Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 53
Computer underground Digest Sun Jul 14, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 53
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, #8.53 (Sun, Jul 14, 1996)
File 1--Meeks' article on site blocking software companies
File 2--Singapore's Internet regulation to start on Monday July 15th
File 3--Discussion Forum on Privacy on the Internet
File 4--UK cyber-rights and cyber-liberties web site
File 5--iStar memo: don't tell customers list of banned newsgroups (fwd)
File 6--Tacoma decides to tax Internet
File 7--DC-ISOC Event: July 16
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 96 00:38:26 -0700
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: File 1--Meeks' article on site blocking software companies
Editor:
I am writing in regard to Brock Meek's article on obtaining the
secret databases of various blocking software companies. A lively discussion
of some aspects of the article has followed on the Cypherpunks
list (cypherpunks-request@toad.com) and inspired many of the
reactions herein.
My first reaction to the article was of disappointment. Why are
McCullagh and Meek obviously "picking a fight" with these companies?
They have some decent points buried in the inflammatory rhetoric of
the article (which I would rather not dissect line-by-line), but they
seem to me to largely missing some key points that can be made about
these "rating services":
1. These services are just starting-- they are in their infancy, an
embryonic stage. They are sorting out how they want to deal with
issues of publicity of their data, how they are to advertise their
service to parents, how they are to differentiate themselves from
each other, etc. It's just not very reasonable to criticize them
for not having all the answers yet. Actually, I think they should be
commended for advancing the technology so far in any extremely
hostile, competitive, and emotionally-charged environment.
2. The services are NOT censorship. Use of the service is
*entirely*voluntary*. Who are libertarians to rant at parents who
independently have made the decision to use the service? While an
informed and unbiased review of the services and their practices
would be very valuable for those parents, Meeks' rabid reporting
style is just the opposite of what is called for here. If the entire
article were rewritten from a more unbiased and levelheaded point of
view, it would be a public service. As it stands, it sounds like a
call to arms. I suspect that not only are Meeks and McCullagh on the
wrong side of the battle, the battle is exactly the wrong one to
fight.
3. These services are right now *receiving*money* for their work.
That is, a market has already arisen and apparently there is a valid
economic role for these companies to play based on the fact there are
already multiple, competing services operating on profits. This is
really something to be delighted about-- it turns out that people who
complain about material unsuitable for children are willing to put
their money where their mouths are and actually support services that
do the grunt work, and the whole endeavor can exist entirely
independently of people who aren't interested in either funding or
participating in it (no *taxes*, *lawyers*, or *bureacrats* required!
hallelujah!). Why is Meeks making it sound so horrible? I believe we
are witnessing the birth of a somewhat revolutionary new paradigm for
information dissemination-- instead of burning books or libraries,
zealots have an actual socially-acceptable channel for their
seemingly inexhaustable energies, namely starting cyberspace ratings
services!
4. Why is Meeks complaining that these services are preventing
children from seeing certain material in all clearly borderline
cases? A single rating service deciding that a site doesn't cut
their criteria is not at all a verdict of global, deathly silence on
that site. The mere fact that all the rating services are keeping
their lists secret from each other would tend to prevent a global
blacklisting. In fact this is one disadvantage of sharing the data!
The services may tend to unify in their "blacklistings" where now
there is a diversity of opinion.
5. Parents want to err on the side of caution. It is not a calamity
if some legitimate mailing list or web site is filtered from their
children, as Meeks tends to suggest. Parents who choose such
services may already be making similar conservative judgements in
other areas of the child's lives. Meeks seems to be trying to create
a controversy where none exists, by calling up the sites that are
supposedly being "censored" and telling them that they are being
"blocked", when perhaps ignorance of this is bliss for everyone
involved. Do the parents who use the service really care?
6. The services are typically aimed at YOUNG children. I am all for
letting children eventually be exposed to every aspect of our
society, even those considered socially repulsive. However, a gradual
plan that is very restrictive at first for the child at a young age,
to something that is extremely "permissive" when they are at a later
age, seems like the most sensible approach for parents to me.
Furthermore, I suspect this is exactly what happens in the real world
right now, in a general sense, if there were a study of the general
trend of "permissiveness" of parents associated with chronological
stages of child-raising.
7. Why does Meeks assume that parents want to know exactly what is on
the lists? I think it is clear even from his own account that at
least some of the services he mentions do a decent job of indicating
the kinds of categories and criteria that they are blocking, and any
more information than this may not be of any interest to the parent.
Again, I think the best point is that the market *right*now*
"deciding" what the optimal blocking service is. The fact that there
are already so many different services is a sign that it is a
healthy, fledgling new industry.
8. In the long run, so what if some kids are prevented from seeing
material that may be important to them at some later age? What is
there that is all that important to kids at young ages? As I
suggested above, as long as the parents are following a plan of
gradually exposing the child to everything in slow installments that
finish when they reach 18, what we have here is "delayed exposure" to
material, not so much "blocking". I suspect that these services are
very soon going to have different age level categories if they don't
already. And this can be simulated right now, apparently, by the
parent simply picking appropriate categories they feel are correct
out of the spectrum of ratings made by the agencies and revising as
necessary.
9. If Meeks got the plans to the Pentium chip on a CD from an
anonymous informant, would he publish it? Why then does he feel the
need to broadcast and publicly ridicule the trade secrets of these
blocking companies to the world, the information that they make their
money by? Why does he insinuate he is doing a noble and daring public
service? Why is there the subtle insinuation in the article, "if it's
secret, it's not legitimate"?
10. Meeks doesn't seem to conceive of a simple observation. It's not
a *problem* if the blocking services vary in their opinions of what
is not acceptable to children. The decision of what is inappropriate
to children is *subjective*, and all that is going on is that parents
are hiring companies to help them make those subjective decisions.
That's the beauty of the whole system-- the government is completely
uninvolved, nor should it ever need to be, and the entire system is
voluntary by all parties. Internet sites do not even have to be aware
of the rating services.
In general, I agree with an underlying theme of the article that
perhaps more candor about selection criteria among the blocking
services is in order. They do seem to have an atmosphere of paranoia
and secrecy somewhat reminiscent of an intelligence agency.
Nevertheless, Meeks could have written his article from a totally
different view that takes the above points into account more fairly.
It could have been a rosy article about how new information rating
services are starting to flourish. Instead his article is bordering
on what might be called, not merely a hatchet job, but buzz-saw
journalism. That's his style. He doesn't appear to have ever met a
new Internet development that he likes, at least based on his past
articles. In fact Meeks at times seems to be an even bigger source of
FUD than some scaremonger government bureacrats that he's targeted in
the past.
Can Meeks draw the basic distinction between blocking services, and
companies like Point Communications whose awards are proudly
displayed on web pages all over the planet? I see no difference. All
these services have something basic in common: they are sifting
through information to rate it and present the valuable stuff to
their clients. The blocking companies simply do this through the
process of elimination, and Point Communications (and other "cool web
site compilations" that litter cyberspace everywhere) simply start
from one of inclusion.
Imho, we are right now witnessing the birth of a new industry--the
meta-information industry, exemplified in e.g. Yahoo, which helps the
world sift through information (and also includes blocking some of
it). I highly recommend that libertarians reconsider any opposition
they may have to these services under the different perspectives I
offer above. Are these services the beginning of the end of the zest
of cyberspace? Or are they instead possibly the beginning of a system
whereby that zestiness is amplified in a positive feedback loop?
Perhaps because there is a fresh new safety net being woven as we
speak to prevent children from exposure to "inappropriate" material,
the overall freedom of information dissemination benefits as a
result.
I am fully aware that Meeks recently won an award from a group of
admirers, and I do have some respect for his past articles and scoops
and willingness to donate his time toward a cause. However, I
suggest that there is a narrow edge between what helps and hurts
cyberspace, and often it is not clear what effect a particular
development will have in the long run. I hope Mr. Meeks will be less
smug and hasty in his future judgements of such (to say the least) in
the future.
Also, I have seen a very long and intricate discussion among
cypherpunks about how to evade the blocking software. I suggest to
everyone that trying to evade the basic situation that is going on
here-- i.e. parents deciding how they want to raise their own
children--is extremely dangerous territory. I would like to see
libertarians instead come to the conclusion, and advocate it
publicly, that it's not a big deal if kids are prevented from seeing
significant aspects of the world before they are 18, and that they as
adults are willing to support such a system, or at least not try to
sabotage one that is put into place by others who are directly
involved (i.e., parents, educators, child welfare specialists, etc.).
Sincerely,
Vladimir Nuri
Note: more information on a sophisticated new ratings protocol called PICS
that may be in widespread use sometime in the future
by various ratings agencies is available at http://www.w3.org/PICS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 14:15:51 +0100
From: Jean-Bernard Condat <jeanbc@INFORMIX.COM>
Subject: File 2--Singapore's Internet regulation to start on Monday July 15th
By Geoffrey Pereira
SINGAPORE'S cyberspace will be regulated from Monday under a new
licensing scheme that aims to safeguard public morals, political
stability and religious harmony.
Two groups -- those who provide or sell Internet access and those
who provide information with business, political and religious
content -- will be deemed to be licensed automatically.
They will have to follow a set of Singapore Broadcasting Authority
guidelines on what material can enter Singapore's cyberspace.
While the first group will also have to be registered with the SBA,
not all of the second group, except for those whose home pages
engage in local political or religious discussion and on-line
newspapers which target Singapore subscribers, need to.
To register, they will have to provide information such as the
targeted readers, the names of the editors and publishers and the
nature of the organisation behind them, a move to promote
responsible use of the medium.
The SBA announced the new Class Licence Scheme yesterday in a
follow-up to moves earlier this year.
The scheme will cover two main categories of Internet providers.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These include access provi ders
such as CyberWay and secondary access providers such as cybercafes
and schools. They must block out objectionable sites when the SBA
tells them to and pay a licensing fee.
The Internet has thousands of newsgroups in which people discuss
topics that include homosexuality, sex and religion, sometimes with
pictures.
Service providers will also have to follow the SBA's guidelines on
content in deciding which newsgroups to offer to the public.
Schools and other places which offer access to children will need
tighter control; the SBA said it was working with the Education
Ministry and the National Library Board on this. Internet Content
Providers (ICP). The term refers to anyone who provides information
on the World Wide Web, a publishing platform on the Internet,
including those who put out their own home pages.
But Mr Goh Liang Kwang, the SBA's chief executive officer, told a
press conference that regulatory efforts would focus only on groups
which provide content on an organised basis.
Individuals who put up web pages that are not for business,
political and religious purposes will be exempted unless they are
notified by the SBA.
He said the scheme aimed to encourage responsible use of the
Internet while allowing its healthy development here. He said: "It
encourages minimum standards in cyberspace and seeks to protect Net
users, particularly the young, against the broadcast of unlawful or
objectionable materials."
He added that political and religious organisations are free to
conduct discussions provided they do not break the law or disrupt
social harmony.
The SBA guidelines on content also prohibit other types of material.
They include material which:
Jeopardises security or defence, or which undermines confide nce in
the administration of justice; Misleads and alarms the public; Tends
to bring the Government into hatred or contempt, or excites
disaffection against it.
When asked to elaborate on the kind of material which would fall
under the third point, Mr Goh replied that it would be a matter of
judgment on the part of the SBA.
The penalties for those who break the rules have not been spelt out
under the scheme, but he said that they could have their licence
withdrawn or be fined.
The Internet was impossible to control fully, he said, and added:
"Our licence conditions are directed at what is necessary and
possible. As technology evolves, so will our regulatory framework."
He added that the Ministry of Information and the Arts will appoint
a National Internet Advisory Committee to help formulate a good
framework.
Although the SBA will have up to 10 people monitoring cyberspace, he
added that the success of its regulation would depend a lot on
industry and community action. People can help, he said, by
informing the SBA of the objectionable sites that they come across.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:53:07 -0700
From: Berliner Datenschutzbeauftragter <dsb@datenschutz-berlin.de>
Subject: File 3--Discussion Forum on Privacy on the Internet
The International Working Group on Data Protection in
Telecommunications is currently working on Data Protection and
Privacy on the Internet.
The Group was founded in 1983 and has been initiated by Data
Protection Commissioners from different countries in order to improve
Data Protection and Privacy in Telecommunications. The Secretariat of
the Group is located at the Berlin Data Protection Commissioner=B4s
Office, Berlin, Germany.
At its spring meeting 1996 in Budapest the Group has agreed on a
Draft Report and Guidance on Data Protection on the Internet. It was
agreed to publish the Report on the Net in order to receive comments
from the network community.
The Secretariat of the Working Group has initiated a discussion forum
located at the WWW-Server of the Berlin Data Protection Commissioner
(http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/diskus/).
The comments received will be published on the server.
We are looking forward to your comments on the report.
Yours sincerely,
Hansj=FCrgen Garstka
(Chairman of the Group)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 20:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: File 4--UK cyber-rights and cyber-liberties web site
[Kindly forwarded by Eric Freedman. --Declan]
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Thu, 04 Jul 1996 08:00:56 -0500 (CDT)
From--Y. AKDENIZ <lawya@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk>
A NEW WEB PAGE DEALING WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRIVACY ON THE
INTERNET - "CYBER-RIGHTS & CYBER-LIBERTIES" AT:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT
I have created a new web page called "CYBER-RIGHTS AND
CYBER-LIBERTIES: Materials related to Internet and the Law"
It is located at the Criminal Justice Studies of the Law
Faculty of University of Leeds, UK where I am a current MA Research
student. My research involves freedom of speech and privacy issues on
the Internet. I cover such issues as pornography, encryption and
defamation on the Internet in my MA thesis.
The web site will deal with these issues and will concentrate on the
UK law though current developments in the US (such as the CDA) will
be covered and there will be links to articles I have written on the
subject matter and links to relevant web sites. I have also included
a reading list which will be updated regularly.
I would appreciate if you contact me for non-listed web sites
(especially UK but all welcome) so that I can develop the relevant
links and try to create a strong web site dealing with freedom of speech
and privacy on the Internet.
The address for the web site is:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm
Yaman Akdeniz
lawya@leeds.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 23:31:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 5--iStar memo: don't tell customers list of banned newsgroups (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607082334.A28553-0100000@vern.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
---------- Forwarded message ----------
See http://www.efc.ca/pages/isp/istar-memo-03jul96.html
- - -
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: iSTAR Technical Support Staff
FROM: Margo Langford, Corporate & Regulatory Counsel
SUBJECT: USENET News Groups
DATE: July 3, 1996
CC: David Ralston, COO
Michael Martineau, VP, Engineering
John Cryer, VP, Western Region
Steve Doswell, VP, Central Region
Denis Choquette, VP, Eastern Region
Eric Carroll, Sr. Director, Network Services
David Chaloner, Manager, Integration
Please be advised that effective today, we will be enforcing the
attached policy by deleting the appended list of USENET newsgroups
from all iSTAR USENET news servers. The attached quote is for public
distribution, and should be made available on all iSTAR web servers.
Quote
Pursuant to iSTAR internet Inc's policy to prohibit use of the iSTAR
network for illegal purposes, on the advice of legal counsel, certain
newsgroups have been deleted as they contain material that contravenes
the laws of Canada.
iSTAR will not tolerate the use of its network for illegal purposes.
Any incidence of illegal use reported to iSTAR internet will be
investigated and the information will be turned over to the
appropriate authorities. iSTAR reserves the right to cancel a
customer's account for illegal use of its network, or for interference
with other users or networks.
Unquote
In specific, we have deleted the following newsgroups per legal counsel.
NOTE
This list is for the information of the technical support staff
of iSTAR internet only, and is not for general redistribution or
publishing to the customer base.
Please only give out examples, or confirmation of deleted groups when
customers ask, but do not otherwise make the full list available.
alt.binaries.warez*
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child*
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.schoolgirls
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.babies
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cheerleaders
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.diaper
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.gymnast*
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen*
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
alt.binaries.lolita.misc
alt.binaries.pictures.nudism
alt.binairies.pictures.erotica.teens
alt.sex.children
alt.sex.preteens
alt.sex.pedophilia*
alt.sex.incest
alt.sex.babies
alt.sex.bestiality*
alt.sex.fetish.diapers
alt.sex.fetish.tinygirls
alt.sex.intergen
alt.sex.masturbation.pictures.female.teen
alt.sex.necrophilia
alt.sex.teens
alt.sex.young
alt.sex.boys
alt.sex.girls
alt.sex.fetish.scat
alt.sex.sm.fig
alt.sex.stories.hetero.incest
alt.sex.watersports
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:41:57 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 6--Tacoma decides to tax Internet
[From Dave Farber's IP list. More fodder for Rich's state-censorship page,
I think. -Declan]
Tacoma's Internet Tax
News Flash
The News Tribune on 7-8-96 has a
<A HREF="http://www.tribnet.com/news/cytax.htm">
Front Page</A> story on this taxing issue.
The City of Tacoma has sent out <A HREF="city.phtml">demand letters </A>
to Internet Providers declaring that they are a "Network Telephone
Service" and are subject to a utility tax. <P>
If you have not received a notice yet, here is the scoop. <P>
This tax is levied at a rate of 6.38% on every dollar of revenue
derived from a customer located in the city of tacoma. It does not
matter where YOU are doing business.<P>
This tax was intended to be levied on real utilities such as us west. The
city of tacoma has expanded the scope to include telephone related services
such as answering services and pager companies. The have established a
precident of taxing non telephone companies by getting away with taxing
them. <P>
The really bad news is that EVERY city in Washington has the ability to
levy this tax and in fact Bellevue, Seattle and Spokane have already stated
that if Tacoma is successful they will begin demanding that this tax be
levied. Every internet provider will be required to report revenues and pay a
tax based on the zipcode of every customer. <P>
<I>A little history.</I> <P>
My role in this issue started in February of this year while employed in the
State Senate as an Aid to Sen. Bill Finkbeiner (R-45). It was brought to
the attention of the Senator by a constituent. <P>
I investigated the story and found out that it was indeed true. My
conversations with the City of Tacoma were very unproductive. The
person who came up with this tax idea stated that he could <B>"not let internet
providers go untaxed" </B>and refused to back off of his plan.<P>
I contacted the <A HREF="dor.phtml">State Department of Revenue</A>
to find out what there interpretation of law was and they did not agree
with Tacoma but has no athority over the City.<P>
My next step was to request an opinion from the
<A HREF="ag.phtml">Attorney Generals'</A> office. I finally received a
non-answer last week. The AG will not issue an opinion on
the interpretation because they feel that it is too close of a call and that
they feel that it will have to be settled in court.<P>
<I>What to do?</I><P>
There are several options available at this point. The first of which should
be a plea before the City Council. I am willing to organize a group meeting
with the council, but it will take a strong show of unity to go before them.
It should consist of several ISP's as well as users. <P>
If you would like to be part of this, either send me
<A HREF="mailto:vince@web.wa.net">email </A>or you can
reach me voice at 922-3552 (tacoma) or 878-9282 (seattle). <P>
At this point there is nothing the Senator can do until the next legislative
session in January.<P>
You can contact Sen. Finbeiner via email at
<A HREF="mailto:finkbein_bi@leg.wa.gov">finkbein_bi@leg.wa.gov</A><P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<hr size=3 width=400 align="center"><center><i>67 total hits since Wednesday
May 15. 10 hits today.
<br>Last access on Monday July 8 at 16:31:56 from inigo.cybernex.net<br>
Page was last updated on Monday July 8, 1996 at 14:41:37</i></center>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 01:19:24 -0400
From: russ@NAVIGATORS.COM(Russ Haynal)
Subject: File 7--DC-ISOC Event: July 16
The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (DC-ISOC)
announces its Next Event!
INET '96 Mirror
Tuesday, July 16, 1996, 7:00pm
The Internet Society just held its annual conference, INET '96,
in Montreal, Canada. This event included over 2500 delegates
from around the world to discuss the latest Internet developments.
200 papers presented at the fifty theme sessions covered issues
such as world policy, financing, ethics and technical problems.
Additional information about INET '96 can be found at the
Internet Society's Home page; http:www.isoc.org
Since many of us did not have the opportunity to attend this event
in person, the DC-ISOC is organizing an "INET '96 mirror event"
for a recapping of INET'96.
D.C.-area ISOC members who attended the INET '96 will share their
impressions and insight from this global event. D.C.-area ISOC members
who attended INET '96 are invited to contact Ross Stapleton-Gray at
director@embassy.org to confirm your participation in the our INET'96
Mirror event (do not reply to this message).
Additionally, NASA may provide a brief overview of a meeting to be held
the following week. The subject: "Live from Mars--the Virtual Conference"
show which is being sponsored by NASA and the National Science Foundation.
The actual show will take place on Saturday, July 20th and will consist of 2
teachers from every state in the U.S. The general public will view the
show via television and the Internet.
The INET '96 Mirror event will be held from 7-9 pm, July 16th, at NASA
Headquarters, Washington DC. Attendance will be on a first-come,
first-seated basis, though we expect that there should be room for all
those interested.
As with all of our previous events, there is no charge to attend this event.
Directions:
NASA Headquarters, 300 E St. SW, Washington, DC
Main Auditorium (Enter through the East Lobby Entrance)
Via Metro: Federal Center (South)
Upon Exiting the Metro station, turn right
Walk under the overpass
Turn right to NASA Headquarters
Individuals who are interested in becoming members of DC-ISOC can do so
by joining the Internet Society. See their web site at
http://www.isoc.org for more information.
The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society maintains its own web
site at: http://www.dcisoc.org Please feel free to pass this announcement
message along to other interested individuals. If this message was
forwarded to you, you can join our announcement mailing list through
out web site (http://www.dcisoc.org)
________________________________________
Russ Haynal - Internet Consultant, Instructor, Speaker
"Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet"
Author:"Internet; A Knowledge Odyssey" (Top-rated CD-ROM Tutorial)
Available from MindQ Publishing: http://www.mindq.com
russ@navigators.com http://www.clark.net/pub/rhaynal 703-729-1757
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
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 #8.53
************************************
