|
LISTSERVE FOR CuD DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!, 2600 test
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer underground Digest Sun June 20 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 45
ISSN 1004-045X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Seniur
CONTENTS, #5.45 (June 20 1993)
File 1--LISTSERVE FOR CuD DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!
File 2--Re: 2600 testimony to Markey's subcommittee
File 3--Newsgroup Moderator Survey -- Respondents Requested
File 4--CUnews - SPA sues software rental; Sega/ratings; Censorship
File 5--Newsletter on work in computer industry
File 6--Course on "Politics and Technology"
File 7--GPO WINDO text here!
File 8--Re-AB1624: dumbing-down leg displays w/o dumbing-down data
File 9--6/17 AB1624: dumbed-down displays - ADDENDA
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from [email protected]. 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: Thu, 12 June 1993 19:12:21 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--LISTSERVE FOR CuD DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!
CuD's mailing list has grown sufficiently large that we crash our
University mainframe's mailer with almost every issue. The computer
folk at Northern Illinois University have been patient, supportive,
and helpful. Sadly, they are constrained by the same fiscal
constraints that plague most other schools and cannot solve the
problem without a substantial investment of resources. NIU does not
(and for at least the near future cannot) support a listserve. So, CuD
is looking for a host to channel CuDs out to the mailing list of about
1,400 subscribers (growing at about 15-20 a week).
If anybody can provide a listserv, it will keep our local (and up to
now very friendly) computer sysads happy and help us keep CuDs coming
out once or twice a week.
Any suggestions, advice, or volunteer hosts will be appreciated.
Basic Information:
1) Reliability (obviously--an established university system preferred)
2) Capable of handling about 1,400 addresses
3) Each issue is about 40 K
If you have suggestions or can offer a site, contact:
Jim Thomas / [email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 20:31:17 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: File 2--Re: 2600 testimony to Markey's subcommittee
I was at the subcommittee hearing last Wednesday when "Emmanuel
Goldstein" testified, and I took notes. It is true that two committee
members (about half of the total who were present) focused on 2600 as
being a handbook for crime. Don Delaney, who was also on the panel,
giving good evidence about the extent and organization of phone fraud
in New York City, noted that the First Amendment had already been
abridged to protect kids from pornography, and proposed a law that
would make it a crime to sell security-related information to
juveniles. Subcommittee Chairman Markey told a long rambling story
about people going down Maple St. rattling the doorknobs and why that
was a bad thing. He compared 2600 to people who rattle the doorknobs
and then post on the bulletin board downtown, "The door to 123 Maple
St. is unlocked". Rep. Fields said to "Emmanuel" that it was
"frightening that someone like you thinks there's a protected right to
violate someone's privacy."
The ironic thing is that another panelist, John J. Haugh, heads a
consulting firm that publishes details about similar topics. He's the
editor and principal author of a two volume reference work, _Toll
Fraud and Telabuse_, published by his company in early 1992. He's
also the editor of a national newsletter, _Telecom & Network Security
Review_, also published by his company, with subscribers in 49 states
and 18 countries.
Mr. Haugh did not get hectored by the panel. But Mr. Haugh charges
$170/year for six issues of his newsletter, and wore a suit to the
hearing. When the same information is published at 2600 prices,
packaged for more adventurous people, it is "troubling".
My opinion is that when the privacy and security of society depends on
those doors being locked, then yes, we ought to have whole squads of
Boy Scouts, cops, hackers, and ordinary citizens rattling those
doorknobs hourly and daily. And when we find one open, we should let
the world know, because the privacy and security of the world depends
on it. This applies to information like, "if you tune an ordinary
radio to these frequencies, you can hear everyone's phone calls." If
the info is suppressed, the problem will never be fixed, because not
enough public pressure will be brought to bear on those responsible
for fixing it.
John Gilmore
PS: The first half of the hearing was on encryption and Clipper, and
I am pleased to say that the subcommittee took the *right* stance on
that issue -- that the Clipper proposal was trouble and that
fundamental rights, upon which our society is based, were at stake.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 22:52:27 BST
From: TG May <[email protected]
Subject: File 3--Newsgroup Moderator Survey -- Respondents Requested
You may remember my request for survey participants a while ago?
I have to date received a number of completed surveys. These have all
been very interesting, but I need more respondents(especially soc.,
sci. and rec. moderators).
This survey is part of my research at the Department of Information
and Library Studies, Loughborough University of Technology. It aims to
provide the author with an idea of what rules or policies that are
being used by moderators for the conduct of their newsgroup(s), the
extent to which these are adhered to and the extent of ethical and/or
legal problems (e.g. copyright infringements) and breaches of general
netiquette (e.g. use of excessive signatures and text). As well as
providing the author with further information on the work of moderators.
I am also interested in how moderators feel about some suggestions
that for example, all newsgroups should be moderated. Apart from
being contrary to the philosophy of UseNet, there are many practical
reasons for rejecting such ideas. What do you think?
Some of the questions may be more relevant to some newsgroups than
others. However I would appreciate your cooperation.
Please find enclosed a survey. I would be grateful if you would assist
me by completing it.
If desired I will send you a summary of my findings.
Please return the survey to my e-mail address by June 17th 1993.
Thank you for your assistance.
T.G.May [[email protected]]
Internet: [email protected]
===+CUT HERE+===
******************** SURVEY OF USENET MODERATORS ********************
*THE IDENTITY OF ALL RESPONDENTS WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL*
Please indicate answers with an X where appropriate.
1. Newsgroup name:
2. Start date of newsgroup:
3. Estimated number of subscribers(readers):
a) active [ ] b) reading [ ]
4. Number of submissions per week:
5. Are you: [ ] male [ ] female.
6. What is your occupation/job (e.g. academic, faculty
student etc.)? [ ]
7. How many years have you been a moderator to this
newsgroup ? [ ] years.
8. Do you moderate any other newsgroups? [ ]yes [ ]no
9. How did you become a moderator?
[ ] through a general discussion in news.groups
[ ] through personal e-mail
[ ] other *please give details*
10. What tasks do you perform as a moderator?
11. How much time do you spend daily on moderating?
[ ]less than 1hr [ ] 1-2hrs [ ] 3-4 hrs [ ]5 or more hrs.
12. How many *other* moderators, moderate this newsgroup?
[ ] * If none go to question 13 *
a) Do you work independently? [ ] yes [ ] no
b) Do you consult with other moderators in this newsgroup?
[ ] yes [ ] no
c) Do you consult with moderators from *other* newsgroups?
[ ] yes [ ] no [ ] other *please give details* [
]
If *no* to both questions b and c go to question 13.
d) On what issues, problems or activities do you consult?
e) Does this include problematic ethical or legal issues?
[ ] yes [ ] no
13. Do you have a written statement of policy ? [ ]yes [ ] no
Please answer with an X where appropriate:
a) As a moderator do you make specific rules with regard to
any of the following list of issues?
b) As a moderator, which pose a serious and continuing
problem?
c) How many (%) submissions per week *breach* those rules as you
see them?
a b c
Copyright [ ] [ ] [ ]
Anonymous postings [ ] [ ] [ ]
Advertisements [ ] [ ] [ ]
Pornography [ ] [ ] [ ]
Obscene material [ ] [ ] [ ]
Personal attacks [ ] [ ] [ ]
Flaming [ ] [ ] [ ]
Defamatory material [ ] [ ] [ ]
Extreme bias [ ] [ ] [ ]
Homophobic submissions [ ] [ ] [ ]
Racism/t submissions [ ] [ ] [ ]
Unrelated discussion [ ] [ ] [ ]
Unrelated points [ ] [ ] [ ]
Drifting [ ] [ ] [ ]
Noise [ ] [ ] [ ]
Length of text [ ] [ ] [ ]
Length of signatures [ ] [ ] [ ]
Quoting of previous submissions
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Use of personal mail [ ] [ ] [ ]
Cross-posting [ ] [ ] [ ]
Other *please give
details*
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
*If possible, please give examples of a and b*
d) How many submissions are rejected each week? [ ]
14. What action, if any, is taken in response to submissions
which breach any of the above?
15. Do you have an appeals procedure? [ ] yes [ ] no
16. Do you allow anonymous mailing/postings? [ ]yes [ ] no
[ ] only under certain circumstances? *please give details*
17. As a moderator to this newsgroup, what do you feel a
moderators role should?
18. Many suggestions have been made for the control of network
services. But do *you* agree with any of the following statements?
a) All newsgroups should be moderated [ ] yes [ ] no
b) All newsgroups moderators should be elected by
subscribers to the newsgroup? [ ] yes [ ] no
c) All newsgroups should be registered with a regulatory body or
authority?
[ ]yes [ ]no
d) All moderators should be vetted(*) by a regulatory body or authority?
[ ] yes [ ] no
* Vetted as in checking someone's personal background for criminal
records etc. so as to ascertain whether that the individual meets certain
criteria. This usually includes that the person should have no criminal
record.
Please use the space below to comment on any other issues
which you feel have not been covered here (or any additional
comments you wish to make).
Once again, thank you for your assistance.
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jun 93 21:03:58 EDT
From: Gordon Meyer <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--CUnews - SPA sues software rental; Sega/ratings; Censorship
To: >internet:[email protected]
SPA Cracks Down On Software Rental
==============================
The Software Publishers Association filed a copyright infringement
charges in a NY federal court last week. The charges were against
Megatronics, Global Software and Accessories, and Software Review.
The companies allegedly offer software for rent, which has been
illegal since December of 1990.
(Information Week. May 31, 1993. pg 8)
Rating Games
===========
Sega has announced that it will begin attaching ratings, similar to
the Motion Picture Code ratings, to video games. An internal Sega
council will determine the rating for each game, which will include GA
for General Audiences, MA-13 for mature audiences, and MA-17 for
adults. The game's premise, graphics, and audio content will be
considered in assigning the rating.
(Information Week. May 31, 1993. pg 8)
Internet Censorship
===============
Information Week (May 31, 1993. pg. 84) summarizes a Wall Street
Journal (May 24, pg B1) story about concerns over censorship on the
Internet. The summation focuses on programs that automatically remove
anonymous postings from newsgroups, and whether or not this
constitutes a threat against freedom of expression. The Journal
article is "Censorship Fights Heat Up On Academic Networks" by William
M. Bulkeley.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 13:36:57 -0700
From: "James I. Davis" <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Newsletter on work in computer industry
CPU: WORKING IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY #3 Now Available
Issue number 3 of the electronic newsletter CPU: WORKING IN THE
COMPUTER INDUSTRY is now available. This issue includes stories on
the current organizing efforts of janitors at Oracle Corporation,
the world's largest producer of database software; and an analysis
of the first strike ever in the Silicon Valley electronics
industry, which took place last fall.
Online subscriptions to CPU are available at no cost by emailing
[email protected] with a blank subject and a single line in the
body of the message:
SUBSCRIBE CPSR-CPU <your first name> <your last name>
For example:
SUBSCRIBE CPSR-CPU Robin Hood
CPU back issues can be found via anonymous FTP at either cpsr.org
in /cpsr/work or uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu in /pub/CPSR/work.
Current issues of CPU are also posted in the gen.newsletter
conference on PeaceNet.
CPU #1 (3/26/93) included original material on the state of work
in the computer industry, the global software labor market, and a
personal account of the implosion at IBM. CPU #2 (5/13/93)
included original stories on the engineers' strike at Boeing in
January, and contracting at Apple. Each issue also includes "Labor
Bytes", a summary of some of the top stories about work in the
computer industry.
CPU is a project of a working group of Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility / Berkeley Chapter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 15:57:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Larry Flood <[email protected]>
Subject: File 6--Course on "Politics and Technology"
(MODERATORS' NOTE: Judging from response we receive, a number of CuD
readers are academic types who try to integrate issues we address in
their classes. It might be helpful if we began sharing course info,
strategies, resources, reading lists, and other information and
perhaps make them available via ftp. Larry Flood is offering once such
course. If others are involved in teaching, perhaps they could send
any relevant material over, including electronically available
papers, syllabi, or reading lists, and Brendan will create a directory
(if there is sufficient response) for them)).
Next Spring I will offer a new course on politics and technology.
Emphasis will be on the impact of computers on politics and
politics on computing, but we will also consider other technologies
and b roader issues. Students will be introduced to the Internet
and computer communication. I'm writing to ask for suggestions for
readings, net-accessible materials, topics, contacts or whatever.
I will of course share my syllabus and discoveries with all who are
interested. Thanks in advance.
Larry Flood, Political Science, Buffalo State College
floodlg@snybufva
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 20:13:04 GMT
From: [email protected](Ray Kiddy)
Subject: File 7--GPO WINDO text here!
In the spirit of the GPO WINDO Act, just signed, here is the GPA WINDO
Act, as reported out of the Senate.
103RD CONGRESS; 1ST SESSION
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
AS ENROLLED
S. 564
1993 S. 564;
AN ACT
TO ESTABLISH IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE A MEANS OF ENHANCING
ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS TO A WIDE RANGE OF FEDERAL ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION.
TEXT:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, SECTION 1. SHORT
TITLE.
THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE "GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION ACCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1993".
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE.
(A) IN GENERAL.-TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT
THE END THE FOLLOWING NEW CHAPTER:
"CHAPTER 41-ACCESS TO FEDERAL ELECTRONIC INFORMATION
"SEC.
"4101. ELECTRONIC DIRECTORY; ONLINE ACCESS TO PUBLICATIONS; ELECTRONIC
STORAGE FACILITY.
"4102. FEES.
"4103. BIENNIAL REPORT.
"4104. DEFINITION.
"4101. ELECTRONIC DIRECTORY; ONLINE ACCESS TO PUBLICATIONS; ELECTRONIC
STORAGE FACILITY
"(A) IN GENERAL.-THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER, SHALL-
"(1) MAINTAIN AN ELECTRONIC DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION;
"(2) PROVIDE A SYSTEM OF ONLINE ACCESS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
THE FEDERAL REGISTER, AND, AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
DOCUMENTS, OTHER APPROPRIATE PUBLICATIONS DISTRIBUTED BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS; AND
"(3) OPERATE AN ELECTRONIC STORAGE FACILITY FOR FEDERAL ELECTRONIC
INFORMATION TO WHICH ONLINE ACCESS IS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER PARAGRAPH
(2).
"(B) DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS.-TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS SHALL ACCOMMODATE ANY REQUEST BY THE HEAD OF
A DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY TO INCLUDE IN THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS REFERRED TO IN
SUBSECTION (A)(2) INFORMATION THAT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT
OR AGENCY INVOLVED.
"(C) CONSULTATION.-IN CARRYING OUT THIS SECTION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
DOCUMENTS SHALL CONSULT-
"(1) USERS OF THE DIRECTORY AND THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS PROVIDED FOR
UNDER SUBSECTION (A); AND
"(2) OTHER PROVIDERS OF SIMILAR INFORMATION SERVICES.
THE PURPOSE OF SUCH CONSULTATION SHALL BE TO ASSESS THE QUALITY AND VALUE
OF THE DIRECTORY AND THE SYSTEM, IN LIGHT OF USER NEEDS.
"4102. FEES
"(A) IN GENERAL.-THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER, MAY CHARGE REASONABLE FEES FOR USE OF THE
DIRECTORY AND THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 4101,
EXCEPT THAT USE OF THE DIRECTORY AND THE SYSTEM SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE
TO DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES WITHOUT CHARGE. THE FEES RECEIVED SHALL BE
TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS MONEYS RECEIVED FROM SALE OF DOCUMENTS
UNDER SECTION 1702 OF THIS TITLE.
"(B) COST RECOVERY.-THE FEES CHARGED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE SET SO
AS TO RECOVER THE INCREMENTAL COST OF DISSEMINATION OF THE INFORMATION
INVOLVED, WITH THE COST TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO SECTION 1708 OF
THIS TITLE.
"4103. BIENNIAL REPORT
"NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31 OF EACH ODD-NUMBERED YEAR, THE PUBLIC
PRINTER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CONGRESS, WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO PRECEDING
FISCAL YEARS, A REPORT ON THE DIRECTORY, THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS, AND THE
ELECTRONIC STORAGE FACILITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 4101(A). THE REPORT
SHALL INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNCTIONS INVOLVED, INCLUDING A
STATEMENT OF COST SAVINGS IN COMPARISON WITH TRADITIONAL FORMS OF
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION.
"4104. DEFINITION
"AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER, THE TERM 'FEDERAL ELECTRONIC INFORMATION'
MEANS FEDERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION STORED ELECTRONICALLY.".
(B) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS FOR TITLE 44, UNITED
STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING NEW ITEM:
"41. ACCESS TO FEDERAL ELECTRONIC INFORMATION 4101".
SEC. 3. STATUS REPORT.
NOT LATER THAN JUNE 30, 1994, THE PUBLIC PRINTER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE
CONGRESS A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE DIRECTORY, THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS,
AND THE ELECTRONIC STORAGE FACILITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 4101 OF TITLE
44, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SECTION 2(A).
SEC. 4. SPECIAL RULES.
(A) OPERATIONAL DEADLINE.-THE DIRECTORY, THE SYSTEM OF ACCESS, AND THE
ELECTRONIC STORAGE FACILITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 4101 OF TITLE 44,
UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SECTION 2(A), SHALL BE OPERATIONAL NOT
LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.
(B) FIRST BIENNIAL REPORT.-THE FIRST REPORT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 4103
OF TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SECTION 2(A), SHALL BE
SUBMITTED NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1995.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 18:20:31 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--Re-AB1624: dumbing-down leg displays w/o dumbing-down data
Tuesday, June 1, 1993 [modified for ASCII distribution, June 14th]
to: Legislative Data Center, California State Legislative Counsel
State Net
Legi-Tech
Debra Bowen, AB1624 author
Michael Galizio, Chief of Staff, Speaker Willie Brown
Rodney Smith, Democratic Caucus programmer
Ron Cole, Director, Assembly Computer Services (ACS)
Michael Hannigan, ACS Hardware Engineering Manager
Linda Beattie, Assistant Director, Assembly Office of Research (AOR)
Brian Wright, referenced in 5/24 AOR report
Art Torres, AB1624 Senate Principal Co-author
Keith Felty, Senate computer operations
Hi all,
One of the problems with distributing computerized legislative
information is how to map the bill-text - notably including
semantically-meaningful strike-thru, underscore and italics - to dumb
character-only terminals and printers with only 80-columns. Worse
still, some terminals and printers only have 40 columns, as in the
case of some super-cheap consumer devices - and especially including
some of the terminals used by the hearing-impaired, some large-font
displays used by visually-impaired and possibly some Braille printers.
Dumb-terminals and dumb-printers cannot be depended upon to have
anything more than the standard ASCII character-set - no strike-thru
or underscore, much less reverse character-images or italics.
Most implementers seem to have settled on some sort of bracketing
technique.
E.g.:
First, original and official bill-text is typset in regular, bold and
italics, with and without strike-thru, formatted, with some text
centered and most of it left- and right-justified. The italics versus
regular has meaning, as does strike-thru. Page- and line-numbers are
essential to understanding amendments - that are specified as
modifications to isolated lines on random pages. The print-area is
about 27.75 pica wide (~4-1/2 inches) by 43 pica high, plus page
numbers.
Secondly, the Legislative Inquiry System, inside the Legislature, can
print bill-text right-ragged using a typewriter-style mono-font on a
fixed-spacing printer. It has strike-thru and underscore capabilities,
but no italics font.
And finally, formatting for the [sadly, still common] worst-case
dumb-terminal or dumb-printer - which would not have underscore or
strike-thru capabilities - is difficult. Here is one example that
spans across two printed pages from AB1624 as amended May 18th.
It is exactly as it appears from one of the current premium-priced private-
sector legislative information distributors <vile tax-emitting, job-producing
capitalists that they are :-) >.
It uses "[>A ... <A]" to bracket additions and "[D> ... <D]" to bracket
deletions, and doesn't give page- or line-numbers:
...
This bill would require [A> the Legislative Counsel, with the advice
of <A] the Joint Rules Committee of the Senate and Assembly [A> , <A] to
make available to the [D> State Library in electronic form on each day
that either house of the Legislature is in session <D] [A> public by
means of access by way of computer modem <A] specified information
concerning bills [D> and <D] [A> , <A] the proceedings of the houses and
committees of the Legislature [A> , statutory enactments, and the
California Constitution <A] .
...
(This uses eight lines. The three inserted commas are somewhat apparent.
But, Ooooo!, is this fun to read <he sez, editorially>.)
I had occasion to consider this problem in 1992, when I wanted to
upload the text of a bill for distribution across the computer nets.
This required adjusting to the lowest common denominator of dumb
ASCII-only terminals and printers. Of course, the printed bill had
strike-thru's and italics as it wound its torturous way to its final
veto.
Incidentally, it took me - as an educated professional, but
unfamiliar with bill-formats or legislation - some time to realize the
ramifications of italics versus regular font where they were used for
current code in some sections, entirely new proposed-code in other
sections, and code amendments in other sections.
Furthermore, I also wanted to retain a full record of its
modifications as it was whipped and torn through the legislative
process. I distracted myself before I finished designing a systematic
representation. However, hyar 't'is:
PROPOSED FORMAT FOR LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION PRESENTED ON DUMB DEVICES
The following is the first draft of a [ego alert!] "Warren format,"
display/printing system designed to present legislative text on
dumb-terminals and printers. It uses only ASCII characters without
underscores or
strike-thru's. It identifies:
1. current code/statute/law (there is none in this example, preceding),
2. original bill-text (such as the Legis Counsel's Digest example, above),
3. text to be added (italicized or underscored in the examples), and
4. text to be deleted (that was struck-thru in the preceding examples).
The following position-numbers are listed only to illustrate how this would
fit on an 80-column terminal or printer. For 40-columns, it remains an
exercise for the reader to wrap and indent from the previous line,
including the left-side flags.
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901233456789
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
v========== current law ©, if any, or page number (page)
v========= 1: 1st version, the bill as originally introduced
v======== 2: 2nd version, the bill as first amended
v======= 3: 3rd version
v====== 4: 4th version
v===== 5: 5th version
v==== 6: 6th version
v=== 7: 7th version
v== 8: 8th version - eight because the God of Digital favors eight;
would only use as many as are needed
v= final version as adopted by the Legislature and sent for the
Governor's veto (or maybe even approval)
012345678f ln c=current law; +=text added; -=text deleted; o=original text
Current and added text begins in column 15.
Paragraph indents begin in column 17.
Text deleted in the current version begins in column 21.
Text deleted in earlier versions begins in column 24.
Here is how this system would present the sample bill-excerpt from above,
including the four header-lines that explain the left-side flags:
v========== current law, if any
v========= 1: AB1624 as introduced, March 4, 1993
v======== 2: AB1624 as amended in Assembly, May 18, 1993
012345678f ln c=current law; +=text added; -=text deleted; o=original text
page 0001
o This bill would require
+ the Legislative Counsel, with the advice of
o the Joint Rules Committee of the Senate and Assembly
+ ,
o to make available to the
o- State Library in electronic form on each day that
o- either house of the Legislature is in
page 0002
o- session
+ public by means of access by way of computer modem
o specified information concerning bills
o- and
+ ,
o the proceedings of the houses and committees of the Legislature
+ , statutory enactments, and the California Constitution
o .
(This takes about twice as many lines. But, the four header lines
would appear only one time per bill-listing or per screen- or
printed-page - programmer's or user's choice. And, this example text
may or may not be unusually hacked; filled with small additions and
deletions. Also note those shy, added commas now stand out clearly -
if anyone cares.)
Most notably,
(1) the added/deleted annotations are separated from the text ,making the
text much easier to read,
(2) deleted text is shifted further to the right making it easy to
disregard (try it), and
(3) this format can easily be line-processed to produce a variety of
other possibly-desired edits of the text - including any version of the
bill and the text-results of the bill without the deleted text, so as to
easily see what its results will be.
Please note these other characteristics:
* This design gains readability, but at the expense of vertical length.
This particularly change-bloated example takes many more lines than
the earlier versions. But, it allocates three columns per line for
line-numbers (assuming a maximum of 99 lines on any page) and retains
the page numbers from the printed bill, none of which exist in the
other versions generated on semi-dumb and real-dumb printers.
* The parts of a bill that are current statute can easily and
quickly be identified by the "c" flag in column 1 - needed for the
legislative novice. If text from current law is being deleted by any
version of the bill, it is easily spotted by the "c" in column-1 plus
a "-" in one of the columns, 2 through 10.
* Text deleted in the current incarnation of the bill is indented
to visually "drop away" from current text, but is still separated from
older deletions, which are indented still further to the right.
* Notably - and unlike the current paper and electronic system in
the Legislature - this permits tracking all of the language that was
ever in a bill, and easily noting exactly when any text was added or
deleted. This may be useful for historical and research purposes, and
for uses such as "blame management" and pacifying the "I told you so"
and "Was so! Was not!" types.
* By line-processing the flags at the left, it is a simple matter to
generate (1) the bill-text without the distraction of deleted text, and
(2) any of the ten possible versions of the bill, from its original
introduction to whatever whip-sawed aberration may finally be adopted prior
to the Gov's veto.
* By massive induction on a teeny-weeny sample of a Legislative Data
Center print-file, it appears to be very straightforward to generate this
format - except for calculating the line-numbers (left as an exercise for
the advanced student - perhaps, say, someone with old friends from Triple-I
who are still familiar with their PageTwo antique typesetting system. :-).
* Fewer lines and fewer columns would be needed for the left-side flags
if the design were limited to presenting only what is in current printed
bills - i.e., the immediately-previous version and the additions and
deletions that create the current version. I allowed more columns because
I wanted to be able to track all versions in a single presentation, and
because I assume presentation software that would allow the user to
trivially swap back and forth between several presentation forms by
keyboard or mouse-click command - as it Should Be.
I would be pleased to receive any comments or criticisms anyone might wish
to offer and chat with anyone about this. It is a draft design, based on very
inadequate information about the ever-so-cloistered legislative formats,
Created by the Sages of Sacramento.
You are more than welcome to circulate this wherever you wish and/or use
this format - or any variant you choose. It is herewith placed in the public
domain - hang on to this; it's "prior art" with which to battle the
look-n-feel fascists.
This is the first approach I will be suggesting to the volunteers and
programmers who want to implement the utility routines necessary to present
the public's legislative data that will [sooner or later] be made available
to its owners via the computer nets.
WHAT FORMAT(S) OF DATA MIGHT THE LEGISLATIVE DATA CENTER FINALLY PROVIDE?
There is one final issue floating around about computerized legislative
data: What format(s) will Benevolent Bion [Gregory], the Masterful
Legislative Counsel. permit for providing public records publicly?
For some years, as I understand it, LDC has been selling the public's
data in the original print-file format that they send to the Office of
State Printing (OSP). Well, sez I, what's good enough for fee-exuding
distributors should be good 'nuf fo' us po' folks.
In fact, the print-files are essential if the full public record is to
be distributed electronically: Please note that the print-file contents
- the text and exact OSP print-commands - are essential for calculating
page- and line-numbers - which ARE part of the public record. Providing
anything less than the OSP print-files will be a failure to provide the
full public record.
THE SUBLIMINAL PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD
Interesting, huh? Print-commands appear subliminally in the public
printed bills. They appear as semantically-meaningful text-changes, and
they functionally appear as page-numbers and line-numbers - which have
significant value in the legislative process.
There certainly could be no objection to the Legislative Data Center also
providing bills in other formats, such as the draft design presented in
this paper or whatever they spend "much less than $20,000" dreaming up, as
reported by the Assembly Office of Research. But, they must provide their
OSP print-files. Otherwise they would fail to provide the full public
legislative information as mandated in AB1624.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 09:29:49 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]>
Subject: File 9--6/17 AB1624: dumbed-down displays - ADDENDA
Thursday, June 17, 1993
Regarding my 6/14, "dumbing-down legislative displays w/o dumbing-down
data": Some folks misconstrued this as a proposal that this be the
*only* display and printing option offered - absolutely *not* the
intent of my proposal.
The whole issue with this bill is *MAXIMUM* PUBLIC ACCESS to
legislative data.
It is an essential principle that access be assured for as broad a
spectrum of users a possible - even those with old and antiquated
[cheap!] "digital eyeglasses," even those with Baudot-code machines
(such as the many thousands that are still the standard across the
deaf community).
INTENDED TO ASSURE MAXIMUM ACCESS, EVEN FOR CITIZENS WITH MINIMUM
EQUIPMENT The 6/14 note was no more than a proposal for how
legislative information could be presented on terminals, displays and
printers that *only* permit the ASCII character-set - given that the
legislative files include semantically-significant strike-thru and
italics text . I.e, the 6/14 proposal focused on assuring access to
the many tens of thousands of citizens who still use devices that are
limited only to ASCII characters - no underscore, no italics, no
reverse-images, no strike-thru, no RTF, no PostScript, etc.
ALSO WANT ACCESS TO FULL PRINT-FILES TO ALLOW ROBUST DISPLAY ON ROBUST
GADGETS While that 6/14 proposal outlines how legislative data can be
presented on very-limited devices, I am pushing for
amendment-language that will guarantee public access to the full
print-files - the files of text plus all the print-formatting
commands that are sent by the Legislative Data Center (LDC) to the
Office of State Printing (OSP) for use in calculating page- and
line-numbers and for typesetting the fully-formatted bills for print
publication in their official form.
This is an issue because the Assembly's Chief Executive Officer has
recommended determining "a [SINGLE!!] format most likely to satisfy
public information needs." [My contention: The only one is the OSP
print-files. From them, we can generate all other formats anyone
desires.]
Additionally, the Assembly Office of Research reports that LDC
administrators want to "filter the data to a format usable by standard
access of Internet" [sic].
WHY NOT RTF OR SGML?
Several months ago, the LDC Coordinator said that couldn't use RTF
(Rich Text Format) nor SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language),
that they had to use a home-grown they call CGML (California
Generalized Markup Language) to represent all the formats used by the
Legislature in its printed records. Ask 'em about it: Bill Eubanks,
Director, LDC, 916-445-4966x715.
The OSP print-files that we need to assure are available to the public
are of limited value for ASCII-only devices, but are *essential* if we
are to be able to emulate the page- and line-number calculations and
display and print the information identical to its official printed
form - useful for those who DO have appropriate more-than-ASCII
displays, terminals and printers.
For our maximum UTILITY we must assure that they don't dumb-down the
data that they provide for public access.
And for maximum ACCESS, we must assure that we provide dumbed-down
*displays* as OPTIONS for those many citizens who have minimal
equipment.
Hope this clarifies the issues and my position. Jim Warren, columnist
for MicroTimes, Government Technology & BoardWatch
[email protected] -or- [email protected]
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.45
************************************
|
|
