Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 10 Issue 02
Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 11, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 02
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #10.02 (Sun, Jan 11, 1998)
File 1--Urgent Action: WA state HOUSE BILL 2209
File 2--Washington HR 2209 (computer workers as "Professionals")
File 3--CA anti-spam bill
File 4--Fwd: America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms
File 5--ACM (POLICY98) Conference Announcement
File 6--If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe?
File 7--CPSR's Year 2000 Rumors Web Site
File 8--US vs Microsoft
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:05:37 -0800 (PST)
From: "T.L. Kelly" <room101@TELEPORT.COM>
Subject: File 1--Urgent Action: WA state HOUSE BILL 2209
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following is a bit late, but the issue of
defining computer workers as "professionals" and thus exempt from
minimum wage law is sufficiently important to warrant discussion.
The full text of the law follows this post)).
The WSDMA, a "labor" organization, has quietly asked the Washington Dept.
of Labor and Industry to strip computer professionals making over $27.63
an hour of their overtime.
Furthermore, the proposed law is written in such a way as to exempt "Any
employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer, software
engineer, software developer or other similarly skilled worker" even from
the minimum wage provisions of Washington state law.
If approved, the law will be adopted Dec. 31, 1997, and become effective
Feb. 1, 1998.
The WSDMA's largest member is Microsoft, the largest employer of computer
contractors in the region with an estimated 3-5,000 such employees. The
company recently lost a labor case brought by a group of contract workers.
It is the company's acknowledged policy to employ contract workers to
avoid the cost of benefits, vacation, etc.
Recent applicants have confirmed to me that Microsoft explicitly
*requires* all contract workers to work "a minimum of 50-55 hours a week".
The Boeing Company is also a member of the WSDMA.
The WSDMA's legal move was kept secret. The "request" was not reported in
the local press until the day AFTER the public comment period had ended.
The author of that story has acknowledged he learned of the proposal in
October, but did not cover it because he "didn't appreciate the
significance". One wonders how he manages to cross the street
successfully.
The "public" hearing was scheduled for the Tuesday before Thanksgiving
from 10 am to noon -- in Tumwater, WA, several miles south of Olympia.
The vast majority of the state's contract workers live in Seattle and
neighboring communities far to the north.
The WSDMA's own street-level membership was not informed of the move, let
alone invited to comment.
It should be noted that computer professionals are already barred from
labor organizing by a Cold War-era federal law. It seems the time has
come to work to get that law overturned on Constitutional grounds. But
first...
THE PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE OVERTIME LAW HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL
DEC. 19 -- NEXT FRIDAY.
Management and owners have had nearly two months to comment, we have less
than a week. Please make it count.
Comments can be sent to Linda Merz of the Washington State Dept. of Labor
and Industry at (360) 902-5403 or merl235@lni.wa.gov
Please be clear, relatively brief, and most importantly courteous (even if
firm).
Comments of up to 10 pages may be faxed to (360) 902-5300 or snail mailed
to:
Greg Mowat, Program Manager
Employment Standards
Department of Labor and Industries
P.O. Box 4-4510
Olympia, WA 98504-4510
Below is an excerpt from the proposed law, HOUSE BILL 2209. As you can
see, it applies to just about anyone working in the computer and web
industries.
(source: http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm )
(1) Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer,
software engineer, software developer or other similarly skilled worker
will be considered a "professional employee" and will be exempt from the
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act
if:
(i) Applying systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine
hardware, software, or system functional specifications for any user of
such services; or
(ii) Following user or system design specifications to design, develop,
document, analyze, create, test or modify any computer system, application
or program, including prototypes; or
(iii) Designing, documenting, testing, creating or modifying computer
systems, applications or programs for machine operation systems; or
(iv) Any combination of the above primary duties whose performance
requires the same skill level [...]
RESOURCES ONLINE
News Stories (both of 'em -- literally)
Temporary software workers to lose OT
http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_120597.html
Software temps gain time to fight OT changes
http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_121097.html
Info from WA State Dept of L&I
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/over.htm
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm
HOUSE BILL 2209 as posted on the WA Legislature Site
http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/house/2200-2224/2209_022697
WA Legislature Site
http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/
WSDMA
http://www.wsdma.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:23:35 -0600
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 2--Washington HR 2209 (computer workers as "Professionals")
SOURCE:
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm
(Washington HR 2209)
NEW SECTION
WAC 296-128-535 Are professional computer employees exempt from the
Washington Minimum Wage Act? (1) Any employee who is a computer
system analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, software
developer or other similarly skilled worker will be considered a
"professional employee" and will be exempt from the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act if:
(a) Their primary duty is of one of the following:
(i) Applying systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine
hardware, software, or system functional specifications for any user
of such services; or
(ii) Following user or system design specifications to design,
develop, document, analyze, create, test or modify any computer
system, application or program, including prototypes; or
(iii) Designing, documenting, testing, creating or modifying computer
systems, applications or programs for machine operation systems; or
(iv) Any combination of the above primary duties whose performance
requires the same skill level; and
(b) Their rate of pay is at least $27.63 per hour.
(2) This professional exemption only applies to highly skilled
employees who:
(a) Possess a high degree of theoretical knowledge and understanding
of computer system analysis, programming and software engineering; and
(b) Have the ability to practically apply that theoretical knowledge
and understanding to highly specialized computer fields; and
(c) Generally attain the necessary level of expertise and skill to
qualify for an exemption through a combination of education and
experience in the field; and
(d) Consistently exercise discretion and judgment in the application
of their special knowledge as opposed to performing purely mechanical
or routine tasks; and
(e) Engage in work that is predominantly intellectual and inherently
varied in character as opposed to work that is routinely mental,
manual, mechanical, or physical.
(3) While many employees who qualify for this exemption hold a
bachelor's or higher degree, no degree is required for this exemption.
(4) This professional exemption does not apply to:
(a) Trainees or employees in entry level positions learning to become
proficient in computer systems analysis, programming and software
engineering; or
(b) Employees in computer systems analysis, programming and software
engineering positions who have not attained a level of skill and
expertise which allows them to generally work independently and
without close supervision; or
(c) Employees engaged in the operation of computers; or
(d) Employees engaged in the manufacture, repair or maintenance of
computer hardware and related equipment; or
(e) Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
[]
_________________________________________________________________
This rule was adopted as written Dec. 31, 1997. It will become
effective Feb. 1, 1998. See news release: Dec. 31, 1998 - State adopts
rule exempting computer professional overtime pay rate
To access the department's response to public comments received about
the proposed rule, press here: Concise explanatory statement regarding
overtime and minimum wage exemption for professional computer
employees
_________________________________________________________________
Labor and Industries is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action
employer. The department complies with all federal rules and
regulations and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age,
disabled, disabled or Vietnam-era veteran, religion or disability as
defined by applicable state and/or federal statutes or regulations.
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
What's New|L&I Services|
Press Releases |Training | Directory| Links
Publications| Calendar| Site Index| Search
L&I Home
Page last revised: 01-05-1998 - 5:10 PM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:17:53 -0800
From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: File 3--CA anti-spam bill
Here's the text of AB 1629, introduced in the California State Assembly
yesterday:
----
BILL NUMBER: AB 1629 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Miller
JANUARY 5, 1998
An act to add Section 17538.45 to the Business and Professions
Code, relating to advertising.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1629, as introduced, Miller. Advertising: electronic mail.
Existing law prohibits a person conducting business in this state
from faxing unsolicited advertising material, unless certain
conditions are satisfied.
This bill would also prohibit a person conducting business in the
state from using a computer or other electronic device to send an
unsolicited advertisement to an electronic mail address within the
state unless (1) that person has a preexisting and ongoing business
or personal relationship with the recipient, or absent that
relationship, the recipient has previously provided express consent
or permission with respect to the advertisement and (2) that person
provides certain identifying information at the beginning of the
advertisement. It would also authorize any person with legal
standing to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to
enjoin any violation of these prohibitions, or to recover civil
damages, as specified, or to seek both of those remedies. It would
also provide that the prevailing party in any of those actions shall
be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
Existing law provides for the regulation of advertising and
provides that any violation of those provisions is a crime. This
bill, by creating additional prohibitions with regard to advertising,
would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 17538.45 is added to the Business and
Professions Code, to read:
17538.45. (a) No person conducting business in this state shall
use any computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited
advertisement to an electronic mail address within the state unless
each of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) That person has a preexisting and ongoing business or personal
relationship with the recipient, or absent that relationship, the
recipient has previously provided express consent or permission with
respect to the advertisement.
(2) That person clearly provides, at the beginning of the
unsolicited advertisement, the date and time the message was sent,
the identity of the person sending the message, and the return
electronic mail address of that person.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding Sections 17535 and 17536, any person who
has legal standing may bring an action in a court of competent
jurisdiction for either or both of the following purposes:
(A) To enjoin any violation of this section.
(B) To recover civil damages in an amount equal to the actual
monetary loss suffered by that person by reason of any violation, or
five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, whichever amount is
greater. However, if the court finds that a violation of this
section was willful or knowing, the court may, in its discretion,
award up to three times the amount of those civil damages.
(2) The prevailing party in any action brought under paragraph (1)
shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the
only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of
Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless
otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become
operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the
California Constitution.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 15:02 CST
From: Cu Digest <TK0JUT2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 4--Fwd: America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms
Source - AOL News <AOLNews@aol.com>
America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms
DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 7,
1998--America Online Inc. Tuesday filed suit against three junk
e-mail firms in its continuing battle against unsolicited bulk
e-mail, also known as "spam."
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia and seeks an injunction to prevent the
companies from continuing their practice of sending large
quantities of unsolicited junk e-mail to AOL members. The suit
also seeks damages from all three companies.
The companies named in the suit are: IMS of Knoxville, Tenn.;
Gulf Coast Marketing of Baton Rouge, La.; and TSF Marketing and
TSF Industries of Riverside, Calif. This suit follows on the
heels of a federal court ruling in favor of AOL in its suit
against junk e-mail firm Over the Air Equipment Inc.
In that case, AOL won a court order barring Over the Air
Equipment from sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members. Later,
Over the Air Equipment dropped its challenge to the order barring
it from spamming and agreed to pay AOL a substantial sum of
money in damages. AOL's new suit builds on the precedent
established in the Over the Air Equipment case.
<snip>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:29:16 -0500
From: David Banisar <banisar@EPIC.ORG>
Subject: File 5--ACM (POLICY98) Conference Announcement
ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING (ACM) ANNUAL CONFERENCE
* * * POLICY98 * * *
"Shaping Policy in the Information Age"
Washington, DC, Renaissance Hotel
May 10-12, 1998
Preliminary Notice
For Conference and Registration information see:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/
The ACM Annual Conference will focus on public policy issues
affecting future applications of computing. Our goal is to
forge stronger links between computing professionals and policy
makers. Attendees will interact with prominent leaders from
academia, industry, Congress, and Executive agencies, and
participate in debates on policy issues including Universal
Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and
Education Online.
The conference will promote more regular engagement of computing
professionals in democratic processes related to productive use
of computing and information processing innovations. A blend of
technical skills and policy insights are essential to cope with
the inherent opportunities and dangers of any transformational
technology. Continuing collaborations between computing
professionals and policy makers will benefit citizens, consumers,
entrepreneurs, researchers, and students. You can make a difference!
May 10: Ethical and social impacts papers and panels
May 11-12: Public policy panels and featured speakers
All Policy98 attendees are invited to the Annual ACM Awards Banquet
on Sunday evening May 10th, and a conference reception on Monday
evening May 11th.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
PANEL TOPICS AND COORDINATORS
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Universal Service: Ollie Smoot
What can be done to promote widespread access to the benefits of
the Internet? What is the role of government and the role of the
private sector in wiring schools, libraries, and medical facilities?
Electronic Commerce: Jim Horning
How much public policy does EComm need? What problems would
inadequate, excessive, or misguided policies cause? Can compromises
in areas like fair trade practices, fraud prevention, security, privacy,
law enforcement, and taxation advance the interests of all stakeholders?
Intellectual Property in Cyberspace: Pam Samuelson
What will be the impact of the WIPO agreements on copyright in
cyberspace? How should intellectual property be protected and what
safeguards are necessary to protect libraries and academic institutions?
Education Online: Charles N. Brownstein
The Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for learning and teaching.
What public policy and technical challenges must be met to realize
these prospects?
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Ben Shneiderman, USACM (U.S. Public Policy Committee)
C. Dianne Martin, SIGCAS (ACM Special Interest Group
on Computers & Society)
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIRS
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Marc Rotenberg, Public Policy
Keith Miller, Ethics and Social Impacts
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
REGISTRATION INFORMATION
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
For more information, contact: policy98@acm.org
or to register electronically, see:
http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/reginfo.html
Early registrants and ACM members receive discounts.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:32:06 -0500
From: Stephen Talbott <stevet@MERLIN.ALBANY.NET>
Subject: File 6--If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe?
NETFUTURE
Technology and Human Responsibility
Source: Netfuture - Issue #61 December 1 1997
COPYRIGHT 1995 BRIDGE COMMUNICATIONS
Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com)
On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/
You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.
If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe?
-------------------------------------------------
In "No Place To Hide" (*Forbes*, September 22, 1997) Ann Marsh offers a
useful survey of the potentials and current realities of electronic
surveillance. Among the items she ticks off:
* Travel information from electronic toll booths in New York, originally
off limits to law enforcement agencies without a subpoena, is now
routinely available for the investigation of all serious crimes.
* As cars are fitted with satellite-tracking services, General Motors
has already felt the need to issue a disclaimer: "We will tell the
police where a vehicle is, but not just any individual. We do not
want to be a national detective service."
* Passive tracking devices as small as a rice grain reveal their data in
the presence of a scanner (as at a toll booth or retailer's exit).
They can be (and have been) implanted under the skin of humans to
store and report medical data. They could equally well be used as
security passes.
* In a few years all cellular phone companies will be required to report
the location of 911 callers.
* Unmanned spy planes ("drones") can photograph the ground with twelve-
inch resolution. Other drones as small as a paper plane can survey an
area from just a few hundred feet up. "On the drawing board are some
vehicles that can fly through an open door, perch inside a building,
and quietly observe their surroundings."
But Marsh also looks at the positive side: tracking lost kids and
Alzheimer patients; nabbing criminals by installing tiny transmitters in
cars and store merchandise, or in stacks of money given to bank robbers;
automatically dialing 911 and reporting the location of car accidents;
tracking salmon migrations; and using drones to sniff out airborne
pollutants.
Like it or not, Marsh concludes,
The world is becoming smaller and smaller and ever more transparent.
Your fenced-in yard won't be quite as private as it used to be. But
neither will the dark alley near your bank teller machine. Tradeoff,
tradeoff, tradeoff.
Yes, but the notion of tradeoffs can lead us to stop thinking too soon.
It's not simply a matter of looking at a particular piece of technology
and saying, "Gee, it could be used this way (which is good) and it could
be used that way (which is bad) -- and let's make the bad illegal." Given
the complex interrelationship of all technologies, we have little choice
but to seek larger and deeper patterns.
Once we do that, we will not always find neatly offsetting facts on
opposite sides of the balance. It is not as simple as seeing which set of
facts outweighs the other. There may be *some* patterns that are
reinforced by both sides of a supposed tradeoff.
In particular, chip implants for tracking Alzheimer patients, while
obviously helpful for some purposes, would not necessarily prove benign in
the larger picture. The devices could easily encourage the continuing
depersonalization of care for the elderly -- especially in a society
already moving in that direction. The more easily you can electronically
monitor a person, the more invisible he tends to become *as a person* --
and long-term social policy toward invisible people is rarely benign.
Similarly, medical data stored on chip implants may save some lives. But
as this data gets electronically transmitted from here to there for
analysis, the risk is that the individual, flesh-and-blood patient in all
his particularity will be replaced by the sum of his data. So the medical
benefit, to the degree it entails disregard of the individual, is not
unrelated to various abuses on the other side of the balance. For
example, violations of data privacy become much more likely once the
patient has been lost sight of.
And, as I have pointed out before, the ability to nab criminals through
high-tech tracking devices is occurring as part of a general trend toward
the technical mediation of human relations. This in turn -- if we do not
counter the trend with a strong consciousness of community -- leads to the
weakening of the social matrix that is the most effective barrier to
crime. So even the benefits of the tracking devices may be part of a
distinctly unhealthy pattern that negates the benefits.
In her article, Marsh mentions the Orwellian, dictatorial potentials of
the new technologies, and sets them in the balance against the freeing
potentials. But, as I argued in "Distributing Big Brother's Intelligence"
(NF #59), we need to be alert to the possibilities of a "distributed
tyranny" requiring no dictatorial center. Both sides of the balance in
which we usually assess the issues may weigh in favor of such a tyranny.
While Marsh mentions Saddam Hussein in passing, it is worth remarking that
nearly all her examples of dangerous technical implementations come from
the United States. It is hard to imagine that Americans will succumb to
an old-style dictator in the foreseeable future. But it is quite
imaginable that we will continue succumbing to the "necessities" of
progress -- the very necessities that lock us in debate about what may in
some cases be lose-lose tradeoffs.
When hidden cameras in public places, electronic surveillance of
employees, and the tracking of individual product purchases are on the
increase, it is not because we are heading toward a centralized
dictatorship, but rather because the entire fabric of corporate business,
law enforcement, and public consumption seems to require these things.
Here the immediate necessity is rooted in economics, there in personal
health; here in law enforcement; there in the needs of the disabled.
I am not sure to what degree we might avoid pursuing the various technical
implementations that sustain the threats. Who, after all, would deny to
the disabled the latest technical assist? But I *am* sure that we had
better step back and take a hard look at the overall shape of the puzzle
pieces slowly assembling themselves all around us.
I can't help thinking of those coarsely scanned images that, from close
up, yield nothing recognizable, but from a distance betray a human
countenance. Let us hope that the face now taking shape in the pattern of
our technologically transformed lives is not the dismembered and
redistributed face of Big Brother. But if it is, our only hope for
recognizing the fact is to gain some objective distance between ourselves
and the "inevitable" progress of technology.
(Quotations are from the online version of Marsh's article:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0922/6006226a.htm.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 12:24:35 -0800
From: Susan Evoy <sevoy@Sunnyside.COM>
Subject: File 7--CPSR's Year 2000 Rumors Web Site
News Release CPSR Y2k Web Site Launched
News Release
For more information contact:
Norman Kurland, chair, CPSR Y2k Working Group
kurlandn@crisny.org; phone 518-439-9065
YEAR 2000 RUMORS ADDRESSED ON NEW WEB SITE
There are just two years until January 1, 2000 -- two years to make sure
that computers can tell that 00 means 2000 and not 1900. During these
two years businesses, governments and individuals are going to be working
with increasing urgency to fix the so-called Y2k problem or minimize its
impact on their operations.
Even as the pace of work on the problem accelerates, so too will the
rumors. Already there are rumors that elevators will stop running,
electrical utilities will fail, the international financial system will
grind to a halt and Social Security checks will be late and incorrect.
To help sort fact from fiction CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility) has established a Y2k Rumor Center on its new Y2k Web
site: http://www.cpsr.org/program/y2k/.
The site is intended to provide guidance to small organizations that have
not initiated their Y2k remediation efforts and to help everyone
understand the social and economic consequences of this seemingly simple
problem. CPSR is hopeful that its effort will help prevent people from
panicking as they hear unsubstantiated rumors about what might happen.
CPSR is a public-interest alliance of computer scientists and others
concerned about the impact of computer technology on society. It works to
influence decisions regarding the development and use of computers.
CPSR is deeply concerned about the serious threat posed to individuals,
organizations, governments, and economies by the Year 2000 computer
problem, a threat that could disrupt our economic and social systems.
The Y2k Working Group was formed to help promote awareness of
the problem and assist in finding solutions. Its focus is on segments
of society which do not have extensive resources or organized groups
to speak for them. It seeks to foster a sense of urgency at all levels
local, national and global, while helping the public and the media understand
and prepare for the impact of the Y2k problem.
The Working Group maintains the Web site as the place to go for
individuals and smaller organizations seeking understanding and help with
Y2k. The site includes a simple explanation of the the Y2k problem and
practical suggestions on how to respond to it, including a checklist of
things to do now.
> --
> Susan Evoy * Deputy Director
> http://www.cpsr.org/home.html
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:47:31 EST
From: MRand33609 <MRand33609@aol.com>
Subject: File 8--US vs Microsoft
Is Microsoft Evil?
How is it that in the United States -- the home of such men
as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers -- could that
question even be reasonably postulated? Bill Gates the most
productive man in the United States, is actually being persecuted
for being productive . . . . for running the largest
computer-software company in the world.
To me, this issue should not even be discussed between
rational people. It would be like debating over the answer
to a simple arithmetic problem or the shape the Earth. But this
is an issue; an issue that has been avoided for the last century
in this country.
Think; if it were evil to create better products at lower
prices, then would that imply that building the worst products at
outrageous prices
is good.
I once thought that Ayn Rand was exaggerating when she
claimed that people held the phrase, From each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs as a moral ideal. But
once again the Ralph Nadar and Janet Reno are proving that
they do.
Imagine penalizing Bill Gates 1 million dollars a day for
running a good business.
What' next? Failing Johnny because he got all the answers
right on his test, while giving Steve a full ride to Harvard
because he never went to class.
To learn more about the specifics of the Justice Department'
vendetta against Mr. Gates and Microsoft visit the following
website;
http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #10.02
************************************
