informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud1008.txt

784 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 1, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 08
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #10.08 (Sun, Feb 1, 1998)
File 1--Court Blocks Discharge in Navy/AOL Privacy Case (EPIC Alert)
File 2--The EFF Pioneer Awards -1998
File 3--Quad/Graphics v. Sthrn Adirondack Lib System
File 4--National & International Communications Interceptions Networks
File 5--How Big is the Internet Today?
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:43:30 -0500
From: EPIC-News List <epic-news@epic.org>
Subject: File 1--Court Blocks Discharge in Navy/AOL Privacy Case (EPIC Alert)
==============================================================
Volume 5.01 January 26, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/
=======================================================================
[1] Court Blocks Discharge in Navy/AOL Privacy Case
=======================================================================
A federal judge has enjoined the dismissal of a highly decorated sailor
after finding that the proposed discharge was based upon information the
Navy obtained from America Online in apparent violation of federal
privacy law. The decision, issued today by U.S. District Judge Stanley
Sporkin, concludes that Naval investigators "likely" violated the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when they requested and
received confidential subscriber information from AOL, the nation's
largest online service. (Excerpts from the decision are included below).
Navy officials had ordered the discharge of the sailor, Timothy R.
McVeigh (no relation to the convicted Oklahoma City bomber), on the
ground that McVeigh violated the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
policy on homosexuality. The Navy's proposed action is based entirely
upon information obtained from AOL linking the sailor to a "screen name"
on the system in which the user's marital status was listed as "gay."
The information was received from AOL in violation of ECPA, which
prohibits the government from obtaining "information pertaining to a
subscriber" without a court order or subpoena. In addition to the
privacy protections contained in ECPA, AOL's contractual "Terms of
Service" prohibit the company from disclosing such information to *any*
third party "unless required to do so by law or legal process."
McVeigh's lawsuit is the first case to challenge governmental access to
sensitive subscriber information maintained by an online service. In a
statement issued when the suit was filed last week, EPIC said, "It is an
important test of federal privacy law that will determine whether
government agents can violate the law with impunity, or whether they will
be held accountable for illegal conduct in cyberspace." EPIC noted that
the incident also raises serious questions concerning the adequacy of
contractual privacy protections like those contained in the AOL
subscriber agreement.
In a letter sent to Navy Secretary John Dalton on January 14, EPIC urged
a postponement of McVeigh's discharge pending an investigation of the
Navy's conduct. EPIC noted that, "Any other result would make a mockery
of federal privacy law and subject the American people to intrusive and
unlawful governmental surveillance."
More information on the case, including a form for sending faxes to the
White House and the Pentagon, is available at:
http://www.hrc.org/mcveigh/
=======================================================================
[2] Excerpts From Court Decision in Navy/AOL Privacy Case
=======================================================================
From the Memorandum Opinion of U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin in
McVeigh v. Cohen, et al. (Civil Action 98-116, D.D.C.):
The [investigative] steps taken by the Navy in its "pursuit" of the
Plaintiff were not only unauthorized under its [Don't Ask, Don't Tell]
policy, but likely illegal under the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986 (ECPA). . . .
The government knew, or should have known, that by turning over the
information without a warrant, AOL was breaking the law. Yet the Navy,
in this case, directly solicited the information anyway. What is most
telling is that the Naval investigator did not identify himself when he
made his request. . . .
In these days of "big brother," where through technology and otherwise
the privacy interests of individuals from all walks of life are being
ignored or marginalized, it is imperative that statutes explicitly
protecting these rights be strictly observed. . . .
Certainly, the public has an inherent interest in the preservation of
privacy rights as advanced by the Plaintiff in this case. With
literally the entire world on the world-wide web, enforcement of the
ECPA is of great concern to those who bare the most personal
information about their lives in private accounts through the Internet.
In this case in particular, where the government may well have violated
a federal statute in its zeal to brand the Plaintiff a homosexual, the
actions of the Navy must be more closely scrutinized by the Court.
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================
The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email
to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or
"unsubscribe". A Web-based form is available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:13:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com>
Subject: File 2--The EFF Pioneer Awards -1998
THE SEVENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL EFF PIONEER AWARDS:
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
* Please feel free to redistribute this notice in appropriate forums. *
In every field of human endeavor,there are those dedicated to expanding
knowledge, freedom, efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier,
this is especially true. To recognize this, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation established the Pioneer Awards for deserving individuals and
organizations.
The Pioneer Awards are international and nominations are open to all.
In March of 1992, the first EFF Pioneer Awards were given in Washington
D.C. The winners were: Douglas C. Engelbart, Robert Kahn, Jim Warren, Tom
Jennings, and Andrzej Smereczynski. The 1993 Pioneer Award recipients were
Paul Baran, Vinton Cerf, Ward Christensen, Dave Hughes and the USENET
software developers, represented by the software's originators Tom
Truscott and Jim Ellis. The 1994 Pioneer Award winners were Ivan
Sutherland, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, Murray Turoff and Starr
Roxanne Hiltz, Lee Felsenstein, Bill Atkinson, and the WELL. The 1995
Pioneer Award winners were Philip Zimmermann, Anita Borg, and Willis Ware.
The 1996 Pioneer Award winners were Robert Metcalfe, Peter Neumann,
Shabbir Safdar and Matthew Blaze. The 1997 Pioneer Award winners were Hedy
Lamarr and George Antheil (who won a special award), Marc Rotenberg, and
Johan Helsingius.
The 7th Annual Pioneer Awards will be given in Austin, Texas, at
the 8th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy in February of 1998.
All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of judges chosen
for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the technical,
legal, and social issues involved in computer technology and computer
communications.
There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the
following guidelines apply:
1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the
health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.
2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural.
3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the
private or public sectors.
4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one
recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization.
5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however
brief, for nominating the individual or organization, along with a means of
contacting the nominee, and, ideally, your own contact number. Anonymous
nominations will be allowed, but we prefer to be able to contact the
nominating parties in the event that we need more information..
6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff
members, may be nominated for a Pioneer Award.
7) Persons or representatives of organizations receiving a Pioneer Award
will be invited to attend the ceremony at the Foundation's expense.
You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per
nomination. You may return the forms to us via email (preferred) to:
pioneer@eff.org
You may fax them to us at:
+1 415 436 9993
Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at
which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the
nominee deserves the award. You may attach supporting documentation.
Please include your own name, address, and phone number.
We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made
and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them,
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
-------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------
Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the following
information about your nominee for the Pioneer Awards:
Nominee's name:
Title:
Company/Organization:
Contact number or email address:
Reason for nomination:
Your name and contact information:
Extra documentation attached:
------------------------------
Subject: File 3--Quad/Graphics v. Sthrn Adirondack Lib System
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:34:15 -0600
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here's the text of the decision reported by a
recent poster regarding a company's attempt to access the user
records of a library to determine who had used the libraries
computers to allegedly access the company's computer resources.))
source: http://www.lcp.com/products/NY/slipops/pay/misc/F9757370.htm
Matter of Quad/Graphics, Inc. v Southern Adirondack Lib. Sys.
IN THE MATTER OF QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN
ADIRONDACK LIBRARY SYSTEM, Respondent.
Miscellaneous Courts -- 1997 NYSLIPOP 97573
Index No. 97-386
RJI 45-1-97-0189
SUPREME COURT
SARATOGA COUNTY
DECISION
COUNSEL
APPEARANCES:
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, L. L. P., Albany, for petitioner.
EDWARD LINDNER, Saratoga Springs, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
MAJORITY
KENIRY, J.:
In a case of first impression, petitioner corporation seeks to compel
pre-litigation disclosure of the names of certain of its employees
whom it suspects have misappropriated corporate computer resources.
Quad Graphics, Inc. is a major national commercial printing company.
Its headquarters is in Wisconsin. It maintains a large plant (1,000
employees) in Saratoga Springs, New York. Petitioner uses computers
extensively in its business. Examination of relatively high
long-distance telephone bills led the corporation to suspect that its
computers were being misused.
The respondent in the case is Southern Adirondack Library System
(SALS). SALS is a cooperative system composed of 30 member libraries
located in four upstate New York counties. Respondent operates, from
its headquarters in Saratoga Springs, New York, an electronic
information service known as "Library Without Walls". Users of
"Library Without Walls" (LWW) possessing a valid library card and a
personal identification number issued by any one of SALS'
participating libraries, may access the "Internet". A library-based
computer or a personally-owned computer can be used to log online.
Access is free for 30 minute periods.
Quad Graphics employees are prohibited from using Quad Graphics
computers for personal purposes. Petitioner's Saratoga computer
terminals do not have the capability of directly accessing outside
telephone lines. However a computer operator in the Saratoga Springs
plant may log into the company's mainframe computer located in
Wisconsin. The terminal user can cause the mainframe by the use of a
Quad Graphics password to access long distance. Then by telephoning
the library in Saratoga Springs and providing a correct library
password the employee-caller accomplishes a hook up with the LWW
(third party) computer network.
Petitioner contends that a cadre of its Saratoga Springs-based
employees employed the library feature during working hours to effect
the hookup and explore the "Internet" for personal purposes.
Petitioner, after examining its long distance telephone billing
records, asserts that unauthorized use between April 1995 and December
1996 has resulted in petitioner incurring over $23,000 in long
distance telephone charges to the "LWW" telephone line and in
petitioner losing 1,770 Saratoga Springs employee manhours in devotion
to personal use of the "Internet". Petitioner, through internal
investigative techniques, has been able to decipher nine distinct
13-digit identification numbers which were used to access "LWW" from
its computer system.
Petitioner, in an effort to learn the identity of the individuals to
whom those nine identification numbers were issued, made a request
under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law, art.6) to
the Saratoga Springs Public Library for such information. Petitioner's
request was rejected by the library on the basis that such information
is confidential and may not be voluntarily disclosed. [1]
In this application petitioner contends that SALS as a quasi-municipal
agency is subject to and bound by the Freedom of Information Law and
is required to disclose the names it seeks.
SALS contends that under CPLR 4509 the identities are required to be
kept confidential.
Section 4509 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, first enacted in
1982 (L. 1982, ch. 14) and broadened in 1988 (L. 1988, ch.112),
provides as follows:
Library records, which contain names or other personally identifying
details regarding the users of public, free association, school,
college and university libraries and library systems of this state,
including but not limited to records related to the circulation of
library materials, computer database searches, interlibrary loan
transactions, reference queries, requests for photocopies of library
materials, title reserve requests, or the use of audio-visual
materials, films or records, shall be confidential and shall not be
disclosed except that such records may be disclosed to the extent
necessary for the proper operation of such library and shall be
disclosed upon request or consent of the user or pursuant to subpoena,
court order or where otherwise required by statute.
The court has reviewed the legislative history of CPLR 4509 as
contained in the bill jackets for the original enactment and the
subsequent amendment. The supporting memorandum issued by the Assembly
of the State of New York when the law was enacted, states:
The New York State Legislature has a strong interest in protecting the
right to read and think of the people of this State. The library, as
the unique sanctuary of the widest possible spectrum of ideas, must
protect the confidentiality of its records in order to insure its
readers' right to read anything they wish, free from the fear that
someone might see what they read and use this as a way to intimidate
them. Records must be protected from the self-appointed guardians of
public and private morality and from officials who might overreach
their constitutional prerogatives. Without such protection, there
would be a chilling effect on our library users as inquiring minds
turn away from exploring varied avenues of thought because they fear
the potentiality of others knowing their reading history.
Enactment of '4509 in 1982 was supported by the New York Civil
Liberties Union, the New York Public Library and the New York County
Lawyers' Association. The State Education Department and State
University of New York raised no objection to the bill.
In 1988, the Law Revision Commission of the State of New York, acting
on a request by library staff and faculty of State University of New
York at Buffalo and its Law School, recommended that '4509 be
broadened to protect additional library records. The statute as
originally enacted protected only a library's circulation records. An
amendment enacted in 1988 protected records relating to computer
database searches, interlibrary loan transactions, reference
inquiries, photocopy requests, title reserve requests and audio-visual
materials, films and records usage information. The New York Library
Association, the State Education Department, and the New York Civil
Liberties Union supported broadening '4509's reach.
It is clear that '4509 does not grant an absolute privilege
prohibiting the disclosure of library records. The law is intended to
allow limited disclosure pursuant to court order. A court order is
precisely what petitioner seeks. The salient issue is whether or not
petitioner's expressed desire to learn the identity of individuals who
are alleged to have misused its computer system and misappropriated
its property, in order to initiate civil legal proceedings, is a
proper basis for release of the library system's records.
It is the court's determination that disclosure of the information
sought should not be permitted. Petitioner certainly has an internal
security problem involving the unauthorized use of its computer
equipment and resources. However a criminal complaint is not before
this court and apparently has not been made. Were this application to
be granted, the door would be open to other similar requests made, for
example, by a parent who wishes to learn what a child is reading or
viewing on the "Internet" via "LWW" or by a spouse to learn what type
of information his or her mate is reviewing at the public library.
The court recognizes the significance of the problem that petitioner
faces and the difficulty that petitioner has encountered in trying to
identify the users. The Legislature has expressed, in rather direct
and unequivocal fashion, a public policy that the confidentiality of a
library's records should not be routinely breached and this court, in
denying the petitioner's request, is following the clearly expressed
legislative purpose of CPLR 4509.
One of the petitioner's other arguments deserves brief comment.
Petitioner contends that disclosure of the records sought is required
under '4509 since it, as the owner of the computer equipment and
telephone lines utilized to access the Internet, should be considered
the "user" of "LWW" and thus it is entitled to the information as a
matter of right. The argument is specious. The operation of a computer
is controlled by the person who gives it commands. The users in this
case are the individuals who actually operated the computers guiding
them through the "Internet".
Petitioner's application is denied without costs.
Dated: September 30, 1997, Ballston Spa, New York
Footnotes
Footnote 1: The Saratoga Springs Public Library was originally named
as the respondent in this proceeding. An order, based upon a written
stipulation, was made and entered substituting SALS as respondent
since "LWW" was and is a program of SALS and not of the Saratoga
Springs Public Library.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:18:21 +1100
From: Felipe Rodriquez <felipe@xs4all.nl>
Subject: File 4--National & International Communications Interceptions Networks
I think this may be of interest to this list. This report is not available
electronically, so I typed in the most interesting part. If you are
interested in obtaining a free copy of the report, then refer to the bottom
of this message and use the example-fax that is attached there.
This message is a quote from a report published by the EU Parliament:
AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL
Published by Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA)
Directorate General for Research
Luxembourg 6 january 1998
Document nr: PE 166 499
"The document is a working document. The current version is being
circulated for consultation. It is not an official publication of STOA or
of the European Parliament. The document does not necessarily represent the
views of the European Parliament."
"4.4 National & International Communications Interceptions Networks
Modern communications systems are virtually transparent to the advanced
interceptions equipment which can be used to listen in. Some systems even
lend themselves to a dual role as a national interceptions network. For
example the message switching system used on digital exchanges like System
X in the UK supports an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
protocol. This allows digital devices. E.g. fax to share the system with
existing lines. The ISDN subset is defined in their documents as "Signaling
CCITT1-series interface for ISDN access. What is not widely known is that
built in to the international CCITT protocol is the ability to take phones
'off hook' and listen to the conversations occurring near the phone,
without the user being aware that it is happening. (SGR Newsletter,
No.4,1993) This effectively means that a national dial up telephone tapping
capacity is built into these systems from the start. (System X has been
exported to Russia and China) Similarly, the digital technology required to
pinpoint mobile phone users for incoming phone calls, means that all mobile
phone users in a country when activated, are mini-tracking devices, giving
their owners whereabouts at any time and stored in the company's computer
for up to two years. Coupled with System X technology, this is a custom
built mobile track, tail and tap system par excellence. (Sunday telegraph,
2.2.97)
Within Europe, all email, telephone and fax communications are routinely
intercepted by the United States National Security Agency, transferring all
target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub of
London then by satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland via the crucial hub at
Menwith Hill in the North York Moors of the UK. The system was first
uncovered in the 1970's by a group of researchers in the UK (campbell,
1981. The researchers used open sources but where subsequently arrested
under Britain's Official Secrets legislation. The 'ABC' trial that followed
was a critical turning point in researcher's understanding of both of the
technology of political control and how it might be challenged by research
on open sources. (See Aubrey, 1981 & Hooper 1987) Other work on what is now
known as Signals intelligence was undertaken by researchers such as James
Bamford, which uncovered a billion dollar world wide interceptions network,
which he nicknamed the 'Puzzle Palace'. A recent work by Nicky Hager,
Secret Power, (hager 1996) provider the most comprehensive details to date
of a project called ECHELON. Hager interviewed more than 50 people
concerned with intelligence to document a global surveillance system that
stretches around the world to form a targeting system on all of the key
Intelsat satellites used to convey most of the world's satellite phone
calls, internet, email, faxes and telexes. These sites are based at Sugar
grove and Yakima, in the USA, at Waihopai in New Zealand, at Geraldton in
Australia, Hong Kong and Morwenstow in the UK.
The ECHELON system forms part of the UKUSA system but unlike many of the
electronic spy systems developed during the cold war, ECHELON is designed
for primarily non-military targets: governments, organisations and
businesses in virtually every country. The ECHELON system works by
indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and
then siphoning out what is valuable using artificial intelligence aids like
Memex. To find key words. Five nations share the results with the US as the
senior partner under the UKUSA agreement of 1948, Britain, New Zealand, and
Australia are very much acting as subordinate information sevicers.
Each of the five centres supply "dictionaries" to the other four of
keywords, Phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged information
intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. Whilst there is
much information gathered about potential terrorists, there is a lot of
economic intelligence, notably intensive monitoring of all the countries
participating in the GA TT negotiations. But Hager found that by far the
main priorities of this system continued to be military and political
intelligence applicable to their wider interests. Hager quotes from a
"highly placed intelligence operatives" who spoke in the Observer in
London. "We feel we can no longer remain silent regarding that which we
regard to be gross malpractice and negligence within the establishment in
which we operate." They gave as examples. GCHQ interception of three
charities, including Amnesty International and Christian Aid. "At any time
GCHQ is able to home in on their communications for a routine target
request," the GCHQ source said. In the case of phone taps the procedure is
known as Mantis. With telexes its called Myfly. By keying in a code
relating to third world aid, the source was able to demonstrate telex
"fixes" on the three organisations. With no system of accountability, it is
difficult to discover what criteria determine who is not a target.
In February, the UK based research publication Statewatch reported that the
EU had secretly agreed to set up an international telephone tapping network
via a secret network of committees established under the "third pillar" of
the Maastricht Treaty covering co-operation on law and order. Key points of
the plan are outlined in a memorandum of understanding signed by EU states
in 1995. (ENFOPOL 112 10037/95 25.10.95) which remains classified.
According to a Guardian report (25.2.97) it reflects concern among European
intelligence agencies that modern technology will prevent them from tapping
private communications. "EU countries it says, should agree on
"international interception standards set at a level that would ensure
encoding or scrambled words can be broken down by government agencies."
Official report say that the EU governments agreed to co-operate closely
with the FBI in Washington. Yet earlier minutes of these meetings suggest
that the original initiative cane from Washington. According to Statewatch,
network and service providers in the EU will be obliged to install
"tappable" systems and to place under surveillance any person or group when
served with an interception order. These plans have never been referred to
any European government for scrutiny, nor one suspects to the Civil Liberty
Committee of the European Parliament, despite the clear civil liberties
issues raised by such an unaccountable system. We are told that the USA,
Australia, Canada, Norway and Hong Kong are ready to sign up. All these bar
Norway are parties to the ECHELON system and it is impossible to determine
if there are not other agendas at work here. Nothing is said about finance
of this system but a report produced by the German government estimates
that the mobile phone part of the package will cost 4 billion D-marks.
Statewatch concludes that "It is the interface of the ECHELON system and
its potential development on phone calls combined with the standardization
of "tappable communications centres and equipment being sponsored by the EU
and the USA which present a truly global threat over which there are no
legal or democratic controls" (press release 25.2.97)"
If you are interested in obtaining a free copy of this report, then
complete this fax and
send it to +32-22-849059
TO: Karin Sercu, STOA Programme
Directorate-General for Research,
Directorate B, Eastman 112,
rue Belliard 97-113, B-1047 Bruxelles, Belgium
Subject-- STOA report 'Technologies of Political Control'
FROM: "YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE"
Dear Ms. Sercu,
I'd like to acquire the STOA Report "AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF
POLITICAL CONTROL", document number PE 166 499.
Please please send it to:
"YOUR ADDRESS HERE"
Kind regards,
"YOUR NAME HERE"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:09:35 -0500 (EST)
From: editor@TELECOM-DIGEST.ORG
Subject: File 5--How Big is the Internet Today?
Source - TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98, Volume 18 : Issue 16
From--anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou)
Date--Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:15:58 GMT
Following a thread from an irreverent e-mail list story, I discovered
that Bellcore has a website which tracks the size of the Internet.
They're using statistical sampling of the DNS to estimate the number
of internet hosts.
The estimate as I write is 30,096,400 and growing. The site is
http://www.netsizer.com , and you need a Java-enabled browser to see
it. Information about the estimate is at
http://www.netsizer.com/info.html .
Anthony Argyriou
http://www.alphageo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #10.08
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink