informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0960.txt

741 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

Computer underground Digest Wed July 30, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 60
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.60 (Wed, July 30, 1997)
File 1--EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community
File 2--SA on filtering software
File 3--Annoy.com Parent Accuses Gov't of Violating 1A (fwd)
File 4--Electronic Frontiers Australia Petition
File 5--Pithy article re IGC attached below
File 6--America Online Backs Off Plan (NYT Excerpt)
File 7--Letter from AOL's Steve Case to Members
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:30:26 -0400
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
Subject: File 1--EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community
To Mr. Barr of CNET.COM and the Internet Community,
On July 21 Christopher Barr, editor in chief of CNET,
endorsed Internet rating schemes in a column
titled "Rating Online Content Can Work".
http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html
In this column, Mr. Barr says
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
support the use of such software on principle, but they
also point out that filtering software can be used to
block any kind of content, not just sexually explicit
material, and so it can end up restricting free speech.
I want to be clear that EPIC, both a plaintiff and counsel in
the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, does not support
the use of blocking software in principle or practice. We do not
support rating systems for the following reasons.
First, we believe that the fundamental purpose of a rating system
-- to allow one person to decide what information another person
may receive -- is contrary to the character of the Internet and
the principles of openness and individuality found in a free society.
Unlike search engines that allow individuals to select information
based on their preferences and desires, rating systems impose one
person's or one organization's viewpoint on another. Such techniques
could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers
against employees as they could by parents against children, as was
made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the
topic.
Second, we have already seen rating systems used to block access to
information that could in no reasonable way be considered indecent.
Rating systems have blocked access to political organizations,
medical information, and unpopular viewpoints. In public libraries
and public schools such techniques violate well established First
Amendment freedoms. Such products should be roundly criticized by
Internet publishers, not endorsed.
Third, we believe that over time rating systes are likely to make it
easier -- not more difficult -- for governments around the world to
enforce content-based controls on Internet content. This process is
already underway in many countries which are now considering
PICS-based schemes to implement national content controls. Further,
our reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno V. ACLU is that
content based controls would be upheld in the US once rating
systems and means for age verification and widely available. It
was the nature of the Internet, and not the availability of rating
systems, that produced the wonderful outcome in that case. But
once voluntary standards are in place, statutory controls will
surely follow.
We recognize that the availability of material that some might consider
offensive poses a difficult problem for on-line information providers.
We further recognize that there is indeed some material on the Internet
that is genuinely abhorrent. But we do not believe you can hide
the world from your children. We should help our children to
understand the world, and then help them make it better. Good
parenting is not something found in a software filter; it takes
time, effort, and interest. And it takes trust in young people to
develop within themselves judgment and reason, and the ability to
tell right from wrong.
We also caution against any efforts to distinguish between bona fide
news organizations and others. The framers of our First Amendment
wisely drew no such distinction, and thus we have avoided the process
of licensing and government approval that othe countries have pursued.
News organizations that today seek to draw such a line may in the
future find themselves placed on the wrong side.
These are difficult issues. It is not easy today to criticize
the ratings proposal which has recently received White House
endorsement. This fact alone should give those who value
free speech and who opposed the Communications Decency Act
reason to think twice. It is also the reason that we applaud the
American Library Association for its principled opposition to
the use of software filters in libraries.
We hope other organizations will join with EPIC, the ACLU, and
the ALA and recognize that we all have a common interest in the
protection of intellectual freedom and the openness of the Internet.
We will continue to offer information about the PICS debate at our
web site -- www.epic.org -- so that individuals and organizations
that provide information online can make fully informed decisions
about the desireability of rating systems.
Finally, we hope CNET.COM will reconsider its position on the
rating issue. In the end, it will be the decisions of individual
Internet news organizations and other online publishers that will
determine the openness and accessibility of the Internet for us all.
We share a common interest in preserving the free flow of information
across the Internet.
Sincerely,
Marc Rotenberg, director
EPIC
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:46:01 GMT
From: Wazoo MixMaster <mix@earth.wazoo.com>
Subject: File 2--SA on filtering software
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
_Scientific American_, August 1997, "Cyber View"
"Parental Discretion Advised," by Paul Wallich
What do _Baywatch_ star Pamela Anderson Lee and dead poet Robert
Frost have in common? Their works both run afoul of would-be
Internet censors. Lee's very name is beyond the pale for
software such as CYBERsitter, designed to keep children and
teenagers away from undesirable stretches of the infobahn.
Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" uses the word
"queer," a word proscribed right along with "fairy," "gay" and
"nigger" as signals of forbidden access.
...............
Although CYBERsitter, SurfWatch, Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, Net
Shepherd and other programs first sprang up in response to fears
about children downloading pornography or being entrapped by
child molesters, the range of topics that can be blocked is much
larger. Depending on the program in question, users can restrict
Web pages that feature drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, extreme bad
taste, radical politics of the left and right, explosives, safe
sex or the existence of homosexuality. Parents (or, in some
jurisdictions, teachers and librarians) can choose which
particular shibboleths they want to defend against. SafeSurf,
for example, has developed a rating system that includes 10
different kinds of dangerous information (and nine levels of
concern within each category). Some programs can be configured
to permit access to only a small list of sites known for safe
content and links.
Even more thorough are those blocking-software packages that vet
Web-page text, e-mail and anything else a computer receives on
the basis of key words and phrases. As America Online found out
last year, blocking access on the basis of keywords -- even with
the best of intentions -- can lead to embarrassment. The on-line
service had to rescind its proscription of breast-cancer support
groups and stop barring mention of medieval liturgies (cum
Spiritu Sancto). Similarly, Solid Oak Software, makers of
CYBERsitter, probably never intended to censor students' reading
of Frost or keep them from finding out about the company DTP
Express, a small Web-site design firm owned by one P.J. Lee. The
same goes for sodom.mt.cs.cmu.edu, home of a thoroughly
unremarkable bilingual Web site by an Italian graduate student at
Carnegie Mellon University.
But when CYBERsitter's president engaged in a public flaming bout
with critics last winter -- using language that cannot be
reproduced here -- the software's criteria became rather more
narrowly encompassing. Try accessing a Web site that
incorporates the phrase "Don't buy CYBERsitter." Better yet, try
"Bennett Haselton." That happens to be the name of a student who
published a list of some of the words and sites the program
blocks. In fact, the company threatened legal action against
anyone who disclosed what sites were blocked -- even though the
program logs such information in a text file for parents to
monitor their children's activity.
Such shenanigans are not necessarily typical of blocking-software
companies, of course. Microsystems Software, makers of Cyber
Patrol, offers a Web page where visitors can search to find out
which URLs are blocked and which ones aren't. The company has
also enlisted the help of both GLAAD (the Gay & Lesbian Alliance
against Defamation) and the National Rifle Association to make
sure that its ratings are as accurate as possible. Several
blocking-software companies tout their commitment to free speech,
and the existence of commercial blocking software was a key point
in legal arguments this past spring against federal regulation of
Internet content.
Nevertheless, given the millions of links that constitute the Web
and the dozens of megabytes of e-mail and Usenet articles that
cross the Internet daily, distinguishing the good from the bad
and the ugly may be an impossible task. Net watchers concerned
with promotion of alcohol have tagged the Dewar's scotch Web
site, for example, but not the one for Absolut vodka. And those
looking out for cigarette promotion have unaccountably missed
www.rjnabisco.com, even though tobacco products appear many times
in its pages. (Observers rating sites for their promotion of
drug use, meanwhile, snagged at least one Web site containing
largely academic studies of drug policy.) Hence, it appears that
blocking software neither allows people using it to reach all the
information they should, given its criteria, nor does it keep
them from all the information they shouldn't see.
Are such shortcomings the price of not watching children's every
keystroke? Some parents (and school administrators) clearly
think so. Other adults may not be so happy with the idea of
introducing the Internet to young people as a universal library
with a police informer behind every bookcase and under every
desk. And for the time being, adults at least are free to make
these decisions for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Don't Look" [from center of page]
SafeSurf's categories of adult themes for restricting access (adapted from
http://www.safesurf.com/ssplan.htm):
1. Profanity
2. Heterosexual themes without illustrations
3. Homosexual themes without illustrations
4. Nudity and consenting sex acts
5. Violent themes -- writing, devices, militia
6. Sexual and violent themes, with profanity
7. Accusations/attacks against racial or religious groups
8. Glorification of illegal drug use
9. Other adult themes
A. Gambling
B to Z. For future expansion of categories
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:42:10 -0800
From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com>
Subject: File 3--Annoy.com Parent Accuses Gov't of Violating 1A (fwd)
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
<snip>
From--clinton@xq.com (Clinton Fein)
Date--Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:26:37 -0700
Clinton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Clinton D. Fein
President, ApolloMedia Corporation
Telephone: 415/552-7655
clinton@annoy.com
Michael Traynor
Cooley Godward LLP
Telephone: 415/693-2000
traynormt@cooley.com
William Bennett Turner
Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn
Telephone: 415/956-2828
wturner@rjoq.com
July 23, 1997, San Francisco -- Clinton D. Fein, president of the San
Francisco based multimedia firm ApolloMedia Corporation, today accused the
government of failing to comprehend and abide by the Supreme Court's ruling
in the recently decided ACLU vs. Reno, which struck down key provisions of
the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and in which the company filed an
amicus curiae brief in February. The company, responding to a set of
interrogatories presented to them by the government in June, also filed a
supplemental brief regarding ACLU vs. Reno, as the hearing on the company's
federal lawsuit approaches.
Filed in January, ApolloMedia's lawsuit challenges the provision that makes
it a felony to communicate anything "indecent" online "with intent to
annoy" another person. ApolloMedia's "annoy.com" web site makes it
possible for visitors to annoy President Clinton, Senator Jesse Helms and
other public figures by sending them email and blunt electronic "postcards"
on a variety of controversial subjects. ApolloMedia's suit was held by a
special three-judge court pending the outcome of the CDA case in the
Supreme Court. The government will now have to respond to ApolloMedia's
First Amendment contentions.
The Supreme Court in the ACLU case declared the CDA's prohibition of
"indecent" speech on the Internet unconstitutional. The Court found that
the interest in shielding children from sexual speech and images did not
justify an across-the-board criminal prohibition that would tml)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:04:56 +0800 (WST)
From: Kimberley Heitman <kheitman@it.net.au>
Subject: File 4--Electronic Frontiers Australia Petition
EFA has developed an online petition to oppose the government's content
regulation proposals. The petition is intended to be presented to the
Senate and is supported by a number of online organisations.
The attached media release announces the petition and further information is
available on the Campaign page at:
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/contreg.html
The actual petition is at:
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/petition.html
Please SIGN NOW to show your opposition to Net Censorship in Australia.
Circulate this message as widely as possible.
Greg Taylor
EFA Board member
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc.
Media Release July 26th 1997
PETITION AGAINST CENSORSHIP OF AUSTRALIAN INTERNET
Electronic Frontiers Australia today launched an online petition
against unnecessary censorship of the Internet. In a first for
participatory democracy, users will sign electronically using a new
signature verification procedure which should set a standard for future
online petitions. The petition will be presented to the Senate in the
next Parliamentary session.
The full text of the petition follows. Details of how to sign and
more information about the EFA campaign against Internet censorship are
available at:
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/petition.html
The petition has already been endorsed by ISOC-AU (the Australian
chapter of the Internet Society), the West Australian Internet
Association, and the South Australian Internet Association.
Internationally, the EFA campaign is supported by members of the Global
Internet Liberty Campaign, including the American Civil Liberties Union
and French, Spanish, and British user groups.
---
Petition
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament
assembled:
The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the Senate recognises:
* That, for many Australians, the Internet plays a vital role as
a means of communication, a vehicle for the expression of ideas and
opinions, and a source of information.
* That the Internet is a complex, global environment where traditional
concepts of regulation are not easily applied or enforced.
* That there is a need to make a clear distinction between the
responsibility of those who produce and publish content and that of
intermediaries such as carriers and Internet Service Providers.
* That the full potential for development of the Internet in Australia
will depend on governments recognising rights to freedom of speech
taken for granted by other societies.
* That the emerging information industries should not be burdened
with unnecessary and poorly conceived regulation.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to reject any attempt by
the Government to impose additional censorship on the Internet.
ENDS
---------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc -- http://www.efa.org.au/
representing Internet users concerned with on-line freedoms
-------------------------------------------------------
Media Contacts
Kimberley Heitman
Phone: +61 8 9458 2790
Email: kheitman@it.com.au
Danny Yee
Phone (home): +61 2 9955 9898
Phone (work): +61 2 9351 5159
Email: danny.yee@efa.org.au
--------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
The EFA campaign
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/contreg.html
ISOC-AU
http://www.isoc-au.org.au/
West Australian Internet Association (WAIA)
http://www.waia.asn.au/
South Australian Internet Association (SAIA)
http://www.saia.asn.au/
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
http://www.gilc.org/
Democrats Press Release on Senate allowing electronic petitions
http://www.democrats.org.au/democrats/media/1997/04/227nsd.html
-------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley James Heitman
http://www.multiline.com.au/~kheit/
Internet kheitman@it.com.au Fidonet 3:690/254.14
Telephone +618 9458 2790 Facsimile +618 9356 1247
----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:00:32 -0400
From: Paul Kneisel <tallpaul@nyct.net>
Subject: File 5--Pithy article re IGC attached below
NEVER PAY PROTECT MONEY:
STRATEGIC THOUGHTS ON THE IGC WEB SITE CONTROVERSY
by tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)
"Mailbomb, sir! Mailbomb and be damned!"
-- Duke of Wellington
(loosely translated)
IGC, the largest Internet Service Provider providing hosting
services to political leftists on the net, pays "protection
money" to extortionists.[1]
This occurred when IGC canceled[2] the web pages of the Euskal
Herria Journal after being subjected to a particularly virulent
denial of service attack by formally-unknown political forces
opposing the Journal's support for Basque independence
organizations.
The attack threatened to overwhelm IGC's server and temporarily
end services to other subscribers not involved in the
controversy.
Protection rackets are inconvenient for the victims. They are
always meant to be. A racket without inconvenience is not a
racket; it is a bad felonious joke.
The question remains, however, of what future damage to clients
will result from IGC's decision.
For IGC announced to the world that it pays protection money.
Dissatisfied with the pro-abortion clients of IGC? Mailbomb!
Dislike labor unions who use IGC? Mailbomb! Do black nationalists
or Irish Republicans make your gorge buoyant? Mailbomb!
No matter how disastrous the past mailbombing was to IGC there is
something even more disastrous.
That is a lifetime of future mailbombings all produced when IGC
informed the criminals that it will respond favorably to those
attacks.
[FOOTNOTES]
[1] People often confuse "blackmail" and "extortion." The former
implies wrong doing by the victim; the latter does not. "Do what
I want," says the blackmailer, "or I publish the Polaroids of you
and the baby elephant having a good time together." "Do what I
want," says the extortionist, "or I throw a brick through your
window."
[2] IGC writes that it "suspended" service. Whether service was
permanently or temporarily canceled is a matter determined only
by future data. But today's datum is that the Journal's web page
is no longer at IGC.
-- tallpaul@nyct.net (Paul Kneisel)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:30:02 -0500
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 6--America Online Backs Off Plan (NYT Excerpt)
America Online Backs Off Plan to Give Out Phone Numbers<
By SETH SCHIESEL
Responding Thursday to consumer outrage and mounting concerns
about privacy in cyberspace, America Online, the largest online
service provider, abandoned its plans to begin providing lists
of its customers' telephone numbers to telemarketers and other
direct-sales peddlers.
The reversal came less than 24 hours after the plans became
widely known through news accounts and online postings. America
Online drew immediate fire from politicians and privacy-rights
groups for the telemarketing venture, in part because the
company for years had assured subscribers that it would not
release their phone numbers and other personal information to
outside parties.
Because America Online's 8 million subscribers are already
besieged by "junk" electronic mail, customers bemoaned the
prospect of some of those same advertisers, or different ones,
ringing the phone at home.
<snip>
Like magazines and other businesses with valuable subscription
lists, America Online has already been selling lists of its
subscribers' names and addresses. But those lists do not
include the corresponding e-mail addresses or customer phone
numbers. A few weeks ago, however, America Online quietly
proposed changing its longstanding policy to begin selling its
telephone lists.
Privacy advocates said that adding phone numbers to the mix
would allow marketers to cross-tabulate with additional sorts of
information that people might not be aware they were exposing by
simply signing up to an online service.
<snip>
America Online would not reveal how many of its members called,
faxed or sent electronic mail to the company to vent their
displeasure. America Online executives insisted that they did
not intend to "rent" the phone numbers. Instead, they said,
American Online would provide the numbers to companies only as
one part of an overall marketing deal.
"The only calls we intended for you to receive would have been
from AOL and a limited number of quality-controlled AOL
partners," said Stephen Case, the company's chief executive, in
a letter to subscribers Thursday.
Those partners would have included Tel-Save Inc., a discount
long-distance telephone company that reached a $100 million
marketing pact with America Online in February, and CUC
International Inc., a telemarketing giant that made a $50
million deal with America Online last month.
<snip>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:29:57 -0500
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 7--Letter from AOL's Steve Case to Members
July 24, 1997
Dear Members,
You may have heard that AOL is now selling lists of member phone
numbers and e-mail addresses. This is not true. We'd like to
explain what we're doing and why we're doing it.
As we've said in the past, we want to make AOL membership as
valuable to you as possible. One of the ways we can do that is
by utlilizing the size of the AOL membership to attract special
member discounts on popular products and services, and to create
customized products and services just for AOL members.
We recently decided to offer discount long distance telephone
service to AOL members that will provide high quality service at
rates that are below those you can get from other providers. We
also recently decided to make discount buying clubs for popular
products like cars, and services like travel, available to you,
and they will incorporate special AOL-only member benefits.
These new features will begin to become available to you starting
this Fall. We will start notifying you about availability, and
giving you an opportunity to try them, at that time. Although we
haven't finalized the marketing plans, in general we'll use the
AOL service itself to notify you. But we do plan to try
telemarketing as well.
In advance of these Fall launches, on July 1 we had posted
anticipated changes to our "Terms of Service" to indicate that
we might from time to time make the telephone numbers of AOL
members available to AOL partners for telemarketing. This has
generated all the attention, as some feel it is a mistake to
permit telemarketing at all, and others think it was a mistake
not to notify members more proactively about our plans. We
should have been clearer about the fact that we changed the
Terms of Service, and about the rationale for the change.
Obviously, by not being more proactive, we've generated a lot of
confusion and concern.
To be clear, we never intended to make our members' telephone
numbers available for rental to telemarketers. The only calls we
intended for you to receive would have been from AOL and a
limited number of quality-controlled AOL partners. However, upon
further reflection, today we decided to change our plans. We
will not provide lists of our members' telephone numbers, even
to our partners whose products we still plan to offer you. The
only calls you might receive will be from us.
We realize that privacy is important to you, and you don't want
to be inundated with marketing pitches. So let's quickly review
the AOL policies in this regard.
DIRECT MAIL -- As is standard industry practice, we rent
addresses of members, to preselected companies. To be clear, we
rent only "aggregate" lists of "AOL members" and closely monitor
their use. We will, on request, specify which of our members use
Windows or Macintosh computers. But we do not rent lists based
on what AOL services are used, so you can be assured that your
privacy is being protected. If you would like to have your name
removed from the rental lists, all you have to do is go to
Keyword: MARKETING PREFS.
E-MAIL -- We do not rent e-mail addresses of members. There are
companies that compile such lists and make them available for
sale but we have no part in that, and are doing everything we
can to stop it, including filing lawsuits against those
companies. We realize that "junk e-mail" (also known as
"spamming") is a significant inconvenience these days, and we
are working hard to stop it.
TELEMARKETING -- We do not rent lists of telephone numbers. As
we described above, the only calls you get will be from AOL
offering products or services that we genuinely believe will be
of interest to you. We'll post details in the Fall about how
these programs work. However, if you wish to remove your name
from the list today or at any other time so you won't receive
these calls, go to Keyword MARKETING PREFS.
For more than a decade, we've built AOL by earning your trust.
We will continue to listen to you and do everything we can to
serve your needs now and in the years ahead.
We hope this has helped to clarify what we're doing, and why
we're doing it.
Sincerely,
Steve Case
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.60
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink