hacking

	==Phrack Magazine==

	Volume Four, Issue Forty-Four, File 5 of 27

	****************************************************************************

	Computer Cop Prophile

	by The Grimmace



	The following file is something I thought of and did
	a LOT of research on before writing. It's something that
	I haven't seen in PHRACK and I've been a devout fan of
	this zine since the beginning.

	The "PHRACK PROPHILES" on hackers and phreakers give
	readers an insight into the movers and shakers of the P/H
	world, but how about a profile or profiles on the
	anti-hacker/phreaker establishment that seems to be
	growing by leaps and bounds lately?

	In the past years we've seen cops and feds who know
	nothing about computers and/or telephone systems bungle their
	way through search warrants and arrests and have had some good
	laughs at their expense. But now it seems that the "computer
	cops", the feds especially, are putting a big push on training
	agents in the "tricks of the trade" and their conviction rate
	is getting better.

	The primary source of this training is the Federal Law
	Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, where they're
	teaching computer seizure and analysis techniques,
	computer-targeted search warrants, and telecommunications fraud
	investigations. (They're very accommodating about giving out
	information on the phone as long as you tell them you're a
	cop). The FBI Academy in Quantico also has a computer crimes
	course.

	On the technical side of things, there's an organization
	called IACIS which stands for the International Association
	of Computer Investigative Specialists based in Portland,
	Oregon, and which consists of members of both local law
	enforcement agencies nationwide as well as various and
	sundry federal agencies. This group teaches and certifies
	cops in how to get evidence from computer systems that can't be
	attacked in court (Of course, anything CAN be attacked, but
	getting the evidence squashed is not always a sure thing unless
	the judge is a computerphobe).

	As much satisfaction as we've gained at the expense of
	the US Secret Service from the Steve Jackson Games case, it's
	widely publicized problems may prove to be a double-edged sword
	hanging over our heads. Law enforcement learned a LOT of lessons
	from mistakes made in that investigation.

	Like most of you, I've spent a lot of years
	exploring computer systems (usually those belonging to others)
	and personally feel that I've done nothing wrong (know the
	feeling?). I'm sure others across the country also can
	conduct a little socially-engineered reconnaissance and
	get the lowdown on some of the people we NEVER want to see
	knocking on our doors with a sledge hammer in the middle of the
	night.

	This profile contains information on the ONLY computer
	crime cop I could identify in the Louisville/Jefferson County
	area after calling all the major departments posing as a writer
	for a law enforcement magazine doing a survey. Information
	about him was obtained not only from his department, but from
	sources in the local and federal court systems, Ma Bell
	Security, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Lt.
	Baker is not a potential donor to the CPSR or EFF to say the
	least.

	I'm currently compiling similar information on other
	law enforcement types in the Secret Service, Columbus Ohio PD,
	Dallas PD, Georgia Bureau of Investigation and members of Ma
	Bell's Data Security Group in Atlanta. Baker was just the
	closest to me so I started with him. If I can get the
	information I've requested, then future submissions will
	also include lesson plans furnished by FLETC on their training
	courses and analysis protocols suggested by the USSS...heh...heh.

	Yours,

	The Grimmace


	--------------------------------*
	COMPUTER-COP PROFILE I

	LT. BILL BAKER

	JEFFERSON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
	LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY


	INFORMATION COMPILED BY:

	THE GRIMMACE

	--------------------------------*


	NAME: Bill Baker
	RANK: Lieutenant

	AGENCY: Jefferson County Police Department
	768 Barret Ave.
	Louisville, Kentucky 40204

	AGE: 43
	YEARS OF COMPUTER EXP: 13

	YEARS AS A COP: 18
	YEARS IN COMPUTER/
	TELECOM CRIME: 8

	TRAINING: Federal Law Enforcement Training Ctr.
	Glynco, Ga.
	- Telecommunications Crime
	Telecom Fraud
	Cellular Fraud
	PBX Fraud
	- Computer Crime
	Illegal Access Crimes
	Computer Crime Inves.
	Seized System Analysis

	FBI Academy
	Quantico, Va.
	- Computers in Narcotics Investigations
	- Computer Crime Investigations

	National Intelligence Academy
	Ft. Lauderdale, Fl.
	- Supervising Intelligence Operations
	Surveillance Techniques
	Electronic Tracking
	Electronic Eavesdroping
	Video Evidence Techniques
	- Telephone Systems
	Wiretaps
	Dialed Number Recorders
	Pager/Fax Intercepts
	Technical Telephony Course

	PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENTS: Patrol
	Criminal Investigations/Burglary
	Criminal Investigations/Homicide
	Crime Prevention
	Special Investigations/Vice-Intel

	MEMBER: Communications Fraud Control Association
	Washington, D.C.

	PUBLICATIONS: Various computer/telecommunications
	crime oriented articles for assorted
	law enforcement and computer industry
	magazines (i.e., POLICE CHIEF, DATA TODAY)


	Posing as a freelance writer from the "Law Enforcement
	Journal", I made calls to local police agencies all over this
	area asking about their Computer Crime Units and received
	replies ranging from "What are you talking about?" to "Maybe
	FRAUD handles that...hey, Charlie...do the FRAUD guys do
	anything with compoooters?". So much for the Louisville
	Division of Police...no fear there, right?

	But I decided to push on since Louisville, though not a
	hotbed of phreakers/hackers, IS the latest home of TAP MAGAZINE
	(a la Blitzkrieg BBS and the Predat0r) and has a smattering of
	"hometown" folks engaged in less than legal activities through
	the local phone lines.

	The call made to the Jefferson County Police got me a
	solid response of "You'll have to talk to Lt. Bill Baker. Hey,
	Charlie, where's Lt. Baker working now?" (This guy is so low
	key his own department doesn't even know where he works!) They
	finally decide he's someplace called "Adam Station" and
	through "various" contacts and a friendly local attorney who
	rarely pays for telephone calls himself, I managed to obtain
	quite a bit of information about Lt. Baker and his obviously
	misguided quest.

	Lt. Baker is fairly typical of the "new breed" of
	high-tech investigator currently being churned out by the
	various federal training schools. He's aggressive and, from
	talking to other members of his department, thought of as a
	"computer weenie" who was probably a hacker himself before he
	embraced the "dark side" of "the FORCE". (I personally believe
	that this may be more fact than fantasy after talking to him on
	the phone since he seems to know more about phreaking and
	hacking than one would think would be taught in the
	aforementioned federal institutes of higher learning.)

	I finally managed to speak with Lt. Baker on the phone
	and gave him my "writing about computer crime" rap which he
	bought with little suspicion. The following are excerpts from
	the recording I made of the conversation [comments in brackets
	are mine]:

	TG: How would you rate the progress of computer and
	telecommunications crime investigations in this area?

	Baker: There have been some good cases made here, but there's
	still a long way to go. The main problem is that there
	hasn't been a push from local businesses in this area to combat
	these types of crimes. Most of'em don't want to admit they've
	been hit from the outside. If there's no complaints,
	then the departments aren't likely to want to spend the money
	to dig up additional crime, right?

	TG: Of the hackers you've worked on, what kind of capabilities
	do they have and how good do you think they are?

	Baker: Well, hackers and phreaks are like any other cross-section
	of a criminal group...there are some that are very good
	and some that are pitiful. The best thing you can say
	about working hacker/phreaker cases is that a lot of them
	catch themselves. They have huge egos and tend to brag
	a good deal about what they've done and how they did it.

	TG: Does that mean that you don't think a computer crime
	investigator has to be as good as the criminals
	he chases...I mean, because a lot of these people leave
	so many clues behind? How would you rate your ability
	in this field?

	Baker: Nope...not at all. I think that as technology gets better
	so will the crooks. Let's keep the record straight here.
	Sure, there are bozos out there who read a how-to file in
	an old PHRACK and decide that they have the knowledge
	they need to nuke the phone company or ride a VAX like
	a Hell's Angel rides a Harley. Those are the easy ones.
	The ones who -write- [author's emphasis] the technical
	articles in PHRACK are the ones to worry about. There
	are some stomp-down [??] incredibly knowledgeable
	individuals in circulation blasting away with their modems
	at any target of opportunity.

	TG: You didn't mention your own ability for investigating
	these people.

	Baker: (Laughs) Yeah, well...let's say I know enough to get by
	and am smart enough to know that there are no absolute
	experts.

	TG: How would you comment on the Steve Jackson Games case?
	Do you think the Secret Service set a lot of bad
	precedents?

	Baker: (Laughs) Noooooooo....sorry, pal. That's been jawed to death
	in every phreak/hack mag, legal journal, and Internet
	newsgroup in existence and I'm not about to stick my
	neck out on that one, OK? I will say that everyone learned
	a lot from that case and I seriously doubt if you'll see the
	same set of problems reoccurring in future cases. Maybe
	the CSPR or EFF hired guns can come up with a new group
	of loopholes, in which case we'll have to find new ways
	to circumvent those attacks.

	TG: You sound a little critical of the EFF and CSPR efforts
	in their defense of so-called "computer criminals".

	Baker: Well, I'm sure that they believe in what they're doing.
	They must to invest that much cash and energy. But I
	think there has to be some middle ground agreed upon
	rather than just whining about "all information should
	be free" and "if I can get into your system then I should
	be allowed to look around". I'm not going to launch into
	a diatribe on organizations that I don't agree with. I'm
	simply going to work harder at dotting every "i" and
	crossing every "t" to make my cases more secure. Stealing
	telephone service is a crime, defrauding businesses is a
	crime, gaining unauthorized access into someone else's
	computer system is, in most states, a crime, and even if
	there's no law on the books making it a crime, it's
	wrong.

	TG: Since by your own statement, you feel that high-tech
	crime investigation is still in its infancy, what groups
	or organizations would you say are in the lead in trying
	to combat this type of crime?

	Baker: The most significant two I know are the Federal Law
	Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, and the
	Communications Fraud Control Association based out of
	Washington, D.C. FLETC [he pronounces it FLET-SEE]
	probably has the finest computer crimes training program
	in the country. They bring in acknowledged experts and
	don't cut the students any slack as far as learning to
	do things correctly and, most importantly, legally. The
	CFCA is the leader in Telecommunications security and
	provide training and assistance to telecom and computer
	companies along with law enforcement agencies all over
	the country.

	TG: Why do you think so few law enforcement agencies know
	anything about computer crime investigations? Are they
	going to leave the phreaks to the feds?

	Baker: Nah...I don't think you can simplify it that easily.
	Most departments don't have dedicated computer crime units
	because of lack of funds to support such a unit, lack of
	trained personnel, lack of understanding of the magnitude
	of the problem, fear of increasing their crime stats or
	any combination of those reasons. When I first got into
	this, there weren't any experts. John Maxfield and his
	BOARDSCAN operation got a lot of talk in the hack/phreak
	journals and there were a small handful of others, but
	no real standout authorities. I talked to an awful lot
	of people before I hooked up with Clo Fleming at SPRINT
	Security who helped me a lot.

	TG: Do you still trade information with SPRINT?

	Baker: I have contacts with all the major telecom carriers.
	The training I got at FLETC really helped make some valuable
	contacts. But I guess SPRINT and Clo Fleming would be
	my first choice simply because they were willing to help
	me when no one else would. You can't operate in this
	environment without contacts in the OCC's. It can't be
	done and the OCC's [Other Common Carriers] are a lot
	more willing to assist law enforcement now than they
	were in 1985. Of course, the telecommunications industry
	is taking a $4-5 billion hit a year from fraud and that
	has a lot to do with it.

	TG: Do you subscribe to the hacker/phreaker magazines?

	Baker: Sure...I subscribe to 2600 and get copies of some
	others. I think PHRACK's probably the best overall,
	but I can't afford the subscription rate they've imposed
	on government agencies since Craig Neidorf took the hit
	for publishing the "golden" E911 document. I've learned
	a ton of stuff over the years from PHRACK and wish it
	were still free, but they have a right to their info
	just like the people who own the systems attacked by
	hackers. It'd be kind of hypocritical for me to rip off
	PHRACK and then turn and prosecute some other guy for
	ripping off information from another source, right?

	TG: What problems do you foresee in the future in computer
	and telecom crime investigations?

	Baker: Jeez...why don't you ask me when we'll have world peace
	or something easy? OK, I think we'll probably see the
	larger departments being forced to play catch-up with
	the current trends and always being a little behind in
	this area. I also think you'll see more officers losing
	cases and being sued, a la SJG, until they get the
	specific training required to handle these cases the
	right way. Turning seized systems over to the local
	"computer guy" in the department is going to cost'em in
	the long run because every lawyer who gets one of these
	cases is going to compare it bit by bit with the SJG
	case to see if there's anything there he can use for
	his client's defense.

	TG: There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not
	computer systems should be seized rather than just
	making copies of the data for evidence. What is your
	policy on equipment seizures when working cases like
	this?

	Baker: First of all, I don't go on fishing expeditions with
	search warrants. If I have enough to convict a guy then
	I get the warrant. I take everything that's there and
	do the analysis. I've had cases where the defendant has
	requested copies of data he needed for various reasons
	and I've had no problems with furnishing them as long
	as the request is reasonable. I ask for forfeiture of
	the equipment if I can link it to the crime because the
	law says I can. If I can't link the computers, then I
	give them back...simple as that. I think it's kind of
	interesting that most hackers or phreaks will refuse to
	take a guilty plea for a reduced charge, even if I have
	them stone cold and they're looking at a 99.999999%
	chance of conviction in a jury trial, if it means
	they'll lose their equipment in the deal. It makes good
	leverage in certain situations.

	TG: Did you have any part in Operation Sun-Devil?

	Baker: Nope. Though I'd have liked to. I was on a lot of the
	systems taken down in Sun-Devil.

	TG: You said you were on some of the systems busted in the
	Sun-Devil operation, are you still on phreak/hack
	boards and would you name any?

	Baker: (Laughs a lot) I think I'll pass on naming systems I'm
	on, OK? That'd be cheating. (Laughs again) But I get
	around enough to know what's going on. There are lots
	of investigators out there calling the boards.

	TG: I appreciate your time, Lt. Baker, and would like to ask
	one last question. What motivates you in these cases
	since the alleged "theft" involves pretty intangible
	property?

	Baker: Motivation? Hmmmm...I suppose you could say it's the
	chase that motivates me more than the catch, though
	the catch is pretty good, too. These cases tend to
	be more one-on-one than some other types and the
	adversaries can be very good at covering their tracks.
	Hell, I probably have more in common with the people
	I target than they'd like to believe. As for the
	"intangibility" of the stolen goods, well, that's why
	we have court systems, isn't it...to define those
	little details.

	TG: A lot of computer crime investigators would rather stay
	in the background, but you don't seem to have taken that
	position. Why not?

	Baker: Well, like anyone involved in anything relatively new,
	as opposed to the old standard type crimes like murder
	and armed robbery, it's to my benefit to have anything
	printed informing people of the problems created by
	this type of activity. We all pay the price for telecom
	fraud, credit card fraud, data loss due to illegal
	access to computers and all the rest. But the people
	involved in these crimes, for the most part, don't
	exhibit the same profiles as the so-called "violent"
	criminals. In fact, I've had some very friendly
	conversations with a number of phreaks and hackers.
	Investigators who have problems would probably have
	them no matter what crimes they were investigating.
	I never assume that I'm smarter than anyone I'm
	chasing and I don't rub their noses in it when I make
	a case. Just like I don't lose sleep when I just can't
	seem to get that last piece of the puzzle and one gets
	away. It's hide-and-seek in cyberspace. Pretty good
	game, actually.

	For what it's worth, there it is. The interview printed here
	doesn't contain a lot of the bullshit that was thrown back and
	forth during our conversation, just the relevant details which
	tend to give an insight into this guy.

	Frankly, I was impressed by the fact that he didn't seem
	anything like I had expected after reading horror stories about
	other agencies and investigators. This guy was personable and
	maybe that's an indicator that he's dangerous. Never, ever
	underestimate your opponents -- even if they do sound like
	"good ole boys" and talk to you like you're the best friend
	they ever had. Always remember that COPS INVENTED SOCIAL
	ENGINEERING!

	My next "computer cop" profile will deal with a rising star in
	the U.S. Secret Service and his connections to the Guidry
	Group, a consulting organization working for the cellular phone
	industry in combating cellular fraud.