home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- Computer underground Digest Wed May 3, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 35
- ISSN 1004-042X
-
- Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
- Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
- Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
- Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
- Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
- Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
- Ian Dickinson
- Emo X-editor: Judy Tenuta
-
- CONTENTS, #7.35 (Wed, May 3, 1995)
-
- File 1--CuD WWW additions and a one-week break
- File 2--SB 314 -- _The_Criminalization_of_Free_Speech
- File 3--SotMESC Announcement
- File 4--CFP - Advanced Surveillance
- File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
-
- CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
- THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
-
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 22:32:21 CDT
- From: Jim Thomas <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 1--CuD WWW additions and a one-week break
-
- A few additional 'Zines have been added to the CuD www site.
- Phracks (thru #46) and Crypt Newsletter are now available,
- as well as a few additional pointers to other cyber-related
- homepages.
-
- The CuD URL IS:
-
- http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
-
- CuD will likely not come out for another week to ten days.
- For some unknown reason, I assigned 10 page term papers to
- a class of 300 students, and will be spending the next week or
- so grading, giving exams, and dealing with the end of the
- term. But, keep the articles comin, and #735 should be out
- on either May 10 or 14.
-
- jt
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 18:59:40 GMT
- From: kurz4768@ELAN.ROWAN.EDU(BRIAN KURZYNOWSKI)
- Subject: File 2--SB 314 -- _The_Criminalization_of_Free_Speech
-
- _Outline_
-
- I. The provisions set forth in S.314 that will become law if passed.
- A. "Sexually explicit material" is no longer allowed to be
- transmitted from telecommunications devices, and
- doing so is punishable by law.
- B. Harassment over telecommunications media is illegal, and
- punishable by law.
- C. Telecommunications service providers whose customers violate the
- law will also be held responsible.
- D. Violators of this law will be punished with
- 1. up to two years in prison.
- 2. up to $100,000 in fines.
- II. Senator Exon, the creator of the legistation, gives the purpose
- in his introduction speech, and in his editorial.
- III.There are problems with S.314.
- A. There are legal problems.
- 1. Anything that violated the Constitution of the United
- States is unconstitutional.
- a. S.314 violates the First Amendment.
- b. S.314 violates the Fourth Amendment.
- c. S.314 is unconstitutional.
- 2. There are legal questions that have yet to be answered by
- the courts.
- B. There are practical problems with S.314.
- 1. The Internet is too big to impose laws on because it is
- global.
- 2. Service providers would be forced to screen messages for
- sexual content before they are sent, and such a huge
- amount of information is sent through the National
- Information Infrastructure daily that checking every bit of
- data is all but impossible.
- IV. The possible effects of passing S.314 are negative.
- A. The violation of any constitutional guarantee weakens the
- document.
- B. There would be a decline in the popularity of the Internet.
- C. The free-speech and democracy represented by the Internet would
- come to a halt.
- D. It would put a damper on the economy.
- V. There are possible alternatives to S.314
- A. The monitoring of public forums as opposed to invading privacy.
- B. Narrowing down sexually explicit material to something like
- child porn.
- C. Removing the threat of prosecution from service providers, and
- limiting it to violators.
- D. The investigation of technology for parents to restrict their
- children's Internet access,
- thereby leaving the decision of what is fit for minors up to the
- parent's, and not up to the
- government.
- E. Let the citizens of the Internet take care of themselves, and
- decide what is fit and what is not.
-
- Thesis: S.314 has legal problem, practical problems, and
- poses some negative all around effects, and therefore should not be
- passed into law.
-
- The Communications Decency Act of 1995, aka The Cyberspace Bill,
- aka S.314 is a bill recently introduced to the Congress of The United
- States. It is intended to curb sexually explicit
- materials being sent from one place to another electronically, or
- through telecommunications media. This includes such forms of
- communication as telephone systems, computer "nets," and
- even private electronic mail systems. However, the provisions set
- forth in S.314 pose problems. S.314 is unconstitutional, impractical,
- and has some possible negative side effects, and therefore
- should not be allowed to pass into law.
- S.314 is not a law onto itself. It edits currently standing
- legislature, particularly the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.),
- even more particularly, section 223. After the current
- law is edited, the provisions are the following. Any communications
- that are "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" are
- prohibited from being transferred over any telecommunications device.
- Any communications which are intended to harass, threaten, or
- annoy are prohibited as well. Anybody who transmits over a
- telecommunications device any of the prohibited material above shall
- be fined up to $100,000, or spend up to two years in prison.
- Whoever "permits any telecommunications faculty under their control
- to be used for any purpose prohibited in this section (223) shall be
- fined" up to $100,000, or spend up to two years in
- prison (47 U.S.C. 223 (a)).
- These are the basic provisions set up S.314. Before the
- problems with the legislation are discussed, let us look at the
- purpose of the bill. Senator Exon, the creator of the bill, states
- his purpose in several places. In his introduction speech, according
- to Pfohl, Exon states "I want to keep the Information Superhighway
- from resembling a red-light district (1)." Exon also
- wrote an editorial to the Washington Post explaining himself and his
- legislature. He says that the Communications Decency act "modernizes"
- current laws against harassment, indecency, and obscenity for computer
- users. He says that S.314 is intended to make the Internet safer for
- all users. According to Exon, The Communications Decency Act offers
- the same protection to computer users that has been offered to
- telephone users for years. It is supposed to curb the fear,
- harm and annoyance associated with the obscene computer message. He
- ends the article with a question. Should we give up, let Americans be
- subjected to pornography and smut on the Internet, and blame it on
- the First Amendment (A 20)? While his intentions are noble, what
- he's doing is reducing all of the information on the Internet to
- information suitable for children. There are many problems with his
- plan.
- The first problem with S.314 is the most obvious. It has to do
- with whether or not the bill is even legal. The Constitution of the
- United States is the backbone of our legal structure. If a law
- goes against the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, and is
- therefore invalid. S.314 violates at least two of the Constitutional
- Amendments. According to Crowley, "Civil rights groups say
- legislation would create enormous new intrusion of privacy and free
- speech (A1)." The amendments that deal with these rights are the
- First and Fourth Amendments.
- The First Amendment states the "Congress shall make no law . .
- . abridging the freedom of speech . . .." And, it is a
- Constitutional requirement that any free-speech censorship be as
- unrestrictive as possible ("On-line Censorship" 2). Exon's
- amendment clearly places limits on free-speech. Also, it is very
- broad in that it bars the use of any sexually explicit language.
- This law forbids too much free speech to be considered even close to
- legal. It is definitely not as unrestrictive as possible, and it
- violates the First Amendment.
- Holding service providers responsible for the actions of their
- customers also violates the Constitution. Holding them responsible
- would force service providers to screen all messages
- before they were sent. This would be to protect themselves against
- prosecution. Forcing them to do this violates the Fourth Amendment,
- which is "The right of the people to be secure in their
- persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
- and seizures . . .." The Fourth is our guarantee to the right of
- privacy, which S.314 clearly goes against. Forcing service
- providers may, in fact, violate the Eighth Amendment, which is that
- no excessive bail or fines be imposed, or cruel and unusual
- punishment inflicted. Isn't it excessive to fine someone for a
- crime they didn't commit, or even know about? I feel that this would
- be an unusual punishment.
- There aren't only legal problems with S.314, but there are
- practical problems with the bill as well. One problem is that our
- government is trying to put restrictions on an information
- infrastructure that doesn't only exist in the United States, but is
- global. To an internet user, it is not hard to set up an internet
- account overseas, where pornography is legal, fill it with sexually
- explicit and obscene materials, and leave it open to the public.
- Because of today's technology, this is a piece of cake. It isn't
- practical to have a law that can be circumnavigated without
- blinking an eye.
- Another practical problem is the sheer volume of messages sent
- through the Internet daily. According to Seiger, service providers
- would have to closely look at every private communication, E-mail
- message, public forum post, mailing list document, and file archive
- carried by its network (1). On Prodigy, just one of at least a
- dozen commercial service providers, approximately 75,000 messages are
- transmitted daily (Yang 71). The number of transmitions in the
- Unites States daily is so high that nobody even wants to speculate on
- the number. Just who is going to do all of this reading of messages?
- It's just not practical to censor 75,000 multiplied by 12 messages
- every day. And that is only commercial access providers.
- There are many private service providers as well. According to
- Seiger, bulletin board services account for one-third of all netizens
- (internet citizens) (2). File archives in the United Stated
- contain billions of files, all of which would have to be gone
- through, piece by piece, to eliminate any prohibited material. The
- amount of information available on, and sent through the National
- Information Infrastructure is too enormous to be controlled.
- In addition to legal problems, S.314 could create some other
- negative results. The first problem that could be created is, in
- fact, because of the legal problems that are present. If this
- bill is allowed into law, although it completely violates two
- amendments and may violate a third, it would weaken the Constitution.
- Each time the Constitution is violated, it is easier and easier to
- violate it again. That is a bad thing. The Constitution is the main
- piece of paper that upholds our legal system. The rights granted to
- us in the Constitution are ours as Americans, and should be
- protected to the fullest. The Constitution is for the people, and
- the government is by the people, and therefore, the people should get
- the rights guaranteed them. Our rights are precious, and
- nobody has the right to take them away.
- According to a poll I took of Internet users, there would also
- be a decline in the popularity on the Internet. I put out a poll, and
- the results showed that 76% of people in various Usenet News
- discussion groups said that if S.314 is passed, they would either use
- the Internet less, or stop using it altogether. Further, 42 out of
- the 60 bulletin board operators and system operators that responded
- to the on-line questionaire said that they would have to severely
- restrict their internet access, or cut it out completely. That is a
- big cut in the population of the Internet.
- Because of such a decline in Internet popularity, A variety of
- other problems are possible. The free-speech and democracy
- represented in the Internet would come to a halt. One of the
- features that makes the Internet so popular is that it puts people
- around the world in touch. One example of how the Internet was used
- in democracy is a nationwide protest against the bill. Through
- discussion groups and E-mail, organizers of the protest
- reached students on over 100 campuses. Because of the speed and ease
- with which the protest was started, and because of the
- "broad coalitions of student groups" reached, are evidence,
- organizers say, of how the Internet has changed communication and
- democracy. Without the number of people currently on the
- Internet, (which would drop) this type of speed isn't possible
- (Herszenhorn A 29).
- Another example of the democracy available on the Internet is
- the petition against S.314 that can be signed through electronic mail.
-
- If this bill is passed, the Internet as we know it would not
- be the same. The Internet, as it stands now is a powerful democratic
- force, and most of the people who use it do not want to see it change.
- One other possible change that would be brought about by S.314
- is negative on the economy. All of the people that use the Internet
- pay for the service. Wether they pay for it in tuition, pay
- per hour, or pay a once a month fee, they pay. It would make sense
- that if fewer people are on the Internet, there would be less spending
- on the Internet, and the less money people spend, the worse it is for
- the economy. With such a decrease in the popularity of the
- Internet (a major advertising strategies of computer vendors), there
- would also be less spending on computers and high-tech equipment.
- Thirty-eight percent of all economic growth in the U.S. since 1990 has
- been due to business and consumer spending on high-tech equipment
- (Mandel 22). While there are no estimates on how badly the economy
- would be affected by the passing of the bill, clearly the effects
- would be negative.
- There are, however possible alternatives to S.314. The
- government could re-draft the bill, which they are considering, to fit
- within First and Fourth Amendment guidelines. To do this, the
- speech regulated would have to be significantly narrowed. For
- example, child pornography and such materials that are currently
- illegal to sell and possess in the U.S. would be prohibited. To fit
- within Fourth Amendment rights, only public forums such as the Usenet
- Newsgroups would be monitored for illegal materials. The Fourth
- Amendment would have to be protected, and public forums are fair game
- to prosecutors. Another piece that would need to be taken care of is
- the provision that calls for the prosecution of service providers.
- You can't hold one person responsible for the actions of another.
- Another alternative to the bill would be to drop it altogether.
- Then the government could invest in technology that would let parents
- control what kind of material is available to their children.
- Electronic lockout devices would be feasible for this type
- of control.
- One other possible alternative would be to let the Internet
- Users, being that the Internet is worldwide, govern themselves. It is
- working so-far. I have seen at least 25 people already turn
- in fellow Internet users for hate-mail and child pornography.
- Internet users do not want to see the Information Superhighway turned
- into a red-light district, just as much as Exon doesn't want to see
- it. Let us set the standards for what is suitable for our net.
- With all of the problems related to S.314, it would not be a
- good idea for it to become law. The bill's language is too
- restrictive, and the language restricted is too broad. It isn't
- practical to regulate a world wide computer net, and the sheer volume
- of notes transmitted daily in the U.S. makes it ridiculous to control.
- Furthermore, the provisions of S.314 are not in accordance with
- the Constitution. And to top off all of that, there are some very
- possible, and very real, negative side effects that could come from
- the passing of S.314. While the bill is intended to protect
- children and adults from being harassed and being offended, there
- must be another way to do it. Evidently S.314 is not the route to
- clean up the Information Superhighway.
-
- _Works Cited_
- Bruce, James and Richard Pfhol. "Analysis-S.314, The Communications
- Decency Act of 1995." INTERNET. Electronic Messaging Association.
- 2/7/95.
-
- Crowley, Stephen. "Senate Panel Backs Smut Ban on Internet."
- _The_New_York_Times_. 24 March, 1995. A1+.
-
- Exon, James. "We Can't Allow Smut on the Internet." Editorial.
- _The_Washington_Post_. 9 March, 1995. A20.
-
- "Fight Online Censorship." _ACLU_CyberLiberties_Alert_. INTERNET.
- ACLU Information. 2/23/95.
-
- Herszenhorn, David. "Students Turn to Internet for Nationwide
- Protest Planning." _The_New_York_Times_. 29 March, 1995. A29.
-
- Mandel, Michael. "The Digital Juggernaut." _BusinessWeek_. The
- Information Revolution. 22+.
-
- Seiger, John. "Senator Exon Introduces Online Indecency
- Legislation." _CDT_Policy_Post. INTERNET. News: alt.talk.EFF.
- 2/9/95.
-
- United States Congress. "Communications Act of 1934." U.S.C. 223.
- Washington, DC: GOP, 1934.
-
- United Stated Congress. Senate. "Communications Decency Act of
- 1995." 104th Congress. S.314 Washington, DC: GOP, 1995.
-
- _United_States_Constitution_. Amendment One.
-
- _United_States_Constitution_. Amendment Four.
-
- _United_States_Constitution_. Amendment Eight.
-
- Written By,
- Brian Kurzynowski
- kurz4768@elan.rowan.edu
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 18:56:47 -0500
- From: Robert E. Jones <rejones@whale.st.usm.edu>
- Subject: File 3--SotMESC Announcement
-
- SotMESC
- P.O. Box 573
- Long Beach, Ms 39560
-
- http://www.mindvox.com/~king
-
- Founded in 1989, this organization is dedicated to preserving the
- integrity and cohesion of the computing society. By promoting computer
- education, liberties and efficiency, we believe we can secure freedoms
- for all computer users while retaining privacy.
-
- Every month more services, networks, countries and facilities are integrated
- into the world-wide networks than ever before. The demand is increasing.
- Future network implementations and schemes need to be formulated and put
- into place to meet this demand so that everyone can be online throughout
- the world. Let us be united together in information and communication.
-
- Join Today !!!
-
- Name:
- Address:
-
- Student/Military: $20+ Citizens: $40+ Corporations: $1,000+
- Overseas: add $10
-
- All memberships will receive the SotMESC Newsletter to keep informed.
-
- Projects :::
-
- Providing scholarships to promote educated users.
- Keeping members informed via the newsletter on events.
- Providing Legal commentary to those members with such needs.
- Working towards being able to provide a machine to members to gain
- -accounts on and Internet services.
- Attending conventions and providing reports to the members
- -of the SotMESC via the newsletter.
- Attending debates to dispute computer roles and cultures.
- Providing and conducting panels and debates at conventions.
- Recycling used computers and reintroducing them to a societies' needs.
-
- The SotMESC NewsLetter :::
-
- A most informative array of articles and notices. Convention topics
- and dates, along with ongoing activities. Computer news on the Network
- community. Advice on preventing Government intervention and infiltration.
- Networking information and sites. BBS prospects. Monthly mailings.
- Internet applications and sites to utilize, free programs listed.
-
- A -MUST- for anyone with a Modem !!! Etc . . .
-
- The SotMESC is a network/bbs/computer affectionado group of people that
- wish to protect their services they freely enjoy. This involves goals along
- the line of keeping the Internet open to the public and encouraging a wide range
- of applications for it, promoting BBS services, protecting privacy, watching
- the government and private business to ensure no foul-play, and the like.
-
- Our scholaraship is open to those with interests in the computer
- realm to get a chance to broaden their horizons and get an opportunity to
- apply themselves by going to college. We are promoting this to the users
- in the hacker community who do not get such a chance as often as their
- intelligence would dispute.
-
- Our notable members include: Pentagon personnel, Hacker convention
- organizers, Members of various hacker organizations, Security consultants,
- International representatives and others associated with these fields,
- Commercial owners, legal representatives, and site Administrators.
-
- I hope this helps explain some things we do . . And what we are.
-
-
- SotMESC
- P.O. Box 573
- Long Beach, Ms 39560
-
- Anyone on the networks, bulletin boards or familiar with the issues
- of the computer realm can now get more information in an up-to-date
- format by joining the SotMESC. Our newsletters come out on a monthly
- basis and feature articles about current computer legislation, conventions,
- Internet sites and information, bulletin board numbers of value, and
- details of the activities we are conducting to promote computer usage
- over the lines, networks and courts.
-
- Getting this newsletter is conditional to joining the SotMESC in
- helping us provide programs and funding for projects to secure computer
- usage and education. These projects include our scholarship fund,
- computer relocation program for discarded systems, counseling, promoting
- responsible laws for computer usage, and associated activities.
-
- To get this information, and your membership in the SotMESC,
- send your contributions to the address above.
-
- Students - $20 Citizen - $40 Corporate - $1,000
-
- If you are interested in keeping up with what is happening on the
- Internet, and the multitudes of networks incorporated, you need to join
- the SotMESC. Our newsletter is packed with information on a monthly
- basis full of FTP Sites, Gopher information, Telnet access, mosaic, other
- services and applications, and many events occurring.
-
- This service is a virtual history of who is doing what when and where.
- Never be lost again on finding applications, programs or help. And the best
- part is, a portion of all proceeds put into our organization goes back into
- the Internet. We have hosted conferences at conventions, on networks and
- in work groups. For students, we have initiated a scholarship program to
- promote the literacy of network cooperation. And as we grow, we hope that
- one day we can provide a free server on the Internet to all members to
- utilize to its fullest extent.
-
- As the Internet grows, grow with it. Subscribe today.
-
- SotMESC
- P.O. Box 573
- Long Beach, Ms 39560
-
- F R E E D O M P R I V A C Y
-
- Beliefs :::
-
- We oppose the Clipper Chip and secret encryption techniques.
- We believe in Freedom on the networks for public access.
- We believe in Privacy for every individual on the networks.
- We oppose the restriction of information on the networks.
- We approve of the advancement of technology and intelligence.
- We strive for a higher education for all via the networks.
- We work to integrate the world in cooperation on the networks.
-
- --Distribute to those that wish to know more about the Internet--
-
- The SotMESC scholarship fund is to advance those that wish to
- learn more about the computer sciences, their applications and
- cultures.
-
- The qualifications are for the person desiring such a scholarship
- to print a 15-20 page report in APA 4.0 detail an aspect of
- computing culture.
-
- All entries will be judged and measured by the SotMESC Scholarship
- committee. Those that are accepted will be summarily reviewed by a
- second group from the SotMESC and those that are deemed of quality will
- receive scholarships based on their weighted averages.
-
- This scholarship is open to anyone. All submissions will become
- the property of the SotMESC. All authors will be recognized for their
- submissions. Any and all references should be cited.
-
- This fund is open and applicable to all accredited colleges and universities.
- The amount of the scholarship and terms will vary accordingly.
-
-
- SotMESC
- P.O. Box 573
- Long Beach, Ms 39560
-
-
- -- Distribute this document freely as you see fit --
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: 29 Apr 1995 13:22:30 -0400
- From: "Dave Banisar" <banisar@EPIC.ORG>
- Subject: File 4--CFP - Advanced Surveillance
-
- CALL FOR PAPERS
-
- Advanced Surveillance Technologies
-
- Sponsored by
-
- Privacy International, and
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
-
- 4 September 1995
-
- Copenhagen, Denmark
-
-
- Overview
-
- Over the past decade, fundamental changes have taken place in the
- nature and the environment of surveillance. New information systems
- offer an unprecedented ability to identify, monitor and track a
- virtually limitless number of individuals. Some leading-edge
- technologies are likely to revolutionize the practice of
- surveillance. The factors of cost, scale, size, location and
- distance have, in many instances, become largely irrelevant.
-
- The impact of political and economic change throughout the world has
- also created unforeseen dimensions to surveillance. The evolution of
- a Global Information Infrastructure will have a profound impact on
- the scope of potential surveillance of individuals. The end of the
- cold war and the privatization of public sector activities has
- magnified the impact of change. The merging of technologies has also
- created new opportunities for wide-scale surveillance.
-
- The nature of surveillance has changed to the extent that modern
- information systems involve a pre-requisite of general surveillance
- of populations. The pursuit of perfect identity has created a rush
- to develop systems which create an intimacy between people and
- technology. Advanced biometric identification and sophisticated ID
- card systems combine with geographic tracking to create the
- potential to pinpoint the location of any individual. The use of
- distributed databases and data matching programs makes such tracking
- economically feasible on a large scale.
-
- Extraordinary advances have recently been made in the field of
- visual surveillance. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems can
- digitally scan, record, reconfigure and identify human faces, even
- in very poor light conditions. Remote sensing through advanced
- satellite systems can combine with ground databases and
- geodemographic systems to create mass surveillance of human
- activity.
-
- The globalization of information systems will take information once
- and for all away from the protection and jurisdiction of national
- boundaries. The development of data havens and rogue data states is
- allowing highly sensitive personal information to be processed
- outside any legal protection.
-
- At a more intimate level, research is underway in more than a dozen
- countries with the aim of implanting microchip technology directly
- into the human brain. US and European medical institutes have
- already conducted many such operations. The creation of a direct
- link between the human brain and computer technology is at an
- advanced stage. Such procedures are initially aimed at stimulating
- dead senses and paralyzed limbs. Within two decades, it is possible
- that such implants will be at a sufficiently advanced stage to
- enable complex interaction between the brain and external
- technology.
-
- The science of nanotechnology, which involves the re-configuration
- of individual atoms and molecules, will present the potential for
- virtually undetectable covert surveillance.
-
- These and other developments are changing the nature and meaning of
- surveillance. Law has scarcely had time to address even the most
- visible of these changes. Public policy lags behind the technology
- by many years. The repercussions for privacy and for numerous other
- aspects of law and human rights need to be considered sooner rather
- than later.
-
- This one day conference will present an overview of these
- leading-edge technologies, and will assess the impact that they may
- have in the immediate future. Experts and analysts will discuss the
- nature and application of the new technologies, and the public
- policy that should be developed to cope with their use.
-
- The conference theme is unique, and interest in the event has
- already been expressed from throughout the world.
-
-
- Program contents
-
- The first session will assess new dimensions in current surveillance
- technologies. The remainder of the day will be devoted to exploring
- technologies which are in the formative stage of development.
-
- Preliminary List of Topics:
-
- o Advanced Satellite Surveillance
- o Microchip Implants
- o Nanotechnology
- o Biometrics and perfect identity
- o Advanced Geodemographic Systems
- o Data Havens and Rogue Data States
- o Information Warfare
- o Cryptography
-
- The conference will be held in Copenhagen, and is timed to coincide
- with the 17th annual international meeting of privacy and data
- protection commissioners.
-
- Number of participants : approximately one hundred
-
- Cost: US $75 - Individuals/non-profit organizations
- $175 - Commercial organizations
-
- Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center
- are now requesting abstracts for papers. Papers should be directed
- at a general audience, and should either present an overview of an
- aspect of advanced surveillance technology, or they should discuss
- the likely use and impact of the technology.
-
- Abstracts or papers can be emailed to Privacy International at:
- pi@privacy.org
-
- Alternatively, they can be sent to :
-
- Privacy International Washington Office
- 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301
- Washington, DC 20003 USA
- 1-202-544-9240 (phone)
- 1-202-547-5482 (fax)
-
-
- Web address: http://privacy.org/pi/
- gopher/ftp cpsr.org /cpsr/privacy/privacy_international/
-
- ==================================================================
-
- David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel)
- Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
- 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org
- Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
- From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 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 LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
- The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
- or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
- 60115, USA.
-
- To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST <your name>
- Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
- (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
-
- Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
- news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
- LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
- libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
- the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
- On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
- on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
- and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
- CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
- 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
-
- EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
- Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
- In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
- In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
-
- 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 #7.35
- ************************************
-
-