informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0542.txt

801 lines
36 KiB
Plaintext
Raw 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 Wed June 10 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 42
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Seniur
CONTENTS, #5.42 (June 10 1993)
File 1--UPDATE #11-AB1624: Passed the Assembly, More to Do!
File 2--Rusty and Edies's: More Information
File 3--Timeline for a Network History
File 4--Re: Fingerprinting Welfare Recipients in CA
File 5--Call for Papers for Feminist Theory & Technoculture
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115.
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 DL0 and DL12 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 the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) 203-832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
UNITED STATES: ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /pub/CuD/cud
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:03:36 -0700
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@WELL.SF.CA.US>
Subject: File 1--UPDATE #11-AB1624: Passed the Assembly, More to Do!
Monday, June 7, 1993
*YOU* CAN DO SOMETHING! YOU *CAN* MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
The *only* thing that forced AB1624 out of Burton's Rules Committee,
and the *only* thing that has moved it forward has been the flood of
LETTERS, FAXES and PHONE CALLS from individuals and organizations
urging its passage.
This contains:
1. Summary/specifics of what's happened, to date.
2. Next steps in running the legislative gauntlet.
3. What you can do that is NEEDED and EFFECTIVE.
4. Contact information for essential State Senators - needing action, now.
WHAT'S HAPPENED, SO FAR
3/4, AB1624 was introduced by bill-author Debra Bowen, mandating
public access but giving no implementation or cost details.
4/19, the Assembly Rules Committee Chaired by John Burton (D-San
Francisco) decided to be the first committee to hear the bill - a
brief hearing ending with Burton asking for implementation details.
5/4, through Bowen, I submitted a 16-page implementation plan for free
distribution via the nonprofit, nonproprietary public Internet
(gatewayed to Fidonet and Majornet BBSs, CompuServe, GEnie, Delphi,
MCImail, Bitnet, etc.).
5/18, Bowen amended the bill (Update #10) to mandate control/fees for
service providers that charge if they "republish or otherwise
duplicate" these public records, a fee mandate she felt was essential
to get the bill out of Rules.
5/24, after five postponements, Rules reheard the bill passing it, 8
to 0 (Barbara Lee [D-Alameda] was absent, in Africa).
KEY ISSUES: Burton sought testimony from Legi-Tech and State Net, the two
largest current buyers and resellers of the data. Although they had just
hired a leading lobbyist to work against the bill, they didn't publicly
oppose this public access; said they just wanted to protect their current
access (they apparently get the data before it's printed for the public).
Most other committee members focused on opposing the newly-added fee
requirement. Burton had wanted the fee requirement, but said it could be
deleted in the Senate. Bowen said she'd just as
soon delete it, right then. Burton *heatedly* responded that he'd just
as soon that she *not* - that it could be deleted in the Senate.
*IMPORTANT*: Burton said he wanted the bill to return to his Rules
Committee after the Senate finished with it. He can still kill it.
6/3, the Assembly Ways & Means Committee chaired by John Vasconsellos
(D-Santa Clara) passed it as amended May 18th, 21 to 0 - even though the
Legislative Counsel estimated it would cost $50,000 to implement (7 to 10
times what I and several network experts had estimated).
6/7 at 2:21 p.m., the full Assembly passed the bill 72 to 0, in its
May 18th amended form that retains the fee requirement. (It's officially
78 to 0; legislators can change their vote later, as long as the result's
unchanged. Jus' one of those little legislative rules.)
NEXT STEPS
Bill-author Bowen is amending the bill to (1) remove the fee and use
controls, (2) limit legislative monitoring of individuals requesting
legislative data, (3) assure *timely* public access, and (4) make clear
that information is to be distributed [at least] via the Internet.
There is no *official* opposition to the bill, to date. However,
the [unelected] Legislative Counsel and [unelected] Assembly Chief
Administrative Officer have clearly opposed it, and Legi-Tech and
State Net are known to be "working the halls" against it.
Experienced observers also predict that the [unelected] Chief Executive
Officer of the Senate, Cliff Berg, will also fight it, but predict he will
do it almost-entirely behind the scenes.
YOU CAN ...
1. Write Bowen's office *and* your representatives, as an INDIVIDUAL.
2. Write or fax as a BUSINESS or ORGANIZATION, if you're its decision-maker.
3. Urge your company or organization to write or fax their support.
4. Urge your city council, county supervisors, school boards, city attorney,
public defender, district attorney, county clerk, water district, parks
district, etc., to write or fax their support, so *they* can have online,
timely, economical access to legislation impacting *them*.
5. Write [brief!] letters to the editor of daily and weekly newspapers.
6. Call the Editorial Page Editor and/or Editor of your newspaper - they
*should* be interested in public access to public records.
7. San Franciscans: *Please* contact John Burton, a *key,* hesitant vote:
Hon. John Burton, State Capitol, Room 3152, voice: 916-445-8253
And copy your comments to Hon. Willie Brown, Room 219, Sacramento CA 95814
Write your Assembly Member and your State Senator. State your support and
reasons - in one page or less.
*Especially* important: Send copies to:
Hon. Debra Bowen, State Capitol, Room 3126, Sacramento CA 95814
voice: 916-445-8528, fax: 916-327-2201 [faxes are welcomed].
NOTE: Some legislators discard letters and faxes from anyone outside of
their districts. They rarely pass them along to bill-author Bowen.
(And remember, they have your district voter registration record available
at the touch of a keyboard - part of the Legislature's online systems.)
ARE THESE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES?
At least one or two State Senate committees will hear the bill, after
these new amendments. These are the Senate committees most likely to hear
it next [mail to: Sen. XXX, State Capitol, Room XXXX, Sacramento CA 95814].
room: area 916: 916-fax#:
RULES COMMITTEE ----- --------- ---------
David Roberti, Chair (D-Van Nuys) 0205 445-8390
Ruben Ayala (D-Chinio) 5108 445-6868 445-0128
Robert Beverly (R-Long Beach) 5082 445-6447
William Craven (R-Oceanside) 3070 445-3731
Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland) 5080 445-6577
[Rules Committee Executive Officer: Cliff Berg]
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Ralph Dills, Chair (D-Gardena) 5050 445-5953
Alfred Alquist (D-San Jose) 5100 445-9740
Robert Beverly (R-Long Beach) 5082 445-6447
Leroy Greene (D-Carmichael) 2082 445-7807
Frank Hill (R-Whittier) 5064 445-2848
Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles) 4090 445-2104 445-3712
Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) 2032 445-6671 447-2559
Kennery Maddy (R-Fresno) 0305 445-9600
Henry Mello (D-Watsonville) 0313 445-5843
Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) 4070 445-7928
Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) 2080 445-3456 444-0581
Democracy means we have a voice. *Effective* democracy means we use it.
<Please copy, post and circulate widely and quickly.>
------------------------------
From: mriddle@UNL.EDU(mike riddle)
Subject: File 2--Rusty and Edies's: More Information
Date: 10 Jun 1993 14:55:11 GMT
* Original Area: Bbslaw (Fido)
* Original From: Ken Smiley
* Original To : All
+////////////////Quoted message follows//////////////////////////////
A number of times Rusty and Edie's BBS has been brought up here with a
number of people saying "I think they got what they deserved" etc.
Well I decided to do some research into the matter and want to let
some of you out there know some facts that I can relate, there are
some I cannot at this point, but will relate when I am allowed to do
so.
First off, R&E was receiving about 40-50 MEGS of new files daily at
the time their system was raided. I think you will agree that it is
hard for someone to check out all 40-50 megs of these files to
determine if they were commercial or not. In fact, many files were
uploaded, commented, and downloaded before the sysops had a chance to
inspect them. This may not be the "safest" way to run a BBS, in other
words some sysops don't allow users to D/L a file until the sysop has
checked it out first. I would have to agree that I couldn't check
40-50 Megs of files per day, nor would I want to unless someone was
paying me a lot of $$$ and even then I don't know if I could.
R&E was carrying tens of thousands of files online. When the warrant
was issued (and the warrant is on public record so I can talk about
it) the authorities included a nearly 200 page list of files with the
warrant. Among that 200 pages were 2 files underlined that were of
commercial nature and that the authorities felt were enough to go
after the system.
Was the raid carried out properly? According to the Steve Jackson
games case handed down, NO. Is the government still in violation by
keeping R&E's equipment without copying the allegedly illegal items
and returning the equipment? Probably yes from what I have seen.
I hope to have the complete text of the warrant available soon so that
I can post it.
I can also relate that R&E aren't going to take this sitting down,
they have some people on their side.
I can also relate that R&E were subsequently smeared by a couple of
people after the raid took place. I believe R&E could have a
defamation case against a number of people, and in my opinion could
successful pursue that in court.
I have seen messages were people have said "Oh I sent email to the
sysops that they had commercial programs online and they never
responded". I do not know if this is true or not in any specific
instance, but I do know that on some days R&E sysops got over 100
pieces of email a day. I don't know if I could sit through reading
that much either. This may be a prime case of a system getting to
large to handle without more bodies, but I don't know that for sure,
only a possible explanation.
I would like to keep the discussion of R&E's BBS to a factual level.
If you have specific questions I can consult with the powers that be
and see if I can get you some sort of answer. If you have specific
factual information about the situation that you can back up, I would
be more than happy to hear it and to keep a record of it for trial
should this case continue through the trial stages.
Finally, I would like to state that it is SAFE to call R&E's BBS, your
lines are not being monitored, the FBI won't be showing up at your
door, and if you had email intercepted by the authorities previously,
or in the future, the Steve Jackson games case would seem to say that
if you join in the suit, you are entitled to at LEAST $1000 in
statutory damages from the government. As has been pointed out here
time and time again, I think many sysops may be unaware of when they
could incur legal liability for a number of actions, I am by no means
judging R&E's case, but I would like to ask that others don't judge it
as well, especially those who are feeding on rumors.
Recipients of this message have my permission to repost and or
retransmit this message on other echos and or networks.
Ken :)
--- GEcho 1.00+
* Origin: =(Energy)= "The Capacity for Vigorous Activity" (1:374/17)
+//////////////////End Quoted Message/////////////////////////////
[Ken Smiley is a Kansas attorney and author of BBSLAW*, the online
guide to BBS law. I have no financial interest in his product. This
message is for general discussion purposes only and should not be
construed as legal advice.]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 May 93 13:36:37 CDT
From: stan kulikowski ii <STANKULI@UWF.BITNET>
Subject: File 3--Timeline for a Network History
Since a number of you have requested my fragmentary timeline for
networking history, I have provided what I have below. I would
appreciate any comments, especially corrections or additions. I know
there are massive parts of netdom missing, such as....
- the references to the development of UNIX I thought would lead
to the intro of UUCP and then USENET newsfeeds. but I have
nothing on them yet.
- I would like to include more on commercial services. I ran across
a mention of vint cerf working on MCImail, but I believe that
compuserve and sprintmail also joined internet at least as email
datagram stub gateways about the same time. in general I would
like to include startup dates of more visible commercial services
(bix, genie, prodigy, etc) and when they join the internet club.
I roughly remember when compuserve joined. america online and
delphi did just a few months ago. delphi (i think) is the first
pay-for-play available to the common joe in the general public
that offers tcp/ip at a reasonable cost-- I am told $3/mo for 10M
throughput (not data storage).
- I would like more information on european networks. I was given
email address of the janet liaison in uk, but they did not reply.
I have found a repository of network summaries for some 3rd world
countries, but little or nothing on europe.
- bbs development and grassroot networks like fidonet and frednet
deserve some recognition. I have some stuff about fidonet, but
there are bbs I remember from years ago (like toad's hall) and
some of these are still around.
- I would include more on the underground-- like the legion of doom
and the first viruses. I suspect ftp.eff.com has stuff like that
but I have not had the time to snoop around there yet.
well, you are welcome to my little scholarship here. I would appreciate
any anecdotes of personal memories and observations of network activities.
it these which make histories interesting rather than just regurgitation of
mechanical dates.
stan
stankuli@UWF.bitnet
.
=== we all help each other get a little further down the road,
% % or be damned for the fools that we are.
--- -- the motorcycle modificationist's motto
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backbone Timelines
early work
1964 Paul Baran, RAND Corp study
survivability of multiplex data units
and mesh networks vs. star topologies
1965 Donald Davie, National Physical Lab, UK
packetizing data for storage and forwarding
1967 Larry Roberts, MIT Lincoln Labs
writes RFP for ARPA
ARPANET 0.56 Mbps
Jul 1968 ARPA RFP packet-switched computer network
Dec 1968 first contract to BBN for equip and software
2 Sep 1969 IMP1 Interface Message Processor starts UCLA
4 Honeywell 316 minicomputers at UCLA to SRI
Dec 1969 then UCSB, Utah
1969 Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, Bell Labs
UNIX operating system
Larry Roberts writes first email prog as TECO macro
For a decade grew at rate 1 new host every 20 days
1970-71 Norman Abrahamson, Univ Hawaii, develops ALOHA net
1970-72 Robert Metcalf and David Boggs, Xerox Parc
develop Ethernet LAN
Apr 1971 23 hosts on ARPANET
PRNET, Packet Radio NET, SAC and 18th Airborne
1972 dial up services for remote terminals
May 1974 Cerf and Kahn begin work on TCP/IP protocols
Jun 1974 62 hosts on ARPANET
1975 DARCOM MsgGroup, one of first mailing lists
1975 AT&T aggressively licenses UNIX to universities
1976 Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology (FCCSET)
Mar 1977 111 hosts on ARPANET
1980 CSNET founded by NSF, 200 hosts 15 countries
May 1981 BITNET supported by IBM, first CUNY and Yale
1981 BSD version 4.1 Berkeley UNIX
1982 Lax Report funded by NSF and DDN
Dec 1982 MCImail starts
ARPANET-AUTODIN shootout ??
1983 ARPANET/MILNET split
the great FINGER controversy ??
Black Tuesday: 1st global routing failure early 80s
Gateway Wars ??
1985 routing gridlocks
Oct 1985 most ARPANET users shunted into T1 NSFNET
Jun 1990 last nodes closed, ARPANET fully decommissioned
INTERNET T1 connections (1.5 Mbps) (not really a backbone)
Sep 1981 IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP protocols
1985-86 NSF funds 5 supercomputer centers, form T1 backbone
1987 BITNET and CSNET merge to form CERN
1 Nov 1988 Internet worm
Dec 1992 turn off T1 circuits Dec 1992
NSFNET T3 connections (45 Mbps)
1988 Merit wins $14M-20M grant from NSF
Merit subcontracts to ANS
ANS run by Merit and MCI ($6M) and IBM ($10M)
Michigan contributes ($5M)
Jul 1988 T3 came online, actual costs to NSF $28M
May 1989 1 billion packets per month
May 1990 3.15 billion packets per month
May 1991 7.56 billion packets per month
PSInet absorbs NYSERNET obtains commercial access
May 1992 14.9 billion packets per month
Feb 1993 26 billion packets per month
1993 America Online provides Internet access
NREN target 1996, 3Gbps (3000 Mbps)
24 Jun 1986 Albert Gore (D-TN) introduce S 2594
Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986
Jul 1986 Cleveland Freenet begins, 500 logins per day
20 Nov 1987 OSTP report to Congress
18 May 1989 S 1067 High-Performance Computing Act introduced
Bush administration resist HPC and NREN
FrEdMail grassroots volunteer K-12 BBS network
Apr 1990 CNRI $15.8M for gigabit testbeds
1990 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Mitch Kapor
May 1991 TENET Texas Educational Net, K-12 joins Internet
1991 Congressional bills S272 and HR 656
High Performance Computing and NREN Act of 1991
1992 NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology
3,210 lines, 136,943 bytes
ftp nic.merit.edu cd nren get nrencongr.txt
========================================================================
MIscellaneous support material
Date: Wed 1 Nov 1988 23:38 PCT
From: Peter Yee
To: Internet TCP-IP mailing list
"We are currently under attack from an Internet Virus."
------------------------------------------------
Date Hosts (month num)
SEP 81 213 1
MAY 82 235 9
SEP 83 562 25
OCT 84 1,024 38
OCT 85 1,961 50
FEB 86 2,308 54
NOV 86 5,089 63
DEC 87 28,174 76
JUL 88 33,000 83
OCT 88 56,000 87
JAN 89 80,000 90
JUL 89 130,000 96
OCT 89 159,000 99
OCT 90 313,000 111
JAN 91 376,000 114
JUL 91 535,000 120
OCT 91 617,000 123
JAN 92 727,000 126
M. Lottor (1992) Internet Growth (1981-1991)
------------------------------------------------
NSFnet monthly reports: ftp nic.merit.edu
cd /nsfnet/engineering.reports
see Inspector General NSF Review of NSFNET
ftp nic.merit.edu cd nsfnet get ig.report
--------------------------------------------
Figure NSFNET Packet Traffic History
--------------------------------------------
Current network problems: Gross and Almquist (1992)
1. Class B IP Number exhaustion
- NSFnet routing database has doubled ever 12 months
for last several years.
- current Class B IP nums will run out in late 1994
at this rate
- will run out of IP network nums before host nums.
2. Routing table explosion
- limits in high-end router memory
16000 routes max will exceed this early 1994.
- plans to ship new routers 64000 routes max
adequate to 1996.
- human operators eventually will be unable
to configure routing tables and monitor traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------
<NIC.MERIT.EDU> /nren/INDEX.nren 26 February 1993
Merit Network Information Center Services
NIC.MERIT.EDU
FTP.MERIT.EDU
FTP.MICHNET.NET
NIS.NSF.NET
(35.1.1.48)
Merit's Network Information Center host computer, accessible via anonymous
FTP, contains a wide array of information about the Internet, NSFNET, and
MichNet.
The /nren directory is devoted to governmental activity pertaining to the
National Research and Education Network.
clinton.1993/ President Clinton's Technology Initiative of 1993.
hearing.12mar92/ Testimony given on March 12, 1992, to the House
Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology
pertaining to management of the NSFNET.
hpca.1991/ House and Senate activity leading to passage in 1991
of The High Performance Computing Act.
iita.1992/ House and Senate activity relating to The
Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of
1992.
net92.boucher.txt Remarks of Congressman Fred Boucher (D-VA) before
the National Net '92 Conference.
418 lines, 24,065 bytes Mar 1992
nrencongr.ps NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology
PostScript, 60 pages, 388,488 bytes Dec 1992
nrencongr.txt NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology
3,210 lines, 136,943 bytes 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
P Gross and P Almquist (1992) IESG Deliberations on Routing and
Addressing; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22)
cd rfc get rfc1380.txt.
D P Dern (1989) The ARPANET is Twenty: What We Have Learned and the Fun
We Had; _ConneXions The Interoperability Report_ vol 3 no 10
p 2-9.
D Estrin, Y Rekhter and S Hotz (1992) A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain
Routing; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd
rfc get rfc1322.txt.
J A Hart, R R Reed and F Bar (1992) The Building of the Internet;
_Telecommunications Policy_ pp 666-689.
M Lottor (1992) Internet Growth (1981-1991) anonymous ftp
ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd rfc get rfc1296.txt.
Office of Inspector General National Science Foundation (1993)
Review of NSFNET; anonymous ftp nic.merit.edu (35.1.1.48)
cd nsfnet get ig.report.
Z Wang and J Crowcroft (1992) A Two-Tier Address Structure for the
Internet: A Solution to the Problem of Address Space
Exhaustion; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22)
cd rfc get rfc1335.txt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 23:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: ims@thunder-island.kalamazoo.mi.us
Subject: File 4--Re: Fingerprinting Welfare Recipients in CA
In response to Jim Davis's comments on computerized finger-printing of
wellfare recipients in California (CuD 5.41), I'd like to make the
following comments:
>THE SYSTEM IS UNNECESSARY.
That depends on who you are and what your interests in the matter
are. Insurance companies put all kinds of restrictions on your
behavior when you voluntarily sign their contracts, don't they?
It's not only necessary for them to do so, it's imperative. It
protects their losses.
>AFIRM'S USE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY DSS.
Maybe, maybe not. But it's irrelevant. DSS can lawfully implement
any measures they care to, and the recipients have no recourse
except attempting to change the written legislation. That's what
happens to folks who waive Rights at Law, and accept Privileges
(the proverbial "mess o' pottage").
>AFIRM IS FRAUGHT WITH RISKS TO GA RECIPIENTS.
What's there to risk? They already gave up their chance to defend
themselves in court. If you bend over, expect to get porked. If
you go around giving everyone your name and address, expect to get
a few letter bombs along with the valentines and neat CD club
memberships. And if you go around telling everyone everything there
is to know about you, don't be surprised when that information is
copied a few thousand times and ends up available to anyone with the
curiosity to look. This is the digital age. I doubt that anyone
reading CuD isn't already aware of the implications, even if they
haven't followed them all to their logical conclusions.
>DSS has assured the Mayor's office that AFIRM fingerprint
>information will not be shared with police agencies.
Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that line -- or any
similar "assurance" from a government or quasi-government
official -- deserves everything they get.
>...the line between social services and law enforcement is
>becoming increasingly blurred.
This might be due, at least in part, to the increasing amount of
fraud within the system which necessitates criminal investigation
and penalties.
>"Unofficial" use of the data poses additional problems. Data
>stored on a computer is much more prone to unauthorized
>duplication, modification, and transmission than its low-tech
>counterparts...Does DSS have a computer security policy? Who will
>have access to the fingerprint information? What audit trail will be
maintained regarding changes to data on the system?
As I said, we all know that these things happen. So WHY DO WE KEEP
ON GIVING THE INFORMATION AWAY, WHEN WE KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT
HAPPENS TO IT? WHY DO WE GIVE OUR SANCTION?
When you do something of your own free will, you lose your right
to complain, unless you can show that you were unaware of all the
ramifications at the time of your agreement. Information databases
are growing at enormous rates because of the growing desire of
government and business to know as much as possible about
everyone, true. But the blame lies equally with anyone who has
never asked, "Well, what are you going to do to me if I don't tell
you?" "What are you going to do to me if I don't sign?"
Not very many people care enough about their privacy to go to the
trouble of protecting it. If you don't exercise Rights, you'll end
up not having any. Big Brother may be here, but he didn't come
totally unannounced -- or uninvited.
>AFIRM IS AN AFFRONT TO ANYONE ON WELFARE.
>
>The AFIRM system is based on a presumption of guilt. That is,
>unless you confirm your innocence of not double-dipping, you are
>assumed to be guilty of it. This contravenes a basic
>constitutional principle.
Sorry, but there isn't any Constitutional issue in question here.
Those accepting Privileges from the State are Wards of the State,
and have only the rights a child has in regard to its parents --
i.e., whatever the parent chooses to magnaminously bestow. Rights
aren't something other people can give you.
If people are truly concerned about their Rights, they need to
stop accepting Privileges, and educate themselves as to what the
law in this country says their rights truly are.
>But why stop the program there? Anyone receiving any kind of
>government support, from social security to veterans benefits to
>income tax deductions could be equally culpable of defrauding the
>government. Why not fingerprint them before providing support.
>Who knows where it would end? This is a bad precedent being
>tested on a vulnerable group of San Franciscans.
It could very well come to pass, if people don't quit signing
everything away. Of course, there will always be some ornery folks
out there who won't want any part of it.
>AFIRM SENDS A FALSE MESSAGE ABOUT WELFARE.
>
>It shouldn't need to bear repeating, but being poor is not a
>crime.
[Momentary break from computers and privacy to make a point]
No. But using the gun of government to extort monies from
unwilling third parties is most certainly a crime. Yet the
government has enacted laws that do this. I don't begrudge anyone
for being poor, but I most certainly object to their stealing from
me. If they were to ask for my help, without threatening, my
reaction would be quite different.
Not all laws apply to all people. If you want to protect yourself
to the fullest extent, educate yourself about Status and how to
change it.
>Requiring fingerprinting for receiving benefits reinforces an
>all-too-common perception of criminality. This is a divisive
>message to send to San Franciscans about General Assistance.
If someone wants to convince me that their intentions aren't
criminal, they shouldn't go asking the government to put a gun to
my head and say, "Your money, or your life." I am not saying
people in need should be ignored. But I resent being threatened,
no matter how noble the purpose is claimed to be.
I'll conclude by repeating the golden rule: ANY RIGHT NOT DEMANDED
TIMELY IS ASSUMED WAIVED. In other words, if someone is violating
your Rights, and you don't warn them to cease and desist or face a
lawsuit, you'd better have a darn good reason if you eventually
take it to trial. You might have been unaware of what your Rights
were, at the time. Or you might have been intimidated by threats.
But if you're not interested in claiming and exercising Rights, go
ahead and waive them. Just don't be surprised when the rest of the
world doesn't automatically follow you.
An informed populace is far more dangerous than an angry mob,
because it presents the opportunity for genuine, lasting, peaceful
change for the better.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:39 CDT
From: <BOEHLEFELD@WISCSSC.BITNET>
Subject: File 5--Call for Papers for Feminist Theory & Technoculture
From--EUNICE::"lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu" 27-MAY-1993 14:12:27.14
CALL FOR PAPERS
PANEL: Feminist theory and Technoculture
CONFERENCE: Northeast Modern Language Association (NEMLA)
DATE: April 8 & 9, 1994
PLACE: Pittsburgh, PA
This panel will address a variety of feminist theories
(poststructuralist, Marxist, Gender and Sexuality Studies,
ecofeminism, etc.) as they respond to the problems and possibilities
of the culture of technology. Topics include (but are not limited to)
the Internet (incl. bbs, lists, email, electronic conferences, MUSHES,
MUDS, etc); television, telephone, fax and other electronic media; and
technoliterature.
Send inquiries to lxh16@po.cwru.edu
Send abstracts and papers by September 1 to
Prof. Lila Hanft
Dept. of English
11112 Bellflower Rd.
Case Western Reserve Univ.
Cleveland, OH 44106-7117
Please cross-post this call for papers to relevant discussion groups.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.42
************************************

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink