phone.
Uh, you know, you, you'll only catch someone who's rather stupid, uh, in, in, in that particular method.
However, there is something that has always been available.
You don't have to pay for it.
It's, um, it's, it's, when you get an abusive phone call, you just simply call the, uh, the New York Telephone Annoyance Call Bureau.
And, uh, they will deal with it.
They have to deal with it.
And, and, yeah, because I was thinking that in the, the whole computer system of phone calling, it's, everything is probably tagged and available at some level.
Right, if you, if you put a, um, a, what's known as a trap and trace on your, on your line, or actually just a trap, uh, you tell them when the abusive call came in, and they will be able to find out who made that phone call.
They won't tell you who did it, though.
They, they, they never tell you that.
Uh-huh.
Uh, but they will do something about it.
They'll contact that person, and they'll tell them to stop calling you.
Of course, that might not be what you want.
Yeah.
Uh, but that's, that's really how it works.
Information is available to them.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
Okay, well, thank you on that.
And then the other question I had, on this whole information highway that everybody's getting linked into now, and then more and more information is pouring through in all different directions,
uh, what is there technically to prevent governments and corporations to jump in between you and your information source and distort it or change it or modify it?
In other words, you could do, uh, fantastic manipulations with people this way.
Well, I think the, I think the best thing we have on our side is, is our sheer numbers, the fact that there are so many of us, and, uh, and we understand the system so much better than, than they do.
Uh, right now, uh, it's not really an information superhighway.
It's like an information parking lot.
And some of us are driving around at high speeds and circles and, uh, and making it dangerous for the rest of us.
Um, but, uh, it's awfully hard to, to block off a parking lot, you know, once you're already inside it.
Uh, I'm going to stop with that analogy now.
So, but, uh, but basically, it's, um, I don't think they have enough of, of a handle on it to, uh, be able to manipulate it very effectively.
If they had a handle on it before it even began, say, 20, 25 years ago, uh, we'd be looking at a very, very different scenario now
because they would have foreseen, uh, the importance of all of this.
But, uh, really, it's, it's, it's too late for that kind of manipulation unless we, we completely give up all control that we have now.
Oh, really? So you, you, you don't think, you know, I mean...
As long as...
As long as your conspiracy theory, uh, part of your brain, uh...
Mm-hmm.
Because I assume they have very large and powerful computers, and, and if they keep coming to your meetings
and start recuting some of your people, maybe they'll have some real brain power to put behind it.
Have you ever tried to recruit a hacker?
It's not the easiest thing in the world to do.
No, but they, yeah, well...
They keep asking these inconvenient questions and things like that, but, no, I see your point.
Yeah.
I just, I just think that there are enough of us to constantly be questioning
and providing alternative sources of information, but we have to remain vigilant, obviously.
Mm-hmm.
There's, there's, you know, no, no reason to, uh, you know, to become complacent.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, well, thank you for that.
All right?
Yeah, thanks very much.
Thanks for calling.
Fiber, do you agree with what I said?
Uh, yeah.
I, I think, uh, I, I think it'd be kind of hard.
I mean, where was he coming from?
Does he think that they're just going to brainwash hackers and, uh, sort of keep them in a, in a fish tank or something?
Well, no, I think maybe he thinks that everyone's going to be brainwashed at some point or just at least manipulated or controlled or kind of curled into a corner or something.
I don't know.
It's, it's, it's a, it's a fear that is running rampant among the net today, uh, because people see, you know, the government getting, uh, interested in, in controlling, interested in encryption, all that kind of thing.
And, and, you know, they generally get what they want.
The United States government is, is, is a pretty darn powerful government, you know?
So, uh, when, when, when they express an interest in something, they usually get it.
So, is this something that's going to be an exception?
Yeah.
I'm sure they don't like that very much either.
No, they don't.
They don't.
I'm sure they don't like being mocked on the air either.
So, we're going to stop now.
Uh, besides it's time for us to go on to another program.
Uh, so, uh, Fiverr, best of luck down at Echo.
I hope things work out over there.
Thanks.
This, uh, this upgrade, let me, let me give a word of advice to everyone listening.
Go ahead.
Don't buy an operating system that's maintained by Mormons.
Okay.
Why would we do that in the first place?
Well, I, I don't want to name names, but, uh, in this case, I have to.
Ever since AT&T Unix stopped being AT&T Unix, and now it's Novell Unix, it's, uh, it's been nothing but a nightmare.
Now, where did the Mormons come into this?
Because Novell is in Utah, and Novell is a Mormon company.
Novell is, well, you know, I run Novell DOS.
Does that mean I'm running?
Well, Novell DOS is another one of those things.
It's not really from Novell.
It was kind of bought over from digital research since Gary Kildall died.
Uh-huh.
Sort of untimely.
But, um...
Or was it untimely?
Oh, sorry, that was the, that was the conspiracy part of my brain kicking in.
Uh, okay, we better stop this now.
But, uh, we'll, we'll be back.
Hopefully we'll be back next week, and, uh, we'll, we'll go into more detail on this.
Fiber, thanks again, and we'll, uh, we'll talk to you later.
Okay.
Okay.
And that's going to do it for us here.
Another exciting edition of Off the Hook is history.
We'll be back again next week from 10 to 11 o'clock.
Stay tuned for the Pacifica special, 100 Days of Congress.
This is WBAI in New York again.
Thanks, everybody, for bringing in that fantastic total.
$820,000 for our last marathon.
A world record, I believe, and something that will help keep this radio station strong.
Again, if you pledge, please remember to pay your pledge.
Thanks again.
See you next week.
We'll be right back.
Welcome to Pacifica National Programs, 100 Days of Congress, with your hosts, Julian Malveaux and Larry Benske.
I came to this hallowed chamber two years ago on a mission to restore the American dream for all our people
and to make sure that we move into the 21st century still the strongest force for freedom and democracy in the entire world.
I was determined then to tackle the tough problems too long ignored.
In this effort, I am frank to say that I have made my mistakes, and I have learned again the importance of humility in all human endeavor.
But I am also proud to say tonight that our country is stronger than it was two years ago.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Welcome to the Pacifica 100 Days of Congress special.
I'm Julian Malveaux with co-host Larry Benske.
And Larry, yesterday, Bill Clinton learned humility yet again.
An hour and 20 minutes of history lesson, humility.
You were here for Pacifica doing live coverage of the speech.
What did you think?
Well, I thought, first of all, that all the pundits and people who write books about what an undisciplined mind he has
and how difficult it is for him to come to the point are absolutely right.
You could hear the sound of televisions and radios clicking off all over the United States.
I think in that sense he really blew an opportunity to communicate in a concise manner.
And also, Julianne, throughout the speech I kept hearing hints of programs and hints of taking a stand.
But when you boil it down to find out what he really drew the line at, you come to very few things.
He drew the line at teen pregnancy.
The worst thing that is happening in the world today is teen pregnancy.
I mean, it seems to me I sat at home with my laptop in my lap hoping to make some notes,
but every time he just about got to a thought, my fingers got over the keyboard, then he moved on.
And so it was really too late.
But the three things that I remember some emphasis about, and it really disturbed me, about two of those three things.
One was the crackdown on illegal immigration.
The other was teen pregnancy.
And, of course, the increasing of the minimum wage, which I absolutely support but feel that, you know,
this is something we would have liked to hear him ask the 103rd Congress for.
He doesn't have the votes for it.
The other two things that I heard him really get very close to taking a stand on,
actually taking a strong stand on one, was the repeal of the Brady Bill.
He basically said he's going to veto it.
He did take a very strong nail on that.
He's going to veto that if Congress brings that to his attention in a form of legislation.
The other thing was about campaign finance reform and the whole question of Washington corruption.
He urged everybody in the chamber to just say no to lobbyist donations.
Well, that sounds very good as a soundbite, but that isn't the way business is done in this town.
You've got 15,000 men and women running around up there with satchels full of money.
Ready to buy politicians.
And for everybody in the audience to stand up for a standing ovation when he said just say no to lobbyists
and then turn around probably the same night and go out to dinner with lobbyists
is the height of the kind of hypocrisy that people hate about Washington.
And in addition, I mean, the Democratic National Committee isn't exactly going to be turning lobbyist funds away.
And as the titular head of the Democratic Party, it seems to me that while the president had a good applause line,
there's nothing that he is practically going to do to stop the Democratic Party from getting that money.
True enough.
Joining us now to discuss this and share in this conversation this morning on Pacifica's Hundred Days are Clarence Lusane.
Clarence, are you with us?
Yeah, good morning.
Good morning, Clarence.
Clarence Lusane, an expert in black politics, especially in Washington, and editor of a very fine newsletter on that topic.
And as well, we're joined by Saul Landau, who is a commentator for Pacifica Radio and a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Good morning.
Good morning. I'm here.
Clarence, let's start with you.
You listen to the hour and 20 minutes.
I don't mean to belabor that point, but I think when I look at Larry's eyes being held up by toothpicks
because he sat here and covered it live.
As you listen, Clarence, what were your thoughts?
Well, my usual opinion when I listen to Clinton's speeches are manic depression.
You know, what you tend to get is several different things, Clinton going to the left and the right at the same time.
And that's what we got last night.
When I watched the speech, and I'm not sure what other people saw on their television,
but it looked to me like sometimes Clinton would turn into the Clinton of 1992 and the campaign themes of we've got to change America
and take it back from this conservative trend.
And then other times he would kind of morph into Bush and sometimes even into Ronald Reagan.
I think you're absolutely right, Julianne.
This whole thing about illegal immigrants, which I heard very few commentators mention,
was some of the worst comments I've heard coming from anybody in years.
He literally almost, I was expecting him to say he was going to go to the border himself
and grab some Mexicans and drag them back across the border.
That's how terrible it was.
Wait for the election.
You may actually see that.
Yeah, I can imagine the pictures.
So I thought that, you know, again, it was a very scattered kind of speech that was kind of all over the map
and had little focus.
And this was the opportunity when I think particularly given the tone of Congress right now
where you had to pretty much throw down the gauntlet and draw the lines, you know, in every way possible.
And, in fact, I think very consciously he went to blur the lines.
And except for the couple of instances that you all noted, he did.
Saul?
Well, I think that, really, you guys are being much too hard on the president.
I think by 1996, first of all, medical science will have a way to solve the problems that you see
every time he appears in public.
I think by that time the character transplant will be a perfected operation, and he'll be fine.
Well, your medical optimism, Saul, is always appreciated,
but given the fact that this will be a high-tech operation that only President Clinton can afford,
what does that say for the rest of us?
Well, I think the rest of us are in the stew no matter what happens.
I think what we saw last night was, I would say, pathetic.
You know, my teenage kid says NYPD is preempted for this, right?
And she was outraged.
She says, Jesus, he's boring.
I tried to say, well, no, listen to it, you know, because you're president and all that,
but I didn't convince her.
Anyway, it seemed to me that the Clinton speech comes as a result of the same kind of process
that a lot of the Clinton legislation comes from, that you have a big seminar,
and everybody gets a little part.
So you have various speechwriters, and you sort of take paragraph one from so-and-so,
take paragraph two from this one, and so on.
So you start with the Bill of Rights, excuse me, with the Declaration of Independence,
the inalienable rights, and within 30 seconds, he's up to the Schmageggies, Truman and Reagan,
the two stupidest presidents we've probably had in the last 50 years.
And he puts them all, he lumps them all into one grouping,
and then he talks about essentially the revival of the American dream.
And this was going to be his pitch.
How do you revive the American dream?
What the hell is this dream at this point?
You know, does anybody ask Americans, first of all, what's your dream?
Right?
People say, I don't know, I can't remember my dream.
You know, I was sleeping last night, but I only remember pieces of it, but it wasn't so good.
What is the American dream?
I mean, Martin Luther King was the only person that I can think of who articulated what the American dream was.
And it was a vision of people living in equality, racial equality, economic equality.
And this has nothing to do with what Bill Clinton was talking about.
So you have these high-sounding words like democracy and freedom extending, blah, blah, blah.
And then when you come down to it is, I'm going to cut your taxes more than they.
Hey, we're going to see the government doesn't interfere.
It's all petty, all banal with an attack on immigrants.
Don't worry, we're not going to let these foreigners foul up our soil any more than they have and so on.
Let me see if we can get to a point that not too many people have focused on yet here.
The one that kind of caught me up short a little bit towards the end of the speech where he talked about violence on television
and said while he supports the freedom of expression for people in Hollywood,
that they have a responsibility to assess the impact of their work.
This is a time when everybody in the House and Senate just got to their feet,
which, by the way, didn't happen all that often.
A lot of the times the Republicans were sitting, the Democrats were standing up and applauding.
These are some of his major campaign contribution people.
Yeah, but he didn't see, didn't you see the player, Larry?
Yes, the movie.
And the relevance thereof?
Well, I mean, the player presented, I thought, the reality of Hollywood, but sort of underplayed it.
And here he's asking these people to make sacrifices,
to move forward with freedoms, to exert more responsibility.
If the people who ran Hollywood exerted more responsibility,
the culture would be even more trivial, banal, and stupid than it is.
Oh, my goodness.
Saul, you really seem pretty cynical and bitter this morning.
What's on your nerves?
Well, I was in Hollywood last week, Julianne.
What can I tell you?
I mean, you know, you think you've hit the bottom,
and then you meet people who are essentially in charge of the entertainment industry,
and their only value is making more money.
Clarence, violence is something that in the African-American community
we've had a lot of discussion about,
because obviously violence hits our community most hard.
What did you think when you heard the president through that piece at the end of the speech?
Well, you know, maybe this is my paranoia,
but I thought it was a veil attack on rap music.
That was the first thing that kind of came to my mind.
And, you know, it comes after he talks about terrorism
and raising the military budget, $25 billion and all of that.
Then he goes into this thing about the attack on the entertainment industry
and then teen pregnancy.
So that seemed to me to be kind of tag-ons to say,
oh, and about these black teenagers, by the way.
So that was my spin on it.
But, you know, the thing is that these speeches have become, you know, farcical.
You know, they become just kind of literal comedies at a certain point.
I think Larry made the point last night that there was something like 70 standing ovations.
I mean, that's, you know, Michael Jackson doesn't get that many at his performances in Budapest somewhere.
But, you know, so it becomes kind of a theater of the absurd,
and the reality becomes these speeches are only kind of marking more what will not happen in Congress
than they are what will happen.
Well, one thing that President Clinton emphasized again was his new covenant,
which we haven't heard about since the election,
and also the so-called middle-class bill of rights.
And I'd like to get your take, each of you, on the middle-class bill of rights.
In fact, he's off to Cutstown, Pennsylvania today to talk about that at the grassroots level.
Is this more pre-electoral hype,
or is there something in there that you think is going to emerge as significant legislation?
Well, I don't see how, I mean, we have a bill of rights,
and the bill of rights is a middle-class bill of rights.
It protects people's, what are those freedoms that are defined in the Declaration of Independence,
the inalienable rights.
But what Clinton's talking about is you've got a right to a tax cut this year,
or next year, or do you have a right to a tax cut every year?
So by the time you get into the 21st century,
the government will have no right to collect taxes anymore.
Well, I don't understand what this means,
that the people who already have something should be allowed to keep at least what they have
and accumulate a little more.
Is that what it means?
What is the middle-class?
Where does it start?
30,000, 50,000, 100,000?
Well, it's so vague.
It's so silly.
It is the, how should I say it?
It's the era in which somebody gets a good slogan saying,
middle-class, we've got to do something for the middle-class.
Whoever they are, they're the 17 or 18 percent of the American population
that elected this last Congress.
I think that's somebody, so that's the actual percentage of eligible voters.
It's the spoils of victory.
Clarence, what about the middle-class tax cut?
Well, I think Clinton's in trouble on it from a number of vantage points.
One, a lot of Democrats on the Hill are going to oppose it.
Certainly, most of the members, if not all of the Congressions that are in the Congressional Black Caucus
are going to oppose tax cuts.
But also, you've got a lot of liberal members who are going to oppose.
I would say probably at least half of the Democrats up there just off the top are not going to go with it.
But even within Clinton's administration, there are people who are going to oppose it.
But last night when he got to that point in the speech, the channel that I was watching cut to Robert Reich,
who not only did not stand up but had a look on his face like he just stepped in some dog poo.
He was absolutely opposed to it in terms of his gestures and his expression.
Well, we're going to come right back and talk about tax cuts with an excerpt from Christine Todd Whitman,
whose big theme this is.
Thank you very much, Saul Landau and Clarence Lusane, for being with us on 100 Days.
Peace.
Thank you.
The response to President Clinton's State of the Union address last night
was given by New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman,
who has become a kind of poster girl for the tax-cutting new Republican majority in Congress
and in many state legislatures around the country.
Christine Todd Whitman has promised, and according to many people,
delivered promises of tax-cutting in New Jersey.
She gave a much briefer response than President Clinton's speech,
and a great deal of it was about the tax issue.
In the first year, with the help of the New Jersey legislature, we cut business taxes.
We reduced income taxes not once, but twice.
We lowered state spending, not recklessly, but carefully and fairly.
Just yesterday, I announced a third wave of income tax cuts,
another 15 percent, taking us to a 30 percent reduction.
To put more money in the hands of families like yours.
The results have been solid.
State revenues are up, even from the income tax.
And 60,000 more New Jerseyans are at work today than were a year ago,
making this year our best year for job creation since 1988.
And we did it all under a balanced budget requirement to our state's constitution.
In November, the revolution came to Washington.
Now people want less government, lower taxes, and less spending from their federal government.
People want results.
In both houses of Congress, the Republican Party has been elected,
like many of us in the states were, on an agenda...
...to encourage people to work and to stop children from having children.
We want to force the government to live within its means by stopping runaway spending
and balancing the federal budget.
We want to lower taxes for families and make it easier to achieve the American dream,
to save money, buy a home, and send the kids to college.
We're going to stop violent criminals in their tracks with real prison time for repeat offenders
and a workable death penalty.
We must send a message to our young people that crime doesn't pay.
And we're going to slash those unnecessary regulations that strangle small business in America
to make it easier to create more jobs and pay better wages
and become more competitive in the global marketplace.
We intend to create a new era of hope and opportunity for all Americans.
Many of these ideas are the same ones governors have been enacting here in the states.
Time after time, Republicans and Democrats have found that things work better
when states and communities set their own priorities
rather than being bossed around by bureaucrats in Washington.
Our colleagues in Capitol Hill are facing the same opposition we did,
the same cries of it can't be done from the Washington's knows best crowd,
people who think government can't be too big,
and that there's a virtue in raising taxes.
Well, there is nothing virtuous about raising taxes.
There is nothing heroic about preserving a welfare system that entraps people.
And there's nothing high-minded about wasting other people's money
on big government spending sprees.
We overcame the same objections, the same stalling and distortion,
the same foot-dragging.
We've heard it all.
And in the end, we have won the battle of ideas in our states.
Now it's time to win the battle of ideas in Washington.
We're back on Pacifica's 100 Days of Congress special.
I'm Julianne Malva with co-host Larry Binsky,
and we're joined by Doug Hinwood, editor of the Left Business Report.
Doug, good morning.
Good morning.
Thanks for being with us.
My pleasure.
You heard Christine Todd Whitman talk about no glory in increasing taxes
and challenging the president to cut taxes.
What do you think?
It's amazing that they call these new ideas.
I mean, these are rather pretty old things,
and to call them ideas is to glorify them a lot.
I mean, it's as if American politics has been reduced to who can cut taxes more.
I mean, the whole, it's just gimmickry.
I mean, the idea of serious discussion about what government is supposed to do
and how it's supposed to do it is completely marginalized,
and it's all just, I want to cut your taxes.
Government stinks.
You know, it's kind of a beaver's butthead approach to taxes.
Government sucks.
Tax cut's good.
You know, that's about the extent of it.
Doug, the New York Times yesterday had an article about the effect
and the nature of what Governor Whitman is doing in New Jersey,
and I wonder, as somebody who lives in New York,
if you could go into that a little bit.
Among other things, it shows how what she's doing
is really going to hit poor people hard.
One thing that caught me is you used to be able to take supermarket coupons,
you know, that you get in the newspaper to the supermarket,
and if you got a quarter off on a dollar purchase,
you'd be taxed only on the 75 cents you paid.
But now, according to Governor Whitman, you're taxed on the whole dollar.
Now, this is the kind of petty thing that hits poor people,
nickel-and-diming poor people,
to make up for their middle-class income tax cuts.
Well, maybe a big bite on, you know, poor folks,
but that kind of thing is not going to make up much for the lost revenue
in the big picture.
The first phase of her tax cut, which happened last year,
was financed rather painlessly mainly through some pension fund gimmicks.
They recalculated the formula in which the state contributes
to the employee pension funds.
Well, stop one minute there.
What's going to happen to the people who try to get those pensions
in 20 or 30 years?
Well, that's a good question.
It may be that it's entirely prudent.
It may be that it's successfully optimistic.
And it may be that, you know, 10 years from now,
they're going to find out that they're coming up short in the pensions,
and they're going to have to do something about that.
So it's either they'll have to top them up somehow
through special revenues, or they'll cut the pensions.
But in the short term, it's a painless way to finance something.
It's something that a lot of municipalities and even a lot of companies have.