The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud872.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 31.7 KB | 727 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Oct 9, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 72
                           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, #8.72 (Wed, Oct 9, 1996)
File 1--Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills
File 2--Global online intellectual property conf at American Univ
File 3--Stealth Attack in Budget Bill
File 4--The WEB Magazine: The Party's Over: Another Perspective
File 5--Wiretap In the Night (CyberWire Dispatch)
File 6--Cyberspace Free Speech Law for Non-Lawyers
File 7--Book review: "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996"
File 8--Jim Thomas Thursday at HotWired
File 9--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: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 06:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills

   Boy May Have Killed Self, Mom Over Internet Bills
   10:14am EDT, 10/2/96

         CHICAGO, (Reuter) - A 12-year-old Missouri boy may have
killed his mother and himself in a dispute over Internet-related
telephone bills, police said Tuesday.
         The bodies of Ann Hoffman, 42, and her son Brad were found
in their California, Missouri, home last week. She had been shot
six times and the boy died of one shot to his head. A gun was
found near his body.
         The Moniteau County Sheriff's Office near where the family
lived in central Missouri said the boy's telephone bills from an
online provider service ran into hundreds of dollars a month. It
said the boy's father, who was divorced from Hoffman, had met
with his son and ex-wife last week to discuss the bills.
         Sheriff Kenny Jones also said he was investigating a report
that the boy had chatted over the Internet with a girl in Mexico
last month telling her that he was contemplating suicide.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 21:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Global online intellectual property conf at American Univ

Folks in the DC area might want to stop by this free conference on
intellectual property next week at American University. I'll be giving
the closing remarks; Mike Nelson from the White House will be
presenting the opening statement.

-Declan

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

All who are interested are invited to attend a conference . . .

The 1996 Conference of American University's
Global Intellectual Property Project

OWNERSHIP ON-LINE:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS OF
THE GLOBAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

October 16, 1996
1:00-6:00 pm
Husghes formal Lounge
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20016-8071

Free and Open to the Public

Opening Session:
Michael R. Nelson
Special Assistant for Information Technology
White House Office of Science and Technology

Panel 1:
Where are we and how did we get here?
Panel 2:
Where are we going?

Closing Session:
Declan McCullagh, HotWired

Participants Include:
David Holtzman, IBM's inforMarket
Theodore Henke, Atlantic Mutual Insurance Companies
Adam Eisgrau, American Library Association
Elizabeth Blumenfeld, America On-Line
Chris Meyer, Meyer and Klipper (formerly of the Patent and
        Trademark Office)
Carsten Fink, World Bank
Edward Comor, American University
James Boyle, American University
Peter Jaszi, American University
Edward Malloy, Department of State
Manuel Gameros, Mexican Finance Ministry

Organizing Committee:

Erran Carmel, American University
Carole Ganz-Brown, American University and National Science Foundation
Renee Marlin-Bennett, American University

Conference Sponsors:

American University
Atlantic Mutual Companies

Visit our Website, under construction, but with updated information, at:
http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/MOGIT/glipp96.htm

or call:  202-885-1843

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

Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 09:48:20 +0100
From: Glenn Hauman <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Stealth Attack in Budget Bill

>From this morning's NYT CyberTimes. Links to the Bill text are already

there. Great job, Pam:

New Digital Child Porn Law In Budget Bill

              By PAMELA MENDELS

A little-known corner of the huge government budget bill passed on
Monday was legislation that updates child pornography statutes by
banning computer-generated depictions of children engaging in sexual
conduct.

              The new law was quickly attacked by free speech
              advocates who say that it undermines First Amendment
              protections and is so broad that it could make sex scenes
              from movies in which adults portray teen-agers legally
              suspect.

[...]

But the new law, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, would
expand the
definition of illegal child pornography to include images not
necessarily based on a real child. Among other things, the act,
introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the
Judiciary Committee, outlaws "any visual depicition, including any
photograph, film, video image or picture . . . where . . . such visual
depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct."

[...]

Bruce A. Taylor, president and chief counsel of the National Law Center
for Children and Families, a Fairfax, Va.,-based anti-pornography group
that supports the new law, said: "Congress has moved from seeing child
pornography as a crime scene of yesterday's child abuse. It is also a
tool for tomorrow's molestation. In other words, pedophiles look at
child pornography and become incited to molest children, and pedophiles
show those pictures to children to seduce them into imitating the
pictures."

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

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 04:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--The WEB Magazine: The Party's Over: Another Perspective

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Wed, 02 Oct 96 16:05:45 PST
[e-mail]

Hey Declan,

Como estas?

This is an article I wrote for the premiere issue of The WEB Magazine,
where I'm editing the politics section (and the Web site;
www.webmagazine.com).  It offers an alternative perspective to
Chapman's LA Times article.  One of the many problems with Chapman's
article is his misreading of the youth vote, which has been shown to
lean towards third-party candidates.  He also overlooks the fact that
people are for the first time *already* registering to vote online,
which has the potential to upset the ossified two-party system.

Feel free to redistribute.

cheers,

Spencer

------------
Copyright The WEB Magazine, 1996


By Spencer E. Ante

The Party's Over

The Net is going to remake the face of politics in America, but not
the way you might think. Cocktail-party pundits foresee a brave new
digital nation in which the Net has rendered representative
government obsolete. For their part, online activists predict the
rise of "desktop democracy" as people register-and one day vote-from
their home computers (see "The Online Ballot Box"). But such
prognostications are so heavy on theory and light on spe-cifics that
it's hard to gauge what will really happen as the heartland comes
kicking and screaming into the Information Age.

Then again, Ray Wolfinger of UC Berkeley may know. The 65-year-old
political science professor doesn't have e-mail and doesn't surf the
Web (he says his "life was fully formed before the Internet"), but
his research on the 1993 federal "motor-voter" law may foretell the
next stage of U.S. electoral politics. Officially named the National
Voter Registration Act (NVRA), motor-voter was signed into law after
a four-year-long partisan foodfight in Congress. Besides instituting
a universal voter registration form, it mandates that states permit
their citizens to register when they apply for a driver's license,
welfare benefits, or other government services.

Though NVRA began as a bipartisan bill (with Newt Gingrich as a
cosponsor), GOP leaders later withdrew their support, citing the
potential for fraud but really fearing that greater public
participation would be a bonanza for the Democrats. As it turned
out, the Republicans may have been looking for monsters in the wrong
closet.

Wolfinger found that motor- voter legislation is most likely to
increase registration for people under 30-the same population most
likely to be online. Therein lies the rub: Politically alienated
twenty-somethings have weaker party identifications than do older
voters, Wolfinger says, which makes them more inclined than their
elders to vote for third-party candidates. In the 1992 election, for
example, Ross Perot won 28% of the under-30 vote, his best showing
among all age groups. "The most obvious beneficiary of higher
turnout by young people," Wolfinger writes, "would be almost any
third-party candidate."

That's where the Net comes in. In spirit and demographics, the
online population resembles the sweaty mosh pit of a rock concert,
which explains why Rock the Vote (http://netvote96.mci.com/)
recently opened shop on the Web. Jointly sponsored by Rock the Vote
and MCI, NetVote '96 represents the nation's first online voter
registration program; and like motor-voter, it is designed to
increase political participation by weaving registration into the
course of everyday life.

"Our goal is to take voting registration to where the kids live,"
says Mark Strama, the 28-year-old program director of Rock the Vote.
"We've gone to concerts, campuses, and movie theaters. With so many
people using the Net these days, it just made sense to move into
cyberspace." To date, NetVote '96, which launched in April, has
registered more than 21,000 young adults. The numbers involved
aren't staggering, but they certainly point to the program's
tremendous potential. "I assume that most people aren't interested
in politics," Wolfinger says. "So when you surf the Internet and
it's pretty painless, this may provide you with the impetus to
register."

Motor-voter may have been a struggle to enact, but members of both
parties in Congress have voiced support for NetVote '96. In
particular, Congressional Internet Caucus cofounders Rep. Rick White
(R-WA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have applauded it as a
democratic initiative. Perhaps they shouldn't be so hospitable. By
embracing registration reform and the new technologies that bolster
it, Congressional innovators may be creating their own
Frankenstein's monster. But it will take a lot more than a stellar
Web campaign to break down the doors of the White House.

Spencer E. Ante is editor of Web Central Station, the online home of
THE WEB Magazine. Send your comments and questions to
[e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Wiretap In the Night (CyberWire Dispatch)

CyberWire Dispatch // September // Copyright (c) 1996 //

Jacking in from the "Smoked Filled Room" Port:

Washington, DC -- Federal provisions funding the digital telephony bill
and roving wiretaps, surgically removed earlier this year from an
anti-terrorism bill, have quietly been wedged into a $600 billion
omnibus spending bill.

The bill creates a Justice Department "telecommunications carrier
compliance fund" to pay for the provisions called for in the digital
telephony bill, formally known as the Communications Assistance in Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA).  In reality, this is a slush fund.

Congress originally budgeted $500 million for CALEA, far short of the
billions actually needed to build in instant wiretap capabilities into
America's telephone, cable, cellular and PCS networks.  This bill now
approves a slush fund of pooled dollars from the budgets of "any
agency" with "law enforcement, national security or intelligence
responsibilities."  That means the FBI, CIA, NSA and DEA, among
others, will now have a vested interest in how the majority of your
communications are tapped.

The spending bill also provides for "multipoint wiretaps."  This is the
tricked up code phase for what amounts to roving wiretaps.  Where the
FBI can only tap one phone at a time in conjunction with an
investigation, it now wants the ability to "follow" a conversation from
phone to phone; meaning that if your neighbor is under investigation and
happens to use your phone for some reason, your phone gets tapped.    It
also means that the FBI can tap public pay phones... think about that
next time you call 1-800-COLLECT.

In addition, all the public and congressional accountability provisions
for how CALEA money was spent, which were in the original House version
(H.R. 3814), got torpedoed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Provisions stripped out by the Senate:

-- GONE: Money isn't to be spent unless an implementation plan is sent
to each member of the Judiciary Committee and Appropriations committees.

-- GONE:  Requirement that the FBI provide public details of how its new
wiretap plan exceeds or differs from current capabilities.

-- GONE:  Report on the "actual and maximum number of simultaneous
surveillance/intercepts" the FBI expects.   The FBI ran into a fire storm
earlier this year when it botched its long overdue report that said it
wanted the capability to tap one out of every 100 phones
*simultaneously*.   Now, thanks to this funding bill, rather than having
to defend that request, it doesn't have to say shit.

-- GONE:  Complete estimate of the full costs of deploying and
developing the digital wiretapping plan.

-- GONE:  An annual report to Congress "specifically detailing" how all
taxpayer money -- YOUR money -- is spent to carry out these new wiretap
provisions.

"No matter what side you come down on this (digital wiretapping) issue,
the stakes for democracy are that we need to have public accountability,"
said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and
Technology.

Although it appeared that no one in congress had the balls to take on
the issue, one stalwart has stepped forward, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.).  He
has succeeded in getting some of the accountability provisions back into
the bill, according to a Barr staffer.  But the fight couldn't have been
an easy one.   The FBI has worked congress relentlessly in an effort to
skirt the original reporting and implementation requirements as outlined
in CALEA.  Further, Barr isn't exactly on the FBI's Christmas card list.
Last year it was primarily Barr who scotched the funding for CALEA
during the 104th Congress' first session.

But Barr has won again.  He has, with backing from the Senate, succeeded
in *putting back* the requirement that the FBI must justify all CALEA
expenditures to the Judiciary Committee.   Further, the implementation
plan, "though somewhat modified" will "still have some punch," Barr's
staffer assured me.  That includes making the FBI report on its
expected capacities and capabilities for digital wiretapping. In other
words, the FBI won't be able to "cook the books" on the wiretap figures
in secret.  Barr also was successful in making the Justice Department
submit an annual report detailing its CALEA spending to Congress.

However, the funding for digital wiretaps remains.  Stuffing the funding
measures into a huge omnibus spending bill almost certainly assures its
passage. Congress is twitchy now, anxious to leave.  They are chomping
at the bit, sensing the end of the 104th Congress' tortured run as the
legislative calender is due to run out sometime early next week.  Then
they will all literally race from Capitol Hill at the final gavel,
heading for the parking lot, jumping in their cars like stock car
drivers as they make a made dash for National Airport to return to their
home districts in an effort to campaign for another term in the loopy
world of national politics.

Congress is "going to try to sneak this (spending bill) through the back
door in the middle of the night," says Leslie Hagan, legislative
director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  She
calls this a "worst case scenario" that is "particularly dangerous"
because the "deliberative legislative process is short-circuited."

Such matters as wiretapping deserve to be aired in the full sunlight of
congressional hearings, not stuffed into an 11th hour spending bill.
This is legislative cowardice.  Sadly, it will most likely succeed.

And through this all, the Net sits mute.

Unlike a few months ago, on the shameful day the Net cried "wolf" over
these same provisions, mindlessly flooding congressional switchboards
and any Email box within keyboard reach, despite the fact that the
funding provisions had been already been stripped from the
anti-terrorism bill, there has been no hue-and-cry about these most
recent moves.

Yes, some groups, such as the ACLU, EPIC and the Center for Democracy
and Technology have been working the congressional back channels,
buzzing around the frenzied legislators like crazed gnats.

But why haven't we heard about all this before now?  Why has  this bill
come down to the wire without the now expected flurry of "alerts"
"bulletins" and other assorted red-flag waving by our esteemed Net
guardians?  Barr's had his ass hanging in the wind, fighting FBI
Director Louis "Teflon" Freeh;  he could have used some political cover
from the cyberspace community.  Yet, if he'd gone to that digital well,
he'd have found only the echo of his own voice.

And while the efforts of Rep. Barr are encouraging, it's anything from a
done deal.  "As long as the door is cracked... there is room for
mischief," said Barr's staffer.   Meaning, until the bill is reported
and voted on, some snapperhead congressman could fuck up the process yet
again.

We all caught a bit of a reprieve here, but I wouldn't sleep well.  This
community still has a lot to learn about the Washington boneyard.
Personally, I'm a little tired of getting beat up at every turn.  Muscle
up, folks, the fight doesn't get any easier.

Meeks out...

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

Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]> contributed to this report.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:25:37 PST
From: Eugene Volokh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Cyberspace Free Speech Law for Non-Lawyers

                    PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD

    The Cyberspace Law for Nonlawyers free e-mail seminar (now at
over 17,000 subscribers) is about to start its Free Speech unit.  If
you've ever wanted to brush up on the constitutional law of free
speech, especially as it applies to cyberspace, this is your chance.
To subscribe, send a message with the text

    SUBSCRIBE CYBERSPACE-LAW Yourfirstname Yourlastname

to

    [e-mail]


    *  The seminar is aimed at educated laypeople, not primarily at
       lawyers.  Low on legalese and Latin.

    *  This is a low-traffic distribution list, NOT a discussion
       list.  Subscribers will get one message (a few paragraphs
       long) every few days.

    *  The seminar is co-authored by
       Prof. Larry Lessig, University of Chicago Law School
       Prof. David Post, Georgetown University Law Center
       Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law

       Larry Lessig clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin
       Scalia, and now teaches constitutional law and the law of
       cyberspace.  He's written about law and cyberspace for the
       Yale Law Journal and the University of Chicago Legal Forum
       (forthcoming).

       David Post practiced computer law for six years, then clerked
       for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now
       teaches constitutional law, copyright law, and the law of
       cyberspace.  He's written about law and cyberspace for the
       University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming) and the Journal
       of Online Law, and writes a monthly column on law and
       technology issues for the American Lawyer.

       Eugene Volokh worked as a computer programmer for 12 years,
       and is still partner in a software company that sells the
       software he wrote for the Hewlett-Packard Series 3000.  He
       clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and
       now teaches constitutional law and copyright law.  He's written
       about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law
       Review, Michigan Law Review, and the University of Chicago
       Legal Forum (forthcoming).


                               -- Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law

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

Date: Tue, 2 Oct 1996 20:13:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--Book review: "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996"

Mark Ludwig's "Computer Virus Supertechnology 1996" (American
Eagle, ISBN 0-929408-16-0) radically ups the ante for those
interested in learning how to write computer viruses.  At $395.00
for about 200 pages, Ludwig has pitched it predominantly to repeat
customers of American Eagle, would-be information warriors at
Pentagon think tanks like Science Applications or MITRE Corp., the
libraries of computer security organizations and a handful of
eccentrics with too much discretionary cash and time on their hands.
It's an effective sales strategy and, I imagine, covers just about
the entire audience for the book in the United States and a handful
of other countries.

In direct contrast to his $12.95 underground bestseller "The Little
Black Book of Computer Viruses," Ludwig only has to sell a few
hundred copies of "CVS1996" to make a substantial return on investment.
Printed in a run of 500, Ludwig claims to have already sold 60 percent
of the lot.  By the time you are reading this review, presumably
"Computer Virus Supertechnology" will be about sold out.

"CVS1996" focuses on writing viruses that infect Windows95 programs.
It includes on its companion diskette the first one written, called
Boza/Bizatch, which was originally published by the Australian
virus-writing group, VLAD.  Boza never made it into general circulation.
And since its publication -- despite a spurt of crazy stories about
in the mainstream media -- the current crop of virus writers, in
general, have shown very little interest or ability in turning out
the same hordes of trivial viruses for the new operating system as
is the case with DOS.

Ludwig says this is because the vast majority of virus writers
write their programs as a sort of casual hobby.  They lack the
ability or the patience to crunch the internals of Windows 95
code to the extent required to write functional viruses for the
system.  It's a reasonable claim.  The vast majority of virus
writers are, essentially, Caspar Milquetoasts when it comes to
this type of "work."  They tend to prefer collecting viruses or
fragments of them in large numbers and mounting them as public
collections on bulletin boards or Internet providers; writing
aggressively menacing-sounding electronic press releases; and
cobbling together hacks of any one of the thousands of DOS viruses
already in existence.

This could change writes Ludwig, using the following arguments.  A
number of relatively inexpensive books on the internals of Windows and
Win95 are now in bookstores. These certainly furnish the essentials for
understanding the ins-and-outs of file structures and system functions,
sufficient information for virus-writers intent on the subject.
Further, Ludwig points out DOS appeared in 1981 but the Pakistani Brain
virus didn't show up until 1985. And by 1988 there were still
only a small number of computer viruses written for that operating
system.  The current virus production glut is a phenomenon with its
roots in the first half of this decade which tends to obscure the fact
the DOS virus development didn't happen overnight. Ludwig implies the
groundwork is now there for viruses under Windows95 but it will be a
different cohort of virus-writers who wind up producing them.

"CVS1996" walks the reader through the design of three viruses.
All of them are "direct action" infectors, which is to say -- as
Ludwig does -- that they're effective as basic demonstrators but
because of their limited strategy in file infection, not likely to
be successful in the wild. The first virus, called Hillary, looks
for Windows95 files with more than 500 bytes of zero fill, or
contiguous empty space in them.  It then writes itself to this
hole and adjusts the host program so that when loaded the virus
gets control first.  Although workable on just about anyone's
PC, it's a reluctant infector -- much like Ludwig's TIMID virus
from "The Little Black Book."

Another virus adds itself as a code section to hosts; the last
one in the book shuffles the host's internal code around before
adding itself to the final product, an effort to make the infection
a little less noticeable.  The bulk of the virus tutorials are
spent detailing the internal structures of the average Windows 95
program and the way in which a virus has to modify them
to infect the file without ruining it or crashing the machine.

The final section of "CVS1996" is devoted to Robert Morris, Jr.'s
Internet Worm.  The Worm was unleashed on a computer in MIT's
Artificial Intelligence lab in 1988. In a couple of hours it
was paralyzing computers on the Internet from coast to coast.
Morris confessed to it, was tried, convicted and sentenced with
three years of probation, community service and a fine.

Like many other discussions of the Worm, Ludwig writes the code
of it is schizophrenic: routines that don't get called, either by
error or in effort to throw others off. It presents "convoluted logic
that seems at best illogical."

Still, it was an amazing program in its effect on the Internet,
Ludwig continues.

And for the conspiracy-minded:

"Though Morris has confessed to writing it . . . there has been
lingering suspicion over the years that others were behind it, and
possibly the NSA. Such allegations are, of course, unproveable."

A detailed presentation of the Worm's code and function is delivered.
Ludwig adds a small bit of the original is missing: "I simply could not
find it anywhere."

"Computer Virus Supertechnology" is one of kind. Despite years of social
opprobrium, Mark Ludwig is still the only one doing these types of books
regularly.  The audience is entirely his.  Paradoxically, other
publishers offering books on computer viruses -- usually from the
anti-virus side of things -- now call him to have their offerings sold
through the American Eagle mail catalog!

Finally, like the rest of American Eagle's recent offerings, "CVS1996"
delivers a hefty amount of dense computer code and analysis requiring, at
the very least, a passing familiarity with the subject or the patience to
master a rather technical treatment in the taboo worlds of computer virus
writing and publishing. Plus, there's its unique list price.  These are
not minor obstacles to the dilettante computer vandal.

(American Eagle, POB 1507, Show Low, AZ  85901; ph: 1-520-367-1621)

Crypt Newsletter
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:52:35 -0500
From: Jon Lebkowsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--Jim Thomas Thursday at HotWired

Electronic Frontiers Forum
Thursday, October 10
6PM Pacific Time (9PM Eastern, Friday 01:00 GMT)

Guest: Jim Thomas,  Editor of Computer Underground Digest

On the table: control/enforcement issues of the criminal justice
system, online hucksters, net censorship, privacy (is it
over-rated?), the great child-porn myth, how is net technology
changing culture?

Where to login:
telnet: talk.wired.com
javachat: http://talk.wired.com

Free membership required (http://www.hotwired.com/reception/join)

--
Jon Lebkowsky <[e-mail]>  FAX [phone]  http://www.well.com/~jonl
Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays     <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>
"No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--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)
         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 #8.72
************************************