Computer underground Digest Sun June 22, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 48
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.48 (Sun, June 22, 1997)
File 1--Georgia Internet Regulations Ruled Unconstitutional
File 2--Islands in the Clickstream
File 3--Re CuD 9.46 - Blocking Software and Germany
File 4--McCain speaks out on S. 909
File 5--New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet
File 6--Response to "Purpose of CuD"
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:16:03 GMT
From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com
Subject: File 1--Georgia Internet Regulations Ruled Unconstitutional
Georgia Ruling available online now, New York summary available now and
Ruling on the way at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/censor.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACLU Wins First-Ever Challenge to a State
Internet Censorship Law in Georgia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 20, 1997
ATLANTA -- As the nation awaits a Supreme Court decision on Internet
censorship, a federal district judge here today struck down a state law
criminalizing online anonymous speech and the use of trademarked logos as
links on the World Wide Web.
Ruling simultaneously in ALA v. Pataki, another ACLU challenge to state
Internet regulation, a Federal District Judge in New York today blocked the
state from enforcing its version of the federal Communications Decency Act
(CDA).
In ACLU v. Miller, Federal District Court Judge Marvin Shoob today granted
the ACLU's request to enjoin Georgia's statute restricting free speech
in cyberspace and denied the State's request to dismiss the suit.
The Court agreed with the ACLU, Electronic Frontiers Georgia and
others that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because
it bars online users from using pseudonyms or communicating anonymously
over the Internet. The Act also unconstitutionally restricts the use of
links on the World Wide Web which allows users to connect to other sites.
In the Court's decision, Judge Shoob noted that Georgia's law, "sweeps
innocent, protected speech within its scope." He went on to say that it,
"affords prosecutors and police officers with substantial room for
selective prosecution of persons who express minority viewpoints. . . .
[Moreover,] Georgia already has in place many less restrictive means to
address fraud and misrepresentation."
"The Court's order goes straight to the First Amendment flaws with the
statute." said Scott McClain of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, cooperating
attorneys for the ACLU. "Judge Shoob viewed the statute exactly as the
Plaintiffs did: as a vague, overbroad, unconstitutional restriction on
free speech and privacy on the Internet."
"The Court recognized that anonymity is the passport for entry into
cyberspace for many persons," said Gerald Weber, Legal Director of
the ACLU of Georgia. "Without anonymity, victims of domestic violence,
persons in Alcoholics Anonymous, people with AIDS and so many others
would fear using the Internet to seek information and support."
"We are very pleased with the Judge's decision," said Robert Costner,
Executive Director of Electronic Frontiers Georgia. "This injunction
clears the way for Electronics Frontier Georgia to release our anonymous
remailer services on the Internet."
Georgia's lawsuit was the first challenge to state cyberspace laws and
statutes restricting privacy on the Internet.
Today's ruling came as the nation awaits word from the U.S. Supreme
Court in Reno v. ACLU, the ACLU's challenge to Internet censorship
provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA).
"Today's decisions in New York and Georgia say that, whatever limits
the Supreme Court sets on Congress's power to regulate the Internet,
states are prohibited from acting to censor online expression," said
Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney and member of the legal
teams in the New York, Georgia and federal cases.
"Taken together, these decisions send a very important and powerful
message to legislators in the other 48 states that they should keep
their hands off the Internet," Beeson added.
The Georgia lawsuit was filed on September 24, 1996, by the ACLU on behalf
of 14 plaintiffs. The 14 individual plaintiffs and organizations named in
the ACLU v. Miller are: American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia; The
AIDS Survival Project; the Atlanta Freethought Society; Atlanta Veterans
Alliance; Community ConneXion; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Electronic
Frontiers Georgia; Rep. Mitchell Kaye; Ken Leebow; Bruce Mirken; Bonnie L.
Nadri; Josh Riley; John Troyer; and Jonathan Wallace.
========
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message
to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the
body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a
message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 06:06:33
From: Richard Thieme <rthieme@thiemeworks.com>
Subject: File 2--Islands in the Clickstream
Islands in the Clickstream:
Fractals, Hammers, and Other Tools (An Intellectual Fractal Puzzle)
by
Richard Thieme
"Fractint" was one of the first computer programs I
encountered that blew my mind. (It's still out there on the
Internet. Download one if you want to try it.)
Fractint generates fractals. Fractals are mathematical
formulae that express complex realities with elegant simplicity.
Before computers, you had to have a mathematician's mind to grasp
the relationships expressed by fractals. Computers enabled those
relationships to be represented pictorially. Fractint lets you
generate images of fractals, then cycle through them in thousands
of colors. The vision of a fractal in action is stunning.
Fractals often resemble natural objects. Simple formulae
using recursion generate images that look like branching trees,
clouds, coastlines, or fern leaves. Seeing those images on a
computer changed how I saw the natural world. The computer
generated a different framework for looking at and comprehending
the "real" world.
Fractals are self-similar at all scales. If you magnify a
section of a fractal, then magnify a section of the section, each
one looks similar, like nested wooden dolls. You can keep
magnifying smaller and smaller pieces until the image on your
monitor is part of something so big that, if you spread it out,
it would stretch from the sun to the orbit of Jupiter.
My wife, who is not a techno-geek, looks up now as we walk
through a forest or watch clouds move through the sky and says,
"Fractals."
This brave new tool, the computer, is programming us to see
things in its own image, teaching our minds as well as our mouse-
clicking hands how to use it.
Fractint also taught me that intellectual property, as we
have known it, is over.
The concept of an "author" who owned "a work" was invented
by the printing press. The printing press fixed words in text and
created an illusion of permanence, of something solid "out
there." Students are still surprised to learn that Shakespeare
did not care to preserve his plays for future generations.
"Writing for future generations" was a conceit thinkable only
after we had fully internalized the world of text and thought of
books as artifacts that would last.
Fractint was built by "the Stone Soup Group," programmers
who worked collaboratively online. Some of their names are known,
but many are anonymous. A collective wrote the program, just as
monasteries in the middle ages created illuminated manuscripts
without a thought for the name of an "author" or owner of the
"intellectual property."
Cultural artifacts like laws (copyrights, patents) are tools
too. The shape of those tools is determined by our information
systems. After we use them a while, we forget that, and they
become part of the background noise of our lives.
Fractals are a metaphor not only for what I see "out there"
but also for what I observe within myself. Every decade or so, I
discover myself in transition to another developmental stage.
Each stage includes and transcends everything that came before.
My psyche is self-similar at all scales, just like a fractal.
Civilizations too go through developmental transitions, and
they too include and transcend everything that came before.
Back to tools.
It is said in the consulting business that "to the person
with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Our tools
structure our perception and frame our possibilities for action.
I asked a number of engineers what tools they commonly
use. All but one said "computer" first. Some added t-square, or
architect's rule, or drafting board. Only one said pencils,
although everybody uses them. Nobody said "words."
We only notice the new tools in our kit, like computers.
Those we were given by prior generations disappear into the
background. I notice that most people mean by the word
"technology" the technology that has been invented since they
were children.
The evolution of tools and the hands that hold them or the
minds that think them is a cultural process. It's a chicken-and-
egg kind of thing. Did we build more complex bridges and
buildings because we had better tools, or did tools evolve that
enabled us to build better bridges and buildings?
Computers simulate what we call "reality" but that "reality"
in fact consists of nested levels of symbols. Digital images are
images of texts, texts are images of writing, writing is an image
of spoken words. They are all artifacts, nested in levels of
abstraction that are self-similar at all scales.
Before human beings spoke, the artifacts or tools generated
by language did not exist. We call those tools ideas, concepts,
mental models. They are the building blocks of our maps of
reality. Because they are modular, we can connect words and ideas
in an infinite number of ways and build more ideas, more
elaborate frameworks or architectures that enable us to build
everything from bridges to religions.
Like speech, writing, and print, the computer is a tool that
shapes our perceptions into forms the computer can use. If we are
to bring our ideas to the computer, they must be expressed in
language the computer understands.
To the person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
To human beings who use speech, the only ideas we can think are
ideas we can express in words. In a civilization transformed by
interaction through networked computers, we will think only
thoughts that can be simulated or manipulated by the single
electronic network that mediates communication and the flow of
information.
The world looks to me like fractals because Fractint taught
me to perceive the world as fractals. Engineers will build the
kind of infrastructure that networked computers teach and enable
them to see and think. The physical structures of civilization
will be determined by how computers think.
Everything is a flowing, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus
said. If only he'd had a PC and a program like Fractint! Then he
could have seen that flowing in thousands of colors, fractals of
unimaginable simplicity and complexity, self-similar at all
scales.
I bet it would have blown his mind.
**********************************************************************
Islands in the Clickstream is a monthly column written by
Richard Thieme exploring social and cultural dimensions
of computer technology. Comments are welcome.
Feel free to pass along columns for personal use, retaining this
signature file. If interested in (1) publishing columns
online or in print, (2) giving a free subscription as a gift, or
(3) distributing Islands to employees or over a network,
email for details.
To subscribe to Islands in the Clickstream, send email to
rthieme@thiemeworks.com with the words "subscribe islands" in the
body of the message. To unsubscribe, email with "unsubscribe
islands" in the body of the message.
Richard Thieme is a professional speaker, consultant, and writer
focused on the impact of computer technology on individuals and
organizations.
Islands in the Clickstream (c) Richard Thieme, 1997. All rights reserved.
ThiemeWorks P. O. Box 17737 Milwaukee WI 53217-0737 414.351.2321
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:51:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Ulrich Mayring <nospam@127.0.0.1>
Subject: File 3--Re CuD 9.46 - Blocking Software and Germany
Hello,
just a quick note from a non-expert:
Any screening and monitoring software is subject to privacy laws.
Here in Germany most of the features of the monitoring software
you are describing in cu-digest.946 would be illegal. To wit:
Legal is: Recording whether an employee uses the Internet as part
of his job or as a private person, PROVIDED the employer has the
agreement of the employee to record such information. (How the
software would know is quite beyond me, though).
Illegal is: Recording exactly WHAT the employee surfing as a
private person looks at. You can't record URLs, you can't record
UseNet groups, you definetely can't snoop in on his email. It
doesn't matter if the employee agrees or not - it is illegal to
monitor anything of what an employee does as a private person.
After all your employer is not allowed to read your paper mail
either, should you bring it to the office. Most of what a
monitoring software records is breach of privacy in Germany.
Also, if the company has an organized union chapter (called
Betriebsrat, which is very common in Germany), they have to be
notified of any and all monitoring going on with or without the
consent of the employee.
I am not sure about other countries, but here in Germany
"internet usage monitoring" by software is subject to the same
privacy law (called Datenschutzgesetz) as are surveillance
cameras and the like.
For more information on this aspect of monitoring, I would
recommend consulting a law expert, as I am only repeating what I
read in a German computer magazine (the article was written by an
attorney).
Otherwise, keep up the good work with CuD,
Ulrich Mayring
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:40:01 -0800
From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com>
Subject: File 4--McCain speaks out on S. 909
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
June 20, 1997 - 12:30 pm PST
Just got off the phone with Senator McCain. Here are some highlights of
our brief, 5 minute conversation -- a conversation during which he used the
term "national security" repeatedly, and with strong emphasis.
Against that backdrop, McCain repeatedly stated that he's willing and eager
to negotiate on the provisions of the "Secure Public Networks Act."
All are welcome to use this material, with proper attribution:
--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine
-------------------------------------
McCain on the rationale behind S. 909 (with allusion to his wartime
experience):
"I've always said that national security is a primary concern -- and based
on my own experience, I've had a lot of time to consider how important that
really is."
McCain on the software industry:
"Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that the software industry would be so
willing to downplay the dangers of child porn... This stuff is out there,
and we can't allow child pornographers to hide by encrypting that material.
"I'm astonished that any industry would consider their priorities to be so
important that they override national security concerns."
McCain on Pro-CODE:
"I'm all for Pro-CODE -- except for it's impact on national security.
McCain on the future:
"I promise you, now that we've adopted this legislation, we will sit down
and work this out with all the parties involved. As I've said before, from
a practical standpoint, we can't override a presidential veto. With this
bill, we've established that the President of the United States has
authority over national security."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:16:03 GMT
From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com
Subject: File 5--New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet
New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 20, 1997
NEW YORK -- As the nation awaits a Supreme Court decision on
Internet censorship, a federal district judge here today blocked
New York State from enforcing its version of the federal
Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Ruling simultaneously in ACLU v. Miller, another ACLU challenge to
state Internet regulation, a Federal District Judge in Georgia
today struck down a law criminalizing online anonymous speech and
the use of trademarked logos as links on the World Wide Web.
In ALA v. Pataki, Federal District Judge Loretta A. Preska issued
a preliminary injunction against the New York law, calling the
Internet an area of commerce that should be marked off as a
"national preserve" to protect online speakers from inconsistent
laws that could "paralyze development of the Internet altogether."
Judge Preska, acknowledging that the New York act was "clearly
modeled on the CDA," did not address the First Amendment issues
raised by the ACLU's federal challenge, saying that the Commerce
Clause provides "fully adequate support" for the injunction and
that the Supreme Court would address the other issues in its
widely anticipated decision in Reno v. ACLU. (The Court's next
scheduled decision days are June 23, 25 and 26.)
"Today's decisions in New York and Georgia say that, whatever
limits the Supreme Court sets on Congress's power to regulate the
Internet, states are prohibited from acting to censor online
expression," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney who
argued the case before Judge Preska and is a member of the ACLU v.
Miller and Reno v. ACLU legal teams.
"Taken together, these decisions send a very important and
powerful message to legislators in the other 48 states that they
should keep their hands off the Internet," Beeson added.
In a carefully reasoned, 62-page opinion, Judge Preska warned of
the extreme danger that state regulation would pose to the
Internet, rejecting the state's argument that the statute would
even be effective in preventing so-called "indecency" from
reaching minors. Further, Judge Preska observed, the state can
already protect children through the vigorous enforcement of
existing criminal laws.
"In many ways, this decision is more important for the business
community than for the civil liberties community," said Chris
Hansen, a senior ACLU attorney on the ALA v. Pataki legal team and
lead counsel in Reno v. ACLU. "Legislatures are just about done
with their efforts to regulate the business of Internet 'sin,' and
have begun turning to the business of the Internet itself. Today's
decision ought to stop that trend in its tracks."
Saying that the law would reduce all speech on the Internet to a
level suitable for a six-year-old, the American Civil Liberties
Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Library
Association and others filed the challenge in January of this
year.
The law, which was passed by the New York legislature late last
year, provides criminal sanctions of up to four years in jail for
communicating so-called "indecent" words or images to a minor.
In a courtroom hearing before Judge Preska in April, the ACLU
presented a live Internet demonstration and testimony from
plaintiffs who said that their speech had already been "chilled"
by the threat of criminal prosecution.
"This is a big win for the people of the state of New York," said
Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties
Union. "Today's ruling vindicates what we have been saying all
along to Governor Pataki and legislators, that they cannot legally
prevent New Yorkers from engaging in uninhibited, open and robust
freedom of expression on the Internet."
The ALA v. Pataki plaintiffs are: the American Library
Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the New York Library
Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, Westchester Library System, BiblioBytes, Association
of American Publishers, Interactive Digital Software Association,
Magazine Publishers of America, Public Access Networks Corp.
(PANIX), ECHO, NYC Net, Art on the Net, Peacefire and the American
Civil Liberties Union.
Michael Hertz and others of the New York firm Latham & Watkins
provided pro-bono assistance to the ACLU and NYCLU; Michael
Bamberger of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal in New York is also
co-counsel in the case. Lawyers from the ACLU are Christopher
Hansen, Ann Beeson and Art Eisenberg, legal director of the NYCLU.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message
to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the
body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a
message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties"
in the body.
The Cyber-Liberties Update is archived at
http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html
For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org.
PGP keys can be found at http://www.aclu.org/about/pgpkeys.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:06 -0400
From: jay holovacs <holovacs@IDT.NET>
Subject: File 6--Response to "Purpose of CuD"
((MODERATORS NOTE: We did not realize that Mike Oar's original
post was intended only for th CuD editors, because there
was no indication that distribution was restricted, and his
post seemed far more articulate than a simple "FWIW" note.
We apologize to him for the misunderstanding and appreciate
his good nature in other private mail.))
I feel compelled to address some of the comments made by Mike Oar in CUD 9.44
Oar says:
[You may guess that I tend to draw a middle of the road
perspective on censorship. I believe that participants
(on-liners) need to be more civil than they now are, and that
those that aren't continue to destroy the reputation and ability
of the "real" users to use the information that is/could be out
there.]
There is *no* middle of the road on censorship. Either you
support free speech or you don't. All else is just a matter of
degree ("I approve of censoring the stuff I find too offensive").
And there will always be plenty of people wanting to control stuff
you would find acceptable.
The battle for free speech is always fought at the sleazy edges,
because that is always what is attacked first. The internal
publications of some of the organizations who are now claiming
only to want to keep "porn" out of the hands of children indicate
the eventual goal of restricting the availability of erotica to
adults as well. Some of these same people favor government
enforcement of their religious values. (By contrast, there is not
much room for a hidden agenda to a free speech purist--Keep
everything open--period)
As has been pointed out before, the First Amendment was not
written to protect innoffensive speech or speech approved by the
majority (which normally needs no protection), but the right of
the minority to contradict majority opinions and sensibilities.
Oar expresses a legitimate complaint: the uncivil nature of some
on the net. It is not quite so clear what he is proposing, though
placing his reference in a paragraph on censorship implies
possible government involvement: Perhaps "civility police"... can
you spell "Singapore"?
And who are his "real users" anyhow? The corporate commercial
crowd who would like one more bland shopping mall? Or is it the
individuals who finally have a chance at exercising a little free
speech on their own soapbox (something long denied in the
corporate moderated media)?
Oar continues: [I also believe that while there's nothing
inherently wrong with annonimity, it is often abused and used to
cover up sick and disgusting acts by those who are simply too
cowardly or perverse to reveal their true identity.]
Is this a suggestion that anonymity be limited? If identity can be
traced, then such anonymity is useless. If undesirable speech can
be traced, then dissidents and government critics can be traced.
Freedom can bring out the worst in people as well as the best.
Should we oppose freedom? Governments do not like anonymity, and
every one of them, from North Korea and Burma to the USA will
assure you that *their* surveillance of citizens is responsible,
and for the greater public good (though, of course, "other
governents" may be abusing their own power).
Oar:
[There are real issues to deal with as technology becomes more
readily available to the world. It's no longer the play ground of
the select few who can learn how to program or spend endless
hours on-line. . .
snip...
it begins to become the responsibility of those that
create it to do all that they
can to educate the users to it's proper use.
snip...
I think it is our charge as the creators of technology
to promote and insure it's
proper use...]
Interesting mutiple references to "proper use." I suspect that
concepts of proper use vary widely, and am deeply suspicious of
any attempt to define "proper use" for the net.
I doubt there is a more important function for the net anywhere in
the world than political change and opening peoples' minds to
alternative ideas. This is often controversial and
confrontational. It cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere of
(even relatively benign) state control. Keeping the net wide open
is a top priority; if we give up this freedom even in the name of
"community benefit", this power for change is lost. Sure, some of
the dregs will come along with the flow, but that is the price of
a free society.
Barry Goldwater (with whom I disagree on many points) correctly
said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice..."
Jay Holovacs
holovacs@mail.idt.net
PS: Meeks *sometimes* uses vulgar language in his columns (often he does not),
but there is a strong tongue in cheek flavor in those writings. You still have
the
right to disagree, but give your sense of humor a little slack.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.48
************************************