Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 23, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 86 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, #9.86 (Sun, Nov 23, 1997) File 1--New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark USSC Ruling File 2--S 1482 - Ammendment to Communications Act of 1934 File 3--CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor File 4--ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY: File 5--Fwd: (Fwd) Common Control DLL and MSIE4.0 distribution File 6--Mitnick Legal Defense Fund File 7--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: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: owner-cyber-liberties@aclu.org Subject: File 1--New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark USSC Ruling Source - CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE NOVEMBER 18, 1997 New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark Supreme Court Ruling New legislation aimed at banning online material deemed "harmful to minors" would run roughshod over the landmark Supreme Court decision affirming free speech on the Internet, ACLU staff members announced Thursday. The ACLU, which led the successful battle to defeat the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act (CDA), said S. 1482, like the CDA, would restrict adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The bill was introduced last week by Sen. Dan Coats, R-IN, an original sponsor of the ill-fated CDA. Under the bill, commercial online distributors of material deemed "harmful to minors" could be punished with up to six months in jail and a $50,000 fine. The definition of "distributor" could include the virtual bookstore amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood movie, as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft and America Online, the ACLU said. And unlike the CDA, the statute applies only to web sites, not to chat rooms, e-mail or news groups. "By claiming that the bill addresses only web sites involved in commercial distribution, Senator Coats says he is 'hunting with a rifle' but in fact, he has lobbed another virtual grenade into the heart of the Internet" said Ann Beeson, an ACLU National Staff Attorney and member of the legal team that defeated the CDA. Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit card or other proof of age could be found liable under the statute, which criminalizes commercial distribution of words or images that could be deemed "harmful to minors," even if no actual sale is involved, Beeson said. "This is the equivalent of having to pay a fee every time you want to browse in the bookstore or watch a trailer for an R-rated movie," Beeson said. "As the Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision, requiring a credit card or other age verification would impose a severe financial and logistical burden, even on commercial websites." The ACLU said there were serious constitutional problems as well with the bill's definition of "harmful to minors." In addition to using a vague definition of what constitutes "harmful material," the bill does not make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex information, said Chris Hansen, an ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and member of the Reno v. ACLU legal team. Further, Hansen pointed out, unlike other "harmful to minors" statutes that have been upheld in the courts, the bill does not define whose community standard will be used to determine what material is harmful. "Invariably, those who decide what is harmful to a minor are going to be the least tolerant members of a given community -- such as the group in Oklahoma who sought to remove the award-winning film The Tin Drum from local libraries and video stores," Hansen said. The Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the CDA was issued on June 26 of this year, 16 months after the law was enacted and the ACLU filed its challenge. In a ringing affirmation of online free speech, the Court said that 'the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.' "While we rejoiced in the Supreme Court's decision last June, we knew that the battle was not yet over," said Solange Bitol, legislative counsel on First Amendment issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "When Congress returns to session in the New Year, we will be ready for Round Two in the battle to protect our free speech rights." ================ About Cyber-Liberties Update: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: A. Cassidy Sehgal (csehgal@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004 The Update is a bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. Questions or comments about the Update should be sent to Cassidy Sehgal at csehgal@aclu.org. Past issues are archived at To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body. Protect your civil liberties. Become a card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, visit the ACLU web site Take the First Amendment Pledge: For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:43 CST From: Cu Digest Subject: File 2--S 1482 - Ammendment to Communications Act of 1934 To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, and for other... (Introduced in the Senate) S 1482 IS 105th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1482 To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES NOVEMBER 8, 1997 Mr. COATS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation _________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB OF MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS. (a) PROHIBITION- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- (A) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and (B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection (e): `(e)(1) Whoever in interstate or foreign commerce in or through the World Wide Web is engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of material that is harmful to minors shall restrict access to such material by persons under 17 years of age. `(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. `(3) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (2), whoever intentionally violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. `(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (2) and (3), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. `(5) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subsection that the defendant restricted access to material that is harmful to minors by persons under 17 years of age by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number or in accordance with such other procedures as the Commission may prescribe. `(6) This subsection may not be construed to authorize the Commission to regulate in any manner the content of any information provided on the World Wide Web. `(7) For purposes of this subsection: `(A) The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that-- `(i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; `(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and `(iii) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. `(B) The terms `sexual act' and `sexual contact' have the meanings assigned such terms in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.'. (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Subsection (g) of such section, as so redesignated, is amended by striking `(e), or (f)' and inserting `(f), or (g)'. (b) AVAILABILITY ON INTERNET OF DEFINITION OF MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS- The Attorney General, in the case of the Internet web site of the Department of Justice, and the Federal Communications Commission, in the case of the Internet web site of the Commission, shall each post or otherwise make available on such web site such information as is necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term `material that is harmful to minors' under section 223(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by subsection (a) of this section. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:52:20 -0600 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 3--CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor By Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net This is the second in a series of articles about censorware products. The first, The X-Stop Files, can be found at http://www.spectacle.org/cs/xstop.html. The Censorware Page, http://www.spectacle.org/cs/, contains continuing coverage of these issues and links to other sites. ------------------------------------------- "We didn't create our product for libraries," admits Susan Getgood, director of marketing for Microsystems Inc., distributors of CyberPatrol blocking software. But Microsystems is in business to make a profit, and when libraries come knocking on the door asking to buy the product, the company will sell it to them. Today, CyberPatrol is installed in at least two major public library systems, in Boston, Ma. and Austin, Tx. In the former, after a bitter debate, it was installed on terminals for use by people under 18 only. In the latter, it was installed on all terminals; the library is now, after many months, considering a pilot program to offer uncensored Internet access to adults, on one out of fifty terminals. News coverage of the blocking software industry has been dominated by the antics of Brian Milburn, president of rival Solid Oak Software, distributors of Cybersitter, the product which, in pursuit of a fundamentalist agenda, blocked the National Organization for Women among numerous other sites. By contrast, Microsystems has appeared to be the most reasonable and flexible of blocking software providers. It maintains a review board which meets every two months to review its blocking policies and which includes members of the gay community. When authors of web pages have complained to Microsystems that their sites were blocked, Microsystems has frequently apologized for the error and unblocked the sites in the product's next update. I was one of those authors. In February of this year, I was informed that CyberPatrol blocked the pages pertaining to my book, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996), http://www.spectacle.org/freespch. I wrote an angry letter to Microsystems and received the following reply: "Hi Jonathan, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This site was blocked in error. I have removed this site from the CyberNOT list. This change will take effect with the next build of the CyberNOT list, by next Tuesday. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused. Debra Greaves Internet Research Supervisor" At the time, the Boston Public Library had just installed CyberPatrol. Ironically, six branches of the Boston library had my book on the shelves but you couldn't get to the Web page from a terminal with CyberPatrol installed. With a new wave of libraries considering the purchase of blocking software, I decided to go back and take another look at CyberPatrol. The informal methodology I used was to check my collection of ethical, political and legal Web sites (http://www.spectacle.org/links.html) against the Cybernot search engine that Microsystems maintains on its Web page (http://www.microsys.com). A Cybernot search will tell you whether or not the product blocks a particular site, but will not reveal in which category it is blocked. My goal was to determine which of these sites, containing controversial speech but no obscenity or illegal material whatever, were blocked by CyberPatrol. Cybernot reported that CyberPatrol blocked twelve of my bookmarked sites, out of a total of about 270. These included: The Flag Burning Page, http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag.html. This site, which I regard as one of the most intelligent and funny resources on the Web, examines the unconstitutionality under the First Amendment of laws against burning the flag. The Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org. This is a large collection of resources on Second Amendment right-to-bear-arms issues. While the blocking of this site is questionable under any theory, it is also a nice illustration of the inconsistency of CyberPatrol and of all blocking software. The product does not block the National Rifle Association, http://www.nra.org, or numerous other sites on both sides of the gun control issue. The Newtwatch page, http://www.cais.com/newtwatch/, is regrettably no longer on the Web, but CyberPatrol blocks it at its former URL. Funded by the Democratic party, Newtwatch was a combination of devastating political reportage and satire aimed at Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. It contained nothing that was offensive to children by any stretch of the imagination-- unless they were Republican children with no sense of humor. Another vanished Web page that is still blocked is the Dr. Bonzo web page, http://www.iglou.com/drbonzo/anathema.htm, a series of satirical essays on religious matters. The blocking of these two pages, long removed from the Web, raises questions about the frequency with which the CyberPatrol database is updated. A third blocked page which is no longer on the Web contained nothing but a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Other sites contained some explicit text but did so in the pursuit of a socially significant goal. For example, the Jake Baker page, http://krusty.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html, contains news reports and analysis of the case of the University of Michigan student who was arrested for distributing a rape and torture fantasy about a classmate on Usenet. Baker's stories, which led to his arrest, are also linked from this page. The case broke some new legal ground, and Mark Mangan and I used this site as a research resource in writing Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. It is hard to imagine how we could have written about the case without reading Baker's horrifying stories, which are presumably the reason why CyberPatrol blocks the entire site. CyberPatrol also blocks a Usenet search engine, www.dejanews.com. Dejanews, of course, is a major resource for anyone searching for Usenet discussion on any topic, and we also relied heavily on it in writing Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. One startled user of the Austin Public Library posted to Usenet a few weeks ago: "As DejaNews is one of the top Internet research tools, [this] decision transcends comprehension." Dejanews does not relay any graphics posted to Usenet; Microsystems apparently fears users will find explicit text. CyberPatrol blocked some of the bookmarked sites for no imaginable reason. The company has admitted to a number of errors in the past, in addition to the blocking of the Sex, Laws and Cyberspace page. Like other blocking software companies, Microsystems has employees surfing the Web, looking for sites to add to the Cybernot list-- and frequently they are not very careful. For example, Cybernot reports that the Society for the Promotion of Unconditional Relationships (SPUR) ( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/xgv92/spur2.htm) is blocked. The group describes its mission thus: "to increase public understanding and awareness of the nature and benefits of Unconditional Commitment in Relationships." The SPUR page contains articles with names like "The Role of Faith in Relationships." It was also hard to understand why CyberPatrol blocks the Interactivism page (www.interactivism.com). This site specializes in virtual activism; its top page, as I write these words, invites you to send faxes to politicians on issues including handgun control, freedom for Tibet, and campaign finance reform. Adults researching a variety of topics, notably freedom of speech-related issues, in the Austin public library are going to run into some significant roadblocks. The Austin library blocks four categories, three of them sex-related (including the categories under which Dejanews and the Jake Baker page are blocked) and the fourth entitled "gross depictions". Jon Lebkowsky, an Austin-based author and activist, was involved in discussions with library officials about their installation of CyberPatrol. He commented: "The Austin Public Library promised that filters would be an 'interim measure,' but backed off from that promise, thinking that their scaled-down filtering was gaining acceptance.... The APL should have honored the American Library Association's position on filters and removed the software after the Supreme Court's CDA decision." Microsystems acknowledges that CyberPatrol was never meant to be used to determine what adults can see. In March 1997, Susan Getgood wrote in a message posted to the Fight-Censorship list: "The CyberNOT list was designed to be used by adults to manage children's access to the Internet. It is not a filter meant for adults." A few weeks ago, at the annual New York Library Association meeting in Syracuse, Susan Getgood conducted a panel on blocking software. During the Q&A afterwards, I asked her: "Isn't it true that CyberPatrol blocks First Amendment protected, socially valuable material?" Susan thought for an extraordinarily long time before answering the question. Finally, she said very carefully, that in creating the Cybernot list, Microsystems didn't think about whether blocked pages are constitutionally protected or socially valuable. The company only thought about whether the material is (by its own standards) "inappropriate for children." Microsystems standards for determining appropriateness were not written by a librarian, nor meant for use in libraries. They weren't meant to keep speech from adult eyes. Applied to children, they draw no distinction between eight year olds and eighteen year olds. The latter conceivably might have a research assignment which involves looking at the Flag Burning page, the Jake Baker page or the Second Amendment Foundation. "Just as the CDA tried to reduce the entire net to something appropriate for 12-year-olds, so CyberPatrol is trying to expand the children's section to fill the entire library", said Jamie McCarthy, an Internet activist and software developer based in Michigan. In the Boston Public Library, CyberPatrol is installed on terminals used by people under 18, unless there is a parental permission slip on file allowing use of an uncensored computer. The three sex-related categories aree blocked; one of these, SexActs, is used to block text-only sites and is one of the categories assigned to Dejanews and the Jake Baker page. This category has also been used to block feminist discussion groups. The company's willingness to unblock sites is meaningless. The Internet is growing by leaps and bounds every week, and even as the company deletes sites like mine from the Cybernot database, Microsystems' harried surfers will be making fresh mistakes. Seth Finkelstein, a Boston-based software developer who follows censorware issues closely, commented: "No small group of people can hope to keep up with all the changes on the Web. Offering to correct 'mistakes', while good from a marketing standpoint, simply does not make up for the impossible nature of the task. We only see the problems which have been exposed so far; what else is lurking, not yet uncovered in their blacklist?" Putting a barrier between users and research sources is not what libraries do. Mark Mangan and I could not have written Sex, Laws and Cyberspace in the Austin library; too many of our sources are blocked. (Cyberpatrol also previously blocked The Electronic Frontier Foundation archives, www.eff.org, and the MIT Student Association for Free Expression, www.mit.edu/activities/safe/, two other sources we consulted in writing our book.) I hope that there are at least some librarians in Austin who feel ashamed that their library could not be used as a research source for a book on freedom of speech. CyberPatrol doesn't belong in public libraries. The company, by its own statements, has all but admitted this. The library which buys CyberPatrol has only itself to blame for its dereliction of responsibility towards its users. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:23:38 -0500 From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <70743.1711@compuserve.com> Subject: File 4--ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY: Source - CRYPT NEWSLETTER 45 November -- December 1997 ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY: Another brief in a very popular Crypt Newsletter continuing feature. commerce: something indeterminate that's always booming on the Internet, although no one you know has ever seen or benefited from it. Usage: Representatives of a grotesquely hyped Internet start-up asserted that its commerce was tripling monthly in cyberspace even as the firm surreptitiously filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11. expert: instrument of journalists deployed to burnish whatever received wisdom is being passed on as news; or, instrument of journalists used to furnish stock criticisms for heretical or unpopular findings; or, someone frequently counted on by hack journalists to provide Delphic wisdom on a subject or subjects the expert knows little about. Usage: The think tank expert was often asked for her comments on computer viruses and information warfare even though it had been shown she was computer illiterate. hardware glitch: The cause of all human errors and oversights leading to down time and lost e-mail at national Internet Service Providers or Online Services. Usage: America On-Line mouthpiece Tatiana Gau insisted a hardware glitch was responsible for the system-wide failure. Road Ahead, The: a book for those who despise books, credited to a man who also despises books. Usage: Unable to unload the excessive printing of "The Road Ahead" in the continental United States, Bill Gates came up with the novel idea of arm-twisting Russian paupers wishful for his beneficence into purchasing copies for about 9 dollars, cash U.S. Yes, you can -- like others who wish not to be named -- contribute to the Joseph K Guide without fear of professional retribution or stain upon your reputation. Send your suggestions, definitions or usages to Crypt Newsletter! ------------------------------------------------------------- George Smith, Ph.D., edits the Crypt Newsletter from Pasadena, CA. copyright 1997 Crypt Newsletter. All rights reserved. INTERNET: 70743.1711@compuserve.com crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt Mail to: Crypt Newsletter 1635 Wagner St. Pasadena, CA 91106 ph: 818-568-1748 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 08:15:26 -0800 From: "Gordon R. Meyer" Subject: File 5--Fwd: (Fwd) Common Control DLL and MSIE4.0 distribution ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date-- Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:24:07 -0500 From-- James Love The following is a letter by Brian Glaeske, a software developer, to the US DOJ, regarding the Common Control DLL. Microsoft's licensing requires developers who want to distribute this DLL to also distribute MSIE4.0 The URL for the license is: http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/IEProg/Licensing.htm#ch_ MSHTML_licensing The letter follows: Forwarded by James Love ----------------------------- Subject--Microsoft Antitrust Date--Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:51:37 -0600 From--Brian Glaeske Organization--Great Plains Software To--"'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" Joel I. Klein Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC antitrust@usdoj.gov Dear Mr. Klein: I am writing to ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect consumers by taking action to prevent Microsoft from using anticompetitive practices to monopolize the market for Internet browsers. Specifically, Microsoft should not be permitted to force third party developers to redistribute Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to use features found in a programming API (Application Program Interface). A specific API shipped originally with the Microsoft Windows 95 OS (Operating System) and was just recently enhanced with new features that make it attractive for third party developers to use. This API is known to developers as the Common Control DLL. Because this is an enhancement to the OS that came after the initial release of Microsoft Windows 95, it is necessary for third party developers to distribute the updated OS components with their software in order to ensure that their software works properly. However, Microsoft is not allowing developers to redistribute only the components that they need, instead Microsoft is demanding that Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 is distributed with the third party software It is the responsibility of DOJ to ensure that Microsoft does not use its OS monopoly to monopolize the market for applications. I believe that forcing third party developers to distribute Microsoft Internet Explorer is a blatant anti-competitive act. Sincerely, Brian Glaeske 1539 14th St. S. Fargo, ND 58103-4001 bglaeske@cogs.gps.com --------------------------------------- Charles C. Mann T: 413.256.3504 F: 413.256.6619 E: ccm@crocker.com S: PO Box 66 Amherst MA 01004-0066 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:05:10 -0500 From: "Evian S. Sim" Subject: File 6--Mitnick Legal Defense Fund A legal defense fund has recently been created for accused hacker Kevin Mitnick who has been in custody for almost 3 years without bail and is still awaiting trial. His next court appearance for 1995 charges is scheduled for April 14, 1998. Even though the trial has not yet started, Kevin has exhausted his funds for legal representation. His court appointed attorney had been denied payment for 4 months by Judge Mariana Pfaelzer for what she considers exessive bills for computer experts. "I've rarely ever seen bills that high. I'm absolutely stunned at what those bills look like," she said. "If you think you're going to have an unlimited budget, you're wrong." Anyone wishing to donate to Kevin's legal defense fund is asked to send a check or money order to the following address (please do not make the check out to Kevin Mitnick): Payable to: Reba Vartanian Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Mitnick c/o Norwest Bank Nevada, N.A. Rainbow Ridge Office 672 3104 North Rainbow Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89108 A/C #: 672-190-1177 For more information on Kevin Mitnick, please visit the Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site at http://www.kevinmitnick.com . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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 #9.86 ************************************