|
CyberAngels, Guardian Angel NOVEMBER NEWSLETTER, C
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 Nov 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 91
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected]
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, #7.91 (Sun, Nov 26, 1995)
File 1--Re: CyberAngels
File 2--Guardian Angel NOVEMBER NEWSLETTER
File 3--Re: CuD, #7.89 - Govt & Net Censorship
File 4--French agreement to use Netscape Navigator
File 5--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update -- 11/22/95
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 20:42 EDT
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--Re: CyberAngels
Dear Sirs:
While some proposed activities of the "CyberAngels" are
difficult to object to, others are threats to violate the civil
liberties of users of the Internet. These can be classified into
two categories: violations of freedom of speech and press, and
violations of the rights of interaction of consenting adults. The
former would include their threatened actions regarding: allegedly
obscene material; "indecent" materials that they feel are too
available to persons under the age of 18; anonymous (and, one would
suspect, pseudonymous) speech; allegedly harassing speech; and
political ("hate") speech. Those regarding the activities of
consenting adults would, according to their phrasing, include any
actions illegal in the state or country in question, such as
homosexual activity in many U.S. states. In addition, the record of
the Guardian Angels suggests that they will step over even the
bounds that they publicly set for themselves.
I would like to make a suggestion to the readers of the
Computer Underground Digest, and to other users of the Internet, as
to the best way to deal with this organization. This idea is to use
one problem (the "CyberAngels") to counter another (net-abuse such
as spamming). Simply forward copies of spamming (done via email,
USENET, or other means) to the "[email protected]" address, and
ask them to deal with the problem. Some of it is definitely
included under the "fraud" category in their statement (i.e.,
pyramid schemes such as "MAKE MONEY FAST"), and others are at the
minimum deprivation of service and possibly true harassment. I am
hopeful that the volume of mail received on this count will be
great enough that they will be unable to carry out any improper
actions. If they fail to try to do anything about the spamming
problem, then they can be exposed as frauds themselves. Other forms
of net-abuse that may be emailed to them would include falsified
rmgroup and cancel messages (if these were not committed by the
CyberAngels themselves, of course).
This suggestion may be combined with the "cyberspawn" cancel
mechanism on Usenet, through a daemon at various sites
automatically mailing the spam to "[email protected]" prior (if
this is wanted) to cancellation. A form of it can also be used
against any other organization seeking informants via computer
networks.
Sincerely Yours,
-Allen Smith ([email protected])
This message may be freely redistributed on the Internet, on other
computer networks, and on BBSes if it is left completely intact and
the distributor is not a Guardian Angel. I encourage doing so.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:41:15 -0600
From: [email protected](David Smith)
Subject: File 2--Guardian Angel NOVEMBER NEWSLETTER
This is somewhat long, but attached is the November newsletter of the
Guardian Angels CyberAngels Internet Monitoring Project. I did not write any
of this, but am forwarding it as an item of interest.
Most notable is the allegation of contacting 50 separate sysadmins and
providing them with evidence about individual users trading child pornagraphy.
>[email protected]
>Date--Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:38:26 -0500
>Subject--NOVEMBER NEWSLETTER
>Apparently-To--<[email protected]>
>
>CYBERANGELS
>INTERNET MONITORING PROJECT
>November 1995 Newsletter
>********************
>Hi! And a special welcome to the many of you who are new on our newsletter
>mailing list this month. SECONDLY - if you are on this list by mistake...our
>apologies. Our mailing list got damaged and we had to rebuild it from
>scratch! Let us know (again!) if you wish to unsubscribe. Sorry!
>
>Firstly let me (Gabriel) introduce my colleague to you. His name is Patrik
>Olterman, and he is originally from Sweden. Like me he is a veteran Guardian
>Angel, and is now working with me coordinating the CyberAngels project. FYI
>we are both based in Hollywood, CA. No, not the nice part :) Oh, and in the
>Guardian Angels he has a nickname. We call him "Harlequin".
>
>The past month has been excellent for the project. Firstly all thanks to
>SAFESURF - to Ray Soular and Wendy Simpson - for donating us a home page on
>the www. This made our project global for the first time. Safesurf and
>CyberAngels are working together as two concerned groups, to help protect
>our cyberneighborhood. Ray and Wendy are truly are good people. THANKS you
>guys! We encourage all our volunteers and newsletter members to check out
>Safesurf's home pages and to subscribe to their newsletter. You can reach
>them via hyperlink from the CyberAngels home page at
>
>http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/
>or go directly to http://www.safesurf.com/wave/
>
>Read especially Safesurf's "Declaration of an Independent InterNet" We
>support it 100% !
>
>By the way, if you have already visited our homepage, VISIT IT AGAIN! :) We
>will be changing and developing it, and adding more links, as we develop our
>project. We would certainly welcome your suggestions as to how we can
>improve things.
>
>Oh, before I forget...we wished everyone a Happy Halloween...but that message
>was written by Harlequin, who is Swedish, and he spelled it wrong! :( He
>wrote "Haloween". I guess he was thinking of Angels :)
>********************
>INTERNET AND COMPUTER EXPO IN FLORIDA
>
>We will be down in Florida for the 1,2 and 3 December, with a booth at the
>InterNet and Computer Expo '95. This is thanks to a donation (worth $1000!)
>of space there by Frank Rocco, one of the organizers. Thanks Frank! FYI
>CyberAngels is an all volunteer project, coordinated from a Macintosh
>Powerbook 150 (honest!), and we do not have many resources. But we need to
>spread the message, so help us in any way you can! You can contact the I & C
>Expo on 1 305 941 2400, or 1-800-330-1900, or email to
>[email protected]. The expo by the way will be at Broward County
>Convention Centre, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. We hope to meet some of
>you there!
>********************
>CYBERANGELS REACH AUSTRALIA
>
>One of the results of our global reach for volunteers, after Safesurf's www
>homepage donation, was that we started receiving volunteers from Australia.
> There also followed 6 radio shows all over Australia, and an article in the
>Sydney Morning Herald, explaining our work. Child Pornography on the
>InterNet seems to be very much an issue of the day in Australia. And so it
>should be - everywhere. Welcome to all our new friends from Down Under!
>
>Check out especially: http://www.australia-today.com
>
>One of our new volunteers is running it :) Hi Hans! Hans is very much
>involved in DOING something positive. He wrote as follows (and Im quoting
>you Hans because this letter was public - hope thats ok):
>
>>I am no wowser, adult material does not faze me, but when I >see detailled
>instructions on how to rape a four year old, >together with photographs of
>the actual event, even I feel >that something needs to be done. Not to
>mention how to make >bombs, break into houses and cars and how to kill
>someone >efficiently with a knife.
>>I am not making this up - it's all there.
>>From your responses I know that many of you have seen this >material also.
>>Please keep in touch, we need concerned people like you to >keep these kind
>of excesses in check. Censorship is not the >answer. History shows this has
>never worked. Let us try to at >least shield our children from this sort of
>material, they'll >grow up soon enough.
>>Together we can make a difference, let's do it.
>>Hans von Lieven, editor Australia Today.
>
>Please, everyone, visit Hans' website and write letters of support to him.
> Let him know how much we appreciate his standing up and making a commitment
>to a safe Internet.
>********************
>INTERNET PATROLS LAST MONTH
>
>We have been DELUGED with information and education about what is happening
>all over the Net in the past month. Special mention must go to one of our
>CyberAngels, whose userid is Techphob. Tech has been patrolling all KINDS of
>dark alleys and dangerous cyberhoods, and the information he is accumulating
>earns him a special mention as our CYBERANGEL OF THE MONTH. Not only has he
>been assembling huge lists of the red light area of the InterNet, and
>painstakingly researching them, which is not a pleasant task. TECHPHOB, when
>you die you will go to CYBERHEAVEN. :) Keep up the excellent work. And if
>one person can do so much, think what we can ALL do if we work together.
>
>We have reported a number of Child Pornographers (50) to Sysadmins this
>month. This was done only after we received from them graphic images
>(unsolicited) of child pornography. We forwarded the email, including the
>attached files, to respective ISPs with the question "Is this a violation of
>your TOS? And if it is, what disciplinary steps will you take?" Letters we
>have received back all share our concern and promise stern action.
>
>Child pornographers are claiming "freedom of speech / expression" to justify
>their evil trade. Well we are claiming "freedom of speech / expression" to
>try and stop it! Thank you to all our volunteers who did NOT look the other
>way but stood up and said NO. Remember, each electronic image represents a
>real life destroyed.
>
>Many people are unsure when they find things whether to contact ISPs
>(InterNet Service Providers) themselves, by writing to relevant System
>Administrators, or to forward the information to us at CyberAngels Central -
>well do both! We can not possibly investigate everything that you all find,
>so take the step and speak up if you feel there is a TOS (Terms of Service)
>violation. Write to the ISP and explain the situation and ask the question
>"Is this a violation of your TOS?". Remember, we will not report anything
>we do not investigate ourselves. We do not operate on hearsay. So if you
>find something, give us full information as to how we may find it.
>
>An educational story to finish this section. One of our CyberAngels drew our
>attention last month to a very nasty posting in alt.teens on the Usenet. We
>checked itout and then wrote to the Sysadmin. It was a posting from a 16
>year old girl and was extremely nasty (obscene). Not only that but the
>userid indicated that the server was at a girls school in England. I wrote
>to the Sysadmin and asked the question "Are you aware that one of your girls
>is posting this kind of material to this newsgroup?" He investigated the
>matter, and it turned out apparently that the postings came not from a 16
>year old girl at all, but from an older, MALE, member of the teaching staff.
>********************
>FLAMES
>
>With global exposure, and an increasing number of online and offline
>magazines featuring CyberAngels, comes flames. And we would like to take
>this opportunity to thank everyone who flamed us in the past month. Some of
>your flames were extremely educational and helped us ENORMOUSLY. We try to
>reply to all our flames (no matter how rude they are), because we find it a
>very educational activity.
>
>A copy of our FAQ was sent to CUDigest (an online magazine), and it started
>some serious debates via email. We have so far received an equal number of
>flames and volunteers. :)
>
>Special mention must go to an ongoing debate about anonymous remailers, which
>was an area where we were less informed. Thanks to [email protected]
> for lots of very helpful suggestions. For those of you interested in the
>debate about anonymity we have two suggestions: firstly we have a HUGE FAQ
>on "Identity, Privacy and Anonymity on the InterNet", written by L.Detweiler,
>and if any of you want it, please write to us and ask for it (WARNING it is
>138k!) Secondly you can write to [email protected] for their FAQ on their
>anonymous service, which is also very educational.
>********************
>AN INTERACTIVE SECTION
>
>We need to learn more about "kill files". Who knows about them and who is
>willing to share? We will print whatever info we get in the next newsletter.
>
>Secondly, if any of you have ANYTHING relevant you would like to see printed
>in our next newsletter, then please submit it to us. Let us know if you want
>your name on it or not. Let's start sharing information and stories among
>our members. Do you really want to listen to Gabriel month after month? ;)
>
>Send us press articles etc, especially translations from countries where
>english is not spoken, about the InterNet and what is happening. Let's hear
>some good news about all the excellent organizations working for a safer
>InterNet!
>
>Another question - what is X-Band? We think it is a game playing BBS, but we
>are not sure. Anyway, no one on X-Band can receive email longer than 5
>lines. So does anyone out there know what it is? We have received several
>letters from X-Band inhabitants, and we are very interested in
>it...Someone...educate us!
>********************
>USEFUL INTERNET ORGANIZATIONS
>
>For those of you who want to learn more about the issues and arguments of
>cyberspace and censorship/regulation, we would refer you to the following
>groups (in addition to ourselves and Safesurf ) :
>
>1) Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), describes itself as "a non-profit
>civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect
>privacy, free expression and access to online resources and information"
> They are at http://www.eff.org
>
>2) InterNet Society, at http://www.isoc.org
>
>For those of you interested in US legislation, you can obtain a list from the
>ACLU of recent government legislation relating to the Net (Thanks CyberAngel
>Anndell!).
>For a synopsis of all the online censorship bills passed or considered by
>American states this year, send a message to [email protected] with "Update
>of State Bills" in the subject line of the message.
>
>For those of you outside the USA, please send us similar information from
>your countries!
>********************
>CYBERANGELS MOVING EMAIL ADDRESS SOON!
>
>We are busy right now setting up an account with Wavenet.com in Los Angeles,
>so will soon have a different email address (although we will maintain
>[email protected]). From the 20th November you can email us at
>
>[email protected]
>
>and this is the email address we would prefer you to use. Thanks!
>********************
>Below is an article many of you will not have read.
>
>CYBERANGELS
>In "Wanted" Magazine
>
>"I'm looking for pictures of girls 11 to 14. Let's trade." Starts the man
>the other men know only as Flesh.
>"Hey everyone trade with me". Matt follows up. "I always return hard to
>find, controversial pictures!"
>A guy known as Pedoman spoke next. "Let's trade pictures I have ton's of
>hard ones".
>"If you got girls 11 - 14 I'm for trading".
>"I want 1 - 5".
>"Yum yum give me some".
>"Any good girl-girl action (under 16)? Adds a new party.
>"If people send me pics I'll return a movie".
>"I have some Preteen pics to trade" This from Pedoman.
>"Tell me how young, and send me one first. I'll get you what you want".
>
>This is a real conversation that occurred on August 5th 1995 over computer
>phone lines in a live talk area of America On Line, (one of the most popular
>computer servers in the Nation). The Guardian Angels recorded it as part of
>a new program to expose computer criminals, help the police keep an eye on
>cyber sickies and close down their deviant electronic town meeting/support
>group/strategy session.
>
>The Program is called Cyber Angels and like the Guardian Angel street patrols
>it's on the cutting edge. Cyber Angels has a huge potential because it draws
>on an untapped source for it's members; ordinary Internet surfers. It trains
>them to be observant while they "surf", looking for criminal or abusive uses
>of the computer network. Hate crimes, pedophile networks, sexual harassment
>(stalking) and credit card fraud are just some of the crimes flourishing on
>the under secured Internet and fair game for the Cyber Angels.
>
>More than just an enforcement group the Cyber Angels will train Users to help
>look out for their own community; the computer community. Why shouldn't the
>same laws of human decency and respect for others apply to the Internet as
>well as any street in the U.S.?
>
>Strangely thousands of educated, non pedophiles are opposed to us trying to
>do this.
>
>4 million people already belong to America on Line's (A.O.L.) computer clan.
> Hundreds more join every day as people succumb to the super glut of
>propaganda about the Information Superhighway and rush to find out what they
>are missing. A huge family all right however so far it seems nobody wants to
>do anything about dirty Uncle Fester who's up in the attic panting and
>drooling over an X-rated picture of the "Little Rascals".
>
>In fact, based on the recorded conversation above, not only does the family
>turn a blind eye to Uncle Fester they also let him use the den for a weekly
>game of poker with like minded friends using a deck of cards with a "kids and
>their loving pets" theme.
>
>Even worse, Mom and Dad sometimes let Uncle F. baby-sit the kids.
>
>Authorities have made sporadic attempts to lock up these computer pedophiles
>but the successes of these campaigns have just gone to show how blatant and
>widespread the problem is. Like an exterminator who crushes a hundred
>cockroaches just by walking across the kitchen floor.
>
>Last year U.S. federal authorities served warrants on 35 men who had
>contacted a Danish computer service that provided pictures that were illegal
>in the U.S., of young kids having sex. Out of the 35 men who were
>questioned and had their houses searched, 10 readily admitted to having
>molested children.
>
>Yet despite these successes the family continues to shelter Uncle Fester.
>When we tried to follow-up after we gave America On Line (A.O.L.) the
>recording of the conversation above, they informed us that not only were the
>identities of the conversants confidential, so was any details about any
>disciplinary action A.O.L. had or hadn't taken against them. A.O.L. admits
>that there are many more cases of children being targeted for crimes and
>abuse through the computer that are unrecorded, still it refuses to
>reconsider it's promotional policy of providing any new user with 10 free
>hours. This promotional tactic allows anyone to sign on with a fake credit
>card and have ten hours using or abusing the Internet with complete
>anonymity. Because A.O.L. sends out discs through the mail and distributes
>them through selected magazines there is no limit to the number of free 10
>hour trials computer abusers can get.
>
>But the Administrators of A.O.L. aren't the only obstacle. It seems the
>Internet has it's own freedom fighters. A fearless band of well meaning
>defenders who take a good idea to it's absurd extreme. Like environmental
>granola terrorists who will injure loggers or bomb hunting retreats to save
>the spotted owl, these Champions of Cyber feel that freedom of speech as
>proposed by the founding fathers was intended to allow child rapists to hold
>public gab sessions, discuss their disgusting deeds and depraved desires and
>just generally work themselves up into a pedophilic lather. Personally, I
>prefer a little preventative medicine, a little stitch in time that saves
>sending out the blood hounds to try and locate a snatched 5 year old before
>she ends up in a garbage bag in a dumpster.
>
>A private investigator who was upset by the use of the world wide computer
>network of computer pedophile predators assumed the identity of a teenage
>girl to show how simple it was to draw out the computer predators. A Nevada
>man quickly fell into the trap not only sending explicit sexual messages to
>what he thought was a 14 year old girl but traveling to a Milwaukee motel
>room for an arranged sexual liaison where he was met and charged by federal
>authorities.
>
>At our own Web Site the Cyber Angels will act as public advocates, posting
>information about Users who commit cyber crimes or try to arrange physical
>rendezvous with children. Just like Megan's law in New Jersey and similar
>laws in other states allow us to warn parents who and what to watch for if
>they want to keep their kids safe.
>
>Users who have witnessed or discovered some abuse of the 'Net can also visit
>our Web Site to find out what they should do with their concern. Should they
>pass their information on to the Federal authorities? Post it on our
>bulletin board? And how about some instruction in how not to react? On the
>street you can get shot for trying to get in the last insult of an argument,
>on the 'Net you don't run the risk of death but you are only motivating some
>hate nutcase if you do anything more than lodge your disgust and then ignore
>them. Then there will be the Chicken Little cases that we need to reach;
>maybe someone enters a chat room where a discussion is being held between
>some gay men and nobody has ever told this guy that there is a difference
>between homosexual and child molester . Well then our Web Site can let him
>know that the sky is not falling.
>
>We want to pressure computer system operators to better police their own
>service users. A.O.L. needs to learn that it is partially responsible for
>what goes on in it's "house". Hey, call me cynical but it's hard to have
>trust in A.O.L.'s integrity and humanity when they assign their well paid
>corporate lawyers to answer our concerns about the 'Net.
>
>Less lawyers and more law. So the Cyber Angel program will filter all the
>information that it receives from patrolling members and concerned Users and
>pass the useful information on to the authorities to act on. Then we
>publicize the arrests because just building the reputation of the 'Net as a
>protected environment where the law applies just like everywhere else will go
>a long way in discouraging some guy with a new swastika tattoo from
>terrorizing some other User.
>
>Right now the Internet has a reputation. A noticeable absence of Police and
>thousands of young potential victims or recruits left to wander by themselves
>by their parents. Users and Abusers can operate with complete anonymity, is
>it any wonder that pedophiles, racists and other criminals have approached
> the computer era with clammy hand rubbing glee?
>
>These Abusers with their Hitler salutes and baby oil got the computer jump on
>everybody but Bill Gates and now they are entrenched. Cyber space is
>infested with "Aliens" who are lurking in not so dark corners, waiting for a
>victim to happen by and training the fledgling "Aliens" how to hunt. The
>Cyber Angels are just recruiting the Sigourney Weavers.
>
>We have already attracted over two hundred recruits to our Cyber Angel
>program. Like the original Guardian Angel program it has the power of
>algebra on it's side. Basically there are more law abiding Users on the
>Internet then law breaking Abusers, it's just a matter of the good guys
>working as hard as the bad and the ugly.
>
>So should we bother? Should we act on our disgust at the black polyester
>sock, pant and drool crowd that are soiling their fruit of the looms over
>traded photos of 8 year old children? Or is this the kind of free speech the
>founding fathers meant to protect with the first amendment? Should I be
>angry and try to stop the distribution of a video game where the object is to
>cram the most Jewish prisoners into my crematorium and win the "game"?
> Should anyone even be offended that the same "champions of the people", who
>brought you the Time magazine article on Cyberporn have now written their own
>get rich quick computer manual called "The Pornographers Handbook: How To
>Exploit Women, Dupe Men & Make Lots of Money."?
>
>Only if our principles have gotten lazy. Just by definition we should be
>interested in anything that interests Pedophiles as much as the Internet.
> Where ever the sexually criminal play there should be watchdogs following
>them. people should be vigilant so they can not befriend and then attack
>their little victim. Hate mongers must have their twisted lies refuted and
>exposed to ensure that potential recruits get both sides of the story before
>they get sucked down that whirlpool of biased sewage.
>
>Maybe just as important, Users that "play" at crime on the Internet need a
>wake-up call. The future of the 'Net is in their hands also. They may be
>young and adventurous now but are they going to want their future children to
>encounter the kinds of "harmless" harassment, "fun and games" fraud and "it
>was just a joke until someone loses an eye" mail box bombing or computer
>virus campaigns?
>
>The Guardian Angels have adopted an old saying "All that is required for the
>triumph of evil, is that good men and women remain silent and do nothing".
> That's as true today on the internet as it ever was anywhere else.
>
>Sebastian Metz
>********************
>HELP US! WE NEED YOUR DONATIONS TO EXPAND OUR PROJECT!
>
>Listen...thanks to YOU this InterNet monitoring project has really taken off,
>and we are getting more volunteers every day. That means more and more
>people around the world are taking the PROACTIVE step of patrolling your part
>of cyberspace and assuming a greater responsibility for the quality of your
>cyberhood. That means WE ARE ALL MAKING A DIFFERENCE! We are helping many
>people, especially kids, enjoy the wonderful creation that is the InterNet,
>in greater safety and security.
>
>NOW...we need to expand our resources. There are now two of us working as
>fulltime volunteers to coordinate the project, and WE NEED YOUR HELP.
>
>Firstly we need two big fast applemacs with 28.8 modems. If we can't find a
>donor, we will need to buy them. If you can help us with these resources in
>any way, please email us.
>
>Secondly, we are a volunteer organization and we need money to help us to
>cover our increasing online bills, not to mention to develop our WWW home
>pages. The great strength of our work together is that it is a team effort.
>E.g. if everyone on our mailing list sent us *$10.00*, this would enable us
>to expand the project to a higher level for 1996. Please send any donations
>as checks or money orders (payable to "CyberAngels") to: CyberAngels, PO Box
>1102, Hollywood, CA 90078, USA. Thank you in advance for that particular
>help. We really need it!
>
>We have designed a special CyberAngels T-shirt, and are offering it to our
>supporters for the sum of $25.00. This is of course a donation to the work,
>but in this case you will receive an excellent T-shirt that you could not buy
>anywhere! Details of this will soon be up on our Web page. If you are
>interested, send that $25.00 to the above snail address. :)
>
>By the way, anyone sending in a donation of $50.00 or more will be listed on
>our home pages in our CyberAngels Supporters Hall of Fame. Dig deep!
>
>BTW, anyone with a WWW site - you can help us enormously by putting a link
>from your page to ours...This way we spread the word faster!
>********************
>AND FINALLY
>
>>From Harlequin and myself (Gabriel), that's all until our next newsletter.
> We have a wonderful project going on here, that is really helping to change
>the InterNet. Don't ever think that the Net is too big to change. All it
>takes is individuals coming together with determination. We thank you all.
> And keep those patrols going on! And spread the word! Get your friends
>involved too, and build this work! Remember:
>
>CYBERSPACE NEEDS CYBERANGELS!
>
>Gabriel & Harlequin
>
David Smith * "We truly believe that even though we live in an
evil
[email protected] * world, if you can stand up with a stronger
will, then you
President, EFF-Austin * can't be beaten down. This is the true spirit
of the
Board of Directors, CTCLU * EFF-Austin member" -- John Woo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:59:03 +0100
From: Patrick C. Ernzer <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Re: CuD, #7.89 - Govt & Net Censorship
just some thoughts that crossed my mind, and wich I thought I would
share with you.
there was a time when the US where great and wonderful to me (this was
when I was young and easily impressed by things as Silicon Valley and
the NASA). Then came the time to keep up with news and such, and
gradually the US became in my view a place where the best, the worst
and especially the most silly things were possible (e.g. the sexual
harassment laws of the US, wich are laughably extreme in the views of
most Europeans). But now it has finally happened, a very powerful
group (The Religious Right) has clearly gone too far.
I don't mean to insult the US in general, but if the bill, the
Religious Right wants to pass, does pass, then the US risk to be left
out from the international community. IMHO (untill Europe imitates the
US, as always 10 years or so later) the US will simply left out from
the internet. Rather than risking having bigots laws on one's back and
being sued all the way to the end of the known galaxy, people will
IMHO just avoid the US.
Are those who want to pass the bill aware of this? I doubt it. I would
really miss all the people I am in contact with in the US, but then
again I don't want to get in trouble just because if my language or my
general moral views. (No, I'm not a child abuser, but the sense of
humor I inherited by living in France for many years will probably be
enough to get me into trouble. Just imagine telling a sick baby joke
with a sexual conotation to sb residing in the US will get me and my
ISP or university in deep trouble instead of just generating a "bah,
that was not really funny, you know.")
What will happen to the US if all major firms relocate to other
coutries because of the legislation being just laughably strict? I
don't want to paint gloomy end-of-world-scenes regarding the US, but
IMHO there is a danger of this.
------------------------------
From: [email protected](JeanBernard Condat)
Subject: File 4--French agreement to use Netscape Navigator
Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:49:06 GMT
Bonjour,
All over the French newgroups, you can read the uncredibled news this
morning: the secret SCSSI (Service Central de la Securite des Systemes
d'Information) from the Premier Ministre' desk in Paris have given the
complete
agreement to use Netscape Navigator. The document is like that:
Titre: "Autorisation de fourniture et d'utilisation generale de moyens
de cryptologie No. 2500"
Signe: 7 Novembre 1995
Par: Jacques VINCENT-CARREFOUR pour la DISSI
Reference: 509/DISSI dossier numero 950038
L'autorisation est fournie aux seuls produits Netscape Navigator suivants:
N. DOS WINDOWS CD ROM
N. DOS WINDOWS KX 23
N. MACINTOSH CD ROM
N. MACINTOSH RX23
N. NT/INTEL CD ROM
N. NT/INTEL RX23
N. NT/ALPHA
N. X-WINDOWS
N. WIN/95 16 BIT CD ROM
N. WIN/95 16 BIT RX 23
N. WIN/95 32 BIT CD ROM
N. WIN/95 32 BIT RX 23
Elle est egalement fournie aux distributeurs de la liste suivante et a
eux seuls:
Sun Microsystems Computers
Digital Equipment
Silicon Graphics
Novell
Siemens Nixdorf
Olivetti
Bull
Zenith Data Systems
Apple Computers
Hewlett Packard
Compaq
Azlan
Softway
France Telecom
Grolier Interactive Europe
General Games
Some remarks can be do: it's no "s" to X-Window in the list of authorized
products. This
agreement "is good until 1st October 1997 for selling and use in France
only." This autho-
rization will be late to be given because of some discussions with other
hurge software
publishers that don't have receive the same paper.
It's the first time in France that an US specific software will be accepted
in the cryptographic
field by our Government. Bravo -:>]
-- Jean-bernard Condat
Computer Security Expert (Paris, France)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 18:01:45 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: File 5--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update -- 11/22/95
----------------------------------------------------------------
November 22, 1995
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE
A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies
at the state and federal level.
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS ISSUE:
* New York Civil Liberties Union Opposes Discipline of Cornell Students
for Offensive Online Speech
* Seattle Negotiates New Franchise Agreement with Cable Network to Offer
Internet Access; ACLU of Washington Gives Testimony on Privacy Implications
* Watch Out for Cyber-Liberties Infringements in Counter-Terrorism
Legislation; House May Consider Bill in Early December
* Update and ACTION ALERT on Federal Online Indecency Legislation
* Online Discussion Groups on Electronic Access Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases)
----------------------------------------------------------------
* New York Civil Liberties Union Opposes Discipline of Cornell Students for
Offensive Online Speech
The latest controversy over appropriate use of the Internet at universities
erupted last week after four Cornell students made a list of "75 reasons why
women should not have freedom of speech" and the list got loose on the
Internet. Responding to e-mail and phone complaints about the message,
Cornell considered disciplinary action against the students.
The NYCLU wrote a letter to Cornell on Thursday, November 16th, urging
Cornell not to proceed with disciplinary action. The letter said, "Freedom
of expression, especially in the academic forum, is designed to encourage
truth-seeking by protecting the challenge and response of intellectual
discourse. . . . It is understandable that university officials should be
concerned about the increase in the use of sexist language. . . . However,
no matter how troubling or offensive the message is, the administration of
Cornell University should not depart from principles of freedom of expression
when addressing the issues surrounding this dispute." The letter went on to
note that "the marketplace theory of free expression appears to be in full
swing as the wrong-minded e-mail message has apparently already provoked
thousands of angry messages' both to Cornell and to the particular four
students."
On Thursday afternoon, Cornell announced that it would not pursue any
disciplinary action against the students.
For a copy of the letter that NYCLU sent to Cornell, send a message to
[email protected] with "NYCLU Letter to Cornell" in the subject line. For
more information, contact Beth Haroules, Staff Attorney, NYCLU, at
212-382-0557.
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Seattle Negotiates New Franchise Agreement with Cable Network to Offer
Internet Access; ACLU of Washington Testifies at Hearing on Privacy
Implications
Cities across the country are beginning to renegotiate franchise agreements
with cable networks who want to get into the Internet access business. Civil
libertarians must work to ensure that strong privacy protections are included
in these agreements.
The City of Seattle is currently negotiating a new franchise agreement with
TCI of Seattle, Inc., and the ACLU of Washington urged the city to include
provisions to protect consumer privacy. In a letter dated November 9th,
ACLU-W said that "franchisees should be prohibited from collecting any data
on individual use of the cable network, including Internet access, except
that data minimally needed for billing purposes. . . . [T]he franchisee
should be precluded from collecting information about which other Internet
sites are accessed through the cable network, which newsgroups are read,
which real-time interactive forums are participated in, or any other
information that could be used to compile a data profile of the subscriber."
The letter also urged the city to require technological protections, like
encryption, to guard against unauthorized tapping.
For a copy of the letter, send a message to [email protected] with "cable
franchise agreement" in the subject line. For more information, contact Doug
Klunder, ACLU-W Information Technology Committee, [email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases)
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Watch Out for Cyber-Liberties Infringements in Counter-Terrorism
Legislation; House May Consider Bill in Early December
The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate a broad counter-terrorism
bill in early December. (The Senate passed a similar bill in June 1995.)
While the counter-terrorism bill contains many unconstitutional provisions,
the net community should be particularly alert to the following:
1. The pending House counter-terrorism bill contains a funding mechanism for
vastly expanded wiretap capabilities for federal law enforcement (authorized
by the Digital Telephony law passed by Congress last year). The FBI's scheme
would give government an unprecedented ability to intrude on privacy through
increased wiretaps. The net community should oppose this and any other
funding scheme for the FBI's wiretap proposal. (See our 11/8 issue of the
Cyber-Liberties Update for an ACLU statement and action alert on the federal
wiretap proposal.)
2. The version of counter-terrorism legislation already passed by the Senate
contains a revised Feinstein Amendment, which makes it a felony "to
distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the
manufacture of explosive materials, if the person intends, or knows that such
explosive materials or information will likely be used for" criminal
purposes. While the legislation applies to all media, it grew out of Senator
Feinstein's vilification of the Internet at the Senate's May 11th
counter-terrorism hearings. The House version of counter-terrorism
legislation does not currently contain language like the Feinstein Amendment,
but the online community should stand ready to oppose any effort to include
such unconstitutional provisions in the final House bill.
For a copy of the ACLU's letter to the Senate in opposition to the original
Feinstein Amendment, send a message to [email protected] with "Feinstein
Amendment" in the subject line.
For further information on the ACLU's opposition to counter-terrorism
legislation (which would also expand the FBI's powers in electronic
surveillance and other areas), visit the ACLU's Constitution Hall on America
Online, at keyword ACLU.
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Update and ACTION ALERT on Federal Online Indecency Legislation
The Conference Committee on the telecommunications bill is currently
considering whether to remove provisions that would make "indecency" and
other speech a crime in cyberspace. The Christian Coalition and other
anti-free-speech groups continue to heavily lobby the Conferees to make the
new speech crimes even stricter than the Exon Amendment. To counter this
backlash, the online community must overwhelm the Conference Committee with a
loud and clear message -- that parental empowerment tools and not big
government censorship are the only effective means to address children's
access to online content.
While the Conference Committee is home for Thanksgiving, we urge you to call
the Conferees in your state. To find a list of the home office phone numbers
for the Conferees, see the current ACTION ALERT at http://www.vtw.org/
The ACLU continues to prepare for a constitutional challenge to the online
censorship provisions if they become law. Please contact Ann Beeson,
[email protected], if your organization is interested in being a plaintiff in
this ground-breaking litigation that will define First Amendment rights in
cyberspace.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Online Discussion Groups on Electronic Access Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion groups are actively debating government information
and access issues:
GOVPUB -- issues related to publishing local and state government information
online
Subscribe: [email protected]
Message: subscribe govpub
GOVACCESS -- citizen access to government information
Subscribe: [email protected]
Message: subscribe govaccess
PUBPOL-D -- substantive discussion of public policy issues
Subscribe: [email protected]
Message: subscribe pubpol-d [your name]
COMMUNET -- issues related to community and civic networks
Subscribe: [email protected]
Message: subscribe communet [your name]
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for news on the ACLU's world wide web site, under construction at
http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats,
auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil
liberties, at keyword ACLU.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update
Editor: Ann Beeson ([email protected])
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to
[email protected] with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line
of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to
[email protected] with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject
line.
For general information about the ACLU, write to [email protected].
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
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 a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to [email protected]
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 CUDIGEST
Send it to [email protected]
(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) (203) 832-8441.
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)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/[email protected]
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/
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/ (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 #7.91
************************************
From [email protected] Fri Dec 1 13:02:54 1995
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu by mail.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id NAA12020; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:02:36 -0800
Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 3872; Fri, 01 Dec 95 15:01:32 CST
Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UIUCVMD) by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a)ith BSMTP id 9803; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:40:23 -0600
Received: from VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8b)
with NJE id 6804 for [email protected]; Fri, 1 Dec 1995
14:37:00 -0600
Received: from UIUCVMD (NJE origin SMTP@UIUCVMD) by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9700; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:36:58 -0600
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Fri, 01 Dec 95 14:36:53 CST
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1) with
BSMTP id 7421; Fri, 01 Dec 95 14:35:02 LCL
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 14:34 CST
To: [email protected]
From: Cu Digest ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: Cu Digest, #7.92
Message-ID: <CUDIGEST%[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Status: O
Computer underground Digest Wed Nov 29, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 92
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected]
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, #7.92 (Wed, Nov 29, 1995)
File 1--Cyber Robber Barons
File 2--LoGIC: Call for papers
File 3--Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century
File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:57:01 GMT
From: [email protected] (Richard K. Moore)
Subject: File 1--Cyber Robber Barons
********************************
This article may be posted in entirety for non-profit use.
********************************
To appear in: INFORMATION SOCIETY, Vol 12(2)
Edited by: Mark Poster <[email protected]>
See WWW: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kling/tis.html
********************************
Cyberspace Inc and the Robber Baron Age,
an analysis of PFF's "Magna Carta"
Copyright 1995 by Information Society
Richard K. Moore
August 19, 1995
Reference:
Cyberspace and the American Dream:
A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age
Release 1.2 // August 22, 1994
The manifesto "Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the
Knowledge Age", published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), is a
document of considerable significance. Its very title reveals much about its
intent. Its promoters -- both alleged and concealed -- are indicative of its
propagandistic mission. Its contents have accurately prophesied the
legislative
agenda and rhetoric which have unfolded subsequent to the manifesto's
publication.
Given the powerful telecommunications interests behind PFF -- and the close
ties of that organization to Speaker Newt Gingrich -- a detailed analysis
of the
manifesto can provide insight into what may (unfortunately) be the most likely
scenario for the future of cyberspace.
* * *
The title invites direct comparison with the original Magna Carta, which is
defined in The Cassell Concise English Dictionary as follows:
Magna Carta - The Great Charter of English liberties,
sealed by King John on 15 June, 1215
With due respect to Cassell's, this is a misleading definition. The Magna
Carta
did not grant liberties generally to "the English", but rather devolved powers
and privileges exclusively to an elite aristocracy. As shall be shown in this
article, PFF's "Magna Carta" is similarly misleading: much of its rhetoric
seems
to imply a concern with individual liberties, but its substance would devolve
power and privilege exclusively to the biggest corporate players in the
telecommunications industry.
Just as the Magna Carta supported the power of the Nobles -- with each to have
autocratic power in his own domain -- so PFF's manifesto supports the power of
communications monopolies -- with each to have unregulated control over its
own cyberspace fiefdom. Rather than being a charter of liberties, the
manifesto
promotes a regime of robber barons in cyberspace.
Instead of an infrastructure for public communications -- like the current
Internet, or the American highway system -- cyberspace would be developed as a
corporate owned monopoly -- priced at whatever the traffic will bear. Instead
of providing a "space" in which citizens are free to speak and associate (like
Internet), cyberspace would become a profit-machine and propaganda channel
for media conglomerates. PFF's manifesto is a formula for neo-feudalism in the
"Knowledge Age" -- it is a charter for what could aptly be dubbed "Cyberspace
Inc".
* * *
The ultimate promoters of the manifesto are concealed. Its introduction claims:
This statement represents the cumulative wisdom and innovation of many
dozens of people. It is based primarily on the thoughts of four
'co-authors': Ms. Esther Dyson; Mr. George Gilder; Dr. George
Keyworth;
and Dr. Alvin Toffler. This release 1.2 has the final 'imprimatur' of
no one.
The implication would seem to be that enlightened individuals spontaneously
composed the manifesto, in the interests, presumably, of progress and freedom.
The true authorship is uncertain. According to Mark Stahlman of New Media
Associates, a scheduled speaker at an upcoming PFF conference:
The 'author' of this rambling camel-of-a-report is Frank Gregorsky.
He's a journalist working for PFF who does their newsletter. None of
the listed contributors actually did any work directly on the
document.
That's why it's simply *not* coherent.
[posted to [email protected] on Sun, 5 Feb 1995]
The "coherence" of the manifesto will be discussed in some detail below.
As for
the authorship, it would appear that PFF itself must be considered the
source of
the manifesto.
PFF turns out to be a typical industry-front organization. Characterized
by Mr.
Stahlman as "Newt's 'think tank'", PFF is funded by a panoply of corporate
sponsors. The February 6, 1995 issue of The Nation carries an article by David
Corn, entitled "CyberNewt". Here's an excerpt;
There is nothing particularly futuristic about the funding sources
behind the P.F.F. and its conference. Telecommunications firms
subsidize the group: AT&T, BellSouth, Turner Broadcasting System, Cox
Cable Communications. Other donors to the P.F.F.'s $1.9 million bank
account include conservative foundations, Wired magazine, high-tech
firms, military contractors, and drug companies (another foundation
passion is attacking the Food and Drug Administration).
When Senator Phil Gramm spoke at the [PFF] conference luncheon, the
tables closest to the podium were reserved for corporate benefactors:
Eli Lilly, Seagram's, Phillip Morris, S.B.C. Communications (formerly
Southwestern Bell) ...
Brock N. Meeks published an article in Inter@ctive Week, dated April 28, 1995,
entitled "Freedom Foundation Faces Scrutiny". These brief excerpts from the
article outline Mr. Meeks' understanding of how PFF funds are used, and how it
seeks to hide its link to Mr. Gingrich:
...Among I@W's findings:
* PFF spent $483,000 to underwrite a college
course taught by Gingrich. ...
* PFF spent $148,000 to underwrite The Progress
Report, Gingrich's weekly cable talk show carried
on his own National Empowerment Television. ...
The PFF links to Gingrich and his own political
action committee, called GOPAC, have drawn the
interest of the Ethics Committee and the IRS, which
is "reevaluating" PFF's nonprofit status,
according to an IRS source.
The PFF link to Gingrich's rising political
currency has proved lucrative. From March 1993 to
March 1994 the group raised $611,000. During the
remainder of 1994, when it became clear that the
Republicans stood a good chance to capture both the
House and the Senate for the first time in 40
years, an additional $1.07 million poured into PFF
coffers, according to its financial records. ...
The latest PFF tax returns do not make any link to
GOPAC or Gingrich. Any such linking would violate
IRS tax exemption rules. However, Eisenach is on
record acknowledging that he did the basic
groundwork of setting up PFF while running GOPAC.
The money trail apparently goes from media/telecommunications
conglomerates, to PFF, and finally to Mr. Gingrich's projects, which seem to be
heavily focused on propaganda ventures. Small wonder that PFF's manifesto,
and Mr. Gingrich's legislative agenda, promote excessive deregulation of the
telecommunications industry, and pave the way for monopolistic control.
Evidently the Lords of Cyberspace Inc are to include the likes of AT&T,
BellSouth, Turner Broadcasting System, and Cox Cable Communications. Mr.
Gingrich's famous pledges to "empower the individual" and "provide laptops
for ghetto dwellers" should be seen for what they are: a shallow populist
veneer
covering a corporate-pandering agenda.
* * *
The text of PFF's manifesto is an artful piece of propaganda. Clouded in cyber-
jargon, illogical in its flow of argument, and disjoint in its presentation --
it does superficially appear to be a "rambling camel-of-a-report", as Mr.
Stahlman observes. But beneath the deceptive rhetoric -- if one digs patiently
-- there can indeed be found a coherent set of proposals for the commercial
exploitation of cyberspace.
The rhetoric is grandiose. It talks about the original American experience,
characterized as daring pioneers conquering a new land -- based on the
principles of individual initiative and freedom. Cyberspace is described as a
similar frontier, and a rallying cry is raised to reaffirm freedom for the
individual -- especially from government control. The preservation of the
American heritage itself, the manifesto argues, hangs in the balance: freedom
for the individual in cyberspace must be protected!
But the manifesto makes no mention whatever of protections for _individual_
freedoms. There's no discussion, for example, of guaranteeing freedom of
expression or of protecting privacy. In addition, there's no discussion of
preserving the viability of Internet mailing lists and bulletin boards -- which
have proven to be cyberspace's equivalent of "freedom of association" and
"freedom of the press".
What the manifesto does discuss -- at great length -- is the protection of
freedoms for _telecommunications & media conglomerates_: freedom to form
monopolies, freedom to set arbitrary price rates and structures, freedom to
control content, and freedom from fair taxation, through special accounting
procedures. This is a formula which harks back to the robber-baron capitalism
of the late nineteenth century, when railroad, oil, and steel monopolies ran
roughshod over America's economy and political system.
Hence the rhetoric of PFF's manifesto is aimed at accomplishing a clear
propaganda mission. It aims to stir up sentiment for freedom of the
individual,
and then to deftly shift the ground under the manifesto's audience. The pro-
freedom sentiment is subtly transferred from the _individual_ to the
_corporation_, not explicitly, but by deceptive turns of phrase. "The
corporation" is subtly equated to the "the individual", so that
"deregulation of
conglomerates" _seems_ to be synonymous with "freedom for the individual".
Implementation of the manifesto's agenda would not lead to individual
freedom at all. It would lead to subjugation of the individual by corporate
media monopolies. The right to access services, the price of the services, the
definition of what services would be provided, the content of "news" and
entertainment -- these would all be decided entirely by media conglomerates,
based on their business interests and political agendas. Neither individuals
nor their elected representatives would have any say over how cyberspace is to
be developed or used, under PFF's charter for Cyberspace Inc.
Most of the remainder of this article is devoted to examining representative
excerpts of the manifesto text, in order to substantiate and illustrate the
summary analysis above. At the end there's a brief discussion of the
relationship between the manifesto and the current legislative agenda in
Washington.
* * *
In its Preamble, the manifesto sets forth its grandiose characterization of
cyberspace as the next frontier of the American Dream:
What our 20th-century countrymen came to think of as the
"American dream," and what resonant thinkers referred to
as "the promise of American life" or "the American Idea,"
emerged from the turmoil of 19th-century industrialization.
Now it's our turn: The knowledge revolution, and the Third
Wave of historical change it powers, summon us to renew the
dream and enhance the promise.
In the first section, "The Nature of Cyberspace", the emphasis on cyberspace as
a delivery media for information products is introduced:
Cyberspace is the land of knowledge, and the exploration of
that land can be a civilization's truest, highest calling.
The opportunity is now before us to empower every person to
pursue that calling in his or her own way.
As is typical throughout the manifesto, the substance is hidden within fluff
rhetoric. The operative phrases in this paragraph, confirmed by the rest
of the
manifesto, are "land of knowledge" and "exploration". Cyberspace is to be
primarily a source of "knowledge" -- meaning commercial media products -- and
the role of the _consumer_ will be to "explore" it -- meaning to navigate the
purchasing options.
This first section also introduces the theme that government is inconsistent
with cyberspace pioneering:
[Cyberspace] spells the death of the central institutional
paradigm of modern life, the bureaucratic organization.
(Governments, including the American government, are the last
great redoubt of bureaucratic power on the face of the planet,
and for them the coming change will be profound and probably
traumatic.)
As you might expect, nowhere does the manifesto acknowledge that Internet was
established due to government initiative and sponsorship. And interestingly
enough, the word "Internet" occurs only twice in the manifesto, and the
Internet
precedent is seldom cited as a source of models for how cyberspace might
evolve.
Also, the authors are evidently blind to the possibility that _corporations_
might be "redoubts bureaucratic power".
The next section, "The Nature and Ownership of Property", introduces a number
of complex topics regarding ownership of hardware infrastructure, intellectual
property, and the electromagnetic spectrum. This section also introduces the
issue of pricing regulation, and touches on preferential taxation.
The main propaganda theme, intentionally confusing the individual with
corporations, is introduced at this point:
At the level of first principles, should ownership be public
(i.e. government) or private (i.e. individuals)?
The hook is set here, favoring private over government ownership -- in the
name of the individual. But in all that follows, it is the corporation that is
granted privileges, not the individual. As part of the same deceptive
dichotomy, "public/government" is everywhere equated to central bureaucracy,
with no acknowledgement that any kind of regulation could ever be useful, nor
that any kind of public agency, even if highly decentralized, could possibly be
beneficial. And there is no hint that individuals might ever need to be
protected from corporations, or that government might play some role in such
protection.
The ownership of hardware infrastructure is mentioned, but not discussed.
It is
patently obvious, evidently, to both the authors and the presumed readers, that
this level of infrastructure is to be privately owned. State operated
telecommunications systems are so far beyond the pale as to be unimaginable.
Again the precedent of Internet (until very recently supported by a public
backbone network) is conspicuously absent from the manifesto.
The discussion of intellectual property is interesting, and appears to have
some
merit. Patents and copyrights are described as being a "public good" approach
to intellectual property, outdated and cumbersome in the age of cyberspace:
Third Wave customized knowledge is by nature a private good.
The manifesto's favored approach to intellectual property is described in a
quotation from John Perry Barlow:
"One existing model for the future conveyance of intellectual
property is real-time performance... In these instances, commercial
exchange will be more like ticket sales to a continuous show...
The other model, of course, is service... Who needs copyright when
you're on a retainer?"
Apparently the model is that authors would sell their services or their rights
to a commercial distributor, who would then charge the consumer on a "pay per
view" basis.
Dealing with copyrights in electronic media has indeed proven to be a thorny
problem. Journalists have complained about not being remunerated by
electronic republishing services; rap musicians have allegedly "sampled"
previous material without payment; copyrighted articles are forwarded around
Internet on a free basis. New mechanisms are needed, and the private sector
_is_ likely to be a creative source of solutions, such as metering technologies.
This model makes no mention of royalties. Many authors would prefer
royalties, based on distributor revenues, rather than being forced to sell
their
services or works on a fixed-price basis. This is a time-honored practice in
pre-electronic media, and a fully accountable and enforceable royalty scheme
would be a desirable part of any cyberspace solution for intellectual
property.
With regard to ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum, ominous questions
are raised, but a specific agenda is not developed. Existing channel
auctioning
practices are criticized as being too limiting. Perhaps PFF's corporate
backers
are seeking outright permanent ownership of this presumably public resource:
...Is the very limited 'bundle of rights' sold in those
auctions really property, or more in the nature of a use
permit -- the right to use a part of the spectrum for a limited
time, for limited purposes?...
Thus far, the manifesto has "established" that private ownership of
infrastructure, intellectual property, and the electromagnetic spectrum should
be strengthened and extended, with the root justification hanging on the thin
thread of deception equating corporation with individual. Next, the specter of
evil regulation is raised:
Regulation, especially price regulation, of this property
can be tantamount to confiscation, as America's cable
operators recently learned when the Federal government
imposed price limits on them... there is no disagreeing
with the proposition that one's ownership of a good is less
meaningful when the government can step in, at will, and
dramatically reduce its value.
Thus the manifesto proposes that every aspect of cyberspace is to be corporate
owned, and that no price regulation should be imposed. If adequate measures
were taken to insure healthy competition, this formula _might_ serve the public
welfare. But the monopoly proposals, to be discussed further on, make this a
dangerous formula indeed. Note above the use of the phrase "one's ownership",
reinforcing the confusion of individual and corporate identity. Notice also,
there was no discussion of the consumer complaints that led to the regulation,
nor of the immense profits that the cable operators continue to reap subsequent
to the "confiscation".
Next is raised the issue of property depreciation. The precedent of microchips
is used to claim that cyberspace investments should be depreciated rapidly.
Current capital depreciation practices are denigrated:
...Yet accounting and tax regulations still require property
to be depreciated over periods as long as 30 _years_. The result
is a heavy bias in favor of 'heavy industry' and against nimble,
fast-moving baby businesses.
The comparison with microchips and small entrepreneurial ventures is patently
absurd. Cyberspace Inc is aiming to consolidate ownership of existing
infrastructures, and to deploy new cable, fiber, and coax. These are
long-range
hardware investments by big players, and the above argument for accelerated
depreciation make no sense. Such inappropriate tax treatment would amount to
yet another giveaway to rich corporations, at the expense of the oft-touted
individual. Perhaps small, risk-taking, nimble companies _should_ enjoy more
rapid depreciation, but not these corporate giants, aiming as they are to
exploit
already proven technologies .
In the next section, "The Nature of the Marketplace", the principle of "dynamic
competition" is discussed. The principle is very simple, essentially that new
kinds of products should be allowed to capture markets from outmoded
products, just as the automobile replaced the horse and buggy. The manifesto
attempts to present the idea as if it were a major breakthrough in economic
theory. It then issues a rallying cry for bold new directions:
The challenge for policy in the 1990s is to permit, even
encourage, dynamic competition in every aspect of the cyberspace
marketplace.
What the manifesto fails to mention is that the American communications
industry is already experiencing _dramatic_ dynamic competition. Cable,
cellular, satellite, telephone, and broadcast modalities are increasingly
overlapping, evolving, competing, shifting markets around, and bringing down
prices. By a strange twist of logic, as we shall see later, the _concept_ of
dynamic competition will be used as an argument for increased monopoly control
over markets -- for reducing the _actual_ dynamic competition that is working
so well today.
The next section, "The Nature of Freedom", develops several threads. It
presents a revisionist version of U.S. and Internet history; it continues the
blurring of individual and corporate interests; it continues the
demonization of
government; it restates the corporate goal of gaining outright ownership of the
electromagnetic spectrum; it hints at the monopolist agenda.
In a Second Wave world, it might make sense for government
to assume ownership over the broadcast spectrum and demand
massive payments from citizens for the right to use it.
Broadcast license fees (hardly massive, by the way) are paid by corporate
broadcasters, not citizens. Having laid its propaganda groundwork, the
manifesto now freely interchanges individualist and corporate terms with
Orwellian impunity. By an incredible stretch of doublethink, handing over the
public airwaves to corporate ownership is to be a victory for the individual!
In a Second Wave world, it might make sense for government
to prohibit entrepreneurs from entering new markets and
providing new services.
In a single sweeping revisionist fantasy, America's remarkable record of
supporting innovative entrepreneurs vanishes from history! And the manifesto
would have us swallow the premise that billion-dollar telecommunications and
media giants are poor, struggling entrepreneurs.
However desirable as an ideal, individual freedom often
seemed impractical. The mass institutions of the Second
Wave required us to give up freedom in order for the system
to "work."
In yet another revisionist fantasy, America's world-famous history of
freedom is
discounted. And once again individual freedom is praised, as if that had some
connection to the corporate agenda being espoused.
The next section, "The Essence of Community", proclaims the notion of
distributed communities -- long common on Internet -- as if they were a bold
new idea:
No one knows what the Third Wave communities of the future
will look like... It is clear, however, that cyberspace will
play an important role knitting together in the diverse
communities of tomorrow, facilitating the creation of
"electronic neighborhoods" bound together not by geography
but by shared interests.
Why does "no one know"? Why aren't Internet lists and newsgroups cited as
living prototypes for distributed communities of the future? Such frequent and
glaring omission of the Internet precedent is disturbing. Just as the American
pioneer (so often praised by the manifesto) saw the New World (falsely) as a
virgin land ready for exploitation, so the manifesto seems to see cyberspace as
an empty frontier, yet to be explored and developed. Are the "natives" of this
frontier -- today's extensive Internet culture -- to be similarly decimated and
pushed onto bleak reservations? Just as the Magna Carta metaphor reveals
much about the manifesto's robber-baron objectives, perhaps the darker
implications of the pioneering metaphor should be taken seriously as well.
Given the monopoly-priced environment proposed by the manifesto (in the next
section), the kind of informal, citizen-oriented virtual communities popular on
Internet are highly unlikely to be viable. PFF's notion of distributed
communities (called "cyberspaces") seems to resemble today's internal corporate
networks, as described in a quote from Phil Salin:
"...Contrary to naive views, these cyberspaces will not all be
the same, and they will not all be open to the general public.
The global network is a connected 'platform' for a collection
of diverse communities, but only a loose, heterogeneous community
itself. Just as access to homes, offices, churches and
department stores is controlled by their owners or managers,
most virtual locations will exist as distinct places of private
property."
Those groups which can afford to pay the monopolist prices -- such as
corporations and well-funded associations -- can enjoy the benefits which today
are affordable to millions of individuals and groups. Perhaps nowhere else in
the manifesto is the pro-individualist rhetoric so clearly revealed to be the
lie that it is. Instead of promoting individual freedom in cyberspace,
existing
freedoms and privileges are likely to be taken away. The ominous precedent
implicit in the "pioneer" metaphor threatens to recur as cyberspace is cleared
for commercial development.
The next section, "The Role of Government", re-iterates previously stated
corporate objectives -- no price regulation, corporate ownership of
spectra, new
definition of intellectual property, favored tax treatment -- and proclaims a
new objective: enabling total monopoly control over communications markets.
Much is made of the distinction between one-way and two-way
communications, the implication apparently being that phone companies are
better prepared to develop cyberspace than cable operators:
"...None of the interactive services will be possible, however,
if we have an eight-lane data superhighway rushing into every
home and only a narrow footpath coming back out..."
The claim is made that the multimedia future depends on greater collaboration
between phone and cable companies:
...it can be argued that a near-term national interactive
multimedia network is impossible unless regulators permit
much greater collaboration between the cable industry and
phone companies. ...That is why obstructing such collaboration
-- in the cause of forcing a competition between the cable
and phone industries -- is socially elitist.
Next, it is claimed that dynamic competition requires that regulated-monopoly
mechanisms (which govern today's RBOCs and cable companies) should be
abolished. Price and entry regulation are to be replaced by new anti-trust law:
Antitrust law is the means by which America has...fostered
competition in markets where many providers can and should
compete. ...The market for telecommunications services --
telephone, cable, satellite, wireless -- is now such a market.
...price/entry regulation of telecommunications services...
should therefore be replaced by antitrust law as rapidly as
possible.
The obvious likely consequences of such an agenda are conspicuously not
discussed by the manifesto. If entry regulation is removed, and phone/cable
collaboration is encouraged, then the obvious alternatives for collaboration
would be interconnection, joint venture, and acquisition. Given the multi-
billion dollar capital reserves of the phone companies, the best business
opportunity would presumably be for phone companies to simply acquire cable
companies, thus establishing total monopolies over wires coming into the
home.
Anti-trust law would be largely irrelevant to this scenario. To begin with,
anti-trust enforcement seems to be a thing of the past -- especially with the
Republican radicals in Congress. More important, perhaps, is the current anti-
trust stance toward the RBOCs: partitioning them into separate turfs seems
to be
the most that anti-trust enforcers demand. Within their turfs, they're allowed
be as monopolistic as they can get by with.
If price-regulation is removed, then we would be left with _totally_
unregulated
telecommunications monopolies in each RBOC region -- controlling phone,
television, multimedia, and messaging services, and charging whatever the
traffic will bear. Hence the appropriateness of this article's title:
"Cyberspace Inc and the Robber Baron Age". America's total communications
infrastructure would be divided into feudal fiefdoms, and the economic regime
would resemble the railroad cartels of the nineteenth century.
All the manifesto's rhetoric about individual freedom and dynamic competition
is deception -- the agenda is totally anti-competitive, anti-individual, and
anti-free-enterprise. A century's progress in achieving dynamic, competitive,
and diverse communications industries -- based on appropriate and non-stifling
regulation -- would be thrown out the window all at once.
The final section of the manifesto, "Grasping The Future", is mostly devoted to
reiterating the grandiose rhetorical visions of the mythical "Third Wave". The
phrase "grasping the future" is an apt conclusion to the manifesto: the
conglomerates behind PFF are indeed grasping at the future with both hands,
ready to pocket monopolistic windfall profits, presumably enhanced by favored
tax advantages.
* * *
Despite the strongly adversarial attitude this article has taken toward the
"Magna Carta", not all of the points made in that manifesto are considered by
this author to be wrong-headed. Creative initiatives to the problems posed by
cyberspace are indeed needed, and the manifesto offers some constructive ideas
in that regard. A pay-per-view model of intellectual property may have
merit --
if original authors are fairly and accountably compensated, and if
non-commercial material is also accommodated at reasonable cost. Close
collaboration among existing installed bases of coax, cable, and satellite may
be desirable -- if appropriately regulated with respect to price and
common-carrier status. And new paradigms and visions for understanding the
meaning of communications in the "information age" are needed -- but with more
honesty about the metaphors to be embraced and how they actually map onto
cyberspace realities.
What _is_ highly objectionable in the manifesto is the deceptive manipulation
of libertarian/individualist sentiment, the ignoring of the Internet precedent
and the lessons to be learned from that, the absence of provisions for freedom
of communication and privacy for individuals, the discounting of the proven
constructive role for appropriate regulation, and the disguised corporate power-
grab inherent in the proposed package of polices.
This is not the place to analyze or even enumerate the plethora of competing
legislative proposals currently before Congress regarding telecommunications.
Suffice it to say that the agenda promulgated by the "Magna Carta" is finding
widespread expression in that legislation. This fact -- along with the
manifesto's close connection to the communications industry and to Speaker
Gingrich -- indicates that the "Magna Carta" should be taken very seriously, as
regards both its agenda, and the kind of rhetoric and deception employed. The
"Magna Carta" provides a rare insight into the threat facing America's future
from corporate power grabbers, and simplifies the task of seeing through the
propaganda smokescreen being employed by legislators and industry spokespeople.
********************************
CyberLib maintained by:
Richard K. Moore [email protected]
(USA Citizen) Moderator: Cyberjournal
Wexford, Ireland http://www.internet-eireann.ie/cyberlib
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:18:53 -0500
From: Dov Wisebrod <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--LoGIC: Call for papers
LoGIC WANTS TO PUT YOU ON THE WEB
=================================
The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada (LoGIC) calls on authors of legal
essays and articles to submit their work for presentation on the World Wide
Web. Interested persons should read the information in this notice carefully.
(Also available online at "http://www.io.org/~logic/papers/solicit.htm".
Please repost in all appropriate places.)
INTRODUCTION
LoGIC is a conduit for the exchange of information and ideas about policies
concerning emerging communication and information technologies. We are
devoted to ensuring informed public, legislative, and regulatory responses
to these technologies, which at present are manifest most profoundly in the
Internet. We want to ensure that new laws and regulations have no
detrimental effects on the free and interactive communication of information.
Our work focuses on four broad areas of activity relating to our goals:
1. Dissemination of information about legislative, jurisprudential, and
political developments in Canada.
2. Research and commentary about legislative, jurisprudential, and
political developments in Canada.
3. Participation in the shaping of Canadian law and public policy to new
developments.
4. Monitoring of, and participation in, criminal and civil cases in the
Canadian legal system.
Further information is available in our Mandate at our web site.
ELIGIBILITY
LANGUAGE: Papers must be written in English -- and written well.
AUTHORSHIP: Papers must be original work, but need not be unpublished. Work
published elsewhere previously, concurrently, or subsequently is acceptable.
Work prepared by multiple authors is acceptable.
SUBJECT: We are The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada. Clearly, the
work must relate to law, the Internet, and Canada. If it fails to meet any
of these criteria, it is unacceptable.
*Please browse LoGIC's web site for samples.
DEADLINE
Submissions must be received by 11:59pm, Sunday, January 14, 1996.
TERMS
FORMAT: Work must be submitted in electronic form only. We will not
consider hard copy work; we will not return hard copy work. Work must be
submitted as a wordprocessed file that can be filtered into Lotus AmiPro 3.1
for Windows. This includes MS Word for Windows 1.x/2.0/6.0 and WordPerfect
4.2/5.x/6.0. ASCII files (with footnotes appearing at the end) are optimal
and encouraged. The less fancy the formatting, the better. Sorry, but
Macintosh files are unacceptable. We will appreciate submissions that are
compressed using PKZip or ARJ, but uncompressed work is acceptable.
SUBMISSION: Work may be submitted as a file attachment to an e-mail, or as
a UUencoded e-mail, sent to Dov Wisebrod at "[email protected]".
Alternatively, work may be submitted on a 3.5" floppy disk to either Dov
Wisebrod or Daniel Shap. (Browse LoGIC's web site for contact information,
or e-mail LoGIC at "[email protected]".) All authors must submit their name,
address, telephone number, and e-mail address. An e-mail address for contact
purposes is essential, though it need not be the author's own.
COPYRIGHT: Persons who submit work must warrant their ownership of
copyright in the work. LoGIC will not ask authors to assign copyright to us.
Authors are free to publish elsewhere. LoGIC asks only that it be provided
with the most recent version of the work for presentation on its web site.
ACCEPTANCE: Not all submissions will be accepted. All work that qualifies
according to the terms set out in this notice will be reviewed. The results
will be communicated by e-mail to all authors who have submitted work.
INQUIRIES
E-MAIL: [email protected]
WWW: http://www.io.org/~logic
/-----------------------\/--------------------------------------------\
/ Dov Wisebrod \ The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada /
/ [email protected] \ http://www.io.org/~logic /
/ http://www.io.org/~sherlock \ [email protected] /
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:08:05 -0800
From: Gilberto Arriaza <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century
Dear colleagues: Here is a Call for Papers you might be interested.
Gilberto Arriaza. School of Education, UC Berkeley
Journal of Social Justice
Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century
Recent backlash against immigrants and affirmative action can be seen as
part of a larger struggle over resources, national identity, and more
generally (re)configurations of power in the United States in the twenty
first century. Demographic trends continue to point to greater diversity
in the U.S. population, however there is growing resistance to the
adjustments which must be made in society generally, and in the
workplace and social institutions (i.e. education, the arts, political
parties) in particular, to accommodate those who have historically and
who are presently excluded. Already the debates which have emerged over
these issues differ in several important ways from the manifestations of
social conflict and polarization that occurred in the latter part of the
twentieth century.
This issue of the Journal of Social Justice is dedicated to exploring the
contours and substance of these new struggles. In addition to
documenting how these conflicts are being played out in particular social
and cultural contexts, contributors will analyze the underlying social
and cultural forces and interests which influence how issues are viewed,
and how social action and discourse are affected. Beyond analyzing the
content and character of those conflicts, contributors are encouraged to
illuminate possibilities of influencing how they can be resolved such
that greater social justice is achieved.
Topics for this issue may include::
Issues of immigration, cultural identity and the nation state.
Dismantling of the welfare state, social implications.
Schools and the meaning of citizenship, national identity and cultures,
and the access to power.
Obstacles to Gay, Lesbian and bisexual rights.
Crime, violence and social policy.
Language, language rights and the dynamics of power.
Gender equity, reproductive rights.
Local impact of macro level economic and political change.
Racial and ethnic conflict.
Review: Each submission will be read by a committee of two members. In
case a disagreement among them arises, the editors will call for the
opinion of a third member..
Format: Submit three hard copies of a 12 size font, double spaced of no
more than thirty 8 X 11.5 pages. This includes references. Each paper
must have an abstract of no more than one, double space, 8 X 11.5 page.
On a separate card of 3 X 5 (approximately) include title, your name,
affiliation, local address, telephone numbers, fax and electronic mail,
to contact you.
Deadline: Submission must be in our office by Monday, May 6th, 1996. No
contributions will be accepted after this date. The accepted papers will
be part of a panel for AERA '97.
Address: c/o Professor Pedro Noguera
University of California at Berkeley
School of Education
Social and Cultural Studies
4501 Tolman Hall
Berkeley, 94720
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
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 a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to [email protected]
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 CUDIGEST
Send it to [email protected]
(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) (203) 832-8441.
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)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/[email protected]
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/
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/ (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 #7.92
************************************
|
|
