Computer underground Digest Sun Sep 14, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 68 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.68 (Sun, Sep 14, 1997) File 1--Mitnick Newsbytes Article (excerpt) File 2--Cryptography Victory: Encryption Rules Unconstitutional (ACLU fwd) File 3--Crypto Reform Bill Is Now a Changeling File 4--USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE File 5--RSA Data Security Prevails in Federal Court File 6--The Executioner's Motto File 7--Cyber Rights Activists Convene in Austin, Texas File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:35:42 -0400 From: Evian Sim Subject: File 1--Mitnick Newsbytes Article (excerpt) Kevin Mitnick Appeals For Help 09/09/97 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1997 SEP 9 (NB) -- By Sami Menefee and Wendy Woods. Notorious hacker Kevin Mitnick is still being held in a Los Angeles, California prison, pending an early 1998 trial for 25 counts related to alleged hacking activities. He is appealing for outside legal help to gain additional access to the inmate law library in the prison where he has been held since his arrest in February 1995. Mitnick's first prison term followed an intrusion into Digital Equipment Corp.'s computer systems. He was accused of stealing electronically $1 million in secure software from Digital Equipment Corp., causing the company to spend $160,000 to close up the gaps in its computer security. Upon conviction in that case Mitnick was placed on supervisory probation in 1992. He disappeared later that year after he was charged with illegally cracking into Pacific Bell's computers. Between 1993 and 1995, Mitnick evaded authorities and allegedly stole millions of dollars worth of corporate secrets, scrambled telephone networks, and even broke into the nation's national defense warning system. He made the FBI's Most Wanted List before he was caught, pulling off the computer hack that finally did him in. He broke into the home computer systems of Tsutomu Shimomutra, a leading computer security expert at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Shimomutra was so enraged that he helped the FBI track Mitnick to an apartment complex in Raleigh, using a cell phone direction finder connected to a laptop computer. A statement forwarded to Newsbytes from Mitnick's counsel says Mitnick needs additional legal assistance to file both a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging conditions of his detention, and a motion compelling federal authorities to follow their own rules and regulations. The attorney, Donald C. Randolph, says the firm is preparing a request for Mitnick to be released on bail, since he has been in prison longer than his sentence of 22 months. He has served time on two counts, probation violation and possession of unauthorized access devices. He awaits trial on the remaining 25 charges, the third trial in a series of separate indictments. A spokesperson for the firm told Newsbytes: "We want Kevin to have access to the prison law library, because he is his most interested advocate. He is very good with research and spends all the time allowed in the law library. Kevin's is a complex case that requires specialized knowledge. With only the regular amount of library time allowed, Kevin doesn't have the time he needs to assist in his own defense, and this extra time is necessary, especially in court appointed cases. Because of the complex nature of the case, he needs more time because of the ramifications of this case are more severe." According to Mitnick's counsel, "The government has hyped this prosecution by exaggerating the value of loss in the case, seeking unreasonably stiff sentences, and by painting a portrait of Kevin which conjures the likeness of a cyber-boogie man," adding that the prosecution seems motivated to use Mitnick's case to send a message to other "would-be hackers." The firm also stated that stronger penalties and longer sentencing for Mitnick would strike "fear into the hearts of the public over the dangers of computer hackers." Doing so, continued the spokesperson, "the government hopes to divert scrutiny away from its own game-plan regarding the control and regulation of the Internet and other telecommunications systems." Anyone wishing to, can contact Kevin at the following address: Kevin Mitnick, Reg. No. 89950-012, P.O. Box 1500, Los Angeles, CA 90053-1500 ------------------ This story originally appeared at http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/97/99591.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:51:59 GMT From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com Subject: File 2--Cryptography Victory: Encryption Rules Unconstitutional (ACLU fwd) Source - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, Tuesday, September 2, 1997 U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on Thursday issued a stay pending appeal of her August 25, 1997 ruling that new government regulations barring the export of encryption software are an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Judge Patel's ruling in Bernstein v. U.S. State Department, struck down encryption regulations and cited the recent Supreme Court decision in ACLU v. Reno, stating, "The Internet is subject to the same exacting level of First Amendment scrutiny as print media." The decision was the second ruling in favor of Daniel Bernstein, an Illinois math professor and expert on cryptography, who attempted to publish his encryption codes on the Internet. Last December, Judge Patel similarly found the government's previous encryption export restrictions unconstitutional, but the Clinton Administration released new rules shortly after the decision. The Aug. 28 stay of injunctive relief is effective until September 8, at which time an injunction shall be reinstate to prevent prosecution of Professor Bernstein. In the meantime, the stay eliminates the protections under Patel's ruling against government enforcement of encryption regulations to anyone other than Bernstein. The ACLU supported Bernstein's position and decried Clinton's new rules as an irreparable infringement on First Amendment rights. In response to the release of the new government rules, the ACLU stated, "Export restrictions on cryptography are a prior restraint on protected speech, and are a content based gag on Constitutionally protected speech. Prior restraints on speech and attempts to regulate speech based on content are anathema to the Constitution, and thus we urge the removal of encryption products from the export restrictions altogether." Under the government rules, the Commerce Department was given authority to license on a case-by-case basis the export of encryption material over the internet. There was no requirement that print material about encryption be licensed, thereby treating electronic media differently than other media. The Court found this distinction between electronic and print media undermined the government's asserted need to regulate encryption export based on national security concerns. The opinion called the rules "so irrational and administratively unreliable that it may well serve to only exacerbate the potential for self-censorship." The Court also held that the government licensing procedure fails to provide any limits on government discretion in its review of encryption export applications. Under Judge Patel's ruling of earlier this week, the government would have been prohibited from using the encryption export regulations and was warned by the court to refrain from "threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with plaintiff or any other person described . . . above in the exercise of their federal constitutional rights as declared in this order." According to Bernstein's attorney, Cindy Cohn, the government has said that it may still challenge the stay of injunctive relief in the 9th Circuit and Professor Bernstein may seek relief from the stay as well. Full text of this decision is available at the Electronic Frontier Foundation site at and more news about the status of the ruling can be found at ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:20:20 -0800 From: "--Todd Lappin-->" Subject: File 3--Crypto Reform Bill Is Now a Changeling Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/6819.html Crypto Reform Bill Is Now a Changeling by Rebecca Vesely 6:18pm 11.Sep.97.PDT The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday gutted a piece of legislation that both privacy advocates and the software industry had looked to as their best hope of seeing the government's tight rein on encryption policy loosened. With a series of amendments, the panel transformed the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act into the opposite of what author Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and 252 co-sponsors intended. Where the original HR695 sought to prohibit a national key recovery system that might allow law enforcement quick access to scrambled data, the amended version now requires it. Where the original sought to promote commerce and protect privacy by encouraging manufacture and use of strong encryption, the new-look bill makes use of such products nearly impossible. The panel approved the changeling bill by a voice vote in a closed session. Details of the amendments were made available by a Commerce Committee staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity. In addition to mandating a national key recovery system in the United States and banning the manufacture or sale of code that could not be instantaneously decrypted by the police, the amendments also specify fines up to US$10,000 and jail terms as long as five years for violators. "It's a sad day that for the first time a congressional committee would pass legislation so damaging to civil liberties and to industry," said Jon Englund, vice president of the Information Technology Association of America, a trade group representing major software manufacturers. Industry leaders also said the Intelligence amendments plan would effectively bring the domestic crypto-software industry to a halt. Privacy activists say it would strip Americans of secure communications in the digital age. Supporters of the Goodlatte bill noted that the committee acted after a long, aggressive lobbying effort by law enforcement and national security agencies. "The administration says there is a long tradition of the FBI being able to go their own on the Hill, although I thought those days were over," said Jerry Berman, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "The committees are voting based on national security versus civil liberties, and national security is winning." The bill will next go to the Commerce Committee. Two members of that panel stood ready Thursday with an amendment that would ban the domestic manufacture, sale, and use of encryption that does not allow law enforcement immediate access. The amendment was to be offered by Representatives Michael Oxley (R-Ohio), a former FBI agent, and Tom Manton (D-New York), a former New York City police officer. "Louis Freeh's my guy," Oxley told reporters at the meeting, referring to the current FBI director. "This amendment is technically neutral. It strikes a balance between law enforcement and the right to privacy." But software lobbyists said the amendment means that they would no longer be able to manufacture encryption products in the United States. "I don't know of one encryption product that would give immediate law enforcement access," said Peter Harter, global public policy counsel for Netscape. An amendment to the Oxley/Manton amendment was to be introduced by Representatives Rick White (R-Washington) and Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) calling for a study assessing the effectiveness of mandatory key recovery systems. All this legislative posturing is not moot. The Commerce Committee, in conjunction with the four other committees that have already voted on the Goodlatte bill plan to meet with one another and interested parties to work out a compromise bill. It is possible that the committees on commerce, national security, and intelligence will formulate a united substitute bill to replace Goodlatte's proposal. The alternative bill would be submitted to the Rules Committee, which would decide which piece of legislation would go to the House floor. Although 11 of 13 Rules Committee members are co-sponsors of Goodlatte's bill, the chairman, Gerald Solomon (R-New York), withdrew his support in April because of national security concerns. "We don't want a bill to leave this committee without addressing law enforcement concerns," said Representative Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), the Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection subcommittee chairman and member of the Commerce Committee. He said that although he was a cosponsor of Goodlatte's bill, he would support the Oxley/Manton amendment. "We'd like to do it in a fashion that satisfies all committees and we can't do that all today." As for Goodlatte, he says he is willing to compromise on some counts, although mandatory key recovery is not one of them. "I'm pleased," he said rather half-heartedly after the Intelligence panel vote. "We may be able to work this out." Copyright 1993-97 Wired Ventures Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:02:32 -0400 From: ACM US Public Policy Office Subject: File 4--USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE PRESS RELEASE Association for Computing U.S. Public Policy Office September 8, 1997 USACM APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE FOR UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSING RELAXED EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION As the Congress prepares to address the issue of computer security and privacy, the California legislature has sent a clear message that relaxing controls on cryptography is a critical first step. On September 5, the California legislature passed a resolution that calls on the California members in Congress to support legislation that would make it easier for US companies to develop and market strong cryptography products. The resolution was sponsored by Representative Vasconcellos (D. San Jose) and passed without opposition. Dr. Barbara Simons, chair of the policy committee for the Association for Computing (USACM), said that the California resolution makes clear that industry and users are united in support of good cryptography. "We believe that Congress should support the Security and Freedom Act, sponsored by Representative Goodlatte. The legislation will help protect security and privacy on the internet. It will be a serious mistake for the administration to oppose the development of this technology," said Dr. Simons. On August 26, USACM Chair Barbara Simons spoke in support of the Vasconcellos resolution before a California Senate committee. Also participating at the Committee hearing were Dr. Whit Diffie from Sun, Kelly Blough from PGP, Jack Wilson of ACL Datacom, Chuck Marson representing the California Internet Industry Alliance (Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, CompuServe and Netcom), and a representative of the Software Publishers Association. Undersecretary of Commerce Reinsch wrote a letter opposing the resolution. The Association for Computing (ACM) is an international non-profit educational and scientific society with 76,000 members worldwide, 60,000 of whom reside in the U.S. USACM, the Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Office, serves as the focal point for ACM's interaction with U.S. government organizations, the computing community and the U.S. public in all matters of U.S. public policy related to information technology. The USACM web site is located at http://www.acm.org/usacm/ For more information, please contact USACM Chair Barbara Simons at 408/256-3661 or USACM Associate Director Lauren Gelman at 202/544-4859. /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Association for Computing, + http://www.acm.org/usacm/ Office of U.S. Public Policy * +1 202 544 4859 (tel) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 302 B * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) Washington, DC 20003 USA + gelman@acm.org To subscribe to the ACM Washington Update, send e-mail to: listserv@acm.org with "subscribe WASHINGTON-UPDATE name" (no quotes) in the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: mds@mds.prwire.com Subject: File 5--RSA Data Security Prevails in Federal Court RSA Data Security Prevails in Federal Court Schlafly Allegations Ruled `Without Merit' REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- RSA Data Security, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: SDTI), today announced that it had prevailed in its defense against all claims made by Roger Schlafly in a 1994 lawsuit. In the ruling dated August 29, 1997, Judge Spenser Williams of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found against the antitrust, business tort, unfair business practices and non-infringement claims that had been brought by Schlafly. Prior Court action on August 22, had found against Schlafly's other claim of invalidity of the MIT (RSA) patent. Schlafly's suit made a wide range of allegations against RSA, including (1) the invalidity of the MIT (RSA) patent, (2) libel (3) patent non- infringement, (4) interference with contractual relationships, (5) fraud, (6) unfair business practices, and (7) antitrust violations. The Court had previously dismissed the fraud and libel claims. The resolved issues were linked to RSA's disputes with Cylink. The settlement between Cylink and RSA cleared the way for the Court to dismiss Schlafly's action. In the August 29th ruling on the case, Judge Williams found Schlafly's claims as untenable in stating, "Schlafly requests that the Court ... ignore the logical interpretation of the RSA patent." As for antitrust, business torts, and unfair business practices, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of RSA on all matters. The Court reasoned that "Schlafly relies on conclusory allegations" and "his own estimates, arguments and guesses to support his claims rather than providing specific facts." As for unfair licensing claims resulting from Schlafly's belief that he is entitled to a free license, the Court said, "Schlafly's claims of unfair licensing policies are also without merit." Earlier in the same month, the Court had disposed of two notable issues in the case: Schlafly's claims that the MIT patent was invalid and that RSA was estopped from asserting the validity to the MIT patent because a former partner, Cylink, had once challenged the validity of the patent. In the Court's August 22 ruling, Judge Williams granted RSA's motion for summary adjudication on the validity of the MIT patent, finding that the MIT patent was valid and stating, "the RSA patent is entitled to patent protection." The August 22 ruling also found that RSA cannot be precluded from "maintain[ing] the position that it has held all along which is that the RSA patent is valid. Further, Cylink's allegations are unproven" (Cylink's allegations had been cited in part by Schlafly.) The Court stated that to give binding effect to unproven allegations would be "nonsensical and inequitable." RSA Data Security, Inc. RSA Data Security, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., is the world's brand name for cryptography, with more than 80 million copies of RSA encryption and authentication technologies installed and in use worldwide. RSA technologies are part of existing and proposed standards for the Internet and World Wide Web, CCITT, ISO, ANSI, IEEE, and business, financial and electronic commerce networks around the globe. RSA develops and markets platform-independent developer's kits and end-user products and provides comprehensive cryptographic consulting services. Founded in 1982 by the inventors of the RSA Public Key Cryptosystem, the company is headquartered in Redwood City, Calif. SOURCE RSA Data Security Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:54:34 EDT From: Steve Talbott Subject: File 6--The Executioner's Motto There's a slogan among artificial intelligence (AI) researchers that runs this way: If you take care of the syntax, the meaning will take care of itself. Dubbed the Formalist's Motto by philosopher John Haugeland, this turns out to be a formula for erasing the human being. Stated simply, the idea runs something like this: if you put the computer through the motions of human behavior, it will in fact mean and intend what *we* would mean and intend by such behavior. So the AI programmer should concentrate on abstracting the formal structure of our tasks in the world without worrying about the inner qualities of consciousness, feeling, and will with which we invest those tasks. After all, our subjective illusions notwithstanding, nothing is really "there" in either man or machine beside formal structure, or syntax. The meaningful, inner content of our lives is a kind of syntactic epiphenomenon, the mystery of which need not concern us. On this premise the hope for true, human-like artificial intelligence now rests. You may never have heard of the Formalist's Motto, but I venture to predict that it accurately circumscribes a substantial part of your thought world, as it does the thought world of nearly everyone in our culture. For the motto does not apply only to AI. Here, for example, is what you might call the Physicist's Motto: If you take care of the equations, their meaningful relation to the world will take care of itself. One might wonder about the truth of this at a time when the equations have become almost mystically esoteric and remote from the world of our experience. The wondering is justified, but we also need to realize that the equations succeed remarkably well as shorthand prescriptions for the effective manipulation of the world (and especially of experimental apparatus). The problem lies in how easily and dangerously we forget that manipulating things is not the same as understanding them. Then there is the Economist's Motto, blossoming from an unshakable faith in the power of the Invisible Hand to smooth over our own neglect of what really matters: If you take care of the economic numbers, the value for society will take care of itself. Or, as Adam Smith originally put it in his *Wealth of Nations* (1776), "By pursuing his own interest [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love." So a quantitative concern for the bottom line results automatically in a wider social good, regardless of one's base intentions. In this case, not only does the syntax of the formal (market) mechanism take care of the meaning, it skillfully negates any unsavory meanings that mere humans try to inject! One could go on. Probably the most fundamental version of the motto is that of communications theory, as it has seeped into the popular consciousness: If you take care of the transmission of bits, the meaning of the text will take care of itself. Nearly all misconceptions about the Information Age trace back to this formula, including what we might call the Educationist's Motto: If you take care of the flow of information, the education will take care of itself. What's going on here? Clearly we're not just talking about computers or education or information or business. We're talking about *us*. What is at issue is the common style of thinking we bring to these various areas. The most decisive fact about the age of the computer is a fact about our own minds: we are, without being fully aware of it, leaking meaning and content at an alarming rate. And what is replacing them? Empty, computationally manipulable abstractions. Each of the mottos I have cited directs us toward a mathematical or logical calculus that can easily be read from, or impressed upon, a mechanism. We may have begun with meaning -- the meaning of a proposition, the meaning of a business activity, the meaning of an animal's behavior -- but we are driven by our predilections toward empty form without content -- the p's and q's of the logician, the cost analyses of the financial officer, the DNA structure of the geneticist. For these can be arranged in a sequence whose logic can drive an automaton. Our exquisite ability to reduce content to usable abstraction is one of our rightly prized achievements. But we cannot abstract from the content of a thing unless we are given the thing in the first place -- given it, that is, in all its qualitative and meaningful presence. Otherwise there is simply nothing there. You cannot arrive at the concrete object from its dimensions alone, you cannot arrive at a product from a set of cost specifications alone, and you cannot arrive at the organism from its DNA alone. We are powerfully one-directional in our intentions. We want to abstract the mathematical law of things, but we do not know how to get the things back once we have found ourselves holding nothing but a set of pure abstractions. Once a business becomes a smoothly humming calculator of the bottom line, its resistance as an complex, integrated, and programmed *mechanism* to intrusive questions like "What is the good of this product?" becomes almost impossible to overcome. The difference between the two directions of movement -- toward abstraction and toward meaning -- can be painfully hard to grasp amid the actual affairs of life. It is the difference between a business that uses economic controls to discipline its pursuit of ends independently judged to be worthy -- and a business that pursues profit for its own sake, without regard for the human worth of its products. It is the difference between a science that began as a passionate insistence upon observing the actual world instead of relying upon the subtle cerebrations of the medieval schoolmen -- and a science whose developing abstractions have encouraged it first to ignore and then (as an inevitable consequence of the ignoring) to ride roughshod over the natural environment. It is the difference between an education that enables students to inquire, "What does this mean?" -- and an education bent upon shoveling inert facts into cranial "databases." It's no use talking about the risks of technology without also talking about our styles of thinking. If computerized technology is pivotal for the modern era, it's not because of some wholly inherent capacity, but rather because we have fashioned in the computer a perfectly adapted tool for the expression of our preferred modes of thought. Toss the machine without altering the thought, and not much will change. Transform the thought, on the other hand, and we just *might* be able to wrestle the machine toward profoundly humane ends. Unfortunately, there's not much in all this talk about "modes of thought" that wired folks, including many social activists, care to bother about. We all too instinctively want a *program* first. Perhaps I do not stretch the matter too far when I offer the Involved Citizen's Motto: If you take care of the program of action, its meaning will take care of itself. But it's not true. Actions considered apart from their inner, expressive gesture degenerate into empty formalisms (like computer-orchestrated "grassroots" campaigns). Or else they carry meanings we are simply unaware of. We have no constructive choice except to consider what we ourselves will become -- which is another of saying: except to consider whether we will transcend our currently "executing" syntax in a way that formal mechanisms never can. The various mottos I have listed, after all, capture a historical movement of just the past few hundred years. In becoming aware of that movement, will we disown responsibility for it as if it were an unalterable given, while at the same time embracing with exhilarated anticipation the wondrous changes our *machines* are bringing about? In this way we would forget ourselves precisely at the moment when the "spirit" of technology is making a nearly irresistible offer: "You can drop out of the picture and I'll keep all the formal mechanisms humming along just fine. Don't worry; everything else will take care of itself." It's a genuine offer -- and one we look too much like accepting. ----------------------------------------------------------- Source: Net Future Issue #55, Copyright 1997 Bridge Communications - September 9, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com) On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:28:35 -0700 (PDT) From: jonl@well.com Subject: File 7--Cyber Rights Activists Convene in Austin, Texas FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: *** Cyber Rights Activists Convene in Austin, Texas *** Speakers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union will join local activists and attorneys in a discussion of online rights. Cyber Rights '97: The Post-CDA Landscape, will explore the origin of the Communications Decency Act and the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision declaring important points of the act unconstitutional. The free workshop will be held from 1-5PM Sunday, September 21st at the Joe C. Thompson Conference Center at 26th and Red River in Austin, Texas. Speakers: Ann Beeson, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Mike Godwin, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pete Kennedy, attorney with George, Donaldson, and Ford of Austin Sharon Strover, director of the Texas Telecommunications Policy Institute Ed Cavazos, senior vice-president and counsel for Interliant, Inc. Gene Crick, president of the Texas Internet Service Providers' Association David Smith, vice-president of EFF-Austin Richard MacKinnon, UT researcher and moderator of the event Probable subjects: 7 Internet rating and filtering systems 7 Public library use of filtering software, including a discussion of the use of CyberPatrol by the Austin Public Library 7 State regulation of the Internet 7 _ACLU v. Reno_ (Supreme Court overturns Communications Decency Act) 7 Children and the Internet 7 Telecommunications infrastructure and the state's role in regulating telecommunications systems computers and networks in schools 7 "Spam" (unsolicited commercial email) 7 Encryption and communications privacy, a particularly hot topic given the battle currently raging over strong encryption. Contact: Jon Lebkowsky, (512) 477-5566 ext 171 day or (512) 444-5175 evening ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #9.68 ************************************