informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0986.txt

835 lines
32 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 23, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 86
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, #9.86 (Sun, Nov 23, 1997)
File 1--New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark USSC Ruling
File 2--S 1482 - Ammendment to Communications Act of 1934
File 3--CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor
File 4--ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY:
File 5--Fwd: (Fwd) Common Control DLL and MSIE4.0 distribution
File 6--Mitnick Legal Defense Fund
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:33:08 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-cyber-liberties@aclu.org
Subject: File 1--New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark USSC Ruling
Source - CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE NOVEMBER 18, 1997
New Internet Censorship Bill Ignores Landmark Supreme Court Ruling
New legislation aimed at banning online material deemed "harmful to
minors" would run roughshod over the landmark Supreme Court decision
affirming free speech on the Internet, ACLU staff members announced
Thursday.
The ACLU, which led the successful battle to defeat the unconstitutional
Communications Decency Act (CDA), said S. 1482, like the CDA, would
restrict adults from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The
bill was introduced last week by Sen. Dan Coats, R-IN, an original
sponsor of the ill-fated CDA.
Under the bill, commercial online distributors of material deemed
"harmful to minors" could be punished with up to six months in jail and
a $50,000 fine. The definition of "distributor" could include the
virtual bookstore amazon.com or a promotional site for a Hollywood
movie, as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft
and America Online, the ACLU said. And unlike the CDA, the statute
applies only to web sites, not to chat rooms, e-mail or news groups.
"By claiming that the bill addresses only web sites involved in
commercial distribution, Senator Coats says he is 'hunting with a
rifle' but in fact, he has lobbed another virtual grenade into the
heart of the Internet" said Ann Beeson, an ACLU National Staff Attorney
and member of the legal team that defeated the CDA.
Any business merely displaying material without first requiring a credit
card or other proof of age could be found liable under the statute,
which criminalizes commercial distribution of words or images that could
be deemed "harmful to minors," even if no actual sale is involved,
Beeson said.
"This is the equivalent of having to pay a fee every time you want to
browse in the bookstore or watch a trailer for an R-rated movie," Beeson
said. "As the Supreme Court noted in its landmark decision, requiring a
credit card or other age verification would impose a severe financial
and
logistical burden, even on commercial websites."
The ACLU said there were serious constitutional problems as well with
the bill's definition of "harmful to minors." In addition to using a
vague definition of what constitutes "harmful material," the bill does
not make any distinction between material that may be harmful to a
six-year-old but valuable for a 16-year-old, such as safer-sex
information, said Chris Hansen, an ACLU Senior Staff Attorney and member
of the Reno v. ACLU legal team.
Further, Hansen pointed out, unlike other "harmful to minors" statutes
that have been upheld in the courts, the bill does not define whose
community standard will be used to determine what material is harmful.
"Invariably, those who decide what is harmful to a minor are going to be
the least tolerant members of a given community -- such as the group in
Oklahoma who sought to remove the award-winning film The Tin Drum from
local libraries and video stores," Hansen said.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the CDA was issued
on June 26 of this year, 16 months after the law was enacted and the
ACLU filed its challenge.
In a ringing affirmation of online free speech, the Court said that 'the
interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.'
"While we rejoiced in the Supreme Court's decision last June, we knew
that the battle was not yet over," said Solange Bitol, legislative
counsel on
First Amendment issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office.
"When Congress returns to session in the New Year, we will be ready for
Round Two in the battle to protect our free speech rights."
================
About Cyber-Liberties Update:
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
A. Cassidy Sehgal (csehgal@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union
National Office 125 Broad Street,
New York, New York 10004
The Update is a bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and
controversies at the state and federal level. Questions or comments
about the Update should be sent to Cassidy Sehgal at csehgal@aclu.org.
Past issues are archived at
<http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html>
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your
message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body.
Protect your civil liberties. Become a card carrying member of the
American Civil Liberties Union, visit the ACLU web site
<http://www.newmedium.com/aclu/join.html>
Take the First Amendment Pledge: <http://www.firstamendment.org>
For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:43 CST
From: Cu Digest <TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 2--S 1482 - Ammendment to Communications Act of 1934
To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to
establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the
World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, and for
other... (Introduced in the Senate)
S 1482 IS
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1482
To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a
prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of
material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 8, 1997
Mr. COATS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
_________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a
prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of
material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB OF
MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS.
(a) PROHIBITION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 223) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as
subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection (e):
`(e)(1) Whoever in interstate or foreign commerce in or through the
World Wide Web is engaged in the business of the commercial
distribution of material that is harmful to minors shall restrict
access to such material by persons under 17 years of age.
`(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more
than $50,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
`(3) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (2), whoever
intentionally violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a fine of
not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this
paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate
violation.
`(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (2) and (3),
whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil fine of
not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this
paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate
violation.
`(5) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subsection
that the defendant restricted access to material that is harmful
to minors by persons under 17 years of age by requiring use of a
verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult
personal identification number or in accordance with such other
procedures as the Commission may prescribe.
`(6) This subsection may not be construed to authorize the Commission
to regulate in any manner the content of any information provided
on the World Wide Web.
`(7) For purposes of this subsection:
`(A) The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any
communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article,
recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that--
`(i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to
a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
`(ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently
offensive way with respect to what is suitable for
minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual
contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual
acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
`(iii) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
`(B) The terms `sexual act' and `sexual contact' have the
meanings assigned such terms in section 2246 of title 18,
United States Code.'.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Subsection (g) of such section, as so
redesignated, is amended by striking `(e), or (f)' and
inserting `(f), or (g)'.
(b) AVAILABILITY ON INTERNET OF DEFINITION OF MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL
TO MINORS- The Attorney General, in the case of the Internet web
site of the Department of Justice, and the Federal Communications
Commission, in the case of the Internet web site of the
Commission, shall each post or otherwise make available on such
web site such information as is necessary to inform the public of
the meaning of the term `material that is harmful to minors' under
section 223(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by
subsection (a) of this section.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:52:20 -0600
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 3--CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor
CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor
By Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
This is the second in a series of articles about
censorware products. The first, The X-Stop Files,
can be found at http://www.spectacle.org/cs/xstop.html.
The Censorware Page, http://www.spectacle.org/cs/,
contains continuing coverage of these issues and links to
other sites.
-------------------------------------------
"We didn't create our product for libraries," admits
Susan Getgood, director of marketing for Microsystems
Inc., distributors of CyberPatrol blocking software.
But Microsystems is in business to make a profit, and when
libraries come knocking on the door asking to buy
the product, the company will sell it to them.
Today, CyberPatrol is installed in at least
two major public library
systems, in Boston, Ma. and Austin, Tx. In the
former, after a bitter debate, it was installed on
terminals for use by people under 18 only.
In the latter, it was installed
on all terminals; the library is now, after
many months, considering a pilot program to offer uncensored
Internet access to adults, on one out of fifty terminals.
News coverage of the blocking software industry has been
dominated by the antics of Brian Milburn, president
of rival Solid Oak Software, distributors of Cybersitter,
the product which, in pursuit of a
fundamentalist agenda, blocked the National Organization for
Women among numerous other sites. By contrast, Microsystems
has appeared to be the most reasonable and flexible of
blocking software providers. It maintains a review board
which meets every two months to review its blocking policies
and which includes members of the gay community. When authors
of web pages have complained to Microsystems that their sites
were blocked, Microsystems has frequently apologized for the
error and unblocked the sites in the product's next update.
I was one of those authors. In February of this year, I was
informed that CyberPatrol blocked the pages pertaining to
my book, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996),
http://www.spectacle.org/freespch.
I wrote an angry letter to Microsystems and received the
following reply:
"Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
This site was blocked in error.
I have removed this site from the CyberNOT list.
This change will take effect
with the next build of the CyberNOT list, by next Tuesday.
Please accept my
apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.
Debra Greaves
Internet Research Supervisor"
At the time, the Boston Public Library had just installed
CyberPatrol. Ironically,
six branches of the Boston library had my
book on the shelves but you couldn't get to
the Web page from a terminal with CyberPatrol installed.
With a new wave of libraries considering the purchase of
blocking software, I decided to go back and take another look
at CyberPatrol. The informal methodology I used was to check
my collection of ethical, political and legal Web sites
(http://www.spectacle.org/links.html)
against the Cybernot search engine that Microsystems
maintains on its Web page (http://www.microsys.com).
A Cybernot search
will tell you whether or not the product blocks a particular
site, but will not reveal in which category it
is blocked. My goal was to determine which of these
sites, containing controversial speech but no obscenity or
illegal material whatever, were blocked by CyberPatrol.
Cybernot reported that CyberPatrol blocked twelve of my
bookmarked sites, out of a total of about 270. These included:
The Flag Burning Page, http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag.html.
This site, which I regard as one of the most intelligent and
funny resources on the Web, examines the unconstitutionality
under the First Amendment of laws against burning the flag.
The Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org. This
is a large collection of resources on Second Amendment
right-to-bear-arms issues. While the blocking of this
site is questionable under any theory, it is also a nice
illustration of the inconsistency of CyberPatrol and of all
blocking software. The product does not block the
National Rifle Association, http://www.nra.org, or
numerous other sites on both sides of
the gun control issue.
The Newtwatch page, http://www.cais.com/newtwatch/, is
regrettably no longer on the Web, but CyberPatrol blocks it
at its former URL. Funded by the Democratic party,
Newtwatch was a combination of devastating political
reportage and satire aimed at Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich. It contained nothing that was offensive
to children by any stretch of the imagination--
unless they were Republican children with no sense
of humor.
Another vanished Web page that is still blocked is
the Dr. Bonzo web page, http://www.iglou.com/drbonzo/anathema.htm,
a series of satirical essays on religious matters. The blocking
of these two pages, long removed from the Web, raises
questions about the frequency with which the CyberPatrol
database is updated. A third blocked page which is no
longer on the Web contained nothing but a copy of
the U.S. Constitution.
Other sites contained some explicit text but did so in
the pursuit of a socially significant goal. For example,
the Jake Baker page,
http://krusty.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html,
contains news reports and analysis of the case of the
University of Michigan student who was arrested for
distributing a rape and torture fantasy about a classmate
on Usenet. Baker's stories, which led to his arrest,
are also linked from this page.
The case broke some new legal ground, and Mark Mangan
and I used this site as a research resource in writing
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. It is hard to imagine how we
could have written about the case without reading
Baker's horrifying stories, which are presumably
the reason why CyberPatrol blocks the entire site.
CyberPatrol also blocks a Usenet search engine,
www.dejanews.com. Dejanews, of course, is a
major resource for anyone searching for Usenet discussion on
any topic, and we also relied heavily on it in writing
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. One startled user of the Austin
Public Library posted to Usenet a
few weeks ago: "As DejaNews is one of the top Internet
research tools, [this] decision transcends comprehension."
Dejanews does not relay any graphics posted to Usenet;
Microsystems apparently fears users will find explicit
text.
CyberPatrol blocked some of the bookmarked sites for
no imaginable reason. The company has admitted
to a number of errors in the past, in addition
to the blocking of the Sex, Laws and Cyberspace
page. Like other blocking software companies,
Microsystems has employees surfing the
Web, looking for sites to add to the Cybernot list--
and frequently they are not very careful. For
example, Cybernot reports that the Society
for the Promotion of Unconditional Relationships (SPUR)
( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/xgv92/spur2.htm)
is blocked. The group describes its mission
thus: "to increase
public understanding and awareness of the nature and
benefits of Unconditional Commitment in
Relationships." The SPUR page contains articles
with names like "The Role of Faith in Relationships."
It was also hard to understand why CyberPatrol blocks the
Interactivism page (www.interactivism.com). This site specializes
in virtual activism; its top page, as I write these words,
invites you to send faxes to politicians on issues including
handgun control, freedom for Tibet, and campaign
finance reform.
Adults researching a variety of topics, notably
freedom of speech-related issues, in the Austin public
library are going to run into some significant roadblocks.
The Austin library blocks four categories, three of them
sex-related (including the categories under which
Dejanews and the Jake Baker page are blocked) and
the fourth entitled "gross depictions". Jon Lebkowsky,
an Austin-based author and activist, was involved in discussions
with library officials about their installation
of CyberPatrol. He commented: "The Austin Public
Library promised that filters would be an 'interim
measure,' but backed off from that promise,
thinking that their scaled-down
filtering was gaining acceptance....
The APL should have honored the American Library
Association's position on filters and removed the
software after the Supreme Court's CDA decision."
Microsystems acknowledges that
CyberPatrol was never meant to be used to determine what
adults can see. In March 1997, Susan Getgood
wrote in a message posted to the Fight-Censorship
list:
"The CyberNOT list was designed to be used by adults
to manage children's access to the Internet.
It is not a filter meant for adults."
A few weeks ago, at the annual New York Library
Association meeting in Syracuse, Susan Getgood
conducted a panel on blocking software. During the
Q&A afterwards, I asked her:
"Isn't it true that CyberPatrol blocks First Amendment
protected, socially valuable material?"
Susan thought for an extraordinarily long time before
answering the question. Finally, she said very carefully,
that in creating the Cybernot list, Microsystems didn't
think about whether blocked pages are constitutionally
protected or socially valuable. The company only thought
about whether the material is (by its own standards)
"inappropriate for children."
Microsystems standards for determining appropriateness
were not written by a librarian, nor meant for use in libraries.
They weren't meant to keep speech from adult eyes.
Applied to children, they draw no distinction between
eight year olds and eighteen year olds.
The latter conceivably might have a research assignment
which involves looking at the Flag Burning page, the
Jake Baker page or the Second Amendment Foundation.
"Just as the CDA tried to reduce the entire net to
something appropriate for 12-year-olds,
so CyberPatrol is trying to expand the
children's section to fill the entire library", said
Jamie McCarthy, an Internet activist and software
developer based in Michigan.
In the Boston Public Library, CyberPatrol is installed
on terminals used by people under 18, unless there is
a parental permission slip on file allowing use of an
uncensored computer. The three sex-related categories
aree blocked; one of these, SexActs, is used to block
text-only sites and is one of the categories assigned
to Dejanews and the Jake Baker page. This category
has also been used to block feminist discussion groups.
The company's willingness to unblock sites is meaningless.
The Internet is growing by leaps and bounds every week,
and even as the company deletes sites like mine from the Cybernot
database, Microsystems' harried surfers will be making
fresh mistakes. Seth Finkelstein,
a Boston-based software developer who follows censorware
issues closely, commented: "No small group of
people can hope to keep up with all the
changes on the Web. Offering to correct 'mistakes',
while good from a marketing standpoint, simply
does not make up for the impossible
nature of the task. We only see the problems
which have been exposed so far; what else is lurking,
not yet uncovered in their blacklist?"
Putting a barrier between users and research sources
is not what libraries do. Mark Mangan and
I could not have written Sex, Laws and Cyberspace in
the Austin library; too many of our sources are blocked.
(Cyberpatrol also previously blocked The Electronic
Frontier Foundation archives, www.eff.org, and the MIT Student
Association for Free Expression, www.mit.edu/activities/safe/,
two other sources we consulted in writing our book.)
I hope that there are at least some librarians in Austin
who feel ashamed that their library could not be used as
a research source for a book on freedom of speech.
CyberPatrol doesn't belong in public libraries. The company,
by its own statements, has all but admitted this. The library
which buys CyberPatrol has only itself to blame for its dereliction
of responsibility towards its users.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:23:38 -0500
From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <70743.1711@compuserve.com>
Subject: File 4--ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY:
Source - CRYPT NEWSLETTER 45 November -- December 1997
ADDITIONS TO THE JOSEPH K GUIDE TO TECH TERMINOLOGY: Another
brief in a very popular Crypt Newsletter continuing feature.
commerce: something indeterminate that's always booming on the
Internet, although no one you know has ever seen or benefited from it.
Usage: Representatives of a grotesquely hyped Internet start-up asserted
that its commerce was tripling monthly in cyberspace even as
the firm surreptitiously filed for protection from creditors under
Chapter 11.
expert: instrument of journalists deployed to burnish
whatever received wisdom is being passed on as news; or, instrument
of journalists used to furnish stock criticisms for
heretical or unpopular findings; or, someone frequently counted on by
hack journalists to provide Delphic wisdom on a subject or subjects
the expert knows little about.
Usage: The think tank expert was often asked for
her comments on computer viruses and information warfare even though it
had been shown she was computer illiterate.
hardware glitch: The cause of all human errors and oversights
leading to down time and lost e-mail at national Internet Service
Providers or Online Services.
Usage: America On-Line mouthpiece Tatiana Gau
insisted a hardware glitch was responsible for the system-wide
failure.
Road Ahead, The: a book for those who despise books,
credited to a man who also despises books.
Usage: Unable to unload the excessive printing of
"The Road Ahead" in the continental United States, Bill Gates
came up with the novel idea of arm-twisting Russian paupers wishful
for his beneficence into purchasing copies for about 9 dollars,
cash U.S.
Yes, you can -- like others who wish not to be named -- contribute
to the Joseph K Guide without fear of professional retribution or
stain upon your reputation. Send your suggestions, definitions or
usages to Crypt Newsletter!
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Smith, Ph.D., edits the Crypt Newsletter from Pasadena,
CA.
copyright 1997 Crypt Newsletter. All rights reserved.
INTERNET: 70743.1711@compuserve.com
crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt
Mail to:
Crypt Newsletter
1635 Wagner St.
Pasadena, CA 91106
ph: 818-568-1748
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 08:15:26 -0800
From: "Gordon R. Meyer" <grmeyer@ricochet.net>
Subject: File 5--Fwd: (Fwd) Common Control DLL and MSIE4.0 distribution
<forward paths snipped>
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date-- Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:24:07 -0500
From-- James Love <love@cptech.org>
The following is a letter by Brian Glaeske, a software developer, to
the US DOJ, regarding the Common Control DLL. Microsoft's licensing
requires developers who want to distribute this DLL to also distribute
MSIE4.0
The URL for the license is:
http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/IEProg/Licensing.htm#ch_
MSHTML_licensing
The letter follows:
Forwarded by James Love <love@cptech.org>
-----------------------------
Subject--Microsoft Antitrust
Date--Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:51:37 -0600
From--Brian Glaeske <bglaeske@cogs.gps.com>
Organization--Great Plains Software
To--"'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>
Joel I. Klein
Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
antitrust@usdoj.gov
Dear Mr. Klein:
I am writing to ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect consumers
by taking action to prevent Microsoft from using anticompetitive
practices to monopolize the market for Internet browsers. Specifically,
Microsoft should not be permitted to force third party developers to
redistribute Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to use features found
in a programming API (Application Program Interface).
A specific API shipped originally with the Microsoft Windows 95 OS
(Operating System) and was just recently enhanced with new features that
make it attractive for third party developers to use. This API is known
to developers as the Common Control DLL. Because this is an enhancement
to the OS that came after the initial release of Microsoft Windows 95,
it is necessary for third party developers to distribute the updated OS
components with their software in order to ensure that their software
works properly. However, Microsoft is not allowing developers to
redistribute only the components that they need, instead Microsoft is
demanding that Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 is distributed with the
third party software
It is the responsibility of DOJ to ensure that Microsoft does not use
its OS monopoly to monopolize the market for applications. I believe
that forcing third party developers to distribute Microsoft Internet
Explorer is a blatant anti-competitive act.
Sincerely,
Brian Glaeske
1539 14th St. S.
Fargo, ND 58103-4001
bglaeske@cogs.gps.com
---------------------------------------
Charles C. Mann
T: 413.256.3504
F: 413.256.6619
E: ccm@crocker.com
S: PO Box 66 Amherst MA 01004-0066
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:05:10 -0500
From: "Evian S. Sim" <evian@escape.com>
Subject: File 6--Mitnick Legal Defense Fund
A legal defense fund has recently been created for accused hacker
Kevin Mitnick who has been in custody for almost 3 years without
bail and is still awaiting trial. His next court appearance for
1995 charges is scheduled for April 14, 1998.
Even though the trial has not yet started, Kevin has exhausted his
funds for legal representation. His court appointed attorney had
been denied payment for 4 months by Judge Mariana Pfaelzer for
what she considers exessive bills for computer experts. "I've
rarely ever seen bills that high. I'm absolutely stunned at what
those bills look like," she said. "If you think you're going to
have an unlimited budget, you're wrong."
Anyone wishing to donate to Kevin's legal defense fund is asked to
send a check or money order to the following address (please do
not make the check out to Kevin Mitnick):
Payable to:
Reba Vartanian
Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Mitnick
c/o Norwest Bank Nevada, N.A.
Rainbow Ridge Office 672
3104 North Rainbow Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89108
A/C #: 672-190-1177
For more information on Kevin Mitnick, please visit the Official Kevin
Mitnick Web Site at http://www.kevinmitnick.com .
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.86
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink