neidor~1.txt

黑客培训教程

<The following transcript of Craig Neidorf's trial was provided
by his legal counsel, to whom we are indebted. The page numbers
correspond to transcript pagination. The document was retyped by CuD,
and cross-checked against the original. A spell checker removed
spelling errors, and if any of these errors appeared in the original,
they too were removed.>

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


                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

                           EASTERN DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,      .
                   Plaintiff,      .       90 CR 70
                                   .
                                   .
            v.                     .       Chicago, Illinois
                                   .
CRAIG NEIDORF,                     .       Tuesday,
                   Defendant.      .       July 24, 1990
                                   .
                                   .       10:10 a.m.
                                   .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..


                              VOLUME ONE
                 TRANSCRIPT OF JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
                 BEFORE THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS J. BUA
                              AND A JURY


PRESENT:

For the Government:        THE HONORABLE IRA H. RAPHAELSON,
                              United States Attorney, by
                           WILLIAM J. COOK
                           COLLEEN D. COUGHLIN
                           DAVID A. GLOCKNER
                              Assistant United States Attorneys
                              219 South Dearborn Street
                              Fifteenth Floor
                              Chicago, Illinois 60604

For Defendant:             SHELDON T. ZENNER
                              Katten, Muchin and Zavis
                              525 West Monroe Street
                              Suite 1600
                              Chicago, Illinois 60606

Case Agent:                TIMOTHY M. FOLEY
                              Special Agent
                              United States Secret Service

Court Reporter:            Agnes M. Thorne
                              Official Court Reporter

- 2 -

     (Twelve jurors and four alternate jurors sworn to try
     issues.)
     (Following proceedings transpired out of the presence of the
     jury:)

     MR. COOK: Judge, we have two short issues to bring up. The
government, obviously, understands the court's rulings on the First
Amendment mistake of law. We are in a bit of a quandary in terms of
the best way to argue that or front that with the jury during our
openings. Does the court anticipate giving an instruction as to the
law of mistake of law with respect to this either before Mr. Zenner
talks or at the conclusion of the case?

     THE COURT: At the conclusion of the case in written instructions
to the jury.

     MR. COOK: And that would be along the lines that it is not a
     defense to this violation mistake of law.

     THE COURT: That we will decide at the conference on jury
     instructions.

     MR. COOK: All right.

     THE COURT: Mistake of law is no defense. I think we can agree
to that.

     MR. ZENNER: No.

     THE COURT: We can't?

     MR. ZENNER: Wait. We agreed that the First Amendment is no
defense. Mistake of law is a defense to a specific intent crime.

     MR. COOK: That's enough. That's enough for me to make my

- 3 -

Cook -- opening statement

opening.

     THE COURT: Is that enough?

     Mr. Cook: Yes.

     THE COURT: Okay. What else?

     MR. COOK: Also, Mr. Zenner is indicating that he wants to
argue about the videotapes or make some presentation about the
videotapes in his opening remarks. Those are irrelevant.

     THE COURT: What is the nature of those videotapes?

     MR. ZENNER: It is very simple. On one of the dates charged
in the indictment, the exact date, in fact, the exact date charged
in the indictment in Count Two, the date the scheme was supposed to
start, Mr. Neidorf was surreptitiously videotaped by the Secret
Service at SummerCon '88, the hacker convention.

     THE COURT: Okay, now I recall.

     MR. ZENNER: That is the subject of that. The fact that he is on
videotape for 15 hours on the date he is supposed to have committed
the crime in the midst of a supposed conspiracy with some
of the other people who are on videotape I expect to mention,
albeit very briefly, probably ten seconds worth in an opening,
well, maybe thirty seconds worth in an opening, that he was
videotaped on that day, a date charged in the indictment, and that
the worst thing they saw him do or talk about when he was with these
people he is supposedly conspiring with is to drink a beer, order
a pizza. I mean, that's it. They have a the videotape in the middle
of this scheme with his coschemers.

- 4 -

Cook -- opening statement

     THE COURT: And what's the problem with that?

     MR. GLOCKNER: Judge, we went through all this before on the
discovery motions. And your Honor agreed with the government that
(a) the fact that the defendant is videotaped not committing a
crime is not relevant to whether or not on some other occasion
he did.

       Second, as we argued in the earlier filings with your Honor,
he is not charged with holding SummerCon, with participating
in SummerCon...

     THE COURT: You will object to the entry in evidence of that
videotape?

     MR. GLOCKNER: Absolutely.

     THE COURT: The objection will be sustained.

     MR. GLOCKNER: Thank you.

     THE COURT: What else?

     MR. COOK: Nothing else, Judge.

     MR. ZENNER: With respect to the videotape, I accept the court's
ruling that the videotape will not be introduced, but I can
certainly refer to the fact that he was videotaped, and I can ask the
agent that, and I intend to ask the agent who investigated this case:
"On a date charged in the indictment..." Mr. Cook is going to show
that. He is going to say, "On July 22, 1988, my client committed
a wire fraud". He's going to tell them to convict him of that.
On that date, he's on videotape for fifteen hours with the Secret
Service looking at him, and he doesn't do anything of the sort.
He's meeting with his coschemers...he's meeting with his
coconspirators.

- 5 -

Cook -- opening statement

     THE COURT: And you will seek to introduce the videotape to
show that he couldn't have committed the crime on that date?

     MR. ZENNER: All I want to be able to do is to cross-examine
Agent Foley on that.

     THE COURT: Well, you might be able to cross the agent
depending on what his direct testimony is. Those issues...

     MR. ZENNER: It is a date charged in the scheme. I have a hard
time imagining how I can't cross.

     THE COURT: Mr. Zenner, you can make the opening statements, and
if there is an objection, I will sustain it. Okay.

     MR. ZENNER: All right.

     THE COURT: What else?

     MR. COOK: Nothing.

     THE COURT: Bring in the jury please.

     (Jury present at 10:20 a.m.)

     THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

     JURORS: Good morning.

     THE COURT: Please be seated.

          Mr. Cook, is the government prepared to make its opening
statement?

     MR. COOK: Yes, Judge.

     THE COURT: Very well.

     MR. COOK: Thank you.

_OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT_

     MR. COOK: Good Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

- 6 -

Cook -- opening statement

     JURORS: Good morning.

     MR. COOK: My name is Bill Cook. I'm an Assistant United States
Attorney. I am going to be substantially aided in this prosecution
by Colleen Coughlin, who is an Assistant United States Attorney, and
Dave Glockner, who is also an Assistant United States Attorney. We
will be having Special Agent Tim Foley of the United States Secret
Service working with us. He is sitting at the trial table with us.
           In 1876, the first telephone communication ever made was:
                 "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you".
That was also the very first emergency telephone call ever made.
Since that time, the telephone company has, obviously, sophisticated
their operation to a large degree so that where we stand today in
1990, we are the beneficiaries of what is known as the Enhanced 911
system. That system is a life line for every person certainly in the
Southern Bell region of the United States. It's taken for granted.
It is an extensively developed system. You're going to hear a great
deal of information about the development of that system and the
architecture that that system is based upon. It is built on
computers from bottom to top.
          In 1988, a road map to that computer system, that life
line, was stolen from a computer in Atlanta, Georgia, by a man
by the name of Robert Riggs, who is a member of an organization
known as the Legion of Doom.
          That document, with its proprietary markings, its warnings

- 7 -

Cook -- opening statement

on it, and the clear indications that it was the property of
BellSouth, was transferred electronically to Mr. Craig Neidorf, the
defendant here, seated right here.

          Mr. Riggs is a hacker, a person that breaks into
computers. He answers to no one but his own ability to get into
those computers.

          We anticipate that the evidence will show that in February
of 1989, Mr. Neidorf published that extensive road map to the
life line of the entire hacker community so far as he was able to
determine it and define it.

          In many respects, I submit to you that this is not going
to be a, "Whodunit", or "What was done?".

          There are two sets of violations charged in the indictment.
Very briefly, they are the interstate transportation of stolen
property and what is referred to in legal jargon as a wire fraud.

          With respect to the interstate transportation of stolen
property, the evidence will show that Mr. Neidorf admitted to
receiving the stolen property, the stolen E911 text file from Robert
Riggs. He further admitted to Agent Foley that at the time he
received the document, he knew it was stolen.

          With respect to the wire fraud the evidence will show
that the wire fraud was really an outgrowth of what you are going to
be hearing about and what will be described as the Phoenix Project,
an effort by Mr. Neidorf to consolidate a group of hackers.

          The object of that wire fraud scheme was extensive, but it


- 8 -

Cook -- opening statement

included providing hackers with information about how to crack into
other people's computers, soliciting them to try to provide him
articles, articles for his publication PHRACK  newsletter which
he would then distribute to other hackers.

          The evidence will also show that Mr. Riggs knew of the
hacker activities, the break-ins that were occurring as he would
follow along with their activities. In that respect, he was almost
a "hacker groupie", except a groupie that sought to be in control and
direct many of the operations. He received stolen property, property
stolen from computers, stored on computers.

          Now, just one more set of observations about the indictment
and the format of the indictment, and then I'll move on to what
some of our more immediate concerns might be.

          (Chart) Does everybody see that? One juror I know can't
see the bottom.

     THE COURT: Can all the jurors now see that?

     JURORS: Yes.

     MR. Cook: Mr. Neidorf is charged in each count of the indictment,
except for the first count here. The coding here is this is the
second count of the indictment on down to Count Eleven. These