The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

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

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / cud / cud542.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 36.0 KB | 816 lines

Newsgroups: comp.society.cu-digest Path: vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!chinacat!not-for-mail From: Cu-Digest <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu> Subject: Cu Digest, #5.42 [repost] Reply-To: tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu Organization: the Computer Underground Digest gateway Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 23:32:17 GMT Approved: usenet@chinacat.unicom.com (mail-to-news gateway) Message-ID: <1993Jun24.233217.3449@chinacat.unicom.com> Sender: usenet@chinacat.unicom.com (mail-to-news gateway) Lines: 803 [Note: I have been told that issues 42 and 43 might have been lost during the recent gateway outage. This is a repost of issue 42. -chip] Computer underground Digest Wed June 10 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 42 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Copy Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Seniur CONTENTS, #5.42 (June 10 1993) File 1--UPDATE #11-AB1624: Passed the Assembly, More to Do! File 2--Rusty and Edies's: More Information File 3--Timeline for a Network History File 4--Re: Fingerprinting Welfare Recipients in CA File 5--Call for Papers for Feminist Theory & Technoculture Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115. 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 DL0 and DL12 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 the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG WHQ) 203-832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy 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: +39-461-980493 ANONYMOUS FTP SITES: UNITED STATES: ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /pub/CuD/cud halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD. EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:03:36 -0700 From: Jim Warren <jwarren@WELL.SF.CA.US> Subject: File 1--UPDATE #11-AB1624: Passed the Assembly, More to Do! Monday, June 7, 1993 *YOU* CAN DO SOMETHING! YOU *CAN* MAKE A DIFFERENCE! The *only* thing that forced AB1624 out of Burton's Rules Committee, and the *only* thing that has moved it forward has been the flood of LETTERS, FAXES and PHONE CALLS from individuals and organizations urging its passage. This contains: 1. Summary/specifics of what's happened, to date. 2. Next steps in running the legislative gauntlet. 3. What you can do that is NEEDED and EFFECTIVE. 4. Contact information for essential State Senators - needing action, now. WHAT'S HAPPENED, SO FAR 3/4, AB1624 was introduced by bill-author Debra Bowen, mandating public access but giving no implementation or cost details. 4/19, the Assembly Rules Committee Chaired by John Burton (D-San Francisco) decided to be the first committee to hear the bill - a brief hearing ending with Burton asking for implementation details. 5/4, through Bowen, I submitted a 16-page implementation plan for free distribution via the nonprofit, nonproprietary public Internet (gatewayed to Fidonet and Majornet BBSs, CompuServe, GEnie, Delphi, MCImail, Bitnet, etc.). 5/18, Bowen amended the bill (Update #10) to mandate control/fees for service providers that charge if they "republish or otherwise duplicate" these public records, a fee mandate she felt was essential to get the bill out of Rules. 5/24, after five postponements, Rules reheard the bill passing it, 8 to 0 (Barbara Lee [D-Alameda] was absent, in Africa). KEY ISSUES: Burton sought testimony from Legi-Tech and State Net, the two largest current buyers and resellers of the data. Although they had just hired a leading lobbyist to work against the bill, they didn't publicly oppose this public access; said they just wanted to protect their current access (they apparently get the data before it's printed for the public). Most other committee members focused on opposing the newly-added fee requirement. Burton had wanted the fee requirement, but said it could be deleted in the Senate. Bowen said she'd just as soon delete it, right then. Burton *heatedly* responded that he'd just as soon that she *not* - that it could be deleted in the Senate. *IMPORTANT*: Burton said he wanted the bill to return to his Rules Committee after the Senate finished with it. He can still kill it. 6/3, the Assembly Ways & Means Committee chaired by John Vasconsellos (D-Santa Clara) passed it as amended May 18th, 21 to 0 - even though the Legislative Counsel estimated it would cost $50,000 to implement (7 to 10 times what I and several network experts had estimated). 6/7 at 2:21 p.m., the full Assembly passed the bill 72 to 0, in its May 18th amended form that retains the fee requirement. (It's officially 78 to 0; legislators can change their vote later, as long as the result's unchanged. Jus' one of those little legislative rules.) NEXT STEPS Bill-author Bowen is amending the bill to (1) remove the fee and use controls, (2) limit legislative monitoring of individuals requesting legislative data, (3) assure *timely* public access, and (4) make clear that information is to be distributed [at least] via the Internet. There is no *official* opposition to the bill, to date. However, the [unelected] Legislative Counsel and [unelected] Assembly Chief Administrative Officer have clearly opposed it, and Legi-Tech and State Net are known to be "working the halls" against it. Experienced observers also predict that the [unelected] Chief Executive Officer of the Senate, Cliff Berg, will also fight it, but predict he will do it almost-entirely behind the scenes. YOU CAN ... 1. Write Bowen's office *and* your representatives, as an INDIVIDUAL. 2. Write or fax as a BUSINESS or ORGANIZATION, if you're its decision-maker. 3. Urge your company or organization to write or fax their support. 4. Urge your city council, county supervisors, school boards, city attorney, public defender, district attorney, county clerk, water district, parks district, etc., to write or fax their support, so *they* can have online, timely, economical access to legislation impacting *them*. 5. Write [brief!] letters to the editor of daily and weekly newspapers. 6. Call the Editorial Page Editor and/or Editor of your newspaper - they *should* be interested in public access to public records. 7. San Franciscans: *Please* contact John Burton, a *key,* hesitant vote: Hon. John Burton, State Capitol, Room 3152, voice: 916-445-8253 And copy your comments to Hon. Willie Brown, Room 219, Sacramento CA 95814 Write your Assembly Member and your State Senator. State your support and reasons - in one page or less. *Especially* important: Send copies to: Hon. Debra Bowen, State Capitol, Room 3126, Sacramento CA 95814 voice: 916-445-8528, fax: 916-327-2201 [faxes are welcomed]. NOTE: Some legislators discard letters and faxes from anyone outside of their districts. They rarely pass them along to bill-author Bowen. (And remember, they have your district voter registration record available at the touch of a keyboard - part of the Legislature's online systems.) ARE THESE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES? At least one or two State Senate committees will hear the bill, after these new amendments. These are the Senate committees most likely to hear it next [mail to: Sen. XXX, State Capitol, Room XXXX, Sacramento CA 95814]. room: area 916: 916-fax#: RULES COMMITTEE ----- --------- --------- David Roberti, Chair (D-Van Nuys) 0205 445-8390 Ruben Ayala (D-Chinio) 5108 445-6868 445-0128 Robert Beverly (R-Long Beach) 5082 445-6447 William Craven (R-Oceanside) 3070 445-3731 Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland) 5080 445-6577 [Rules Committee Executive Officer: Cliff Berg] GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION Ralph Dills, Chair (D-Gardena) 5050 445-5953 Alfred Alquist (D-San Jose) 5100 445-9740 Robert Beverly (R-Long Beach) 5082 445-6447 Leroy Greene (D-Carmichael) 2082 445-7807 Frank Hill (R-Whittier) 5064 445-2848 Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles) 4090 445-2104 445-3712 Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) 2032 445-6671 447-2559 Kennery Maddy (R-Fresno) 0305 445-9600 Henry Mello (D-Watsonville) 0313 445-5843 Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) 4070 445-7928 Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) 2080 445-3456 444-0581 Democracy means we have a voice. *Effective* democracy means we use it. <Please copy, post and circulate widely and quickly.> ------------------------------ From: mriddle@UNL.EDU(mike riddle) Subject: File 2--Rusty and Edies's: More Information Date: 10 Jun 1993 14:55:11 GMT * Original Area: Bbslaw (Fido) * Original From: Ken Smiley * Original To : All +////////////////Quoted message follows////////////////////////////// A number of times Rusty and Edie's BBS has been brought up here with a number of people saying "I think they got what they deserved" etc. Well I decided to do some research into the matter and want to let some of you out there know some facts that I can relate, there are some I cannot at this point, but will relate when I am allowed to do so. First off, R&E was receiving about 40-50 MEGS of new files daily at the time their system was raided. I think you will agree that it is hard for someone to check out all 40-50 megs of these files to determine if they were commercial or not. In fact, many files were uploaded, commented, and downloaded before the sysops had a chance to inspect them. This may not be the "safest" way to run a BBS, in other words some sysops don't allow users to D/L a file until the sysop has checked it out first. I would have to agree that I couldn't check 40-50 Megs of files per day, nor would I want to unless someone was paying me a lot of $$$ and even then I don't know if I could. R&E was carrying tens of thousands of files online. When the warrant was issued (and the warrant is on public record so I can talk about it) the authorities included a nearly 200 page list of files with the warrant. Among that 200 pages were 2 files underlined that were of commercial nature and that the authorities felt were enough to go after the system. Was the raid carried out properly? According to the Steve Jackson games case handed down, NO. Is the government still in violation by keeping R&E's equipment without copying the allegedly illegal items and returning the equipment? Probably yes from what I have seen. I hope to have the complete text of the warrant available soon so that I can post it. I can also relate that R&E aren't going to take this sitting down, they have some people on their side. I can also relate that R&E were subsequently smeared by a couple of people after the raid took place. I believe R&E could have a defamation case against a number of people, and in my opinion could successful pursue that in court. I have seen messages were people have said "Oh I sent email to the sysops that they had commercial programs online and they never responded". I do not know if this is true or not in any specific instance, but I do know that on some days R&E sysops got over 100 pieces of email a day. I don't know if I could sit through reading that much either. This may be a prime case of a system getting to large to handle without more bodies, but I don't know that for sure, only a possible explanation. I would like to keep the discussion of R&E's BBS to a factual level. If you have specific questions I can consult with the powers that be and see if I can get you some sort of answer. If you have specific factual information about the situation that you can back up, I would be more than happy to hear it and to keep a record of it for trial should this case continue through the trial stages. Finally, I would like to state that it is SAFE to call R&E's BBS, your lines are not being monitored, the FBI won't be showing up at your door, and if you had email intercepted by the authorities previously, or in the future, the Steve Jackson games case would seem to say that if you join in the suit, you are entitled to at LEAST $1000 in statutory damages from the government. As has been pointed out here time and time again, I think many sysops may be unaware of when they could incur legal liability for a number of actions, I am by no means judging R&E's case, but I would like to ask that others don't judge it as well, especially those who are feeding on rumors. Recipients of this message have my permission to repost and or retransmit this message on other echos and or networks. Ken :) --- GEcho 1.00+ * Origin: =(Energy)= "The Capacity for Vigorous Activity" (1:374/17) +//////////////////End Quoted Message///////////////////////////// [Ken Smiley is a Kansas attorney and author of BBSLAW*, the online guide to BBS law. I have no financial interest in his product. This message is for general discussion purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 93 13:36:37 CDT From: stan kulikowski ii <STANKULI@UWF.BITNET> Subject: File 3--Timeline for a Network History Since a number of you have requested my fragmentary timeline for networking history, I have provided what I have below. I would appreciate any comments, especially corrections or additions. I know there are massive parts of netdom missing, such as.... - the references to the development of UNIX I thought would lead to the intro of UUCP and then USENET newsfeeds. but I have nothing on them yet. - I would like to include more on commercial services. I ran across a mention of vint cerf working on MCImail, but I believe that compuserve and sprintmail also joined internet at least as email datagram stub gateways about the same time. in general I would like to include startup dates of more visible commercial services (bix, genie, prodigy, etc) and when they join the internet club. I roughly remember when compuserve joined. america online and delphi did just a few months ago. delphi (i think) is the first pay-for-play available to the common joe in the general public that offers tcp/ip at a reasonable cost-- I am told $3/mo for 10M throughput (not data storage). - I would like more information on european networks. I was given email address of the janet liaison in uk, but they did not reply. I have found a repository of network summaries for some 3rd world countries, but little or nothing on europe. - bbs development and grassroot networks like fidonet and frednet deserve some recognition. I have some stuff about fidonet, but there are bbs I remember from years ago (like toad's hall) and some of these are still around. - I would include more on the underground-- like the legion of doom and the first viruses. I suspect ftp.eff.com has stuff like that but I have not had the time to snoop around there yet. well, you are welcome to my little scholarship here. I would appreciate any anecdotes of personal memories and observations of network activities. it these which make histories interesting rather than just regurgitation of mechanical dates. stan stankuli@UWF.bitnet . === we all help each other get a little further down the road, : : or be damned for the fools that we are. --- -- the motorcycle modificationist's motto ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Backbone Timelines early work 1964 Paul Baran, RAND Corp study survivability of multiplex data units and mesh networks vs. star topologies 1965 Donald Davie, National Physical Lab, UK packetizing data for storage and forwarding 1967 Larry Roberts, MIT Lincoln Labs writes RFP for ARPA ARPANET 0.56 Mbps Jul 1968 ARPA RFP packet-switched computer network Dec 1968 first contract to BBN for equip and software 2 Sep 1969 IMP1 Interface Message Processor starts UCLA 4 Honeywell 316 minicomputers at UCLA to SRI Dec 1969 then UCSB, Utah 1969 Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, Bell Labs UNIX operating system Larry Roberts writes first email prog as TECO macro For a decade grew at rate 1 new host every 20 days 1970-71 Norman Abrahamson, Univ Hawaii, develops ALOHA net 1970-72 Robert Metcalf and David Boggs, Xerox Parc develop Ethernet LAN Apr 1971 23 hosts on ARPANET PRNET, Packet Radio NET, SAC and 18th Airborne 1972 dial up services for remote terminals May 1974 Cerf and Kahn begin work on TCP/IP protocols Jun 1974 62 hosts on ARPANET 1975 DARCOM MsgGroup, one of first mailing lists 1975 AT&T aggressively licenses UNIX to universities 1976 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) Mar 1977 111 hosts on ARPANET 1980 CSNET founded by NSF, 200 hosts 15 countries May 1981 BITNET supported by IBM, first CUNY and Yale 1981 BSD version 4.1 Berkeley UNIX 1982 Lax Report funded by NSF and DDN Dec 1982 MCImail starts ARPANET-AUTODIN shootout ?? 1983 ARPANET/MILNET split the great FINGER controversy ?? Black Tuesday: 1st global routing failure early 80s Gateway Wars ?? 1985 routing gridlocks Oct 1985 most ARPANET users shunted into T1 NSFNET Jun 1990 last nodes closed, ARPANET fully decommissioned INTERNET T1 connections (1.5 Mbps) (not really a backbone) Sep 1981 IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP protocols 1985-86 NSF funds 5 supercomputer centers, form T1 backbone 1987 BITNET and CSNET merge to form CERN 1 Nov 1988 Internet worm Dec 1992 turn off T1 circuits Dec 1992 NSFNET T3 connections (45 Mbps) 1988 Merit wins $14M-20M grant from NSF Merit subcontracts to ANS ANS run by Merit and MCI ($6M) and IBM ($10M) Michigan contributes ($5M) Jul 1988 T3 came online, actual costs to NSF $28M May 1989 1 billion packets per month May 1990 3.15 billion packets per month May 1991 7.56 billion packets per month PSInet absorbs NYSERNET obtains commercial access May 1992 14.9 billion packets per month Feb 1993 26 billion packets per month 1993 America Online provides Internet access NREN target 1996, 3Gbps (3000 Mbps) 24 Jun 1986 Albert Gore (D-TN) introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986 Jul 1986 Cleveland Freenet begins, 500 logins per day 20 Nov 1987 OSTP report to Congress 18 May 1989 S 1067 High-Performance Computing Act introduced Bush administration resist HPC and NREN FrEdMail grassroots volunteer K-12 BBS network Apr 1990 CNRI $15.8M for gigabit testbeds 1990 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Mitch Kapor May 1991 TENET Texas Educational Net, K-12 joins Internet 1991 Congressional bills S272 and HR 656 High Performance Computing and NREN Act of 1991 1992 NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 3,210 lines, 136,943 bytes ftp nic.merit.edu cd nren get nrencongr.txt ======================================================================== MIscellaneous support material Date: Wed 1 Nov 1988 23:38 PCT From: Peter Yee To: Internet TCP-IP mailing list "We are currently under attack from an Internet Virus." ------------------------------------------------ Date Hosts (month num) SEP 81 213 1 MAY 82 235 9 SEP 83 562 25 OCT 84 1,024 38 OCT 85 1,961 50 FEB 86 2,308 54 NOV 86 5,089 63 DEC 87 28,174 76 JUL 88 33,000 83 OCT 88 56,000 87 JAN 89 80,000 90 JUL 89 130,000 96 OCT 89 159,000 99 OCT 90 313,000 111 JAN 91 376,000 114 JUL 91 535,000 120 OCT 91 617,000 123 JAN 92 727,000 126 M. Lottor (1992) Internet Growth (1981-1991) ------------------------------------------------ NSFnet monthly reports: ftp nic.merit.edu cd /nsfnet/engineering.reports see Inspector General NSF Review of NSFNET ftp nic.merit.edu cd nsfnet get ig.report -------------------------------------------- Figure NSFNET Packet Traffic History -------------------------------------------- Current network problems: Gross and Almquist (1992) 1. Class B IP Number exhaustion - NSFnet routing database has doubled ever 12 months for last several years. - current Class B IP nums will run out in late 1994 at this rate - will run out of IP network nums before host nums. 2. Routing table explosion - limits in high-end router memory 16000 routes max will exceed this early 1994. - plans to ship new routers 64000 routes max adequate to 1996. - human operators eventually will be unable to configure routing tables and monitor traffic. --------------------------------------------------------- <NIC.MERIT.EDU> /nren/INDEX.nren 26 February 1993 Merit Network Information Center Services NIC.MERIT.EDU FTP.MERIT.EDU FTP.MICHNET.NET NIS.NSF.NET (35.1.1.48) Merit's Network Information Center host computer, accessible via anonymous FTP, contains a wide array of information about the Internet, NSFNET, and MichNet. The /nren directory is devoted to governmental activity pertaining to the National Research and Education Network. clinton.1993/ President Clinton's Technology Initiative of 1993. hearing.12mar92/ Testimony given on March 12, 1992, to the House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology pertaining to management of the NSFNET. hpca.1991/ House and Senate activity leading to passage in 1991 of The High Performance Computing Act. iita.1992/ House and Senate activity relating to The Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. net92.boucher.txt Remarks of Congressman Fred Boucher (D-VA) before the National Net '92 Conference. 418 lines, 24,065 bytes Mar 1992 nrencongr.ps NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology PostScript, 60 pages, 388,488 bytes Dec 1992 nrencongr.txt NREN Program - Report to Congress, issued by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 3,210 lines, 136,943 bytes 1992 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- References P Gross and P Almquist (1992) IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd rfc get rfc1380.txt. D P Dern (1989) The ARPANET is Twenty: What We Have Learned and the Fun We Had; _ConneXions The Interoperability Report_ vol 3 no 10 p 2-9. D Estrin, Y Rekhter and S Hotz (1992) A Unified Approach to Inter-Domain Routing; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd rfc get rfc1322.txt. J A Hart, R R Reed and F Bar (1992) The Building of the Internet; _Telecommunications Policy_ pp 666-689. M Lottor (1992) Internet Growth (1981-1991) anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd rfc get rfc1296.txt. Office of Inspector General National Science Foundation (1993) Review of NSFNET; anonymous ftp nic.merit.edu (35.1.1.48) cd nsfnet get ig.report. Z Wang and J Crowcroft (1992) A Two-Tier Address Structure for the Internet: A Solution to the Problem of Address Space Exhaustion; anonymous ftp ftp.nisc.sri.com (192.33.33.22) cd rfc get rfc1335.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 23:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: ims@thunder-island.kalamazoo.mi.us Subject: File 4--Re: Fingerprinting Welfare Recipients in CA In response to Jim Davis's comments on computerized finger-printing of wellfare recipients in California (CuD 5.41), I'd like to make the following comments: >THE SYSTEM IS UNNECESSARY. That depends on who you are and what your interests in the matter are. Insurance companies put all kinds of restrictions on your behavior when you voluntarily sign their contracts, don't they? It's not only necessary for them to do so, it's imperative. It protects their losses. >AFIRM'S USE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY DSS. Maybe, maybe not. But it's irrelevant. DSS can lawfully implement any measures they care to, and the recipients have no recourse except attempting to change the written legislation. That's what happens to folks who waive Rights at Law, and accept Privileges (the proverbial "mess o' pottage"). >AFIRM IS FRAUGHT WITH RISKS TO GA RECIPIENTS. What's there to risk? They already gave up their chance to defend themselves in court. If you bend over, expect to get porked. If you go around giving everyone your name and address, expect to get a few letter bombs along with the valentines and neat CD club memberships. And if you go around telling everyone everything there is to know about you, don't be surprised when that information is copied a few thousand times and ends up available to anyone with the curiosity to look. This is the digital age. I doubt that anyone reading CuD isn't already aware of the implications, even if they haven't followed them all to their logical conclusions. >DSS has assured the Mayor's office that AFIRM fingerprint >information will not be shared with police agencies. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that line -- or any similar "assurance" from a government or quasi-government official -- deserves everything they get. >...the line between social services and law enforcement is >becoming increasingly blurred. This might be due, at least in part, to the increasing amount of fraud within the system which necessitates criminal investigation and penalties. >"Unofficial" use of the data poses additional problems. Data >stored on a computer is much more prone to unauthorized >duplication, modification, and transmission than its low-tech >counterparts...Does DSS have a computer security policy? Who will >have access to the fingerprint information? What audit trail will be maintained regarding changes to data on the system? As I said, we all know that these things happen. So WHY DO WE KEEP ON GIVING THE INFORMATION AWAY, WHEN WE KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? WHY DO WE GIVE OUR SANCTION? When you do something of your own free will, you lose your right to complain, unless you can show that you were unaware of all the ramifications at the time of your agreement. Information databases are growing at enormous rates because of the growing desire of government and business to know as much as possible about everyone, true. But the blame lies equally with anyone who has never asked, "Well, what are you going to do to me if I don't tell you?" "What are you going to do to me if I don't sign?" Not very many people care enough about their privacy to go to the trouble of protecting it. If you don't exercise Rights, you'll end up not having any. Big Brother may be here, but he didn't come totally unannounced -- or uninvited. >AFIRM IS AN AFFRONT TO ANYONE ON WELFARE. > >The AFIRM system is based on a presumption of guilt. That is, >unless you confirm your innocence of not double-dipping, you are >assumed to be guilty of it. This contravenes a basic >constitutional principle. Sorry, but there isn't any Constitutional issue in question here. Those accepting Privileges from the State are Wards of the State, and have only the rights a child has in regard to its parents -- i.e., whatever the parent chooses to magnaminously bestow. Rights aren't something other people can give you. If people are truly concerned about their Rights, they need to stop accepting Privileges, and educate themselves as to what the law in this country says their rights truly are. >But why stop the program there? Anyone receiving any kind of >government support, from social security to veterans benefits to >income tax deductions could be equally culpable of defrauding the >government. Why not fingerprint them before providing support. >Who knows where it would end? This is a bad precedent being >tested on a vulnerable group of San Franciscans. It could very well come to pass, if people don't quit signing everything away. Of course, there will always be some ornery folks out there who won't want any part of it. >AFIRM SENDS A FALSE MESSAGE ABOUT WELFARE. > >It shouldn't need to bear repeating, but being poor is not a >crime. [Momentary break from computers and privacy to make a point] No. But using the gun of government to extort monies from unwilling third parties is most certainly a crime. Yet the government has enacted laws that do this. I don't begrudge anyone for being poor, but I most certainly object to their stealing from me. If they were to ask for my help, without threatening, my reaction would be quite different. Not all laws apply to all people. If you want to protect yourself to the fullest extent, educate yourself about Status and how to change it. >Requiring fingerprinting for receiving benefits reinforces an >all-too-common perception of criminality. This is a divisive >message to send to San Franciscans about General Assistance. If someone wants to convince me that their intentions aren't criminal, they shouldn't go asking the government to put a gun to my head and say, "Your money, or your life." I am not saying people in need should be ignored. But I resent being threatened, no matter how noble the purpose is claimed to be. I'll conclude by repeating the golden rule: ANY RIGHT NOT DEMANDED TIMELY IS ASSUMED WAIVED. In other words, if someone is violating your Rights, and you don't warn them to cease and desist or face a lawsuit, you'd better have a darn good reason if you eventually take it to trial. You might have been unaware of what your Rights were, at the time. Or you might have been intimidated by threats. But if you're not interested in claiming and exercising Rights, go ahead and waive them. Just don't be surprised when the rest of the world doesn't automatically follow you. An informed populace is far more dangerous than an angry mob, because it presents the opportunity for genuine, lasting, peaceful change for the better. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:39 CDT From: <BOEHLEFELD@WISCSSC.BITNET> Subject: File 5--Call for Papers for Feminist Theory & Technoculture From--EUNICE::"lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu" 27-MAY-1993 14:12:27.14 CALL FOR PAPERS PANEL: Feminist theory and Technoculture CONFERENCE: Northeast Modern Language Association (NEMLA) DATE: April 8 & 9, 1994 PLACE: Pittsburgh, PA This panel will address a variety of feminist theories (poststructuralist, Marxist, Gender and Sexuality Studies, ecofeminism, etc.) as they respond to the problems and possibilities of the culture of technology. Topics include (but are not limited to) the Internet (incl. bbs, lists, email, electronic conferences, MUSHES, MUDS, etc); television, telephone, fax and other electronic media; and technoliterature. Send inquiries to lxh16@po.cwru.edu Send abstracts and papers by September 1 to Prof. Lila Hanft Dept. of English 11112 Bellflower Rd. Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH 44106-7117 Please cross-post this call for papers to relevant discussion groups. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #5.42 ************************************ -- Chip Rosenthal 512-447-0577 | I'm going out where the lights don't shine so Unicom Systems Development | bright. When I get back you can treat me like <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | a Saturday night. -Jimmie Dale Gilmore