informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0736.txt

861 lines
41 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
Computer underground Digest Sun May 7, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 36
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Goddess of Judyism Editor: J. Tenuta
CONTENTS, #7.36 (Sun, May 7, 1995)
File 1--PNEWS,cr,cj-5/7> Truth, Political Action, and Cyberspace
File 2--A solution to the digital copyright problem
File 3--New GRAY AREAS includes Cybernews & Notes
File 4--Vote FRO^H^H....(Ah, that ol' backspace) - (eye Reprint)
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 13:55:15 +0000
From: Richard K. Moore <rkmoore@iol.ie>
Subject: File 1--PNEWS,cr,cj-5/7> Truth, Political Action, and Cyberspace
Truth, Political Action, and Cyberspace
Richard K. Moore
rkmoore@iol.ie
7 May 1995
Several threads were woven together in the CyberWinter Schedule, as is
necessary for the overall picture to be presented. And given the concise
nature of internet postings, it was obviously impossible to endow each
point with comprehensive documentation or analysis in a single message.
But I want to assure you that the thesis is not an exaggerated one, and
that it was not an emotional response to recent alarming events, nor a
paranoid interpretation of isolated phenomenon. It is my intention to take
each point in turn in future postings, keying off of representative
skeptical response-postings, and substantiate the point as necessary.
Vigdor Shreibman has a favorite saying, "Speak truth to power". My
preference is to "Speak truth to those who can benefit from it". Truth is
not a matter of optimism or pessimism, nor a matter of feeling comfortable,
nor a matter of expressing one's psychological attitude, nor of stating how
one would like things to be -- truth is a matter of "what is".
There are those who prefer to minimize the dangers facing them, because it
gives them hope. There are others who prefer to exaggerate dangers,
because it reinforces their personal sense of hopelessness, arising from
their psychological neuroses. But if you have a serious desire to make a
difference politically, you cannot afford to cloud your vision with
preferences, nor to select the facts you look at in order to achieve
personal comfort. In wartime, a good general must be totally honest about
the enemy's capabilities, intentions, and style of engagement. In
political activism, you must similarly be totally honest, unless your
desire is simply to make yourself feel better by doing "something".
---
The prospects for salvaging democracy in today's world happen to be grim.
I wish it were otherwise. We happen to live in a world where the
production and distribution of goods and information are increasingly
organized on a global scale, and where the controlling parameters are
increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few score transnational
corporations, and their growing network of commissions and agencies,
operating outside the control of representative political frameworks.
The scale and integration of global activity has quite simply outgrown the
political structures that humankind has been able to construct to manage
it. The majority of nations are minor players in the global drama, having
a smaller annual balance sheet than the large corporations. Their
sovereignty is subject to the dictates of the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, and the autonomous policies of international financial
institutions and industrial corporations. The flow of news and information
is less and less controlled by domestic sources, and more and more by
global media conglomerates. This isn't a theory (conspiracy or otherwise),
this is simply how the global system works. This gobalization is not even
denied by the forces which bring it about -- they proclaim it as a good
thing, and paint it with euphemistic slogans like "modernization", "global
competitiveness", and "reform".
It is important to pay attention to the details of this globalist rhetoric.
It always emphasizes economic factors, and carefully avoids discussion of
the political aspects of the institutions being put in place. The new
spate of mechanisms designed to consolidate and rationalize the global
system -- GATT, NAFTA, and the like -- are sold entirely as mechanisms to
streamline world trade. It is left to independent spokespeople -- Chomsky
always being the first to come to mind, although he is by no means unique
in his analysis -- to point out that these autonomous commisssions are
being endowed with tremendous _political_ power. They are empowered to
supercede national sovereignty with regard to the environment, labor,
regulation of industry, and finacial policy. Under the rubric of
preventing "protectionism", nations are increasingly unable to exercise
responsibility over the quality of life or the welfare of their citizens.
The political nature of the globalist system is intentionally downplayed
because, if it wasn't, there are obvious questions which would arise, such
as "Who chooses the commissioners?", and "What democratic controls exist
over their deliberations and rulings?". These would be very embarrassing
questions for the globalist forces to deal with, because the answers to
these kinds of questions are also obvious: the commissions are populated by
members of the corporate elite, are chartered to facilitate corporate
operations, and are beholden to no effective democratic process. By
focusing public attention on the "free trade" aspects of these commissions,
and maintaining an effective blackout of the more general political
ramifications, the critically-needed democratic discussion is avoided.
---
Cyberspace is not all that central to this globalist drama, but is
intertwined with it in very interesting ways. Cyberspace is inherently
global in its reach, and its current independence from control by the
globalist forces is a striking anomaly. As a realm of economic
development, cyberspace offers the potential for significant corporate
profits, and we can observe the globalist forces at work as they strive to
transform it into yet-another marketplace. As a means of information
dissemination, cyberspace is typical of other mass media, and we can
observe the globalist forces as they attempt bring its content under the
control of the same monopolies that control (directly or indirectly) most
of the content of television news, and the international wire services.
Where cyberspace is most unique, is in its potential to facilitate the
independent distribution of information, and to enable grass-roots
political activity. It is in this regard that cyberspace _does_ assume a
central position in the globalist drama, at least potentially. It is not
the profits lost due to free information distribution that is most
threatening to the globalists, it is the fact that the information
distribution is "out of control" -- people can exchange independent news
and views with one another on a mass scale and across national boundaries;
they can develop agendas and promote democratic activity; they have the
potential to build political consensus that is outside the bounds of the
smoothly running global propaganda machine, and the corporate-dominated
political party regimes. We must honestly admit that this potential has
gone largely untapped, but that may be beginning to change, and the threat
is all-to-obvious to those currently holding the comfortable reins of
power. This is why cyberspace is currently being attacked intensively and
on a broad front, out of proportion to its thus-far effect.
I don't mean to minimize the inspiring work being done on the net by
thousands of individuals and organizations, but it has not yet succeeded in
effectively breaking out of its virtual domain, and making a significant
impact on real-world politics. The race is now on to see if cyberspace can
earn the fear in which it is held by those in power, before it is
effectively subdued due to its potential.
---
As political activists, we have a responsibility to make much more
effective use of this unprecedented educational and organizational tool
while it remains available to us. And given the global nature of our tool,
and the globalism of today's poltical forces, it is imperative that we
think globally AND act globally. We need to bring together people and
organizations with similar interests from around the world. Local trade
unions in the north of England, for example, have more in common with
similar groups in India or Chicago, than they do with the Tories or Mr.
Blair's version of the Labour Party. Cyberspace provides the opportunity
to build new constituencies and coalitions that cut across traditional
boundaries of location, race, class, and political systems.
The _content_ of our organizing must address the globalist forces that
increasingly control the parameters of all of our lives. We cannot afford
to focus most of our energy on minor skirmishes and superficial issues. We
cannot limit our attention to issues directly related to the network, and
most important -- we need to spend less time pursuing the intellectual fun
of arguing with one another over arcane philosophical fine points, and
learn to develop practical political agendas, and persue effective
political organizaing. We need to break out of our various single-issue
discussion groups, and learn to work and communicate on something
approaching a net-wide basis (which automatically becomes a geographically
global basis.)
-rkm
Estagon: ... Let's go
Vladimir: We can't
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We're waiting for Godot
Samuel Beckett (1906-1989): Waiting for Godot
A man who leaves home to mend himself and others is a
philosopher; but he who goes from country to country,
guided by the blind impulse of curiosity, is a vagabond.
Oliver Goldsmith (1728-74): Citizen of the World, No 7
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
=========================================================================
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
Working Group: CAMPAIGN FOR CYBER RIGHTS
cyber-rights@cpsr.org
Available online: web pointers, FAQ, list archives, library:
World Wide Web:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~hwh6k/public/cyber-rights.html
http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/cyber-rights.html
FTP:
ftp://jasper.ora.com/pub/andyo/cyber-rights
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
for non-commercial use, pursuant to any contained copyright &
redistribution restrictions.
=========================================================================
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by -- Richard K. Moore -- rkmoore@iol.ie -- Wexford, Ireland.
Moderator for: CYBER-RIGHTS & CYBERJOURNAL (@CPSR.ORG)
World Wide Web:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~hwh6k/public/cyber-rights.html
http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/cyber-rights.html
FTP:
ftp://jasper.ora.com/pub/andyo/cyber-rights
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
for non-commercial use, pursuant to any contained copyright &
redistribution restrictions.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 May 1995 14:38:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Wade Riddick <riddick@JEEVES.LA.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: File 2--A solution to the digital copyright problem
Open Letter:
Fixing the Digital Copyright Dilemma with Telerights:
Copying is easy; decryption is not
(c) 1995 By Wade Riddick
All rights reserved
Circulate freely unaltered
Released May 7, 1995.
After reading the National Information Infrastructure debate on
intellectual property reform in the digital age, one could conclude that
computers and copyrights have come to an impasse. The copyright code
assumes that copying is difficult and expensive, hence authors are
rewarded on a per copy basis. Digital technology makes such copying
nearly costless. Why reward authors for their part in a costless
transaction?
Some have proposed drastically curtailing electronic technology in
order to protect future publishers. They want to put all forms of
computer copying under the copyright code -- even reading a program from
disk into RAM. They want to ban the electronic resale or renting of
copyrighted material fearing that the piracy which has plagued software
will plague movies and books when they enter cyberspace.
I believe it is possible to use this conflict as fuel for a new,
stronger system of copyright protection. First we need to understand
the function of intellectual property laws and the capabilities of
digital technology.
In the past, copyright law has not been able to reward authors
based on the benefits others gain from using their creations. The law
has had to equate purchasing or viewing a copy of the work with using it
because the cost of verifying and enforcing any other kind of contract
has usually been too high. It was also assumed users were literate
enough to interpret the replicas they purchased.
Digital documents, unlike written ones, can be quite easily
manipulated, reproduced and transformed. Individuals can link numbers
together into combinations that can be hard to understand. This
fluidity contains the solution to the copyright dilemma.
In the computer world, context is everything. Every byte gets
interpreted at some point whether it's in a text file scanned by a
printer putting symbols on a page or it's in a program being read by the
microprocessor. Passive data doesn't exist; everything's an
instruction. But the context needed for proper interpretation is not
always portable on the user's whim. It is impossible, for instance, to
run Windows programs on a Macintosh without purchasing a special
operating context.
We can adapt copyrights to the digital world if we realize that it
takes a special form of literacy to use digital information. In other
words, duplicating an author's digital work may be easy, but decrypting
it is not. That requires extra, privately held information.
Using this contextual insight to create secure digital copyrights
requires adding two more layers of interpretation to computer operating
systems. Not only must data be encrypted, it must also have the power
to communicate with its publisher for the unique and private key needed
to decrypt itself. Only by using two layers can we prevent the theft of
both the original document and the private information (context) needed
to make the document useful.
I call this a system of 'telerights.'
A user would buy an encrypted copy of the document from the author
or publisher. Each individual version would have a different key, so
the user could make many duplicates but in essence only own the one
'copy' that was paid for. When the user wanted to use the document, it
would contact its publisher for the key. If no other versions with the
same key were in use, the publisher would send the key to the user's
machine and the document would decrypt itself into an area of temporary
memory like RAM. When the user was done, the document would delete the
decrypted version.
Users would regain the fair use property rights in cyberspace they
have come to expect in the printed domain. Users could make and pass
around as many copies as they like because the publisher could guarantee
a one to one correspondence between sales and use. A professor, for
example, could lend out books to his students or sell used software --
two acts considered illegal under the current system of digital
copyrights.
The old problem of piracy would be turned on its head. The user
instead of the publisher would have to worry about theft. When someone
stole his copy, they would steal his use of it as well. There would be
no assurance the person you buy used information from would delete their
old copies.
Because the bond of contractual trust between publisher and
purchaser would be perpetually renewed, this would be a simple problem
to guard against. The publisher would always know where and when a work
was in use, so users could ask publishers to ban certain sites from
using a particular version of a document (in the case of used data) or
restrict use to a particular site or user ID (if we're dealing with
virtual terminals). This is one way parents could control the flow of
information going to their children. In any event, this wouldn't
terribly onerous. A reseller could always purchase another version with
a different key.
Stronger property rights will vastly expand the market for
copyrighted material. Libraries would no longer have to purchase books
that went unread. They could average out their risk in the same way
some banks do with mortgage derivations by pooling their funds together
and purchasing expensive or esoteric information for their common use.
Corporations could purchase telerighted documents, then double encrypt
them and rent them out with fixed duration keys. By republishing a
document you could loan it to a friend without worrying about it being
returned.
By knowing when, where and what parts of a collaborative work were
in use, publishers would better know how to reward individual artists in
a project. I could use parts of a telerighted document in my own
publication and the original publisher would know better how to bill me
for that use.
Furthermore, one could break up the public airwaves into multiple
private channels. ABC could teleright its sitcoms and distribute them
freely over the internet. No one would ever watch quite the same thing
at quite the same time again, but network store and forward technology
would vastly decrease distribution costs. By telerighting each copy,
the networks and their advertisers would know exactly who watched their
programs and how often.
Telerights combine networking technology with encryption, software
meters and object oriented intelligent documents... items that have all
been hot topics by themselves or in various subsets. To my knowledge no
one has yet brought these concepts together under one roof, although a
few efforts have come close.
Since before the start of microprocessor clocks, Ted Nelson has
been pushing the concept of hypertext publishers. His ideas have
inspired World Wide Web development and a host of other network
computing innovations. By itself, though, his theoretical Xanadu server
lacks cryptological security and fails to take advantage of high
bandwidth networks, distributed computing and object-oriented data
distribution.
The Copyright Office itself is creating an archive that will bind
copyrighted documents together with information about their publishers.
The Copyright Clearance Center has set up a World Wide Web site where
users can negotiate rights with publishers and, in conjunction with
Folio Corp., it is designing a CD-ROM LAN system so that universities
and large businesses can be billed according to how they use
information.
These projects target large government institutions and private
corporations because they have a large technological base and both use
and publish vast amounts of intellectual property. They are natural
starting places for new systems of copyright protection.
These projects, though, won't keep up with the technology as it
spreads into the home. In the future information won't be this easy to
centralize. For one thing, CD-ROMs will be easy for individuals to copy
and although piracy is rather easy to detect in large organizations,
individual users won't be paralyzed by that same fear.
On the consumer side of today's market we have 'interactive TV' --
a decidedly different sort of venture since most homes cannot manage
digital information. This system gets around the piracy issue by
directly broadcasting information on demand to home televisions.
Because people lack the technology to copy the information entering the
home in any useful way, many scholars have proposed using on demand
broadcast as the model for the future distribution of intellectual
property.
I dislike the on demand system because it denies individuals the
ability to own their own copies of information. Even if you get around
the problem of future users being able to record information transmitted
into their home, under telerights it will always be cheaper to resend a
key instead of the whole document. 'Interactive TV' is a poor model for
the future because it concentrates too much on the later half of the
term -- the television, a very dumb device.
These projects make important technical and social contributions
to the protection of intellectual property. In all fairness to them,
even though the technology exists, the infrastructure needed to make a
system like telerights work is not yet in place. I think getting it in
place will be the most difficult part of the whole affair.
I am assuming, of course, that the problems telerights share with
other internet projects can be solved -- namely, that everyone will get
a personal, high bandwidth network connection and generic security
issues will be laid to rest. If it turns out to be technically
impossible to produce secure cryptographic codes or prevent the
counterfeiting of network addresses, my project and a host of others
will go down the drain.
I'm optimistic these technological issues will be settled, so that
leaves us with the question of how to standardize teleright technology
and make it widespread. This will take some coordination among computer
makers, operating system designers, phone companies, network providers,
software concerns and, of course, the government.
The government does not need to alter existing copyright laws;
telerights are merely new contractual forms. It does need to clarify
the regulatory environment and encourage companies to agree on and
accept a standard. Since the government is a large producer and
consumer of intellectual property, it can facilitate the acceptance of
a standard by using public monies to purchase first generation systems.
The contemporary regulatory breakdown of the old content/carrier
distinction makes all this problematic.
On the consumer end, there is the privacy issue. Any company that
both maintains other people's teleright accounts and publishes its own
documents will be tempted to use for financial gain private information
about other companies' customers.
It would perhaps be best to assign day to day teleright accounting
to a government agency or semi-public utility. After all, when you
transfer title on land, it's publicly registered at the local
courthouse. Telerights aren't much different. Government is the
ultimate enforcer of property rights and is also the best place to
ensure anonymity in the collection of economic statistics.
On the corporate end, without clearly defined lines in the market
companies will be tempted to use the standardization process to compete
against one another. It will take longer to establish a winner if rival
standards emerge. In the interim, old copyright laws will continue to
be inadequate in the digital world so a delay in the standardization
process might make attractive solutions that look less palatable today.
The issue of encryption itself is sticky because there are already
two established and ideologically opposed groups fighting about it. The
government must be coaxed into relaxing its objections to strong
encryption and Clipper opponents must learn to accept a key escrow
standard to which the government has warranted access.
Bobby Inman has proposed using the Federal Reserve as one of the
depositories for cryptological keys for a very good reason. In an
information economy, information is money. Just as the government
supervises banks to make sure that they do not launder money,
counterfeit currency, falsify bank sheets or expose themselves or their
customers to abnormal risks, so too must the government regulate
telerights. One doesn't need to look at the Great Depression to
remember the benefits of regulation. The '80s S&L debacle will suffice.
The government must also encourage software and computer companies
to accept some level of professionalization. With the proper tools and
knowledge it will be possible to trap keys or decrypted documents stored
in temporary memory. These tools and skills must be tightly regulated
and those sections of the operating system must be shut off from amateur
tampering. This may cause angst among some programmers but for most of
us this should not be a burden. It does, after all, take a license (and
the proper employer) to tamper with phone boxes and electric meters.
Part of the digital frontier must be closed and civilized if society is
to settle the land and make it productive.
Although it may be possible to make telerights work without
encryption, it would involve a more onerous regulation of programming.
One would have to vastly restrict low level media access to make
unencrypted telerights work because it would be easy to pull raw
information off the disk with a sector editor. With encryption, the
restrictions are narrower and easier to enforce because the data is
coded wherever it is stored in permanent form. Only certain sections of
the runtime environment need to be restricted.
Telerights will not eliminate all forms of electronic piracy, but
by lowering transaction costs and raising the risk and expense of
counterfeiting, the most widespread individual and institutional forms
of piracy will be severely curtailed.
It won't prevent the pirating of physical, non-digital materials
like books but it doesn't have to. Information goes digital because it
is more useful in that form. Hypertext indices cannot be printed out
and scanned back in nor can people make videotapes of movies playing on
their screen and expect to retain the original fidelity. A digital
document is a non-linear object that always plays back in a linear
frame.
Given the low costs of electronically distributing materials and
the strength of the teleright protection system, many would-be pirates
may opt instead to sub-license and re-publish materials both in physical
and electronic form.
Users do have to give up some 'privacy' to make telerights work,
but their behavior is not turned into a public document. Like a number
of other encrypted communication schemes, telerights breaks up public
broadcast channels into a multitude of two-way private channels that
span the boundaries of public and private, sprawling across an
indeterminate number of nodes.
Users will chose give up some privacy for the added convenience
and the lower costs of information. They will also gain a measure back
since they will be able to encrypt information about themselves and
better control who has access to it.
We are, to use the old Chinese pejorative, living in interesting
times. Why the Chinese have historically found this undesirable I do
not know. Their word for 'crisis' means both 'danger' and 'opportunity'
and our western capitalism has always been fueled by such critical
change.
When it comes to social conflicts over the development of the
internet, we shouldn't forget the creative part of Schumpeter's
"creative destruction." We just need to follow Carver Mead's advice to
"listen to the technology"... in this case, at least to our own cliches.
If the future is one of distributed intelligence where everyone
will be a publisher, then we should distribute the responsibility for
enforcing copyrights by making our documents intelligent.
We must stop thinking of copyright stamps as passive marks. Their
presence has always made a very active social statement and should
continue to do so in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wade Riddick is a graduate student and National Science Foundation
Fellow in the Government Department at the University of Texas at
Austin. His email address is riddick@jeeves.la.utexas.edu.
------------------------------
Date: 04 May 95 13:16:41 EDT
From: "Gray Areas Inc." <76042.3624@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 3--New GRAY AREAS includes Cybernews & Notes
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Gray Areas continues to put out consistently
interesting counter-cultural articles, and specializes in
computer issues and rock music. It's worth a look, and the low
subscription price is a great bargain for a print medium)).
Named "The #1 Zine of 1993" by PULSE! and "One Of The Top Ten Magazines
of 1992" by LIBRARY JOURNAL, GRAY AREAS is a 164 page glossy paper
magazine focusing on subject matter which is illegal, immoral and/or
controversial. It examines the gray areas of life by exploring all
points of view about the subjects it covers such as computer crimes,
drugs, sex and intellectual property.
GRAY AREAS has been favorably reviewed/mentioned in a wide variety of
books and publications such as: ALTERNATIVE PRESS REVIEW, ANARCHY, THE
BLACK FLAME, bOING bOING, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, COMPUTER UNDERGROUND
DIGEST, THE COVERT CULTURE SOURCEBOOK, DIRTY LINEN, EIDOS, FACTSHEET
FIVE, FLIPSIDE, FRIGHTEN THE HORSES, GEAR, HOAX!, INFORMATION
WARFARE, IRON FEATHER JOURNAL, NUTS & VOLTS, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER,
PHRACK, RECORD COLLECTOR, REQUEST, SCREW, UNBROKEN CHAIN, WHOLE EARTH
REVIEW.
The latest issue is #7 (Spring 1995) which contains:
- articles on the computer underground including an exclusive interview
with the Internet Liberation Front, an article on scanning cellular
phone calls and reviews of HOPE, DEFCON II and HoHoCon '94
- articles on drugs including Kava, Prozac, using hemp for paper, LSD
and drug rehabilitation
- articles on sex including prostitution, adult bookstores, stripping,
AIDS, rape victims, abortion and Adult film actor Richard Pacheco on
how his parents discovered that he had starred in porn films
- articles on music including an interview with Mike Gordon of Phish,
Paul McCartney, Woodstock '94, Lollapalooza and a complete list of
known Jethro Tull video tapes
- articles on other gray topics including gun control, adoption, robbery,
lying, polygraph tests, Santeria and the art of serial killer John
Wayne Gacy
- articles on legal issues such as parody, Tort explosion, the Line Item
Veto
- an extensive 60 page review section of movies, CDs, concerts, books,
zines, computer software, comics, cool catalogs, video games and live
audio tapes
A sample copy is $8.00 (U.S.) or $12.00 (foreign). A four-issue
subscription is $23.00 U.S. bulk mail or $32.00 1st class mail ($40.00
foreign, shipped air). Checks should be made payable to Gray Areas, Inc.
and sent to: P.O. Box 808, Broomall, PA 19008. GRAY AREAS may also be
found at Tower Books/Records, Barnes & Noble, Borders and other places
that carry zines. GRAY AREAS sells out immediately almost everywhere it
is placed so you may have no choice but to order it by mail.
There are six back issues available too at $8.00 U.S. or $12.00 foreign.
Highlights of these issues are:
Issue #1: Interview: John Perry Barlow on computer crimes
Interview: Adult Film star Kay Parker
Grateful Dead live video list
Issue #2: Interview: Adult Film Director Candida Royalle
Interview: Attorney/Musician Barry Melton
Grateful Dead Bootleg CDs list
Urine Testing
Issue #3: Interview: Computer Virus Writer Urnst Kouch
Interview: Shocking Musician GG Allin
Interview: David Gans, Host of The Grateful Dead Hour
Interview: John Trubee on Prank Phone Calls
Adult Film Star Richard Pacheco Speaks
Issue #4: Interview: RIAA Piracy Director Steven D'Onofrio
Interview: Phone Sex Fantasy Girl
Interview: Ivan Stang, Church of the SubGenius Leader
Issue #5: Interview with a Phone Phreak
Breaking Into The WELL (includes interview with two of the
many crackers involved)
Interview: S/M Dominatrix
All About Smart Drugs
Issue #6: Interview: Adult FIlm Actress Taylor Wayne
Interview: Chris "Erik Bloodaxe" Goggans
Jimi Hendrix Bootleg CDs
Upcoming in issue #8 (out this summer) is an interview with Invalid
Media, sysop of Unphamiliar Territory, an interview with an "Old
School" Hacker, the results of a survey of the attitudes and opinions
of today's hackers and part two of a list of Grateful Dead bootleg CDs.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 19:49:12 -0400
From: eye@INTERLOG.COM(eye WEEKLY)
Subject: File 4--Vote FRO^H^H....(Ah, that ol' backspace) - (eye Reprint)
VOTE FRO^H^H^H FOR ME!
And Il'^H^H^H^H^ Set You Ftr^H^Hree
By K.K. Campbell
On May 1, Toronto's Online Direct announced it would hold Ontario's
first "cyberspace election debate." Online prez Greg Vezina wants to
conduct a variety of election forums, including a "Big Three"
leadership debate.
Under Vezina's plan, the leaders can participate from anywhere. "The
beauty of this is that Mike Harris can be on his campaign bus, driving
on highway 17, and still use a cellphone and go online," Vezina told
eyeNET.
Of course, one expects it will really be a 90-words-a-minute typist
entering the words of a campaign spin doctor, while the leader soaks in
a hottub.
eyeNET Newsmedia Labs beat the rest to the punch and conducted its own
Internet leadership debate, the very night the elections were
announced.
EYE.NET'S CAMPAIGN '95 ELECTRONIC DEBATE
April 28, 1995, 7pm
MODERATOR <eye@interlog.com>: Welcome, Ontario netters!
This is a real time debate. You will see what the candidates type, as
they type it. To prevent spin doctor charades, each candidate is locked
in a lead-encased, sound-proof room with nothing but a terminal, bottle
of Evian, and toilet.
We contacted 1,000 high-volume newsgroups, requesting each elect a
delegate. Each delegate is allowed one question.
In the spirit of The New Internet, each politician is allowed to censor
one newsgroup: Mr Rae chose to deny the existence of
alt.politics.socialist.trotsky; Ms McLeod obliterated alt.homosexual;
Mr Harris doesn't want to hear anything from rec.sport.golf .
Candidates, greetings.
[NDP PREMIER] RAE <premier@gov.on.ca>: I thank eyeNET for providing me
this opportunity to talk with the people of ONtario in this exciting
democratic forum.
[Liberal leader] MCLEOD <lynn@prodigy.com>: It's nice to bve here. What a
cute keybord!One key has a little apple on it! So much quiet than
typoerwriter. Ifell like I am on the bridge of the Star Trek spaceboat!
[Tory leader] HARRIS <golfpro@aol.com>: He;;o
MOD: First question: from the delegate from ont.general, for Mr Harris.
Candidates, remember, you get maximum 10 minutes to type your answer.
ARNIE <arnie@queensu.ca>: Mr Harris -- aren't you embarrassed to show
your face in cyberspace after making such a complete ass of yourself
over that phony Bob Rae email last December?
HARRIS: Forgerys^Hs^Hies are vrery comon^H^H^H comMON^H^H^H
MOD: Time. That was 10 minutes. By the way, Mr Harris, the backspace
key only produces ^H marks.
HARRIS: cmoln^H^H^H^H^H
MOD: Question for Ms McLeod, from the rec.food.cooking.betty-crocker
delegate.
MRS COLIN FERGUSON <marge@hick.ca>: Hi Lynn! Maybe you remember me,
Lynn, we met at the Thunder Bay Church Bakeoff Against Fags and Dykes
last fall.
MCLEOD: Marge Ferguson! Hello!
MRS COLIN FERGUSON: You brought a delciious blueberry pie. I'm hoping
to get your recipe, since you will be premier this fall and unable to
attend! Ha ha ha!
HARRIS: Com mn^H
MCLEOD: It's an old family recipe, a secret for genrtations. I can't
break with tradition. Besides, to give away would suggest I too
confident. Ha ha ha! This is fun! I can see why young people love
Enternet!
RAE: mail teale-tales@io.com unsubscribe bob@inforamp.com ^D
MOD: Mr Premier??
RAE: Is it my question?
MOD: What are you doing?
RAE: What...? Could you see that?
MOD: Yes.
HARRIS: allwasy^H^Hys t ell
RAE: Oh... I just thought I'd catch up on email while others typed. I
didn;t know you could see me.
MOD: Email is disabled for the duration of the debate. Anything
further, Ms McLeod?
MCLEOD: But seriously, Marge,we LIbera;s are after a new bottoms up
approach to government! No... I mean a from below... from below
goverment. That sounds disgusting. Al Golombek says it better. I
think it means we want people below us to do stuff.
RAE: trn alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female.JAP
MOD: Mr Premier?
RAE: My question?
MOD: The newsgroups are also temporarily disabled.
RAE: Oh. Sorry.
MOD: Ms McLeod, you were say-
HARRIS: wha t5 is fakl^H^Hake
RAE: I guess I shouldn't even bother trying IRC, right?
MOD: Correct.
RAE: Jeez... How about pong? There's a little copy of pong in the
corner of the screen. Can I at least play pong?
MCLEOD: What's pong?
MOD: Time. Question for the Premier, from the delegate from alt.flame .
ANONYMOUS <pkormos@anon.penet.fi>: Rae! I'm fucking your mom! She says
HI! You shithead lamer!!!!1 LICK MY BAG, LOOSER!!!!!!!!!!!111111111
Mcloed, lay off the twinkies, y-- NO CARRIER
MOD: Mr Premier?
RAE: I have no comment.
MOD: Ms McLeod? Comment?
MCLEOD: My ears! Is thsi the true ENternet?!? If it is, then I agree
with Herb and Allan we must CENSOR ENTERNET NOW!!
RAE: mail mboyd@gov.on.ca OK, you were right. Have the OPP tamper with
his breaks. Bob ^D
MOD: Mr Premier, email is disabled for the debate.
RAE: Right, right. Sorry.
MOD: Mr Harris?
HARRIS: didn t kno w it was forger5y!^H^H ry!
MOD: We are onto a new question, now, Mr Harris.
HARRIS: forgerisr8 shi t oops ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
MOD: Mr Harris. Please look up at your monitor. Look up at your
monitor, Mr Harris.
HARRIS: forgre^H^H^H
MOD: Let's move on.
[mass deletia -- 997 more delegate questions follow]
-30-
K.K.Campbell
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 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 CUDIGEST <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)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
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 #7.36
************************************