home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 2003-06-11 | 57.1 KB | 1,119 lines |
-
- Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 18, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 50
- ISSN 1004-042X
-
- Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
- Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
- Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
- Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
- Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
- Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
- Ian Dickinson
- Triviata: How many Spams have C&S Done since April '94?
-
- CONTENTS, #7.50 (Sun, Jun 18, 1995)
-
- File 1--Review of Canter & Siegel's HOW TO MAKE A FORTUNE
- File 2--some info on the health spam
- File 3--C&S from a "Client's" Perspective
- File 4--"Hacking" a Moderated Newsgroup - Why it's wrong
- File 5--Flordia Bar v. Siegel & Canter (511 So.2d 995, 1987)
- File 6--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: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 20:43:54 CDT
- From: Jim Thomas <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 1--Review of Canter & Siegel's HOW TO MAKE A FORTUNE
-
- _How to Make a FORTUNE on the Information Superhighway: Everyone's
- Guerrila Guide to Marketing on the Internet and other On-line
- Services_. Laurence A. Canter and Martha S. Siegel. New York: Harper
- Collins. 234 pp. $20 (cloth).
-
- Scott Adam's hilarious cartoon book, _Clues for the Clueless_, sprang
- to mind as I read _Fortune_. Some people just don't get it. When they
- write books about what they don't get, the result is like setting
- Ratbert at the typewriter to write a book about the Internet.
-
- I recognize that it's difficult to write a book. As most authors know,
- writing requires patience, considerable research, continual revision,
- feedback from respected colleagues, and polishing of the logic, prose,
- and logical organizational themes, qualities not evident in _Fortune_.
- Despite my strong feelings against spamming, of which Canter and
- Siegel (C&S) are self-proclaimed "experts," I was prepared to set
- aside my personal views and review their work solely on its
- intellectual and related merits. Having finished the volume, I find
- little substantative merit. It reads like a pulp rush job, the kind
- that appear a week after a major event, written by authors attempting
- to cash in on being "first with the worst." Perhaps this isn't
- surprising, considering that it was obviously written quickly (after
- April 1994, and in the bookstores in November).
-
- If _Fortune_ were an undergraduate project, I might, on a good day,
- give it a C+, mostly because of length. If it were a graduate paper, I
- would return it and require that it be more thoroughly researched and
- massively revised. Which means, I suppose, that Harper Collins, the
- publisher, has apparently begun accepting manuscripts that lie on the
- cutting edge of mediocrity. I resist adding that Harper Collins, in
- fact, now seems to accept manuscripts that lie, because there's a thin
- line between intellectual dishonesty and lying: It's always possible
- that falsehoods and argument by omission are the result of
- incompetence or stupidity rather than intentional distortion.
- Whatever the reasons, _Fortune_ impresses me as a mega-deception built
- around distortions, half-truths, and flat-out falsehoods. In fact,
- other than it's cyber-connected title, there normally would be little
- reason to review _Fortune_. At its best, it is poorly written, replete
- with contradictions, self-serving, and simplistic. At its worst, it is
- offensively illogical and filled with mean-spirited attacks,
- intellectual dishonesty and stunning falsehoods. Normally, such tomes
- are safely ignored. However, because of the demonstrable possibility
- that some readers of this volume might
- uncritically accept the main premise (fortune awaits you on the Internet),
- _Fortune_ requires a response.
-
- Three central themes weave through _Fortune_. The "first is a defense
- of advertising on the Nets that unequivocally advocates and defends
- "spamming." The second theme, evoking images of playground children
- acting out, resembles a vendetta: C&S use much of the book to attack,
- belittle, and even smear those who have in the past, might in the
- present, or will in the future, disagree with them. The final theme
- is avariciousness. Lest the attention-challenged miss the point, the
- authors repeat ad nauseam that fortune, riches, wealth, gold,
- money-making, and more awaits the reader on what they call the
- "I-way."
-
- DEFENDING SPAMMING
-
- Canter and Siegel were "absolutely amazed that there were people who
- could become so distraught over the appearance of a simple, commercial
- message on their computer screens (p. 21-22). The disingenuousness of
- this cavalier disregard for truth notwithstanding, it's even more
- amazing that--after bragging throughout the volume about how many
- people they could reach with their message, and advocating mass and
- indiscriminate mailings (to include circumventing gatekeeping in
- moderated groups), they believe the issue is a "simple message." All
- they did, they claim, was anger a few stodgy hotheads who feel they
- own the Net. Not on one page, not in one sentence, not even in a
- short phrase--do they acknowledge that people were offended by the
- mass and disruptively indiscriminate nature of that "simple" post.
- They defend their right to spam as a "free speech" issue, and label
- those who criticize them as hypocrites who would suppress freedom of
- speech (or worse). In an ironic bit of Orwellian double-think, Siegel
- even claimed in an October New York Times profile:
-
- Ms. Siegel. Freedom of speech has become a cause for us. I
- continue to be personally appalled at the disrespect for freedom
- of speech by this handful of individuals who would take over the
- net if they could.
-
- Surely they must have understood that spamming is to free speech as
- is vandalizing a lawn by continually throwing unsolicited flyers on it.
- It's unlikely that they'd recognize their spam as the cyber-equivalent
- of littering, but even they acknowledge that clogging the Nets might
- be a legitimate complaint. Sadly, they dismiss the complaint by
- attacking the Nets:
-
- ((Canter)): The most common objection I hear, that on the surface
- makes sense, is how it's going to clog everything up.
-
- The truth is what's clogging up the Usenet and the Internet is
- that there are just too many people on it (New York Times, Oct
- 16, 1994).
-
- Now I'm confused. First, C&S claim that their spamming technique is
- effective because there are so many of us out here, now approaching 50
- million by some estimates, and then they argue that there are too many
- people clogging the Net. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that
- sending multiple identical posts to millions of Net-cloggers, coupled
- with the legitimate responses complaining about these posts, isn't a
- factor. Nah...it's not spam that's the problem. It's "old time
- internetters" who are "(S)teeped in Internet tradition that they
- seemed to hold as dear as life itself" who opposed any change in the
- status quo (p. 28), and who are "arguably short on maturity of
- attitude" and opposed to changes to the Net (p. 29).
-
- It's as easy to find jerks on the Net as it is to find them off the
- Net. After all, there is no Cyber Earp to force people to check their
- weapons of nastiness in a drawer before sitting down at the keyboard.
- It's not difficult to imagine some of the intemperate and hostile
- posts directed toward C&S, just as it's not difficult to imagine the
- excessive response of an enraged motorist who's run off the road by an
- urban cowboy on a Chicago highway. Generalizing from a particular,
- however, seldom provides an accurate picture, and C&S continually
- reduce Net life to a fabricated image of loathsome geeks, all of
- whom love wielding power (p. 192). This, they say, is why we need
- YOU--"you" presumably being the would-be fortune hunter to add to
- the Net clutter (Chapter 15).
-
- Astute readers will note that, to this point, I've produced little of
- substance to elaborate C&S's defense of spamming. That's because there
- isn't much. Their "defense" is reduced primarily to ignoring the
- issue, substituting the term "advertising" for "spamming," and lashing
- out at their critics. Criminologists have a name for this:
- NEUTRALIZATION. Neutralization theorists argue that criminals and
- others who violate fundamental social norms redefine their actions to
- make them appear socially acceptable, or at least less deviant.
- Neutralization techniques include 1) Blaming the victim, 2) Denial of
- harm, 3) Denying responsibility, 4) Condemning the authorities (who
- enforce laws) and 5) Appealling to higher values or loyalties. C&S, it
- seems, are heavy-into denial. They blame the victims of their
- disruption for complaining; they deny that they did harm; they deny
- not only responsibility for their acts, but refuse to recognize the
- acts at all; they condemn those (such as systems administators and
- others) for taking actions to reduce the harm, and they appeal the
- lofty goal of getting rich to justify their actions. There are, of
- course, other theories to explain their deviance, but none are as
- striking as the manipulation and twisting of reality that oozes from
- their text. Spamming? Hey, what's wrong with a little advertising?
-
- AVARICE
-
- I stopped counting the explicit allusions to "making a fortune,"
- "getting rich," "making money--is there ever enough of it?",
- striking gold, and other plugs for pulling in a quick buck at about
- 50. Nothing wrong with making money, but the book reads like a
- get-rich-quick formula, with C&S at the center of the matchbook cover,
- just waiting for the reader to tear it off and send it in. At least
- matchbook covers are short reading. Consider:
-
- Would a spare $50,000 come in handy? How about an extra $100,000?
- That's what we made as a result of one night's work using our
- knowledge of the Information Superhighway. We're going to turn
- that knowledge over to you, so you can do the same thing we did.
- It's both easy and fascinating (p 2).
-
- The central premise is that the market-seeking reader can follow C&S's
- strategy--preferably as C&S clients, and reach those millions of
- Net-connected people, even if they don't want to be reached.
- Redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's poor literary
- style, unless paid by the word, in which case redundancy is gold.
- Perhaps Harper-Collins ran out of copy editors last fall, because the
- repetitive references to making a fortune on the Internet detract from
- the message, even if we agreed with it. All that aside, other than
- alluding to their own good fortune, an allusion about which one could
- raise some doubtful questions of credibility, there is no evidence or
- convincing logic that one will get rich, let alone have happy results,
- as one recent C&S "client" learned (see Sue Giles' account in a post
- below). We don't know if one reporter's claim that C&S requested $500
- for an interview is hyperbole or whether, perhaps, the request was
- intended as a joke. The sum was apparently not paid, and the interview
- not given. But, the anecdote is consistent with the book's avaricious
- theme. If Michael Milken wrote a book about cyberspace, I can imagine
- it resembling _Fortune_.
-
- GETTING EVEN
-
- There is nothing like a good vendetta in print to make for an
- enjoyable evening's reading. Unfortunately, the vendetta in _Fortune_
- is neither clever nor well-directed. C&S take swipes at virtually the
- entire net. In fact, they seem to loathe Netters, both as a group and
- individually. Now is their chance to get even with all those
- people---even those with whom they've had no contact. The venom in
- their attacks, like their spam, often seems indiscriminate and
- off-target. They continually call computer folk "geeks." After all,
- they say, they call themselves that as a "badge of honor" (p. 179).
- We can quibble about whether the term is as ubiquitous or
- complimentary as they claim, but what isn't a quibble is that C&S
- don't use the term as a "badge of honor." They use it to demean, to
- belittle, and to describe especially those computer professionals who
- they feel did them wrong. One can imagine them using the common
- pejorative word to describe African-Americans and, when challenged,
- saying.....well, you get the idea.
-
- C&S aren't pleased with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who,
- with its founders Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow, are part of the
- inbred Net community. They single out especially The EFF's Mike
- Godwin, and accuse him in a not-so-subtle swipe of taking a
- hypocritical attitude toward defending (their) freedom of speech:
-
- In May of 1994, believing that the EFF really did support freedom
- of speech in the same broad and democratic manner as did the
- ACLU, we initiated a discussion with Mike Godwin, an EFF lawyer.
- We wanted his views on the censorship issues raised by the
- behavior of electronic vandals and access providers who had
- pulled our account for performing the perfectly legal act of
- Internet advertising. We were amazed when Godwin stated to us
- that he was so busy sympathizing with those who opposed us, that
- he had no sympathy left for the other side. So much for freedom
- of speech (p. 194).
-
- Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with Mike Godwin knows that
- his commitment to freedom of speech is unwavering. They also know that
- Godwin is known for his willingness to help, without pay, those who
- need it. C&S, who claim to know the internet with the proficiency of
- experts, apparently don't know this. So much for experts.
-
- Along the way, reporter Brock Meeks, The WELL, author Howard
- Rheingold, and others, are adduced to show the "unlimited inbreeding
- of those who claim leadership" and wield power on the Net (pp
- 195-196). Even comedian Penn Jillette doesn't escape their attacks,
- as C&S allude to unattributed comments he made about Teri Hatcher (of
- tv's Lois and Clark) and C&S. This, they apparently feel, is evidence
- that shows how nasty the Net can be. It's interesting that the bulk of
- the text from the "Crimes in Cyberspace" chapter are devoted to
- non-criminals and non-criminal acts. From the chapter one would gather
- that the primary crime in cyberspace is failing to pay proper homage
- to Canter and Siegel.
-
- WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THE VOLUME?
-
- It's rare that I've written a review in which I can't find something
- good to say. It's even rarer that I read one without finding something
- of value in it. Jeez, I was even sucked into Bridges of Madison
- County. But, I just can't find much worth in _Fortune_. Actually, I
- can't find ANY worth in it. Granted, a few chapters describe the Net,
- tell us that there are Macs and DOS computers, and give an overview of
- Gopher, the Web, and other topics. But, the descriptions are
- superficial and incomplete. They are also framed in too-cute headings,
- such as "Gopher the gold."
-
- In addition to the misrepresentation of the spamming incident, there
- are so many factual and logical flubs that either C&S did not do any
- serious research, or they did what they thought was research and
- botched it. Anecdotes are provided without citations, making it
- difficult to check the veracity. For example, the account of the
- Michigan "e-mail stalker" (p. 58) is not consistent with the facts of
- the nationally publicized stalking case in Michigan. It's impossible
- to determine which stalking case C&S refer to, however, because they
- fail to provide a site. The discussion of "Netiquette" is simply
- wrong---C&S depict it as invariant rules that a few power-hungry folk
- would impose on others. As anybody familiar with the Net knows, it's
- simply prescriptions of common courtesy. A table (p. 70) summarizing
- Usenet readership for the ten most popular newsgroups is either drawn
- from a very old source, or C&S misread it. For example, they cite
- alt.sex as having only 180,000 readers. This is a fraction cited by
- occasional Usenet Arbitron estimates, and even CuD has more total
- readers than the top-listed group cited by C&S,
- news.announce.newusers, which they list as 280,000. Some of these
- errors are gross, while others--such as claims of Usenet
- readership--are relatively minor. In the aggregate, however, they
- suggest that the authors have far less familiarization with their
- topic than they claim.
-
- In chapter 17, "Crimes in Cyberspace," a separate book could be
- written to correct the numerous errors. The history of the EFF is
- stunningly wrong, and they compound their errors with the claim that
- "The EFF was born to protect hackers" (194). Such an astonishing
- error suggests that they simply don't know what they're talking about.
- The misrepresentation of the PHRACK/E-911 case, in which they call the
- primary participant a criminal and tell the reader that he was
- convicted for computer theft is outrageous (p. 190). The stunningly
- erroneous misrepresentation of legal cases (eg, Brock Meeks' libel
- defense when sued by Benjamin Suarez, the Tennessee Amateur Action BBS
- "pornography" case, the David La Macchia case at MIT ((C&S also
- mistakenly call him Michael La Macchia)), and other summaries suggest
- the these lawyers have not only taken a few minutes to do some basic
- legal research, but are not aware of the most basic facts available to
- anyone who takes time to read the newspapers with minimal care.
-
- They tell us that "one of the main reasons Cyberspace crime is so
- rampant" is lack of face-to-face contact (p. 214), something that
- would likely come as a surprise to criminologists who study it.
-
- Perhaps the greatest irony is that they conclude the volume with 17
- "Guidelines" that presumably specify ethical principles that Net
- advertisers should follow. If violation of those principles
- constitutes unethical behavior, then C&S might want to examine their
- ethics: I counted three principles that seem inconsistent with their
- spamming (identity, filtering, and sincerity), and others in which
- their book and dealings with a client might raise eyebrows (truth,
- omission, composition, and unprovable claims). Although this latter
- category would seem beyond the scope of Internet advertising, it does
- raise questions of intellectual integrity of claims and omissions C&S
- have presented in public.
-
- If the authors had taken the trouble to confront the issue of
- advertising on the Nets by examining appropriate methods and
- strategies, they could have contributed to a useful dialogue. If they
- had taken the trouble to examine the complexity and heterogeneity of
- the Net community, it could have been an interesting volume. If they
- had taken the trouble to explore the complexity of computer-mediated
- communication, they could have expanded their audience. If they had
- openly acknowledged or shown an understanding of the issues underlying
- spamming, instead of misrepresenting their own experience and lashing
- out at their victims, they might have won some of us over. Had they
- shown an awareness that some of us don't like our yards littered with
- flyers, had they been less mean-spirited, or had they even done a bit
- more research to avoid humiliating errors, they could have produced at
- least a mildly useful book for reference. They did none of this. The
- bibliography is sparce, there is no index, and I'm not sure what to do
- with my well-marked copy now that I'm done. Like P.T. Barnum said, one
- is born every minute. Maybe I'll send C&S my Scott Adams volume.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 17:38:02 -0500 (CDT)
- From: Chip Rosenthal <chip@chinacat.unicom.com>
- Subject: File 2--some info on the health spam
-
- I hesitate to bother moderators with this because it's really not
- on topic, but there might be some interest...
-
- I called the phone number in the posting to complain about somebody
- forging approval in a group that I moderate.
-
- The phone number is answered by a "fulfillment house". This is a
- company that answers questions, takes orders, and ships product.
- It is two or three steps above an answering service in the telephony
- food chain.
-
- The guy I talked to was willing to chat a bit. Some of the things
- I gleamed from the conversation:
-
- The book is published by a small company called Your Lifetime Health
- Planner. The guy stated that the spam was done with the assistance
- of a company called Cybersell. I asked for contact information, and
- he told me that people named Siegel and Larry Cantor were involved.
- He said he had a phone number for them, but it has been reported as
- disconnected. I got the impression that C&S charged on the order of
- a thousand bucks to launch this spam.
-
- He stated that a count of phone calls was being kept. It was at about
- 100 when I called. He also said that the company's owner was working
- with RTD.COM (the ISP) to resolve the problem. He said RTD.COM has
- received something like 3500 email messages.
-
- Also interestingly, he mentioned that the owner's husband is a lawyer.
- I suggested that Your Lifetime Health Planner was seriously mislead
- (potentially in a fraudulent fashion) about this form of advertising,
- and if the company had any sort of good reputation prior to this
- incident, it has been irreparably damaged. To me, these suggest that
- both criminal and civil proceedings might be considered. In fact, I
- suggested that they consider them. :-)
-
- My personal opinion is that both RTD.COM and YLHP are victims in this.
- I do NOT, however, hold YLHP blameless. They instituted the spam,
- and I will not absolve them of responsibility simply because they were
- ignorant of it. I hope they consider action against C&S. It would
- help them restore their reputation, and it would make amends for the
- damage they have done.
-
- The phone number in the posting was 520-798-1530. If you feel so
- inclined to express your opinion, I'd encourage you to do so. I also
- strongly encourage you NOT to be abusive to the people who answer the
- phone. They didn't do it, they don't know nothing, and all they can
- do is tally up the calls and pass along what people say.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:32:45 CDT
- From: Jim Thomas <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 3--C&S from a "Client's" Perspective
-
- Sue Giles was simply looking for somebody to help her small company
- with some marketing advice. Instead, she walked into a hornet's nest
- stirred up by Laurence A. Canter and Martha A. Siegel, authors of "How
- to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway."
-
- Ms. Giles, a co-partner in The Life Time Health Planner, is the most
- recent client of May's Canter and Siegel-inspired net-spam. "Spamming"
- is the practice of flooding the Net with multiple and identical
- messages that are sent indiscriminately to multiple addresses and
- arrive in millions of Usenet groups and private mailboxes. In fact,
- Canter and Siegel brag in their book that they can reach 30 million
- people quickly, cheaply, and effectively in a "no-wait marketing
- campaign" (pp 38-46). In their book, and according to one client, they
- bill themselves as "pioneers" and experts in the spamming technique,
- which they see as nothing more than "advertising" protected by the
- First Amendment. It is unfortunate that writing a book tends to
- confer an aura of respectability and credibility on the authors, even
- if it isn't deserved. It's this aura that contributed to Sue Giles's
- belief that Canter and Siegel were experienced cyber-marketers.
-
- WHO IS SUE GILES?
-
- Sue Giles, with two friends, puts out a legitimate product called The
- Life Time Health Planner. The Planner is a 5 by 7 binder with various
- categories for organizing personal and family medical history. It
- sells for $19.95, and provides a means to chart medicines, health
- problems, and other information that will help track family medical
- problems through life. Those of us who have dealt with aging parents,
- childhood illnesses, and similar problems recognize the value of such
- a tool. The last thing Sue Giles wanted was to convey the negative
- image of her product that she feels resulted from Canter and Siegel's
- "expertise."
-
- In looking for an inexpensive way to advertise the planner, a friend
- mentioned the Internet to her. Although the friend knew little about
- the Net, he was aware of Canter and Siegel's book. Because they were
- in the area in Arizona, the friend encouraged Ms. Giles to contact
- C&S, and together, the friend and Ms. Giles, met with them.
-
- Ms. Giles isn't on the Net, has no e-mail address, has never read a
- Newsgroup, and knows nothing about the way messages travel. She
- believed Canter and Siegel when they told her it was an honest and
- legitimate way to reach an audience. As she later said, "I didn't
- even know what questions to ask them. I was a soft-sell." But she
- tried. The following is her account of the scenario.
-
- Ms. Giles told CuD that when her friend initiated contact with Canter
- and Siegel, they assured him that they were "the Internet marketing
- people." They re-affirmed this claim when Ms. Giles spoke to them, and
- assured her that they were experts. And, why shouldn't they believe
- C&S? After all, C&S wrote a book, and in that book they declared
- themselves "an instantly established leader" in the field. In fact,
- when the New York Times (October 16, 1994) did a featured profile on
- Canter and Siegel, the reporter asked:
-
- Question: Are you really the ones who ought to be writing
- such a book?
-
- Answer: Ms. Siegel: Who would be better? We know exactly
- what's going on. We know exactly how it should be done.
-
- Canter: We know all the pros and cons we experienced
- everything positive and negative.
-
- Hey, it's in the New York Times, so it must be true. But, Ms. Giles
- asked how many previous clients they provided a similar service to,
- and they told her, she said, over a dozen. Had she read the New York
- Times profile, in which C&S claimed that they "have over 100 people
- who are involved with us now," she might have asked for some
- clarification about the apparent discrepancy in figures. She asked
- for a reference, and they gave her the name of a "client" who had
- recently spammed the net with an an add that began as follows:
-
- Date--9 Feb 1995 03:35:10 -0500
- From--ccapc@CYBER.SELL.COM(Consumer Credit Advocates)
- Subject--<ad> GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM
-
- Consumer Credit Advocates, PC
- 11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101
- New York, NY 10001
- (212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax)
- E-MAIL--ccapc@cyber.sell.com
-
- Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit
- restoration services by experienced attorneys. THIS IS
- NOT A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT.
-
-
- She called the "client" and, in a brief conversation, was told that
- the client had many responses. What she was not told, either by the
- client or by Canter and Siegel, was that the client received hostile
- responses, both on e-mail and to the telemarketing service who
- answered the telephone. Canter and Siegel only told her, she said, that
- there were some people on the Internet who believe that ads don't
- belong on the net, and that something new can upset some people. What
- they DID NOT tell her, to the best of her recollection, is that they,
- Canter and Siegel, faced disciplinary problems in Florida (see
- the accompanying post in this post detailing the C&S legal problem in
- Florida). Nor did they tell her that they, Canter and Siegel, had lost
- their accounts on other systems for their spamming technique. Nor did
- they tell her that their own "expertise" was not sufficient to give
- them a reliable e-mail or www site, which, to our mind, is a sign that
- the "experts" might not be what they claim. Nor did they indicate
- that that they were not simply "advertising," but provoking with an
- in-your-face strategy that would generate backlash that would make her
- next few weeks a nightmare. In short, by Ms. Giles account, C&S
- omitted significant information that, had she known it, would have
- given her significant second thoughts. When CuD informed her of some
- of the facts surrounding C&S, their reputation, their apparent
- misrepresentation, and their previous legal problems in Florida (some
- of which she had learned after-the-fact), she indicated that she would
- not have utilized their services had she known of all this at the
- time.
-
- Ms. Giles was charged $995 for what by all accounts is a relatively
- simple procedure (net spamming, disruptive as it is, is hardly
- high-tech). In their book, C&S note that a "Geek" wrote their program
- in "a matter of days" for $12 an hour (pp 183-184). Despite his
- labors, they belittle him in their book, even though respecting his
- request for anonymity. According to Ms. Giles, she was asked if she
- had an Internet account. She did not, but she had a friend who did.
- The friend--believing that nothing extraordinary would
- occur--allowed use of the account. C&S apparently logged on via
- telephone (rather than from their own system on cyber.sell.com), and
- what happened next is described by Mark Beeson of rtd.com:
-
- From--mark@nin.com (Mark Beeson)
- Newsgroups--news.admin.net-abuse.misc
- Subject--NOTICE--Free Health Spam INFO
- Date--24 May 1995 18:09:01 GMT
-
- Let me introduce myself. I'm Mark Beeson, the one who
- generated the cancel messages for the Free Health Spam. You
- may reach me at mark@rtd.com. I am, more or less, news
- administrator for RTD Systems & Networking, Inc., a
- Tucson-Arizona based Internet Provider. All comments about
- this ordeal should be directed to me.
-
- Yes, I know the cancel messages were possibly broken, and
- I'm sorry, but I'm sort of a newbie at auto-cancelling
- messages.
-
- Anyways.. a little information..
-
- FIRST: David Siegel is in no way related to Martha Siegel.
- So all the "conspiracy theories" can be thrown out
- the window.
-
- Okay, now for the real info:
-
- - Last night at approximately 9PM MST I received e-mail from
- one of our users complaining about a message in
- comp.infosystems.www.authoring. I sighed and looked at the
- message.
-
- - 9:15 PM -- This same user complains that the message is
- showing up "everywhere in the rec.* hierarchy". At this
- point my heart rate begins to go on a rollercoaster ride.
-
- - 9:30 PM -- I am logged into the news machine
- (baygull.rtd.com) and executing a find . -print | xargs
- grep baygull on each of the major news hierarchies.
-
- Results of that:
-
- - comp.* was the worst hit, with 790 groups hit. -
- rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, bit.*, biz.*, and misc.* each got
- about 150
- groups hit. - Unfortunately I was not able to target
- the alt.* groups because
- the command you see above always terminated with a
- broken pipe. (Probably because of the enormous amount
- of newsgroups one step away from the top level). I am
- told, however, that someone is working on
- auto-cancelling the alt.* messages.
-
- - 10:00 PM -- I have hastily written up a perl script to
- generate cancel messages and pipe them into inews. Yes, I
- know this perl script had errors in it, and unfortunately
- it cancelled approximately 20 articles that did not appear
- at our site. For that, I'm sorry, but again, I was rather
- rushed.
-
- - 10:15 PM -- I do another grep on the sci.* hierarchy, and
- find that the output is _larger_. Much to my horror, I
- realize what has happened and quickly execute (as
- superuser) top, look and see who is doing what on the
- system, and find user "trasoff" running a ".may" command,
- and also a few instances of inews. I kill these in a
- heartbeat, and disable the account.
-
- - 3:00 AM -- The perl scripts finish up with the last of the
- comp.* messages and I go home and fall asleep in a cold
- sweat, sensing impending doom.
-
- IMPORTANT INFO HERE:
-
- - 9:00 AM -- I am awakened by the phone. Our office has
- called me, and according to them, the user trasoff@rtd.com
- is part of a company who contacted CyberSell (Lawrence
- Canter and Martha Siegel, who we all know and love).
- Apparently Lawrence Canter logged onto our machine by
- calling long distance from Phoenix and executing a perl
- script that invoked inews for a long list of newsgroups.
- I apparently caught this script in the middle of rec.*.
- The veracity of whether CyberSell is actually responsible
- for this or not is unknown (by me at this time).
-
- - 10:00 AM -- I log in from home, to find 1400 messages in
- my inbox.
-
- It's currently 11:08, and I'm sure I'll have more details
- for everyone as I get them.
-
- Speaking for RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.,
-
- --Mark --
- Mark Beeson | Same Broken (MB178) President, Neural
- InterNetworking
-
- To my mind, Ms. Giles' primary "flaw" is that she (and the person who
- directed her to C&S) are decent, trusting people who assume that
- people are basically "good." This is fine, unless you deal
- with people with a record of misrepresentation. Had she read the book
- prior to her experience (she began reading it only afterwards), and
- had she been aware of C&S's reputation, alarm bells might have gone off.
- However, Ms. Giles indicated that she's hesitating, at this point, to
- define her experience as one of "victimization:"
-
- I can't say that I've been victimized....I should have
- investigated more. You do have to take responsibility for
- your own mistakes, and we made a mistake. We didn't want to
- give this kind of image to our business.
-
- But, what if she had read the decision of the Florida Supreme Court
- (The Florida Bar v. Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter, 511 So.2d 995,
- 1987), of which the following is an excerpt?
-
- In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court
- held that engaging in deliberate scheme to misrepresent
- facts to senior mortgagee in order to secure full financing
- of purchase for law office warrants 90-day suspension from
- practice of law.
- Suspension ordered.
-
- Engaging in deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts in
- order to secure full financing of purchase used for law
- office, giving vendor junior mortgage contrary to promise
- to senior mortgagee, misrepresenting amount of down payment
- to senior mortgagee, failing to report junior mortgage to
- senior mortgagee in connection with application for loan
- secured by another junior mortgage, submitting personal
- financial statement without disclosing junior mortgage, and
- submitting sworn affidavit to senior mortgagee that no
- facts existed as basis for dispute as to title violate
- rules that prohibit conduct involving dishonesty or
- misrepresentation and illegal conduct and warrant 90-day
- suspension from practice of law.
-
- Had Ms. Giles been on the Net in 1994, she might have read the post in
- comp.org.eff.talk that raised further questions about C&S's legal
- practices, and an excerpt, described as a press under the heading of
- the Tampa Office of the Florida Bar dated 13 October, 1988, read as
- follows:
-
- SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY
-
- TALLAHASSEE, Oct.13-- The Florida Supreme Court has
- granted attorney Laurence A. Canter's petition to resign
- permanently, effective November 7, 1988.
-
- ...........
-
- Several of the complaints against Canter involved his
- failure to file the necessary or appropriate documents with
- the United Stated Immigration and Naturalization Services in
- matters of permanent residency and work visas. In addition,
- Canter refused to refund clients' funds and neglected to
- notify his clients that he has been suspended from the
- practice of law as a result of a previous discipline.
-
- There appears to be sufficient evidence to indicate that Canter and
- Siegel are not strangers to misrepresentation, as the disciplinary
- ruling demonstrates. Their book is fraught with misrepresentation of
- the "Green Card incident" (see the review in this CuD issue). And, if
- Ms. Giles account of her experience is correct, it appears that
- substantial questions arise about their ethics and honesty in their
- latest spam.
-
- Ms. Giles indicated that she would try to meet with C&S within the
- next few weeks to discuss the incident, and would not decide what
- course of remedial action to take, if any, until that time.
-
- I would suggest several questions that she might ask them at that
- meeting, including (but hardly limited to):
-
- 1. Why did C&S not tell her up-front that, from their previous
- experience, the response to her "spam" likely would be swift, hostile,
- and stir up a hornets nest? If Ms. Giles is correct, C&S minimized
- this possibility by alluding only to "a few" people who would be upset
- by "advertising."
-
- 2. Why did C&S not tell Ms. Giles that the issue isn't advertising,
- but spamming? Why did they not fully describe the practice and assure
- that she knew what she was getting into?
-
- 3. How can C&S, in their book (p. 230) claim on one hand that Internet
- users have the right to filter out inappropriate messages, while on
- the other describing in their book (pp 101, 105) ways to circumvent
- this right? Why did they not tell her that what they would do for
- her would unequivocally violate this guideline?
-
- 4. Why did C&S charge $995 for such a relatively simple task?
-
- 5. Ms. Giles recollects that C&S claimed to have over a dozen
- satisfied clients of, she understood, this mass-mailing technique. In
- the October New York Times profile, Canter stated:
-
- Canter: We have over 100 people who are involved with us now. We
- plan to have a grand opening soon, primarily on a Web site.
-
- Perhaps I'm mistaken, But I remember only two (prior to Ms. Giles):
- The Green Card spam in April, 1994, which doesn't count as a "client,"
- because C&S did it on their own behalf, and the Feb. 9, 1995,
- "guaranteed credit repair" spam, which originated from cyber.sell.com.
- Were there others? Ms. Giles might ask for the list of that dozen plus
- and contact them. And, who are those 100 other people with whom C&S
- claimed involvement? Were these customers? Inquirers? The implication
- from the the October article was rather clear: C&S were phenomenally
- successful in acquiring customers for their Internet marketing
- business. They did, after all, claim to have made $100,000 in one
- night's work (_Fortune_, p. 2). If so, how come there were (if in
- fact there were) only a shadowy dozen seven months later? Ms. Giles
- might ask for some precise details on precisely who C&S have had as
- clients to justify their claim of "expertise" in this form of
- marketing.
-
- 6. Why, Ms. Giles might ask, would C&S not possess or use their own
- account if they are the "experts" and if this marketing strategy is so
- successful? Shouldn't one be proud to have their name, cyber.sell.com,
- associated with a product in which they are a professed leader? In
- fact, why does e-mail sent to cyber.sell.com bounce? Why is it
- described as "unreachable?" Why are attempts to access the web site
- mentioned in the book timed-out? Shouldn't Internet experts have a
- reliable account of their own?
-
- 7. Ms. Giles has absolutely no recollection of even a hint that the
- account and the system from which her messages originated would
- receive such dramatic feedback, as Mark Beeson at rtd.com describes
- above. Why did they not warn her of the risks?
-
- 8. In their book (p. 230), C&S explicitly state that distribution
- should be limited to the demographics and interests of the targeted
- newsgroups. Yet, in both the text of their book and in their practice,
- they explicitly violate this guideline. Why did they not tell her that
- they advocate such violation and that their "service" would
- indiscriminately hit all groups?
-
- 9. Why did they not explain to Ms. Giles the meaning of the book's
- subtitle, "Guerrilla Guide to Marketing?"
-
- The list could be expanded, but my guess is that C&S would be
- hardpressed to answer most, if not all, of those questions in a way
- that would provide a consistent explanation for their practices.
-
- In addition to Ms. Giles experience with C&S, her introduction to
- Netfolk was, she said, equally as troubling. C&S only took her money.
- The harassing phone calls she received extended far beyond acceptable
- limits. Netters can be verbally vicious, and she felt the brunt of
- some nasty phone calls. The spam hit just as she was preparing for
- her daughter's wedding. During what should have been an exciting time
- of celebration, she was confronted with death threats and hate-calls,
- which involved both her and her family. When told that on many
- newsgroups she was perceived sympathetically and as a victim, she was
- surprised, because all she heard was the hostility and threats from
- callers. When told that, while some might see her as a villain, the
- cooler heads were advocating calm and emphasizing that the source, not
- the "victim" should bear the brunt, she said
- quietly, "Tell them 'thank you.'"
-
- Ms. Giles impressed me as gentle, laid back, and a sincere person
- trying to market a strong product. She and her marketing friend have
- class. They may or may not make their fortune off the Internet, but
- they will retain their credibility and class long after Canter and
- Siegel have left the scene.
-
- There is one passage in the C&S book that, in retrospect, seems
- prophetic: "....a high price tag on a consultant's time is no
- assurance that you are getting what you pay for" (p. 185).
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:56:33 -0500 (CDT)
- From: Chip Rosenthal <chip@unicom.com>
- Subject: File 4--"Hacking" a Moderated Newsgroup - Why it's wrong
-
- In their latest net.attack, Canter and Siegel left no newsgroup
- untouched. That includes comp.society.cu-digest -- the Usenet group
- that distributes the CuD. Their attack on this very digest demonstrates
- why their actions are reprehensible, and illustrates some of the costs
- of their inappropriate behavior.
-
- On most of the Usenet, anything goes. People can post whatever and
- wherever they want. (Of course, the local constable might want to
- talk to you if you elect to post certain sorts of materials.) Only
- common courtesy and established convention prevent people from spewing
- megabyte binary programs or inappropriate advertisements into discussion
- groups. Except in the case of the ignorant (the so-called "newbies")
- and the socially maladjusted (such as the "spammers"), courtesy and
- convention are enough to hold the net together.
-
- Not all the net is open in that way. A small number of groups, such
- as comp.society.cu-digest, are "moderated". When you send a message
- to a moderated newsgroup, that message is not posted to the net, but
- instead routed to the group's moderator via email. The moderator will
- review the message, and, if approved, post it to the net. The moderator
- adds a special token to the message that tells the Usenet software,
- "This has been approved. Go ahead and post it."
-
- There is nothing particularly magical or secret about this token.
- It is openly documented in the Usenet transport standard (RFC-1036).
- It is trivial for anybody who knows this token to bypass the moderation
- mechanism. The news software doesn't look at the approval token very
- closely. All it does is see that one is there. You can use "eat me!
- I'm spam!" as your token, and the Usenet software will accept it.
- Any idiot can bypass the moderator -- even a pair of Phoenix lawyers.
-
- Moderators have a widely recognized right (some would say a duty) to
- remove rogue postings that bypass the moderation process. Ironically,
- it is easier to create a rogue message than it is for a moderator to
- remove it. The moderator does this by transmitting a cancellation
- request control message. The news software verifies that the cancel
- request appears to come from the original sender, so the moderator
- must masquerade as the sender of the rogue posting. For better or
- worse, this is not particularly difficult to do this. It must, however,
- be done *precisely* correct. A single miniscule discrepancy, and the
- Usenet software will disregard the moderator's cancellation request.
-
- I am the moderator of comp.society.cu-digest. While most moderators
- are responsible for the newsgroup's content, I merely operate a gateway
- that distributes the CuD throughout Usenet. Nonetheless, I have the
- authority to delete rogue postings from this group.
-
- When the C&S spam posting hit comp.society.cu-digest, I acted on that
- authority. I generated a cancellation message to remove their posting.
- But I goofed! I botched the header, and the news software refused
- the request. (Hey! Not my fault! This new "inews" works differently
- than the old one.)
-
- This botch, unfortunately, had a horrible consequence. Certain
- conventions have evolved for spam-removal cancellation messages.
- Without these conventions, the cure could be worse than the disease.
- More net bandwidth and disk space could be burned by de-spam control
- messages than was wasted on the original spam. The conventions prevent
- this. These conventions allow the news software to recognize duplicate
- cancellation requests. The duplicates are discarded rather than passed
- along through the network.
-
- My botched attempt followed these conventions. As I result, not only
- did I fail to remove the rogue posting, I actually inoculated it!
- Any attempt additional attempt to remove the message was rejected as
- a duplicate.
-
- Fortunately, a lot of people committed similar mistakes as me. Chris
- Lewis noted the problem, and issued a batch of de-spam control messages
- following an alternate convention. These messages *were* accepted,
- and the spam eventually was deleted.
-
- A lot of people wasted a lot of time cleaning up after the latest C&S
- spam. This illustrates one of the tangible results of their misuse of
- the net.
-
- I believe this incident shows how the C&S net.marketing tactics are
- bankrupt and phony. They wave their hands and spew rhetoric about
- how the net is becoming commercialized and only a handful of old
- farts oppose their efforts. Even stipulating the perverse C&S view
- of the net, the most you can do is justify the spamming of open
- newsgroups. When C&S break into moderated newsgroups, they demonstrate
- their rhetoric is nothing more than dishonest rationalization.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
- Subject: File 5--Flordia Bar v. Siegel & Canter (511 So.2d 995, 1987)
- Date: 7 Jan 1995 01:36:33 -0500
-
- Most of you have probably seen the 1988 report documenting Canter's
- (and Siegel's) resignation from the Florida Bar. However, that report
- mentions their prior suspension "as a result of a previous discipline,"
- which has not (to my knowledge) been publicized.
-
- Below is the text of the 1987 Florida Supreme Court decision suspending
- our two friends for 90 days. Best line: "The respondents are guilty of
- a deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts in order to secure full
- financing of their purchase [of the real estate in question]."
-
- (Although I've crossposted this article to all the groups where C&S
- discussion seems to be happening, I've also limited followups in the
- spirit of good net.citizenship.)
-
- =======================
-
- THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
- v
- Martha SIEGEL, Respondent.
- THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
- v
- LAURENCE CANTER, Respondent
- Nos. 68956, 68957.
- Supreme Court of Florida.
- Sept. 10, 1987.
- 511 So.2d 995
-
- In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court held
- that engaging in deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts to
- senior mortgagee in order to secure full financing of purchase
- for law office warrants 90-day suspension from practice of law.
- Suspension ordered.
-
- John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry,
- Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Thomas E. DeBerg, Asst. Staff
- Counsel, Tampa, for complainant.
- John E. Lund, Tampa, for respondents.
-
- PER CURIAM.
-
-
- These disciplinary proceedings are before us on complaint of the
- Florida Bar and the reports of the referee, which are contested
- by the Bar and by both respondents. We have jurisdiction,
- article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
-
- These complaints involve alleged misrepresentations made by the
- respondents, as law partners, in connection with the purchase of
- the building used primarily as their law offices. While the
- facts are not in dispute, the interpretation of those facts is
- heavily disputed: Because the referee's findings of fact are
- supported by competent and substantial evidence, we accept them
- as stated in the reports. Those reports are set out as follows
- (because they are identical, they have been consolidated into one
- document):
-
- I. Findings of Fact as to Each Item of Misconduct With Which
- the Respondents are Charged: After a hearing on the matter
- before me I find the following:
- On October 7, 1983, respondents executed a mortgage and
- security agreement on property they were purchasing for use as
- their law office. The agreement required that no secondary
- financing on that real estate would be obtained without the
- express consent of the lender, Southeast Bank, N.A., and
- F.D.I.C. bank.
-
- On or before October 7, 1983, respondents had agreed with
- Robert F. Bluck, the seller, to secondary financing in lieu of a
- cash downpayment. On October 7, they signed a mortgage
- agreement with Mr. Bluck for $50,000.00 on the subject real
- estate, and as consideration for the mortgage, executed a
- promissory note for $50,000.00. Southeast Bank, N.A., was not
- informed of the mortgage agreement between the respondents and
- Bluck, nor was the mortgage ever recorded.
-
- The contract to purchase from Robert F. Bluck specified a
- deposit of $20,000.00, new mortgage of $150,000.00, and a
- balance of $30,000.00 to close. On a personal financial
- statement, dated August 4, 1983 and submitted in support of the
- application for The $150,000.00 loan, respondents misrepresented
- that they had made a $20,000.00 downpayment on the subject
- property. Based on representations made by respondents to
- Southeast Bank, N.A., the bank's mortgage loan report listed the
- equity of Siegel and Canter in the real estate as $50,000.00 and
- the source of equity as cash.
-
- On June 30, 1984, respondents submitted additional documents
- to Southeast Bank in support of an application for a $45,000.00
- loan to be secured by a second mortgage on the subject real
- estate. On a balance sheet dated June 30, 1984, respondents
- listed the mortgage to Southeast Bank, N.A. as a liability, but
- did not disclose the mortgage to Bluck.
-
- On a personal financial statement dated July 1, 1984,
- respondents listed the mortgage balance on the first mortgage
- with the bank, but did not disclose the unrecorded mortgage with
- Bluck. Loan officers at the bank again believed respondents to
- have $50,000.00 cash equity in the property, and were unaware of
- the debt to Robert F. Bluck.
-
- On August 10, 1984, respondents submitted to the bank a sworn
- affidavit representing that they were aware of no facts by
- reason of which the title to, or possession of, the subject
- property or any part of it or any personal property on it might
- be disputed or questioned.
-
- At the time of both loans in question, Southeast Bank, N.A.
- was insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
-
- II. Recommendation as to Whether or Not the Respondent Should
- Be Found Guilty: I recommend that the respondents be found
- guilty of violating the following sections of the Code of
- Professional Responsibility: Florida Bar Integration Rule,
- article XI, Rule 11-02(3)(a) (Conduct contrary to honesty); DR
- 1-102(A)(4) (Conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation);
- DR 1-102(A)(3) (Illegal conduct).
-
- III. Recommendation as to Disciplinary Measures to be Applied:
- I recommend that the respondents receive a public reprimand, and
- be suspended from the practice of law for two weeks. The
- suspensions of respondents, based on the same conduct, need not
- run concurrently. I further order that respondents be assessed
- their share of the costs of these proceedings.
-
-
- We accept in their entirety the referee's findings of fact and
- recommendations as to guilt. However, we must reject the
- referee's recommendations as to discipline. The respondents are
- guilty of a deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts in order to
- secure full financing of their purchase. We believe that this
- sort of fraudulent activity cannot be sufficiently disciplined by
- a two week suspension and public reprimand. We do believe,
- however, that the Bar's request for a ninety-one day suspension,
- thus requiring proof of rehabilitation, is not warranted.
-
- Accordingly, we accept the referees findings of fact and
- recommendations of guilt. It is the judgment of this Court that
- the respondents, Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter, be suspended
- from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, commencing
- 30 days after the date of this opinion so that the respondents
- may close out their business, protect the interests of their
- clients, but accept no new business. These suspensions are to be
- served concurrently. Judgment for costs in the amount of
- $1,630.01 is hereby entered against respondent Siegel, and
- judgment for costs in the amount of $1,679.51 is hereby entered
- against respondent Canter, for which sums let execution issue.
-
- It is so ordered.
-
- McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ.,
- concur.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
- From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 6--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://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 #7.50
- ************************************
-
-