Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 71
Computer underground Digest Sun Oct 6, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 71
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.71 (Sun, Oct 6, 1996)
File 1--Defamation and web site addresses
File 2--ELEMENTS OF THE NEW CRYPTO PROPOSAL
File 3--The fictive environment of DoD infowar kooks
File 4--(Fwd) Cybercast of GA HB1630 Press Conference
File 5--Re: Microsoft lies, damned lies, and statistics
File 6--Re: Microsoft lies, damned lies, and statistics (in CuD)
File 7--Response to Michael Bernard/Microsoft's Methodology
File 8--Channel WoW Broadcasts Live ON THE Internet
File 9--Re: Call for Papers: The Jrnl of IWAR Intel. Acquisition
File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 1996 14:55:41 +1000
From: "Brian Martin" <Brian_Martin@UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: File 1--Defamation and web site addresses
Defamation and web site addresses
Brian Martin
This is the story of how a university administration, by
threatening to sue for defamation, was able to deter the mass media
from publishing a web site address.
Earlier this year I publicised the address of a site on the web
where information can be obtained about a case involving Dr David
Rindos and the University of Western Australia. As a result, the
university threatened to sue me and several media outlets for
republishing a defamation. What we published was not defamatory
material itself but a web address where it was possible to read
material that the university alleged was defamatory.
The information in question concerns the denial of tenure to Dr
David Rindos at the University of Western Australia. Hugh Jarvis,
who was concerned about the case, set up a web site which includes
a large number of documents about it, especially copies of letters,
submissions and newspaper articles. The site is located at the
State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo.
I have been following the Rindos-UWA case for some years and
written a few letters about it. In May two similar letters of mine
appeared, one in the Australian (8 May 1996, p. 41), a national
daily newspaper with a higher education supplement each Wednesday,
and the other in Campus Review (8-14 May 1996, p. 8) , a national
weekly newspaper. Here is the letter published in Campus Review
under the title "Threat to autonomy."
"THE West Australian parliament has set up an inquiry into the
events surrounding the denial of tenure to Dr David Rindos by the
University of WA.
"It has been reported that the Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee sees this inquiry to be a threat to autonomy.
"But sometimes 'university autonomy' can be at the expense of other
interests. In the numerous cases of whistleblowing and suppression
of dissent that I have studied, internal procedures seldom have
delivered justice. Universities are little different from other
organisations in this regard.
"When an academic exposes some problem such as favouritism,
plagiarism or sexual abuse, it is common for senior academics and
administrators to close ranks and squelch open discussion. A more
enlightened response would be for the university to put its house
in order. If the University of WA had set up a truly independent
inquiry, with experts from the outside, the present parliamentary
inquiry probably would have been unnecessary.
"The Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases
reported in October last year. In relation to higher education, it
commented as follows: 'The committee heard allegations of
destruction of documents, alteration of documents, fabricated
complaints concerning work performance and harassment of the
individuals concerned. Such allegations raise concerns about the
ethical standards within institutions and attitudes to outside
review. The committee concedes that there is a need for outside
review to be balanced against the autonomy of academic
institutions. However, autonomy cannot be allowed to override
responsibility to academic staff as well as students.'
"Since a web page has been set up about the Rindos case
(http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~hjarvis/rindos.html), readers can
judge the issue for themselves without relying on the AVCC." [end
of letter]
On 15 May, I received a letter from the legal firm Freehill
Hollingdale & Page acting for UWA. Their letter stated that the
material on the web site "contains statements which are defamatory
of members of our client's [UWA] academic and administrative staff,
including the Vice-Chancellor and at least one Professor. By
publishing the address of the web site, you have both drawn the
attention of others to it and have provided the means by which the
defamatory material posted on the site may be viewed. That
constitutes a re-publication of the defamation." They stated
further that unless I refrained from publishing anything containing
the web site address, UWA "will be forced to consider recommending
to its staff members that action be taken against you." I
understand that similar letters were sent to the Australian, Campus
Review, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Hugh Jarvis
and SUNY.
If it is defamatory to refer people to a site that contains
allegedly defamatory material, then by the same logic all sorts of
everyday recommendations could be considered defamatory. A large
web site can have as many words as a book, a newspaper, or large
collection of documents. By analogy, the following actions could be
considered defamatory:
* recommending that someone reads a newspaper or magazine;
* encouraging someone to read a book;
* referring someone to a section of a library;
* suggesting that someone reads the graffiti along a train line;
* telling someone to read documents in the drawer of a filing
cabinet;
* citing a source as a footnote in a scholarly article.
There is a further difference. In some of these cases, such as
newspapers, defamation has been proved. It is only alleged that the
Rindos web site contains defamatory material.
From the beginning, UWA's threats seemed to me to be bluffs
intended to deter further publicising of the web address by the
mass media, especially during the course of the WA parliamentary
inquiry, but unlikely to be followed through with writs and
appearances in court. These bluffs seem to have worked, for the
most part.
According to ABC journalist Jane Figgis, after she broadcast a
programme giving the web site address, UWA contacted the ABC, which
removed the reference from the repeat broadcast. I sent letters to
the Australian and Campus Review telling about the UWA threat. The
Australian did not publish my letter. Campus Review took a stronger
line. The editor, Warren Osmund, published my letter (though
removing the web site address) and refused to agree to UWA's
demand.
Meanwhile, Hugh Jarvis quite properly asked UWA officials what
particular material on his site was defamatory, and invited UWA to
present its own point of view. According to Jarvis, UWA has not
responded to these overtures, instead merely reiterating its
general threat to sue. This is compatible with my impression that
UWA's threats are bluffs.
For distributing messages, the net provides an alternative to the
mass media. As well as sending letters to the two newspapers, I
composed a general message, including the text of my first Campus
Review letter, and sent it first to Forums & Debates at the
University of Wollongong (which gets to nearly all staff) and then
to various others whom I thought would be interested. In my message
I encouraged individuals to send copies to others: "If you are
concerned about this attempt by UWA officials to inhibit open
discussion, you can send a copy of this message to others who might
be interested."
As a result of this initiative, I received quite a few supportive
messages. Several individuals set up links from their own web
sites to the Rindos web site and wrote letters informing the
Vice-Chancellor of UWA of this. Others informed me that they
forwarded my message to numerous other people. Thus, by alerting
people to UWA defamation threat, the information about the Rindos
web site was circulated widely. As well, journalists in Perth (the
home of UWA) have written stories about UWA's actions. I put a
version of this article, including text of various letters, on my
own web site, which deals with suppression of dissent
(http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/). Hugh Jarvis also
has an account on his Rindos/UWA site
((http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~hjarvis/rindos.html).
UWA's threats may have deterred some of the mass media but have had
little impact on users of the net. As web access grows, UWA's
threats may in the longer term turn out to generate the very
publicity that UWA officials seem most anxious to suppress.
Brian Martin
Science and Technology Studies
University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
email: brian_martin@uow.edu.au
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Voters Telecommunications Watch <shabbir@vtw.org>
Subject: File 2--ELEMENTS OF THE NEW CRYPTO PROPOSAL
VTW BillWatch #60
VTW BillWatch: A newsletter tracking US Federal legislation
affecting civil liberties. BillWatch is published about every
week as long as Congress is in session. (Congress is in session)
BillWatch is produced and published by the
Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)
Issue #60, Date: Tue Oct 1 01:59:19 EDT 1996
Do not remove this banner. See distribution instructions at the end.
----------------------------------------------
ELEMENTS OF THE NEW CRYPTO PROPOSAL
Strap yourself in, friends. The White House is at it again.
On Thursday October 3, the White House will unveil it's long-dreaded
encryption proposal. The cause of some significant consternation among
Administration staffers, the proposal has been so long in coming that
Justice officials attending hearings last week on H.R. 3011 were visibly
annoyed at being left to twist in the wind.
Leaks abound right before a big announcement like this, but this time
everyone with a copy of the proposal has kept mum these last few days.
However the press has caught bits and pieces of it which we've collected
for you here. If you're an absolute crypto-media-hound, this may not be
news to you.
MOVE OF EXPORT APPROVALS FROM STATE TO COMMERCE, FBI VETO POWER
For years, companies have attempted to get their encryption products
through an easier, more lenient export process in the Department of
Commerce, instead of State. Approval in Commerce goes quickly, and
the hurdles are less formidable. Clearly, this should be a good thing.
However the deal that's been floating around for several weeks now is
that this move will not be this easy. The Department of Justice,
(or as Brock Meeks translates, the FBI) wants a seat at the table. In
effect, they want veto power over export applications. The assumption
is that they feel they can influence the domestic encryption market to
integrate Clipper-style key escrow technology by simply refusing the
export of any strong encryption products that might have previously been
approved in State.
This is bad news for companies that have no customer base demanding
government-friendly key escrow products.
KEY LENGTH RAISED TO 56 OR 64 BITS PROVIDED IT USES KEY ESCROW
This aspect of the proposal looks like old news, and to a certain extent,
it is. The Clipper II proposal suggested that the industry build hooks
into their products so that third parties could hold your keys for you.
Of course, that third party cannot be yourself, or anyone you would think
of when you think of entities you trust.
Thursday's proposal is likely to look a lot like Clipper II, and it will
likely cite the new IBM offering, SuperCrypto, as an example of products
that employ key escrow to allow export of products that use higher length
keys. What isn't certain is the extent to which key lengths will be raised.
There have been several conflicting rumors, some of them claiming 56 bits,
others claiming 64 bits.
More important than the question of key length will be the determination of
which companies are allowed to hold their own keys. This author predicts
that the only entities that will be allowed to hold keys will be: a gov't
agency (such as NIST), the maker of the encryption product itself, or
large companies that have the significant resources to run a key recovery
center. In all cases, the key recovery centers will still need to be
seperate entities that will dole out keys to law enforcement without the
knowledge of the key's owner.
In other words, you as an individual or small business are still out of luck.
PROBABLY NOT IN PLAN: KEY LENGTH RAISED TO 56 BITS WITHOUT KEY ESCROW
It has long been rumored that the avalanche of proof provided by the industry
experts would eventually force the Administration to raise the key length
for which unescrowed encryption products could be exported. Currently,
this limit is 40 bits, but several rumors floated and died within the
last few weeks suggesting that the Administration would be raising the
key length. It now looks like those were indeed just rumors.
SUMMARY
Most of these measures, if not all of them, can be implemented
administratively removing the need for Congress to get involved. However
Congress has already staked out its turf on this issue, and isn't likely
to cede that any time soon. Keep an eye out for the reactions from sponsors
of S.1726 (Pro-CODE) and HR 3011 on the feasibility White House proposal.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:48:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--The fictive environment of DoD infowar kooks
The September 8-15 issue of Defense News magazine featured an
article on information warfare kooks at the Pentagon and elsewhere
in the western world. Coming together at the National Computer Security
Association's annual InfoWar Con in Washington, DC, various political
and military attaches were quoted making amusing and fantastic
claims by reporter Pat Cooper.
One of the best examples was given by the Australian embassy's defense
attache in Washington, air vice marshal Brendan O'Loghlin. O'Loghlin
was reported to say information warfare could be used to destroy enemy
computers through the release or deployment of computer viruses into
foreign networks.
Of course, this will feed more computer virus myths on the effectiveness
of trivial replicating programs as weapons. It also overlooks the
problem of "blowback," or what happens when a military option imposed
on an enemy blows back over friendly borders and becomes a menace at
home.
Indeed, the entire history of computer viruses shows their epidemiology
is no respecter of diplomatic treaties, allies, or international borders.
Spread of computer viruses is by practical definition uncontrollable.
Does this mean a branch of the Australian military is actually thinking
about writing computer viruses or procuring them as potential weapons?
Hard to say.
But it does raise the question why a politico-military appointee in the
Australian diplomatic corps isn't censured by his home office for
spouting such arrant stupidity in a high profile public forum.
Another trenchant quote was provided to Cooper by Marine General John
Sheehan, head man at Atlantic Command in Norfolk, VA. Sheehan said
he was getting involved in information warfare because "We don't
want to get our butts kicked by a bunch of long-haired 26-year-olds
with earrings."
And the world of infowar kooks is not without its own evolving jargon,
too, where old phenomena and plans evolve into new words that make no
sense but which serve to hide spoiled old wine in new bottles.
One of the better terms Crypt has seen is "fictive environment."
Coined by infowar kooks at the Air Force College of Aerospace Doctrine
at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, a "fictive environment" is
one created when the U.S. military spams a bogus electronic press
(or a radio or TV broadcast) release on Saddam Hussein kissing a pig
into, say, the Iraqi communications network. This used to be called
psychological operations but information warfare kooks have cleverly
renamed it "fictive environment," perhaps to avoid being downsized
when the psy-ops budget is cut.
Of course, information warfare kooks in the U.S. military believe
such a stunt would discredit enemy leaders in the eyes of their troops,
causing foreign soldiers to march to our side -- or at least be gripped
by indecision. The U.S., say the information warfare kooks, is
immune to a "fictive environment" since we have an open society and
no one ever gets taken in by bogus news stories on computer networks
or television broadcasts. The skeptical reader is forgiven for wondering
what planet Department of Defense information warfare kooks have been
living on.
Crypt Newsletter
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:21:34 +0000
From: David Smith <bladex@bga.com>
Subject: File 4--(Fwd) Cybercast of GA HB1630 Press Conference
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
RealAudio Live broadcast of the press conference is available at
http://www.efga.org/realaudio/hb1630.htm at 10:30 am EST (NY) from Atlanta
Georgia.
-------------------------------------
Joint News Release:
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS GEORGIA
REP. MITCHELL KAYE
Groups Challenge Georgia Law
Restricting Free Speech in Cyberspace
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 1996
Contacts:
Teresa Nelson, ACLU of Georgia, 404-523-6201
Robert Costner, EFGA, 770-512-8746
Mitchell Kaye, 770-998-2399
Emily Whitfield, Nat'l ACLU, 212-944-9800
ATLANTA--The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontiers Georgia,
Georgia State Representative Mitchell Kaye and others today filed a lawsuit
seeking a preliminary injunction against a Georgia statute restricting free
speech in cyberspace.
At a news conference here, the groups said that the law is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it bars online users from
using pseudonyms or communicating anonymously over the Internet. The Act
also unconstitutionally restricts the use of links on the World Wide Web,
which allow users to connect to other sites.
"Fundamental civil liberties are as important in cyberspace as they are in
traditional contexts," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney
specializing in cyber-rights. "The right to speak and publish using a
virtual 'nom de plume' has its roots in a long tradition dating back to the
very founding of democracy in this country."
The lawsuit is the first such challenge to state cybercensorship laws, the
ACLU said. The ACLU said it has been monitoring state regulation of the
Internet and that currently, over 20 states have considered such laws.
"This is the first challenge that we know of to a state statute that has
tried to regulate national -- indeed, international -- communications," said
attorney Beeson. "The nature of the Internet makes state regulation
extremely problematical, because it forces everyone in the country to comply
with one state's law. If fifty states pass fifty contradictory laws,
Internet users will be virtually paralyzed for fear of violating one or more
of those laws."
The complaint includes the assertion that the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution bars state regulation of the Internet because it is an
interstate communications medium.
The suit was filed in U.S. Northern District Court of Georgia Federal Court,
challenging the state law on behalf of 14 plaintiffs (note: see attached for
a list of plaintiffs). The lawsuit names Governor Zell Miller and state
Attorney General Michael Bowers as defendants.
The Act was passed by the Georgia General Assembly and became effective on
July 1 of this year. The law provides criminal sanctions of up to 12
months in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine for violations.
Two of the plaintiffs, Electronic Frontiers Georgia and Georgia State
Representative Mitchell Kaye (R-Marietta), lobbied against the law before
its passage, and solicited help from the ACLU and others to mount a legal
challenge after it was enacted.
Electronic Frontiers Georgia (EFGA), a Georgia-based cyber-liberties
organization, said that the group had supported a letter written by the
co-counsel in the case to state Attorney General Michael Bowers asking him to
clarify the law so that any debate about its meaning could be settled without
litigation.
"It's clear that no one would want to pass a law that says what this law
says, that simply linking from website to website or using a pseudonym is
illegal in Georgia and therefore throughout the Internet," said Robert
Costner of EFGA.
Rep. Kaye said he became involved in the battle against the law when
members of the House attacked him for maintaining a private website that
they said might be mistaken for the "official" website of the Georgia House of
Representatives. The website is maintained by the Conservative Policy Caucus
and contains prominent disclaimers that it is not an official government
site.
"House leaders felt threatened that their voting records were being
published along with political commentary that was not always flattering,"
said Rep. Kaye, a member of the Conservative Policy Caucus. "Sunshine is the
best government disinfectant, and freedom of speech is a not a partisan
issue."
Teresa Nelson, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, said that ACLU
was acting as a plaintiff as well as a litigant in the case in order to protect
visitors to its website who may wish to access or discuss sensitive
information anonymously or using a pseudonym.
"These concerns were addressed in the letter to Attorney General Michael
Bowers, requesting a very narrow interpretation of the law. Unfortunately,
he chose to ignore our request and we have been forced to litigate to protect
confidentiality on the Internet."
The national ACLU, serving as co-counsel in the Georgia case, is also a
litigant in ACLU v. Reno, its challenge to Internet censorship provisions of
the federal Communications Decency Act.
In June of this year, a federal three-judge panel in Philadelphia granted
an injunction against the CDA, saying that, "as the most participatory form
of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection
from governmental intrusion." The government has appealed that ruling and the
case is now on it way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Complaint
According to the complaint, the law makes it a crime to use a name that
"falsely identifies" a speaker on the Internet, without distinguishing
whether the person communicating had any intent to deceive or defraud or
simply wanted to keep his or her identity unknown.
"In some cases, anonymity is a necessary security measure," said ACLU
attorney Beeson. "The personal safety of human rights dissidents, domestic
abuse victims, and whistle-blowers would be compromised if they could not
communicate anonymously."
Use of pseudonyms or anonymous identities also eliminates the potential for
discrimination and harassment according to gender or ethnicity, Beeson said,
and allows users to access controversial, embarrassing, or sensitive
information without revealing their identity. She added that in some cases
an online "handle" or pseudonym is assigned automatically by a commercial
online service such as Prodigy or Compuserve.
The complaint also states that the law may prohibit web links by making it
a crime to publish information "using" trade names, logos or other symbols,
again without regard to the nature of the use, and without any definition of
what constitutes "use" on a computer network.
According to Robert Costner of Electronic Frontiers Georgia, many websites
include links using trade names or logos as a means of providing information.
The EFGA site, he noted, provides a link to the BellSouth web page to
assist other Internet users in contacting BellSouth about a recent rate increase
request for ISDN telephone service. Given the new technological context of
the Internet and unique "linking" feature of web pages, Costner explained,
even this type of grass roots news advisory over the Internet could now be
illegal in Georgia.
The Plaintiffs
The 14 plaintiffs and organizations named in the suit all expressed concern
that the law would prohibit them -- at risk of jail or fines -- from using
pseudonyms to protect their privacy, communicate sensitive information and
defend themselves against harassment if their identities were known on the
Net.
For instance, the Atlanta Veterans Alliance, a Georgia-based organization
for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered veterans, said the law would
risk disclosure of the identity of AVA members who remain in active military
service. Such disclosure would likely end their military careers.
Another plaintiff, Josh Riley, an Atlanta-based realtor, operates two
Internet websites that contain many links to other websites of interest,
often using corporate logos and trademarks without specific permission. His
award-winning web page, www.blackbaseball.com, contains information on the
Negro Baseball Leagues, including links to a site on an HBO movie "Soul of
the Game."
Mr. Riley said he believes it would be impossible as a practical matter to
obtain permission for every link in his site, even though he is confident
that all of the companies and organizations would give permission if they
were asked.
Certain plaintiffs also expressed concern that loss of anonymity would put
them and others at risk. Plaintiff Community ConneXion, an Internet Service
Provider, specializes in providing the highest level of privacy to online
users. The group recently developed a service known as the Anonymizer, which
enables any Internet user to browse and retrieve documents anonymously.
Sameer Parekh, President of Community ConneXion, said that organizations
and individuals around the world use their services to protect them from
oppressive governments, invasive marketing databases and harassment online.
He said the Georgia law may force the group to choose between shutting down
its services or risking prosecution.
Lawyers representing the 14 plaintiffs are: J. Scott McClain (as volunteer
attorney) of the Atlanta firm of Bondurant, Mixson and Elmore; Ann Beeson
and Christopher Hansen of the national American Civil Liberties Union; and
Gerald Weber, staff attorney with the ACLU of Georgia.
Note to Editors: For more information on ACLU of Georgia et al. v. Miller et
al., visit these online sites: EFGA - http://www.efga.org. (EFGA will be
providing RealAudio of the news conference.)
ACLU - http://www.aclu.org and via America Online at keyword: ACLU.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 06:39:28 PDT
From: olcay@LIBTECH.COM(olcay cirit)
Subject: File 5--Re: Microsoft lies, damned lies, and statistics
>I went to the Microsoft home page, and found that the entire study by
>Usability Sciences Corporation is available online. I was looking at
>their research methodology --- do you know what their sample
>population was? *NEW* users. That is, people who had never used an
>Internet browser before.
I don't see how else the study could have been fair.
>By dropping the qualifer that these were new users, Microsoft is
>being intentionally misleading and deceitful.
Seasoned users like me are biased: we have emotional attachments to the
software that we use. I would have picked netscape no matter what.
David, be honest, even if IE 3.0 was unequivocally better than
Netscape, wouldn't you do the same?
Although I hate to protect Microsoft, new users are generally the least
opinionated.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:00:02 -0800
From: Michael Brennan <mikeb@AMGEN.COM>
Subject: File 6--Re: Microsoft lies, damned lies, and statistics (in CuD)
Regarding Microsoft's deceptive tactics in marketing Internet
Exporer (IE)...
I'm surprised no one has been making a stink over Microsoft's
blatant propagandizing via MSNBC, the new cable channel it partly
owns. The channel masquerades as an objective unbiased Internet
"news" channel, but it has repeatedly aired lies in Microsoft's
favor.
For instance, I recently saw a "comparison" of the leading web
browsers (Netscape and IE) that was anything but objective. Guess
which one they rated as easiest to use and most full-featured?
What was infuriating about the show (apart fromt he fact that many
viewers who don't know any better will accept it as fact) was that
it blatantly lied about Netscape's feature set. For instance, one
"advantage" it claimed IE has over Netscape is that IE lets you
hierarchically organize your bookmarks. They neglected to mention
that Netscape also lets you hierarchically organize your bookmarks.
I'm surprised Netscape (nor anyone else) has made a stink to the FCC
about this glorified infomercial masquerading as a news channel.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 96 11:55:01 -0400 Eastern
From: adventure.man@glib.org
Subject: File 7--Response to Michael Bernard/Microsoft's Methodology
TO: Microsoft's Michael Bernard ---
You STILL don't get it! I'm replying to your message in Computer
underground Digest Sun Sep 29, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 69.
[Regrettably, you declined to provide your email address.]
Your promotional misinterpretation of the results of your so-called
Internet Explorer usability study continues.
In your response to David Smith, you said "It should have stated
that 'four out of five new Web users prefer Microsoft Internet
Explorer to Netscape Navigator.'"
This statement of yours remains blatantly erroneous. I would
appreciate your rectifying your promotion of this study to make
clear that the results pertain only to Windows 95 users, and
specifically only to those Windows 95 users not feeling hostility
towards Microsoft Corporation (per the test protocol).
As a devoted Macintosh enthusiast, the assumption underlying your
remarks that all Web users are Windows 95 users is exceedingly
galling (especially since Macintosh users have a disproportionately
large net presence).
Warren Potas
adventure.man@glib.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:12:19 +0000
From: "mediacentre@architechs.com" <mediacentre@inin.co.uk>
Subject: File 8--Channel WoW Broadcasts Live ON THE Internet
CHANNEL WoW BROADCASTS LIVE ON THE INTERNET
Channel WoW presents Canvas live in person and on the Internet. To
celebrate the first anniversary of the launch of the Kirklees Media
Centre a unique collaboration of Huddersfield technicians, musicians
and poets are working together to produce a multimedia performance
that will be broadcast via the Internet. Creating a heady mixture of
songs poetry and musical improvisation Canvas' performance will be
broadcast live on the Internet from the Window on the World Cyber
Bar. This will allow those not able to be at the Cyber bar for the
actual event to `virtually' hear the performance in their own home
anywhere in the world.
The performance will be simultaneously loaded on to a web site where
anyone with a multimedia computer and an internet connection will be
able to down load the performance almost as it happens. A specially
constructed website will be set up which will also feature examples
of the poets work as well as the performance itself. Artists
involved include renowned poets Milner Place, John Bosley, Steph
Bowgett. This initiative of the Kirklees Media Centre will be the
first of many events where Channel WoW will broadcast live
performances via the Internet.
This event has been kindly sponsored by Yorkshire & Humberside Arts,
Wards Brewery, Architechs IT and Kirklees Council Date and Venue:
8pm - Saturday October 19th - Window on the World Cyber bar,
Kirklees Media Centre, 7 Northumberland Street, Huddersfield.
Admission: Strictly limited but only stlg2 and stlg1 for
concessions Web address: Channel WoW will be available from October
19th at http://www.architechs.com/ChaWoW
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 23:57:35 -0700
From: William Church <wchurch@RICOCHET.NET>
Subject: File 9--Re: Call for Papers: The Jrnl of IWAR Intel. Acquisition
Call For Papers
The Journal of IWAR Intelligence Acquisition requests the submission of
papers for its first issue in the Spring of 1997.
The Journal of IWAR Intelligence Acquisition is a quarterly electronic
journal focussing on the methodology and status of developing
International Information Warfare Intelligence Sources. Information
Warfare, for the purpose of this journal, is defined as the hostile
activity or implied threat of gaining unauthorized access to operating
systems, information, transmission points and methods, and the
utilization of that access/threat to gain a demonstrated leverage over
that target or other targets.
The direction of the journal is to assist the International Information
Security Community in its movement from a largely reactive stance to
proactive identification and cancellation of threats.
Papers should be 2,000 to 4,000 words and submitted electronically as
ASCII text. Suggested areas of interest are:
The Intelligence Community Reorganization Act: Will Information Warfare
Intelligence Acquisition Get Lost in the Shuffle.
The European Union Model for Intelligence Acquisition in Information
Warfare.
Matching the Critical Information Infrastructure Security Demands to
Intelligence Gathering.
A Suggested Taxology for the IWAR Threat Community: Hackers, Political
Agents, Economic Agents, and Unidentified Agents.
Moving From Reactive to Proactive Threat Assessment: Putting Meaning to
Systemic Incursions.
The Rand Corporation's "Day After.." exercise: Is a Global Threat a
Reality?
Deadline for Submission: December 15, 1996
Attention: William <wchurch@ricochet.net
The Journal of IWAR Intelligence Acquisition is available without charge
to qualified subscribers.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.71
************************************
