Newsgroups: dfw.general Path: convex!news.oc.com!news.unt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!shared!sp From: sp@shared.com (Steven Parker) Subject: sdf.lonestar.org: The REAL story Summary: a crime against the public Message-ID: <1994Feb19.023206.55098@shared.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 02:32:06 GMT Distribution: dfw Expires: Dec 31, 1994 References: Organization: Shared Systems Corporation, Dallas, TX Keywords: sdf Lines: 136 Someone asked, "What ever happened to sdf?" I know I should have written this months ago, but the whole thing was so distasteful to me I preferred to abandon it altogether. However, continuous urging from the very few who already know the real story, combined with the apparent lack of evidence that the knowledge has spread on it's own, has convinced me that I must tell this now to fully discharge my public obligations. First, a little history... Some of you may remember me from the days of "killer", where I served as assistant administrator and archive librarian up until its services were terminated. In the Summer of 1991 a couple of teenage killer alumni, Ted Uhlemann and Daniel Finster, turned to me for help in converting a PC-based BBS into a public access Unix system. The three of us formed an administrative council to establish and begin operating the system known as sdf.lonestar.org. Additional administrators were soon added to the council, and all were mature adult Unix professionals except for Ted's roommate, Stephen Jones. After two years of operation, as the administrative council changed, I remained as the only original member. Ted had lost interest, and Daniel had been expelled by unanimous vote in February of 1993 for continuous instances of "conduct unbecoming a trustee of a public resource" (such as repeatedly using root privileges to read other user's mail). This was the only case of forced expulsion, as the council operated primarily on the basis of mutual trust and respect among its members, and deviations from agreed-upon policy were usually treated with tolerance and mild reprimands from other members. About that same time I began a campaign to encourage system donations, which included implementation of system policies that had been selected by the entire usership via an open vote. The involvement of the users in establishing policy had long been considered by the council, but always obstructed by Daniel because of his strong personal opposition to any kind of democratic process. At the same time, I was actively seeking corporate sponsorship, which I first obtained in the form of donation "premiums". Stephen Jones had volunteered for, and had been trusted with the responsibility of accepting system donations, and reporting the amounts received to the administrators and to the users at large via system files. It was understood that donations were not to be used by anyone personally, and amounts in excess of monthly expenses were to be used for much-needed system improvements as decided upon by the administrative council. But despite my continuous efforts to improve donations, Stephen reported month after month that donations only adequately covered the expenses with none left over. I first assumed my efforts had failed, but after doing some research to try to figure out what had gone wrong, I collected enough contrary information to become suspicious of the donation reports. This was compounded by Stephen Jones' failure to appear at administrator's meetings once the decision had been made by the council to formalize ourselves as an incorporated public utility. I finally confronted him last September, and after half an hour of bush-beating, he confessed to me that he had received donations well in excess of the expenses and not reported it. Shocked, I asked why, and all he would say was, "it's nobody's business but mine". I pointed out that he was violating a public trust (not to mention my personal trust), and suggested that if he did not feel he needed to be responsible in reporting the donations accurately, then perhaps he should not be a member of the administrative council. I hoped he would change his mind in short order, and took no further action for the moment. But his reaction was to use his access to the equipment to remove the administrative privileges of the entire remainder of the council, and to delete all files stored in my personal account. Shortly afterwards, he suddenly removed the system to an unknown location, simultaneously changing his address, and chosing not to have a listed telephone number. I suspect he was already considering this even before I confronted him, and the unreported hundreds of donation dollars were earmarked for the expenses involved and equipment acquisitions he intended to be made only in his own name. Unfortunately, and due in part to his delaying the more formal plans of the council, there is insufficient documentation to make a legal case against his commandeering of the equipment and claiming to be sole owner. The police consider this as a "domestic matter" and will not get involved. The remaining council members, disgusted by this breach of trust and lack of recourse, have disbanded. Ironically, despite his participation in the expulsion, Stephen placed Daniel Finster in charge of technical administration. Within a week or so, Daniel was caught (for the third time) making unauthorized access to other systems; and this time using sdf to receive files obtained during those sessions. The administrator of one of the city's larger Unix installations told me that his legal department was pursuing Federal agency involvement to confiscate sdf, and prosecute for the intrusion. I suspect this hasn't happened only due to insufficient evidence. I was not entirely surprised to hear that Stephen has begun to again solicit donations for "free" dial-up services, but this time with a P.O. box as the only means of contact. I have heard that all of the user-directed policies have been abandoned; replaced by a restrictive screening process to prevent access by prior council members and law enforcement officials. His attitude is that on the basis of physical possession, he is the sole owner and authority over the operation of the system from now on. Free from the guidance of the mature professionals that made up the rest of the council, he can now return to the practices for which he was often reprimanded when he was only a junior (but treated fully as a peer) member. These practices included arbitrary removal of user accounts and/or files, deliberately causing downtime when he was upset about something a user did or said while on-line, and the censorship of usenet news groups and articles based on his personal opinions of their source and/or content. Of course, the administrator of the system that was previously providing the news feed to sdf is aware of the situation, and has indicated that there is "no way" he would again deal with Stephen Jones. But no doubt someone can always be found who doesn't know or doesn't care about what happened to get a feed from, or a feed can be purchased, to keep sdf in operation. The bottom line is whether or not users will still want to keep putting their support in that direction. Again, I apologize for not posting this before; and I deeply regret having to inform you of the loss of a responsible, professionally managed public resource as a result of one person's greed. - Steven Parker, formerly sp@sdf.lonestar.org P.S. Even though this whole matter has left a foul taste in my mouth, I still believe in the concept of a truly publicly-supported networking resource. I have had an interest in shared resources long before even "killer" came to be. If there are enough people who would like to help make this a reality, I would still consider contributing my experience and support towards it. Let me know if you are interested. - -- Steven Parker, Sr. Platform Engineer Shared Systems Corporation sp@shared.com | uunet!shared!sp Subsidiary of Stratus Computers Phone: 214-458-3896 Fax: 214-458-3876 Dallas, Texas ------>>> My opinions may not always be shared by Shared <<<------