informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0869.txt

778 lines
34 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

Computer underground Digest Sun Sep 29, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 69
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
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.69 (Sun, Sep 29, 1996)
File 1--Poulsen Stifled by No-computers Probation Rule
File 2--Microsoft response to David Smith/Web Browser Method
File 3--Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale signs the pro-crypto petition (fwd)
File 4--Banned Books Week 9/28-10/5
File 5--Computer Virus Hysteria/John McAfee Awards: plea for books
File 6--Jean_bernard_Condat PhD Musicologie
File 7--CDT Policy Post 2.32 - FBI Surveillance Demands Rejected on Privacy
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:33:26 -0500
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 1--Poulsen Stifled by No-computers Probation Rule
POULSEN STIFLED BY NO-COMPUTERS PROBATION RULE
Published: Sept. 23, 1996
BY BRANDON BAILEY
Mercury News Staff Writer
Convicted hacker Kevin Poulsen is out of prison after five years,
but he still can't touch a computer.
Facing a court order to pay more than $57,000 in restitution for
rigging a series of radio station call-in contests, Poulsen has
complained that authorities won't let him use his only marketable
skill -- programming.
Instead, Poulsen said, he's doomed to work for minimum wage at a
low-tech job for the next three years. Since his June release from
prison -- after serving more time in jail than any other U.S.
hacker -- the only work he's found is canvassing door-to-door for
a liberal political action group.
.......................
Poulsen now lives with his sister in the Los Angeles area, where
he grew up in the 1970s and '80s. But he must remain under
official supervision for three more years. And it galls him that
authorities won't trust him with a keyboard or a mouse.
U.S. District Judge Manuel Real has forbidden Poulsen to have any
access to a computer without his probation officer's approval.
That's a crippling restriction in a society so reliant on computer
technology, Poulsen complained in a telephone interview, after a
hearing last week during which the judge denied Poulsen's request
to modify his terms of probation.
To comply with those rules, Poulsen said, his parents had to put
their home computer in storage when he stayed with them. He can't
use an electronic card catalog at the public library. And he
relies on friends to maintain his World Wide Web site. He even
asked his probation officer if it was OK to drive because most
cars contain microchips.
...........................
Legal experts say there's a precedent for restricting a hacker's
access to computers, just as paroled felons may be ordered not to
possess burglary tools or firearms. Still, some say it's going too
far.
"There are so many benign things one can do with a computer,"
said Charles Marson, a former attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union who handles high-tech cases in private practice.
"If it were a typewriter and he pulled some scam with it or wrote
a threatening note, would you condition his probation on not using
a typewriter?"
................
According to Schindler, the probation office now will consider
Poulsen's requests to use computers "on a case by case basis."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:02:17 -0700
From: "Michael Bernard (IPTD)" <address@withheld.by.request>
Subject: File 2--Microsoft response to David Smith/Web Browser Method
((MODERATORS' NOTE: By request, we removed Michael Bernard's
mailing address, because the appropriate place for response
is the homepage at:
http://www.microsoft.com/ie/support/feedback/ ))
In Article 5, Volume 8, Issue #66 of the Computer underground Digest,
David Smith <bladex@bga.com> raised an issue about potentially
misleading references to user preferences in our press announcement for
Internet Explorer 3.0
(http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1996/aug96/1MILLPR.htm). The
press release stated that "four out of five users prefer Microsoft
Internet Explorer to Netscape Navigator." It should have stated that
"four out of five new Web users prefer Microsoft Internet Explorer to
Netscape Navigator." We appreciate David pointing out the discrepancy
and are revising such references to the study results.
It is true that the subjects of the study
(http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ie3/usability.htm) did not have any prior
Web browser experience. As the study indicates:
"The users had basic Windows 95 experience and understood Windows 95
concepts. All the users were individuals that had a strong interest in
learning about and using the Internet but no prior experience with a web
browser or the Internet. Users were not told who commissioned the study,
and they were screened to ensure that they were not prejudiced toward
either Microsoft or Netscape as a company."
We felt that this was an appropriate way to conduct the survey. It
provided an unbiased view of the browser product without the bias of
prior use, experience, or existing preference. It would have been
difficult to remove these biases if the study subjects had already been
using a given browser (e.g. Navigator) for any length of time.
As a test of first-time users, which the survey itself indicates, the
results are solid. We regret any confusion that may have been caused by
not indicating that the study was of new users in the August 19, 1996
Press Release. While it is too late for us to edit the Press Release, we
are modifying any other references to the study results on our Web site
to read ..."four out of five new Web users prefer Microsoft Internet
Explorer to Netscape Navigator."
Although the study results are valid for new users, we have been
receiving strong evidence that experienced users also like Internet
Explorer 3.0. (http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ie3/readeu.htm)
Additionally, we have done extremely well in head-to-head comparisons by
the press with Navigator 3.0. (http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ie3/read.htm)
We appreciate this opportunity to clear up any confusion on what we
genuinely feel to be an excellent product - Internet Explorer 3.0. We
welcome any comments (http://www.microsoft.com/ie/support/feedback/),
you have on our product and trust me - they get read!
Michael Bernard
Web Jamming with Internet Explorer 3.0
Product Manager, Microsoft
Internet Platform and Tools Division
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Voters Telecommunications Watch <shabbir@vtw.org>
Subject: File 3--Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale signs the pro-crypto petition (fwd)
From - Crypto News
MORE NET LUMINARIES JOIN THOUSANDS IN SIGNING PRO-ENCRYPTION PETITION
http://www.crypto.com/petition/
JUDICIARY HEARING ON HR 3011 (9/25/96)
Date: September 25, 1996
URL:http://www.crypto.com/ crypto-news@panix.com
If you redistribute this, please do so in its entirety,
with the banner intact.
------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Introduction
Join Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale as he signs the pro-crypto petition!
How to receive crypto-news
Press contacts
----------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
This is a busy last few days for Washington. In the midst of it all,
the Judiciary committee held a hearing HR 3011, beginning the process of
educating Congress for next year, and bringing in the Administration for
a regular public drubbing about their antiquated encryption regulations.
The very same day, WWW.Crypto.Com was honored to have Netscape CEO Jim
Barksdale sign onto petition that supports legislation that would:
-Relax export controls on encryption technology;
-Prohibit the government from imposing "Key Escrow" solutions
domestically; and
-Recognize the importance of privacy and security for the future
of electronic commerce, individual liberty, and the success of the
Internet.
Jim Barksdale is no stranger to the encryption debate. He testified
at the July 25th hearing on the pro-encryption Pro-CODE bill (S1726).
You can hear him in his own words by listening to the RealAudio transcript
of the hearing cybercast at http://www.crypto.com/events/072596/
We'll be continuing the petition throughout the break and the election
and use it next year to support the encryption legislation that will
surely be introduced again.
Be a part of it by signing the petition with Jim Barksdale at
http://www.crypto.com/petition/ !
------------------------------------------------------
JOIN NETSCAPE CEO JIM BARKSDALE IN FIGHTING FOR YOUR PRIVACY!
The following petition can be signed onto at http://www.crypto.com/petition/
The Information Revolution is being held hostage by an
outdated, Cold War-era U.S. encryption policy.
Current U.S. export controls and other initiatives are slowing
the widespread availability of strong encryption products,
endangering the privacy and security of electronic
communications, harming the competitiveness of U.S. businesses,
and threatening the future of electronic commerce and the
growth of the Global Information Infrastructure (GII).
We the undersigned Internet users and concerned citizens
strongly support Congressional efforts to address this critical
issue. Bills are currently pending in both Houses of Congress
which would:
-Relax export controls on encryption technology;
-Prohibit the government from imposing "Key Escrow" solutions
domestically; and
-Recognize the importance of privacy and security for the future of
electronic commerce, individual liberty, and the success of the
Internet.
We urge Congress to act NOW to enact a U.S. encryption policy that
promotes electronic privacy and security.
Add your name to his at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ !
------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO RECEIVE CRYPTO-NEWS
To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com)
or send mail to majordomo@panix.com with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body
of the message. To unsubscribe, send a letter to majordomo@panix.com with
"unsubscribe crypto-news" in the body.
------------------------------------------------------
PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION
Press inquiries on Crypto-News should be directed to
Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at +1.718.596.2851 or shabbir@vtw.org
Jonah Seiger (CDT) at +1.202.637.9800 or jseiger@cdt.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:38:59 +0100
From: Glenn Hauman <hauman@hks.net>
Subject: File 4--Banned Books Week 9/28-10/5
Just a reminder:
Banned Books Week is co-sponsored
by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the
American Library Association, the Association of American
Publishers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the
National Association of College Stores. As in the past, Banned Books
Week is also endorsed by the Center for the Book of the Library of
Congress.
The battle against those who would remove materials from libraries,
schools, and bookstores-- and now, the Internet-- continues, and in
many areas has escalated. Through the participation of thousands of
bookstores and libraries across the country, millions of Americans
learn about the critical importance of free expression and of the
perilous threats to First Amendment rights that exist in our country
today. Banned Books Week draws attention to the danger that exits
when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a
free society. The message goes beyond the freedom to choose and to
express ones opinion; the message of Banned Books Week is the
importance of ensuring the availability of viewpoints, even
unorthodox or unpopular, to those who wish to read them.
A large listing of banned books and their circumstances, along with
additional links will be going up on http://www.bb.com shortly.
Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
http://www.bb.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 01:03:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Computer Virus Hysteria/John McAfee Awards: plea for books
Crypt Newsletter and Computer Virus Myths guru Rob Rosenberger
have put their heads together to comb the media for
computer virus stories that have contributed the most to
computer virus misinformation and confusion in 1996. Once they've
been compiled, we'll put them on display along with analyses of their
impact and faults and throw the nominees open to Netizens for their
votes on which are the best, or worst, depending on your point
of view.
Rob has puckishly named the contest the 1996 John McAfee Awards
after the 1992 watershed event of Michelangelo hype that catapulted
the anti-virus software developer to fame and fortune -- his
former company to a dominant position in the anti-virus industry.
But we want this to be an exercise in extending computer literacy
and to that end we intend to give away some prizes -- namely books!
Here's where you -- authors, publishers, the pure of heart and
philanthropic -- come in. Contribute one book on computer security,
computer viruses or reality and culture in cyberspace and we'll be
forever in your debt. You'll get publicity when we mention your
philanthropy and book during the nominations, voting and awards
ceremony. Plus you'll have the satisfaction of knowing your book
is going to be placed directly into the hands of someone in the media
who needs it the most!
To contribute a book, contact me or Rob Rosenberger.
George Smith: crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu
Rob Rosenberger: us@kumite.com
In late October we'll publicize the nominees and the prizes so the
voting can begin. Watch this space for further details.
Computer Virus Myths
http://www.us.kumite.com/myths
Crypt Newsletter
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tariq KRIM <bronks@bok.net>" <bronks@bok.net>
Subject: File 6--Jean_bernard_Condat PhD Musicologie
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Monday, CuD received a call from Mr.
Tariq Krim, who is currently working in the Silicon Valley.
Mr. Krim was upset with the following passage from CuD 8.67, File 5:
Yesterday, I lost my job of senior consultant in the Smart
Card Business Unit of Informix because Mr. Tariq Krim of
the ENST in Paris don't hesitate to call all my chiefs with
some kind words on my life.
It appears that the above passage is less than accurate.
And, while CuD cannot always identify forged messages, we do
feel compelled to observe that the original post that Crypt
Newsletter editor George Smith identified as plagiarized from
him isn't normally the kind of forgeries that are sent, and
the plagiarized post was consistent with similar posts from
the same source that we published without complaint.
Below is Mr. Krim's response to the allegation that he called
"all my chiefs" that resulted in dismissal:
-------------
Usually when I hear about Jean Bernard Condat we tell me bad things. I've
heard that he claimed to be a computer hacker and specialist of
telecommunications.
A few years ago someone gave Condat a phone number and said "hack my
machine if you can". Jean Bernard Condat spent 15 days trying.
It was a Fax number ...
Now he claims to be on the Internet since 81. Hopefully for the net he's
around for a few years only and is forbidden on all the french BBS and
french ISP.
Now I've never seen Mister Condat personnaly. I don't want to keep contact
with this person. I've just written this mail to tell all my friends and
the CuD readers that the story he told is completely false.
First: I don't know Condat.
second: I don't know the people of Informix France.
three: I don't know where he had my email
four: Your are responsible for what you say on the Internet and lying is not
a good thing as copying articles and books.
five: defamation has legal issues that I could exploit if this story is
not finished after this mail.
six: be polite on phone and don't tell another story than the one
published in CuD because it decreases your credibility ( if you still have
some)
And for the last time Jean Bernard Condat is a true Space "blaireau".
Well all this to say that I don't have yet the power to fire people in a
second, even people like JBC. I dont follow this guy 's life and
technically what he said is impossible as I live in the US. (hey you
didn't know that Mr Condat)
I don't want to be better than Jean Bernard Condat, I dont want to be Jean
Bernard Condat, and I dont want my name associate to this guy.
never ever....
Any way Jim I want to tell you that this e-zine that I read for soon 6
years is still the reference for underground computers issues.
"bonne continuation"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:11:24 -0400
From: Bob Palacios <editor@cdt.org>
Subject: File 7--CDT Policy Post 2.32 - FBI Surveillance Demands Rejected on Privacy
Grounds
The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 32 September 20, 1996
CONTENTS: (1) FBI Demands for Broad New Surveillance Power Rejected on
Privacy Grounds
(2) CDT Background Memo on the FBI Demands
(3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe
(4) About CDT, contacting us
** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact **
Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor@cdt.org>
** This document looks best when viewed in COURIER font **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) FBI Demands for Broad New Surveillance Power Rejected on Privacy
Grounds
A telecommunications industry standards body on Thursday voted to reject a
demand by the FBI to create a national tracking system out of the wireless
telephone network. CDT applauds this decision as a significant victory
for privacy and condemns the FBI's blatant efforts to subvert the specific
requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA, also known as "Digital Telephony").
"The FBI is demanding that every cell phone double as a tracking device,
providing instant and continuous location information not just when a
subject is talking but whenever a cellular phone is turned on. " said CDT
Executive Director Jerry Berman. "The FBI is demanding real-time tracking
of anyone suspected of committing a crime. This is a clear violation of
the statute and the Fourth Amendment." Berman added
At issue are technical standards currently being drafted to implement the
1994 law. The FBI, which holds an influential position within the industry
standards process, has demanded that the wireless telephone network be
designed in a way that would allow real time tracking of individuals
suspected of a crime.
Specifically, the FBI is demanding that wireless networks be designed to
facilitate:
* Tracking of the physical location of a subject any time a cellular
phone is turned on (even if no call is being made or received)
* Tracking of the physical location of a subject when a cellular phone
moves within a service area or moves to another carrier's service area
* Tracking of the physical location of a subject when a cellular phone
makes or receives a call
* Delivery of this information to law enforcement in real time (within
500 milliseconds)
Although law enforcement currently has the authority to obtain certain
location information through a search warrant, the standards proposed by
the FBI would have allowed access to far more detailed location information
under a lower standard.
"The law was designed to freeze the FBI in time, not as a blank check to
the FBI to design the telecommunications network any way it pleased."
Berman said. "The FBI's demands go far beyond what's permitted under CALEA
and contradict statements by Director Freeh before Congress 2 years ago."
The drafters of CALEA specifically stated that the statute was not designed
to expand law enforcement surveillance authority. The Committee report on
the legislation notes:
"The FBI director testified that the legislation was intended to
preserve the status quo, that it was intended to provide law
enforcement no more and no less access to information than it had in
the past. The Committee urges against over broad interpretation of the
requirements."
-- House Judiciary Committee Report to Accompany H.R. 4922. Rept.
103-827 Part 1, Page 22
NEXT STEPS
In order to ensure public oversight and accountability over the FBI's
surveillance authority, CALEA requires the government to reimburse the
telecommunications industry for the costs of meeting the statute's
requirements. Congress is currently considering a mechanism to fund the
implementation of the law.
CDT urges the Congress to exercise its oversight role to determine whether
the FBI is seeking to use CALEA to expand current surveillance capabilities
contrary to the specific intent of the law. Unless and until the FBI
clarifies its intent and justifies its demands, Congress should not allow
the expenditure of any funds to implement CALEA.
CDT and a ad-hoc task force of other privacy organizations and
telecommunications industry representatives are currently conducting a
review of electronic surveillance issues at the request of Senators Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). The task force report will cover the
implementation of CALEA and will be released within the next few months.
CDT stands ready to intervene again at the standards setting process and
before the FCC if necessary in order to ensure that privacy is protected as
CALEA is implemented.
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a Washington DC based non-profit
public interest organization focusing on free speech and privacy issues in
new computer and communications technology. CDT can be found on the World
Wide Web at: http://www.cdt.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) CDT BACKGROUND MEMO ON THE FBI DEMANDS
FBI SEEKS TO USE CELLULAR TELEPHONES AS TRACKING DEVICES
The FBI is demanding the telecommunications industry design cellular
telephone networks in a way which would allow law enforcement to track
the physical location and movements of individuals in clear violation of
the law. This effort by the FBI raises grave privacy concerns and must
be rejected by the telecommunications industry.
In ongoing discussions with a Telecommunications Industry Association
committee established to set technical standards to implement the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, P.L. 103-414,
also known as the "Digital Telephony" statute), the FBI is requesting
surveillance capability far beyond current law enforcement capabilities and
in clear violation of the scope of the law.
CALEA was not designed as a blank check from Congress allowing law
enforcement to design the telecommunications network to expand existing
surveillance capability. Rather, the statute was carefully balanced to
ensure that law enforcement maintain the status quo. This overreaching by
the FBI raises serious privacy concerns and clearly violates the balance
struck by CALEA. CDT strongly urges Congress to refrain from approving any
funding for the implementation of CALEA until the FBI makes its intentions
clear.
FBI Demanding Location Information In Clear Violation of the Statute
The FBI's request is contained in a proposal called the Electronic
Surveillance Interface (ESI), which specifies the design of the interface
between the telecommunications network and law enforcement's own
surveillance equipment. The FBI has refused a formal request by CDT to view
a copy of the ESI.
However, documents obtained from a meeting of the FBI and the
telecommunications industry on September 12 indicate that the FBI is
demanding that cellular networks be designed to deliver location
information to law enforcement. Specifically, the ESI states that
cellular networks must be designed to provide the geographic location of a
particular subject:
The ESI states:
R7-62 The SSM (Surveillance Status Message) shall be delivered to
the LEA (Law Enforcement Authority) whenever the subject
changes location or between systems and this location is
available to the IAP (Intercept Access Point)
In short, the FBI is requesting that the cellular network be designed to
report the geographic location of an individual subject:
1. When a cellular phone is turned on (even if no call is made)
2. When a cellular phone moves within a service area or moves to another
carrier's service area.
3. When a cellular phone makes or receives a call.
The FBI claims that location information has to be provided to law
enforcement under CALEA because it is part of "call setup information."
However, in his testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees on March 18, 1994, FBI Freeh director stated exactly
the opposite:
"Several privacy-based spokespersons have criticized the wording of the
definition (of call setup information)... alleging that the government
is seeking a new, pervasive, automated 'tracking' capability. Such
allegations are completely wrong.... In order to make clear that the
acquisition of such information is not... included within the term
'call setup information' we are prepared to add a concluding phrase to
this definition to explicitly clarify the point: '*** except that such
information [call setup information] shall not include any information
that may disclose the physical location of a mobile facility or
service beyond that associated with the number's area code or
exchange.'" (Testimony of FBI director Louis Freeh before a joint
hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Technology and the Law, March 18, 1994. S. Hrg 103-1022).
The drafters of CALEA noted in the Committee report that the statute was not
designed to expand law enforcement surveillance ability:
"The FBI director testified that the legislation was intended to
preserve the status quo, that it was intended to provide law
enforcement no more and no less access to information than it had in
the past. The Committee urges against over broad interpretation of
the requirements." (House Judiciary Committee Report to Accompany H.R.
4922. Rept. 103-827 Part 1, page 22)
The FBI's demand that all wireless communications equipment provide the
physical locations of a subscriber at all times goes raises obvious privacy
issues and goes well beyond the scope of CALEA and the explicit statements
of the FBI.
No Funds Should Be Appropriated to Implement CALEA Until This Issue is Resolved
In passing CALEA, Congress sought to preserve law enforcement's ability to
conduct electronic surveillance as new communications technologies are
developed. At the same time, Congress was very clear that the law was
designed to preserve the status quo and not to expand law enforcement
surveillance authority. In addition, Congress took the extra step of
including substantial Congressional oversight and public accountability to
the implementation process in order to ensure that law enforcement did not
overreach and that privacy interests would be protected.
The law requires the telecommunications industry to set standards for
meeting the FBI's general requirements in an open process, allows
interested parties to challenge any standard before the FCC if it fails to
protect privacy, and requires Congressional oversight and accountability
over the implementation of the law by mandating government reimbursement
for expensive capability upgrades.
We urge Congress to exercise its oversight role to determine whether in
fact the FBI is seeking to use CALEA to expand its current surveillance
capabilities contrary to the intent of the law. Unless and until the FBI
clarifies its intent and justifies its demands, Congress should not allow
the expenditure of any funds to implement CALEA.
We look forward to discussing this issue with you further. If you have any
questions please contact:
Center for Democracy and Technology +1.202.637.9800
Danny Weitzner, Deputy Director <djw@cdt.org>
Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst <jseiger@cdt.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting
civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT
Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news
publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by
nearly 10,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and
activists, and have become the leading source for information about
critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other
interactive communications media.
To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to
policy-posts-request@cdt.org
with a subject:
subscribe policy-posts
If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the
above address with a subject of:
unsubscribe policy-posts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest
organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop
and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and
constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications
technologies.
Contacting us:
General information: info@cdt.org
World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/
FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/
Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006
(v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
End Policy Post 2.32 9/20/96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
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 (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB 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);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/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 #8.69
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink