Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 12, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 12
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copi Editor: E. T. NaShrdlu
CONTENTS, #7.12 (Sun, Feb 12, 1995)
File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314)
File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd)
File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international
File 4--Defamation in cyberspace
File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd)
File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd)
File 7--Cu In The News
File 8--Conferences that may be of interest
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 15:04:19 -0500 (EST)
From: slowdog <slowdog@WOOKIE.NET>
Subject: File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314)
If Sen. Exon's bill passes, this will be the text of the law. Items in
[brackets] are the portions that are being deleted or changed. The text
itself that is not within these brackets is how the law will look.
Comments to follow.
47 USC Sec. 223
TITLE 47
CHAPTER 5
SUBCHAPTER II
Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of
Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] Obscene or
harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and facilities
in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communications
(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever -
(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications
device -
(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment,
request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication]
which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
(B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation
ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to
annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called
number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues,
without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
receives the communication;
(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
called number; or
(D) [makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]
makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates
communication with a telecommunications device, during which
comversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any
person at the called number of who receives the communication;
or
(2) knowingly permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility
under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this
section, shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or
imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both.
(b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution
(1) Whoever knowingly -
(A) within the United States, by means of [telephone],
telecommunications device makes (directly or by recording device)
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the
call] placed the call or initiated the conversation; or
(B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such
person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by
subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly -
(A) within the United States, [by means of telephone, makes]
by means of telecommunications device, makes, knowingly
transmits, or knowingly makes available (directly or by recording
device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is
available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person
without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of
such communication [placed the call] placed the call or
initiated the communication; or
(B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such
person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph
(A), shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not
more than [six months] 2 years, or both.
(3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
Commission may prescribe by regulation.
(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or
(2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than [$50,000]
$100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than [$50,000]
$100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either -
(i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
Commission for such purposes, or
(ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
proceedings.
(6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c) Restriction on access to subscribers by common carriers;
judicial remedies respecting restrictions
(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within
any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the
extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication
specified in subsection (b) of this section from the [telephone]
telecommunications device of any subscriber who has not previously
requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such
communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable
charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in
part, to the provider of such communication.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
account of -
(A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection; or
(B) any access permitted -
(i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any
representation by a provider of communications that
communications provided by that provider are communications
specified in subsection (b) of this section, or
(ii) because a specific representation by the provider did
not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient
period to restrict access to restrict access to communications
described in subsection (b) of this section.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
action shall be limited to the question of whether the
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the
category of communications to which the carrier will provide access
only to subscribers who have previously requested such access.
===========================
> (a) Prohibited acts generally
>
> Whoever -
>
> (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
> communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications
> device -
>
> (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
> makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment,
> request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication]
> which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
Here's an important bit. "Transmits or otherwise makes available" is
different from the earlier law. It DOES pleace a burden of responsibility
upon the provider of service. NOTE that unlike other portions of the law,
boths old and new versions, this part DOES NOT include the word
"knowingly". Crucial, crucial point.
> (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation
> ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to
> annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called
> number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
> device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues,
> without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse,
> threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
> receives the communication;
No anonymous annoying! Does this mean we can't raid IRC channels anymore?
Or flame people from anon.petit.fi (sp?) accounts?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 22:44:32 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From--jgull@umich.edu (Jason Gull)
Date--4 Feb 1995 20:14:29 GMT
The local (Ann Arbor, MI) paper ran a story yesterday regarding a
sophomore at the University of Michigan (whose name is Baker, I believe)
who was expelled yesterday (or Thursday) as a result of a story he
"transmitted on the Internet."
The story the student wrote apparently involved the brutal rape and
torture of a woman. The name of the woman in the story is also the
name of another student on campus, which seems to have been the spark
that got the kid kicked out. The story seems to have been in one of
the alt.sex USENET groups, because according to the paper, the story
was first brought to the attention of University officials by an
alumnus -- an attorney in Moscow who just happened to spot the story
on USENET. The irony of the fact that this morality-policeman in
Moscow was scouring the alt.sex groups is apparently lost on the Ann
Arbor News.
What is truly frightening, and deserving of more coverage in the news,
is that the FBI is now investigating this kid, and an agent in the
local FBI office has officially stated that they're contemplating
federal obscenity charges against him. Remember, this isn't
pictures/video he's accused of sending, it's purely text. (Raunchy,
disgusting text, I'm sure, but plain 'ol ASCII).
Anyone have any other news on this? (I'll post more when I find it.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 14:41:02 -0500
From: kingego@IO.ORG(Greg Boyd)
Subject: File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international
>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:47:24 -0600
>Subject--Re: Libel & Defamation in the Information Age
>
>Several clarifications are needed and will, I think,
>ease people's minds abit.
>
>Eric Eden r3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu wrote, in part:
...
>> Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove
>> you damaged their reputation or good name with false information.
>
>Absolutely right. It is the _plaintiff_ who must prove that a
>wrong has been
>done. See further mention below.
Of course, this discussion is based on American libel law. The Net,
however, is accessible from countries with different rules.
In Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, the customary burden of
proof shifts in defamation cases; if someone sues a newspaper for
libel in Canada, the lawyers *for the paper* must show that the
reporter and editors did no wrong -- one result of this is that the
defence of truth is used sparingly, since it necessitates providing a
legal proof of every word in a newspaper story. Libel trials are
extremely rare in Canada, perhaps because the expense of legally
proving a piece of journalism runs into the hundreds of thousands of
dollars. In addition, countries that use British common law
principles do not admit the defense of absence of malice, which is a
uniquely American idea. (Yes, we are jealous.)
My main point is that, since the Net is international, perhaps a party
who felt themselves wronged could sue for libel in a jurisdiction
where the laws are weighted more in favor of the plaintiff than is
possible in the U.S.A. (Just like recent Net-related prosecutions in
the U.S.A., in which BBS operators from one state find themselves
defending charges originating from another, generally less civilized
state.)
Some years ago a political figure in a Caribbean country brought a
libel suit againt an American television network. His lawyers brought
the suit into a Canadian court, stating that since the program had
been available to Canadian cable viewers, this was jusified (most in
Canada believed it was because of our plaintiff-friendly libel laws.)
P.S.: I am not a lawyer, and therefore unqualified to render a useful
opinion on international Net libel law. I submit this as a journalist
with some practical knowledge of libel and defamation law, and in the
hopes that you may encourage a real expert to address my
observations.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 13:57:18
From: "Carolina, Robert" <Robert.Carolina@CLIFFORDCHANCE.COM>
Subject: File 4--Defamation in cyberspace
In a recent exchange on this topic in CuD 7.09, Eric Eden
<R3eje@vml.cc.uakron.edu> and Henry Itkin <Henry.Itkin@UNI.edu> have
been disagreeing about burdens of proof in defamation cases. This can
be a complicated area because the actual process of the law tends to
be shortened into various "rules of thumb" such as "if you can prove
it is true you are probably not liable".
Just to clarify the process under common law (i.e. individual US state
law), roughly speaking:
1. The plaintiff (the alleged victim) in a defamation case has the
burden of proving that the defendant published a defamatory statement.
"Publisher" by the way includes the author as well as the actual
publication in which the defamation is printed. The plaintiff does NOT
have to prove that the statement is untrue. (But see discussion
below.)
2. If the plaintiff can show this first step is completed, then the
assumption is that the defendant is liable. It is now the DEFENDANT's
burden to show why he or she should not be held liable. One such
affirmative defense is "truth". That is, if he can prove that the
statements made are true then he will not be held liable.
3. Note that each state has the opportunity to alter the rules
presented above, and some US states have tougher or weaker standards.
Most US states do not change the standards due to point number 4
below.
4. If you live in a jurisdiction where the 1st Amendment to the US
Constitution applies, there is a Federal Constitutional issue which
comes into play. (Bear with me, it has been a while since law school.)
If the plaintiff (alleged victim) in a case is deemed to be a "public
figure", then he is required to prove that the defendant had actual
malice when making the statement in question. There are a number of
cases which define how public you have to be before you are a "public
figure", and I won't go into that. But assuming that the plaintiff IS
a public figure, then the matter will turn on whether he can prove
actual malice. (Hold on tight, here is where the confusion sets in.)
One method used to demonstrate actual malice is for the plaintiff to
show BOTH that the statement is false, and that the author should have
known it was false when he made the statement.
Obviously, no journalist will go through this detailed set of
calculations before writing a story. (If he asks us, of course, we do
the calculations for him). Instead, the journalist operates on a rule
of thumb that "if I can prove it's true I am probably all right". This
is a fairly cautious restatement of the standard above and will
probably help to keep people out of trouble, but if in doubt please
consult with a lawyer familiar with your own case and local law.
(If, like me, you live in a common law jurisdiction where the 1st
Amendment does NOT apply, then you need to be much more cautious than
in the US. In fact, be aware that when you post to the Usenet you are
probably "publishing" in the UK as well.)
Finally (home stretch) if the court determines that the defendant is
liable for defamation, the next question is "how much does he have to
pay". This is the question of damages. The relevant inquiry is: "how
much damage can the plaintiff show as a result of the defamatory
publication". If one were to publish allegations in the New York Times
that a stock broker is a "cheat and embezzler", then this will
probably damage the person quite a bit. If, on the other hand, you
send an e-mail to one friend alleging that your neighbour slapped you
while hanging up clothes, this will probably not generate a huge
amount of damages.
If you want to read more about it, I co-authored a piece entitled
"Multimedia Defamation" which appeared last year in International Media
Law Review. In addition, my colleague Nick Braithwaite has an article on
this subject which should be accessible on our firm's World Wide Web
server. The URL is http://www.cliffordchance.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 22:28:38 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd)
----------------
From--Emmanuel@critical.demon.co.uk (Emmanuel Ohajah)
Subject--Internet Censorship in Africa
Dear All,
Back in June 1994 I wrote an article (Computer Weekly June 16 1994
Computer privacy, Highway patrol) which was very critical of the creeping
censorship and government control of computer networks in the UK and USA
Since then I have been told that IT experts in Africa wishing to develop
computer networks, set up internet connections or even use a
telecommunications provider other that the state PTT face similar
obstacles from their respective governments. What's more phone calls are
routinely monitored and satillite access is restricted or at least
discouraged.
A visiting civil rights lawyer from Cameroon suggested to me that many
African governments do not want to see a proliferation of communications
mediums because they will be unable to keep track of their subjects.
I am not sure if this is true but I would appreciate details of any
overzealous African government attempts at monitoring internet traffic
or censorship of electronic communications.
If any African governments have given any justifications for the control
or censorship of electronic communications please speed the details to me!
Thanks in advance. Emmanuel Ohajah If you would like to see my article and
other research then please mail me at Emmanuel@critical.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:43:01 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From--dan.gannon@nwcs.org (Dan Gannon)
Date--Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:35:54 GMT
STILL CENSORED FROM THE INTERNET!
Banished CPU has been -- and remains -- censored from the
Internet. The (Canadian) CBC PrimeTime News camera crew has recently
interviewed me for 4 hours about the situation. We are being
unscrupulously censored for politically and financially motivated
reasons.
Here is the complete story:
Banished CPU, a Freedom of Speech BBS, has been distributing
Holocaust Revisionist material through the Internet since 1991. The
material addresses, in an objective manner, the question of WHAT REALLY
HAPPENED during the so-called "Holocaust". The facts are both
"politically inconvenient" and undeniable.
Over the years, organized Jewish pressure has succeeded in cutting
off our link to the Internet numerous times, using their traditional
methods of boycott, slander and terror.
Netcom, a large commerical Internet provider based in San Jose,
California, served as our latest connection to the Internet for almost
a year, until they censored Banished CPU on November 26, 1994,
violating the contract they had formed with me.
Before I signed on with Netcom, I informed them of the nature of
the material I distribute, and inquired about the level of Freedom of
Speech they offer. I was told -- by a Netcom sales representitive who
identified herself as "Sherri" -- there would be no restrictions or
censorship of any kind, as long as the material conformed to U.S. law
(which, of course, it does.) Agreeing to the stated terms, I paid the
initial sign-up fee and continued paying them each month for the
connection to the Internet.
After a couple months of organized Jewish pressure, an unsigned
electronic message arrived from Netcom, informing me that I would no
longer be allowed to distribute messages in most Internet message areas
(USENET newsgroups). The message specified only 12 newsgroups that I
would be allowed to post to, forbidding me from posting to any of the
other 7,000+ newsgroups (including many 100% appropriate newsgroups
such as soc.history!) The message stated plainly that they were not
willing to discuss the issue.
For months, I reluctantly obeyed the new "rule", even though it
violated the verbal contract they had entered into earlier.
Then I distributed a Free Video Offer to a couple dozen newsgroups
outside of their arbitrary list of 12. The video was "David Cole
Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper", which greatly infuriated and panicked
the Holocaust Lobby. David Cole, producer of the video, is Jewish --
NOT a "Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" by any means. Hundreds of copies were
sent all over the world within a matter of weeks. Requests were still
pouring in when we were abruptly cut off.
At first, Jewish pressure tried to get me kicked off for
"profiteering" (an informal taboo on the Internet). A lady named
Margaret from Netcom wrote to me, informing me of the complaints and
asking me to cease and desist. In reply, I pointed out that I was not
"profiteering" by any stretch of the imagination -- I was merely giving
out free, legal copies of someone else's video, and not collecting any
money whatsoever. Margaret wrote back, apologizing for the
misunderstanding.
The next day, however, I discovered that our link to the Internet
was no longer functional. I made countless long distance phone calls
to Netcom's offices in California. I left messages with receptionists
for their managers, supervisors and technical support staff. For eight
full days, nobody at Netcom would take or return my calls. In the
meantime, Banished CPU's link to the outside world was cut, effectively
censoring me and all of my callers. I discovered that Netcom was
DELETING all of my callers' mail, which was in many cases both
important and irreplaceable.
Finally, after 8 days of silence, someone at Netcom called and
left a message on my answering machine, informing me that Banished CPU
had been cut off because I posted to newsgroups other than the 12 that
they had illegally mandated. They violated their contract, bowing to
the Jewish demands to censor me.
Now, almost 3 months after Netcom first censored us, I am still
unable to procure another Internet connection, even though one small
Internet provider ("Quicknet") has supposedly been trying to provide
us with a link. According to Quicknet, some "Internet committee" or
individual (whose Internet e-mail address is root@internic.net) is
refusing to process the necessary re-registration form. Censored we
remain.
In the meantime, messages addressed to myself and my callers are
reportedly still being deleted by Netcom, returning no warning message
whatsoever -- giving the impression that the messages are received but
ignored. Netcom continues in their unethical behavior, and is refusing
to speak to the CBC PrimeTime News.
Should you wish to contact Netcom and let them know how you feel
about their unprofessional behavior, the following information may be
of some use:
Netcom's address: 400 Moorpark Avenue, Suite 209, San Jose, CA 95117
Internet e-mail address: root@netcom.com
Toll-free sales line: 1-800-501-8649
Technical support line: (408) 983-5970
Emergency pager number: (408) 951-1193
Sincerely,
Dan Gannon (a.k.a. Maynard)
___________________________________________________________
| |
| Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech! |
| (And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.) |
| |
| 28800 bps (9 lines with V.FC)............(503) 232-9202 |
| 14400 bps (11 lines with V.32bis)........(503) 232-6566 |
| 9600- bps (12 lines with V.32)...........(503) 232-5783 |
|___________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: 09 Feb 95 13:56:58 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 7--Cu In The News
Most Computer Intrusions Unreported
===================================
The Pentagon's Center for Information Systems Security (CISS) attempts
to penetrate DoD systems worldwide, via the Internet. The govt hackers
were able to gain entry to systems 95% of the time, and only 5% of the
break-ins were detected. Of those, only 5% were reported to higher-ups
in the organizations.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12
Spoofing and Hijacking
======================
In a related story to the above, Computerworld ran a story about
CERT's alert concerning IP Spoofing and Session Hijacking. The story
includes comments from several security specialists, who express
concern about continued attacks of this type.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12
InfoTerrorism
=============
Sure, hackers are a problem, but what are you going to do about high-
tech military-style assualts on your datacenter? The miltary-industrial
complex has several weapons that could (in theory) be used by a disgruntled
employee or info-terrorist. Items such as high-energy guns that emit data
destroying pulses, and EMF bombs that paralize your systems, are some
the technologies that threaten your system. Yet another reason to lay
awake at night, worrying.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995. pg.1
Deadbeat BBS, Beat & Dead
=========================
Novell and Microsoft have reached an agreement that will close the Deadbeat
BBS, located in New Jersey. The teenage-sysop will pay $25,000. in
damages to the software giants, in restitution for the 60+ Novell and
MS products that were allegedly available for downloading on the board.
ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995. pg.8
Big Brother *is* Watching
=========================
Analytic Concept's "GameCop" software is just what the overseer ordered.
The program watches active windows on a PC to see if a game is running.
If one is, a customizable message displays a stern warning for the
employee to get back to work. GameCop can also, optionally, sound an
alarm to embarass the slackard in front of their cellmates..err co-workers.
ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0800
From: Susan Evoy <evoy@PCD.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: File 8--Conferences that may be of interest
CPSR Members and Friends,
If you are planning to attend one of these conferences, or another that
may be related to CPSR's work, please contact CPSR at cpsr@cpsr.org or
(415) 322-3778 for easy ways for you to be a presence for CPSR.
CONFERENCE /EVENT SCHEDULE
National Conference on Ethics in America: Promoting Trust, Truth, and
Universality, Long Beach, CA, Feb. 22-24.
Contact: ddavis@csulb.edu 310 985-8222 310 985-5842(fax)
Technologies of Freedom: State of the Nation (A conference on the progress of
the National Information Infrastructure), Washington Court Hotel,
Washington, DC, Feb. 23-25.
Contact: holder@apt.org 202 408-1403 202 408-1134 (fax)
Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago
Circle Center, UIC, IL, March 2-4. Contact: jdav@mcs.com 312 996-5463
Unions and the Information Superhighway, March 2.
Contact: 416 441-2731
Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Fourth Annual Meeting,
Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Crystal City, VA, March 2-4.
Contact: appe@indiana.edu 812 855-6450
National STS Meeting and Technology Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA,
March 2-5. Contact: ejb2@psu.edu 814 865-3044 (ph) 814 865-3047 (fax)
Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago, IL,
March 3-4. Proposals due by Jan. 8.
Contact: jdav@mcs.com 312 996-5463 (ph) 312 996-5766 (fax)
Local-Global Creative Tension, '95 PC Forum, Phoenix, AZ, March 5-8.
Contact: daphne@edventure.com 212 924-8800 (ph) 212 924-0240 (fax)
Technologies for the Superhighway, IEEE COMPCON 95, Stanford Court Hotel,
San Francisco, CA, March 5-9.
Contact: egrimes@aol.com (advance program) compcon95@lbl.gov(register)
510 422-2199 408 973-1325 (fax)
Microcomputers in Education Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ,
March 13-15. Contact: Pat Southwick, ASU, Box 870908, Tempe, AZ 85287-0908
Towards an Electronic Patient Record '95. Orlando, FL. Mar. 14-19,
1995. Sponsored by Medical Records Institute. Contact: 617-964-3926
(fax).
Access, Privacy, and Commercialism: When States Gather Personal
Information, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, March 17.
Contact: Trotter Hardy 804 221-3826
Geographic Information Systems '95, Vancouver, BC, March 27-30.
Contact: gis@unixg.ubc.ca 604 688-0188 (ph) 604 688-1573 (fax)
Computers, Freedom and Privacy CFP'95, Burlingame CA, Mar 28-31
Contact: info.cfp95@forsythe.stanford.edu
ETHICOMP95: An international conference on the ethical issues of using
Information Technology, DeMontfort University, Leicester, ENGLAND,
March 28-30, 1995. Contact: Simon Rogerson srog@dmu.ac.uk
44 533 577475 (phone) 44 533 541891 (Fax).
National Net '95: Reaching Everyone. Washington, DC. Apr. 5-7, 1995.
Sponsored by EDUCOM. Contact: net95@educom.edu or call 202/872-4200.
Information Security and Privacy in the Public Sector. Herdon, VA.
Apr. 19-20, 1995. Sponsored by AIC Conferences. Contact: 212/952-1899.
Cultivating New Ground in Electronic Information Use of the Information
Highway to Support Agriculture - USAIN, Lexington, KY, April 26-29.
Proposals for solicited papers or project demonstrations by 12/31/94.
Contact: librgrf@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu
ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI'95), Denver, CO,
May 7-11. Contact 410 263-5382 chi95@sigchi.acm.org
http://info.sigchi.acm.org/sigchi/chi95.html
1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 8-10.
Contact: sp95@itd.nrl.navy.mil
NPTN's Annual Affilate & Organizing Committee Meeting --1995:
An International Free-Net Community Computing Conference, Arizona State
University, May 17-20.
Contact: pfh@nptn.org 216 498-4050 216 498-4051 (fax)
http://www.nptn.org/
ErgoCon '95 - Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference & Exposition, San Jose, CA,
May 22-24. Contact: Abbas Moallem 408 924-4132 (ph) 408 924-4153 (fax).
Proposals for papers, posters, workshops, or panel discussions: Deadline Nov. 1
Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications on Wall
Street, Pace University, New York, NY, June 7-9.
Contact: satwell@mcimail.com 914 763-8820 (ph) 914 763-9324 (fax)
Identifying Grand Challenges in Socially Responsible Computing, Durango, CO,
June 11-14. Contact: Ben Shneiderman ben@cs.umd.edu
IDT 95 12th Congress - Information Markets and Industries, Paris, FRANCE,
June 13-15. Organized by ADBS (Society of information professionals), ANRT
(National Association of Technological Research), and GFII (French association
of information industries). Contact: 33 1 43 72 25 25 (ph) 33 1 43 72 30 41
(fax)
Workshop on Ethical and Professional Issues in Computing, RPI, Troy, NY,
June 24-28. Deadline for submissions: April 15.
Contact: cherkt@rpi.edu 518 276-8503 518 276-2659 (fax)
Internet Society's 1995 International Networking Conference, Honolulu, HI,
June 28-30. Abstract submission deadline Jan 13.
Contact: http://www.isoc.org/inet95.html inet95@isoc.org 703 648-9888(ph)
Key Players in the Introduction of Information Technology: Their Social
Responsibility and Professional Training, BELGIUM, July 5-7, 1995.
Contact: nolod@ccr.jussieu.fr clobet@info.fundp.ac.be
Paper submissions by Nov. 2, 1994
Alliance for Community Media's International Conference and Trade Show,
Boston, MA, July 5-8. Proposal Submissions by 1/31/95.
Contact: Rika Welsh 617 321-6400 617 321-7121 (fax)
18th International Conference on Research & Development in Information
Retrieval, The Sheraton, Seattle, WA, July 9-11.
Contact: sigir95@u.washington.edu
Joint International Conference Association for Computers and the Humanties-
Association for Literacy and Linguistic Computing 95, University of California,
Santa Barbara, July 11-15. Deadline for paper submissions: Dec. 31.
Contact: Eric Dahlin: hcf1dahl@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu 805 687-5003
Tenth Annual Conference on Computing and Philosophy (CAP), Pittsburgh, PA,
Aug. 10-12. Contact: Robert Cavalier rc2z@andrew.cmu.edu 412 268-7643
Conference on Organizational Computing Systems COOCS '95, Sheraton Silicon
Valley, Milpitas, Aug. 13-16. Paper Submissions by 1/4/95.
Contact: kling@ics.uci.edu.
Computers in Context: Joining Forces in Design, Aarhus, DENMARK, Aug. 14-18.
Contributions for papers, proposals for panels, workshops, and tutorials
(in 6 copies - not by facsimile or e-mail)): Deadline for receipt Jan 5.
Contact: Computers in Context, Aarhus University, Dept. of Computer Science,
Bldg. 540, Ny Munkegade 116, DK-8000 Aarhus C, DENMARK.
Libraries of the Future - IFLA. Istanbul, TURKEY, Aug. 16-19.
Contact: mkutup-o@servis.net.tr
AI-ED '95: 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education,
Washington, DC, Aug. 16-19. Contact: aace@virginia.edu 804 973-3987
"Designing for the Global Village," HFES, Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel,
Santa Monica, CA, October 9-13.
Contact: 72133.1474@compuserve.com 310 394-1811 310 394-2410 (fax)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
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 a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
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);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/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/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU
Sociology gopher at:
URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci
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 #7.12
************************************