---------------

Date: 5/8/00 10:40 AM
From: Richard D. Meadows, rmeadows@ntr.net
To: DGreising@Tribune.com

Dear Mr. Greising,

I read with great interest your column of May 7, 2000, "Hackers hardly huggable; let's get serious" at the Trib's web site.

Since finishing it, I can not make up my mind if I am disgusted, angry or just sick over the putrid garbage you wrote. Having been on the net since '84 - probably about the time you went from a bottle to sipper cup I can tell you, that you and your ilk are the problem with 'hackers'. You have reached out, grabbed a word which described a person of near deity stature in the computing community, and turned it into something derogatory. Enough of my personal bias against ignorant writers who should be backing up to the pay window each week to accept money from their employers.

I challenge you to provide evidence for your statement: "Hackers already are far more dangerous than most people know. In the last year alone, intentionally inflicted viruses have taken down airport control systems and 911 emergency call centers."

Which airport control systems? Which airport? Which systems? When? What date? Where was this reported? Which 911 emergency call centers? What cities exactly? What date? Where was this reported? Where in the world of data collection did you get your statistic in your third claim? "They have permanently converted millions of personal computers into cybertrash." Where exactly are all these trashed computers? Millions? Name the 'hackers'.

And then I came to this statement in your column: "They'll have the power to destroy our computers the moment they arrive, via e-mail or the Internet." Please explain to me and the public exactly how 'they' are going to deliver e-mail WITHOUT using the Internet? Sitting here writing this letter I have a vision of you sitting at your computer merrily tapping away on your keyboard when a voice says, "You have mail". You slide back in your chair, walk out the front door of your house, stroll down the sidewalk, and open the mailbox only to find it empty. Disgusted at the lie your computer told you, you return to your writing and repeat that process each time the voice says, "You have mail."

To those of us in the computer community, those of us with seniority, you are not only uninformed, ill-advised and clueless, but you are a clear and present danger. I work in the industry, and it scares me that there is no one at the Trib with enough knowledge to check your column(s) or intestinal fortitude to challenge the veracity of the statements you put in them.

Sincerely,

Richard D. Meadows

---------------

Date: 5/8/00 10:49 AM
From: Bob.Eichler@ual.com
To: dgreising@tribune.com

Mr. Greising,
I need to extend my own opinion to you in light of what you published to the world regarding "hackers".

http://chicago.tribune.com/business/columnists /greising/article/0,1122,A RT-44685,00.html

I am sure you are appropriately outraged over the most recent attacks on computer systems world wide. As well anyone should be. However, as a professional in the computer security business (not a consulting firm, as you may surmise from my e-mail address), I must point out that you don't really seem to know what you are talking about. You have taking a few buzzwords, a few situations, a sense of moral indignation, and mixed it all into a stew that serves no purpose other than to fuel the fire of a growing witch-hunt on the "evil hacker". Thank God you did not write during the McCarthy era, or in Old Salem.

Next time you write an article of this nature, get the facts straight. Talk to professionals in the industry, not a bunch of wanna be's around the water cooler. Put real time into your work, don't just spit out rubbish to meet a deadline. Then your opinion will be well received and respected - even if people don't agree with it.

You want some facts?
The people committing these computer crimes are not "hackers". They are a bunch of stupid "kids" (immature mentally and emotionally, if not physically) who are only using some readily available tools. Does this make it ok? Of course not. My point? The exploits of these "script-kiddies" (the term your article should have used) could have all been avoided had the corporations, governments, and individuals currently flocking to the Net, taken even the most rudimentary security precautions. The Internet environment does not defy our ability to secure it. The real problem, the problem no one is talking about, is the complete incompetence of all the affected individuals when it comes to protecting themselves. Systems are being dumped onto the Internet by amateurs with no sense of what they are exposing themselves to. Corporations have a "damn the torpedoes" mentality getting their product on the Net, don't bother them with security, it adds overhead and affects their move to production date. Then when some kid goes joyriding and screws up their data, it must have been an "evil hacker genius". Bullshit-spin-control to mask incompetence. That is the real story. You want a Watergate style expose? Look into that story.

---------------

Date: 5/8/00 10:47 AM
From: CyberChrist, cc@dhp.com
To: dgreising@tribute.com

Mr. Griesing, I am writing to you to express my complete disgust with your article in May 7 where you presume to know the facts about hackers. It's my guess that you were hit pretty close with the ILOVEYOU virus and thus chose to lash out in the fish wrapping that you write for that is The Chicago Tribune.

First, you begin by talking about the term "hacker". The term has been around for about 20-25 years, much longer than the web page defacements and the silly viruses that you see today. The term hacker used to denote someone that was knowledgable with computers and hardware to the degree that they could get the hardware or software to do something that it could not do. Famous hackers include people like Steve Wozniak and Bob Metcalfe. Wozniak co-founded Apple Computers with Steve Jobs and Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet (you probably have a network connection on your computer that uses Ethernet) and he founded a company back in the 80s called 3Com. These guys were hackers in every sense of the meaning of the original word.

So when was it that hackers became criminals? It was when misinformed journalists such as yourself decided to apply that term to little kids who broke into the Pentagon using daddy's computer after watching War Games. So if you don't like the term hacker, why don't you stop using it and try to convince a few of your colleagues to stop using it as well? We prefer that you use the term "cracker" when talking about people that deface web sites and the such. But that might not be enough of a term to give you that edge that you're looking for. I tell you what-- go with "digital sodomist" and maybe you'll get the reaction from the masses that you're looking for.

The rest of your article beyond the first few paragraphs are such a complete disaster in logic that you run the risk of becoming a parody of yourself. You state that "Hackers play to type. They typically are aloof young outsiders." This is where you are actually falling into the trap of stereotyping a subculture by the images that Hollywood has spoonfed you. But since most of the sheeple that are your audience feel that reality is dictated on film, I guess it only makes sense that you cater to them. The reality is that crackers and hackers tend to be anything but aloof. Crackers take down web sites in the hopes of being able to brag about it to their friends. Hackers and crackers attend conventions all over the country (Hackers on Planet Earth and DefCon 8-- which denotes that there have been 7 others in the past years-- are just two coming up this summer). And it might surprise you to know that hackers are fond of talking about some new novelty that they have found with their friends. Maybe they got their PalmPilot to run a program that is actually useful or maybe they found a bug in their video card that gives them weird results. Use your imagination-- you seem to be good at it especially when you have to meet that deadline for a story.

You later go on to talk about the term "denial of service". It might surprise you know to know that denial-of-service attacks have been around since before such things as web pages and eCommerce and Yahoo! existed. It's a technical term and the insinuation that you make that the people responsible for the attacks on Yahoo! and others made up this term so as to appear innocent is completely misleading and seems to be nothing but an effort to misinform the public to the point of outrage.

You later equate hackers to a monstrosity like Timothy McVeigh. To draw a comparison between the horror of the Oklahoma City bombing, where hundreds of lives were lost, including those of innocent children playing in a nursery, is a sheer reach for emotions of your readers. What is the body count of the Melissa virus or the ILOVEYOU virus? Do you think that the government will sentence the writer of the ILOVEYOU virus to life in prison or the death penalty? Do you think we will erect a ILOVEYOU memorial in memory of the victims of the virus (maybe we should put a Microsoft Windows logo at the bottom of the memorial)? If you are going to draw the comparison between McVeigh and his actions, make sure you go all the way with it.

You state that the virus created 12 Billion dollars of damage. I am curious as to where you verified this information. I have read anywhere between 1 million dollars of damage to 4 billion dollar's worth of damage. Then of course you move on to demonize the security firms for the figures and that they will benefit from the damage. That's a bit like blaming the police department for the muggings at the local park and that they should pay for the people's wallets being stolen. Hey, maybe the fire department should stop answering fire calls since they profit from other people's misery.

Then, of course, more fear, uncertainty and doubt. You state that last year alone viruses have taken down air traffic control systems and 911 centers. Please show me the headlines of the planes crashing and the ambulances not showing up. If you are referring to the 911 virus, that virus (a) has been around far longer than most internet users and (b) *DIALS* 911, not take it down. You also state that "[hackers] have permanently converted millions of personal computers into cybertrash." Millions of computers? Where did you get that from? And how can a hacker or many of them possibly convert MILLIONS (which denotes at least 2 million) computers into permanent trash? The truth is that that statistic is totally made up, more effort by yourself to mislead your readers into believing untruths. So now, even though most people never heard of millions of computers being shut down permanently, they believe it because of your column. So now the world is a bit more stupid thanks to you.

Of course, you're not finished. You start talking about the next-generation of viruses as if you understood the current generation of them. You use words like ebola, more buzz words designed to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt.

You wrap it up by basically asking people to round up anyone they perceive as hackers and treat them like scourge. The only scourge in this article is your complete inability to use facts and think objectively. You quote movies, disasters and diseases to back up your point that hackers are evil. Not once do you give any credible source, except to quote a security expert that you later go on to demonize. It's a sad and pathetic piece of work that belongs wrapped around a fish at the local market.

Do yourself a favor and stick to writing about sea turtles-- it seems to suit you a bit more than something as complex as this.

-*(CC)*-
"Sapere Aude"