Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 9, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 35
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, III
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivist: Dan Carosone
CONTENTS, #4.35 (Aug 9, 1992)
File 1--Pack your bags -- Cud's moving!
File 2--What's a "CuD?"
File 3--Re: Another View of Bellcore vs. 2600
File 4--Re: SURVEY: Is Big Brother Watching You?
File 5--BellSouth Shareholders Note
File 6--'Pirate' is PC?
File 7--"Piracy:" Overstated? (Chic Tribune summary)
File 8--'Zine Watch - 2600 and Boardwatch
File 9--*NO MORE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ARTICLES*
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.
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 DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on Genie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under
"computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and by
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au
European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893.
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 as long as the source
is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 02:47:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: chip@CHINACAT.UNICOM.COM(Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: File 1--Pack your bags -- Cud's moving!
Those who receive CuD via Usenet probably know the news by now: the
%comp.society.cu-digest' vote is over and the newsgroup has been
approved. This is good news -- even to the non-Usenet readers.
Moving CuD out of the anarchistic %alt' hierarchy and into the
mainstream %comp' distribution potentially brings a lot of new readers
into the fray. (It also somehow gives an added air of legitimacy to
the CuD.)
A summary of the voting results appears towards the end of this
message. There will be another week or two for the voting results to
be reviewed before comp.society.cu-digest is actually created.
If you are a Usenet reader who could not receive the CuD via
alt.society.cu-digest, I urge you to drop your mailing list
subscription once comp.society.cu-digest is operational. Yes, you
will receive your CuD in the handy, easy-to-read Usenet format,
without a single word edited, modified, or expunged! By switching
over to Usenet you will save wear and tear on both our network
bandwidth and our esteemed editors.
If you are a Usenet administrator -- or know somebody who is a Usenet
administrator or aspire to someday become a Usenet administrator :-)
please note the following:
* The name of the new newsgroup will be %comp.society.cu-digest'.
* The newsgroup will be moderated, and the address for submissions
will be the CuD editors at <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>.
* If you maintain a %mailpaths' file, please ensure you update it
properly.
* Once the new newsgroup is operational, the CuD will be cross-posted
into both %comp.society.cu-digest' and %alt.society.cu-digest'
for a period of approximately one month. This will give Usenet
administrators and CuD readers a chance to switch over.
* After that one month period, the %alt.society.cu-digest' newsgroup
will be decommissioned.
* Please do NOT alias the old name to the new name. The proposed
changeover strategy should alleviate any such need.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote. If you have any questions
or concerns about the newsgroup vote or the Usenet gateway, feel free
to drop me a line.
Here are the final voting results:
PROPOSAL: comp.society.cu-digest
CHARTER: The Computer Underground Digest (moderated)
SUMMARY: This newsgroup will be used to distribute the Computer
Underground Digest. The CuD is an open forum for
issues relating to the phenomena of computer cracking.
It has been in publication since 1990, and is widely
distributed in a number of electronic forms. The CuD
has been distributed via alt.society.cu-digest. The
alt.society.cu-digest newsgroup will be decommissioned
once the new newsgroup is stable.
=== OFFICIAL VOTE TALLY ===
Total Votes Cast: 263
Valid Votes Cast: 260
Ambiguous Votes: 3 (excluded from count)
Yes Votes: 247 (95.00% of valid votes)
No Votes: 13 (5.00% of valid votes)
Yes-No Margin: 234
Percentage Test: pass (is yes/valid >= 66.67%?)
Margin Test: pass (is yes-no >= 100?)
VOTE RESULT: PASS (do both tests pass?)
=== TOP TEN VOTING DOMAINS ===
6 ac.uk
5 umd.edu
5 orst.edu
4 syr.edu
4 mit.edu
4 il.us
4 eff.org
4 cmu.edu
3 upenn.edu
3 uio.no
=== DISTRIBUTION OF VOTES RECEIVED ===
7/13 9 *****
7/14 86 ****************************************
7/15 29 **************
7/16 10 *****
7/17 6 ***
7/18 5 ***
7/19 5 ***
7/20 8 ****
7/21 23 ***********
7/22 17 ********
7/23 5 ***
7/24 3 **
7/25 3 **
7/26 0 *
7/27 1 *
7/28 6 ***
7/29 18 *********
7/30 10 *****
7/31 8 ****
8/01 2 *
8/02 5 ***
8/03 2 *
8/04 2 *
--
Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | Let the wayward children play. Let the wicked
Unicom Systems Development | have their day. Let the chips fall where they
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | may. I'm going to Disneyland. -Timbuk 3
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 09:23:01 (CDT)
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)
Subject: File 2--What's a "CuD?"
With the change to comp.society.cu-digest, we assume that
newcomers may not know what a "CuD' is. This seems like a good time to
respond to the FAQs (for newbies, "frequently asked questions"). We've
ignored some of the irrelevant ones (like "why doesn't Thomas cut his
ponytail" --he did, sort of), and "Yo, d00dz, got any good codez?"
(sigh). If we've missed any serious questions, let us know and we'll
try again.
WHAT IS CuD?
Cu-Digest, or CuD, is a weekly on-line electronic journal/news forum.
CuD began at the suggestion and encouragement of Pat Townson
(moderator of Telecomm Digest) in March 1990. The federal indictments
of Craig Neidorf (in the "PHRACK case" in Chicago) and Len Rose (in
Baltimore) generated more posts than Pat could manage, and the nature
of posts exceeded his Digest's Usenet charter. Jim Thomas and Gordon
Meyer volunteered to collect the surplus posts, and Pat helped get it
started. It was originally conceived as an interim forum that would
quietly depart after a few months. Volume 1, in fact, was originally
intended as the first and final volume in August '92, but a week later
Volume 2 appeared because of the continuous material. As of this
writing, CuD is publishing Volume 4.
Each issue is about 40 K.
WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CuD?
The broad goal of CuD is to provide a forum for discussion and debate
of the computer telecommunications culture. This culture especially
includes, but is not limited to, the unique world of BBSes, Internet,
and public access systems. We focus especially on alternative gropus
that exist outside of the conventional net community. We try to focus
on a broad range of issues that include news, debates of legal,
ethical, and technical issues, and scholarly research of relevance to
a broad audience of professionals and lay persons. Other than
providing a context for an article if necessary, the moderators *do
not* add commentary of agreement or disagreement. We see our role as
one of facilitating debate, although we will do take part in
discussions in separate articles.
WHO EDITS CUD?
Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas publish CuD from Northern Illinois
University. Gordon Meyer's MA thesis, "The Social Organization of the
Computer Underground", was the first systematic attempt to place the
social world of "phreaks, hackers, and pirates" in a context that
looked at the culture, rather than the "deviance", of alternative uses
of computer use. Gordon is currently a system engineer with a large
national firm in the Chicago area. Jim Thomas, a professor of
sociology/criminology at Northern Illinois University, is a prison
researcher and qualitative methodologist. Gordon lured him into the
"underground" world 1987, and he has since become interested in the
legal and cultural issues of computer use.
WHY THE LABEL *UNDERGROUND*?
For some, the term underground connotes malice and a dark side of human
activity. For others, including the CuD editors, it denotes
alternative or unconventional activity. Like the "underground," or
"alternative" press of the counterculture of the 1960s, the "computer
underground" refers to types of behavior or characteristics of a
subculture that are unique, cohesively identifiable, possessing norms,
roles, and social expectations that define participants, and are
considered socially marginal by the dominant culture. Like the term
"hacker," there were originally no negative connotations associated
with "underground" when the term was first used. The name "Computer
underground Digest" was suggested with a bit of irony prior to the
first issue (how, after all, can a conventional digest that is
publicly accessible be "underground?"), and the name stayed. Early
discussions to change the name seemed impractical once the "CuD"
monogram was established, and the name stands.
IS CuD "PRO-HACKER?"
The term "hacker" has been grossly distorted by the media and law
enforcement personnel, who use it synonymously with "computer
intruders." CuD editors have repeatedly stated their own opposition to
all forms of predatory and malicious behavior, including malicious
computer intrusion. We accept Bob Bickford's definition of a "hacker"
as someone who derives joy from discovering ways to exceed
limitations. Hackers, in the original sense, referred to explorers who
solved problems and exceeded conventional limits through trial and
error in situations in which there were no formal guidelines or
previous models from which to draw. In this sense, CuD is quite
"pro-hacker," and we prefer the term "cracker" for malicious
practitioners of the hacking craft. Exploration is good, predation is
not. However, CuD encourages articles from all perspectives and
attempts to provide a forum for reasoned discussion on all sides of
an issue. CuD is against predatory behavior by any group, whether
computer enthusiasts or those who oppose them. CuD is for civil
liberties and for civilizing the electronic frontier by securing
rights assumed in other social realms and by advocating protection
from all forms of abuse.
Like rock 'n Roll and Richard Nixon, the computer underground culture
has not, and will not likely soon, go away. It has become an
entrenched part of computer culture. CuD attempts to document the
computer culture and ease the transition as the culture moves toward
the mainstream with articles that bridge the cultural gaps as
telecomputing becomes an increasingly important part of daily life.
The political, legal, economic, and social impact of changes in the
new technology is poorly covered elsewhere. We see our goal as
addressing the impact of these changes and providing alternative
interpretations to events.
WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DOES CuD PUBLISH?
We encourage submissions on a broad range of topics, from articulate
short responses and longer opinion pieces to book reviews, summaries
of research, and academic papers. We especially encourage:
1. Reasoned and thoughtful debates about economic, ethical, legal, and
other issues related to the computer underground.
2. Verbatim printed newspaper or magazine articles containing relevant
stories. If you send a transcription of an article, be sure it
contains the source *and* the page numbers so references can be
checked. Also be sure that no copyright protections are infringed.
3. Public domain legal documents (affidavits, indictments, court
records) that pertain to relevant topics.
4. General discussion of news, problems, or other issues that
contributors feel should be aired.
5. Unpublished academic papers, "think pieces," or research results
are strongly encouraged. These would presumably be long, and we would
limit the size to about 800 lines (or 40 K). Longer articles
appropriate for distribution would be sent as a single file and
so-marked in the header.
6. Book reviews that address the social implications of computer
technology.
7. Bibliographies (especially annotated), transcripts of relevant
radio or television programs (it is the poster's responsibility to
assure that copyrights are not violated), and announcements and
reports of relevant conferences and conference papers are strongly
encouraged.
8. Announcements for conferences, meetings, and other events as well
as summaries after they've occured.
9. Suggestions for improvement, general comments or criticisms of CuD,
and ideas for articles are especially helpful.
Although we encourage debate, we stress that ad hominem attacks or
personal squabbles will not be printed. Although we encourage
different opinion, we suggest that these be well-reasoned and
substantiated with facts, citations, or other "evidence" that would
bolster claims. Although CuD is a Usenet group, it does not, except
in the rarest of cases, print post-response-counterresponse in the
style common among most other groups.
HOW CAN I PUBLISH IN CUD?
To submit an article, simply send it to the editors at
tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. If you receive CuD on Usenet, you can reply
(using the F or f commands) and your response will come directly to
the editors and will not be distributed across the nets. If you do not
have an article, but know of people who do, encourage them to send
their work along. Although CuD is a forum for opposing points of view,
we do prefer that articles a) be written in English, b) make sense,
and c) are not out-dated.
Submissions should be formatted at 70 characters per line and should
include a blank space separating individual paragraphs. Submissions
may be edited for spelling and format, but no other changes are ever
intentionally made without permission. Sigs are also removed to save
bandwidth.
WHO READS CuD?
As a conservative estimate, CuD reaches about 30,000 to 35,000 readers
each issue. According to monthly Usenet statistics, CuD averaged
about 23,000 readers a month on alt.society.cu-digest. We estimate
another 3,000 from the mailing list and feeds into various systems.
BBS readership, judging from non-scientific sysop feedback,
constitutes at least another 5,000, and public access systems
(Peacenet, America Online, GEnie, CompuServe) constitutes the rest of
domestic readership. Our figures do not include substantial European,
Australian, or ftp distribution.
Judging from a survey we took in 1990 and from the feedback we receive
from readers, CuD readers cut across occupational, ideological, and
age lines. The overwhelming majority (about 80 percent) of the
readership is college graduates About half is computer professionals
or in related fields. The remaining half is distributed among a
variety of professions (attorneys, journalists, academicians, law
enforcement, students) and territory (the mailing list includes every
continent except Asia and all west European countries).
HOW DO I RECEIVE CuD?
If you're reading this, you've already received it, and most likely
you can just keep doing whatever you did to get it. If you aren't sure
what you did, you can do any of the following:
CuD is *FREE*. It costs nothing. The editors make no profit, we take
no money, we accept no gifts (but we drink Jack Daniels and lots of
it, should you run into us in a pub). To receive CuD, you can access
it from many BBSes and most public access systems. Or, if you have
Usenet access, you can obtain it by subscribing through your local
system to comp.society.cu-digest.
If you do not have Usenet access, you can be placed on a mailing list
by dropping a short note to: tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu with the subject
header: SUB CuD and a message that says:
SUB CuD my name my.full.internet@address
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 92 23:43 PDT
From: john@ZYGOT.ATI.COM(John Higdon)
Subject: File 3--Re: Another View of Bellcore vs. 2600
In Digest #4.34, Thomas Klotzbach gives a reasoned and rational view
of the responsibility of a free press as it relates to the computer
underground and specifically to the matter of recent publications by
2600 of Bellcore material. I could agree with every point except for
the fact that Mr. Klotzbach makes an invalid assumption upon which
hangs the balance of his piece. His assertion (and I assume his
belief) is that Bellcore has conducted its business in good faith and
corrected "holes" and shortcomings in a timely manner.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the days of "The Bell
System", AT&T and the Bell Operating Companies have been grossly
negligent in the matter of security. It would be my guess that the
term, "Security Through Obscurity", originated with Ma Bell. Rather
than create systems that used password security or handshaking
protocols, "the phone company" merely relied on the (mistaken) idea
that the public was too removed from the technical workings of the
nationwide telephone network to be a "threat" to the billing or
privacy integrity of the system as a hole.
The classic example is the use of inband signaling which provided
hundreds, if not thousands of enthusiasts (for want of a better
euphemism) the ability to travel around the world on Ma Bell's dime.
These people could literally control the network because of a serious,
inherent flaw built into the system. The band-aid fixes were too
little, too late and network security was severely compromised until
the inband signaling was replaced with CCIS and its progeny.
The Busy Verify Trunk and No. Test Trunk holes, which are the focus of
the 2600 fracas, are just a portion of dozens of similar such
vulnerabilities in our national telephone network. Those of us who are
intimately familiar (for legitimate reasons) with this network have
known about these things for a long, long time. I, for one, would like
to see them plugged. If the 2600 article manages to get one of them
out of the way, more power to it.
But the policy of "The Bell System" and now Bellcore and the RBOCs
seems to be to do nothing about any such problems and wait for some
phreak to get caught with a hand in the cookie jar. After all, why
bother to fix something if it is not a problem (yet)? It can become a
problem (or an embarrassment) in one of two ways. A publication such as
2600 can publicize the vulnerability situation; or someone can be
caught taking advantage of it. In either case, Bellcore swings into
action. For the former, threats of civil action for the publication of
"proprietary" data does the trick. In the latter case, it simply hauls
the perpetrator into court and garners as much publicity as possible.
This has the dual purpose of intimidating others who may follow suit,
and it obscures the fact that the whole problem was caused by
Bellcore's own negligence.
It has been my experience in cases brought against accused phreaks
that the prosecutors have not a clue what constitutes sensitive
material. Bellcore exploits this to the hilt when it uses the long
arm of the law in lieu of properly imbedded security features. Just
ask Craig Neidorf. In all fairness, that particular incident involved
an RBOC trying to fry Craig for something Bellcore was readily selling
over the counter. And Bellcore is certainly not the only entity in
the nation, or perhaps the world, that gives security less than prime
consideration, just "hoping" that whatever is slapped together will be
good enough. But just because a practice may be widespread does not
make it legitimate.
The press has the right, nay the responsibility, to put these issues
before the public eye. We as a society have long since progressed
beyond the notion that there are just some things about which people
should not know, care, or ask. Security through obscurity no longer
can work in an enlightened society. A system or network is not safe if
the only thing keeping people out is the fact that a trivial entry
procedure is not widely known. Unfortunately, much of the nation's
telephone network can still be thusly described. If the only way to
get these holes plugged is to publicize them and literally force
Bellcore and the RBOCs to do their duty, then so be it. If prestigious
organizations such as Bellcore suffer a little embarrassment along the
way, just consider that the market force at work.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 92 07:25:55 -0400
From: (Lorrayne Schaefer) <lorrayne@SMILEY.MITRE.ORG>
Subject: File 4--Re: SURVEY: Is Big Brother Watching You?
((MODERATORS' NOTE: As previous posts in CuD demonstrate, computer
privacy in the workplace has become an important issue in the past
year. Lorrayne Schaefer has been active in collecting data to enable a
specific assessment of the types of policies currently in place in the
public and private sectors. CuD will summarize the results of her
findings when completed.))
The purpose of this survey is to collect data for a presentation that
I will give at this year's National Computer Security Conference in
October. I would like to thank you for taking the time to fill out
this survey. If you have any questions, you can call me at
703-883-5301 or send me email at lorrayne@smiley.mitre.org. Please
send your completed survey to:
Lorrayne Schaefer
The MITRE Corporation
M/S Z213
7525 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102
lorrayne@smiley.mitre.org
This survey has been posted on some newsgroups a few months ago. This
survey has also been distributed to various conferences over the past
few months. All results will be in the form of statistical
information and keywords. All participants will remain anonymous.
If you have responded to this survey, I give you my thanks. I cannot
get a realistic enough picture without those who have spent some time
answering these questions. For those who are responding to this
survey now, thank you.
SURVEY: MONITORING IN THE WORKPLACE
1. What is your title?
2. What type of work does your organization do?
3. Does your organization currently monitor computer activity? (Yes/No)
a. If yes, what type of monitoring does your company do (e.g.,
electronic mail, bulletin boards, telephone, system activity, network
activity)?
b. Why does your company choose to monitor these things and how
is it done?
4. If you are considering (or are currently) using a monitoring
tool, what exactly would you monitor? How would you protect this
information?
5. Are you for or against monitoring? Why/why not? Think in
terms of whether it is ethical or unethical ("ethical" meaning
that it is right and "unethical" meaning it is wrong) for an
employer to monitor an employee's computer usage. In your
response, consider that the employee is allowed by the company to use
the computer and the company currently monitors computer activity.
6. If your company monitors employees, is it clearly defined in
your company policy?
7. In your opinion, does the employee have rights in terms of
being monitored?
8. In your opinion, does the company have rights to protect its
assets by using a form of monitoring tool?
9. If you are being monitored, do you take offense? Managers:
How do you handle situations in which the employee takes offense at
being monitored?
10. What measures does your company use to prevent misuse of
monitoring in the workplace?
11. If an employee is caught abusing the monitoring tool, what would
happen to that individual? If your company is not using any form of
monitoring, what do you think should happen to an individual who
abused the tool?
12. Is it unethical to monitor electronic mail to determine if the
employee is not abusing this company resource (e.g., suppose the
employee sends personal notes via a network to others that are not
work related)? Why or why not?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 92 21:03:26 PDT
From: Anonymous@CUP.PORTAL.COM
Subject: File 5--BellSouth Shareholders Note
((Thought you might be interested in the following text from the
BellSouth shareholder report. -ANON-))
Urgent Appeal To BellSouth Shareholders
The range of consumer choices, along with the future growth
opportunities of BellSouth and the other Bell holding
companies, would be sharply limited by H. R. 5096 - the
"Brooks bill." This legislation is being pushed through
Congress by giant media corporations as a means of keeping
competition out of their lines of business.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY, EXPRESSING YOUR
OPPOSITION TO H. R. 5096.
KEY POINTS TO MAKE WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:
The Brooks bill must be stopped because it would:
1. deny consumers access to a rich array of information services
2. hurt domestic employment and
3. stifle competition.
To obtain the name of your representative, call the U. S.
Capitol at 202-224-3121. Mail your letter to your
representative at U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
For more about the Brooks bill, see pages 1 and 7 of this
newsletter, and/or mail the enclosed card. You may also call
1-800-522-2355, ext. 44.
Thank you for helping BellSouth preserve its right to
compete.
Dear Shareholders:
We had a strong second quarter. Earnings increased 26
percent, driven by growth in both our telephone and cellular
businesses, and by continued cost control.
But the good quarterly results were clouded by a
discriminatory bill that is moving through the U.S. House of
Representatives this summer. And we need your help to defeat
it.
BILL WOULD HURT CONSUMERS
H.R. 5096, also known as the "Brooks bill," would
effectively legislate BellSouth and the other Bell holding
companies (BHCs) out of promising areas of growth in the
industry we know best. It would do this by enacting into law
three of the line of business restrictions imposed by the
courts at divestiture - including information services,
which the courts already have allowed us to enter.
The bill is bad for customers, shareholders and employees.
Customers would be deprived of many new services that could
improve their quality of life. In fact, because BellSouth
already has information services in operation, our customers
stand to have the door slammed in their faces when it comes
to enhancing and expanding existing services.
The Brooks bill would hurt shareholders, primarily because
it severely limits our ability to increase the uses - and,
therefore, the value - of the sophisticated network your
capital has helped build.
LET CONGRESS KNOW WHERE YOU STAND
What can you do? Write or call your Representative in the
U.S. House. Tell him or her that you. as someone with a
substantial stake in BellSouth. oppose H.R. 5096 because the
bill is anti-jobs, anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
I know many of you already have written to Congress because
you sent me copies of your letters. But this issue is so
critical to you, our owners. that I am asking you to write
again.
You can affect what Congress does. and you can take action
to protect your investment in BellSouth. Please add your
voice to that of the Communications Workers of America (CWA)
and hundreds of other groups who oppose the Brooks bill.
Write your Representative now. and if you would also like to
receive a briefing package on this legislation, please
return the enclosed postcard. or call 1-800-522-2355, ext.
44.
BellSouth and the CWA aren't afraid to compete for the
customer's business.and we shouldn't be denied the
opportunity to do so.
=======================================================================
Positioning BellSouth for the Future
Excerpts from Chairman John Clendenin's remarks at the annual
shareholder's meeting in April.
"1991 was an extraordinary year in terms of positioning BellSouth for
the future. What we're seeing is the natural evolution of a totally
flexible new generation of telecommunications technology, and the
freeing of people from the communication umbilical cord that has tied
them to the office or the home."
"It's our conviction that the ability to combine wireless and wireline
skills - often in partnership with others - will serve our customers,
and hence our owners best."
"We're looking at our core telephone network in new ways, including
the philosophy of how we use it. We aim to grow our business by making
our core telephone intelligent network attractive for other
information providers to use. We're looking at ways to deliver more
services in joint efforts with others."
"RAM Mobile Data puts us on the forefront of another promising market
- wireless data transmission. Ultimately, this new technology's growth
is expected to parallel the explosive growth of cellular. There are an
estimated 10 million potential mobile data users in the U. S. alone."
"We are on the leading edge of technology, and we are absolutely
committed to staying there. Overseas and here in the U. S. we're
setting the pace in developing all the technical and other skills it
takes to give customers whatever it takes to communicate, whenever and
wherever they want to."
"As competitors take local exchange business from us, we have to
regain the freedom to get into other areas. Keeping our freedom to
provide sophisticated information services, such as distance learning,
is our top priority.
Eventually, these will be very important markets for us. But some
powerful interests, particularly some big media companies that own
newspapers and cable TV operations don't want us in information
services, and they're lobbying Congress to take away the freedom we've
gained from the courts.
If they have their way, BellSouth will be kept away from a big portion
of the growing telecommunications pie in this exploding Age of
Information."
"I've got a request: Write your U. S. Representative and your U. S.
Senators. Let them know that BellSouth, the other Bell holding
companies and America's consumers, shouldn't be denied information
services to protect the financial interests of those big media
companies. Tell them you oppose H. R. 5096, called the Brooks bill."
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:54:14 EDT
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 6--'Pirate' is PC?
"Texas and the Pirates"
With all the publicity computer pirates have been getting lately -
what with teenagers nonchalantly tapping into credit-card databases
from their bedrooms and bands of foreign technophiles looking for
vulnerable spots in computer networks that require high-level
clearance to access - security firms are going all out to market
their expertise to the nervous masses.
% info about the June Computer Security Institute conference deleted.%
The two-day conference includes seminars on topics such as "Securing
the Simple Network Management Protocol" and "Protecting Against LAN
Viruses." To the astute security observer, however, the title of
one session - "Hackers and Your Network" - would certainly cause
a gasp. As all politically correct technophiles know, hackers are
legitimate computer enthusiasts; "computer pirates," by contrast,
are those involved in technothievery.
Excerpted from the June 1, 1992 issue of
INFORMATION WEEK, who should know better.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 10:05:58 (CDT)
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)
Subject: File 7--"Piracy:" Overstated? (Chic Tribune summary)
Summary from:
"Yes, Piracy's Illegal, But not the Scourge it's Cracked up to be"
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1992 (Section 7, p. 7)
By T.R. Reid and Brit Hume
Sunday Tribune computer columnists Reid and Hume challenged what they
call one of the software industry's "periodic public relations
campaigns to get people to believe it's being robbed blind by software
pirates." They poked a bit of fun at a New York Time's front page
story dramatizing the "scourge," noting that the industry's claim that
pirates steal up to half of the annual total sales of $5.7 billion is
"almost certainly rot.
The $2.4 billion estimate of purloined software apparently comes from
a figure given out by the SPA (Software Publisher's Association) in
1990. The SPA has increased this figure dramatically in 1992 (see next
issue of CuD). As Reid and Hume correctly comment, "there is simply no
way the software industry can estimate accurately how many illegal
copies there are, and even if it could, it couldn't possibly determine
how many of them represent lost sales."
Reid and Hume continue, making several points that pirates would agree
with:
1. If you use a program, you should pay for it. Reid and Hume are a
bit more adamant in their claim that that it's *not* ok to pirate
software (a point on which pirates take exception). But, there is
strong consensus among "elite" pirates that, as Reid and Hume argue,
"it's particularly dishonest to use a stolen program for commercial
purposes." Elite pirates might phrase it a bit differently:
"Bootleggers are scum."
2. Sharing software can enhance sales. Reid and Hume argue that those
who obtain an unpurchased copy of software that they like and use may
find updates, instructions, and on-line help well worth the purchase.
They also note that the shareware concept, based on free distribution
of programs, has thrived and has made programmers quite successful.
(See the September, '92, issue of Boardwatch Magazine, for a story on
software industry awards).
3. They, as do most elite pirates, strongly condemn the practice of
copying an authorized program in a business and sharing it around to
avoid the site license fees.
4. The pre-purchase use of software is "not such a bad thing" because
it can help sales. It also provides users a chance to compare the most
expensive programs, such as word processors, databases, spread sheets,
and graphics programs, all of which are major expenditures for most
users. It makes no sense to spend $480 to purchase dBase when Foxbase
may be more suited to one's needs.
The columnists fall short of advocating responsible piracy, and they
make it clear that they oppose unauthorized copying for profit or
"free use" simply to avoid paying for a product that will be used.
But it is refreshing to see the mainstream press begin to challenge
the claims, and hopefully eventually the practices, of the SPA and
others who associate "piracy" with "theft" and would rather
criminalize the practice rather than take a more prudent approach to
creative software sharing.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 19:41:09 (CDT)
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)
Subject: File 8--'Zine Watch - 2600 and Boardwatch
2600: The Hacker Quarterly--The Summer, '92 (Vol 9, #2) issue is out
and includes articles on defeating *69 (automatic return call), a
summary of the recent MOD indictments and a critique of its media
coverage, Bellcore's plans for caller ID, a demon dialer review, and
much more. Perhaps the best piece is by an anonymous government
official who, while not in any way justifying or glorifying "hacking,"
makes a strong case that if security and law enforcement personal would
attempt to understand, rather than demonize, their "enemy," they would
be far better at their jobs and reduce some of the tensions that exist
between the two communities.
Information on 2600 can be obtained at 2600@well.sf.ca.us
Boardwatch: It gets slicker and better each issue. It's moving from
simply "very good" to "dynamite!" At $36 for 12 issues, it's a bargain
for serious modemers. The September issue includes the usual
"Tele-bits" and "Internet News" features, along with the BBS numbers,
ads that are actually fun to read, and a summary of the SIA Industry
Awards for best software in the past year. In our view, attorney
Lance Rose's monthly contributions alone are worth the price. Rose, a
specialist in copyright law and author of SYSLAW (a guide to legal
issues affecting sysops), focuses this month on the rumor that
Apogee's game, Wolfenstien, is illegal because it may violate German
law by including images of swastikas and other Nazi symbols, which
some feel may violate a German statute that prohibits the perpetuation
of their Nazi past. Rose addresses this in the broader context of
censorship and sysop legal liabilities. He also notes that the rumor
may have greatly enhanced the game's sales.
Information on Boardwatch can be obtained from:
jrickard@teal.csn.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 11:51:31 (CDT)
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu)
Subject: File 9--*NO MORE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ARTICLES*
Even though we require posters to assure they have copyright
permission for reposts they submit, this is not always done. We rely
on posters, because we have no reasonable way of checking permissions.
In the past year, we have received a disproportionate number of
Chicago Tribune articles, so we called Joe Leonard, associate editor
of operations in charge of granting copyright permission, to be sure
electronic reprinting of Tribune articles was kosher. His three word
response: "IT IS NOT!"
Leonard indicated that the Tribune has contracts with services for
electronic copying services, and allowing others to electronically
reprint Tribune articles would be a violation of their contract. He
contended that he perceives himself as in the information business,
not the newspaper business, and he will under no conditions give
permission to reproduce a Tribune article electronically, because it
puts him at risk with other information service providers. He
indicated, however, that permission for hardcopy reproduction is more
flexible. CuD will *NOT* accept reproductions from the Chicago
Tribune. If there is any doubt about the copyright of a news story,
the best rule of thumb is to err on the side of caution and summarize
it, quoting only enough material that falls on the safe side of "fair
use." When submitting a reproduced article (whether summarized or
intact), be sure to include the entire reference (source, date, page,
author).
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #4.35
************************************