informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0769.txt

827 lines
37 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 69
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
CONTENTS, #7.69 (Wed, Aug 23, 1995)
File 1--CuD homepage
File 2--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS
File 3--re: File 1--BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
File 4--Heroes and Villains
File 5--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
File 6--Cu Digest #7.68 - Heroes and Villains
File 7--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
File 8--Software Testing Lab's Web site
File 9--Cincinnati Web Pages about Simon Leis and CCCBBS
File 10--Intellectual property
File 11--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: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:50:08 -0500
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU (Cu Digest)
Subject: File 1--CuD homepage
We're periodically asked why CuD doesn't have a homepage. We do. It's
been up since early winter. The URL:
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest (don't forget the tilde
in front of cudigest)
Back issues of Cud, CuD indexes, and links to EFF, CPSR, and other
relevant homepages are there, along with back issues of Phrack, Crypt
New Letter, and other resources. Below is a partial listing from the
menu:
====================================
WELCOME TO THE CU DIGEST WWW HOMEPAGE
General CuD Information
CuD Indexes
* CuD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Back Issues of CuD
* CuDs, Volume 7
* CuDs, Volume 6
* CuDs, Volume 5
* CuDs, Volume 4
* CuDs, Volume 3
* CuDs, Volume 2
* CuDs, Volume 1
_________________________________________________________________
Cyber Resource Links
* E-Zine Library via EFF
* The "Rimm Study" Cyber-porn Debate
* Other Links of Interest
_________________________________________________________________
Other Links of Interest
Cyber Resource Links
* NIU Sociology WEB SITE
* EFF'S WWW Site
* Electronic Frontier-Australia
* CPSR's WWW Site
* NetWork Newsletter
* Center for the Study of On-line Communities
* PHRACK's Homepage
* Phil Zimmerman Info
* Information on Jake Baker Case
* Information on SB 314 (Exon's Senate deceny act)
* Steve Jackon Games Secret Service page & links
* ROCKLIST (Rock music) WWW SITE
* Voters' Telecommunications Watch
* OCP Telecom/Computer Refernce Guide
* Computers, Democracy & Technology Homepage
E-Zines and Such
* John Labovitz's complete E-Zine resource list
* Jim Warren's GovAcesss
* Crypt Newsletter
* EYE - Toronto's Best E-Zine
* PHRACK
One-Stop links to many Federal Info resources (CIA, FBI, Lib of Cong, etc)
Newsletters and 'Zines Worth Contacting for Subs
* Sub to James Love's TAP Newsletter James Love-love@Essential.org
* John Labovitz's complete E-Zine resource list3
Home Pages worth Looking at
* YAHOO's Web-surfer's paradise
* Voidmstrs Graphic Homepage
* Mark Atwood's Cyber homepage (info resources)
* RIPCO (The one and Only) Homepage
* The Well (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
* The Well's Gopher Site
* Cyber-Publishers' Corner
* O'Reilly Publishers homepage
* Computer Manuals Online Bookstore
------------------------------
From--milne@crl.com (Andrew Milne)
Subject--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS
Date--22 Aug 1995 14:26:09 -0700
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The Church of Scientology has recently been accused
of intimidating critics, cancelling posts, engaging in "litigation
terrorism," and other alleged actions designed to silence critics.
Discussion of these issues proliferates on Usenet's
alt.religion.scientology. Links to homepages providing additional
details of allegations against CoS can be found on CuD's homepage
(http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
=============================================================
August 22, 1995
NEWS RELEASE
CONTACT: LEISA GOODMAN OR
EARLE COOLEY
(202) 667-6404
WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS
Subject: File 2--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS
Date: 22 Aug 1995 14:26:09 -0700
August 22, 1995
NEWS RELEASE
CONTACT: LEISA GOODMAN OR
EARLE COOLEY
(202) 667-6404
WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS
The Washington Post and two of its reporters were sued today in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the
Religious Technology Center (RTC), holders of the intellectual
property rights of the Scientology religion. According to the
lawsuit, the Washington Post and its writers have engaged in
"extensive, intentional copyright infringement and trade secrets
misappropriattion, targeting confidential Scientology scriptures
belonging to RTC." Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court
in Alexandria, due to the urgent nature of the matter, scheduled an
August 25 hearing on the temporary restraining order and impoundment
application to get the Washington Post to turn over the
misappropriated documents.
The lawsuit is an amendment of a complaint that was filed on
August 11 against an Arlington man, Arnaldo Lerma, and his Internet
access provider Digital Gateway Systems, for copyright and trade
secrets infringement. According to Boston lawyer Earle C. Cooley,
who represents Religious Technology Center, the newspaper and their
two reporters, Richard Leiby and Marc Fisher, were added to the
lawsuit because they engaged in their own direct infringements of
plaintiff's copyright interests and misappropriation of plaintiff's
trade secrets, while at the same time aiding, supporting,
encouraging, and facilitating blatant acts of infringement and
misappropriation by Lerma.
The day after the lawsuit was filed, on August 12, a search and
seizure order by Judge Brinkema was carried out at Lerma's home by
Federal Marshals and computer software, hardware and documents were
confiscated. Church lawyers report that they were able to establish
that Lerma lied because, contrary to his assertions that computer
discs had been purged of any stolen materials, their electronic
experts have already found 63 copyright items among the seized
material.
The new lawsuit reveals that Lerma sent the protected materials
to Leiby when he was put on notice by the Church to stop violating
its copyright and trade secret rights. The Church now charges that
this was done in an attempt to obstruct justice by concealing the
stolen copies from lawful seizure. The suit claims the existence of
evidence which shows that Richard Leiby choreographed and instigated
Lerma's illegal conduct for his own campaign of harassment against
the Scientology religion. According to the lawsuit, Leiby's
campaign dates back more than 15 years.
Church spokeswoman Leisa Goodman said "The Washington Post and
Mr. Leiby violated fundamental journalistic integrity by conspiring
with lawless elements on the Internet to harm the religion of
Scientology."
Once the Church became aware that its materials were in the
possession of Richard Leiby, it demanded their immediate return.
Leiby and the Washington Post handed the stolen copies over to RTC's
lawyers last week on August 15. However, "the return of the
materials, a seeming display of good faith, was an utter ruse", the
complaint states. "At the same time that the materials were being
returned to the Church in Washington, Leiby, Fisher and the Post
were getting copies of the same stolen records from the clerk's file
in LA where litigation was pending regarding the sealing of such
materials. A Post reporter persuaded the clerk's office to take the
documents away from a Church employee who had checked out the file,
to make copies for the Post," the complaint continues.
The Church reacted with an emergency motion to the judge on the
case in Los Angeles, who immediately ordered the entire case file
sealed on August 15, when he was told that the Washington Post had
obtained a copy of the copyrighted and trade secret materials.
According to the lawsuit, the Church immediately demanded the
materials back and also put the post on notice "that its actions
could not remotely be deemed news gathering, but rather constituted
wholesale copying of a large amount of copyrighted trade secret
information in an attempt to sanitize the illicit acquisition of
infringing documents which Leiby and the Post concealed on Lerma's
behalf."
Church spokeswoman Goodman discounted the notion that any free
speech or fair-use issues were involved. "Violators of copyright
and trade secret laws traditionally try to hide behind free speech
or fair-use claims. The Church is a strong proponent of free speech
and fair-use. It publishes its own investigative magazine and
cherishes the First Amendment. However, free speech or fair-use
does not mean free theft and no one, the Washington Post included,
has the right to cloak themselves in the First Amendment to break
the law."
Despite repeated warnings from Church lawyers, last Saturday
the Washington Post published a lengthy article by Marc Fisher,
which included quotes from the copyrighted, trade secret materials.
"Prior to publication of the article, the defendants were placed on
notice that their actions would constitute a violation of
plaintiff's rights," said Goodman.
"The Post made a serious mistake," RTC's lawyer Earle C.
Cooley contends, "in allowing themselves to be manipulated by a few
maliciously motivated dissidents who want to use the Post to forward
their religious hate campaign. The courts take these matters very
seriously. The law is clear: If you are going to violate
copyrights, you will have to answer for it in court. This applies
to the Washington Post just as much as to anyone else."
With this lawsuit, Religious Technology Center is asking the
court to order the return of its documents by the Washington Post
and grant a permanent injunction against the Post and the individual
violators of its rights. It also seeks statutory damages and
punitive damages.
------------------------------
From: Technical Intelligence-MN-USA <techint@WINTERNET.COM>
Subject: File 3--re: File 1--BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:03:44 -0500 (CDT)
> The Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression, in commemoration of
> the fifth anniversary of the August 1, 1990 Boston opening of Robert
> Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment, has compiled its fifth annual list
> of heroes and villains.
These folks are just sore about the fact that Republicans want
to shut down the public teat they all suck off. Clearly, they
find republicans more repellant than democrats:
They only found 4 bad democrats, versus 10 bad republicans.
Pipe to: grep "(D" | wc -l
5
Senators Diane Feinstein (D.-California) and Trent Lott
Congressman Ed Markey (D.-Mass.). Doggedly persisting in his efforts
Congressman Joseph Kennedy (D.-Mass.), who proves that not all Kennedys
Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D.-South Carolina); Donald Wildmon's
"good"
Senators Patrick Leahy (D.-Vermont) and Jim Jeffords (R-Vermont). In
Pipe to: grep "(R" | wc -l
11
Pipe to: grep "(R"
Congressman Newt Gingrich (R.-Georgia), Speaker of the House of
(R.-Mississippi). "Liberal" Democrat Feinstein and redneck
Senator John F. Kerry (R.-Massachusetts). One of an increasing number
and other idiocies; Senators Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) and Dan Coats
(R.-Indiana), for boorish attempts to regulate content in cyberspace; Senator
Nancy Kassebaum (R.-Kansas), for punitive moves against the NEA for funding
American Family Association; Congressman Robert Dornan (R.-California);
Congressman Phil Crane (R.-Illinois); Congressman Dick Armey (R.-Texas);
Congressman Richard Neal (R.-Mass.); the Clinton Administration; and others
Carver (Mass.) High; Congressman Peter Torkildsen (R.-Mass.), for breaking
"good"
Senators Patrick Leahy (D.-Vermont) and Jim Jeffords (R-Vermont). In
If you want to do art, fine. Do it after you get home from
your job. Or go begging to whomever you like. Just don't get
the government to come to me with a gun, demanding that I
pay for your "artistic expression."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:37:22 -0400
From: andrewm@INTERPORT.NET(Andrew Mark)
Subject: File 4--Heroes and Villains
While David Smith is to be congratulated on his writing style, his portrayal
of people and events during the past eight months can only serve one
purpose: galvanize those who are genuinely concerned that Cyberspace is, in
fact, out of control and should not be freely accessible by all. I don't
think that's in anyone's interests.
Considering the influence that those who originally brought this issue to
the fore, it's probably not a good idea to paint them as fools...
particularly when they're not. While I've neither met him or know much
about him, I strongly doubt that Jim Exon is the shallow dummy as he's been
portrayed here. Consider his position: he represents a LOT of people who
feel that their values are undermined by the open access of pornography to
kids. It's time for the activist Netters to recognize that Exon's elected
responsibility is to REPRESENT his constituency; on this issue, they've made
their position pretty clear. For him to ignore their views and values and
pretend that there is no issue to be dealt with would be a much greater
injustice to them than ANYTHING that he's proposed on this issue.
Particularly, in light of the fact that the issue is a real one which is not
going to simply 'go away,' no matter how hot the flames get.
We've had laws for many years which govern the sale and distribution of
pornographic material. While the laws vary among states and communities, one
concept is consistent: it's illegal to sell, distribute or otherwise provide
pornography to kids under 18. If anything, it's surprising that this issue
didn't come up years ago with the Net became publicly accessible. Unlike
in-person transactions, where it's well-established that a store-keeper
can't sell 'Debbie does the Army' to a youngster, the person making the
material available doesn't directly conveys the porn to the minor, it's
nonetheless available. Reconciling the established law with the conditions
which exist on the Net (i.e. indirect contact) should not be viewed as an
option.
Until we've addressed the conditions which the Internet presents, we will
continue to have indictments and prosecutions of individuals under current
laws which can be interpreted so severely that no one in the right mind
would go near the Net. It's just a matter of time until one judge rules
against a parent who permitted a child to sign onto the WWW knowing that
pornography was available there, only to have the other parent file a
complaint that the permitting parent, in effect, provided prohibited
material to a minor.
Finally, Senator Exon raises the issue by proposing penalties if
access-providers don't participate in a scheme of centralized censorship (in
my opinion, a truly awful concept). Senator Lahey then proposes a
not-unreasonable study period to come up with a less severe solution. Rather
than really getting behind the Lahey Bill and doing all that's necessary to
get a thumbs up on Lahey, most of the Net's energy is spent on flaming Exon.
Prior to the most intensive flaming of anyone even 'thinking about'
supporting the Exon Bill, Exon was rumored to be willing to postpone the
effective date of his bill so that the Lahey's study could be completed.
Under that scenario, if something of a solution were offered up which
addressed the outstanding legal issue, Exon's un-enacted 'law' could be
rescinded so as to allow 'the solution' to prevail. But the Net's
continuous, well-publicized flaming of him, without regard for the valid
issues that the bill attempted to deal with, forced him into a corner of
standing by his extreme position so as not to give the impression that he
was yielding to a more moderate position which his constituency would not
have easily embraced.
In raising the intensity of the flaming, the Netters begged the media to
join in the fest. The press saw a wonderful opportunity to add fuel to the
fire by quickly looking for (and, of course, finding) statistically
inconsequential occurrences, further galvanizing a 'must win' position for
Exon bill proponents. The end result: only a few Senators voted against
'protecting our youth,' and the bill passed by almost unbelievable margins.
Most pundits agree that had the vote been taken six weeks earlier the Exon
Bill would have had to evolve to a more tolerant position or been simply
overrun by Senator Lahey's approach.
While the more ambiguous end-result from the House opens the door for a
moderate resolution of the issue in the House-Senate conference, we won't
see it if the flaming continues. What we WILL see is our elected
representatives responding to the portion of their constituency with the
largest number of people who communicate to them on the issue-- and that
won't be the Netters. The most optimistic numbers of Netters is a fraction
of the number of adults who consider themselves 'religious' (Gallup Poll,
Jan., '95), and in this country, the prevailing religions are not
particularly enamored of enabling access to pornography. Painting those who
are honestly concerned about these access issues as fools, dummies, and
'ethically-challenged,' and not recognizing and respecting their legitimate
point of view will only serve to push the harassed away from moderation and
towards a position which can only jeopardize the future of the Internet.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:31:06 -0400
From: timk@CYBERCOM.NET(Tim King)
Subject: File 5--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
Unfortunately, the BCFE's list of heroes and villians was very high on
political rhetoric and rather low on useful discussion about
computer-related issues. Although, I guess, maintaining our freedom to
express ourselves, in all of its incantations, is an issue which concerns
the Internet community at large. In any case, I think the article would
have been more useful if it had not used so much loaded language.
For example, the 1994 election is described as a "conservative Republican
anschluss" brought on by a "legion of the ethically challenged" with "a
deafening messianic mean-spirited roar." Newt Gingrich's "wealthy
propaganda-spewing ethically dysfunctional personal empire" is an "Orwellian
moral sellout" supported by "right-wing media thugs like Cro-Magnon radio
talk show host[s]," rulers of a hoard of "supremely oblivious toxic yuppies."
Now, I will dispute neither the effectiveness nor the appropriateness of
such strong metaphors. Loaded language does indeed have its place, and it
is quite useful if used wisely. But much the BCFE article is, in my
opinion, severe hyperbole, and it does little to highlight the nature of the
issues. There are some points with which I agree and some with which I
disagree. The political points are too numerous to go into, so I will try
to confine myself to commenting on issues that are pertinent to this list.
Says the BCFE, "The 104th Congress... Its... enthusiasm for censorship of
cyberspace and telecommunications media... [among other offences] certify
that the 104th Congress is the most egregious collection of pro-censorship
moral crusaders to hit Capitol Hill in over forty years."
I suppose this is why the House, as a body, rejected the Exon amendment. It
is clear that, not unsurprisingly, the BCFE does not like the Republican
party. But there is something to be said about legislators that ran a
platform, and, when elected, actually sought to implement it quickly and
directly. As this agenda should have been well known to voters last
November, I don't see how we have anyone to blame but ourselves, if indeed
the Contract With America is not what we wanted. Anyhow, the Contract With
America, if memory serves, doesn't actually mention the censorship of
cyberspace.
I have neither the time, the space, nor the opportunity to go into the other
alleged offences in detail. But it is my sincere opinion that, whether or
not condemnation is justified, the BCFE has unequivocally refused these
issues the even-handedness they deserve.
"Senator J. James Exon... Outraged by the news that some people talk about
sex via computer networks, he sponsored the Communications Decency Act
(originally S.314)..."
As much as I disagree with the Senator's proposed course of action, to be
fair, I don't ever recall that he was "outraged... that some people talk
about sex via computer networks." However, he was outraged that material he
considered obscene was available on the Internet. He was also upset that
indecent material was easily available to minors.
"Martin Rimm... Rimm's results, which distort and grossly exaggerate both
the availability and the nature of sexual material on the Internet, will be
repeated by pro-censorship zealots in and out of Congress until they become
'facts.'"
Again, I detest the path Marty Rimm appears to have taken, and I have not
yet read an adequate defense to the critques of his work. Nevertheless, in
all fairness it is a misstatement to say that his results "distort and
grossly exaggerate both the availability and the nature of sexual material
on the Internet." Why is this so? Because we don't have sufficient
objective data to characterize the sexual material available on the
Internet. We may never have these numbers. How can we call a set of
numbers a gross exaggeration when we don't know what the real numbers are
supposed to be?
We can use intuition. But as an experienced Net citizen, and as a strong
supporter of the Internet, I must, in all honesty, admit that some of Rimm's
results intuitively seem accurate. For example, his 83.5% figure -- the
percentage of UseNET binaries that are pornographic -- was derived using
excessively flawed methodology. Still, I wouldn't be the least surprised if
this were close to the real number. In any case, it would appear, a more
useful measurement would be the amount of indecent material in non-adult
newsgroups. If we assume that the adult newsgroups are blocked from minors,
by parents and/or by ISPs, how much adult material is left? Now, of course,
this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the end of the story, but I
digress...
"America Online (AOL)... In the words of James Egelhof, ... 'AOL provides
the worst Internet service in the country, and charges massively for it.
AOL's profits depend on pacifying its user base and quelling dissent and
debate, so it enforces a heavily restrictive user agreement against its
customers... AOL, bent on presenting itself as a "family service," makes
sure that nothing controversial or offensive ever can reach its members.'"
This may all be true. I myself do not have, nor do I care for, an AOL
account. My reasons for this do overlap somewhat with the objections voiced
by Mr. Egelhof. Nonetheless, AOL, as a market competitor, has captured a
user base. As much as I may dislike their methods, there are evidently a
group of people who do not find them as distasteful. Furthermore, I
recognize the right of these subscribers to associate with whom they want
and in the forums they desire, not only for their protection, but for my
own. If it is true that AOL has marketed itself as a "family service," --
an idea I have not confirmed -- they appear to have found a valid market,
and responded to it. I cannot fault them for that. And if AOL's
subscribers don't like the restrictions the company puts on their
activities, there is plenty of competition.
Regarding the hero, Declan McCullagh: "If he had done nothing else,
McCullagh would still deserve thanks for discovering that Martin Rimm is the
author of the most execrably written novel in the English language, An
American Playground."
That's funny. I should think that Rimm was simply exercising his right to
free speech in authoring his novel. (Translation: The BCFE, by its own
logic, should've at least given themselves an honorable mention as a villian
for intentionally undermining the artistic value of Marty Rimm's work.)
Needless to say, I don't agree with such a one-sided sentiment. Marty Rimm
was indeed exercising his rights, and, simultaneously, from what I
understand, _An_American_Playground_ is a poorly-written novel. (But, to be
completely fair, I've never actually read the book. My opinion could change
if I were to do so.)
"Mike Godwin is an able communicator who explains in clear and eloquent
terms the nature of electronic communication and the indispensability of
free expression to a working democracy... Mike has served us well... by
going one-on-one with the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed on Nightline..."
I agree, and in so doing I include myself in the "us" of the above. And I
think that Ralph Reed should take a clue from the fact that I consider
myself a conservative christian -- in case you couldn't guess from the rest
of my comments.
The piece de resistance, though, suggesting at least to me that this article
lacks a little something in intellectual honesty, was that Newt Gingrich was
the only character to simultaneously make both the top twenty villians list
and the top ten heroes list. I'm confused.
"Congressman Newt Gingrich (R.-Georgia)... The race to be crowned Most
Repellent Politician of Our Time is too close to call, but this
Machiavellian sociopath may have an edge..."
"Newt said of the [Communication Decency Act], 'It is clearly a violation of
the right of adults to communicate with each other. I don't agree with
it...' Newt evidently meant what he said and has used his considerable power
to thwart all cyber-censorship initiatives reaching the House."
He hardly sounds like a runner up in "the race to be crowned Most Repellent
Politician of Our Time." But even if he is a "Machiavellian sociopath," I
guess it's okay, as long as he uses "his considerable power" against the
forces of evil, on the side of niceness.
Less rhetoric; more informed discussion!
------------------------------
From: a207157@MKSOL.DSEG.TI.COM(daniel b forbes)
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest #7.68 - Heroes and Villains
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:03:39 -0500 (CDT)
Dear Sirs,
I recently read the above referenced Cu Digest and am somewhat
puzzled by it. As I understood it, Cu Digest is supposed to be
about the progress that is happening in computer usage and access
as related to the internet. Yet, this most recent posting from
the BCFE Hero's and Villians '94/'95 seemed to be nothing more
the a rabid liberal diatribe against many center or center right
organizations and people. I did not see any reasonable debate regarding
the issues raised and read only a bit related to computer usage
and application over the net at all. Has the intent of Cu Digest changed
in some way? If the emphasis of this posting is moving toward
a much more politicized stance, please update the mission statement
at the footer to say so. As reading material goes, it was certainly
interesting (albeit biased). But as a measure of current trends in
the computer underground, it did seem lacking.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I welcome your response.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:37:03 -0400
From: Carl Hommel <notelrac@world.std.com>
Subject: File 7--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995
I am writing to give you my comments on the above article posted in Cu
Digest, #7.68. I have been a software engineer for 10 years, and have
followed with great interest the issues covered in your digest. I am
a past member of CPSR, and now contribute to the EFF. Politically, I
am a libertarian.
Despite my interest in the subject matter of the "Heros and Villains"
article, and the writing about the many events and people therein, I
found the slant, tone and style undigestible. I do not like biased
reporting, whether from the Right, or as in this case, from the Left.
I realise that you are only reposting the press release from the
Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression. I agree with your
editorial decision that the summary of the year's cases and facts was
important - I just wish that it had been more palatable.
Although I don't think this letter has enough news content to be worth
posting, feel free to publish it if you desire.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 14:52:00 EDT
From: WFEN20A@PRODIGY.COM(MR DAVID W BATTERSON)
Subject: File 8--Software Testing Lab's Web site
Software Testing Labs Didn't Test Its Own Web Site
By David Batterson
As a wider spectrum of companies move to the Web, many fail to apply
the same standards they would follow with a print publication. Sure,
the Web is colorful and flashy, but words are still the most important
aspect of any publication.
Software Testing Laboratories (STL) has the slogan: "Software Quality
Assurance for the Real World." Apparently they are too busy testing
other companies' applications to proofread their own Web pages.
"Principles only, please"
In the Jobs page, we see: "STL offers top pay, great benefits, and
the team that specializes in software testing. Principles [sic] only,
please." I wonder if STL knows the difference between principals and
principles. Even Bart Simpson knows that!
The copyright was copyWRONG
In the STL home page, they haven't yet learned that the copyright
symbol is not correctly represented by (c). It should be the HTML tag
&copy; instead. That will display correctly in a Web browser. The
"(c)" is a variant that should not be used in print or in a Web site.
There's a Difference Between "It's" and "Its"
In the introductory page, we read that "STL is committed to turning
it's [sic] experience and expertise into software products for Test
Engineers. STL can extend it's [sic] proven capabilities. . . . STL
uses it's [sic] expertise. . . ." Wow, it's amazing I found so many.
Watch those trademarks and registered trademarks!
On that same page, STL misspells PostScript, spelling it "Postscript"
instead. And Adobe has offices in the same Seattle building as STL.
Here's the worst sentence in the whole Web site. It can be found in
the New page. "Send an [sic] e-mail, and I'll send you a note. . . .
If you include your mailing address, and [sic] I'll send copy of THE
STL REPORT." For STL's sake, I hope the report is more carefully
written than the above.
Appearances are important
Just like in person, the first impression may turn out to be the last
impression you make. People often judge your abilities based on
little things. Having a Web page filled with typos gives the
impression that you may be sloppy in other things too.
Software Testing Laboratories has an excellent reputation, and does
work for heavy hitters in the business, including Microsoft, Delrina,
Adobe, Asymetrix, Attachmate and many more. All the more reason that
a Web site must match the excellence of the work or product the
company brings to the marketplace. STL should learn to despise typos
as much as they hate bugs.
###
STL's Web site is at: http://www.stlabs.com
David Batterson's Web site is at: http://pages.prodigy.com/OR/batman
------------------------------
From: Scott Madigan <smadigan@one.net>
Subject: File 9--Cincinnati Web Pages about Simon Leis and CCCBBS
Date: 11 Aug 1995 06:40:02 GMT
I am reposting the address for my web pages as I looked to reference
the post's title in this group and did not find it.
For anyone interested, I am chronicaling the events of the Bob
Emerson/CCCBBS case in Cincinnati, Ohio (as well as what information I
can gather on the other four confiscations, which are not getting
*any* press coverage).
At this site there can be found the text of both Emerson's lawsuit and
the class action suit filed on behalf of the CCCBBS subscribers, the
two newspaper articles from the Enquirer (can you believe this, only
two articles in our paper, we have 2-1/2 million people in Hamilton
County, you'ld think there would be more for the press to cover), a
horde of links to other first amendment sites (some of which I have
not seen links to on other more popular sites dedicated to free
expression) and soon a complete history of the activities of Simon L.
Leis Jr. (did you know his father was bashing bookstores in Cincinnati
when Sly Si was still an adolescent contemplating masturbation? I
didn't until recently.)
There may also be an upcoming section dedicated to the history of
another prominate face in Cincinnati law enforcement (although from
what I've found so far, relatively new to the censorship game),
retired C.P.D. officer Dale Menkhaus (head of the computer crimes task
force, or whatever they're calling it this week).
Anyone interested can find the site at:
http://w3.one.net/~smadigan/free/free.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Williams <dnw@eskimo.com>
Subject: File 10--Intellectual property
Just a brief note regarding the "intellectual property" discussion you
have been carrying.
No one involved has mentioned what I call the "Mozart problem": one
of the greatest musicians in European, if not world, history, died
penniless. I sympathize with the writer advocating abolition of
intellectual property: the West Publishing case is a good practical
argument in his favor.
But what _would_ he do for poor Wolfgang? The answer, I think, is to
distinguish between _individual_ and _corporate_ intellectual
property. We need a means to reward or creative people; and we need a
means to prevent large organizations (by nature conservative and
anti-creative) from locking up new ideas, and/or using them for
narrow, asocial purposes. Allowing an individual the rights to
his/her own work, while preventing large organizations from exploiting
that work, is at least part of that means.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 11--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
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: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
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/
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://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 #7.69
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink