The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud854.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 41.3 KB | 931 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Jul 21, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 54
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas ([e-mail])
       News Editor: 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
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #8.54 (Sun, Jul 21, 1996)

File 1--LEGAL NOTICE: America OnLine Class Action Suit
File 2--EYENET: Peruvian exile "fingered" in cyberspace
File 3--The Avatar, Internet Cafe, Sarajevo
File 4--NT Workstation 4.0: Bad News for Web Servers
File 5--IANA to create new top level domains (fwd)
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:34:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail](Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: File 1--LEGAL NOTICE: America OnLine Class Action Suit


              LEGAL NOTICE:  AMERICA ON LINE CLASS ACTION
                      SUIT SETTLEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

This is a legal notice, and you should read it carefully since your
rights may be affected. Show this notice to your attorney and seek
your attorney's counsel before responding.

Superior Court of the City and County
of San Fransisco, California
Docket # 971047   Consolidated

Hagen, et al vrs. America On Line, Inc.


ARE YOU, OR WERE YOU AN AMERICA ON LINE SUBSCRIBER AT ANY TIME
BETWEEN JULY 14, 1991 AND MARCH 31, 1996?  If so, you are a Member
of the Class described below.

1. Several subscribers of America On Line (hereinafter AOL) filed
lawsuits in 1994 and 1995 seeking to represent present and past
subscribers of AOL and challenging certain of AOL's billing
practices. While AOL denies any wrong doing, it wishes to end the
lawsuits and settle the claims against it. If the proposed settlement
discussed below is approved by the Court as fair, just, and reasonable,
persons who are presently or were AOL subscribers at any time between
July 14, 1991 and March 31, 1996 (the 'class period') may be entitled
to receive a share of the benefits provided for by the settlement.

2. The purpose of this notice is to provide a summary of the claims
asserted in the various lawsuits which have since been consolidated
under docket 971047 in the Superior Court of the City and County of San
Fransisco, CA.  This notice also describes your rights and what you
can do if you wish to be excluded from the plaintiff class and the
settlement.

   **If you wish to be included in the settlement, you do
     not have to do anything, except as explained below.**

                    THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

3. The following Settlement Class has been certified for the purpose
of the proposed settlement:

     All persons in the United States who at any time during
     the period July 14, 1991 through March 31, 1996 were
     subscribers of AOL.

     Persons first subscribing *after* March 31, 1996 are NOT
     members of the class. AOL changed its billing practices
     at that time, nullifying further complaints by subscribers
     after that date.

For purposes of settlement, the Court has approved the parties'
agreement to allow Stephen Anderson, Todd Bandrowsky, John Przygoda,
Steven Craig Smith, Paul Boni, Frederick J. DiMarco, David L. Feige,
First M. Corp. (a corporation), Fred Glick, Stephen E. Hagen, Marc L.
Hoffman, Craig Smith, Kenneth Crystal, and Heather Buchfirer (herein-
after 'plantiffs'), subscribers to AOL who originally raised these
claims in various lawsuits to represent the interests of all AOL
subscribers in the consolidated claim before the Court at this time.

The Court has appointed the following attornies as co-lead counsel
representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class:

Max W. Berger                     G. Oliver Koppell
Rochelle Feder Hansen             Oren S. Giskan
Berstein Litowitz Berger &        Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling &
  Grossman, LLP                     Koppell, LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas       767 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10019                New York, NY  10017


Brian W. Newcomb                  Stephen E. Hagen
Attorney at Law                   Attorney at Law
770 Menlo Avenue  Suite 101       1436 Hamilton Avenue
Menlo Park, CA  94025             Palo Alto, CA  94301


                SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS AGAINST AOL

4. The cases were filed at various times by individuals and corporations
who have been subscribers to AOL. In each case, the plaintiffs
believe that AOL did not adequately disclose its policies of adding
a fifteen-second connection and fifteen-second disconnection time to
the length of each session for billing purposes, and in billing
subscribers in one-minute increments rounded up to the next full
minute. The plaintiffs believe that AOL's billing practices and
methods caused subscribers to incur additional charges for downloading
of image files, for delays in connection time and completion of
transactions on line due to AOL software and network congestion over
which plaintiffs believe AOL had control, and for time spent in
'free' areas but which none the less plaintiffs beleive was in
some instances billed for.

Plaintiffs allege further that AOL failed or refused to refund
unused membership charges to subscribers who cancelled their
subscriptions prior to the end of a billing period and that
subscribers who cancelled their subscriptions near the end of a
billing period were erroneously charged for an additional monthly fee.

Plaintiffs allege further that AOL's billing practices unfairly
calculated service charges on a per-session basis; that AOL made
withdrawals in inappropriate amounts and without authorization from
subscriber's checking accounts; and that AOL engaged in false and
misleading advertising when stating that its hourly rate was
$2.95.

5. AOL completely denies any wrong doing and is completely convinced
that the manner in which it has billed its subscribers is proper
and adequate.  It vigorously denies each and every claim asserted by
plaintiffs. Nonetheless, AOL has decided to voluntarily settle these
claims pursuant to the terms set out below because it beleives the
settlement is in the best interests of itself and its subscribers and
because AOL wishes to avoid further time consuming and expensive
litigation.

              PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

6. The terms of the proposed settlement agreement applicable in the
various lawsuits now consolidated are set forth in detail in the
parties Stipulation of Settlement of Class Action. This document has
been filed with the Superior Court of the City and County of San
Fransisco, CA in the action entitled Hagen et al vrs. America Online,
Inc.  Number 971047 (hereinafter, the 'action'). This document is
available to the public to review or copy during regular business
hours of the Court, 633 Folsom Street, Second Floor, San Fransisco, CA.

      **The Court Clerk and other personnel will be unable
        to assist you in your review of the matter. See
        details below for how to obtain further assistance.**

This is a summary:

a) Current subscribers: AOL will provide free time on its service to
Settlement Class Members who are subscribers at the time free time is
distributed ('current subscribers') by

     a) crediting the accounts of all current subscribers with
        one hour of additional free time (in addition to the time
        included in the monthly minimum service charge), to be
        used within a four month period after such time is made
        available to each current subscriber; and

     b) making available 1.36 million hours of free time by
        crediting the accounts of current subscribers who, based
        on AOL's computerized records have paid $300 or more in
        total lifetime charges for AOL's services (hereinafter
        'Heavy Users'). The 1.36 million hours of additional free
        time will be allocated as follows:

        Charges paid by current subscribers through May 5, 1996
        of $300-$600, one hour; for $601-$900, two hours; for $901-
        $1200, three hours; for $1201-$1500, four hours; for $1501-
        $1800, five hours; for $1801-$2100, six hours; for $2101-
        $2400, seven hours; and one additional hour for each $300
        (or fraction thereof) in excess of $2400 in billings.

        If the 1.36 million hours of free time are not fully
        distributed pursuant to this formula, any remaining free time
        will be automatically distributed to Heavy Users pro-rata.
        Each subscriber will have a four-month period, after the
        free time is distibuted, to use the free time. The free
        time should be distributed no later than thirty days after
        the Court's approval of the settlement is effective.

        **NO CLAIM SHOULD BE FILED BY CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS SINCE
        THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE TIME WILL BE CREDITED AUTOMATICALLY
        BY AOL UPON APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.**

b)  Former Subscribers: AOL will pay up to $500,000 in cash for claims
made by members of the settlement class who are not current users and
who have paid $300 or more in total lifetime charges for AOL services
during the class period as noted above. Former users must submit a
claim form to receive their money as described below. The amount to
be paid to each claimant will be allocated as follows:

    For charges paid by former subscribers through May 5, 1996
    of $300-$600, $2.95; for $601-$900, $5.90; for $901-$1200,
    $8.85; for $1201-$1500, $11.80; for $1501-$1800, $14.75;
    for $1801-$2100, $17.70; for $2101-$2400, $20.65; and an
    an additional $2.95 for each additional $300 in charges
    (or fraction thereof) in excess of $2400. In the event the
    total dollar amount of all valid claims exceeds $500,000
    the claims will be prorated so that the total amount paid
    by AOL for all claims equals $500,000. In the event the
    total claims paid are less than $500,000 any amounts which
    remain after reimbursement of certain audit expenses will
    be donated to consumer-oriented, charitable organizations
    engaged in issues involving the online and Internet media.

    A former subscriber may alternatively choose to re-subscribe
    to AOL and receive an additional one hour of free time
    (in addition to the time provided to such individuals for
    resubscribing) to be used in the first four months following
    re-subscription. Such former subscribers must request the
    additional one hour free time when resubscribing.

c)  Former subscriber Proof of Claim form:

   ** FORMER SUBSCRIBERS WHO WISH TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR CASH
   <MUST> SUBMIT A COMPLETED PROOF OF CLAIM FORM. THE FORM IS
   PROVIDED WITH THIS NOTICE.

   Additional Proof of Claim forms may be obtained by written
   request from the administrator of the settlement and ONLY
   from this address:

                   America OnLine Claim Forms
                   PO Box 75999
                   Oklahoma City, OK 73147-5999

   Or, you may call ONLY the phone number 800-471-6148.

        DO NOT telephone or write America OnLine for information
        or assistance with your claim.

        DO NOT telephone or write the Court, the clerk of the
        court or the attornies for assistance with your claim.

        Use ONLY the address and telephone number shown above to
        obtain copies of the claim form.


        Claim forms must be returned and postmarked no later than
        November 30, 1996. However, if you are a current subscriber
        and you cancel your subscription prior to receiving your
        free time (generally, this would be susbcribers who stop
        using America OnLine after about November 20, 1996 or
        during December, 1996 or January, 1997) then you may
        submit a claim form after the above deadline provided it
        is submitted within ten days of the date you cancel your
        subscription.

        The completed claim form must be mailed ONLY to the
        address:

                  America OnLine Settlement Administrator
                  PO Box 1559
                  Odgen, UT  84401

        Remember, if you did not pay more than $300 in your lifetime
        to AOL as of May 5, 1996 or if you joined AOL after
        March 31, 1996 (and have since cancelled your subscription
        to the service) then ** YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A
        CLAIM FOR CASH DAMAGES**.

        A Proof of Claim form appears at the conclusion of this
        notice which you may print out and use.

d)  Disclosures:

For at least a one year period, AOL will include as part of its online
service, certain specified disclosures and changes (as set out in the
Stipulation of Settlement) in its billing screens, Terms of Service
messages, End of Session Message, and in connection with its online
clock designed to provide subscribers with additional information
about AOL's billing practices.

e) Attorney's Fees and Expenses:

AOL has agreed to pay plaintiff's attornies' fees and expenses as
approved by the Court, in the amount of $2,750,000 (two million,
seven hundred fifty thousand dollars). In addition, AOL has paid the
costs of providing notice by publication in print and online media.

       YOUR OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

7. If you are or were a subscriber of AOL during the class period of
July 14, 1991 through March 31, 1996, then you are now a member of
the settlement class. This notice constitutes legal service to you
to apprise you of your rights and obligations under the law.

a) If you agree with the settlement, you need do nothing at all to
indicate your consent. You will participate in, and be deemed to
have agreed to the terms set forth above and below. This also means
that you fully, finally and forever release, relinquish and discharge
any and all claims, rights (including rights to reimbursement or
restitution), demands, actions, causes of action, suits, matters,
issues, debts, leins, contracts, liabilities, agreements, costs,
expenses or losses of any nature known or unknown arising from the
case described herein against the following:

    America Online, Inc.
    Steve Case an officer of America Online, Inc.
    Steve Case an individual
    James Kimsey an officer of America Online, Inc.
    James Kimsey an individual

and each of their present and past officers, directors, employees,
and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
agents, accountants, attornies, spouses, advisors, representatives,
partners, heirs and assigns, whether under federal law or regulation
or the laws and regulations of any and all states and the subdivisions
thereof which are alleged in the Amended Complaint on file in the
Action, or which could or might have been alleged in the Amended
Complaint and arise out of or are related to the matters referred to
in the Amended Complaint.

b) **FIRST YOU SHOULD SHOW THIS NOTICE TO YOUR ATTORNEY AND SEEK
COUNSEL BEFORE DECIDING ON A COURSE OF ACTION**.  You may decide
for whatever reason on advice of your counsel that you do not wish
to participate in this class action settlement. If you wish to be
excluded from the settlement, you must provide notice as follows:

     Send a letter postmarked no later than August 23, 1996
     which includes your name, address and telephone number
     along with the name of the case (Hagen vrs. America Online, Inc)
     and a statement that you do not wish to participate in the
     settlement.

     Your notice must be sent to each of the attornies listed
     below:


     G. Oliver Koppell                 Melvin R. Goldman
     Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling     Morrison & Foerster, LLP
     & Koppell, LLP                    345 California Street
     767 Third Avenue                  San Fransisco, CA 94104
     New York, NY 10017-2023

     ** DO NOT TELEPHONE the attornies. Your correspondence must
     be in writing via paper, postal mail..

If you validly and timely request exclusion from the class, you
will be excluded from the class.

     i) you will not be permitted to object to the settlement;
    ii) you will not be bound by the final judgment of the Court
        entered in this action;
   iii) you will not be precluded from otherwise prosecuting
        any individual claim you wish to make, if timely.

c) If you have decided you would like to participate in the settlement
you still have the option of objecting to the settlement under the
procedures set forth in section 8 below. You may -- it is very
recommended but not required -- employ an attorney at your own expense
to represent you for this purpose. However, you will be barred from
bringing your own individual lawsuit asserting claims in the matters
referred to in the Amended Complaint and, if your objection is
rejected, you will be bound by the final judgment just as if you had
not objected at all.

                   THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

8. A hearing will be held on September 20, 1996 at 9:30 AM at San
Fransisco Superior Court, Courtroom of the Honorable A. James
Robertson II, 633 Folsom Street, San Fransisco, CA 94107.

The purpose of the hearing is for the judge to decide whether the
proposed settlement, including the provision for attornies' fees and
other related expenses is fair and should be approved.

If you decide to participate in the settlement and not request an
exclusion, you may come to the hearing to support or object to the
settlement or the payment of attornies' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

If you wish to object to any of these things, you must file a written
copy of your objection with the Court.  Kindly research the matter
carefully and include pertinent legal citations in your well prepared,
well documented and literate objection. If applicable, explain why
the settlement is inadequate or unfair in your particular instance
and include documentation.  Again, it is the Court's recommendation
that you seek advice from counsel of your choice before proceeding. If
you wish to address the Court in person at the hearing this must be
indicated in a separate notice attached to your written objection. The
written objection must be mailed or hand-delivered to the Clerk of the
Court with copies to the aforementioned attornies no later than August
23, 1996.

   DO NOT telephone the clerk of the court or the attornies
   on this matter.

** CLASS MEMBERS WHO DO NOT MAKE TIMELY THEIR OBJECTIONS IN THE
MANNER AND FORM DESCRIBED ABOVE WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED ALL
OBJECTIONS AND SHALL NOT BE HEARD AT THIS HEARING. **

                     MORE INFORMATION

More information can be obtained by examining and/or making copies
of the file on this case at your own expense at the the office of
the Clerk of the Court during business hours. Neither the Clerk
nor the Clerk's employees will be able to assist you with your
research.

The publication of this notice is not an expression of any opinion
by the Court as to the merits of the lawsuit or the fairness of the
proposed settlement. This notice is being published to advise you
of the pendancy of the lawsuit, the proposed settlement, and your
rights and obligations thereto under the law, so that you and counsel
of your choice can detirmine what steps you will take in relation
to this action. For the purposes of the matter before the Court
you have been given legal service by publication. It is the Court's
wish that this notice be given particular attention on the Internet
and other online media so that the widest possible number of persons
potentially involved will be made fully aware of the matter.


Date: July 1, 1996
Published by Order of the San Fransisco
County Superior Court
Honorable A. James Robertson II
San Fransisco County Superior Court Judge


           ---------- Proof of Claim Form ----------

Please print this out and submit it:

I am a former subscriber to America Online. I have paid more than $300
in my lifetime to America Online for charges using their service.

NAME__________________________________________________________________

ADDRESS_______________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER:_____________________________________________________

DATE STARTED SUBSCRIBING TO AOL (APPROXIMATE):________________________

DATE STOPPED SUBSCRIBING TO AOL (APPROXIMATE):________________________

ONE OF MY SCREEN NAMES WAS:___________________________________________

A SECOND SCREEN NAME WAS (if applicable):_____________________________

TOTAL AOL CHARGES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1996 (in some cases billed 5-5-96)
WERE:
     $301-$600______      $601-900________    $900-$1200_________

     Other amount (please specify)___________________

Under oath I hereby submit a claim based on the formula set forth in
the notice of settlement. I understand that my claim is subject to
verification and audit by the Court, and that I may be required to
submit further verification to the Court.

DATE:________________

SIGNATURE:_____________________________________________________
    (You must sign your full name; do not print and do not
    fail to provide your signature.)


Mail claim form to:

               America OnLine Settlement Administrator
               P.O. Box 1559
               Ogden, UT   84401

REMINDER: You must submit your proof of claim postmarked not later
than November 30, 1996. The only exception is for those current
subscribers who become former subscribers after November 20, 1996
or during December, 1996 and January, 1997. They are allowed ten
days following the date their subscription is cancelled to submit
the above form.


                   ---- End of Legal Notice ----

Kindly within reasonable parameters circulate the above notice
throughout the Internet community, particularly bringing it to
the attention of persons who subscribe to AOL.

This was a paid posting via TELECOM Digest. I was paid for my
labor in transcribing the notice and entering it into the news
feed; NOT for the use of the net or the newsgroups themselves.


PAT

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:52:14 -0400
From: eye WEEKLY <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--EYENET: Peruvian exile "fingered" in cyberspace

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye WEEKLY                                               July 04, 1996
Toronto's arts newspaper                      .....free every Thursday
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EYENET                                                          EYENET

                     ANONYMOUS ACCUSATIONS ONLINE
             Persecuted Peruvian exile Julian Calero sits
             in a US cell awaiting extradition to torture
               and death in Peru -- Is it because he was
       "fingered" online by the Internet magazine The New Flag?

                                  by
                             K.K. CAMPBELL


On May 16, I wrote a column about a bizarre, self-described "Maoist
magazine" called The New Flag, operating out of New York City --
Queens, to be exact.

I treated my "public interview" with one NF editor ("Marcelina" -- a
pseudonym) as a joke. This editor had used the "clarity of Maoism" to
determine I was a CIA agent. At the time, I just considered the NF as
more of the silly people you meet on the net.

But it stopped being a joke when, on May 30, Julian Calero, a Peruvian
immigrant living and working in Connecticut, was arrested by US feds --
a person the NF had bragged to the net (hence the world) was a member
of its "clandestine" Communist organization operating in New England.

                           CRYPTIC REFERENCES

On May 10, "Marcelina" published, through the Virginia university's
"Spoon Collective" Marxism mailing list, a long rant -- typed in solid
CAPS, hallmark of the net.loon. In the middle of it, the NF editor
decided to reveal how many "wanted Peruvian exiles" the NF supposedly
has under its control:

"TALKING ABOUT FUJIMORI AND HIS PRISON SENTENCES TO PERUVIAN EXILES:
... THREE OF OUR MEMBERS WERE ALSO SENTENCED (ONE ACCUSED OF BEING A
MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE'S ARMY IN CAJATAMBO-LIMA, HIS WIFE WAS ARRESTED
RECENTLY IN LIMA FOR RENTING A ROOM TO AN ALLEGED "MEMBER OF THE
CENTRAL COMMITTEE") TO LONGTERM PRISON SENTENCES. DO WE MAKE A BIG DEAL
ABOUT IT TO PROMOTE OURSELVES LIKE THE CHARLATAN  DOES? NO. DO WE SET
UP FUNDS TO TRAFFICK WITH IT LIKE OLAECHEA DOES? NO. BUT ONE THING MUST
BE CLEAR, HERE IN THE BELLY IN THE BEAST, WE AND OUR AMERICAN COMRADES
WILL PROTECT OUR ACTIVISTS WHO ARE BEING PERSECUTED AND WANTED FOR
EXTRADICTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF FUJIMORI."

A strange and cryptic reference, to be sure -- so obscure, almost
everyone missed it. Except Jay Miles, director of Detroit's Peru
Support Committee. Miles realized, when Calero was arrested, this was
the man the NF had publicly asserted was a member of their group.

"They might as well have put a gun to Calero's head and pulled the
trigger themselves," Miles told eyeNET.

Why would the NF do such a reckless thing?

Why would the NF publicly claim a Peruvian exile in the US was part of
the NF's "clandestine" organization: that is, not just a "kindred
Peruvian exile," not just a "comrade," not even just a "member" -- the
NF editor said this person was an "activist"!

And that is a crucial distinction. Under liberal democratic law,
"thought" and "action" are kept apart (supposedly). Calling someone an
"activist" means they have stepped beyond just thinking about
something, maybe sympathizing, into action.

Calero was effectively fingered (in the traditional sense, not the UNIX
sense) as an active participant in some mysterious organization run by
some mysterious individuals holed up in a little house in Queens --
this whole operation hiding behind the anonymity of blythe.org.
(http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp -- or [e-mail])

The NF didn't directly give Calero's name in its May 10 post. Instead,
the NF -- for some inexplicable reason -- identifies this "member" by
offering a critical, yet completely gratuitous, fact (CAPS removed):

"Three of our members were also sentenced (one accused of being a
member of the People's Army in Cajatambo-Lima, his wife was arrested
recently in Lima for renting a room to an alleged 'member of the
Central Committee')."

That this person fingered by the NF is Calero seems to be indicated by
a June 9 newsgroup post from the "Justice for Julian" committee (a
"group" run by an associate of the NF), based in Connecticut:

"In September 1993, military police tortured [Calero's] brother-in-law,
Roberto Calderon Garagate, to death and tortured his father-in-law.
His mother-in law was forced to cook supper for the assailants over the
body of her son. In May 1994, police arrested his wife after arresting
a man they claimed was a terrorist who had rented a room in their
house."

On June 5, David Friedman, a reporter for a local Connecticut paper
(_Wilton Bulletin_) in the area where Calero worked as a sort of
handyman, wrote a story:

"... military police tortured Mr. Calero's brother in-law, Roberto
Calderon Garagate to death in September 1993. In May 1994, Mr. Calero's
wife Fresia Calderon Garagate was imprisoned in Peru. She is now in
another country seeking political asylum after U.S. officials
intervened..."

On June 3, UPI carried a small story: "Peruvian officials also alleged
that Calero allowed a high-ranking member of the Shining Path, Felipe
Tenorio Barbara, hide at his home in Lima."

Synthesizing just these four items, one arrives at a disturbing
scenario:

On May 10, the "editors" of the "pro-revolutionary" magazine The New
Flag published before the world an extremely cryptic, hidden reference
that hardly anyone understands -- except those who mean Calero no good,
to be sure -- fingering a Peruvian immigrant fleeing South America's
most brutal nation as a "comrade" and a "member" and an "activist" of a
Communist organization in support of the Communist revolution in
Peru...

And 20 days later, this man was seized by the US feds for deportation
to probable torture, if not death.

And no one -- friends, family and lawyers -- can figure out: Why him?

                            WHY CALERO?

"Family members suspect that information was leaked to the Peruvian
government in order to locate Mr. Calero during what they believed to
be a confidential proceeding," the Wilton Bulletin story notes. Calero
was in Manhattan on May 30 to present his application for political
asylum before an immigration judge.

Katya Plotnik, Calero's Manhattan immigration lawyer (until Calero was
arrested by the FBI), was amazed to learn of this all this maneuvering
on the net by mysterious persons at blythe.org using the name of her
client -- who, she confirms, hails from Cajatambo in the province of
Lima, as the NF boasted.

Plotnik can't understand why Calero was arrested in such a sudden, and
dramatic, fashion. She'd been working on his case for months.

"I have rarely seen a stronger case for political asylum than Julian
has," Plotnik told eyeNET. "I was convinced his case was going to be
approved the day he was arrested. So I was absolutely shocked when they
took him into custody that day." She, too, doesn't understand what
happened.

Plotnik emphatically denies her former client is associated with the NF
or any such organization.

As if the May 10 post wasn't bad enough, on June 8 (at 1:20 a.m.), the
NF posted again, claiming to be intimate with Calero's politics, saying
Calero sided with the NF against one of its political opponents in
London, England.

"From my interviews, there was no indication he sympathized, let alone
participated in, Peruvian revolutionary activities," Plotnik says. "And
so, for that to come up, for these people to call him 'one of their
comrades' -- that is ridiculous. At least to me."

Miles says seeing bizarre posts, like the May 10 one, from "the
editors" of the NF is what first alerted him something strange was
going on. The Detroit Peru Support Committee was originally allied with
the NF. At the end of May, the committee officially broke with the NF,
calling it a "fraud."

"In the May 10 post, the NF says it thought your newspaper [eye] was a
CIA front," Miles says. "But yet this editor then immediately goes and
tells you about Peruvian exiles being members of clandestine
organizations in the US? And how these Peruvian immigrants are wanted
by Fujimori? And he really thinks you are a cop? It's ridiculous."

Miles says many people now wonder if the NF is a covert operation of
the Peruvian intelligence service, posing as a pro-revolutionary
organization, while actually trying to collect evidence on the Peruvian
exile community.

"I'm not sure what he is about, but I think the man running this
magazine is dangerous," Miles says.


   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Retransmit freely in cyberspace        Author holds standard copyright
http://www.eye.net                              Mailing list available
eyeNET archive -----------------------> http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet
[e-mail]          "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..."     416-971-8421

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

From: Emmanuel Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--The Avatar, Internet Cafe, Sarajevo
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:52:35 -0400 (EDT)

Who would like to donate some spare equipment to these guys?
They've been through hell.

> The Avatar, Internet Cafe, opened its doors on July 5th 1996 in Sarajevo,
> Bosnia Herzegovina.
>
> We are open 8am thru curfew (Currently 11 pm), serve cold Czech Budweiser
> on tap, sandwiches, coffee and provide full Internet access. We Currently
> have one PowerMac 7100 with a 21" monitor, a 14.4 Kb link and a UPS to
> protect us from nasty Bosnian power surges.
>
> So far we have had a mixed bag of customers including the American Embassy
> staff, IFOR troops, Bosnian NetHeads, computerphobes and drunkards. (The
> American Ambassador has promised to come if we agree to play the Pulp
> Fiction soundtrack)
>
> We have sponsored a local film festival and will continue to support the
> art here in Bosnia.
>
> Opening this place was a tough nine months (We began paperwork in October).
> I would like to thank a lot of people, mostly Bosnians, I would also like
> hang the carpenter and drive a wooden stake through his heart.
>
> All info:
>
> Morgan Sowden
> The Avatar
> Pruscakova 3
> Sarajevo
> Bosnia Herzegovina
> Tel: [phone]
>
> Temporary email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:52:56 -0700
From: Ellen Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--NT Workstation 4.0: Bad News for Web Servers

Below you will read an alert written by Tim O'Reilly, President of
O'Reilly & Associates. If you would like to speak with Tim or another
O'Reilly executive about the issues raised in this alert, please
contact me.

Thank you,
Ellen Elias
[e-mail]
[phone] ext. 322

You may have already heard that in Microsoft's upcoming NT Workstation
4.0, functionality will be significantly reduced. If you want to run
*any* Web server--O'Reilly's, Microsoft's, or others'--on NT, you'll
have to buy NT Server for $999.  The implications of Microsoft's
actions are serious for the Web community, and I encourage you to help
spread the word about it.

First, the facts: NT Workstation 4.0 will limit the number of unique IP
addresses which can contact a Web server to 10 or fewer in a 10-minute
period.  No previous version of NT Workstation has contained this
limitation. Of course, this effectively eliminates NT Workstation as an
option for Internet or Intranet Web server usage.

Now, the implications: this development will choke off one of the most
important new directions for the Web: its return to its roots as a
groupware information sharing system for the desktop. Like email and
the PC itself, Web publishing belongs on the desktop. With the higher
price tag of NT Server ($999 vs. $290), users who have never before put
up a web site will be extremely unlikely to do so.

This move by Microsoft will hurt the efforts of Web developers,
Intranet developers, and Internet service providers, a great many of
whom have been happy to create sites on NT Workstation. Microsoft has
been saying that IIS (the Web server they include with NT Server) is
free, and quite clearly, this is now exposed as untrue. Developers will
have to stick with the older NT Workstation operating system if they
want to use any server other than IIS (noted for its security
problems), or will have to upgrade and pay extra for the server of
their choice.

Chief WebSite developer Bob Denny says: "When I first started
developing Web servers in 1994, nearly all Web serving was done on the
Unix platform. Considering that companies such as O'Reilly &
Associates, Netscape, and a half dozen more, pushed hard in the fight
to legitimize NT vs. Unix as a Web server platform over the last 18
months, Microsoft's actions are pretty extreme."

I've sent email to Bill Gates to let him know of my personal concern
about the impact of his plans on Web users and developers. I encourage
anyone interested  in maintaining the open systems nature of the Web to
send email to Microsoft, post this news on their sites and in
newsgroups, and write letters to editors, to put pressure on Microsoft
to reverse their decision. They've reversed such decisions before, when
people have expressed their opinions about an important issue such as
this.

Regards,
Tim O=D5Reilly
President
O'Reilly & Associates

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 22:59:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Noah <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--IANA to create new top level domains (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
From--Michael Dillon <[e-mail]>

IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) is currently responsible
for delegating the top level domains used in URL's, i.e. .COM, .ORG,
etc. Currently under consideration is a plan that would see new
international Top Level Domains created and new commercial registries
(not the Internic) to manage those domains. Most of the discussion is
happening on a mailing list at [e-mail] which you can
subscribe to by sending

subscribe

to [e-mail] or you can review the discussions to date
at http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/ especially the recent
discussions. Over the past 9 months we have come up with one main
proposal that appears as if it will be the core of an RFC. This is
available at
ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt
There are a couple of other proposals also being discussed on the
list.

Jon Postel will shortly be posting a revised draft of his proposal in
light of discussions that took place at the Montreal IETF meeting.
Also, there is information from the dissenting camp available at
http://www.alternic.nic For most of you, that domain name will be
unreachable and you will need to use http://www.alternic.net to reach
it.

The plan is to have this system in place by year end and be
registering new domains by early 1997. You may soon see URL's like
http://www.industrial.plastics or http://www.spock.klingon appearing
in a magazine near you. If you want to have any input into this
proceeding, now is the time to speak up.

Please forward this to any colleagues who may wish to have input into
these decisions.

Michael Dillon                                   ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: [phone]
http://www.memra.com                             E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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 post with this in the "Subject:: line:

     SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to:   [e-mail]

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

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 CU-DIGEST
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) (860)-585-9638.
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: ZERO! BBS: [phone]
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  [phone]

  UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/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/CuD/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~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 #8.54
************************************