Software Vault: The Sapphire Collection/Software Vault (Sapphire Collection) (Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/cud679.zip/CUD679.TXT

Text File | 1994-09-12 | 35KB | 795 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Sep 8, 1994   Volume 6 : Issue 79
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Urban Legend Editor:  E. Greg Shrdlugold

CONTENTS, #6.79 (Wed, Sep 8, 1994)

File 1--New indecency rules proposed for all online services (fwd)
File 2--Sex, the Internet and the Idiots
File 3--Symposium Announcement & Call for Papers
File 4--Reaffirming Life through an Online Death
File 5--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 9-1-94)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 11:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--New indecency rules proposed for all online services (fwd)

(MODERATORS' NOTE: In CuD 6.76 we ran a post on the Exon Amendment to
S 1822.  S.AMDT.2404, sponsored by Senator J. James Exon (D.  Neb.),
raised concerns that proposed federal restrictions on "indecency"
could adversely affect computer communications by placing the onus of
liability on the carrier. Contrary to some reports, the EFF does not
approve of the amendment. For those wishing further information, the
full Bill is:  S. 1822 (Sponsored by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D., S.
Car.). Official Title: A BILL TO FOSTER THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE
NATION'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  At last report, the Bill
(with the amendment) has been referred to the Senate Committee on
Commerce (on 26 July). We're not aware of subsequent action taken
since. The following fowarded post clarifies the amendment)).

From [e-mail] Thu Sep  1 10:47:31 1994
Posted-Date--Thu, 1 Sep 1994 09:29:09 -0400

Date--Thu, 25 Aug 1994 14:32:40 -0600
[e-mail] (Daniel J. Weitzner)


I.      Overview

        During the final hours before the Senate telecommunications
bill (S.1822) was marked-up by the Senate Commerce Committee, a
provision was added which would expand the current FCC regulation on
obscene and indecent audiotext (900 number) services to virtually all
electronic information services, including commercial online service
providers, the Internet, and BBS operators.  This proposal, introduced
by Senator Exon, would require all information service providers and
all other electronic communication service providers, to take steps to
assure that minors do not have access to obscene or indecent material
through the services offered by the service provider.

       Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier, as
opposed to the originator of the content, threatens to limit the free
flow of all kinds of information in the online world.  If carriers are
operating under the threat of criminal liability for all of the
content on their services, they will be forced to pre-screen all
messages and limit both the privacy and free expression of the users
of these services.  Senator Exon's amendment raises fundamental
questions about the locus on liability for harm done from content in
new digital communications media.  These questions must be discussed
in a way that assures the free flow of information and holds content
originators responsible for their actions.

II.     Summary of Exon Amendment

       The Exon amendment which is now part of S.1822, expands section
of the Communications Act to cover anyone who "makes, transmits, or
otherwise makes available" obscene or indecent communication.  It
makes no distinction between those entities which transmit the
communications from those which create, process, or use the
communication.  This section of the Communications Act was originally
intended to criminalize harassment accomplished over interstate
telephone lines, and to require telephone companies that offer
indecent 900 number services to prevent minors from having access to
such services.  The 900 number portions are known as the Helms
Amendments, having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms.  These
sections have been the subject of extension constitutional litigation.

       If enacted into law, these amendments would require that anyone
who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available" indecent
communication take prescribed steps to assure that minors are
prevented from having access to these communications.  In the case of
900 numbers, acceptable procedures include written verification of a
subscriber's age, payment by credit card, or use of a scrambling
device given to the subscriber after having verified his or her age.
Failure to do so would result in up to a $100,000 fine or up to two
years imprisonment.

III.    Carrier Liability and Threats to the Free Flow of Information

       These provisions raise serious First Amendment concerns.  (Note
that we use the term 'carrier' here to refer to a wide range of
information and communication service providers.  This does not
suggest that these entities are, or should be, common carriers in the
traditional sense of the term.)

       Overbroad carrier liability forces carriers to stifle the free
flow of information on their systems and to act as private censors

       If carriers are responsible for the content of all information
and communication on their systems, then they will be forced to
attempt to screen all content before it is allowed to enter the
system.  In many cases, this would be simply impossible.  But even
where it is possible, such pre-screening can severely limit the
diversity and free flow of information in the online world.  To be
sure, some system operators will want to offer services that
pre-screen content.  However, if all systems were forced to do so, the
usefulness of digital media as communication and information
dissemination systems would be drastically limited.  Where possible,
we must avoid legal structures which force those who merely carry
messages to screen their content.

       Carriers are often legally prohibited from screening messages

       In fact, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
1986, electronic communication service providers are generally
prohibited from examining the contents of messages or information
carrier from one subscriber to another.

       Extension of the 900 number rules to all electronic information
services may be unconstitutional

       The regulation of indecent 900 number programming was only
accomplished after nearly a decade of constitutional litigation, with
rules being overturned by the Supreme Court.  The regulations were
finally found constitutional only after being substantially narrowed
to meet First Amendment scrutiny.  Since the access methods offered by
online service providers are significantly different than simple
telephone access to 900 services, we doubt that the same
constitutional justifications would support the newly expanded rules.
This issue requires considerable study and analysis.

       Content creators, or those who represent the content as their
own, should be responsible for liability arising out of the content

       In sum, it should be content originators, not carriers, who are
responsible for their content.  Any other approach will stifle the
free flow of information in the new digital media.

IV.     Next Steps

       Having only just received the language offered by Senator Exon,
EFF still needs to do further analysis, and consult with others in the
online community.  We also hope to speak with Senator Exon's staff to
understand their intent.  Another important hearing will be held on
S.1822 in mid-September by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  By that
time, we hope to have this issue resolved.  While we agree that these
carrier liability problems are in need of Congressional consideration,
we do not believe that the time is ripe to act.  Before any action is
taken, hearings must be held and careful evaluation of all the issues,
not just indecency, must be undertaken.

Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Policy Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
1001 G St. NW Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001 [phone](v)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: eye WEEKLY <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Sex, the Internet and the Idiots

eye WEEKLY                                               August 4 1994
Toronto's arts newspaper                      .....free every Thursday
      %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
EYE NET                                                        EYE NET

                   SEX, THE INTERNET AND THE IDIOTS

                                  by
                             K.K. CAMPBELL


There are two breeds of moron attracted to the Internet's relation to
sex -- reporters and wankers. These categories may overlap, but that's
beside the point.

Canadian newsmedia owe a great deal of Internet education to Judge
Francis Kovacs and his infamous Karla Homolka trial publication ban.
That elevated the Internet to headline material. It is humorous to
watch reporters/editors grope for net.literacy. Talk with Justin
Wells ([e-mail]) and Ken Chasse
([e-mail]), the chaps who created alt.fan.karla-homolka
as a lark, then found themselves hounded by reporters asking for
"banned information, please." Or check out The Star's early stories,
where Usenet newsgroups are called "computer billboards" --
whatever the hell those are.

                             MEDIA MORONS

Mainstream journalists without a rallying issue like a trial ban
invariably end up with nothing better to do then bang the drum about
the 3 Ps: pedophilia, piracy and pornography.

Take the recent Internet "child molesters" silliness. Some teen
somewhere is enticed into sex with an adult -- through America On
Line, not the Internet -- and we have an "epidemic." Chicago's Harlan
Wallach ([e-mail]) reported in alt.internet.media-coverage
how some dink named James Coates wrote a column for the July 15
Chicago Tribune called "Beware cybercreeps lurking on the Internet."
True enough. But Coates' purpose is to frighten the middle class with
some probably made-up story about "Vito," who cruises the net
hoping "to have sex with children in wheelchairs."

I understand Coates' pain. I can't spend 10 minutes in Internet Relay
Chat (IRC) before someone asks if I'm a child in a wheelchair looking
for a sex partner. Wallach told eye Coates has been going like this
for months now -- "a master at work."

Couple of weeks ago, California nuclear research facility Lawrence
Livermore Labs discovered one computer held some dirty pictures.
An employee gave away a password. Someone used that access to
store the images. People could connect and get them. Nothing was
hacked. Big deal.

But on July 13, CNN reporter Don Knapp swooped in to whip up
hysteria. Doom was clearly imminent.

"Computer security specialists were surprised to find what may be
the largest computer collection ever of hardcore pornography at the
nation's top nuclear weapons and research laboratory," Knapp
intoned ominously. Almost 2000 megs! Gol-ly! (Incidentally, 99 per
cent of it was individual shots of nude/semi-nude women, no
sexually explicit acts. Playboy stuff.)

CNN rang Wired magazine writer Brian Behlendorf ([e-mail])
and woke him at home, excited about "a big break-in at Laurence
Livermore." Hackers and porno! If CNN was lucky, the hacker was a
child molester. Behlendorf consented to an interview. CNN
immediately asked him to "find some pictures of naked women on
the Net for us." Behlendorf recounted the incident: "I really wasn't
interested in doing that. I don't know of any FSP/FTP sites offhand
anyways, and really didn't want to be associated with pictures of
NEKKID GRRLS."*

But amiable Behlendorf slid over to alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels
and grabbed a picture of a model in a swimsuit. He also picked up a
landscape, a race car and a Beatles album cover "to show that other
images get sent over Usenet as  well," naively thinking this point
would be made -- though he stresses he by no means condones
distributing copyrighted images, "clean" or otherwise. Behlendorf was
then made to sit beside a terminal displaying Ms String-Bikini
throughout all his comments. "They made me keep returning to that  damn
bikini image ... over and over."

But intrepid reporter Don Knapp assured us all is well -- for now.
"Spokespeople for the national laboratories insist that at no time
were the pornographers, nor the software pirates, able to cross over
from the research network into the classified network. The labs say
that, while they are embarrassed, national security was not
breached."

Whew.

               YOU'RE GETTING VERY STUP- ERR, SLEEPY...

Then you have regular net.wankers. Whoever said, "Never
underestimate the intelligence of the American public," must read
alt.sex.* newsgroups.

For instance, the charismatic Aabid ([e-mail]) wrote
a touching post called "I would like an enema myself!" to newsgroup
sci.chem (science: chemistry). "Looking for a Middle Eastern M or F
to help me with my enema desires. If you can be of assistance please
email me." Readers of sci.chem were very intrigued and Aabid has
made many interesting new friends.

The greatest example of alt.sex stupidity is: The Hypnosis Program.

As a joke, Indiana's Steve Salter ([e-mail])
posted to alt.sex.stories that he had a "hypnosis program" -- which
you cleverly slip onto another person's computer where it will so
mesmerize the unsuspecting target, he/she becomes your SEXUAL
PLAYTHING, BENDING TO YOUR EVERY WHIM! For weeks after, global
village idiots pestered him for copies.

"I must have received over a hundred requests via private email or in
alt.sex.stories for a copy of the program," Salter told eye. He had to
publicly post a reply to stem the tide: "No offense, but get a rather
large clue. There is no such animal. That was a joke. I thought it was
obvious. How many people out there really want to hypnotize someone
secretly? What the fuck is wrong with all of you?! What age group are
we dealing with here? There is no such program!!! Sheesh..."

Personally, I'm in agreement with David Romm
([e-mail]) who wrote: "I really liked the hypnosis
program. It was much better than Cats."

                          MASSAGE MY MEDIUM

To get your own porn, there are lots of sites. Ask for the latest in
the alt.sex groups. Check out alt.binaries.pictures.erotica to grab a
few images. For text erotica, read in alt.sex.stories .

If you can't access alt.sex groups because, say, your university is
run by prudes, write (ahem) "Hot Stuff" ([e-mail])
for details about his mail-server. He makes available hundreds of
stories. We at eye have yet to sample this collection but are
intrigued by two items: "Perils of Red Tape," which we assume
reveals the lust-riddled world of civil service, and "Tales from the
Network," the story of lonely boys sitting around Friday nights
fingering their groins in IRC, praying someone with a female-
sounding alias drops by.


* FootNote: NEKKID GRRLS is idiomatic fresh-off-the-BBS net.wanker-
  speak. This language can be learned by hanging around newsgroups
  like alt.2600 . To convince others you are a deadly cool net.cruiser,
  write: "HEY, elite pir-8 d00ds! I got more NEKKID GRRLS philes than
  ANY OF U!!!! And U censorship loosers can SUCK MY DICK!!!!!" Send it
  to alt.sex . Make sure to cross-post to the comp.sys.ibm.* hierarchy
  because PCs are the most common computer and you will reach a wider
  audience. If you can manage it, post through an anonymous account
  and leave your personal signature with real address in the text of
  the message.

             +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Retransmit freely in cyberspace        Author holds standard copyright
Full issue of eye available in archive ==> gopher.io.org or ftp.io.org
Mailing list available                           http://www.io.org/eye
[e-mail]           "Break the Gutenberg Lock..."        416-971-8421

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 18:12:38 GMT
From: [e-mail](Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: File 3--Symposium Announcement & Call for Papers

                Final Announcement and Call for Papers
                              Symposium

              "Free Speech and Privacy in the Information Age"

                             Davis Centre
                University of Waterloo
              200 University Avenue, West
                       Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3G1
               Canada

                      Saturday, November 26, 1994

RATIONALE:

The "information superhighway" will have a profound effect on our lives
and the way we communicate in the 21st century.  But how will it transform
and be transformed by our understanding of traditional freedoms,
such as free speech and privacy?

This one-day symposium is intended to address the ethical, philosophical,
and legal implications of the Internet and related communications
technologies.  Expert speakers from industry, academia, government,
and the legal profession will discuss free speech and privacy in the
information age.  A wide spectrum of opinion will be represented.

The symposium will host a poster session for contributed papers; see below
for submission information.

During the symposium, there will also be demonstrations, conducted by
University library staff, of the Internet and its applications
as a research and communications tool.


WHO SHOULD ATTEND:

* University and public librarians;

* local, provincial, and federal government officials concerned
  with information and communication technology;

* Internet users and computer system administrators from industry
  and academia;

* feminists concerned with impact of the new technology;

* lawyers interested in information and communication technology;

* journalists from print, radio, television, and other media;

* professors and students of sociology, philosophy, law, ethics,
  computer science, and electrical engineering.


SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM:

8:00 - 9:00 AM Registration, coffee, and doughnuts
       Internet demonstration by library staff

9:00 AM  Opening and Official Welcome

9:10 AM  Professor JAY WESTON, Carleton University and the Ottawa
 Freenet:  "Old Freedoms and New Technologies:  The Evolution
 of Community Networking".

9:50 AM  Professor URSULA M. FRANKLIN, FRSC, Massey College, University of
 Toronto: "Global Gossip, Homeless Information, and the Notion of
 Public Health".

10:45 AM Break

11:00 AM HENRY SPENCER, SP Systems and University of Toronto:  "Computer
 System Administration in an Age of Uncontrolled Information Flow".

11:40 AM Professor GAILE POHLHAUS, Women's Studies and Theology and
 Religious Studies, Villanova University:  "The Use of the Internet
 as a Vehicle for Pornography - Do We Really Care?"

12:20 PM Lunch
 Internet demonstration by library staff

2:10 PM  (Keynote Address) The Honourable Mr. Justice JOHN SOPINKA,
 Canadian Supreme Court: "Freedom of Speech and the Protection of
 Privacy under the *Charter* in the Information Age".

3:05 PM  Professor MARGARET ANN WILKINSON, Faculty of Law and Graduate School
 of Library and Information Science, University of Western Ontario:
 "Perceptual Differences in Approaches to Censorship:  Information
 Intermediaries and the Implementation of Law".

3:45 PM  Break

4:00 PM  PARKER BARSS DONHAM, Political Columnist, Halifax Sunday Daily
 News and CBC Political Panellist, Nova Scotia:  "A Free and
 Unshackled Internet -- If Joseph Howe Were Designing Cyberspace".

4:40 PM  Professor Emeritus THELMA McCORMACK, Department of Sociology,
 York University:  "Must We Buy Into Technological Determinism?".

5:20 PM  Closing Remarks



CALL FOR PAPERS:

There will be a poster session for contributed papers.  Contributed
papers should be no more than 10 pages in length, and on a topic
relevant to the symposium's theme.  Submit contributed papers BEFORE
October 31, 1994 to:

Free Speech and Privacy Symposium
c/o Prof. Jeffrey Shallit
Department of Computer Science
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3G1 Canada

You will be notified of the decision by telephone, fax, or electronic
mail.



SPONSORSHIP:

The symposium is being sponsored by the Institute for Computer Research,
University of Waterloo; the Department of Computer Science, University
of Waterloo; the Dean of the Arts Faculty, University of Waterloo; and
Electronic Frontier Canada.


ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:

Prof. Harriet Lyons, Women's Studies and Anthropology,
University of Waterloo

Prof. Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of
Waterloo


GETTING THERE:

The symposium will be held at the William G. Davis Computer
Research Centre at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo,
Ontario.

Waterloo is approximately 80 minutes west of Toronto, Ontario, and
is accessible from Toronto via car, airport limousine, bus, and rail.

By Air:  The nearest airport is Toronto.  Airways Transit limousine
 serves the Waterloo area from Toronto airport.  Reservations
 must be made at least 24 hours in advance by calling
 [phone].  The regular one-way fare is $43.   There is
 a special symposium fare of $23 one-way; specify the "Free
 Speech Symposium" when making reservations, and be sure to
 have complete flight information ready when you call.

By Car:  From Detroit/Windsor/London:  take Highway 401 east.
 (*) Exit at Route 8 west.  Follow Route 8 to Route 7 east.
 Take Route 7 to 86 North, and exit at University Avenue West.
 Follow University Avenue approximately 3 km to the main
 entrance of the University (200 University Ave. West).

 From Toronto:  take Highway 401 west, and follow the
 directions beginning with (*) above.

 From Buffalo:  take the QEW to Highway 403 West.  Exit the
 403 at Highway 6 North.  Take Highway 6 North to the 401
 West, and follow the directions beginning with (*) above.

By Bus:  From Toronto:  Kitchener is served by Greyhound Bus Service;
 about 10 buses a day, each direction.  For schedule
 information, call [phone].

 From London:  Kitchener is served by Cha-co Trails; about
 3 buses a day, each direction.    For schedule information,
 call [phone].

 Once at the Kitchener bus terminal, Kitchener Transit runs
 buses every 10-30 minutes to the University of Waterloo.
 Take buses 7D or 8B from the terminal.  Travel time is
 approximately 25 minutes.

By Rail: VIA rail has infrequent service to Kitchener from Chicago/London
 and Toronto.  For schedule information, contact them at
 [phone] (Ontario only).


ACCOMMODATIONS:

Symposium attendees should make their own hotel reservations.

The Waterloo Inn (475 King St. North, Waterloo) has reserved
a block of rooms for the symposium until October 26, at the
special symposium rate of $70 (CDN) for a single room and $76
for a double room.  Contact them at [phone], and specify
the "block ID Free100".

Other hotels/motels reasonably near the Waterloo campus include:

* Destination Inn, 547 King St. North, Waterloo,
  [phone].  Single $53, Double $63.

* Comfort Inn, 190 Weber St. North, Waterloo,
  [phone].  Request the corporate rate of
  Single $60, Double $69.

* Best Western Walper Terrace Hotel, 1 King St. West,
  Kitchener, [phone].  Near Kitchener Bus
  Terminal.  Request the corporate rate of Single
  $69, Double $69.


REGISTRATION:


Last Name:   ____________________   First Name: ___________________

Organization:  ____________________________________________________

Address:       ____________________________________________________

City:   ___________________    Province/State:   __________________

Postal Code: _______________   Country:   _________________________

Phone: _____________________   Fax:    ____________________________

E-mail: ___________________________________________________________


Registration fees:

Before October 31   After October 31
StudentCDN $20 / US $16        CDN $30 / US $24
GeneralCDN $75 / US $60        CDN $90 / US $72

Registration fee includes admission to all sessions, Internet
demonstration, lunch, two coffee breaks, copies of printed
material, and GST.  (GST No. = R119260685)

Registration payment:

If paying by cheque, please make cheque out to "University of
Waterloo", payable in either US or Canadian Funds, and mail to:

"Free Speech and Privacy Symposium"
c/o Wendy Rush
Department of Computer Science
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3G1
Canada

You can also use a credit card.  Please provide the following
information:

Card name (Visa, Mastercard, or American Express):
Card number:
Expiry date:
Amount (Specify in Canadian dollars ONLY):
Cardholder's Name (please print):

Cardholder's Signature: ___________________________________________



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Contact Wendy Rush at [phone] ext. 3688, or Jeffrey
Shallit at [phone].  Fax inquiries can be sent to
[phone].  E-mail inquiries can be sent to:

[e-mail]

On the Internet, you can get a copy of this program by
typing "finger [e-mail]".

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 21:18:54 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Reaffirming Life through an Online Death

kj died.
On August 21, about 10:30 p.m.
Kathleen Johnston was a nudge shy of 50, rather lonely and unhappy.
Brilliant, articulate, and rather shy in person, she was a dynamic
extrovert online.  Her health prevented her from applying her
Wellesley background and an M.A. and Ph.d in physical sciences toward
a full-time professional career.  So, in her final years, she immersed
herself in The Well, the bay area electronic community populated by
equally bright and articulate folk.  There, she made friends, found
foes, provoked, nurtured, challenged, baited, and both earned respect
and generated animosity from those she encountered.  What made kj's
death different from most deaths was that, when she was no longer able
to participate fully on The Well, she wrote her own death notice, a
simple statement, and posted it in the Well's obituary topic on June
25.

      Kathleen Johnston. September 29, 1945 - July or August, 1994.

      The days are dwindling, as is my energy, so I won't be around to
      correct your copious errors in logic. It's been fun.

      Of metastatic cancer.

      kj

      &;-)

kj's post generated scores of immediate responses, and a second topic
was opened. Nearly 400 additional posters offered their poems,
sympathy, and tear-stained well-wishes.  Almost 300 more appeared
immediately after her death. The event drew media attention:

In his ONLINE column in the San Francisco Chronicle (1 Sept, '94:  THE
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/1/94 "Death Leaves Well Bewildered")
Robert Rossney observed:

     That kj's death is famous now was just luck.  Two years
     ago, or two years hence, she could have died just like
     anyone else, without making the papers.

     But right now what happens online is new and different.
     That an ordinary citizen named Kathleen Johnston should die
     of cancer is not fodder for Time and the Washington Post.
     But that kj on the WELL should die -- and that her death
     provoke the online response that it did -- that makes news.
     We're just beginning to get a handle on the idea of living
     online, after a decade or so of making it up as we go along.
     This inevitably includes deciding, in the chaotic way that
     collective decisions get made online, how we are going to
     respond to death.

     The thing is, we just don't know what to do.  Americans have
     always tended to improvise.  This works for things like
     technology, marketing, or statecraft.  But it serves us
     poorly where death is concerned.

Time Magazine (5 Sept, '94: p. 18) was more straight-forward:

               CHRONICLES: WELL-WISHERS ON THE INTERNET

     Is cyberspace as cold and anonymous as it is reputed to be?
     Members of the WELL, a San Francisco-based computer bulletin
     board, recently found out. On June 29, Adele Framer, who
     calls herself tigereye, posted a message:  "Kathleen
     Johns((t))on -- kj -- on the WELL, who's housebound in the
     final stages of cancer, could use a little help with light
     meals once or twice a week." The following are excerpts from the
     exchange that followed. KJ herself is noticeably absent.  She was
     in no shape to take part in a message board.

The Time piece added 17 posts believed to typify the spirit of the
discussion.

But, the media, I think, missed the real story. kj's was much more
than a death around which a community commiserated electronically.
This should not be a story about posts. It's a story of people coming
together, sharing experiences, grieving, squabbling, learning, and
growing.  The real story is that the electronic medium, while
certainly of value in helping a stunned community cope with the grief
of losing one of their own through an E-death watch, provided the
means to reach out more tangibly to kj. And, more importantly, to
reach out to each other.

The real story is how one woman devoted her energy to organizing
meals and assuring that kj would be cared for. How a male, often in
mortal online combat with kj, visited her and together in her final
days experienced a mutual growth and understanding.  How others, who
fought with kj in public, were uneasy about participating in the
online or physical events prior to the death.  It's about the
rallying, about the phone calls, about the supportive e-mail sent to
kj, about the visits at home. It's about friends, acquaintances and
strangers visiting in the hospice in the final days, comforting her,
reading to her, holding her hand.

Most of all, the story is not about death, it's about life.  It's
about how online antagonists recognize their own demons and with pain
and self-reflection confront them. It's about how friends and
strangers give of themselves in ways that transcend the ASCII world in
which they normally meet. It's about the courage to make peace, the
sacrifice of care-giving, the shared community of grieving.

Most of all, the story is about how the electronic medium brings
people together, face-to-face, heart-to-heart, even in death.  The
media saw and reported only ASCII, and made invisible the mandala
that gave it soul.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 9-1-94)

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

To SUBSCRIBE, send a one-line message:  SUB CUDIGEST  your name
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST your name

Send it to [e-mail] or [e-mail]
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

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 [phone] (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) [phone].
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:   from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
          In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: [phone]
          In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  +32.69.45.51.77 (ringdown)

  UNITED STATES:  etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8)  in /pub/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  ftp.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  coast.cs.purdue.edu, /pub/mirrors/ftp.eff.org/
                  uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)

  JAPAN:          ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/ (DOWN TEMP)

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 #6.79
************************************