Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 10 Issue 48
Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 3, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 48
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, #10.48 (Wed, Sep 3, 1998)
File 1--Changes in DNS administration and control
File 2--TRUSTe responds
File 3--Internet information from Russia
File 4--Gross Errors
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ronda@PANIX.COM(Ronda Hauben)
Subject: File 1--Changes in DNS administration and control
Date: 4 Sep 1998 17:15:58 -0400
The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal
ronda@panix.com
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Basic Research of
the Committee on Science of the U.S. Congress on March 31, 1998,
Robert Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great
responsibility that must be taken into account before the U.S.
Government changes the administrative oversight, ownership and
control of essential aspects of the Internet that are part of
what is known as the Domain Name System (DNS)*.
Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account
the needs and desires of others outside the United States
to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain
"integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of
IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions."
He described how the Internet grew and flourished under
U.S. Government stewartship (before the privatization - I wish to
add) because of 2 important components.
1) The U.S. Government funded the necessary research
and
2) It made sure the networking community had the responsibility
for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from
bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could
evolve dynamically.
He also said that "The relevant US government agencies should
remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter
retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate
international oversight mechanism can supplant it."
And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical
to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be
operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible
from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling."
When I attended the meeting of the International Forum on
the White Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July, which was a meeting
set up by the U.S. Government to create the private organization
to take over these essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none
of the concerns that Kahn raised at this Congressional hearing
were indicated as concerns by those rushing to privatize
these critical functions of the global Internet. I wrote a report
which I circulated about the political and commercial pressures that
were operating in the meeting to create the Names Council that
I attended. (See "Report from the Front", Meeting in Geneva Rushes
to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems". The URL
is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ )
But what is happening now with the privatization plan of the
U.S. Government involves privatization of the functions that
coordinate the International aspects of the Internet and thus
the U.S. Government has a very special obligation to the technical
and scientific community and to the the U.S. public and
the people of the world to be responsible in what it does.
I don't see that happening at present.
A few years ago I met one of the important pioneers of the
development of time-sharing, which set the basis for the research
creating the Internet. This pioneer, Fernando Corbato, suggested I
real a book "Management and the Future of the Computer" which
was edited by Martin Greenberger, another time-sharing pioneer.
The book was the proceedings of a conference about the Future of
the Computer held at MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial
anniversary of MIT. The British author, Charles Percy Snow made
the opening address at the meeting and he described the
importance of how government decisions would be made about the
future of the computer.
Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who
understood the problems and the technology. And he also
expressed the concern that if too small a number of people were
involved in making important government decisions, the more
likely it would be that serious errors of judgment would be made.
Too small a number of people are being involved in this important
decision regarding the future of these strategic aspects of the
Internet and too many of those who know what is happening and are
participating either have conflicts of interest or other reasons
why they are not able to consider the real problems and
technological issues involved. (About the 1961 conference, see
chapter 6 of Netizens at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120)
What is happening with the process of the U.S. Government
privatization of the Domain Name System is exactly the kind
of danger that C.P. Snow warned against.
I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, Senior advisor to
the U.S. President on policy with these concerns and he asked
me to write a proposal or way to put my concerns into some
"operational form." The following draft proposal for comment
is my beginning effort to respond to his request.
*I am requesting help circulating this proposal among the
Internet community and asking for comments and discussion both on
the proposal and on the issues involved with the U.S.
government plan to privatize these essential functions of
the Internet by September 30, 1998.
Also we will be starting a mailing list for those interested
in discussing this and it would be good if a newsgroup would be
created on Usenet about this issue as well. For too long these
issues have been carried out where most people online and off do not
know of what is happening or are being told it isn't
important, or where it is hard for interested people to find a
way to participate.
Please write me at
ronda@panix.com with any comments on the proposal.
The draft proposal for comment follows:
Draft Proposal
toward an international public
administration of essential
functions of the Internet - the Domain Name System
ronda@panix.com
Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to change
significant aspects of the Internet. The claim is that there
is a controversy that must be resolved about what should be the
future of the Domain Name System.
It is important to examine this claim and to try to figure out
if there is any real problem with regard to the Domain Name
System (DNS) that has to be solved.
The Internet is a scientific and technical achievement of great
magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a
new way of looking at computer science.(1) The early developers
of the ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the
computer as a communication device rather than only as an
arithmetic engine. This new view, which came from research
conducted by those in academic computer science, made the
building of the ARPANET possible.(2) Any changes in the
administration of key aspects of the Internet need to be guided
by a scientific perspective and principles, not by political or
commercial pressures. It is most important to keep in mind that
scientific methods are open and cooperative.
Examining the development of the Internet, an essential problem
that becomes evident is that the Internet has become
international, but the systems that allow there to be an Internet
are under the administration and control of one nation. These
include control over the allocation of domain names, over the
allocation of IP addresses, over the assignment of protocol
numbers and services, as well as control over the root server
system and the protocols and standards development process
related to the Internet. These are currently under the control
and administration of the U.S. Government or contractors to it.
Instead of the U.S. Government offering a proposal to solve the
problem of how to share the administration of the DNS, which
includes central points of control of the Internet,
it is supporting and encouraging the creation of a new private
entity that will take over and control the Domain Name System.
This private entity will magnify many thousands fold the
commercial and political pressures and prevent solving the
genuine problem of having an internationally shared protection
and administration of the DNS, including the root server system,
IP number allocations, Internet protocols, etc.
Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it
possible for these functions to be changed and for the Internet
to be broken up into competiting root servers, etc. It is the DNS
whose key characteristic is to make the network of networks one
Internet rather than competing networks with competing root
server systems, etc.
What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet
from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means
of sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root
server system.
The private organization that the U.S. Government is asking to be
formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging
the take over by a private, non accountable corporate entity of
the key Internet functions and of this International public
resource.
In light of this situation, it is important to draft a proposal
which will help to establish a set of principles and
recommendations on how to create an international cooperative
collaboration to administer and protect these key functions of
the Internet from commercial and political pressures. This draft
is offered as a beginning of this process.
The first essential requirement is that the U.S. Government stop
the process it is involved in, including the International Forum
on the White Paper (IFWP) whose objective is to create a private
organization to be given the key Domain Name System including
the root server system by September 30, 1998.
The second essential requirement is that the U.S. Government
create a research project or institute (which can be in
conjunction with universities, appropriate research institutes,
etc.) The goal of this project or institute is to sponsor and
have carried out the research to solve the problem of what should
be the future of the DNS and its component parts including the
root server system. The U.S. should invite the collaboration
(including funding, setting up similar research projects, etc.)
of any country interested in participating in this research. The
researchers from the different nations will work collaboratively.
A collaborative international research group will undertake the
following:
1) To identify and describe the functions of the DNS system that need
to be maintained. (The RFC's or other documents that will help
in this need to be gathered and references to them made available
to those interested.)
2) To look first at the Internet and then at how the DNS system and
root server system is serving the diverse communities and users
of the Internet, which include among others the scientific
community, the education community, the librarians, the technical
community, Governments (National as well as local), the
university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit
organizations, the medical community, the communications
functions of the business community, and most importantly the
users whoever they be, of the Internet.
3) To maintain an online means of input into their work and of
reporting on what they are doing.(This should include as many of
the open processes used in the development of Usenet and the
ARPANET as possible, including appropriate Usenet newsgroups,
mailing lists, RFC's etc.)
4) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified finite period
of time. The proposal should include:
a) an accurate history of how the Internet developed and how the
Domain Name System developed and why.
b) a discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet that
their proposal is part of. This should be based on input
gathered from the users of the Internet, and from research
of the history and development of the Internet.
c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays in the
administration and control of the Internet, how it is functioning,
what problems have developed with it.
d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how the
proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions and
control hitherto provided by U.S. Government agencies like NSF
and DARPA. Also, problems for the further adminstrations
should be clearly identified and proposals made for how to
begin an open process for examining the problems and solving
them.
e) a description of the problems and pressures that they see
that can be a danger for the DNS administration. Also
recommendations on how to protect the DNS administration
from succumbing to those pressures. (For example from
pressures that are political or commercial.) In the early
days of Internet development in the U.S. there was an
acceptible use policy (AUP) that protected the Internet and
the scientific and technical community from the pressures
from political and commercial entities. Also in the U.S.,
Government funding of a sizeable number of people who were the
computer science community also protected those people from
commercial and political pressures.
f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online, and the
public not online should also have a way to have access to it.
It should be made available to people around the world
who are part of or interested in the future development
of the Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution can come
from international organizations like the ITU, from the Internet
Society, the IETF, etc.
g) comment on what has been learned from the process of doing
collaborative work to create the proposal. It should identify as
much as possible the problems that developed in their
collaborative efforts. Identifying the problems will help
clarify what work has to be done to solve them.
h) It will be necessary to agree to some way to keep this
group of researchers free from commercial and political
pressures -- government funding of the researchers is one
possible way and maybe they can be working under an agreed
upon Acceptable Use Policy for their work and funding.
Please let me know any thoughts or comments you have on this
draft proposal as it is a beginning effort to figure
out what is a real way to solve the problem that is the essential
problem in the future adminstration of the Internet, and
that if the principles can be found to solve this problem,
the same principles will help to solve other problems of Internet
adminstration and functioning as well.
------------------
Notes:
(1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the
ARPANET and Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and
Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109.
See also "Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang,
Pierre Weis and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, "Le Monde",
September 26, 1997, as it describes how computer science is a new
kind of science and not well understood by many. The authors
write: "L'informatique est tout a la fois une science, une
technologie et un ensemble d'outils....Dans sa pratique
actuelle, l'introduction de l'informatique a l'ecole, et
malheureusement souvent a la'universite, est critiquable parce
qu'elle entretient la confusion entre ces trois composantes."
(2) Ibid.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
An updated copy of this proposal, as well as other related material
will be available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other
I will also try to have copies available at
http://lrw.net/hauben
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
also in print edition ISDN 0-8186-7706-6
Last Updated: September 4, 1998
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 14:56:16 -0400
From: Jamie McCarthy <jamie@mccarthy.org>
Subject: File 2--TRUSTe responds
Source - fight-censorship mailing list
(To: Susan Scott; fight-censorship mailing list.)
TRUSTe posted a press release last week:
http://www.truste.org/webpublishers/pr/geocities.html
> For Immediate Release
>
> Contact Information:
>
> Susan Scott
> Executive Director
> TRUSTe
> 650/856-1525
>
> To TRUSTe Licensee
>
> TRUSTe addresses the FTC and Geocities settlement
>
> Palo Alto, CA, August 19, 1998 - Last week, the FTC and GeoCities
> announced a settlement regarding the federal government's first
> Internet privacy enforcement action against an online company. The
> FTC alleges that in fall 1997 GeoCities made false statements to its
> users, claiming that the site would not share registration
> information collected online. It's important to note that GeoCities
> has denied the allegations contained in the FTC's complaint.
>
> As many of you know, GeoCities joined TRUSTe this spring and has
> been a member in good standing. The TRUSTe oversight process
> includes mechanisms designed to alert us to practices inconsistent
> with those outlined in the licensee's posted privacy statement. For
> instance, one way that we monitor use of personal information is by
> inserting unique identifiers into our licensees' databases, enabling
> us to track its use. Any licensee whose actions are contrary to the
> claims it makes in its privacy statement will be immediately subject
> to TRUSTe's progressive escalation process. The escalation process
> is designed to preserve the integrity of the TRUSTe trustmark and to
> provide licensees' the opportunity to respond to TRUSTe's inquiries.
>
> While we are confident that our oversight process would have alerted
> us to practices such as the ones alleged by the FTC, TRUSTe has
> instituted an additional measure of protection into our licensing
> agreement. A clause was added that requires an applicant to disclose
> whether it has been or is the subject of a government inquiry. If
> such disclosure is made, TRUSTe will conduct a thorough review of
> the matter at hand, and acceptance into the program will be decided
> on a case-by-case basis.
>
> The privacy stakes are getting higher, and TRUSTe is here not only
> to ensure that online privacy is protected but also to assist our
> licensees. As always, your questions and comments are always
> welcome.
Ms. Scott,
Ignoring for a moment the irony of a private organization founded to
protect corporations from government investigation admitting that they
will add the fact-finding question "are you currently under government
investigation?" to future interrogations, this press release makes it
sound like TRUSTe was not even _aware_ that GeoCities was being
investigated by the FTC until early August.
Why did it take over a week after the FTC settlement was made public,
before TRUSTe even spoke on this matter? The fact that GeoCities was
under investigation was made public in June.
I asked some questions on the fight-censorship mailing list last
Wednesday which still have not been answered. Perhaps you could
clarify:
Was TRUSTe, or was it not, aware in June that GeoCities was under
investigation by the FTC?
If not -- and it sounds like it was not -- would you not agree that
this is a dreadful lapse? To not even know what was already public at
the time, regarding one of TRUSTe's own clients?
Has TRUSTe's vaunted "progressive escalation process" _ever_ been
invoked against one of its paying clients?
Why does your press release not mention that one of TRUSTe's
Contributing Sponsors is related by investment to GeoCities? Is that
not a conflict of interest, especially given GeoCities' recent IPO?
If I read between the lines, the press release appears to come down on
GeoCities' side, which doesn't surprise me very much considering that
that's where TRUSTe gets its money. Still, all that was said as "the
FTC alleges" and "GeoCities denies."
_Alleges_!? Isn't the ostensible purpose of TRUSTe, to decide these
matters, instead of reporting them like a newspaper? If I wanted to
know who "alleged" and who "denies," I would read, say, the New York
Times (which ran two articles on GeoCities and privacy).
TRUSTe should engender trust, not summarize a "he said -- she said"
squabble. Assuming the above press release was all that your
organization intends to emit, it appears that TRUSTe will not confirm
or deny whether GeoCities actually abused its users' trust in matters
of privacy.
Let me repeat that:
TRUSTe refuses to confirm or deny whether GeoCities actually
abused its users' trust.
TRUSTe very clearly dropped the ball on this one, its first big test.
You were scooped by the government and you show no regrets. Adding a
sentence or two to your licensing agreement -- an extra box on the form
that your paying clients must tick off -- is not a response that will
reassure us, your users, of your investigative tenacity.
No, your failure to take action looks more like a message you are
sending to your paying corporate clients. If I were a potential client
of yours, I would read that message as: "join us -- we'll lobby
against the government for you -- and unlike the government, we won't
bite."
Please Cc responses to the fight-censorship mailing list. Thank you.
--
Jamie McCarthy
jamie@mccarthy.org http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://jamie.mccarthy.org/ http://www.censorware.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:05:13 -0500
From: Cu Digest <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--Internet information from Russia
((MODERATORS' NOTE: James * sent over the a URL for a site that
offers a variety of articles on Internet and related technology in
Russia. Many of the articles are in Russian, but some are in
English and provide insights into the tension between Net freedom,
technological development in a quasi-stable society, and
opposition to government control. The first excerpt below is from
an article describing Russian Government plans to monitor the net.
The second extract is the site's page listing some of the articles
available in English)).
=====================
source: http://www.fe.msk.ru/libertarium/ehomepage.html
The Moscow Times, Wednesday, July 29, 1998 Russia Prepares To
Police Internet
By Julia Solovyova Staff Writer
Big Brother could be making a comeback, this time in hi-tech
form. Russia's secret services are drafting a new regulation
that will allow them to monitor electronic mail and Internet
communications in real time and without having to apply for a
warrant, Internet users groups warned this week.
If it comes into effect, the project, codenamed Sorm, will
allow the Federal Security Service to track every credit card
transaction, e-mail message or visit to a web site without the
user ever knowing he is being watched, critics of the plan
claim.
Sorm, which stands for "system of ensuring investigative
activity," will require providers of Internet services to
install a "black box" or special snooping device in their main
computers and build a high-speed communication link to channel
data from the providers to the Federal Security Service, or
FSB.
The link will allow the FSB's operators to "download the
information, incoming and outgoing for individual subscribers
of each network," according to a leaked copy of the draft
regulation, which was posted on the Internet.
The FSB could not be reached for comment but a consultant in
the State Duma's committee on information policy, who said he
had taken part in discussions with the Duma's security
committee, the FSB and the State Communications Committee, or
Goskomsvyaz, about the draft regulation, confirmed that such
plans did exist. The source in the Duma, parliament's lower
house, said the regulation could come into force in two months'
time.
The government is believed to be pushing for the regulation to
augment its fight against tax evasion and other economic
crimes.
<snip>
((And from the hompage at:
http://www.fe.msk.ru/libertarium/ehomepage.html
_________________________________________________________________
MOSCOW LIBERTARIUM
on WWW since 3 august '94 - more then 4 years in a web!
Moscow Libertarium is a project aimed at the information support of
social activity and scientific research on the problems of classical
liberalism (also called libertarianism) and classical liberal conscience
in digital world.
The project is coordinated by the Institute for Commercial
Engineering. More detailed info you can get from the Project's
description (1994 year document!).
BE AWARE - MOST MATERIALS ARE IN RUSSIAN!
_________________________________________________________________
NEW: - SORRY, BUT ENGLISH PART OF LIBERTARIUM RENEW 10 TIMES RARE THAN
RUSSIAN AND 100 TIMES SMALLER IN VOLUME!
SORM -- Russian Internet wiretap project
*
FSB (Russia analog of USSR KGB) original DRAFTS OF "SORM"
(wiretapping) DOCUMENTS (version from 22nd july 98)
*
Russian Web site fights government monitoring effort - CNN, August
11, 1998, from Correspondent Mike Hanna. (with photos and video).
*
Cyber-snoops threaten Russia's new 'praivesi' -- STREET LIFE,
SAMOTECHNY LANE, MOSCOW (The Independent, 11 august 1998, UK)
*
Russian Legislation Strikes Fear on the Net By Jeanette Borzo, IDG
News, August 05, 1998. Extensive review of SORM.
*
A comment on SORM from a high rank WorldBank official (3 aug '98)
*
Russia Considering Internet Surveillance Policy. Proposal would
allow government to eavesdrop on all digital communication passing
through Russian ISPs. By Jeanette Borzo, IDG News Service, Paris
Bureau (via PCWORLD 29 jul '98).
*
Cyberspies Spin Russian Web; Russian FAPSI is NSA Counterpart --
(The St. Peterburg Times, July 24, 1998).
*
Russia Prepares To Police Internet (The Moscow Times, Wednesday,
July 29, 1998, By Julia Solovyova, Staff Writer).
*
KGB spins its Web even in afterlife -- .jpg, 197Kb -- (James Meek,
Guardian Newspaper (UK), 21st July 98). The Guardian is a major
daily UK national newspaper renowned for its independent thinking.
Online version:
http://www.mercurycenter.com/breaking/headline2/065854.htm.
* Russia may force ISPs to tip Big Brother (Tasty Bits from the
Technology Front, 29-jun-98) - they was first in a West to publish
this news.
Coordinator on SORM project at Moscow Liberitarium: liberty@ice.ru
They have similar problem in Thailand: Internet Freedom In
Thailand The Royal Thai Police Department's mounting frustration
with its inability to monitor the online activities of Thai
internet users has prompted the department to insist that Internet
Service Providers give them access to tracking information about
their users.
_____________________________________________________________
Libertarium includes: (The following materials are in RUSSIAN!)
+ SORM - Internet wiretapping project. Economics and
regulations -- updated11 august 1998G.
+ E-documents law draft (to Duma drafting process) -- updated
28 july 1998G.
+ Seminar "New forms of financial instruments" -- updated 24
july 1998G.
+ Technology of standards and rules development -- updated 20
july 1998G.
+ Freedom (libertarian) party -- updated 9 august 1998G.
+ Regulation and contract jurisdiction - updated 1 august
1998G.
+ Libertarium library -- updated may 1998G.
Please tell us if the translation is worth the effort so that we can
decide whether to continue translation. Also notice that this Project
has English description too. The contact info is at the end of this
page.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Moscow Libertarium accepts for accommodation in "Libertarium Library"
the texts, which promotes classical liberal philosophy. Moscow
Libertarium reserves the right to itself the publications or rejection
of the publication of the sent texts. Sent work not are reviewed.
The work are accepted in ASCII, MS Word or HTML format. The request
also to send the brief curriculum vitae of the author for
accommodation it in the appropriate Libertarium section.
Address for correspondence: liberty@fe.msk.ru
_________________________________________________________________
We will be glad to receive your comments and suggestions on our
WWW-server: write to webmaster@ice.ru.
You can also receive the information about Moscow Libertairum activity
by e-mail (address liberty@ice.ru); by phone or by fax: (+7 095)
333-2022; (+7 095) 333-5134.
_________________________________________________________________
(C) 1998, Institute for Commercial Engineering Rambler's Top100
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa Mann <lisam@oreilly.com>
Subject: File 4--Gross Errors
For Immediate Release
September 3, 1998
For more information contact:
Lisa Mann lisam@oreilly.com
(707) 829-0515 or
Ben Ezzell (707) 869-3414
Gross Errors
O'Reilly's Windows Error Contest Reveals the Ugly and Inexplicable
Underside of Windows Programming
Sebastopol, CA--O'Reilly and Associates has announced the winners (and
the errors submitted) in their Windows Error Message Contest. The
entries are posted on the O'Reilly web site at: http://www.oreilly.com
"The real quandary, of course," said Ben Ezzell, the judge of the
contest entries "is that I would have loved to have awarded about two
dozen prizes -each for a separate reason - and I have singled out
several entries for Honorable Mentions, each for diverse reasons not
necessarily associated with the contest objective. The sheer variety of
the entries in the Error Messages contest was a problem in itself --
partially, the variety of what people saw as 'errors' but partially it
was that some entries recounted amusing errors, others wished to
comment on what they saw as bad design and a few were actually serious
requests for assistance ... and I didn't have answers for all of them."
"Mostly, however, the entries were submitted by readers who were
annoyed, frustrated or simply amused by the sheer absurdity of too many
of the error messages commonly delivered by applications both today and
in the past. Hopefully, "Developing Windows Error Messages" may help to
reduce the number of entries in the future ... if that isn't simply
foolishly optimistic of me."
Here are the rules as stated in when the contest began:
We all get 'em. We all hate 'em. Error messages are displayed messages
that report errors to the user with a simple text message--a very
simple text message. These tiresome error messages never seem to
explain or help. Send O'Reilly your favorite (most irritating) error
message and win books! It's simple. Send in your message (one per
person) and Ben Ezzell, the author of "Windows Error Messages", will
choose the best three.
Here's how the judging took place:
Ben Ezzel, author of the recently released book "Windows Error
Messages" was the sole judge. In selecting the prize winners, three
criteria were applied:
How pertinent was the entry? i.e., how relevant was the cited error
message to the topics discussed in "Developing Windows Error
Messages".
How well was the submission explained? That is, did the entrant offer
a cogent explanation for why they were submitting this entry, why the
entry occurred and why it was inappropriate or incorrect. (Of course,
this did not apply in all cases, some were simply too obvious for
comment.)
Is the entry really an inappropriate error? Or is there simply a
misunderstanding. Also, a number of the errors reported were not
incorrect although they were, understandably, annoyances.
And now, the winners:
1st Prize (O'Reilly books valued up to $150) goes to: Nir Arbel for
Just Who's The Stupid One Here?
2nd Prize (O'Reilly books valued up to $75) goes to: Jeff Metzner for
Too Many Excuses
3rd Prize (O'Reilly books valued up to $40) goes to: David McComb for An
Inintentional Error Message.
To read the actual error messages submitted (as well as some computer
error messages written in Haiku added in just for fun), see the
O'Reilly web site at: http://www.oreilly.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
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)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
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 #10.48
************************************
