home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- 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
- ************************************
-
-