The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud760.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 37.5 KB | 792 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Jul 16, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 60
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail]
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson

CONTENTS, #7.60 (Sun, Jul 16, 1995)

File 1--Re CuD #7.55 and Dangers of Computer Intrusions
File 2--Copyrights and Obscenity
File 3--Re: File 6--File 1--Against Intellectual Property
File 4--Senator Grassley's Buthering of "CMU Study" Stats
File 5--NEWS: Hacker Disrupts Internet Link (fwd)
File 6--Voice of America on CDA (fwd)
File 7--'The Hackers Book of Poetry' (fwd)
File 8--AA BBS appeal for help (fwd)
File 9--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: Mon, 03 Jul 1995 08:22:44 -0500
From: [e-mail](Gene Spafford)
Subject: Re CuD #7.55 and Dangers of Computer Intrusions

In the article quoting from Flatland #12, there are some statements
on which I would like to comment:

>
>      Only Joe McCarthy knows how Robert Hager came up with a figure
> of 98 percent for undetected break-ins, and then pretended it was
> worth repeating. Hager continued with his voice-over and began
> talking about hackers breaking into one nameless hospital's records
> and reversing the results of a dozen pap smears. Patients who may
> have had ovarian cancer, Hager claimed, were told instead that they
> were okay.

No, others know where it came from too, because we follow the
literature on such things.  In fact, these results have been widely
published in various media, including Computerworld and InfoSecurity
News.  The same experiment has been done by different groups within
DoD, including the Air Force Information Warfare group, and the
Defence Information Systems Agency (DISA).  The DISA report was the
one that got the publicity, as I recall.  The numbers I have from the
article were that attempts to break in, using captured "hacker"
toolkits, were made against 8932 DoD systems.  7860 of those were
successfully penetrated.  Of those, 390 penetrations were detected,
but only 19 were reported to the proper authorities.  So, 95% of
successful break-ins were undetected, but 99.8% went unreported.

The hospital story is old news too, and not the worst of ones
reported.  I don't keep an extensive clipping file of these things,
but others do, and some research in the library would reveal many
such stories -- including several involving worse damage.

And those are the ones reported.  I've heard NDA and confidential
briefings that are much more troubling. (And I hate that they are
being kept confidential -- if we publicized these things a little
more, it might help wake people up some; see my comments further on.)


There are some real problems in the area of computer security.



>      So Big Brother has a problem. But it's not so much a problem
> of national security, except perhaps in the broad sense of economic
> vulnerability. Defense and intelligence systems that are classified
> are not connected to the Internet. When the Pentagon complains to
> NBC about national security, what they really mean is that they
> might have to forego the convenience of Internet contacts with
> their contractors, and use other means instead.

This evidences either ignorance or disregard for reality.   First of
all, there are a lot of sensitive but unclassified systems on the
network involving government.  Although disclosure of any arbitrary
bit of information may not be a problem, disclosure of large chunks of
it might be (inference),  But that isn't the main problem -- anyone
getting in to the systems and crashing them or altering the
information could really wreak havoc.  Imagine if the payroll systems
for the Army were disrupted so that all the enlisted men didn't get
paid for a month.  Or if the logistics supply computers were taken
down and data corrupted just prior to a major operation?

But national security is much more than simply military systems.  The
well-being of the citizens depends on many other organizations
operating smoothly.  If, for instance, the NY Stock Exchange were to
be shut down, or the Chicago futures trading market were to be
corrupted so there was no confidence in the records, the result might
well be another stock market crash.  You can bet that would have
implications for national security and our well-being.

One time-worn technique for destabilizing a country is to counterfeit
its currency.  If you can flood the world with good quality
counterfeit, you either cause enough doubt to get people to stop
accepting it, and/or you can cause massive inflation in the country
involved.  If you can get in to the networks and redirect the
currency, or generate "fake" money in transactions, you can have much
the same effect. only faster, and in larger quantities.

Or what if techno-terrorists (or simply young hackers & phreakers who
don't really know what they're doing ... or don't care) were to crash
the computers coordinating the electric power grids over the
northeast, or take down long-distance service for a couple of days?
These are highly disruptive, and done at the wrong time could threaten
far more than the inconvenienced customers.

There are lots more possibilities if you only think about them.  Many
have been documented, and quite a few have been discussed in places
like the Risks Digest over the years.  Many of us have been worried
about and speaking out against the computerization of so much of our
infrastructure without adequate safeguards.  The worry now is that by
networking these systems into the Internet, we have a high-speed
conduit for malfeasors.

National security can be eroded from within as well as from without.


This is all separate from the other comments made in the article.  I
think it is more than a tad paranoid to attribute so much motive and
coordination to the government, and it presumes a far more cordial and
cooperative relationship among TLAs (three-letter agencies) than
really exists....unless you believe in the Illuminati and the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the secret UN forces in the black
helicopters. :-)

However, there is a thread of rightous concern in the story that we
should note.  For years, people have ignored the sensible cautions of
experts on computer security.  Now, everyone's in a mad rush to hook
up to a global network, often without any other motive than the fact
that lots of other people are doing it too.  The result is massive
exposure to risks that are poorly understood.  Because they're not
taking the precautions themselves, the government is making noises
about imposing standards from without, because they have been paying
more attention to the security concerns (but still not paying enough
attention of the right kinds).

I am really bothered by the Clipper initiative, and the Digital
Telephony bill, and the Exon Amendment, and the Time magazine
"cyberporn" misrepresentation, and all the other acts along these
lines.  I am scared by reports that the director of the FBI claims
that private encryption may be outlawed and there is no Constitutional
right to privacy (although, in one technical sense, he is correct -
there is no *explicit* such right).

Although deeply troubled by these developments, I am not surprised.
I've seen it coming, as have others in the field.  The vendors are
helping it along by providing shoddy software with little in the way
of security; the users are helping it along by continuing to buy that
crap without demanding better; the media is helping it along by
focusing on the issues of porn and kiddie runaways instead of the
underlying problems; the computer literate are helping it along by
focusing on rights and ignoring responsibilities and dangers; and the
underground is accelerating the push by distributing more and more
powerful break-in tools so they fall in the hands of the careless (and
often venal).

I don't think there is any organized conspiracy involved in
government.  I think it is more the case that they see a lot of the
dark side of the whole issue, and they are very worried.  They also
don't see enough public concern, nor do they see enough action in the
marketplace.  They are trying to act, often in the only way they can.
That doesn't mean the rest of us should take it, nor that we should
like it if they succeed.  However, as a public, we've done a damned
poor job of addressing the problems on our own.  We should all be
worried about government getting carried away.  But we should be as
worried (or more) about the people who are rushing to put our stores,
hospitals, media and banks on-line.  And we should be outraged at the
lack of quality control and lack of safety involved with the software
we are sold.

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

From: Dave++ Ljung <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Copyrights and Obscenity
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 11:39:51 MDT

  Intellectual Property
  ---------------------

Keith, thanks for an excellent article!  You saved me the trouble
of typing all this up myself, I don't think I could have done it as well :)

Regarding the reply by Brian Martin:

*  You seem to ignore the many problems that are brought up by the removal
   of intellectual property - many of which Keith brought up in his article.

   Your response always seems to be that their are other possibilities, but
   then you always give us examples that would point towards a Socialist
   economic system, citing such possibilities as:
     contributions from viewers for specific directors
       (who pays for the first movie?)
     guaranteed annual income
       (presumably from the gov't?  regardless of talent?)
     payments based on number of library copies
       (this is a measure of talent?  what about non mainstream books such
        as The Anarchist's Cookbook, not likely to be found in a library?
        also, once again, this is presumably paid by the gov't?)
     relying on journalism
       (so then they would simply donate their books written during
        their spare time?  What would a musical performer rely on for income?)

*  You also point out that many performers like pirate tapes of
   their *concerts*   This is an example of a performer choosing not
   to pursue copyright violation, which is fine.  However I am sure
   these performers would feel very different if a company made copies
   of their own CDs and started to sell those.

*  I appreciate your point about the assumed value of Jurassic Park.
   However, Keith's arguments apply to any movie, regardless of cost.
   The main point being that creating a movie will always be more expensive
   than copying it - hence there is no way to recover such costs without
   resorting to Socialist type means.

I see no answers for a Capitalist society.  If you wish to discuss
Capitalism vs. Socialism, that's fine - I won't assume the superiority
of Capitalism.  But if you are asking us to change our economic system
to a more Socialist system, then I think you need to write a much larger
paper (of which the issue of intellectual property could certainly be one
of your arguments).

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

  Obscenity In Cyberspace
  -----------------------

Only one point I wanted to make here.  (explicit language used below)

> This decision was in many was unsatisfactory because the court avoided
> the sticky issue of defining obscenity...

It seems to me that this people are missing the point.

I don't think this is an issue of 'obscenity.'  I personally have no
problem with obscene material being available, certainly not on a
BBS that requires 'membership.'  You can create any scene you want
between consenting adults, such as nailing one's genitalia to a
table (ouch! ;).  However, when you start to bring animals and children
into pornographic material, I believe you are entering into the realm
of rape, not obscenity.  (I realize that whether or not children were
in any of the gifs was only implied in the article, but it seems quite
clear that bestiality was involved).

So if they were prosecuting because of a hairless pussy nailed to a table,
I would agree with the point of the article.  But if they were prosecuting
because of pictures of 'big horse cock in her twat' then I don't think this
is a case I would want to use as a first amendment vehicle.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 18:17:36 -0400
From: [e-mail](S. Keith Graham)
Subject: File 3--Re: File 6--File 1--Against Intellectual Property

(This was written as a summary of a point by point critique
of the original post.  It was intended to be posted earlier,
but bounced.)

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

While I did appreciate the research and writing in the
original article, it did contain one major flaw:

  It did not distinguish between "ideas" and "information
  products."

Some examples of "ideas" vs. "information products", include
"Word Processor" vs "MS-Word 6.0", "a dictionary" vs. "the OED",
and "a dinosaur movie" vs. "Jurrasic Park".

A finished, polished information product (including arguably
the author's article) contains a great deal more work than simply
thinking of an "idea".  And copyright only extends to that
specific "information product" (or work) and not to the underlying
idea.  (After all, I am still allowed to write an article against
intellectual property, even though other articles have been written
in the past.)

For example, the discussion of the "marketplace of ideas" fails to
distinguish that such a "marketplace" is truthfully of "ideas", and
not "works".  Once one believes in a given "truth", that person will
buy works that support it.  But the "marketplace" is a competition
between "truths", long before specific works are regularly purchased.

But the primary point remains, a finished "work" has a very large
amount of effort (and typically money) invested in its creation.
Without a financial incentive to "clean up" a computer program;
most software authors wouldn't make the effort needed to
add features that they (or their company) would not regularly use.

Even in the case of personal computers, I could easily forsee IBM
producing a proprietary computer archietecture and publishing software
that will only run on their hardware.  They will prevent copying
not by law, but by fact.

Further, if distribution of a piece of software would reduce a
companies' competitive advantage; without financial incentives
for that distribution; it is unlikely that they would provide
free copies to the world.   This results in duplication of creative
effort at their competition.  This does provide employment for us
programmers;  but perhaps the world would be better off if the
original company sold copies of the software, and we were off
working on a new project in an unrelated field.

In the entertainment area, "intellectual property" competes with
physical toys and other means of entertainment.   Hollywood movies
and novels by famous authors are both "commodities", that compete
with each other, as well as sporting events, toys, games, amusement
parks and other real property.    Especially in the case of movies,
the multi-million dollar investment in a "big budget" film would
not occur (and you wouldn't get the neat special effects) in a
low budget film created for "art's sake".  And frankly, many of
the "big budget" films have little redeeming artistic value.
However, without some kind of intellectual property protection,
this form of entertainment would cease to exist.   You can make
arguements that this isn't a "good" use of limited resources,
but it is generally accepted in the U.S. that the market should
choose what products to produce, not the government.  (And such movies
produce a higher profit rate than lower budget films, many of which
receive government subsidies.  This implies that the market does
want to see the big name stars, flashy special effects, etc.)

So for the entertainment market, as well as the productivity
market (including software, large scale bibliographys, and
other research projects), customers are not actually paying for
"information", but the ongoing man-years of work in creating
and revising the work.  Without some kind of protection for
their "current edition", there would be income to finance the
"next release".  And generally, in the entertainment and
productivity markets, competition lowers the costs to at least
managable levels.

Discussions of individual authors supporting themselves
through journalism or the largess of a community might be
appropriate for the rather narrow specialization of the creative
community that publishes fiction.  However, sweeping changes
to copyright law affect Nintendo, Microsoft, MGM, as well
as Stephen King, Neal Stephenson, and even myself as a publisher
on the 'net.

This isn't to say that there aren't problems with the current
system.  The patent system is being abused, at least from
many outsider's perspective.  Copyrights now extend
for an absurd period of time by modern standards, and proposals
exist to extend them further.  Copyright laws have not been
adjusted for digital and Xerographic realities.

But I do believe that informed attacks against the excesses of
the current system are much better justified (and much more
likely to be successful) than calls for a "new kinder world" based
on government paid, salaried "information workers."   (The thought
of Sen. Exon writing the rules for "allowable content while
producing government sponsored information products" sends chills
down my spine.)

Keith Graham
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 23:47:24 -0500
From: [e-mail](Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 4--Senator Grassley's Buthering of "CMU Study" Stats

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Why does it matter whether the CMU study is
accurate or why Time's irresponsible story on "cyberporn" requires
response? The answer is simple: When flawed studies and irresponsible
shape public debate on complex issues with reckless demagoguery, the
potential exists to shape Constitutional protections of freedom of
expression for decades.  Senator Grassely's comments suggest that he
is more interested in scoring political points than in serving
truth)).

   CYBERPORN (Senate - June 26, 1995)
   Sen. GRASSLEY

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is an article from Time magazine
   and an article from the Spectator magazine that I ask unanimous
   consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   (See exhibit 1.)

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this morning I want to speak on a topic
   that has received a lot of attention around here lately. My topic is
   cyberporn, and that is, computerized pornography . I have introduced
   S. 892, entitled the Protection of Children from Computer Pornography
   Act of 1995.

   This legislation is narrowly drawn. It is meant to help protect
   children from sexual predators and exposure to graphic pornography .

   Mr. President, Georgetown University Law School has released a
   remarkable study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon
   University. This study raises important questions about the
   availability and the nature of cyberporn. It is this article I ask to
   have printed in the Record.

   Later on, on this subject, some time during the middle of July, I will
   be conducting hearings before the full Judiciary Committee to fully
   and completely explore these issues. In the meantime, I want to refer
   to the Carnegie Mellon study, and I want to emphasize that this is
   Carnegie Mellon University. This is not a study done by some religious
   organization analyzing pornography that might be on computer networks.

   The university surveyed 900,000 computer images. Of these 900,000
   images, 83.5 percent of all computerized photographs available on the
   Internet are pornographic . Mr. President, I want to repeat that: 83.5
   percent of the 900,000 images reviewed--these are all on the

((MODERTORS' NOTE: Grassley's error would be comical if not for the
serious implications.  A few errors in the above paragraph: 1) The
study did not examine 900,000+ images, it examined *descriptive
listings* of images; 2) It did not examine 900,000+ descriptions; it
examined less than 300,000; 3) The 83 pct figure to which Senator
Grassley refers is not from these images, but from a "top 40" Usenet
arbitron rating; 4) The 83.5 percent figure (contrary to what the CMU
study and Time Magazine indicated) are not from all computerized
Internet pictures, but from a subset of Usenet groups dealing with
images; 5) There is substantial evidence to suggest that the 83.5 pct
figure is simply wrong)).

   Internet--are pornographic , according to the Carnegie Mellon study.

   Now, of course, that does not mean that all of these images are
   illegal under the Constitution. But with so many graphic images
   available on computer networks, I believe Congress must act and do so
   in a constitutional manner to help parents who are under assault in
   this day and age. There is a flood of vile pornography , and we must
   act to stem this growing tide, because, in the words of Judge Robert
   Bork, it incites perverted minds. I refer to Judge Bork from the
   Spectator article that I have permission to insert in the Record.

   My bill, again, is S. 892, and provides just this sort of
   constitutional, narrowly focused assistance in protecting children,
   while also protecting the rights of consenting adults to transmit and
   receive protected pornographic material--protected, that is, under the
   first amendment.

   Also, according to the Carnegie Mellon University study, cyberporn is
   really big business. Some computer networks which specialize in
   computer pornography take in excess of $1 million per year.

   Later this week, I am going to introduce the Antielectronic
   Racketeering Act of 1995 which will target organized crime which has
   begun to use the awesome powers of computers to engage in criminal
   activity.

   As we all know from past debates in this body, organized crime is
   heavily involved in trafficking illegal pornography . The
   Antielectronic Racketeering Act will put a dent into that.

   In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this study by
   Carnegie Mellon University serious consideration, and I urge my
   colleagues to support S. 892. I yield the floor.

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 21:50:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--NEWS: Hacker Disrupts Internet Link (fwd)

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

(EXCERPTS)

Hacker Disrupts Internet Link          July 4, 1995

   SEATTLE (AP) -- An Internet provider with about 3,000 subscribers shut
down after a computer hacker defeated security measures on the system.
   The electronic intruder entered the system through an Internet link in
North Dakota, but his actual location is unknown.
[...]
   The service was struck last Thursday and Friday by the hacker, who
erased the personal files of Eskimo North administrator Robert Dinse. He
also deleted accounting data and gained access to a list of passwords
used by Eskimo North subscribers, Dinse said.
   "This is extremely sophisticated, and it means major grief for us,"
Dinse said. He said the hacker telephoned him to taunt him after the
attack.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 01:33:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Voice of America on CDA (fwd)

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

[e-mail] (Seth D. Schoen)
Date--12 Jul 1995 04:19:37 GMT

Here's what the Voice of America (gopher.voa.gov) had to say recently about
Sen. Exon's efforts.  I really like the "there is something called newsgroups
where people talk about sex and interest groups" :-)

[begin quote]

      DATE=7/5/95
      TYPE=COMPUTER SERIES 95-383
    NUMBER=3-22486
     TITLE=KEEPING KIDS SAFE
    BYLINE=DAN NOBLE
 TELEPHONE=619-1014
  DATELINE=WASHINGTON
    EDITOR=KLEINFELDT

CONTENT=

(INSERTS AVAILABLE FROM AUDIO SERVICES)

INTRO:   DURING THE COURSE OF CHILDHOOD, CHILDREN LEARN A NUMBER
         OF THINGS, INCLUDING HOW TO CROSS STREETS, AVOID
         STRANGERS, AND REACH THE SAFETY OF HOME.  BUT, COMPUTER
         TECHNOLOGY IS ADDING A NEW DIMENSION, ONE THAT PARENTS
         ARE ONLY NOW BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND.  DAN NOBLE HAS
         DETAILS.

TEXT:    THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON
         HIGH-TECH ELECTRONIC NETWORKS.  BUT, APPARENTLY, THERE
         IS A GREAT DEAL OF DANGER.  A RECENT ISSUE OF NEWSWEEK
         MAGAZINE NOTES THAT "MOST DISTURBING OF ALL ARE THE
         TALES OF SEXUAL PREDATORS USING THE INTERNET AND
         COMMERCIAL ONLINE SERVICES TO SPIRIT CHILDREN AWAY FROM
         THEIR KEYBOARDS."  NEWSWEEK IS REFERRING TO THE RECENT
         CASE OF A 13-YEAR OLD KENTUCKY GIRL WHO WENT TO LOS
         ANGELES "AFTER SUPPOSEDLY BEING LURED BY A GROWN-UP
         CYBERPAL."  AND, IN RECENT DAYS, AN AMENDMENT TO A
         COMMUNICATIONS BILL, WAS PASSED BY THE UNITED STATES
         SENATE.  THE BILL SEEKS TO REGULATE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT
         MESSAGES AND MATERIAL SENT VIA COMPUTER.

         ROBIN RASKIN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF FAMILY PC MAGAZINE,
         SAYS, TO PUT THE PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE, "THE ADULT
         CONTENT ON THE INTERNET, RELATIVE TO THE VASTNESS OF THE
         (COMPUTER NETWORK) IS A VERY SMALL PORTION."

TAPE:    CUT ONE -- ROBIN RASKIN (0:08)

         "REMEMBER, THIS INTERNET IS JUST UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  IT
         STARTED IN AN ADULT WORLD: IN ACADEMIA AND IN THE
         GOVERNMENT.  SO, THE STUFF FOR KIDS IS KIND OF BEING
         BUILT NOW."

TEXT:    BUT, SAYS ROBIN RASKIN, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS SEEMS TO BE
         THAT ELECTRONIC MATERIAL IS GETTING EASIER FOR EVERYONE
         TO FIND -- ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN.

TAPE:    CUT TWO -- ROBIN RASKIN (0:09)

         "THE FUNNY THING IS THAT THE SAME SEARCH TECHNIQUES THAT
         THEY ARE LEARNING IN SCHOOLS TO DO RESEARCH IN SCHOOL
         ARE THE SAME SEARCH TECHNIQUES THAT YOU'D USE TO FIND
         ADULT CONTENT."

TEXT:    ACCORDING TO THE EDITOR OF FAMILY PC, PARENTS CAN DO
         SOMETHING ABOUT STOPPING OBJECTIONABLE ELECTRONIC TOPICS
         FROM ENTERING THEIR HOMES.

TAPE:    CUT THREE -- ROBIN RASKIN (0:19)

         "THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS HAPPENING NOW.  IF A
         PARENT FEELS THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED TO CONTROL THIS
         INFORMATION THERE ARE PRODUCTS LIKE SURFWATCH.
         SURFWATCH COMES WITH ADDRESSES -- PLACES WHERE CHILDREN
         SHOULD NOT GO.  THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED NEWSGROUPS
         WHERE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT SEX AND INTEREST GROUPS.  THOSE
         PLACES ARE DENIED ACCESS TO CHILDREN."

TEXT:    ALSO, A NUMBER OF COMPANIES ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO RATE
         THE VARIOUS SITES ON THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY --
         SIMILAR TO THE RATING SYSTEM USED FOR FILMS AND HOME
         VIDEOS.  EVEN WITH ALL THE ELECTRONIC SAFEGUARDS, ROBIN
         RASKIN POINTS OUT THAT PARENTS MUST BE VIGILANT.

TAPE:    CUT FOUR -- ROBIN RASKIN (0:09)

         "YOU NEED TO BE THERE FOR THEM.  THE SAME WAY YOU WANT
         TO KNOW WHAT THEY DID IN SCHOOL TODAY.  YOU WANT TO KNOW
         WHO THEY ARE TALKING TOO ON THE PHONE.  YOU WANT TO KNOW
         WHAT MOVIES THEY'VE SEEN.  YOU NEED TO KNOW WHERE THEY
         ARE HANGING OUT ON THE INTERNET."

TEXT:    THE U-S CONGRESS MAY ULTIMATELY PASS LEGISLATION TO
         REGULATE WHAT GOES ON COMPUTER NETWORKS.  LAW
         ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS MAY DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE PROBLEM
         OF HIGH-TECH PORNOGRAPHY. BUT ROBIN RASKIN, AND OTHER
         EXPERTS, SAY THAT IT IS A PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
         MONITOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THEIR CHILDREN -- BOTH IN
         CYBERSPACE AND IN THE REAL WORLD.

(ACTUALITIES FROM ABC, ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM NEWSWEEK AND USA
                             TODAY)

05-Jul-95 4:32 PM EDT (2032 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America


[end quote]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 01:40:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--'The Hackers Book of Poetry' (fwd)

               ---------- Forwarded message ----------
[e-mail] (Tom C Oswald)
Date--Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:23:12 GMT

        i am compiling 'The Hackers Book of Poetry' and i need some
works... so if you want to summit anything... i don't care what.. poems,
flames, papers, letters, etc... just send them over to:

[e-mail] or
[e-mail]

please *don't* post them here.. because then other people could take
credit for your work.... and don't forget to include you name so that i
can give you credit.. thanks

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 21:11:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--AA BBS appeal for help (fwd)

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

ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ AND DISTRIBUTE FREELY!!

Dear Friends,
     A thank you is in order to all that have offered my family and I
support and direct assistance with the current legal issues we've been
faced with.
     Despite great efforts on your part and ours, I'm forced to dictate
this letter to you from within a federal prison versus the comforts of
my home and family offer in far away California.
     Although I'm currently the only person in prison for distributing
"obcene" material accros state lines electronically, currently proposed
legislation threatens to incarcerate you by different means by way of an
old tool called censorship.
     I'm a textbook example of the governments attempt at on-line
regulations. My feelings on this issue will be obvious to anyone that's
remotely knowledgeable with my case.
     Rather than waste your valuable time engaging in mindless anti
government rhetoric I prefer to get right down to the issues at hand. In
short, I'm requesting your assistance in helping my wife Carleen remain
free on bond pending the outcome of the appeal process we both are
currently engaged in.
     The scheduled time for her to begin serving  her sentence was
delayed by the Tennessee judge until July 12th. This delay was given to
allow my wife time to make the necessary arrangements for our children
during our departure from society.
     Any marriage that has lasted the 21 years that ours has, is bound
to have its ups and downs. However, I believe what has happened to my
family re-writes the book on what couples can expect out of family life.
     Carleen and I have two children from our marriage together, both
boys. One son is 14 and the other is 17 years old.
     My eldest son recently graduated from high school this year. Since
I was unable to attend the ceremonies, he chose to do the same against
our advise. My son now faces the next transition which will be college
and adulthood though not necessarily in that order. Adulthood will have
to take place first if he is to be without a father and mother.
     Of course these and more issues apply to my fourteen year old as
well. Most of these issues we do not have the space to even address
properly.
     As any responsible parent knows, times in a kids life such as these
are tremendously important developements that contribute toward the
overall shaping of their future.
     My wife and I have up until now, sucessfully attempted to raise our
two sons with the best education, values, and hopes that can be offered.
Both boys have so far avoided every imaginable pitfall that faces kids
growing up in this generation. I can truely say that my two sons are as
perfect as any parent can ask for. My greatest hope is that at the very
least my wife be allowed to be there to help them get through these most
important changes in their lives. Needless to say it hurts me deeply to
be unable to be there for my family. However, the hurt turns into
constant anxiety for me when I consider the prospect of both parents
becoming elimenated from my son's lives.
     Considering the powerful arguments my wife and I are presenting in
our appeal, I do not feel that the request for my wife to remain home
with our children during this process is unreasonable. Do you?
Considering the national if not global issues surrounding the outcome of
this case I think it would be a fair assumption to say that this case is
far from over. That's the difference. The outcome ultimately decided,
perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court, directly affects millions of online
users. However, if this case is ultimately heard by the supreme court,
my wife and I will have completed our respective sentences. A favorable
decision at that stage will be a mere token jesture, for my familys life
will be irreverseably changed with  the risk of becoming tragic.
     As I write you this, my wife is awaiting word regarding a motion
filed by our attorneys for continuance of bond.
     If our appeals are exhausted without favorable changes to our
cases, my wife and I have little problem serving a sentence that
represents the best interests for the American public. I would however
be very distasteful to have a favorable decision by the higher courts at
the expense of my broken family. No victory means that much to me.
     In addition to leaving e-mail on Internet, America On-line,
Compuserv, and other bulletin boards, I ask that you send letters to our
attorney in Tennessee, James Causey. His address is 100 North Main,
suite 2400, Memphis, Tennessee, 38103. His fax number is 901-525-1540.
Just a small note is all that it takes to make a difference. No matter
who you are or where you live on this earth, your thoughts are important
and it can make things happen. Thank you all for listening, Robert and
Carleen Thomas.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--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  [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 CUDIGEST
Send it to  [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)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS [phone]:291/[e-mail]
         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/
                  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 #7.60
************************************