634 lines
29 KiB
Plaintext
634 lines
29 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
Computer underground Digest Tue, Dec 17, 1991 Volume 3 : Issue 44
|
||
|
||
Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
||
|
||
CONTENTS, #3.44 ( Dec 17, 1991)
|
||
File 1: Jyrkis Posting
|
||
File 2: Re: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected
|
||
File 3: FBI vs Kiddie Porn
|
||
File 4: "Getting what he Deserved?" (Reprint from Effector 2.02)
|
||
File 5: E-mail privacy bibliography
|
||
File 6: Second CFP Conference
|
||
|
||
Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news
|
||
group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG,
|
||
and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414)
|
||
789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.132),
|
||
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au. To use the U. of
|
||
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
|
||
quotes) to archive-server@chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu.
|
||
|
||
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 as long as the source
|
||
is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, 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 the
|
||
Computer Underground. 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.
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 23:35:27 EST
|
||
From: Pat <prb@ACCESS.DIGEX.COM>
|
||
Subject: File 1--Jyrkis Posting
|
||
|
||
In Cud 3.43, Jyrki Kuoppala writes:
|
||
|
||
> Also, the description of the E911 system shows that 1984 is here. Very
|
||
> scary stuff. In Finland I heard that they use caller id at hospitals
|
||
> and the police uses it - someone said that all telephone exchanges
|
||
> have good hooks for telephone surveillance and detailed recording of
|
||
> all calls going thru the exchanges. It's easy to imagine what can be
|
||
> done with the information when combined with all the various of other
|
||
> source governments have. The Helsinki area has a high-tech radio cab
|
||
> system - and it keeps detailed logs of where cabs were called, at what
|
||
> time, where people travelled etc. and I hear they are checked by the
|
||
> police.
|
||
|
||
While it is true, new digital technology makes invasion of privacy
|
||
possible on new scales, one should remember that much of this was
|
||
available to government, merely without the finesse. THe First
|
||
wiretapping case in this country was argued in 1924. Police have
|
||
often used the written logs of taxi companies to track suspects. The
|
||
KGB and communist security maintained a massive police state using
|
||
simple informers.
|
||
|
||
One should not get upset, that the police have a new toy and method of
|
||
surveillance, one should be upset that it is being used in invasive
|
||
non-constitutional ways. We should work to have privacy statutes
|
||
enforced where in order to get data, the police must have a warrant,
|
||
and also statutes to destroy irrelevant data within short time
|
||
periods. I.E. Visa should not keep my charge records more then 18
|
||
months, libraries should not keep track of checkouts after the
|
||
return.
|
||
|
||
The police will always have their methods, we should as a society
|
||
determine what the limits are.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:36:05 -0500
|
||
From: elauren@HUBCAP.CLEMSON.EDU(Addison Laurent)
|
||
Subject: File 2--Re: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected
|
||
|
||
<In CuD 3.43, a poster wrote:>
|
||
|
||
>My question/comment about this concerns the legality of confiscating
|
||
>the computer along with the software.
|
||
|
||
Why? If you commit a bank robbery, For instance, they confiscate your
|
||
getaway car....
|
||
|
||
>Namely, if the charge is distributing copyrighted materials, then why
|
||
>was the entire system taken? The computer itself, once unplugged, is
|
||
>not terribly capable of providing evidence.
|
||
|
||
But it was an object USED in a crime... Just like a car, gun, etc.
|
||
Take my previous example. You rob a bank. Drive away in the car.
|
||
(assume no one saw the car) - what evidence is that? But if the police
|
||
catch you (you were going 100 in a 20 mph zone, recognize you, and
|
||
arrest you, they can impound the car - even though it has no evidence
|
||
value.
|
||
|
||
What I'm not sure of the legality of (and the courts don't always stop
|
||
illegal stuff) - is the confiscatin of UNRELATED computer equipment.
|
||
|
||
This is, in large part, due to police ignorance of the subject.
|
||
|
||
If they come arrest me, confiscate my computer, likey they will
|
||
confiscate my sister's too (even though they are different types)
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: 09 Dec 91 19:37:26 EST
|
||
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
|
||
Subject: File 3--FBI vs Kiddie Porn
|
||
|
||
"FBI Investigates Computerized Child Pornography"
|
||
|
||
The FBI is investigating a complaint by an America On-Line user who
|
||
says he was able to get several versions of child pornographic
|
||
pictures sent to his private electronic mailbox after he subscribed to
|
||
America On-Line computer service. Roger Dietz of Fremont, California,
|
||
claims he subscribed to the America On-Line computer service to
|
||
investigate a tip given him by a friend in Nevada that subscribers
|
||
could engage in sexual conversations with teenage users. He said he
|
||
received the computerized photographs after engaging in electronic
|
||
exchanges with other subscribers. According to a spokesperson,
|
||
America On-Line, which has 150,000 subscribers and is based in Vienna,
|
||
Virgina, is prevented by federal privacy laws from monitoring
|
||
communications on the system, so it was unaware of the illegal traffic
|
||
but is cooperating fully with the authorities. America On-Line's
|
||
spokesperson said, "Clearly, our policy is that E-mail is a private
|
||
area and we adhere to the privacy issues surrounding that. This child
|
||
porn stuff was taking place in the E-mail. So we were not aware of
|
||
it." The FBI said computer bulletin boards are often used by child
|
||
porno-graphers, but for communication purposes only, not for the
|
||
actual transmission of the illegal material. However, the FBI admitted
|
||
the same privacy laws that make it difficult for a company to monitor
|
||
the traffic on its bulletin board will also make the FBI investigation
|
||
very difficult.
|
||
======================================================== Reprinted
|
||
with permission from STReport 7.48 12/6/91
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1991 12:54:32 -0600
|
||
From: mnemonic@eff.org
|
||
Subject: File 4--"Getting what he Deserved?" (Reprint from Effector 2.02)
|
||
|
||
|
||
GETTING WHAT HE DESERVED?
|
||
An Open Letter to Information Week
|
||
by Mike Godwin
|
||
mnemonic@eff.org
|
||
|
||
Information Week
|
||
600 Community Drive
|
||
Manhasset, N.Y. 11030
|
||
|
||
Dear editors:
|
||
|
||
Philip Dorn's Final Word column in the November 11 issue of Information
|
||
Week ("Morris Got What He Deserved") is, sadly, only the latest example
|
||
of the kind of irrational and uninformed discourse that too often colors
|
||
public-policy discussions about computer crime. It is a shame that Dorn
|
||
did not think it worthwhile to get his facts straight--if he had, he
|
||
might have written a very different column.
|
||
|
||
The following are only a few of Dorn's major factual errors: He
|
||
writes that "It is sophistry to claim [Internet Worm author Robert]
|
||
Morris did not know what he was doing--his mistake was being slovenly."
|
||
Yet even the most casual reading of the case, and of most of the news
|
||
coverage of the case, makes eminently clear that the sophists Dorn
|
||
decries don't exist--no one has argued that Morris didn't know what he
|
||
was doing. This was never even an issue in the Morris case. Dorn
|
||
also writes that "Any effort to break into a system by an unauthorized
|
||
person, or one authorized only to do certain things only to do certain
|
||
things, should per se be illegal." This is also the position of the
|
||
Electronic Frontier Foundation, which Dorn nevertheless criticizes for
|
||
being "out of step with the industry." Yet the issue of whether
|
||
unauthorized computer access should be illegal also was never an issue
|
||
in the Morris case.
|
||
|
||
Dorn writes that "Those defending Morris squirm when trying to explain
|
||
why his actions were harmless." No doubt such defenders would squirm, if
|
||
they existed. But none of the people or organizations Dorn quotes has
|
||
ever claimed that his actions were harmless. This too was never an issue
|
||
in the Morris case.
|
||
|
||
Dorn makes much of the fact that Morris received only "a trivial fine
|
||
and community service." But the focus both in the trial and in its appeal
|
||
was never on the severity of Morris's sentence, but on whether the law
|
||
distinguished between malicious computer vandalism and accidental
|
||
damaged caused by an intrusion. EFF's position has been that the law should be
|
||
construed to make such a distinction.
|
||
|
||
Dorn writes that "To say that those who intrude and do no lasting damage
|
||
are harmless is to pervert what Congress and those who drafted the
|
||
legislation sought to do: penalize hackers." Indeed, this would be a
|
||
perversion, if anyone were making that argument. Unfortunately, Dorn
|
||
seems unwilling to see the arguments that were made. "It is
|
||
sickening," writes Dorn, "to hear sobbing voices from the ACLU, the
|
||
gnashing of teeth from Mitch Kapor's Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
||
(EFF), and caterwauling from the Computer Professionals for Social
|
||
Responsibility--all out of step with the industry. They seem so
|
||
frightened that the law may reach them that they elected to defend
|
||
Morris's indefensible actions." Dorn's distortions here verge on libel,
|
||
since we neither defend Morris's actions nor are motivated out of fear
|
||
that the law will apply to us. Instead, we are concerned, as all
|
||
citizens should be, that the law make appropriate distinctions between
|
||
intentional and unintentional harms in the computer arena, just as it
|
||
does in all other realms of human endeavor.
|
||
|
||
A more glaring factual error occurs one paragraph later, when he writes
|
||
that "The Supreme Court says intruders can be convicted under the law
|
||
because by definition an intrusion shows an intent to do harm. That
|
||
takes care of Morris." The Supreme Court has never said any such thing--after
|
||
all, the Court declined to hear the case. Even the lower courts in the
|
||
Morris case made no such claim.
|
||
|
||
What is far more "sickening" than even Dorn's imaginary versions of our
|
||
concerns about the Morris case is his irresponsibility in making
|
||
unsubstantiated charges that even a cursory familiarity with the facts
|
||
could have prevented. In the course of his article, Dorn manages to get
|
||
one thing right--he writes that "The law is not perfect--it needs
|
||
clarification and reworking." This has been our position all along, and
|
||
it is the basis for our support of Morris's appeal. It is also public
|
||
knowledge--Dorn could have found out our position if he had bothered to
|
||
ask us.
|
||
|
||
Mike Godwin
|
||
Staff Counsel
|
||
EFF
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: 25-Nov-91 04:27 CST
|
||
From: Netreach [76004,3332]
|
||
Subject: File 5--Review of _Computer Addiction_
|
||
|
||
As a keen follower of the CU saga from the other side of the pond, I
|
||
noted that this particular book had not been mentioned in your
|
||
booklist. So to whet your appetite I thought that some relevant parts
|
||
of the book might be of interest.
|
||
|
||
You may wonder at my enthusiasm for the book: it's simply that I was
|
||
one of the many people interviewed by Margaret for her study!
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMPUTER ADDICTION? A Study of Computer Dependency
|
||
by Margaret A Shotton
|
||
University of Nottingham
|
||
(Reviewed by Keith Lockstone)
|
||
|
||
UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 4 John St, London WC1N 2ET.
|
||
USA: Taylor & Francis Inc, 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007.
|
||
|
||
ISBN 0-85066-795-X Hbk
|
||
ISBN 0-85066-796-8 Pbk
|
||
|
||
FOREWORD
|
||
|
||
Since 1979, a mere ten years ago when the microcomputer first started
|
||
coming to Britain in quantity, there has been very extensive growth in
|
||
two particular areas; in the growth of computers and, sadly, of drugs.
|
||
With the simultaneity of this growth and the intensity with which some
|
||
people became involved with computers, it is perhaps not surprising
|
||
that in the early 1980s we began to hear some suggestions of the
|
||
possibility of 'computer addiction'. The word addiction has been
|
||
applied to the compulsion of drug-taking since the early 1900s, and
|
||
indeed it could be argued since 1779 whence the example 'his addiction
|
||
to tobacco is mentioned by one of his biographers' (quotation from the
|
||
Oxford English Dictionary about Johnson).
|
||
|
||
In a nutshell one might say that the most interesting and important
|
||
outcome of Margaret Shotton's doctoral research is to show clearly
|
||
that the word addiction should not be used about the relatively small
|
||
proportion of computer users who become intensive computer devotees;
|
||
or if used, then the term should be interpreted not in the drug sense
|
||
but more precisely in another version of the definition in the OED as
|
||
'the state of being given to a habit or pursuit'.
|
||
|
||
The computer dependent person, to use Shotton's term, is clearly a
|
||
hobbyist, 'a person devoted to a hobby (sometimes used with a
|
||
connotation of crankiness)', where hobby denotes 'a favourite
|
||
occupation pursued merely for amusement or an individual pursuit to
|
||
which a person is devoted (in the speaker's opinion) out of proportion
|
||
to its real importance'. This excellent piece of research has shown
|
||
how the extensive use of a computer can be a most important hobby for
|
||
some people, not an addiction (in the usual sense of the word) but at
|
||
one extreme of the very wide range of intense concentration and
|
||
involvement covered by people's hobby interests.
|
||
|
||
If the computer, one of the most powerful tools which mankind has so
|
||
far invented, is never used to cause greater potential distress or
|
||
danger than as an extreme hobby, we shall have no reason to fear the
|
||
computer devotee or the computer expert. But that begs a whole
|
||
different range of research issues!
|
||
|
||
Professor Brian Shackel
|
||
Loughborough University of Technology
|
||
|
||
PREFACE
|
||
|
||
This research was initiated through my combined interests in new
|
||
technology and in people. As a lifelong observer of the human
|
||
condition I have always been fascinated in the activities of others,
|
||
and in trying to determine what makes them 'tick' and brings them
|
||
fulfillment in life. What is obvious to all is that what holds the
|
||
attention of one may provide boredom for another. Many in the
|
||
population feel that chasing a ball around a court of field is a
|
||
worthwhile and meaningful activity, while to others programming in
|
||
machine code is infinitely more exciting. Who is to say which is more
|
||
acceptable?
|
||
|
||
During a period of four years I was immersed in the lives of people
|
||
for whom interaction with computers was considered infinitely
|
||
preferable to the majority of their interactions with people. This is
|
||
not a belief I personally share, in spite of the fact that I spend
|
||
much of my life staring at a VDU screen, but one which I came to
|
||
understand and appreciate fully. People differ in their needs,
|
||
aptitudes and in their cognitive styles, and happy are they who are
|
||
able to find an activity which perfectly matches their personality.
|
||
|
||
The 'computer dependents', who shared their beliefs, their pains and
|
||
their happiness with me, have enriched my understanding of psychology
|
||
as not textbook ever could. Their honesty and their ability to lay
|
||
bare their weaknesses as well as their strengths have proven how
|
||
dangerous it is to nd or to show prejudice against those who differ
|
||
from ourselves.
|
||
|
||
Early readings about 'computer junkies' and 'hackers' suggested that
|
||
if I pursued this research I might spend my time with people who were
|
||
barely human and who were unable to converse with others on any
|
||
meaningful level. How untrue this proved to be. I met some of the
|
||
most fascinating people of my life. They were intelligent, lively,
|
||
amusing, original, inventive, and very hospitable. True, they rarely
|
||
spend much time communicating with people for reasons explained within
|
||
this book, but when interest was shown in them and their activities it
|
||
would be difficult to find more interesting conversationalists. True,
|
||
many of them were unconventional and unconstrained by society's
|
||
'mores', but who would not like the freedom and courage to act without
|
||
recourse to others? True, some of their relationships were
|
||
problematic and their activities bewildering and distressing to their
|
||
partners, but they were no more likely to have failed marriages than
|
||
the rest of the population.
|
||
|
||
They were pursuing an interest which not only provided intellectual
|
||
challenge, fun and excitement in infinite variety, but one which
|
||
enabled many of them to improve their career prospects considerably.
|
||
Many used computers not only at home but also at work, and true
|
||
fulfillment must come to those who are able to combine their hobby with
|
||
a means of earning a living.
|
||
|
||
will enable readers to re-evaluate their attitudes to those in
|
||
society who do ot share their own interests, to become more empathetic
|
||
with those who seem socially inhibited and shy, and to realize that
|
||
judgment based solely upon observation alone is inadequate when one
|
||
wishes to understand the machinations of the minds of others.
|
||
|
||
Margaret A. Shotton
|
||
Nottingham
|
||
July 1989
|
||
cover blurb:
|
||
|
||
COMPUTER ADDICTION?
|
||
A study of computer dependency
|
||
|
||
This research investigates the syndrome of computer dependency and the
|
||
l stories which suggest that 'obsessive' dependence of people upon
|
||
computers is detrimental to their social and psychological
|
||
development. Based upon her major psychological study of computer
|
||
'dependents' or 'junkies', brought forward by national publicity,
|
||
Margaret Shotton shows that extreme computer use does not turn
|
||
gregarious, extrovert people into recluses. Her personal and arguably
|
||
controversial thesis is rather that for people who prefer to interact
|
||
with the inanimate than with other people, the computer can offer a
|
||
source os inspiration, excitement and intellectual stimulation, and
|
||
can create an environment which is positively therapeutic.
|
||
|
||
Formally a teacher, Margaret Shotton studied ergonomics at the
|
||
University of Technology, Loughborough, where she subsequently
|
||
obtained her Ph.D. She is currently a lecturer in the Department of
|
||
Production Engineering & Production Management at the University of
|
||
Nottingham.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Of related interest:
|
||
Computers and the Psychosocial Work Environment
|
||
Gunilla Bradley
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 16:52:49 GMT
|
||
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU)EDU)AU(Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory U)
|
||
Subject: File 6--E-mail privacy bibliography
|
||
|
||
I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several
|
||
days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography
|
||
which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing.
|
||
|
||
I thought the readers of _CUD_ might find it of interest!
|
||
|
||
PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the
|
||
topic/information to share.
|
||
|
||
Mark N.
|
||
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
|
||
From: SMTP%"@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET"
|
||
|
||
From: Stacy Veeder <SBVEEDER%SUVM.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
|
||
To: Mark Neely <NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
|
||
|
||
***********************BIBLIOGRAPHY BEGINS HERE*************************
|
||
|
||
Bairstow, Jeffrey, "Who Reads Your Electronic Mail?" Electronic
|
||
Business (June 11, 1990), 16(11):92.
|
||
|
||
Barlow, John Perry [barlow@well.sf.ca.us], "Crime and Puzzlement:
|
||
Desperados of the Datasphere" (1990), Whole Earth Review (in
|
||
press as of 6/91), distributed through Usenet newsgroup sci.virtual-
|
||
worlds [15948.9007180105@hydra.unm.edu].
|
||
|
||
Brown, Bob, "EMA Urges Users To Adopt Policy on E-Mail Privacy,"
|
||
Network World (October 29, 1990), 7(44):2 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Burke, Steven, "Electronic-Mail Privacy To Be Tested in Court in
|
||
Suit Against Epson," PC Week (August 20, 1990), 7(33):124.
|
||
|
||
Casatelli, Christine, "Setting Ground Rules for Privacy," Comput-
|
||
erworld (March 18, 1991), 25:47 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Caldwell, Bruce, "Big Brother Is Watching," Information Week
|
||
(June 18, 1990), (275):34 (three pages).
|
||
|
||
Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy: A Raw Nerve For Readers," In-
|
||
formation Week (July"30, 1990), (280):52 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy Issues Raised," Information Week
|
||
(August 13, 1990), (282):14 (two pages)
|
||
|
||
Caldwell, Bruce, "Whose Mail Is It Anyway? Companies are Con-
|
||
fronting the E-Mail Privacy Issue Head-On," Information Week
|
||
(August 20, 1990), (283):53.
|
||
|
||
Computer Underground Digest (November 13, 1990), 2(2.11), avail-
|
||
able as sjg.warrant.CuD through anonymous ftp at eff.org and
|
||
distributed through Usenet newsgroup alt.society.cu-digest.
|
||
|
||
Conca, Mike [conca@handel.cs.colostate.edu], "E-Mail Privacy"
|
||
(May 23, 1991), distributed as Article 45 through Usenet news"
|
||
group comp.admin.policy [15110@ccncsu.colostate.edu]; also
|
||
distributed through Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin.
|
||
|
||
Davis, Fred, "Beware: 'Little Brother' May Be Reading Your Mail,"
|
||
PC Week (October 29, 1990), 7(43):198.
|
||
|
||
Denning, Peter J., "The Internet Worm," in Denning, Peter J.
|
||
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
|
||
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 193-
|
||
200.
|
||
|
||
Doty, Phil, Doctoral Student, Syracuse University School of In-
|
||
formation Studies, Presentation to IST 553, June"12, 1991.
|
||
|
||
%Eisenberg, Ted, et al., "The Cornell Commission: On Morris and
|
||
the Worm," Communications of the ACM (June 1989), 32(6):706-09
|
||
[reprinted in Denning (ed.)].
|
||
|
||
Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, P.L. 99-508 (100 Stat. 1848).
|
||
|
||
Eskow, Dennis, "Lawyers Warn: Don't Back Up Your E-Mail; Anything
|
||
Transmitted on E-Mail May Be Held Against You," PC Week
|
||
(September 11, 1989), 6:81 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Freedom of Information Act of 1986, 5 USC 552.
|
||
|
||
Higgins, Steve, "E-Mail Experts On Guard Over Security Leaks," PC
|
||
Week (July 30, 1990), 7:43 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Higgins, Steve, "Emergency cc:Mail Upgrade Combats Security
|
||
Breach," PC Week (April 9, 1990), 7:1 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Higgins, Steve, "Message Monitor Gives Users Eagle-Eye View of E-
|
||
Mail Flow," PC Week (March 25, 1991), 8:5.
|
||
|
||
Highland, Harold Joseph, "Security: If the Password's 'Anything
|
||
Goes,' It's Your Loss," Government Computer News (October 29,
|
||
1990), 9(23):61 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Kadie, Carl [kadie@cs.uiuc.edu], "Computers and Academic Freedom
|
||
Mailing List," available as caf through anonymous ftp at
|
||
eff.org.
|
||
|
||
LaPlante, Alice, "Epson E-Mail: Private or Company Information?"
|
||
Infoworld (October 22, 1990), 12(43):66.
|
||
|
||
"Managers 'Remain Dangerously Complacent About Computer Secu%
|
||
rity,'" Computergram International (October 29, 1990), (1542).
|
||
|
||
Markoff, John, "Furor Erupts From Computers in Politics," The New
|
||
York Times (May 4, 1990), 139:A8(N), A12(L).
|
||
|
||
Miscellaneous documents, available in a single file as ncsa.email
|
||
through anonymous ftp at eff.org.
|
||
|
||
Miscellaneous files available through ftp eff.org (/academic sub%
|
||
directory).
|
||
|
||
Miscellaneous messages posted to caf-talk@eff.org (through list-
|
||
serv@eff.org).
|
||
|
||
Miscellaneous postings distributed through Usenet newsgroup
|
||
comp.admin.policy.
|
||
|
||
Molloy, Maureen, "NW [Network] User Panel Takes Stand on E-Mail
|
||
Privacy," Network World (November 5, 1990), 7(45):2 (two
|
||
pages).
|
||
|
||
Montz, Lynn B., "The Worm Case: From Indictment to Verdict," in
|
||
Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders,
|
||
Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-
|
||
pany, 1990), pp. 260-63.
|
||
|
||
Nash, Jim, "E-Mail Lawsuit Cranks Open Privacy Rights Can of
|
||
Worms," Computerworld (August 13, 1990), 24:7.
|
||
|
||
Nash, Jim and Harrington, Maura J., "Who Can Open E-Mail?" Com-
|
||
puterworld (January 14, 1991), 25:1 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Reid, Brian, "Reflections on Some Recent Widespread Computer
|
||
Break-Ins," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under
|
||
Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-
|
||
Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 145-49.
|
||
|
||
Rochlis, Jon A. and Eichin, Mark W., "With Microscope and Tweez-
|
||
ers: The Worm from MIT's Perspective," in Denning, Peter J.
|
||
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
|
||
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 201-22.
|
||
|
||
Savage, J.A., "E-Mail Bust Generates Privacy Rights Uproar," Com-
|
||
puterworld (January 23, 1989), 23:2.
|
||
|
||
Spafford, Eugene H., "Crisis and Aftermath," in Denning, Peter J.
|
||
(ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses
|
||
(New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 223-
|
||
43.
|
||
|
||
Stewart, John [jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu], Consultant, Syracuse
|
||
University Academic Computing Services, Presentation to IST
|
||
553, June 12, 1991.
|
||
|
||
Stoll, Clifford, The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the
|
||
Maze of Computer Espionage (New York: Doubleday, 1989).
|
||
|
||
Scott, Karyl, "IAB To Begin Trial of Proposed E-Mail Security
|
||
Standards," PC Week (March 27, 1989), 6:35 (two pages).
|
||
|
||
Turner, Judith Axler, "Messages in Questionable Taste on Computer
|
||
Networks Pose Thorny Problems for College Administrators,"
|
||
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 24, 1990), A13, A16.
|
||
|
||
Steven Jackson Games' subsequent complaint against the Secret
|
||
Service et al. is available as sjg.complaint through anonymous
|
||
ftp at eff.org.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 13:12:48 -0500
|
||
From: Craig Neidorf <knight@EFF.ORG>
|
||
Subject: File 7--Second CFP Conference
|
||
|
||
First Announcement of
|
||
|
||
THE SECOND CONFERENCE ON COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY
|
||
L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, Washington DC March 18-20, 1992
|
||
|
||
(A longer, complete, electronic version of this announcement is
|
||
available by sending a request with any title and any message to
|
||
cfp2-info@eff.org.)
|
||
|
||
The rush of computers into our workplaces, homes, and
|
||
institutions is drastically altering how we work and live, how we buy
|
||
and sell, and with whom we communicate. Computers are obliterating
|
||
traditional political and organizational boundaries, making time zones
|
||
irrelevant, and bridging diverse cultures. They are fundamentally
|
||
changing our culture, values, laws, traditions, and identities.
|
||
|
||
The turmoil of the changes calls into question many old
|
||
assumptions about privacy, freedom of speech, search and seizure,
|
||
access to personal and governmental information, professional
|
||
responsibilities, ethics, criminality, law enforcement, and more. The
|
||
only way to sort out these issues and arrive at a consensus for action
|
||
is to acknowledge that we don't know the answers -- and then, with
|
||
reason and good will, to find the answers through discussion and
|
||
education. That's why the Conference on Computers, Freedom, and
|
||
Privacy was founded in 1991.
|
||
|
||
The Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference is unique. It has
|
||
no "agenda for change". It seeks only to bring together people from
|
||
all the major communities and interest groups that have a stake in
|
||
the new world being shaped by information technology, so that they
|
||
may share their ideas, ideals, concerns and experiences.
|
||
|
||
At the first conference, hundreds of people from the fields of
|
||
law, computer science, law enforcement, business, public policy,
|
||
government, education, research, marketing, information providing,
|
||
advocacy and a host of others met for several days. It was the first
|
||
time such a diverse group had ever assembled, and the exchange of
|
||
ideas and points of view was electric.
|
||
|
||
The conference is "single-track" -- all participants attend all
|
||
the sessions. A morning of tutorials at the beginning of the
|
||
conference will help participants get up to speed in specific "hot"
|
||
areas. The conference sessions themselves take up timely and, at
|
||
times, thorny issues. Each session aims for a balance of perspectives
|
||
in order to assist diverse groups appreciate the views of others. A
|
||
brief examination of the long list of sponsoring and supporting
|
||
organizations will reveal that this respect for diverse outlooks is
|
||
built into the conference from the ground up.
|
||
|
||
The question is no longer whether information technologies will
|
||
change our world. They are, now. The real question is how we, as
|
||
citizens and professionals, will respond to and manage that change.
|
||
Those at the Second Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy
|
||
will lead the way.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
End of Computer Underground Digest #3.25
|
||
************************************
|
||
|
||
|