The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud712.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 38.9 KB | 854 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Feb 12, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 12
                           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
       Copi Editor:       E. T.  NaShrdlu

CONTENTS, #7.12 (Sun, Feb 12, 1995)

File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314)
File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd)
File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international
File 4--Defamation in cyberspace
File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd)
File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd)
File 7--Cu In The News
File 8--Conferences that may be of interest
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)

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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 15:04:19 -0500 (EST)
From: slowdog <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314)

If Sen. Exon's bill passes, this will be the text of the law. Items in
[brackets] are the portions that are being deleted or changed. The text
itself that is not within these brackets is how the law will look.

Comments to follow.

   47 USC Sec. 223

   TITLE 47
   CHAPTER 5
   SUBCHAPTER II


   Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of
   Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] Obscene or
   harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and facilities
   in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
   communications


   (a) Prohibited acts generally

   Whoever -

   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
   communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications
   device -

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
   makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment,
   request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication]
   which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation
   ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to
   annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called
   number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
   device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues,
   without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse,
   threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
   receives the communication;

   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
   continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
   called number; or

   (D) [makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
   ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]
   makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates
   communication with a telecommunications device, during which
   comversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any
   person at the called number of who receives the communication;
   or

   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility
   under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this
   section, shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or
   imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both.

   (b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution

   (1) Whoever knowingly -

   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone],
   telecommunications device makes (directly or by recording device)
   any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
   regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the
   call] placed the call or initiated the conversation; or

   (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such
   person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by
   subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or
   imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

   (2) Whoever knowingly -

   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone, makes]
   by means of telecommunications device, makes, knowingly
   transmits, or knowingly makes available (directly or by recording
   device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is
   available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person
   without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of
   such communication [placed the call] placed the call or
   initiated the communication; or

   (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such
   person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph
   (A), shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not
   more than [six months] 2 years, or both.

   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
   subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
   communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
   with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
   Commission may prescribe by regulation.

   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
   within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or

   (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than [$50,000]
   $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
   day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
   and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
   or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than [$50,000]
   $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
   day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either -

   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
   any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
   Commission for such purposes, or

   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
   proceedings.

   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
   district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
   which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
   in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   (c) Restriction on access to subscribers by common carriers;
   judicial remedies respecting restrictions

   (1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within
   any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the
   extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication
   specified in subsection (b) of this section from the [telephone]
   telecommunications device of any subscriber who has not previously
   requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such
   communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable
   charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in
   part, to the provider of such communication.

   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
   be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
   carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
   directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
   account of -

   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
   faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
   subsection; or

   (B) any access permitted -

   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any
   representation by a provider of communications that
   communications provided by that provider are communications
   specified in subsection (b) of this section, or

   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did
   not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient
   period to restrict access to restrict access to communications
   described in subsection (b) of this section.

   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
   of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
   pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
   for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
   action shall be limited to the question of whether the
   communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the
   category of communications to which the carrier will provide access
   only to subscribers who have previously requested such access.

                     ===========================


>    (a) Prohibited acts generally
>
>    Whoever -
>
>    (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
>    communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications
>    device -
>
>    (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
>    makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment,
>    request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication]
>    which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

Here's an important bit. "Transmits or otherwise makes available" is
different from the earlier law. It DOES pleace a burden of responsibility
upon the provider of service. NOTE that unlike other portions of the law,
boths old and new versions, this part DOES NOT include the word
"knowingly". Crucial, crucial point.

>    (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation
>    ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to
>    annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called
>    number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
>    device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues,
>    without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse,
>    threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
>    receives the communication;

No anonymous annoying! Does this mean we can't raid IRC channels anymore?
Or flame people from anon.petit.fi (sp?) accounts?

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

Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 22:44:32 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd)

               ---------- Forwarded message ----------
[e-mail] (Jason Gull)
Date--4 Feb 1995 20:14:29 GMT

The local (Ann Arbor, MI) paper ran a story yesterday regarding a
sophomore at the University of Michigan (whose name is Baker, I believe)
who was expelled yesterday (or Thursday) as a result of a story he
"transmitted on the Internet."

The story the student wrote apparently involved the brutal rape and
torture of a woman.  The name of the woman in the story is also the
name of another student on campus, which seems to have been the spark
that got the kid kicked out.  The story seems to have been in one of
the alt.sex USENET groups, because according to the paper, the story
was first brought to the attention of University officials by an
alumnus  -- an attorney in Moscow who just happened to spot the story
on USENET.  The irony of the fact that this morality-policeman in
Moscow was scouring the alt.sex groups is apparently lost on the Ann
Arbor News.

What is truly frightening, and deserving of more coverage in the news,
is that the FBI is now investigating this kid, and an agent in the
local FBI office has officially stated that they're contemplating
federal obscenity charges against him.  Remember, this isn't
pictures/video he's accused of sending, it's purely text.  (Raunchy,
disgusting text, I'm sure, but plain 'ol ASCII).

Anyone have any other news on this?  (I'll post more when I find it.)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 14:41:02 -0500
From: [e-mail](Greg Boyd)
Subject: File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international

>Date:    Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:47:24 -0600
>Subject--Re: Libel & Defamation in the Information Age
>
>Several clarifications are needed and will, I think,
>ease people's minds abit.
>
>Eric Eden  [e-mail]  wrote, in part:
...
>> Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove
>> you damaged their reputation or good name with false information.
>
>Absolutely right.  It is the _plaintiff_ who must prove that a
>wrong has been
>done.  See further mention below.

Of course, this discussion is based on American libel law. The Net,
however, is accessible from countries with different rules.

In Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, the customary burden of
proof shifts in  defamation cases; if someone sues a newspaper for
libel in Canada, the lawyers *for the paper* must show that the
reporter and editors did no wrong -- one result of this is that the
defence of truth is used sparingly, since it necessitates providing a
legal proof of every word in a newspaper story. Libel trials are
extremely rare in Canada, perhaps because the expense of legally
proving a piece of journalism runs into the hundreds of thousands of
dollars. In addition, countries that use British common law
principles do not admit the defense of absence of malice, which is a
uniquely American idea. (Yes, we are jealous.)

My main point is that, since the Net is international, perhaps a party
who felt themselves wronged could sue for libel in a jurisdiction
where the laws are weighted more in favor of the plaintiff than is
possible in the U.S.A. (Just like recent Net-related prosecutions in
the U.S.A., in which BBS operators from one state find themselves
defending charges originating from another, generally less civilized
state.)

Some years ago a political figure in a Caribbean country brought a
libel suit againt an American television network. His lawyers brought
the suit into a Canadian court, stating that since the program had
been available to Canadian cable viewers, this was jusified (most in
Canada believed it was because of our plaintiff-friendly libel laws.)

P.S.: I am not a lawyer, and therefore unqualified to render a useful
opinion on international Net libel law. I submit this as a journalist
with some practical knowledge of libel and defamation law, and in the
hopes that you may encourage a real expert to address my
observations.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 13:57:18
From: "Carolina, Robert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Defamation in cyberspace

In a recent exchange on this topic in CuD 7.09, Eric Eden
<[e-mail]> and Henry Itkin <[e-mail]> have
been disagreeing about burdens of proof in defamation cases. This can
be a complicated area because the actual process of the law tends to
be shortened into various "rules of thumb" such as "if you can prove
it is true you are probably not liable".

Just to clarify the process under common law (i.e. individual US state
law), roughly speaking:

1. The plaintiff (the alleged victim) in a defamation case has the
burden of proving that the defendant published a defamatory statement.
"Publisher" by the way includes the author as well as the actual
publication in which the defamation is printed. The plaintiff does NOT
have to prove that the statement is untrue. (But see discussion
below.)

2. If the plaintiff can show this first step is completed, then the
assumption is that the defendant is liable. It is now the DEFENDANT's
burden to show why he or she should not be held liable. One such
affirmative defense is "truth". That is, if he can prove that the
statements made are true then he will not be held liable.

3. Note that each state has the opportunity to alter the rules
presented above, and some US states have tougher or weaker standards.
Most US states do not change the standards due to point number 4
below.

4. If you live in a jurisdiction where the 1st Amendment to the US
Constitution applies, there is a Federal Constitutional issue which
comes into play. (Bear with me, it has been a while since law school.)
If the plaintiff (alleged victim) in a case is deemed to be a "public
figure", then he is required to prove that the defendant had actual
malice when making the statement in question. There are a number of
cases which define how public you have to be before you are a "public
figure", and I won't go into that. But assuming that the plaintiff IS
a public figure, then the matter will turn on whether he can prove
actual malice. (Hold on tight, here is where the confusion sets in.)
One method used to demonstrate actual malice is for the plaintiff to
show BOTH that the statement is false, and that the author should have
known it was false when he made the statement.

Obviously, no journalist will go through this detailed set of
calculations before writing a story. (If he asks us, of course, we do
the calculations for him). Instead, the journalist operates on a rule
of thumb that "if I can prove it's true I am probably all right". This
is a fairly cautious restatement of the standard above and will
probably help to keep people out of trouble, but if in doubt please
consult with a lawyer familiar with your own case and local law.

(If, like me, you live in a common law jurisdiction where the 1st
Amendment does NOT apply, then you need to be much more cautious than
in the US. In fact, be aware that when you post to the Usenet you are
probably "publishing" in the UK as well.)

Finally (home stretch) if the court determines that the defendant is
liable for defamation, the next question is "how much does he have to
pay". This is the question of damages. The relevant inquiry is: "how
much damage can the plaintiff show as a result of the defamatory
publication". If one were to publish allegations in the New York Times
that a stock broker is a "cheat and embezzler", then this will
probably damage the person quite a bit. If, on the other hand, you
send an e-mail to one friend alleging that your neighbour slapped you
while hanging up clothes, this will probably not generate a huge
amount of damages.

If you want to read more about it, I co-authored a piece entitled
"Multimedia Defamation" which appeared last year in International Media
Law Review. In addition, my colleague Nick Braithwaite has an article on
this subject which should be accessible on our firm's World Wide Web
server. The URL is http://www.cliffordchance.com/

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

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 22:28:38 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd)

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


[e-mail] (Emmanuel Ohajah)
Subject--Internet Censorship in Africa

Dear All,

Back in June 1994 I wrote an article (Computer Weekly June 16 1994
Computer privacy, Highway patrol) which was very critical of the creeping
censorship and government control of computer networks in the UK and USA

Since then I have been told that IT experts in Africa wishing to develop
computer networks, set up internet connections or even use a
telecommunications provider other that the state PTT face similar
obstacles from their respective governments. What's more phone calls are
routinely monitored and satillite access is restricted or at least
discouraged.

A visiting civil rights lawyer from Cameroon suggested to me that many
African governments do not want to see a proliferation of communications
mediums because they will be unable to keep track of their subjects.

I am not sure if this is true but I would appreciate details of any
overzealous African government attempts at monitoring internet traffic
or censorship of electronic communications.

If any African governments have given any justifications for the control
or censorship of electronic communications please speed the details to me!

Thanks in advance. Emmanuel Ohajah If you would like to see my article and
other research then please mail me at [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:43:01 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd)

               ---------- Forwarded message ----------
[e-mail] (Dan Gannon)
Date--Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:35:54 GMT

                   STILL CENSORED FROM THE INTERNET!

     Banished CPU has been -- and remains -- censored from the
Internet.  The (Canadian) CBC PrimeTime News camera crew has recently
interviewed me for 4 hours about the situation.  We are being
unscrupulously censored for politically and financially motivated
reasons.

     Here is the complete story:


     Banished CPU, a Freedom of Speech BBS, has been distributing
Holocaust Revisionist material through the Internet since 1991.  The
material addresses, in an objective manner, the question of WHAT REALLY
HAPPENED during the so-called "Holocaust".  The facts are both
"politically inconvenient" and undeniable.

     Over the years, organized Jewish pressure has succeeded in cutting
off our link to the Internet numerous times, using their traditional
methods of boycott, slander and terror.

     Netcom, a large commerical Internet provider based in San Jose,
California, served as our latest connection to the Internet for almost
a year, until they censored Banished CPU on November 26, 1994,
violating the contract they had formed with me.

     Before I signed on with Netcom, I informed them of the nature of
the material I distribute, and inquired about the level of Freedom of
Speech they offer.  I was told -- by a Netcom sales representitive who
identified herself as "Sherri" -- there would be no restrictions or
censorship of any kind, as long as the material conformed to U.S. law
(which, of course, it does.)  Agreeing to the stated terms, I paid the
initial sign-up fee and continued paying them each month for the
connection to the Internet.

     After a couple months of organized Jewish pressure, an unsigned
electronic message arrived from Netcom, informing me that I would no
longer be allowed to distribute messages in most Internet message areas
(USENET newsgroups).  The message specified only 12 newsgroups that I
would be allowed to post to, forbidding me from posting to any of the
other 7,000+ newsgroups (including many 100% appropriate newsgroups
such as soc.history!)  The message stated plainly that they were not
willing to discuss the issue.

     For months, I reluctantly obeyed the new "rule", even though it
violated the verbal contract they had entered into earlier.

     Then I distributed a Free Video Offer to a couple dozen newsgroups
outside of their arbitrary list of 12.  The video was "David Cole
Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper", which greatly infuriated and panicked
the Holocaust Lobby.  David Cole, producer of the video, is Jewish --
NOT a "Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" by any means.  Hundreds of copies were
sent all over the world within a matter of weeks.  Requests were still
pouring in when we were abruptly cut off.

     At first, Jewish pressure tried to get me kicked off for
"profiteering" (an informal taboo on the Internet).  A lady named
Margaret from Netcom wrote to me, informing me of the complaints and
asking me to cease and desist.  In reply, I pointed out that I was not
"profiteering" by any stretch of the imagination -- I was merely giving
out free, legal copies of someone else's video, and not collecting any
money whatsoever.  Margaret wrote back, apologizing for the
misunderstanding.

     The next day, however, I discovered that our link to the Internet
was no longer functional.  I made countless long distance phone calls
to Netcom's offices in California.  I left messages with receptionists
for their managers, supervisors and technical support staff.  For eight
full days, nobody at Netcom would take or return my calls.  In the
meantime, Banished CPU's link to the outside world was cut, effectively
censoring me and all of my callers.  I discovered that Netcom was
DELETING all of my callers' mail, which was in many cases both
important and irreplaceable.

     Finally, after 8 days of silence, someone at Netcom called and
left a message on my answering machine, informing me that Banished CPU
had been cut off because I posted to newsgroups other than the 12 that
they had illegally mandated.  They violated their contract, bowing to
the Jewish demands to censor me.

     Now, almost 3 months after Netcom first censored us, I am still
unable to procure another Internet connection, even though one small
Internet provider ("Quicknet") has supposedly been trying to provide
us with a link.  According to Quicknet, some "Internet committee" or
individual (whose Internet e-mail address is [e-mail]) is
refusing to process the necessary re-registration form.  Censored we
remain.

     In the meantime, messages addressed to myself and my callers are
reportedly still being deleted by Netcom, returning no warning message
whatsoever -- giving the impression that the messages are received but
ignored.  Netcom continues in their unethical behavior, and is refusing
to speak to the CBC PrimeTime News.

     Should you wish to contact Netcom and let them know how you feel
about their unprofessional behavior, the following information may be
of some use:


Netcom's address:  400 Moorpark Avenue, Suite 209, San Jose, CA 95117
Internet e-mail address:  [e-mail]
Toll-free sales line:  1-800-501-8649
Technical support line:  [phone]
Emergency pager number:  [phone]


                                Sincerely,

                                Dan Gannon (a.k.a. Maynard)

       ___________________________________________________________
      |                                                           |
      |         Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!          |
      |          (And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.)           |
      |                                                           |
      |  28800 bps (9 lines with V.FC)............[phone]  |
      |  14400 bps (11 lines with V.32bis)........[phone]  |
      |  9600- bps (12 lines with V.32)...........[phone]  |
      |___________________________________________________________|

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

Date: 09 Feb 95 13:56:58 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--Cu In The News

Most Computer Intrusions Unreported
===================================
The Pentagon's Center for Information Systems Security (CISS) attempts
to penetrate DoD systems worldwide, via the Internet. The govt hackers
were able to gain entry to systems 95% of the time, and only 5% of the
break-ins were detected. Of those, only 5% were reported to higher-ups
in the organizations.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12

Spoofing and Hijacking
======================
In a related story to the above, Computerworld ran a story about
CERT's alert concerning IP Spoofing and Session Hijacking. The story
includes comments from several security specialists, who express
concern about continued attacks of this type.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12

InfoTerrorism
=============
Sure, hackers are a problem, but what are you going to do about high-
tech military-style assualts on your datacenter? The miltary-industrial
complex has several weapons that could (in theory) be used by a disgruntled
employee or info-terrorist. Items such as high-energy guns that emit data
destroying pulses, and EMF bombs that paralize your systems, are some
the technologies that threaten your system. Yet another reason to lay
awake at night, worrying.
ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995. pg.1

Deadbeat BBS, Beat & Dead
=========================
Novell and Microsoft have reached an agreement that will close the Deadbeat
BBS, located in New Jersey. The teenage-sysop will pay $25,000. in
damages to the software giants, in restitution for the 60+ Novell and
MS products that were allegedly available for downloading on the board.
ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995. pg.8

Big Brother *is* Watching
=========================
Analytic Concept's "GameCop" software is just what the overseer ordered.
The program watches active windows on a PC to see if a game is running.
If one is, a customizable message displays a stern warning for the
employee to get back to work. GameCop can also, optionally, sound an
alarm to embarass the slackard in front of their cellmates..err co-workers.
ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0800
From: Susan Evoy <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--Conferences that may be of interest

CPSR Members and Friends,
        If you are planning to attend one of these conferences, or another that
may be related to CPSR's work, please contact CPSR at [e-mail]  or
[phone]  for easy ways for you to be a presence for CPSR.


CONFERENCE /EVENT  SCHEDULE

National Conference on Ethics in America:  Promoting Trust, Truth, and
Universality, Long Beach, CA, Feb. 22-24.
Contact:  [e-mail]      310 985-8222       310 985-5842(fax)

Technologies of Freedom:  State of the Nation (A conference on the progress of
the National Information Infrastructure), Washington Court Hotel,
Washington, DC, Feb. 23-25.
Contact:   [e-mail]        202 408-1403        202 408-1134 (fax)

Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago
Circle Center, UIC, IL, March 2-4.  Contact:  [e-mail]   312 996-5463

Unions and the Information Superhighway, March 2.
Contact:  416 441-2731

Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Fourth Annual Meeting,
Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Crystal City, VA, March 2-4.
Contact:  [e-mail]        812 855-6450

National STS Meeting and Technology Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA,
March 2-5.  Contact:  [e-mail]      814 865-3044 (ph)  814 865-3047 (fax)

Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago, IL,
March 3-4.  Proposals due by Jan. 8.
Contact:  [e-mail]    312 996-5463 (ph)    312 996-5766 (fax)

Local-Global Creative Tension, '95 PC Forum, Phoenix, AZ, March 5-8.
Contact:  [e-mail]   212 924-8800 (ph)  212 924-0240 (fax)

Technologies for the Superhighway, IEEE COMPCON 95, Stanford Court Hotel,
San Francisco, CA, March 5-9.
Contact:  [e-mail] (advance program)      [e-mail](register)
                        510 422-2199     408 973-1325 (fax)

Microcomputers in Education Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ,
March 13-15.  Contact:  Pat Southwick, ASU, Box 870908, Tempe, AZ  85287-0908

Towards an Electronic Patient Record '95. Orlando, FL. Mar. 14-19,
1995. Sponsored by Medical Records Institute. Contact: 617-964-3926
(fax).

Access, Privacy, and Commercialism:  When States Gather Personal
Information, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, March 17.
Contact:  Trotter Hardy  804 221-3826

Geographic Information Systems '95, Vancouver, BC, March 27-30.
Contact:  [e-mail]    604 688-0188 (ph)  604 688-1573 (fax)

Computers, Freedom and Privacy CFP'95, Burlingame CA, Mar 28-31
Contact:   [e-mail]

ETHICOMP95:  An international conference on the ethical issues of using
Information Technology, DeMontfort University, Leicester, ENGLAND,
March 28-30, 1995.  Contact: Simon Rogerson [e-mail]
44 533 577475 (phone)  44 533 541891 (Fax).

National Net '95: Reaching Everyone. Washington, DC.  Apr. 5-7, 1995.
Sponsored by EDUCOM.  Contact: [e-mail] or call 202/872-4200.

Information Security and Privacy in the Public Sector. Herdon, VA.
Apr. 19-20, 1995. Sponsored by AIC Conferences.  Contact: 212/952-1899.

Cultivating New Ground in Electronic Information Use of the Information
Highway to Support Agriculture - USAIN, Lexington, KY, April 26-29.
Proposals for solicited papers or project demonstrations by 12/31/94.
Contact:  [e-mail]

ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI'95), Denver, CO,
May 7-11.   Contact   410 263-5382    [e-mail]
http://info.sigchi.acm.org/sigchi/chi95.html

1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 8-10.
Contact:  [e-mail]

NPTN's Annual Affilate & Organizing Committee Meeting --1995:
An International Free-Net Community Computing Conference, Arizona State
University, May 17-20.
Contact:  [e-mail]       216 498-4050       216 498-4051 (fax)
                                        http://www.nptn.org/

ErgoCon '95 - Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference & Exposition, San Jose, CA,
May 22-24.  Contact:  Abbas Moallem  408 924-4132 (ph)  408 924-4153 (fax).
Proposals for papers, posters, workshops, or panel discussions:  Deadline Nov. 1

Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications on Wall
Street, Pace University, New York, NY, June 7-9.
Contact:  [e-mail]     914 763-8820 (ph)     914 763-9324 (fax)

Identifying Grand Challenges in Socially Responsible Computing, Durango, CO,
June 11-14.  Contact:  Ben Shneiderman    [e-mail]

IDT 95  12th Congress - Information Markets and Industries, Paris, FRANCE,
June 13-15.  Organized by ADBS (Society of information professionals), ANRT
(National Association of Technological Research), and GFII (French association
of information industries).  Contact:  33 1 43 72 25 25 (ph)   33 1 43 72 30 41
(fax)

Workshop on Ethical and Professional Issues in Computing, RPI, Troy, NY,
June 24-28.  Deadline for submissions:  April 15.
Contact:  [e-mail]    518 276-8503   518 276-2659 (fax)

Internet Society's 1995 International Networking Conference, Honolulu, HI,
June 28-30.  Abstract submission deadline Jan 13.
Contact:  http://www.isoc.org/inet95.html     [e-mail]   703 648-9888(ph)

Key Players in the Introduction of Information Technology:  Their Social
Responsibility and Professional Training, BELGIUM, July 5-7, 1995.
Contact: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
Paper submissions by Nov. 2, 1994

Alliance for Community Media's International Conference and Trade Show,
Boston, MA, July 5-8.  Proposal Submissions by 1/31/95.
Contact:  Rika Welsh  617 321-6400    617 321-7121 (fax)

18th International Conference on Research & Development in Information
Retrieval, The Sheraton, Seattle, WA, July 9-11.
Contact:  [e-mail]

Joint International Conference Association for Computers and the Humanties-
Association for Literacy and Linguistic Computing 95, University of California,
Santa Barbara, July 11-15.  Deadline for paper submissions:  Dec. 31.
Contact:  Eric Dahlin:  [e-mail]   805 687-5003

Tenth Annual Conference on Computing and Philosophy (CAP), Pittsburgh, PA,
Aug. 10-12.  Contact:  Robert Cavalier    [e-mail]   412 268-7643

Conference on Organizational Computing Systems  COOCS '95, Sheraton Silicon
Valley, Milpitas, Aug. 13-16.  Paper Submissions by 1/4/95.
Contact:  [e-mail].

Computers in Context:  Joining Forces in Design, Aarhus, DENMARK, Aug. 14-18.
Contributions for papers, proposals for panels, workshops, and tutorials
(in 6 copies - not by facsimile or e-mail)):  Deadline for receipt Jan 5.
Contact:   Computers in Context, Aarhus University, Dept. of Computer Science,
Bldg. 540, Ny Munkegade 116, DK-8000 Aarhus C, DENMARK.

Libraries of the Future - IFLA.  Istanbul, TURKEY, Aug. 16-19.
Contact:  [e-mail]

AI-ED '95:  7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education,
Washington, DC, Aug. 16-19.  Contact:  [e-mail]        804 973-3987

"Designing for the Global Village," HFES,   Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel,
Santa Monica, CA, October 9-13.
Contact:  [e-mail]  310 394-1811     310 394-2410 (fax)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)

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 a one-line message:  SUB 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:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  [phone] (ringdown)
         In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS:  [phone]
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  [phone]

  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/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  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/Publications/CuD
                  ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU
Sociology gopher at:
  URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci

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 #7.12
************************************