Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 29, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 26
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Intelligent Agent: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Monster Editor: Loch Nesshrdlu
CONTENTS, #7.26 (Sun, Mar 29, 1995)
File 1--Correction on CuD URL - http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
File 2--ACLU Release on USSC Justices and Computer Privacy
File 3--Nationwide Electronic Open Meeting - Call for Public Access Sites
File 4--Final Version of Public Access Site Announcement
File 5--Censorship at University of Memphis
File 6--Sacred Cows in Cyberspace
File 7--Italian BBS returned!
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 10:11:45 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cud@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 1--Correction on CuD URL - http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
The CuD web URL was inadvertantly misprinted in the last issue.
The CORRECT URL to access back issues of CuD and other cyber-related
resources is:
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
Thanks to those who pointed out the error. Thanks also to those
who made suggestions for things to add.
Also, the next issue of CuD will likely not be for a week or so,
because of a sociology conference this week.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 22:22:31 -0600
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 2--ACLU Release on USSC Justices and Computer Privacy
ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU * ACLU
NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE * NEWS RELEASE
Supreme Court Justices Express Concern About Computer Privacy;
Opinions Suggest Mounting Interest on Nation's Highest Court
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 1, 1994
A majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in a criminal
evidence case, today suggested that they had serious concerns about the
potential invasion to individual privacy raised by the nation's increasing
reliance on computer technology.
In a series of opinions in a case from Arizona about whether evidence
seized by the police because of a computer error could be used during
trial, the justices raised questions about the impact of computers,
particularly on law enforcement.
"Although we believe the Court ruled incorrectly in deciding that the
evidence could be used during trial, I think the majority opinion is quite
narrow," said Steven Shapiro, ACLU Legal Director. "The more lasting
significance of the case," he added, "may be that a majority of the Court
seems quite troubled by the risk that computer technology poses to
personal privacy.
"In particular," Shapiro said, "a majority of the Court was clearly
unwilling to create a new and broad exception to the Exclusionary Rule
whenever government officials violate the Fourth Amendment based on a
computer error."
In his majority opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist reversed a
decision of the Arizona Supreme Court, which had ruled that the evidence
could not be used because it had been seized during what turned out to be
an arrest based on a mistaken warrant. Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy,
Souter, Thomas and Breyer joined the Chief Justice's decision.
But Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by
Justices Souter and Breyer, that discussed the growth of technology and
its impact on law enforcement.
"In recent years, we have witnessed the advent of powerful, computer-based
recordkeeping systems that facilitate arrests in ways that have never
before been possible," O'Connor said. "The police, of course, are entitled
to enjoy the substantial advantages this technology confers. They may not,
however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more efficient law
enforcement mechanisms comes the burden of corresponding constitutional
responsibilities.
And in another brief concurring opinion, Justice Souter, who was joined by
Justice Breyer, wrote that" our very concept of deterrence by exclusion of
evidence should extend to the government as a whole, not merely the
police, on the ground that there would otherwise be no reasonable
expectation of keeping the number of resulting false arrests within an
acceptable minimum limit."
Justice Ginsburg, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Stevens, wrote
that "widespread reliance on computers to store and convey information
generates, along with manifold benefits, new possibilities of error, due
to both computer malfunctions and operator mistakes."
"Most germane to this case, computerization greatly amplifies an error's
effect, and correspondingly intensifies the need for prompt correction;
for inaccurate data can infect not only one agency, but the many agencies
that share access to the database," she wrote.
In a particularly "conspicuous example," Justice Ginsburg said that the
computerized databases of the FBI's National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) contain over 23 million records, identifying, among other things,
persons and vehicles sought by law enforcement agencies nationwide.
"Thus," she wrote, "any mistake entered into the NCIC spreads nationwide
in an instant."
###
=============================================================
ACLU Free Reading Room | A publications and information resource of the
gopher://aclu.org:6601 | American Civil Liberties Union National Office
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com /aclu
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org | "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 13:19:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Lewis W. Olenick" <lewo@LASER.NET>
Subject: File 3--Nationwide Elec Open Meeting - Call for Public Access Sites
From the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Please repost as appropriate.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Lewis W. Oleinick" <OLEINICK_L@a1.eop.gov>
Subject: File 4--Final Version of Public Access Site Announcement
PEOPLE AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS IN THE INFORMATION AGE
NATIONAL ELECTRONIC OPEN MEETING
May 1-14, 1995
CALL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS SITES
BACKGROUND:
In recognition of the growing importance of information
technology as a means for communication and participation in
democratic government, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), the National Technical Information Service's (NTIS)
FedWorld, and the National Performance Review (NPR) will be
sponsoring an electronic open meeting entitled "People and Their
Governments in the Information Age," from Monday, May 1 to
Sunday, May 14, 1995. The US Government Printing Office (GPO)
will assist by providing telephone registration for Public Access
Sites and preconference information.
The meeting will seek to garner public opinion on the use of
information technology by Federal, State, Tribal and local
governments. The electronic open meeting will encourage public
discussion about the respective roles of the Federal government,
State, Tribal, and local governments, industry, the public
interest and library communities, academia, and the general
citizenry in creating an electronic government.
One of the fundamental tenets of the Clinton Administration is
that government information is a public asset and valuable
national resource. This open meeting is an extension of earlier
efforts, such as the Government Information Locator Service
(GILS) initiative, to establish a framework for governments'
roles and activities in the information age. In early April, OMB
will publish a "Notice of Inquiry" in the Federal Register
setting forth the five topics mentioned below, referencing key
reports and other documents, and seeking comment.
Along with the traditional method of mailing in responses to a
"Notice of Inquiry," the open meeting will be conducted through
our nation's electronic networks including: the World Wide Web,
newsgroups, e-mail listservs (mailing lists), commercial on-line
providers, Public Access Sites, and dial-up bulletin board
connections.
HOW THE CONFERENCE WILL BE CONDUCTED:
FedWorld will create five e-mail discussion groups. The five
discussion groups will also be accessible through five
corresponding Internet newsgroups, the World Wide Web, and
dial-up bulletin board connection. Each discussion group will be
devoted to a specific topic relating to "People and their
Governments in the Information Age." Each topic will be hosted
by one or more experts, who will provide an introductory
statement to initiate the discussion and who will also take part
in the discussion.
Attendees will participate in the conference by replying to the
hosts' introductory statements, posting statements or comments,
and by replying to the statements and comments of other
attendees. We are seeking the broadest possible level of
participation emphasizing input from a wide spectrum of
Americans. The open meeting will focus on five topics:
Services -- from emergency help and health care to business
licenses.
Benefits -- from social security and food stamps to small
business grants.
Information -- from declassified secrets and travel aids to
satellite weather maps.
Participatory Democracy -- ensuring everyone's chance to be
heard in a democracy.
Technology -- how the technical portion of electronic
government will work.
NEED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS SITES:
A primary goal of the meeting is to enable as many Americans as
possible to participate in the dialogue. This includes people
who do not have a computer with a modem, or access to the
Internet. In order to ensure participation by the "unconnected,"
public and private organizations are needed to volunteer as
"Public Access Sites."
The following criteria will apply to institutions interested in
serving as a Public Access Site:
* Willingness and ability to make computer facilities
available, free-of-charge, to the general public on a full-
or part-time basis throughout the two-week meeting, and to
provide logistical and technical support to the public.
* Ability to access Internet e-mail, newsgroups, or
the World Wide Web. Public Access Sites should not use
Telnet to access the FedWorld bulletin board. Because the
number of access ports at FedWorld is finite, FedWorld
prefers to reserve dial-in and Telnet capacity for
individuals who seek to use the FedWorld BBS as their
primary means of participating.
* Willingness and ability to publicize your
institution's participation as a Public Access Site to the
local media and community, and answer local public and press
questions about participation.
* Willingness to be listed in a national directory
of Public Access Sites that will be made available to the
public and press, before and during the meeting.
If your institution would like to serve as a Public Access Site,
please do one of the following:
Point your World Wide Web browser to:
http://meeting.fedworld.gov
Or, send a blank e-mail message to:
pas-info@meeting.fedworld.gov
In response to your e-mail, you will receive an automated
response detailing how to register as a Public Access Site. If
you do not presently have e-mail, newsgroup, or World Wide Web
capability but plan on having such capability by the time of the
meeting, you may register as a Public Access Site or receive
general end user information by calling the GPO Access User
Support Team at (202) 512-1530.
If you would like more information about the content and format
of the meeting, please send a blank e-mail message to
info@meeting.fedworld.gov. You will receive an automated
response providing additional detail for the electronic open
meeting.
Thank you for your interest in making this meeting more
accessible to the public!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:07:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: UDRHOOPER@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU
Subject: File 5--Censorship at University of Memphis
>Quick background for non-UMEM people (this is being posted several places):
>
> David Hooper posted an article to umem.personals, a local University of
> Memphis newsgroup, and the post was considered "obscene". His VAX access
> was cut off, and only recently reinstated until some firm decision is
> reached by Judicial Affairs.
>
>I talked to Dean Kathryn Story today on the phone, and we discussed the
>situation. Since I seem to have the only copies of the articles leading
>up to Hooper's allegedly "obscene" post, I'll be giving her a print out
>of those tomorrow, to show that the article should not have been taken
>at face value out of the context of the discussion. What follows in this
>post is a mixture of what we discussed, as well as some thoughts I've
>had since the conversation.
>
>----
>
>Apparently the motivation behind David Hooper's case was a thing called
>"Title IX", which requires the school to provide an environment free of
>sexual or racial hostility. I don't know whether it's a city, county, state
>or federal regulation, and I don't care, so don't bother looking it up for
>me. I agree with the spirit of the reg, just as I agree with the spirit of
>many controversial campus policies. The problems arise in the implementation
>and over-eager enforcement of such policies with broad, sweeping measures
>that tread viciously on the right to free expression.
>
>I think I can safely assume at this point that the faculty or staff members
>who complained about the post either (a) found it to be offensive and worthy
>of censure because it was a form of "harrassment", or (b) were afraid that
>some other faculty, student or staff member would interpret the post as
>"harrassment". Let me now offer my opinion that the people who complained
>were the same type of sniveling fools who endorse hate-speech codes. If
>you felt harrassed by that post, then you'd better crawl into a deep
>cave and never show your face in modern civilization ever again. Life
>is offensive. Accept it, get over it, and do something productive with
>your life, for chrissakes. Only a clueless newbie jackass takes a post
>at face value. I mean, hell, didn't you read any of the other posts, or
>did you just look for the ones by that smart-mouth kid who managed to
>push some tv station employees into a whining fit? As Mike Godwin,
>Chief Counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, states in the
>recent Time Magazine in an article on the Exon amendment, "This is
>grounded in a vast ignorance of Internet communications." Newbies
>on USENET quickly learn to keep their goddamn mouths shut until they've
>listened and learned a bit. The complaining faculty and staff at this
>school could benefit from the same lesson.
>
>Harrassment by computer is a problem, and it does exist in some forms on
>campus. It seems that some complaints have found their way to Judicial
>Affairs concerning harrassing behavior in the computer labs, such as
>PHONE messages or emails to some female students. There have also been
>complaints about users viewing or printing out pornographic material in
>the labs.
>
>Now, there's not much gray area in direct person-to-person aggravation.
>Harrassment by email or PHONE or SEND (when we still had SEND) is stupid
>and can easily be punished. *HOWEVER*, viewing a Playboy .gif does not
>under any circumstances constitute harrassment by itself. This is not
>a Penthouse calendar that the user is putting up in the lab as a
>permanent decoration, this is material that he or she is viewing on his or
>her monitor for a short duration. If you don't like it, and don't want to
>see it, then KEEP YOUR EYES ON YOUR OWN FUCKING SCREEN. That's as simple
>as I can express that. Whatever the person next to you is doing is none
>of your fucking business.
>
>Such material is not obscene. How do you think Bob Guccione stays in
>business? It's not educational, but neither is Solitaire, DOOM, MUD's,
>MOO's, MUSH's, IRC, or email from your pal in Michigan.
>
>Words like "fuck", "pussy", "dick", and some others that have been seen
>on umem groups do not constitute harrassment. Take a stroll through the
>library, and read some of the more contemporary fiction. Expletives
>appear in many different works. Whaddaya wanna do, burn books, ya Nazi?
>Here's a simple equation: Offensive != (does not equal) Harrassing.
>The USENET groups should be treated like a mutant form of library with
>a quick turnover.
>
>To quote a letter in the CMU censorship WWW site:
>
> 'Complying with an order to pull controversial books would violate Article II
> of the code of ethics of the American Library Association (see
> _Intellectual Freedom Manual_, 3d ed., Chicago: American Library Association,
> 1989), which states: ``Librarians must resist all efforts by groups or
> individuals to censor library material.'' Why should material stored on our
> campus computer system be treated any differently?'
>
>To sum up...
>
>My advice to the university administration:
>
>1. Trust the students more. Issue warnings and investigate the situation
> BEFORE access is cut, not after.
>
>2. Err on the side of leniency. "Obscene" may have a legal definition, but
> it still includes a lot of room for interpretation. Remember, Memphians,
> once upon a time, Elvis' pelvic gyrations were considered obscene by
> the tv networks. Senator Exon is already the laughingstock of the
> 'Net, and he'll be a mainstream laughingstock within a decade.
>
>3. Learn the difference between "offensive" and "obscene".
>
>4. Lighten up and worry about important things. No one is going to
> successfully sue the school over a stupid post. Even the draconian
> and asinine Exon amendment no longer targets network carriers.
>
>5. Get rid of that stupid section of the conduct code. What the hell is
> wrong with a prurient interest in sex, anyway? Sex IS art, when
> performed with enthusiasm and abandon. The sexophobic attitude in
> this part of the country is laughable, hypocritical, and it makes me
> want to smack some people upside the head with a rolled-up Hustler.
>
>
>My advice to fellow students:
>
>1. Err on the side of caution. Try not to go adding gigabytes to your
> binary Hustler collection in a busy lab during working hours.
>
>2. If you have doubts about your post, add a disclaimer to the beginning
> of it. Make it funny and ridicule people who might have problems with
> your article.
>
>3. Pay some goddamn attention to situations like this and make your voice
> heard. When Carnegie Mellon removed 50 sex-related newsgroups from
> CMU's news server, they staged protests and rallies, and formed new
> student groups. This is your freedom that's being jeopardized,
> regardless of whether or not you agree with the post in question.
> You may be a Bible-thumper and want to censor "obscene" posts, but
> what if someone tried to interfere with your right to discuss the
> Bible online? Don't laugh, religious persecution has a long and
> distinguished history on this planet.
>
>4. Don't harrass people, especially in the computer labs. You know who
> you are, and you know what I'm talking about. Just fucking quit it.
> If she wouldn't give you the time of day before, she certainly won't
> want to talk to you when you're sending her suggestive messages while
> she's trying to compile a FORTRAN program. Quit being such a geek.
>
>
>Incidentally, Hooper's post and the preceding posts are available at
>
>http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~simon/censor.html
>
>To be continued...
>
>(posted to umem.talk, umem.general, soc.college, soc.college.grad,
> alt.censorship, comp.org.eff.talk, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,
> memphis.general, tn.talk)
>
>(forwarded to kstory, dbaker, and a few others)
>
>--
>Mark Dallara : I'm going to check myself out of this
>Graduate Student : bourgeois motel, push myself away from the
>Biomedical Engineering : dinner table, and say 'NO MORE JELLO FOR
>University of Memphis : ME, MA!!!!'
>* Florida '93, Memphis '95 * : - "Peggy Sue Got Married"
>http://www.mecca.org/BME/STUDENTS/mdallara.html
>--
>--
>Mark Dallara : I'm going to check myself out of this
>Graduate Student : bourgeois motel, push myself away from the
>Biomedical Engineering : dinner table, and say 'NO MORE JELLO FOR
>University of Memphis : ME, MA!!!!'
>* Florida '93, Memphis '95 * : - "Peggy Sue Got Married"
>http://www.mecca.org/BME/STUDENTS/mdallara.html
>--
--
udrhooper@cc.memphis.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 20:47:22 -0700
From: "L.Detweiler" <ldetweil@CSN.ORG>
Subject: File 6--Sacred Cows in Cyberspace
Editor:
In CuD #7.22, George C. Smith <70743.1711@compuserve.com> gives
a mini-review of C.Stoll's technological reactionism in the new book
"Silicon Snake Oil".
>Lasch closed his last book, "The Revolt of the
>Elites" with a biting assessment of the current mania with technology:
>
>"Those wonderful machines that science has enabled us to construct
>have not eliminated drudgery, as . . . other false prophets so
>confidently predicted, but they have made it possible to imagine
>ourselves as masters of our fate. In an age that fancies itself as
>disillusioned, this is the one illusion - the illusion of mastery that
>remains as tenacious as ever."
Cyberspace is a visceral example of how the distinction between technology
and its creators seems to be blurring increasingly. Where does the
human end and the machine begin? What parts of our lives are "artificial
technology" and what parts are "pure human interaction" or whatever
the converse is, presuming it even exists? It seems that humanity's
very best technology is seamless and invisible and in fact basic
extensions of ourselves and our senses. The phone can be thought of as an
extension of the human vocal cord, the television an extension of
our vision and sight. And cyberspace can be regarded as perhaps the
premiere, remarkable convergence of all sense-extending technologies.
Da Vinci wrote that "man is a marvelously constructed machine."
Thoreau wondered whether it was the case that machines were the slaves of
man, or vice versa. The view that we are the masters seems to be a driving
force of 20th century reality and civilization. Cyberspace in many ways
represents the pinnacle of the religion of the deification of technology.
We are now witnessing the very first reactionary ripples against the
digital onslaught, the bold new bid for supremacy by the bits over
the atoms.
Stoll's book is only an opening volley in what will become
an intensely passionate debate over the next few years. What's so
great about this cyberspace, thing, anyway? Proponents will help
strengthen their arguments by emphasizing that the "Information
Highway" is not going to bring about Utopia in the human institutions
of business, government, education, and religion, but it holds great
promise in at least surpassing the shockingly mediocre systems we find
ourselves inheriting today.
>He also has doubtless
>alienated the cypherpunks movement by essentially stating that while
>their technical accomplishments are neat, the problem they're trying
>to solve - the preservation of information privacy through the employ
>of cumbersome, almost unusable anonymous remailers and cumbersome,
>almost unusable encryption technology - looms trivial in the global
>picture. In fact, "Silicon Snake Oil" gores so many sacred cows in
>cyberspace it's guaranteed the author will be regarded like a
>dysenteric hog loose in the streets of Mecca on some parts of the net.
Speaking of the "cypherpunks movement" and "goring sacred cows",
I'm pleased to announce the establishment of a WWW dedicated to
the mad ravings of a notorious Internet crackpot, L.Detweiler, who
in many ways can be considered one of the earlier cyberspatial
reactionaries and satirists.
Just what exactly *is* the cypherpunk philosophy? What is "cryptoanarchy"?
Can cyberspace be used for negative ends such as brainwashing or
ulterior political agendas? What will be the effects of cyberspace
on government? Do governments invariably evolve toward
corruption? What's the difference between anonymity, pseudonymity,
and identification? Is free speech related to anonymity? What are
the political and social implications of "digital cash" or a
cyberspatial mafia? Is there such a thing as "morality" or "trust"
in cyberspace? If so, what does it entail? How should the internet
community deal with persistent crackpots?
These and other excruciatingly provocative questions have been given
the inimitable Detweilerian treatment at
http://www.csn.org/~ldetweil
(Detweiler is currently working on a disproof of Turing's halting problem
as well as finding environmentally safe and clean ways of disposing
used digital bits.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 02:15:41 +0200 (DFT)
From: Luc Pac <lpaccagn@RISC1.GELSO.UNITN.IT>
Subject: File 7--Italian BBS returned!
PRESS RELEASE 24/3/95
Almost a month after the police seizure of the BITS Against The Empire
BBS and raids on the homes of some members of the Clinamen
Self-Managed Social Centre of Rovereto (Trent, Italy), all the
material confiscated has finally been restored to its rightful owners.
After a check of its software and hardware, the BBS was immediately
put back on-line, resuming its linkages with the Cybernet, ECN and
Fidonet networks of which it is part. Its users once again have access
to the original document archive, and steps are currently underway to
update it thanks to back-up tapes which had been stored separately
from the BBS (in the cat's basket, to be precise). The tapes were also
to be duplicated onto a PC clone in the event that the authorities had
not returned the original BBS. This measure had been inspired less by
any bad faith on the part of the magistrates or police, and more by
their technical and social ignorance, which manifests itself every
time they come into contact with a logic different to their own:
freedom rather than control, creativity rather than conformity.
Already many sysops, in Italy as elsewhere, have had to pay the price
for what they had thought was simply a time-consuming hobby. Those
like ourselves who consider computer networking to be rather more
important than this should not be surprised by the recent experience
of BITS Against The Empire. The complete restitution of the material
seized suggests that nothing useful was found amongst it that might
confirm the charges laid out in the authorities' original warrants. In
any case, the three magistrates who ordered the raids have been unable
to find the time to meet with us over the past 23 days; similarly, the
carabinieri who actually returned the seized goods refused to answer
any questions concerning the enquiry or its future course. Good sense
suggests that the matter will close there, but at this point no one
can rule out the possibility that in the next few weeks or months the
official charge of subversion - along with any other charges that the
examination of the BBS may inspire in somebody's imagination - will
not resurface. So, a month after its forced closure, BITS Against The
Empire resumes its activities, happy to live in a democracy, but with
the back-up tapes still hidden away in the
cat's basket.
------------
BITs Against The Empire Labs CyberNet 65:1400/1 +39-464-435189
Underground Research & Documentation ECN 45:1917/2 +39-11-6507540
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995)
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@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.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB <your name>
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.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);
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: +39-464-435189
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
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~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 #7.26
************************************