Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 21, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 34
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, #10.34 (Sun, Jun 21, 1998)
File 1--Microsoft: Tailoring the Web for Profit
File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998
File 3--Compuserve, Germany, and porn
File 4--Blitzkrieg server computer virus, part III
File 5--ICQ Fans Rage Against AOL
File 6--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked
File 7--FRC comments on Cyber Patrol's block of AFA.net (fwd)
File 8--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
File 9--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
File 10--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
File 11--Scientology And Free Speech
File 12--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:05:34 -0400
From: Bruce Umbaugh <bumbaugh@well.com>
Subject: File 1--Microsoft: Tailoring the Web for Profit
Tailoring the Web for profit
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Monday, June 15, 1998, page B7
By Bruce Umbaugh
Should consumers root for Uncle Sam and his allies in their antitrust suits
against Microsoft? Or are Uncle Sam and company just a bunch of nags trying
to stop Microsoft from exercising good business sense and technological
innovation?
I will tell you flatly: I don't know.
But I don't think it matters especially. While the government is focused on
one set of Microsoft activities, related to its Internet Explorer
browser, I'm focused on another set of activities, related to something I
think is a lot more important. I'm watching television.
Last year, Microsoft bought a new technology called WebTV. This
product marries your television set to the World Wide Web, so while
working on your computer, you can access the Cardinals game, live, on
your monitor. Alternatively, while watching the Cardinals on TV, you can
click on an icon on your screen and call up things such as player
statistics or the team's schedule.
According to the company propaganda, this product "gives viewers a
greater level of interaction with their televisions." It is another example
of Microsoft's leadership and innovation (even though Microsoft didn't
develop WebTV, it only bought it). It is a world beater.
All of this may be true. But that doesn't make it good. In fact,
WebTV is evil.
That's because WebTV doesn't show you the whole Web. You might
want to find out how Mark McGwire's slugging percentage in May
compared with Babe Ruth's in his best months ever, but you won't find it
unless some sponsor has paid Microsoft for the privilege of bringing it
to you. So more likely, you'll be restricted to basic sites that give you
the things sponsors want you to know: the Cardinals' schedule, Southwest
Airlines' schedule, the history of Budweiser.
In other words, there's a little Bill Gates inside your tube requiring a
toll from others to steer you to their Web site. So your access is
restricted. And you may even have to watch a commercial for Budweiser
before you can get at the Cardinals' batting averages.
Similarly, if you are watching through your computer, WebTV presents
as options only the few sites or channels that have paid Microsoft for the
privilege. So you may get the Cardinals but not the Angels. Or, more
troubling, the Angels but not the Cardinals.
That's one set of problems. Your "downstream" choices - whether
through your TV or your computer - are more limited than they are now
when you just sit down at the computer and start surfing.
Problem two is your "upstream" choices - your ability to communicate
back through your TV/computer. Currently, your ability to communicate
upstream is unlimited. You can set up a home page and tell the world
whatever you want. And the whole world can reply directly to you.
This makes the Web the most democratic communications medium
ever, as the U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its 1996 ruling on the
Communications Decency Act. The Web is a many-to-many medium,
with extremely low barriers to entry.
But democracy does not guarantee profits, and that's been part of the
problem with the Web for corporate America. Profits roll in when you
can start controlling things. And that's why WebTV really is a
world-beater, at least for Microsoft.
Through WebTV, the many-to-many communications character of the
Web is lost, in favor of a broadcasting, one-to-many model. The Web
comes under the centralized control of a company that programs what
you see, whether that be Web sites or TV channels. It permits you to
respond only in limited ways that are of interest to the sponsors paying
the freight.
The primary way is by saying, "Show me this" and "I'll buy that." WebTV
upstream communications is chiefly responding to home shopping
opportunities.
So people who used to be able to communicate with the whole world
through their personal computers will now hook into WebTV and find
they can order products from certain companies. And that's about it.
For Microsoft, it's a brilliant answer to two problems: how to
commercialize the Web, and how to deal with the possibility that people
will get tired of buying new innovations, such as Windows 98, for their
operating systems. Through WebTV, Microsoft pulls out of its hat a
rabbit in a mink coat. It gets to put its hands around the long green of TV
and Hollywood money. Bill Gates, meet Oprah.
Assuming all this is allowed to happen, it's not to say that the Web won't
still be there. It will, and people will still be able to use it. But the
concern is that people will be much less inclined to pay for and use the
Web once they have access to simple, easy-to-use WebTV, coming right at
them through their televisions or their personal computers.
And who is to protest? Certainly not the computer manufacturers: They don't
make any money off the Web anyway, and Microsoft is offering them a subsidy
- a discount on the license to install Windows 98 if they also install the
equipment for WebTV. Certainly not the television and movie industries:
It's another medium through which they can reach you.
So it's up to consumers like us, and the government that represents us.
It's up to us to prevent what has been history's most democratic medium
from being trivialized and demeaned. It's up to us to keep the Web from
going down the same path as TV itself.
Copyright 1998, Bruce Umbaugh
This document lives on the Web at
http://www.webster.edu/~bumbaugh/net/tailorweb.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:12:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: jw@bway.net
Subject: File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998
SLAC Bulletin, June 1, 1998
-----------------------------
The SLAC Bulletin is a low-volume mailer (1-5 messages per month)
on Internet freedom of speech issues from Jonathan Wallace,
co-author of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt 1996) and
publisher of The Ethical Spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org). To
add or delete yourself:
http://www.greenspun.com/spam/home.tcl?domain=SLAC
Free Speech as a Tragedy of the Commons
by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
Can free speech cause a tragedy of the commons? In other words,
can there be too much speech?
In the original parable of "The Tragedy of the Commons", each
villager has the right to keep as many sheep as he wants on the
commons shared by the village, and each has an incentive to add at
least one more sheep. If everyone acts accordingly, the commons
will be ruined. The author, Garrett Hardin, later said that he
should have titled his work, "The Tragedy of the Unregulated
Commons".
Users of Usenet and unmoderated mailing lists experience a
phenomenon which feels like a tragedy of the commons. Someone
shriller and angrier than the average user begins posting an
endless series of intemperate rants; soon more reasonable users
unsubscribe from the group and the "polluter" is left alone.
Is this really a tragedy of the commons? A public mailing list
certainly feels like a "commons", available to everyone. If it is
not policed by a list moderator, every user is free to add one
more comment--one more insulting or intemperate posting--polluting
the virtual commons as surely as the sheep pollute the real one.
The analogy breaks down when we examine the list phenomenon more
closely. A list is "push" technology: once you subscribe, all the
messages arrive automatically; you do not do anything more to
select or request them. The inevitable death of an open mailing
list is dictated by the fact that you are purchasing a package of
things-- messages--which arrive together. Since anyone is free to
include a poison message in the lot, at some point the content of
the entire list will lose interest, the good content outweighed by
the bad.
But whatever tragedy is experienced in the death of a mailing list
bears no relationship to speech delivered via "pull"
technology--in a bookstore or on the World Wide Web. As long as
the speech I want is available and I am free not to select the
speech I don't, there can be no tragedy of the commons. The
existence of a disfavored sheep somewhere is not a tragedy of the
commons unless its consequences are the wrongful death of my
sheep. In a world where speech is delivered via "pull", my sheep
and yours can co-exist.
If a Usenet mailing list is a commons, it is only by virtue of the
peculiarity of its technological means of delivery as an
indivisible object. (I am oversimplifying and ignoring the
possible application of filters or killfiles to exclude the speech
I don't want.) However, a list lacks something which most commonly
understood "commons" share: necessity. There may be only one
green outside town on which to graze your sheep, but there are a
myriad mailing lists, and this one is being pushed at you only
because you requested it. If you're not happy with it, choose
another, or start your own. Similarly, the collection of all
Usenet mailing lists is not a commons, because you are not
required to subscribe to any other list and nothing that happens
on another list can affect yours. Similarly, seen vaguely from a
distance, the set of all movies playing in my city may seem to be
a commons. You may complain of the predominance of Hollywood
action adventures. Nevertheless, movies are a pull technology,
and you may choose to see only the most literary foreign films
shown in revival houses.
Looked at this way, a commons is something pushed upon us and
which we do not have the option to reject. The air we breathe is a
commons, but the airwaves are not, as we decide whether to have a
television in the house and choose the programs we watch.
Under this approach, no medium of communications is a commons with
the possible exception of certain verbal and visual speech in
public places. Books, movies, web pages are not push technology.
Television programming and Usenet email are pushed at us only as
the result of a choice we made.
This "push/choice" analysis justifies very limited speech
regulation, of a type that has already been found valid under the
First Amendment: reasonable time, place and manner restrictions
of bullhorns, public speaking and billboards, all of which are
unavoidable push technology in public places.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:55:46 -0400
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: File 3--Compuserve, Germany, and porn
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
The ruling which convicted the head of Compuserve in Germany has been
appealed.
By the *prosecution*.
-- Michael Sims
Prosecutors Appeal 'Outrageous' Net Porn Conviction
NewsBytes 04-JUN-98 By Paul Lavin
MUNICH, GERMANY, 1998 JUN 4 (Newsbytes) - The widely criticized
German court decision last week to convict and sentence the former
head of CompuServe on child pornography distribution charges has been
appealed by the prosecution.
Steve Case, chairman and chief executive officer of America Online
Inc., which now owns CompuServe, last week called the conviction
"outrageous" and U.S. presidential advisor Ira Magaziner said he
"wouldn't be surprised if the conviction is overturned."
During the course of the trial, the prosecution actually sided with
the defendant in a rare legal about-face. The appeal leaves the
convicting judge standing alone as the only person in the Bavarian
court system, and indeed perhaps the world, that believes that Felix
Somm was guilty of any infraction of German's new multimedia law.
Somm was handed a two year suspended sentence and fines of DM 100,000
($56, 500) last week.
During the trial, the prosecutors announced that they believed Somm
was not guilty and called for his acquittal on the charges of
complicity in 13 acts of distributing child pornography over the
CompuServe network.
Defense experts had pointed out to the court that the technology to
block such content didn't exist in 1995 and 1996, the time of the
alleged crimes. Since the time that the charges were laid, a new law
was passed that says service providers should generally not be held
responsible for material that users distribute, providing they take
reasonable measures to block such material.
The defendant is also expected to appeal.
Reported By Newsbytes News Network: http://www.newsbytes.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:26:28 -0500
From: Rob Rosenberger <us@kumite.com>
Subject: File 4--Blitzkrieg server computer virus, part III
Okay okay, I'll stop after this one last bit of info about the Blitzkrieg
server computer virus, FutureVision Group, and creator Larry Wood...
An alert Internet user discovered more wild quotes. First up, the company's
Yahoo! listing identifies them as "developers of self-organizing condensed
matter computational systems." Did Larry Wood actually create a computer
virus out of condensed matter?
Next up, Mr. (not Dr.) Wood wrote a glowing recommendation letter for an
NNTP server package. His lengthy second paragraph summarizes FutureVision
Group as:
* the world's largest around-the-clock commercial network mining
operation
* sitting on a fiber-based parallel distributed processing network with
high-bandwidth optical pipelines and several wideband satellite downlinks
* which they use to automatically translate/analyze Usenet postings in
multiple languages for international government & corporate clients
* who paid them $2 million in revenues over a three-month period
* and who will pay another $4 million in a future three-month period.
The skeptic in me wants to review FutureVision Group's tax filings for those
periods.
Visit
http://www.yahoo.com/business_and_economy/companies/computers/services/resea
rch/ for the Yahoo! listing; visit
http://www.left-coast.net/dnews/reviews.htm to read Wood's product
endorsement.
Rob Rosenberger, webmaster
Computer Virus Myths home page
http://www.kumite.com/myths
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:53:50 -0400
From: Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro <leandro@IFRONT.COM>
Subject: File 5--ICQ Fans Rage Against AOL
ICQ Fans Rage Against AOL
by Joe Nickell
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/other/business/story/12896.html
5:04am 11.Jun.98.PDT
They're young, tech-literate, and generally seeking meaningful interaction
in the seams of cyberspace. Having discovered ICQ by word of mouth, they
downloaded the chat software because, unlike most of the other chat or
instant-messaging wares on the Net, ICQ was that online rarity: a widely
used, high-quality, but completely non-commercial utility. And they use it
for everything from exchanging jokes to swapping phone-phreaking tips and
transferring data files.
Now, they've been turned into AOLers. And they're none too happy.
Monday's announcement that America Online Inc. (AOL), the country's largest
online service provider, had purchased Israel's Mirabilis Ltd. and its
hugely popular ICQ chat software for US$400 million has touched off a
firestorm of reaction from ICQ users. Many fear that AOL will transform the
service from a free, uncensored hangout for the digitally hip into another
commercial outlet overrun with spam, noise, and newbies -- and charge a fee,
to boot.
"I am a loyal user of ICQ. However, I'm uninstalling it this moment due to
its [acquisition]," said Chris Casnova, a long-time ICQ user who lives in
Bellingham, Washington. He is concerned there will be "banners,
monopolization, virus-like install programs, false promises ... and a nice
bloated program to take up PC time."
Though no organized user protest has surfaced, a number of ICQ's 13 million
members who seem to feel similarly have vented their skepticism about AOL to
Mirabilis.
On Monday, the company posted a lengthy letter to users on the ICQ download
site, in which it acknowledged an "overwhelming" flood of concerned messages
to the company during recent weeks, when rumors of the deal began
circulating on the Internet.
The letter explains the difficulties the free service is experiencing as it
grows at a rate of 1 million new subscribers every 22 days and how AOL will
help it navigate such testy waters. It goes to great lengths to portray AOL
as a partner with an interest in communication and community -- and tried to
assuage the biggest user concern, promising that, for the time being at
least, ICQ will remain free.
"Not many [complaints] were addressed directly to us, but we followed the
ones posted on various Net places," said Yossi Vardi, chairman of Mirabilis,
who estimated that the number of users who took the time to speak up on
discussion boards, other chat forums, and reader-response sites was
"probably in the thousands."
And Mirabilis wasn't the only target of users' ire. When Patrick Keane, an
Internet commerce analyst at Jupiter Communications, told CNET's News.com
last month that AOL's goal in acquiring ICQ might be "to own the user," he
received numerous angry phone and email messages from ICQ users.
"I've never had consumers calling me irate like that over something I said
about a company," Keane chuckled.
But, according to Vardi, concerns that AOL ownership will taint the ICQ
service are largely unfounded.
"I believe that what matters is the quality of the offering and not the
ownership," said Vardi. "We will continue to do our utmost to provide our
users with the most fantastic Internet experience the world ever knew....
Wait a few weeks until you see our new client, and please judge for
yourself."
Vardi noted that most messages directed to the company had expressed
concerns over whether the company would begin charging for ICQ or whether
users would be forced to sign up for America Online's proprietary online
service.
"The program will continue to be [available as a] time-limited free beta,
exactly like what we have done since our inception," said Vardi. "It will be
available no matter who is your Internet service provider. AOL asked us to
continue to run the program exactly as we run it now, no changes
whatsoever."
Vardi did acknowledge that AOL expects to earn back its investment in the
company. It paid $287 million up front with the promise of additional
payments contingent on undisclosed events, which could bring the total to
$400 million, for a 100 percent stake in the company. But, he said, revenue
will likely be sought through advertising rather than user charges.
"AOL will have to make up its mind, but I have no doubt that most of the
users will prefer to have reasonably placed banners rather then paying --
which is not considered at this point of time," said Vardi, noting that a
company survey of users last year found that 92 percent preferred
advertising to subscription fees or charges for the software.
For its part, AOL recognizes that ICQ users are skeptical about its
intentions. But according to AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose, the company
looks forward to trying to meet the needs of a new audience.
"We don't wanna muck with success ... and we've been very cognizant of
what's made ICQ successful," said Primrose. "We totally recognize that ICQ
appeals to a different market segment from the America Online service, and
that's the good news for us: It means we can help serve the needs of an
entirely new type of user that we've previously never reached. "We
absolutely intend to keep ICQ's attitude, service, and functionality intact.
That's a large part of why we are keeping the ICQ brand completely separate
from AOL."
Still, some are concerned that AOL's intent of making money and turning ICQ
into a mass-market product will lead it to place restraints on use of the
software itself.
"I worry about any family-based organization taking over much of anything
because inevitably concerns arise over 'family values,'" said Suzanne
Goodney, a graduate student in sociology at Indiana University, who noted
the infamous debacle in which AOL banned use of the word "breast" in its
chat areas until breast-cancer survivors complained.
That worry may not be unfounded, according to Keane, who said that
commercial chat sites on the Internet have had a hard time selling
advertisements due to the fact that they might appear next to someone's, uh,
ode to Ginger Spice or Pamela Anderson.
Nonetheless, users are hopeful that the spirit that has made ICQ an
underground hit over its 18-month history will live on.
"Ultimately, corporations with their interests in increasing profit margins
... will muddle themselves in all sorts of indie stuff," said Goodney. "But
the cool thing about the indie realm is that it's creative and not tied to
profit and is thus inclined toward re-invention -- thriving on that, even."
___
Leandro Asnaghi-Nicastro (LA672)
Editor in Chief, Capital of Nasty - ISSN 1482-0471
http://www.capnasty.org
ICQ UIN 889318
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 07:33:04 -0700
From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
Subject: File 6--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
[Give credit to GLAAD for reacting this way.]
http://www.glaad.org/glaad/glaad-lines/980601/03.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
June 1, 1998--
GLAAD INVITES AFA TO JOIN IFS CRITICISM: The religious political extremist
group, The American Family Association (AFA) announced that the
Cyberpatrol, the popular Internet filtering software (IFS) has blocked its
Website due to the fact that the AFA violates filter guidelines on
"Intolerance." Until the AFA's site had been blocked, the group had been a
vocal advocate for of filtering software and had assisted in the marketing
of another IFS, X-STOP. GLAAD, on the otherhand, has long been a staunch
advocate for free speech on the Internet and has once more challenged IFS
in its recent groundbreaking report "Access Denied." GLAAD Interactive
Media Director, Loren Javier said, "Perhaps now the AFA understands the
value of free speech for all on the Internet. GLAAD hopes the AFA will
combat Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring IFS use by
schools and libraries." For more information contact Loren Javier, GLAAD
Interactive Media Director at (510) 831-1092 or javier@glaad.org.
bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 22:19:17 -0700
From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org
Subject: File 7--FRC comments on Cyber Patrol's block of AFA.net (fwd)
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Date--Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:18:14 -07--
From--"Loren R. Javier" <javier@glaad.org
Subject--AFA, GLAAD and Internet Filtering Software
This is what the Family Research Council reported on our GLAADLine item
inviting the AFA to join us in speaking out against filtering software.
Loren
culturefacts A Publication of Family Research Council
June 3, 1998
> Filtering Out Decency
>
> Cyber Patrol, a popular Internet filtering software package, has
> decided to block the American Family Association (AFA) website
> because the AFA violates Cyber Patrol's filter guidelines on
> "intolerance," according to an AFA press release. It's no wonder.
> CultureFacts has learned that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
> Defamation (GLAAD) is a charter member of Cyber Patrol's oversight
> committee.
>
> GLAAD is a homosexual media group that promotes transgenderism,
> childhood anti-"homophobia" education, and tolerance for
> sadomasochists, as well as other bizarre sexual behaviors. AFA
> has been a vocal advocate for filtering software and has assisted in
> the marketing of another filtering program, X-STOP.
>
> In response to AFA's announcement, GLAAD called on the AFA - which it
> characterized as a "religious political extremist group" - to join it
> to combat "Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring
> [Internet filtering software] use by schools and libraries." GLAAD
> has been an outspoken opponent of internet filtering software,
> because most of them block homosexual-oriented sites.
>
> It was pressure by GLAAD that turned Cyber Patrol around. According
> to press releases from the GLAAD website, the Northhampton,
> Massachusetts, company Cyber Patrol formerly blocked
> homosexual-oriented sites. However, following criticism from the
> homosexual community in late 1995, Cyber Patrol formed an oversight
> committee comprising representatives "from diverse areas of expertise
> and experience." In February 1996, GLAAD joined Cyber Patrol's
> oversight committee as a charter member. GLAAD Director of
> Information Services Loren Javier says, "This gesture demonstrates
> their understanding that gay men and lesbians are a very important
> part of the internet community."
>
> Cyber Patrol (www.cyberpatrol.com) does not filter out homosexual
> groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian
> Task Force and, of course, GLAAD.
>
> - KLE
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Loren R. Javier
> Interactive Media Director
> GLAAD
> Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
> javier@glaad.org2244
> fax: 415.861.4893
>
> GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive
> representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual
> orientation or identity.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:10:07 -0400
From: Anubis <anubis@DC.NET>
Subject: File 8--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
Regarding the summary you wrote about your disagreement with
Vladimir Z. Nuri on the "solution" for SPAM:
I agree with you that "The technical solution" is not the way to go.
Your argument is very Orwellian - you used the phrase "big brother"
three times with in six sentences... paranoid much? But I digress...
Then you suggest "The social solution". Isn't that in the same context
as what the CDA was trying to do - introduce some social and moral
perspectives (as slanted as they were) to the net?
Now, don't get me wrong - I thought the CDA was only useful as
toilet paper. But applying a "social" cure for the problem of SPAM is
really no different. Don't you think "The private or individual
solution" would be more appropriate? I mean, what if I really don't mind
getting all that junk? Now, that's not me - SPAM drives me nuts, nuts,
nuts!. But I think it should be up to the individuals and group
moderators to enforce filtering. Not the ISP, as in the technical
solution. And don't tell me that I can't send a message to every news
group asking for a dollar or to visit www.spam.com. What about all the
grocery store circulars that you get in the mail? Or all the coupon
books and flyers for the white sale going on now at Wards? Yes, I know
that's been said before, but it's really no different. Get a grip.
Social solution? Gimme a break... I'm sick of people saying
everything's a social problem. Here's an idea... I call it the Final
Solution. Wait, I think that's been used already... oh, well.
whatever... as I was saying, we'll round up every last SPAMMER out there
are and relocate them to work camps in Poland and Serbia. I tell ya,
those Serbians know just how to run this kind of operation...
Look - SPAM is a problem. Not because it exists, but because so
often they're forging other network providers' addresses to their SPAM
and it's the network providers that are getting SPAMMED in return by
angry (and usually very immature) victims of that SPAM. The problem is
being compounded by every know-it-all with a keyboard. More computer
literacy and less computer socialism.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:36:55 -0500
From: Neil W Rickert <rickert@CS.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 9--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
>Then you suggest "The social solution". Isn't that in the same context
>as what the CDA was trying to do - introduce some social and moral
>perspectives (as slanted as they were) to the net?
No. The CDA is the police state solution.
> Now, don't get me wrong - I thought the CDA was only useful as
>toilet paper. But applying a "social" cure for the problem of SPAM is
>really no different.
I was not trying to 'apply a social cure'. Rather, I was suggesting
that technological changes could be made so that normal social
processes could function suitably.
> Look - SPAM is a problem. Not because it exists, but because so
>often they're forging other network providers' addresses to their SPAM
>and it's the network providers that are getting SPAMMED in return by
>angry (and usually very immature) victims of that SPAM.
Right. And normal social processes don't work precisely because it
is so easy for the spammer to hide his identity. So what we need is
some sort of end-to-end authentication which makes it very hard to
hide. Then ordinary social processes will begin to cut back the
problem.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:08:44 -0700
From: Scott Peterson <scottp4@IBM.NET>
Subject: File 10--Re: technical solutions to spam problem
I don't know why this is coming up here as if the ideas expressed were new
or unique. There are mail lists like SPAM-L and newsgroups like
NEWS.ADMIN.NET-ABUSE.EMAIL that have discussions about this ad nauseam.
To discuss some of the issues raised in the discussion here:
>The private or individual solution: Each person deletes/discards
> undesired messages. This could either be done manually, or with
> some kind of AI software used and configured by the user.
>
SPAM shouldn't be so prevalent that this is necessary. Unfortuanately it
has become a major cost factor for many ISP's. AOL, for example, estimates
that 30-40 percent of its mail volume is unsolicited e-mail. Just think
what that volume must be if the 12 or 13-million subscribers receive just
one piece of unsolicited e-mail a day (and, as an AOL subscriber I wish
that was all I got). What do you think that must cost in terms of disk
space, server hardware, network throughput and personal inconvenience.
>The technical solution: System software (spam filters, etc) are
> put in place to refuse to accept certain types of message.
Just like the prevailing attitudes on deleting newsgroup spamming, it
must be on the basis of network abuse, regardless of content. The
technical solutions are:
1) Limit access to dialups to authenticated users so that you can prevent
unauthorized access to your networks.
2) Don't allow mail servers to relay mail for unauthorized third parties.
The latest versions of sendmail has implemented reverse DNS lookup to
prevent access by users with forged addresses.
3) Limit access for new accounts until 'the check clears' and you know
it's someone who's not just creating a throwaway account.
4) Establish a firm set of policies for your clients saying that network
abuse is forbidden either through your servers or advertising web sites on
your servers through third parties. Also make sure that the policies
include paying for any cleanup costs if someone does spam through you.
>The social solution: A system of social constraints is used so
> that very few undesired messages are sent in the first place.
No social issue. Spamming is theft. Period! Many spammers compare
themselves to junk mailers going through the post office. But compare the
two:
Junk Mail Junk E-mail
1. pay to print, package whip something out on their computer
and address their
materials
2. pay to sort and transport send the mail through their own
their mail to the post computer.
office for mailing
3. Pay the post office relay through an innocent third-party
to deliver their mail often with forged return addresses of
real sites, forcing the innocent third party
to receive complaints, dealing with bounced mail because of bad
addresses.
4. Put the mail in your Deliver the e-mail to an isp where you
mail box where you have an account that you pay for, taking
can decide what to do up limited disk space on your mail spool.
with it at no cost to Not everyone has unlimited access.
you Many people pay by the minute or hour
to download their mail, including the junk
.
So you can see this is hardly a victimless crime and shouldn't be treated
that way. If you spam you should face civil and criminal penalties
commensurate with the damage done.
If you think there are no legal issues, I suggest the Craig Novak vs.
FLOWERS.COM where a San Diego Spammer forged this domain on a piece of
spam, got sued and lost to the tune of about $10,000 for his actions.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:02:54 -0400
From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
Subject: File 11--Scientology And Free Speech
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The Church of Scientology has drawn vehement
criticism on the Net for what many believe to be excessive
litigation for those using the Net (and other forums) to criticize
its practices. More information can be found at:
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html)
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
[Excerpted FACTNet Newsletter, MAY 1998 Online at
<http://www.factnet.org/letters/FACTNewsMay1.html>
Also note: If you missed FACTNet's April newsletter, it is online at
<http://www.factnet.org/letters/FACTNewsApr1.html> ]
Battling Scientology's Attack on Free Speech
[Remarks delivered by FACTNet director Robert S. Minton to the Cult
Information Service's Annual Conference, April 19, 1998. Unfortunately, due
to space limitations, we can only provide excerpts from the beginning and
end of these remarks. Please see entire text at http://www.factnet.org ]
Thank you Paul (Grosswald). It is truly a great honor to have been invited
to speak at this annual conference of the Cult Information Service.
I won't be able to keep my secrets from you much longer, but I am neither a
public speaker nor do I possess any formal training on the subject of
cults. However, over the last three years, and particularly in the last 9
months, I have received a rather fiery baptism on cults and free speech
from an organization that Cynthia Kisser said "is quite likely the most
ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most
lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from
its members."
Yes, I am involved in a controversy with the Church of Scientology over the
most fundamental right in a democracy--the freedom to speak. Scientology
hypocritically cries that theirs is a persecuted religion attacked by
bigoted and intolerant critics. Further, Scientology's mantra, repeated
ad-nauseum throughout their paranoid and delusional history, continues to
be that those individuals and governments who dare criticize their
anti-social goals, tactics and civil rights abuses of their own members are
engaged in some grand conspiracy to destroy Scientology. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
I am just one of many persons working actively through the Internet, the
Cult Information Service, FACTNet, the American Family Foundation and in
our own individual ways to force much needed reform on Scientology. These
reforms must acknowledge that all of us, Scientologists especially, have an
inalienable right to criticize, oppose or scrutinize practices and tactics
used by their organization which we view as contrary to the respect and
dignity required towards our fellow man. Without these most basic rights,
there certainly cannot be religious freedom, or in fact any freedom, in our
democracy.
Scientology's own creed, which uses the phrase "inalienable rights" seven
times, states in part: "That all men have inalienable rights to think
freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter
or utter or write upon the opinions of others." These are very noble words,
but this is truly an organization whose so-called leaders have no shame.
In the United States, many of us take our inalienable rights for granted,
because by definition they cannot be taken away. But ask your own sons and
daughters who have experienced Scientology's orgy of thought reform or
Paulette Cooper from New York, Larry Wollersheim from Colorado, Stacy Young
from Washington, Arnie Lerma from Virginia, or Frank Oliver in Florida if
their inalienable rights were in any way protected while in Scientology, or
if Scientology has shown any respect whatsoever for any of their rights
since they departed.
Ask Lisa McPherson and Noah Lottick if their rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness were sacred to Scientology.
A little known fact in our society is that we have no rights under our
constitution unless we are willing to stand up and affirmatively assert
them. This is a price that all cults and litigious entities like
Scientology force us to pay in our society because they are so willing to
strip their members and critics alike of as many of our rights as we will
cede them
As for myself, I do not intend to surrender my rights to Scientology
without an armed struggle. I will be armed with the stories of abuse,
betrayal, harassment, intimidation, fear, broken families, neglected
children, financial ruin, and the personal and emotional devastation that
so many ex-Scientologists have suffered
Given the current level of harassment, intimidation and abuse dished out by
this organization, my crystal ball sees Scientology's future as filled with
more negative consequences in response to their actions, including:
More press, more media and more public speaking against Scientology's
anti-social policies, abuse of the legal system, and total disregard for
the rights of others,
More organized and concentrated efforts to educate celebrity victims being
used and manipulated by Scientology
More specific efforts to reach individual members with the truth about
Scientology's lies and hypocrisy, and
More fund-raising from an expanding array of talented and capable people
who will no longer tolerate the bullying policies and tactics used by
Scientology management.
Standing up to the Church of Scientology has been an incredibly
enlightening and enriching personal experience--a test of my character at
every step of the way. I've gotten to know many former Scientologists, and
clearly they are some of the nicest people I've ever known. While in
Scientology, these very same people were taught to lie and betray and
acquiesce to having their own rights taken away from them. This proves to
me that even an organization as totalitarian as Scientology cannot strip
away innate human goodness, and gives me hope that we will get to know many
more former Scientologists as our actions continue in the coming weeks and
months.
###
Scientology. Keith Henson was found guilty of copyright infringement by a
California jury in the Religious Technology Center [an arm of Scientology]
v. Keith Henson suit. The jury awarded Scientology $75,000. According to
Wired Magazine, "Depending on whom you ask, last week's verdict in
Religious Technology Center v. Keith Henson is either a vote for
intellectual property rights or a vote against freedom of information."
[Article at <http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/12355.html>].
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3DFA@coil.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 12--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
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)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
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 #10.34
************************************