Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 10 Issue 26
Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 26, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 26
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, #10.26 (Sun, Apr 26, 1998)
File 1--EFF challenge to New Mexico Net Censorship Law
File 2--FAQ Using the Law to Harrass The Cult v. the ARSCC
File 3--"Understanding Digital Signatures", Gail L. Grant
File 4--Court Finds AOL Immune from Libel Suit
File 5--Re: Cu Digest, #10.25, Weds 22 Apr 98
File 6--Federal Courts use Censorware (Spectacle Press Release)
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 12 April, 1998)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:57:09 -0500
From: jthomas@VENUS.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 1--EFF challenge to New Mexico Net Censorship Law
Source: http://www.eff.org
April 22, 1998
Statement of Barry Steinhardt, President of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) on the Legal Challenge to the New Mexico Net
Censorship Law.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believes that SB 127, New
Mexico's recently passed law banning the dissemination of material
deemed "harmful to minors" on the Internet, is patently
unconstitutional. This law represents a threat to freedom of
expression, not only in New Mexico, but across the country. The EFF,
as a content provider, and its members, would be compelled to either
refrain from communicating constitutionally protected speech or face
potential criminal prosecution. Because of this threat, we join today
as a plaintiff in the challenge filed today by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).
The EFF was the first national non-profit group established to protect
free expression, privacy and open access to information in the
electronic age and has used the Internet to educate the public about
civil liberties and legal issues as they arise in cyberspace. The EFF
was a party to the successful challenge to the Federal Communications
Decency Act (CDA) in Reno v. ACLU, decided by the US Supreme Court
only last June. We believe the New Mexico law is equally defective.
The EFF's public education efforts that would be affected include the
extensive online resources on its web site. These resources include
articles, court cases, legal papers, news releases, newsletters, and
excerpts from public discussions related to the EFF's legal,
legislative, educational, and advocacy work. Section A in SB 127, as
it affects the EFF, is even broader and more censorial that the CDA.
The term "harmful to a minor" is defined as any communication "which
in whole, or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual
intercourse or any other sexual conduct." The Legislature did not
even attempt to qualify this term by requiring that the speech be
viewed in its overall context or that its value to minors or adults be
taken into account. Because the definitions used in SB 127 are so
broad and so unqualified, it would include everything from a web
site's representation of Michalangelo's David, to the publication of
the Biblical Song of Solomon on a newsgroup. It would certainly
encompass information in many of the archives that the EFF maintains
on its web site.
Language purporting to limit the application of the law to those who
"knowingly and intentionally initiate or engage in communication" with
a minor cannot save the law. For most speakers on the Internet, it is
not possible to limit speech to an audience that is known to be adults
only. Laws like SB 127, such as the even narrower CDA, will inevitably
and unconstitutionally restrict the speech available to adults, who
will be reduced to receiving only that speech which is deemed suitable
for children.
As the Supreme Court said in _Reno v. ACLU_:
"Given the size of the potential audience for most messages,
in the absence of a viable age verification process, the
sender must be charged with knowing that one or more minor
will likely view it. Knowledge that, for instance, one or
more members of a 100-person chat group will be minors and
therefore that it would be a crime to send the group and
indecent message and would surely burden communication among
adults."
In addition to the restricting Constitutionally protected speech, SB
127 would also violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US
Constitution.
SB 127 is not limited to purely intrastate New Mexico communications.
It seeks to broadly regulate an inherently "interstate", even
international medium. A recent decision from New York, American
Library Ass'n v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) dealt
with the interstate commerce issue. The ALA case dealt with a New
York State statute that, like SB 127, sought to restrict speech on the
Internet that was "harmful to minors", without limiting the geographic
reach of its prohibition. In that decision, which the State of New
York did not appeal, the judge held that the law was invalid because
it was an "unconstitutional projection of New York law into conduct
that occurs wholly outside New York; that the burdens on interstate
commerce [by enforcement of this law] ... could paralyze development of
the Internet altogether; and finally, that the Commerce Clause ordains
that only Congress can legislate in this area, subject, of course, to
whatever limitations other provisions of the Constitution (such as the
First Amendment) may require."
Given the fatal constitutional defects in the new law and its
potential to damage free speech on the Internet, the EFF believes that
it has no recourse other than to join in this case.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@well.com>
Subject: File 2--FAQ Using the Law to Harrass The Cult v. the ARSCC
((Those who keep up with the Church of Scientology's "War on the
Net" will find the following interesting, reproduced from The Well
with permission)).
eff.661.705: Scientology, the Net, and Free Speech
From--beckyjo@umich.edu (Rebecca Jo McLaughlin)
Subject--Litigation FAQ
Newsgroups--alt.religion.scientology
Date--Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:45:00 GMT
FAQ
USING THE LAW TO HARASS
THE CULT VS. THE ARSCC*
On alt.religion.scientology you can get flamed. You can also get
harassed, investigated, fair gamed, raided, arrested or sued. The people
below know, first-hand, how seriously the cult takes their dead leader's
commands: "The law can be used very easily to harass..."
Coming up:
22 April 1998: [Ward, Henson] The parties are ordered to appear for a
pre-trail conference. The parties should be prepared to discuss the
following issues:
(1) Whether this case should be consolidated with the related case RTC
v. Ward, Case No. C-96-20207, for trial;
(2) The trial schedule;
(3) Estimated length of the proceedings; and
(4) Available trial dates in April, May , and June.
***
DENNIS ERLICH. Dennis is accused of violating the cult's copyrights by
posting some of the "Operating Thetan" (OT) materials. The cult raided
Dennis, going through his home and confiscating personal belongings. He
is being defended pro bono by the mighty MoFo; donations are gratefully
accepted. Send your checks or money orders to:
Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Carla Oakley - Dennis Erlich Defense Fund
Telephone: (415) 677-7000 Facsimile: (415) 677-7522
International funds can be accepted. You can also wire donations to them.
Call for instructions.
**Make sure you label your check "Dennis Erlich Defense Fund".**
Also - "seekon" maintains a "Friends of Dennis Erlich Page"
www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html
Dennis also faces attack on another front: the cult has provided his
ex-wife (the Venomous Rosa) with a lawyer so that she and the cult can
drag Dennis through court on a variety of child-support related cases.
For more info:
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/mystory/#10
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/mystory/denseize.txt
******
KEITH HENSON. Having read the New Operating Thetan (NOTs) levels, Keith
Henson believes that Scientology is practicing medicine without a license.
He was sued for posting the relevant sections - NOTS 34 - that describe
these practices. Recently, Judge Whyte ruled against Henson in summary
judgment and planned to conduct a "bench trial" to determine wilfulness.
Sadly for the judge, the Supreme Court determined that people like Keith
are entitled to a jury trial. The Honorable Whyte is now attempting to
lump Keith and Grady's cases together.
On a related front, the cult takes offense at Keith picketing their
various organizations. The judge, at a recent hearing to strike Henson's
trial brief, denied their ex parte application in no uncertain terms:
"There is a lot of silliness going on here, and this court is not going to
entertain it! The statements of counsel in their briefs are just that,
and not evidence."
For more info:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html#HENSON
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/picketpage/picket.html
Keith is accepting donations to offset the increasing costs of litigation:
H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94306
****
FACTnet is a bulletin-board system containing a huge library of
information about Scientology and other cults. On 22 August 1995,
FACTnet directors, Bob Penny and Larry Wollersheim were raided. FACTnet
is being sued for (surprise!) copyright infringement.
For more info:.
http://www.factnet.org/battle.htm
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html#FACTNET
http://www2.dgsys.com/~alerma/
FACTNET is accepting donations toward their operations and their legal
defense. Send to FACTNET Inc., PO Box 3135, Boulder, CO 80307-3135. You
may also charge your donation (see http://www.factnet.org for details).
****
ZENON PANOUSSIS. Zenon posted the widely-read Secret Scriptures materials
to a.r.s. and was promptly sued. It is unlikely that the cult lawyers
expected that their own actions would result in Sweden becoming the only
country in the world where the Secret Scriptures may be legally obtained.
For more info:
http://scncases.simplenet.com (webbed documents of most NOTs-connected
cases in Sweden)
http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d1dd/cos/
*****
RAY RANDOLPH. Ray has a domain name, scientology_kills.net, that offends
the cult. They claim it infringes upon their trademarks and are suing.
Ray is represented by the ACLU and EFF in this skirmish.
For more info:
http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/scieno.htm
****
KARIN SPAINK. Karin and 12 Dutch internet providers are being sued by the
cult for having the Fishman Affidavit (containing parts of OT1 through
OT7) on homepages. The cult lost the February 1996 trial, was ordered to
pay costs and has appealed. The appeal was scheduled for June 1996, but
to date, the cult has not moved on it. The defendants believe the reason
for this is that Co$ is afraid it will lose.
>From Karin: "The full-fledged case - which they started on the day the
short-term lawsuit served in court - is still on its way. We hope to have
a verdict this year.
For more info:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/dutch/home.html
****
GRADY WARD On 21 March 1996, RTC filed a lawsuit against Grady accusing
him of being the elusive net entity, Scamizdat, who posted the Upper Level
Materials Scientology cannot seem to keep under wraps. Grady is defending
himself in forma pauperis. At a recent summary judgment hearing, Judge
Whyte ruled against RTC, clearing the way for a trial.
At the recent pretrial hearing, the judge stunned the cult by remarking
that the cult had to prove at three things at trial: (1) that the
proffered evidence were authentic Usenet posts or IRC chat logs (FRE Rule
901); (2) that Grady Ward somehow was associated with any authenticated
posts that had been adjudged to be infringing; and (3) if (1) and (2) were
met, that Grady Ward's acts were "wilful" for purposes of copyright law.
Currently, Judge Whyte is attempting to get cases of Ward and Henson
combined into one.
Grady accepts donations to defray mounting legal expenses. Send donations
to Grady Ward, 3449 Martha Ct., Arcata, CA 95521
For more info:
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html#GRADY
http://superlink.net/user/mgarde/new.htm
****
Corrections, additions, deletions? Mail beckyjo@umich.edu.
* And, of course, we do not exist.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:54:03 -0800
From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor" <rslade@sprint.ca>
Subject: File 3--"Understanding Digital Signatures", Gail L. Grant
BKUNDISI.RVW 980221
"Understanding Digital Signatures", Gail L. Grant, 1998,
0-07-012554-6, U$34.95
%A Gail L. Grant
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1998
%G 0-07-012554-6
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O U$34.95 905-430-5000 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 298 p.
%T "Understanding Digital Signatures"
Part one is general background. Chapter one is a brief and rough
background of the Internet. Some of the statements are questionable,
as are a number of the figures, but it is probably reasonable for the
target business audience. The title "Security and the Internet," for
chapter two, is only half right. Some general topics that security
needs to address are raised, but the Internet isn't mentioned. (The
figures convey even less information than in the first chapter, and
the situation is not helped by the fact that the figure numbers are
not used in the text, so the reader has no idea what passage they are
supposed to support.) Again, "Securing the Internet," in chapter
three, is a reasonable basic primer on cryptography for the non-
technical, but doesn't talk about the Internet yet. The most
important point made is the difference between encryption and
authentication. Chapter four, on the public key infrastructure, is
the weakest, in that it only deals with hierarchical certificate
authority systems. It is interesting that the term "network of
trust," seemingly used for a group of certificate authorities, is so
similar to the term "web of trust" which PGP (Pretty Good Privacy)
uses for such a radically different concept.
Part two is entitled "Case Studies," and it does have them, but not in
the usual style. "Uses of Public Key Systems," in chapter five, still
seems to belong to the background section. Chapters six, seven, and
eight, on identification and authentication, securing communication,
and application integration, say *that* certificates are being used,
but give almost no information on how. Chapter nine lists the
operational steps in a SET (Secure Electronic Transaction protocol)
transaction.
Part three looks at technical, legal, and business issues, and at the
development of requirements specifications for digital signatures.
Chapter ten is only technical by the broadest possible definition of
the term, and does not provide enough detail or background for readers
to begin to make the decisions that might be necessary. The legal
issues chapter eleven raises are at least clear enough to have legal
counsel begin to consider, and are not as US-centric as is normally
the case. Chapter twelve's review of business issues is a decent
discussion starter. The requirements planning tools in chapter
thirteen are probably too generic to be of use without further
background.
Part four is a listing of vendors. Each vendor entry provides contact
information, company background, and a description of products or
services. Many also list distinctives of the companies, future
intentions, and a list of major customers. Chapters cover vendors of
certificate authority products and application toolkits.
A final chapter looks at the future.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKUNDISI.RVW 980221
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:16:07 -0400
From: "EPIC-News List" <epic-news@epic.org>
Subject: File 4--Court Finds AOL Immune from Libel Suit
Source: EPIC Volume 5.05 April 23, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/
*** 1998 EPIC Cryptography and Privacy Conference ***
http://www.epic.org/events/crypto98/
=======================================================================
[2] Court Finds AOL Immune From Libel Suit
=======================================================================
A federal judge in Washington has ruled that America Online cannot be
sued for posting an allegedly defamatory item by gossip columnist
Matt Drudge. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by White House
official Sidney Blumenthal after Drudge reported that Blumenthal had
"a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up." The
suit named as defendants both Drudge and AOL, which carried "The
Drudge Report" under a license agreement with the columnist.
In an opinion issued on April 22, U.S. District Judge Paul L.
Friedman held that AOL enjoys broad immunity from suit under a
surviving provision of the Communications Decency Act (most of which
was struck down by the Supreme Court last summer). That provision,
which was intended to encourage online providers to "self-police"
their systems for "offensive" content, states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker
of any information provided by another information
content provider.
The judge noted that, under the terms of its agreement with Drudge,
AOL retained "certain editorial rights ... including the right to
require changes in content and to remove it." While finding that the
CDA provision relieves the online service of any potential liability,
Judge Friedman noted an anomaly in the result:
Because it has the right to exercise editorial control
over those with whom it contracts and whose words it
disseminates, it would seem only fair to hold AOL to
the liability standards applied to a publisher or, at
least, like a book store owner or library, to the
liability standards applied to a distributor. But
Congress has made a different policy choice by
providing immunity even where the interactive service
provider has an active, even aggressive role in making
available content prepared by others.
The suit against Drudge will proceed, and attorneys for Blumenthal
have indicated that they will appeal the dismissal of AOL as a
defendant.
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================
The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic
Privacy Information Center. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email
to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or
"unsubscribe". A Web-based form is available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John S. Cronin" <jsc@SWAMP.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: File 5--Re: Cu Digest, #10.25, Weds 22 Apr 98
In article <cud.980423030708.22236@unicom.com> you wrote:
> From--"Frank Knobbe" <FKnobbe@BELLSOUTH.NET>
> Date--Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:07:17 -0600
> Subject--File 6--Re--"tagging color printers" (CuD 10.22)
>
> > Date--06 Apr 1998 15:29:44 -0400
> > From--Mark Atwood <mra@POBOX.COM>
> > Subject--File 3--US Govt wants to "tag" color printers
>
> [...]
>
> > "In addition, Castle said, practical and realistic measures to tag
> > scanners and printers must be considered, in order to identify the
> > source of the counterfeit notes."
> >
> > In other words, he wants every color printer to embed some sort of
> > signature into its output, so that the "authorities" can determine
> > where it came from.
> >
> > I remember, back in high school civics, one of the bits of patriotic
> > propaganda that was dispenced to us, was that the USSR required all
> > photocopiers to embed a machine id and page number into its output,
> > so that the "authorites" could control their use as publishing
> > tools.
> >
> > Now the USA wants to do the same thing.
>
> [...]
>
> Great! I'm so curious to see how they are gonna tackle this issue. Put
> an ID on top of the page? Sure, go right ahead, I have to use my
> scissors anyway to cut out the Lincoln's.
>
> The only way this would work, would be to overlay the copy with a fine
> barcode type output, where the lines stretch across the whole page.
> Which means the ID changes when the fuser gets old'n'dirty. Plus,
> imagine how many people would return that copier because "it's broke
> and procudes crappy output".
>
> How about mandatory copier paper with a watermark? All you need to do
> is equip the copier's paper cassette with a padlock.
>
> Of course, alternatively you could try to improve security with newer
> dollar bills that have additional security features such as holograms,
> etc. but that would be too easy....
>
> The world is going crazy, and it's not gonna get better...
I wish I had been paying better attention. Recently, I was watching
one of the major news programs (ABC, CBS or NBC - I don't remember
which one because my room mate had control of the remote). They had
a segment on counterfeiting and the new $20 bill. They spent quite a
bit of time talking about counterfeiting US currency using ordinary
color printers, and how over 50% of all counterfeit bills are now coming
from color printers. The part that really floored me was when they
mentioned that Treasury was going to ask printer makers to begin making
printers that will refuse to print currency. ?!
Now I wonder if the news folks misunderstood this tagging concept,
or if Treasury is really that clueless about the state of computing
and what is possible? I have not been able to find any more info
on this. I really do wonder though - does Treasury really believe
this is possible, especially in the price range of $200 printers?
I really wonder how they expect this to be implemented, if this is
true. Not that I think it will happen anytime soon, if at all.
Has anybody else heard about this?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 14:06:21 -0500
From: jthomas3@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 6--Federal Courts use Censorware (Spectacle Press Release)
Source: http://www.spectacle.org/cwp/courtcen.html
The Censorware Project
Federal Courts Use Censorware;
Free Speech Advocates Object
By the Censorware Project
April 22, 1998
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jonathan Wallace
daytime: 212-513-7777
evening: 718-797-9808
email: jw@bway.net
New York, April 22, 1998 -- The Censorware Project, an organization
which battles the use of blocking software by public institutions
including schools and libraries, announced today that it has learned
that federal courts are using the WebSENSE censorware product, at
least in the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth judicial circuits (covering
twenty-two states and Guam). WebSENSE was installed by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, apparently without the knowledge
or consent of the judges themselves.
"I am really disturbed that the federal court administrators have
installed censorware, especially in light of federal judge Leonie
Brinkema's recent decision in the Loudoun County, Virginia case," said
James Tyre, a First Amendment attorney who is a founding member of the
Censorware Project. "In that decision, available at
http://www.venable.com/ORACLE/opinion.htm, the judge suggested that
blocking a web site in a library is like pulling a book from the
shelves. It is particularly shocking that the Administrative Office of
the Courts thinks that federal judges need to be protected against the
Internet -- and that our tax money is being spent to buy censorware
for this purpose. It would be ironic indeed if Judge Brinkema is
prevented by WebSENSE from visiting the very sites at issue in the
Loudoun County case, blocked by X-Stop, a competitor of WebSENSE."
One site erroneously blocked by the WebSENSE product under its
"Hacking" category is http://www.digicrime.com/ -- a humorous site
created by security experts to educate the public about computer
crime. "WebSENSE apparently took the site for a real computer crime
site," Tyre said. "DigiCrime is not just one bad block out of 200,000:
it is one of 54 hand-picked sites by the makers of WebSENSE itself
included in the downloadable demo versions of the product. Although
The Censorware Project has not done a full analysis of WebSENSE, one
must seriously question its claims to accuracy if it cannot even get
its demo blocks right." WebSENSE also reportedly blocks A Different
Light Bookstore, http://www.adlbooks.com/, specializing in gay or
lesbian literature. The company claims that the product blocks 200,000
sites.
________________________________________________________________
The Censorware Project is a group of Internet activists opposed to
blocking software and ratings systems for the Web on the grounds that
both approaches promote government censorship of the Net. For more
information, please contact Jonathan Wallace at jw@bway.net.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 12 April, 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)
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 #10.26
************************************
