The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud716.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 39.4 KB | 850 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Feb 26, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 16
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
       Correspondent Extra-ordinaire:  David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Monster Editor:    Loch Nesshrdlu

CONTENTS, #7.16 (Sun, Feb 26, 1995)

File 1--Press Coverage Bloopers in the Mitnick Story (fwd)
File 2--NEW: CYBER-RIGHTS - Campaign for Cyber Rights (fwd)
File 3--S. 314 and realism
File 4--Fascism on line
File 5--Dennis Erlich Relates CoS Search and Seizure (Illegal?) (fwd)
File 6--Re: Slam of the Internet in STAR
File 7--first italian initiative on comp networks
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 26 Feb, 1995)

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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:44:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer Underground Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Press Coverage Bloopers in the Mitnick Story (fwd)

               ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Mon, 27 Feb 1995 22:33:24 -0800
From--Jason Hillyard <[e-mail]>

By now we've all read about the extraordinary events that led to the arrest of
Kevin Mitnick.  As usual, the press got some things right, got many things
wrong, and occasionally just got weird.  I was bothered by many of the
misconceptions that were played out in the press.  Determined to find out
more, I went on manic foraging expeditions through the Web, waded through
piles of alt.2600 posts, and wheedled juicy tidbits from some of my hacker
friends.  The result is this playful yet critical romp through the best of the
worst of the Mitnick story coverage.

"L.A. Hacker to Waive Extradition"
Los Angeles Times, February 17, 1995.
<http://underground.org/newswire/latimes-021795.html>

"The FBI affidavit filed in the case alleges that Mitnick used his hacking
prowess to steal files through the Internet, including cellular phone software
developed under a grant from the National Security Agency worth $500,000 to $1
million."

Whoa!  FBI catches hacker with million dollar NSA software!  No doubt this
sentence confirmed the fears of paranoid conspiracy buffs everywhere.  But the
affidavit says no such thing.  Rather, it says the hacker copied a file called
"Berkeley Packet Filter" which was developed under a grand from the NSA.  It
says the hacker also copied "cellular telephone proprietary software" from
Shimomura's computer.  This cellular software was valued at $500,000 to $1
million dollars by Andrew Gross, a system administrator at the San Diego
Supercomputer Center.  Apparently the reporter tried to compress all this into
one sentence, with rather absurd results.

"Tight phone restrictions on suspected cyberthief"
 News & Observer, February 17, 1995.
<http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/217thief.html>

"A federal judge Friday set strict limits on jailhouse telephone calls for the
computer pirate accused of stealing billions of dollars worth of corporate
information by tapping into electronic networks."

Read that again.  Did they say billions?  According to the FBI affidavit,
Mitnick allegedly copied software worth up to $1 million from Shimomura's
computer.  Where did this billions come from?  Perhaps the reporter was
confused after writing a story on federal spending.

"A Cyberspace Dragnet Snared Fugitive Hacker"
The Los Angeles Times, February 19 1995.
<http://underground.org/newswire/latimes-021995.html>

"Convinced that they could protect their subscribers' privacy, administrators
of the Well agreed to work with Shimomura and the FBI, and set up 24-hour
monitoring hoping that Mitnick would break into the system to store more
purloined files."

According to the FBI affidavit, The hacker had root access on The WELL.  The
WELL states, in their own FAQ on the subject, that the hacker had access to 11
user accounts.  There is no way The WELL could protect their subscriber's
privacy during the 18 days they let the hacker roam freely through their
system.

"Hacker case underscores Internet's vulnerability"
New York Times, February 16, 1995.
<http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/216net1.html>

"And just a few hours before his arrest, they say, he delivered a last
electronic blow that nearly destroyed the Well and the electronic community it
served."

Mitnick almost destroyed The WELL?  Not quite.  According to The WELL's FAQ,
the hacker erased one accounting file, probably because of a typing error.
The WELL was taken down briefly to restore the file and then brought back
online.  Miraculously, The WELL and the electronic community it serves
remained intact.

"Hacker case is a challenge as authorities try to retrace suspect's steps in
cyberspace"
News & Observer, February 17, 1995

"Proving Mitnick was behind the raids on data banks and thefts of at least
20,000 credit card numbers from computer systems across the nation will be
a special challenge involving retracing the alleged hacker's steps in
cyberspace."

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this make it sound like Mitnick was raiding
credit card numbers from computers across the nation?  Mitnick allegedly
copied one credit card file.  This file belonged to Netcom.  There is evidence
that this file was compromised as far back as last summer.  Actually, the
Netcom credit card file was kind of a joke in hacker circles.  People had
posted bits of it on IRC.  Maybe Netcom should explain why this information
was online in the first place.

"Cyber sleuths nab infamous hacker"
San Francisco Examiner, February 16, 1995.
<http://sfgate.com/examiner/daily/950216/hacker2.html>

"Some clues pointed to the hacker's identity, according to the New York Times.
For instance, the stolen material found on The Well and other Internet sites
included software that controls the operations of cellular telephones made by
Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Novatel, Oki, Qualcomm and other companies.  That was
viewed as consistent with Mitnick's interests.  He made a name for himself by
hacking into telephone networks."

Mitnick and every other hacker on the planet would probably be interested in
this kind of cellular phone software.  It does not single out Mitnick as a
suspect.

But wait, the article points to more evidence:

"The computer pirate left voice-mail messages for Shimomura after the December
theft. One - using what investigators said was a mock British accent favored
by Mitnick - said, 'My technique is the best. . . . Don't you know who I am?'"

British accent or not, the voice-mail messages are a dubious source.  I think
they sound more like some hackers goofing off on a conference call than a
serious threat from a lone hacker.  (Have a listen for yourself.  The
reference is given at the end of this post.)  But nevertheless, the press
insists that Mitnick left these messages.  I'd like to see some definitive
proof.

And the article provides this last bit of evidence:

"Finally, the pirate was acting with a recklessness that was one of Mitnick's
trademarks. At one point during the inquiry, the Times said, the hacker broke
into a Motorola Corp. security computer as investigators monitored the raid."

Why is this reckless?  Because the hacker broke into a so-called security
computer?  Because investigators were watching?  I'd still really like to know
how investigators determined that Mitnick was behind the keyboard.  I've yet
to hear a convincing answer.

"Officials Laud Civilian Cyberexperts in Capture of Hacker"
San Francisco Examiner, February 17, 1995
<http://sfgate.com/examiner/daily/950217/hacker.html>

"'The vast majority of citizens in cyberspace are law-abiding and interested
in helping the government and stopping cybercrime,' said Assistant U.S.
Attorney Kent Walker, who helped to coordinate the coast-to-coast Mitnick
investigation."

I suppose Mr. Walker is entitled to his opinion, but check out his causal
usage of cyberwords!  I wonder-- if you are caught committing a cybercrime in
cyberspace, are you sent to cyberprison?

And finally, here's my personal favorite:

"Hacker invaded the wrong man's cyberspace"
 News & Observer, February 17, 1995.
<http://underground.org/newswire/nao-021795.html>

"For an unknown reason, agents waited five minutes for Mitnick to answer the
door. On Friday, law enforcement officials said it is not their habit to slam
down doors on nonviolent criminals."

Now that's nice to know.  Yet hackers who have been raided in the past often
experienced less congenial displays of door-slamming etiquette.  Perhaps the
FBI has a more conservative door-booting policy than, say, the Secret Service.

Gotta go, there's a knock at the door.  Only got five minutes to wipe the
drive!

Additional References

John Markoff's story in _The New York Times_:
<http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/215sleuth.html>

Pictures of Mitnick and Shimomura:
<http://sfgate.com/examiner>
<http://underground.org/graphics/people/shimomura.gif>
<http://underground.org/graphics/people/mitnick.gif>

The voice-mail messages:
<ftp://ftp.sdsc.edu/pub/security/sounds/tweedle-dee.au>
<ftp://ftp.sdsc.edu/pub/security/sounds/tweedle-dum.au>

Technical details of the attack on Shimomura's machine:
<http://underground.org/newswire/shimomura-attack.html>

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

From: Stanton McCandlish <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--NEW: CYBER-RIGHTS - Campaign for Cyber Rights (fwd)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:07:21 -0500 (EST)

From--"Richard K. Moore" <[e-mail]>

CYBER-RIGHTS on [e-mail]: Campaign for Citizens Rights in Cyberspace.

   This list is the "coordination headquarters" for the global Cyber
   Rights campaign being conducted by CPSR (Computer Professionals for
   Social Responisibility.)  CPSR is a highly respected public service
   organization that has an effective track record in influencing
   legislation and regulation.  CPSR contributed to the exposure of
   the fallacies behind the Star Wars project and helped defeat the
   Clipper Chip.  Additional information about this campaign is
   included at the bottom of this message.

   CYBER-RIGHTS is moderated.

   List owner: Richard K. Moore <[e-mail]>

   To subscribe to CYBER-RIGHTS, send the following command to
   [e-mail] in the BODY of e-mail:

      SUBSCRIBE CYBER-RIGHTS yourfirstname yourlastname

   For example:  SUBSCRIBE CYBER-RIGHTS Joe Shmoe


------------------------ Additional Information -----------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CYBER-RIGHTS FAQ:
============================================


  =================================================================
  | [e-mail]     FAQ :: 19 Feb 95   - [e-mail] |
  =================================================================
                           (OK to fwd)
          ______________________________________________
         |>*  The Campaign for Rights in Cyberspace  *<|
         |>*                                         *<|
         |>*  Working Group: Computer Professionals  *<|
         |>*    for Social Responsibility (CPSR)     *<|
         |_____________________________________________|

               Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
                         FAQ: 19 Feb 95


The Cyber Rights Campaign is being managed as a Working Group of CPSR
(Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, a highly respected public
service organization.  CPSR has been effective in influencing Federal
legislation re/ the social impact of technology.

One purpose of the Campaign is to educate the global public about the
beneficial social/political aspects of the current Internet
group-communications model: to make everyone aware that preservation of
Internet-style communities should be seen as global priority.

A second purpose of the Rights Campaign is to alert the USA and global
communities to the intense telco-funded legislative campaign currently
threatening the Internet's existence:
    o In the short term, the Censorship Bill (S.314) would require Internet
      service providers to snoop on and censor all message traffic: this would
      be devastating to current Internet usage patterns and a fundamental
      denial of freedom of speech, association, and privacy.

    o In the longer term, Newt Gingrinch and the telcos are
      attempting to set up a regulatory framework for a new
      interactive-media infrastructure which would eliminate
      the grass-roots uses of interactive communications, and
      build instead a fully commercialized, 500-channel, mass-media
      marketplace fully as sterile as today's network TV.

   =================================================================
            ______________________________________________
           |>*-----To participate in this campaign -----<|
           |>*                                         *<|
           |>*  Send the message:                      *<|
           |>*      subscribe cyber-rights Your Name   *<|
           |>*  to [e-mail]                   *<|
           |>*                                         *<|
           |>*  Post a self intro to:                  *<|
           |>*      [e-mail]              *<|
           |>*                                         *<|
           |>*  To unsubscribe, tell the listserv:     *<|
           |>*      unsubscribe cyber-rights           *<|
           |>*                                         *<|
           |>*  Questions to WG Coordinator:           *<|
           |>*      Richard K. Moore <[e-mail]>  *<|
           |_____________________________________________|

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

___________________
# Working Documents
#
#---> Currently available on request:
    |
    |    o  PFF's "Magna Carta" (2/2) (fwd)
    |    o  CR-20Jan> "Magna Carta analyzed" (2/2)
    |    o  CR-17Feb> INFO: S.314 Analyses
    |    o  CR-3-Feb> Declaration of Rights (draft) (2/2)
    |    o  CR-16Feb> Summary: Cyber Rights Campaign
    |    o  CPSR's "NII-Document-Serving-the-Community" (5/5)
    |______
   =================================================================

___________________
# Volunteers needed
#
#---> Your chance to make a difference:
    |
    |    o  to create OpEd pieces
    |    o  to place pieces in worldwide media
    |    o  for liaison with other lists and organizations
    |    o  to participate in activist discussion process
    |    o  to broaden the experience-base of our campaign community
    |______
   =================================================================


           ==============================================        __---__
 (o)    ____________________________________________________    -   |   -
 / \   />-- posted by: Richard K. Moore <[e-mail]> --<\  -    |    -
/___\ />--- Wexford Town, Ireland  :: Loch Garman, Eire ----<\ -   /|\   -
     /--------------------------------------------------------\ -_/ | \_-
    />- Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace -<\*Guard your   \   ---
   /*>- CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs! --<*\ Cyber Rights*\
  /-> Ask to see >--> CyberRights Campaign FAQ <--\ Beware: TRON \
 /________________________________________________________________\




   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   DISCLAIMER: NEW-LIST announcements are edited from information
   provided by the original submitter.  We do NOT verify the technical
   accuracy nor any claims made in the announcements nor do we
   necessarily agree with them.  We do not warranty or guarantee any
   services which might be announced - use at your own risk.  For more
   information send e-mail to [e-mail] with the command
   GET NEW-LIST README  in the body.  mgh

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

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:46:11 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--S. 314 and realism

There's been a good deal of complaint about the Exon bill and its
proposal to hold communications providers responsible for the content
of messages.  I think the underlying complaint is well placed, but the
most common analogy people use is fundamentally flawed.  This is the
"provide is just like a bookstore/newseller and they are protected"
analogy.

The problem here is that there is a fundamental difference between the tradi-
tional publishing scenario and the on-line world.  The difference is most
compelling in the case of libel.  If I'm libeled in a book or newspaper, it is
straightforward for me to determine the publisher of the book or newspaper.  I
can usually determine the author directly - but if I can't, that's not normal-
ly a problem:  Unlike the bookstore, the publisher has no protection against
my lawsuit.  If he doesn't want to identify the author, that's fine with me -
I'll recover all my damages from him.  Of course, in practice, he'll
be only to glad to refer me to the author, pseudonymous or not, so
that the author can share in paying any damages.  Note that most
newspapers are happy to publish unsigned letters to the editor - but
they insist that *they* have receive a signed copy.

Sure, a bookstore *could* sell a book with no publication information
on it.  If I were libeled by such a book, I'd argue that the bookstore
had two choices:  Tell me where they got the thing, of buy into
responsibility for it.  I don't know if such a thing ever happened,
but I would be very surprised if a bookstore had any right to refuse a
demand for information about the source of books it sold.  If it sold
books with no information about who was writing or publishing them -
"Hey, I leave the cash in an unmarked envelope under the doormat and a
box of books appears at the back of the store" - well, that would make
for an interesting argument for an exception to bookstore's general
immunity.

Now consider what happens on-line.  Many message~~/\~~

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

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 11:16:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 4--Fascism on line

PLEASE DO NOT USE my e-mail address or my real name anywhere.

  -----------------------------------------------------------
The New American Fascism Online
By William Smithson

Many people who use the online services are too young to remember
(and only know what they've read about) the suppressive regimes of
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.  Yet some online services are
remarkably similar to these regimes.

These services are causing much dissension among youth and other
people online, because they use strong repressive tactics.  Their
assumption is that they--not the users--know what is best for the
users.

A democracy is ruled by law, with the law written by the
representatives of the people, by the people and for the people.  In
a fascist and socialist government, the law is written by those in
power.  They must accept this law or suffer the consequences.  We
need only look at George Orwell's "1984."  There we saw how the mind
police worked; Big Brother dictated what the people could do and
couldn't do.  They controlled what citizens could see and could not
see, could and could not say.

Let's take America Online (AOL) as an example.  AOL is basically
ruled by one person: Steve Case, CEO.  [It should be noted that a
member of the AOL Board of Directors is former Secretary of State
Alexander ("I'm in charge here") Haig, Jr.]

Case's Black Shirts are the TOS (Terms Of Service) Advisors.  They
have taken rules and regulations set up by themselves, and used them
against the people who proliferate on AOL.  They tend to suppress
what they don't like for what they think is correct.  They accept
hearsay without corroborating facts.  They take manipulated written
words, and use it against individuals.  They are judge, jury and
executioner.  Persons can't defend themselves against innuendo, or
libel.  There's no place or person to whom they can go to express any
injustices perpetrated against them.

AOL seeks to justify this action by stating they are running a
business.  Yet they are dealing in people's lives, people who are
part of a new type of community.  What we appear to have here is the
promulgation of a new form of societal repression: a new fascism, a
new totalitarianism.

The people who access AOL feel this oppression and see it daily, but
many are at a loss to understand it.  There is a great deal of
bigotry online: anti-Semitism, anti-black sentiment, anti-Asian
sentiment and anti-Latino sentiment.  The majority of Americans are
not represented on AOL.  The average middle class and lower class
person cannot afford to use this service.

Some Jewish people fight back, but many have been the subject of
anti-Semitic slurs.  Gays and lesbians have to put up with daily
gay-bashing.  African-Americans and Latinos have been subjected to
racial epithets.  The religious right is also subjected to attacks
and made the representative of being the suppressor and the one
behind much of what is not their doing or their thinking.  There are
those who know how to manipulate text in chatrooms, to attribute
vulgar words to others who never used them.

The ones who suffer the most from these repressive tactics are young
children and teenagers, those who are in turmoil and are not too
likely to get a sympathetic ear from any adult.  AOL claims it is
protecting these teens and children, as they are minors and can't
think for themselves or protect themselves.  So teenagers are given
rooms to let them talk with their peers.  But children are subjected
to endless hours of the same question over and over again, as to
their age and sex.

The teen rooms are also anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Semitic, ad
nauseam--often echoing their parents' thoughts and actions.  The gay
and bi teens have no place to meet one another.  They can't go to the
regular teen rooms, because of the anti-gay bias.  Gay teens try
forming their own rooms but AOL's TOS staffers close them, telling
them to go to adult rooms or the regular teen rooms.  But in the
adult rooms, many are harassed by individuals that AOL is supposedly
protecting them from--child molesters.

The media has made a big thing about all the people online who are
after our children.  Much of that reporting (fortunately for our
kids) is media hype, designed to sell papers and boost TV ratings.
[See Steve Silberman's excellent article in WIRED 2.11 entitled
"We're Teen, We're Queer, and We've Got E-mail."]

Gay teens are told not to tell others they are gay or bi, because
that subjects them to constant badgering and harassment by older
adults, pedophiles, mentally ill individuals, and others who despise
gay teens.  Being a gay teen on AOL is more than difficult.  The gay
community at large does not want to be seen with them or be seen
talking with them, for fear they will be classified as child
molesters.  This includes the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
(NGLTF), which maintains an online presence on AOL, but has basically
remained uninterested in the AOL/gay teens conflict.

This situation will tend to get worse as time passes, unless it is
remedied by local laws or by Congress.  Over time as people continue
to access these services and they grow in size, it could eat into the
very fabric of democracy in the U.S.

Here in the U.S., democracy as we know it could disappear and the
people controlled online by cyber-fascism and cyber-suppression--and
governed by the cyber-police.  You can see this in action, and see
where it is heading just by becoming a member, and seeing you have no
way to redress grievances.  This might be your future, America, and
that of the world's--taken over by a few who think they as
individuals know better than the majority.

I write this as a parent, for I listen to what my children tell me.
I have sat with them for many hours in front of the computer and seen
firsthand what is happening--and I don't like it.  I was a teen
during WWII and read daily accounts of what the Nazis were doing.  I
lived through the cold war and the Stalin repression era.  I was
among the many who felt the bite of McCarthyism, and suffered from
that haunting feeling of someone looking over my shoulder, seeing
what I was reading and what I was saying.

While online, an anonymous person may be spewing lies about someone,
and that person has no way to defend himself.  There are no
safeguards or democratic principles at work in many of the online
services.  It is an erosion of all that many people hold dear, and
what most people want from a democracy.  They do not want to have
someone rule them, without being a part of the ruling process.

Some individuals online have even threatened the parents of
children who are online.  It's why my own children are told not to
give out their real last name, where they live, their phone number,
or where they go to school.  Children are very trusting of adults,
and many of these people are glib talkers and charmers.  One child
on PRODIGY made the mistake of giving out his phone number, and his
parents were receiving calls day and night.

There are countless nightmarish stories that the gay teens can tell,
but you won't hear nor read about most of them, because on most of
the online services, the thinking is Victorian.  In their view, the
children are precious innocents; the sexually active, heterosexual
teen does not exist, and the gay teen doesn't exist,

People become so involved and so much a part of the online community
that it becomes their world.  However, it can be a place of great
learning, and a place to meet some wonderful people.  It can be a
place to interact with others without interacting offline too.
However, given the current trend and the reprehensible way the major
online services treat people as inanimate objects, it may not be the
place that visionaries dream for the coming information superhighway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
William Smithson is a pseudonym for a concerned parent who wishes to
remain anonymous.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:36:19 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Dennis Erlich Relates CoS Search and Seizure (Illegal?) (fwd)

               ---------- Forwarded message ----------

[e-mail]
Subject--ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SIEZE
Date--Mon, 13 Feb 95 22:53:16 -0800

This morning at 7:30 am my doorbell was repeatedly rung by a man
in a suit with papers.  I didn't open and when he didn't go away
I called 911.  I was told by the 911 operator of the Glendale
Police that I had to let these people (there was a crowd of about
12) into my house because of a search warrant.

I went out on the front porch and talked to an on-duty Glendale
police officer, Steve Eggett (badge# 12126).  He informed me that
I was required to permit these people to enter my house and
search for copyrighted material.

Two armed off-duty officers from the Inglewood police department
were working as rent-a-cops (Sgt. Ed Eccles and Officer Mark
Fronterotta) for the private investigation firm of Robert Shovlin
(PI lic P116086) of RJS Consultants.  His firm was in the employ of
Thomas Small, atty for Religious Technology Center.  Small also
entered my house.  Warren McShane (an officer of RTC, the
plaintiff) and Paul Wilmshurst (a scieno computer expert) also
entered.

I objected but was told that they would use force if I resisted.

They presented me with 6" of legal documents, one of which was a
writ of sezure from a Northern Calif. Federal Judge - Ron Whyte.
It is case # C-9s-20091 RMW.

They were in my house going through my drawers and every computer
disk and file from 7:30am to 3pm.

They confiscated over 300 floppy disks.  Two 120 meg Colorado
tape back-ups of my hard disk and deleted any files on my hard
disk that they wanted.

Potentially they copied all my personal correspondence, mailing
lists, financial records and personal notes.  Any one who has
sent me anything in confidence must assume that it has been
compromised.

The LA Times will run a story in the 14 Feb issue.  Fox had a
camera crew who videoed me begging the Glendale Police not to let
them confiscate my material without me examining the disks and
copies to see specifically what they were taking.  I was refused
the right to even look at what they had copied from my disk.

Criminals being arrested have more rights than these officers of
my home town and of the court provided me.

I hope this at least shows what type of fascist organization I am
attempting to expose.

Later,

         Rev. Dennis L Erlich     * * the inFormer * *
                 <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 23 Feb 1995 08:19:09 -0700
From: "[e-mail]"@PIMACC.PIMA.EDU
Subject: File 6--Re: Slam of the Internet in STAR

[e-mail]
Date--23 Feb 95 08:18:45 MST

I would like to mention the article in 2-22-1995 AZ DAILY STAR,sec. B,
   p. 3

 King features business columnist Dale Dauten slams the Internet:

        Title: "As Information Source Unwieldy Internet
              Fails to Deliver."

        Many points that Mr. Dauten makes are the results of 1/2 hr.
   online, guided by two business colleagues.

        I beieve his search for knowledge sought a negative outcome.
   He published this outcome on the babsis of scant acquaintance with
   the Net in order to discredit it and help "sub-divide" to "service
   providers." [I base this statement upon the fact that the only
   refs. comparing the Net to private services make the Net appear
   worse.

        The charges are not wholly groundless, but an over-all card
   catalog IS being developed and Yahoo at stanford works pretty well
   in the meantime:  http://akebono.stanford.edu

        The argument that not enough resources for business (and the
   stock market) is belied by Yahoo with its 8000 sites in business
   and the market.

        The argument that provider of private Internet access run
   rings around the Net itself is spurious as well. There are servers
   claiming full access. When their customers are questioned, they do
   not even have LYNX or easy access to FTP files.

        Anyone wishing to contact Mr. Dauten at King Features for a
   copy of his slam of the Interent may do so at:

        Compuserve (73654,3711)

        That translates to a regular Internet address of:

         [e-mail]
         (The "E" is important.)

                            Thanks,

                        Gloria McMillan

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

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:45:55 +0000 (CUT)
From: Luc Pac <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--first italian initiative on comp networks


           FIRST ITALIAN NATIONAL INITIATIVE IN DEFENCE OF
                      AMATEUR COMPUTER NETWORKS

        The first Italian national conference of amateur computer
networks, held last weekend, ended on a successful note. The central
theme of the gathering, ably hosted by the Museo Pecci in Prato (near
Florence), concerned 'the right to communicate'.

        In all, two thousand people took part in the conference, drawn
from the whole gamut of Italy's amateur networks and bulletin boards.
More than fifty speakers and numerous papers made the proceedings a
lively affair. Amongst those participating were a number of
internationally renowned figures - from Honoria and Mafalda Stasi to
Matthew Fuller - as well as speakers from various Italian institutions,
including Prof.Attardi of the University of Pisa.

        Whatever the differences that sometimes characterised this
wide-ranging discussion, the defence of freedom of expression and
communication stood out as a common thread running through all the
interventions. This sentiment was spelt out concretely in the following
document, which was endorsed by virtually all those in attendance.

        "We, individuals and organisations, gathered on 19/2/95 at the
conference on 'Right to Communication at Millenium's End', held at the
Museo Pecci in Prato, express our deep concern at the climate of
intimidation which currently surrounds the question of electronic
communication, both on the legislative and judicial front, as well as in
terms of media coverage.

        "In quick succession two laws have been approved (the first
concerning software copyright, the second 'computer crimes') which,
lacking all proportion, propose to punish severely - with prison
sentences - behaviours which for the most part could best be described
as misdemeanours. The inevitable consequence of this approach can only
be a re-run of the 'Italian Crackdown', an exercise that has been
criticised even by many legal practitioners.

        "This climate of intimidation has been further aggravated by a
number of decisions emanating from other quarters. On the one hand, the
Court of Rome has decreed that bulletin boards and computer networks
must register with the state as if they were part of the print media -
with all the legal ramifications which follow from such registration. On
the other hand, the Italian government announced at the beginning of the
year that it has appointed itself fit to sit in judgement on matters of
legislation concerning privacy and BBS (the latter decision
unprecedented in Europe) - all this to be decided through decree,
without any preliminary discussion in parliament.

        "This way of managing information aids and abets the interests
of the few. The most trivial violations of the new laws have prompted
dozens of newspaper articles and TV programs, with barely any reportage
of the insitutions' efforts to impose an evermore rigid regulation of
the electronic frontier. Conferences have been held on 'Hackers,
terrorism, and organised crime', yet public opinion remains oblivious as
to the details. If such links truly exist, and crimes have been
committed, we demand that the details be made public. Or is this alarm
simply a beat-up - a beat-up whose goal, whilst unclear, can only be a
threat to freedom?

        "Furthermore, it should be noted that neither the institutions
nor the media have ever approached the theme of new forms of
communication in terms of guaranteeing citizens' rights. Both the
bulletin boards and the various experiments with new forms of media
constitute a new territory, within which positive elements of social and
interpersonal progress, of cultural and scientific solidarity, are
rather more pertinent than the behaviours mentioned earlier.

        "Neither the institutions nor the media seem to have realised
that the emergence of the 'electronic citizen' raises legitimate
questions of universal significance. The immediate future seems to
promise instead the negation of this form of citizenship rights, through
the further introduction of new norms and bureaucratic procedures
designed to limit the socialisation of information.

        "Since we are convinced that this issue raises questions
pertinent to the civil liberties of all, we call upon not only the
various computer network communities, but all members of society to
express themselves concretely on the matter.

        "We note with pleasure the success of this first national
conference in defence of amateur computer networks. Since we anticipate
a lively debate - both within these networks and outside them - around
the role of new information technologies in our society, we extend an
invitation to a second common moment of reflection and mobilisation to
be held early September in Rome."

sTRANO nETWORK communication work group



BITs Against The Empire Labs                 CyberNet 65:1400/1 [phone]
Underground Research & Documentation              ECN 45:1917/2 [phone]
Italy                                         Fidonet 2:333/412 [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 26 Feb, 1995)

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.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB <your name>
Send it to [e-mail] or [e-mail]
(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 [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
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~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 #7.16
************************************