home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- Computer underground Digest Wed July 2, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 52
- ISSN 1004-042X
-
- Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
- News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
- Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
- Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
- Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
- Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
- Ian Dickinson
- Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
- Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
-
- CONTENTS, #9.52 (Wed, July 2, 1997)
-
- File 1--Federal Court invalidates Georgia anonymity law
- File 2--Database Protection (fwd/Computer Law Observer)
- File 3--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, June 19, 1997
- File 4--CyberSitter threatens critics for linking, infringement
- File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
-
- CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
- THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
-
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 07:25:03 -0400
- From: jw@bway.net
- Subject: File 1--Federal Court invalidates Georgia anonymity law
-
- FEDERAL COURT INVALIDATES GEORGIA ANONYMITY LAW
-
- Applies "real world" law to the online world
-
- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
-
- Contact: Jonathan Wallace
- (718)797-9808
- jw@bway.net
-
- New York, June 23, 1997--On Friday, a federal court in Georgia
- granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a
- Georgia law banning online anonymity and pseudonymity. Judge
- Marvin H. Shoob held the state law to be vague and overbroad
- in his decision in the case of ACLU v. Miller.
-
- Significantly, Judge Shoob held that the Supreme Court
- case of McIntyre v. Ohio applied to the on-line world.
- In McIntyre, the Supreme Court invalidated an Ohio law
- banning the distribution of political leaflets unless they
- bore the author's name.
-
- "What's good for the world of print should also apply
- to electronic communications," said Jonathan Wallace,
- a plaintiff in ACLU v. Miller. "There is no solid
- ground for endorsing anonymity in paper leaflets and
- then banning it in Web pages or email. Today, both
- media are used in the same way for political and other
- types of expression. If anonymity promotes diversity
- of discourse in print, as the Supreme Court has recognized,
- then it also should be allowed in the online world."
-
- Wallace, a New York-based attorney and software executive,
- is the co-author of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996)
- about Internet censorship. He was also a co-plaintiff in
- ACLU v. Reno, the case involving the Communications Decency
- Act due to be decided this week by the Supreme Court.
-
- The text of Judge Shoob's decision can be obtained from
- the Electronic Frontiers of Georgia (http://www.efga.org) and
- ACLU (http://www.aclu.org) Web sites.
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:52:54 +0100
- From: wgalkin@LAWCIRCLE.COM(william galkin)
- Subject: File 2--Database Protection (fwd/Computer Law observer)
-
- Published by
- Challenge Communications
-
- =============================================================
- May, 1997 Computer Law Observer Issue No. 25
- =============================================================
- The Computer Law Observer is distributed monthly for free by Challenge
- Communications. To subscribe to the Computer Law Observer, simply send
- an e-mail message to listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu with the words
- "subscribe lawobserver" (without the quotation marks) typed into the
- message area. After subscribing, you will receive a message requesting
- that you confirm your subscription. You will need to reply "ok" (without
- the quotation marks) to this message to confirm your subscription. To
- unsubscribe, follow the same procedure, substituting the word
- "unsubscribe." Reposting is permitted, if all reference information is
- included. Copyright 1997 Challenge Communications.
-
- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- JUST THE FACTS: Database protection
- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- by William S. Galkin, Esq.
- (biography at end)
-
- Hard work is recognized as a necessary prerequisite to progress. Even
- the Bible tells us that "[b]y the sweat of your brow you will eat bread
- [Genesis 3:19]." However, there is a fierce debate taking place across
- the globe on this very issue as it relates to databases: should the hard
- work of database developers be rewarded by imposing new limits on
- public access and use of data?
-
- CURRENT LAW -
-
- Under U.S. copyright law (which in this respect is similar to the laws
- of many Western countries), databases must have some original or
- creative elements in order to enjoy protection. Individual facts
- themselves receive no protection under copyright law.
-
- However, when facts are either selected or arranged in an original
- manner, then the resulting work will be granted protection [17 U.S.C.
- Sec. 101]. The opposite is true as well. Where there is no original
- selection or arrangement of data, even though substantial effort and
- expense have been invested, the resulting database will receive no
- copyright protection. Herein lies the Achilles heal of database
- protection.
-
- In the past, some U.S. courts found this harsh result to be inequitable
- and decided that effort alone should be a basis for granting copyright
- protection. This was known as the "sweat of the brow" approach. However,
- neither the U.S. Copyright Act nor the U.S. Constitution suggest such an
- approach. And, in 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter in
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service [499 U.S. 340 (1991)], by
- denying copyright protection based on effort alone.
-
- In the Feist case, Rural published a white pages telephone directory for
- part of Kansas. Feist sought permission from Rural to use the data in
- its directory to create a directory covering a larger geographic area.
- Rural refused to grant permission, and Feist then proceeded to copy much
- of Rural's directory. The Supreme Court held that Rural's directory
- enjoyed no copyright protection, because it contained no originality.
- There was no original selection of data, because every person living in
- a certain area was included. And, there was no original arrangement,
- because the names were simply listed in alphabetical order.
-
- DIGITAL DATA -
-
- Feist demonstrated the vulnerability of data in hard copy. However, as
- the cost and ease of digital data storage and transfer drops, the
- vulnerability to exploitation of electronic databases dramatically
- increases. Consider the recent case of ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg [86 F3d
- 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)], where ProCD spent 10 million dollars to assemble
- more than 95 million business listings from 3,000 telephone directories,
- which it then sold to the public on CD-ROM. The defendant bought one of
- the CDs for a modest fee. He extracted the data, uploaded it to his
- website, and then charged people to access the data. Based on Feist, the
- court held that the data was not protected by copyright because it
- contained no originality. Nevertheless, the court was still able to put
- a halt to this activity by finding that the defendant violated the terms
- of the shrink-wrap license that accompanied the CD-ROM.
-
- A NEW RIGHT -
-
- Many have viewed the Feist decision and its progeny as a threat to
- success of the growing database industry. So, in 1992, the European
- Economic Commission responded with a proposal to create a new, sui
- generis, protection that would offer protection for databases that do
- not qualify for copyright protection. On March 11, 1996, this proposal
- was adopted as the Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases
- (Directive) by the European Parliament and the Council of European
- Union.
-
- The Directive requires members of the European Community to provide, by
- January 1, 1998, for the protection of those databases that would not
- qualify for copyright protection. However, the sui generis protection of
- databases proposed by the Directive does not extend to databases
- developed in countries that do not have laws providing for a similar
- protection. Therefore, the Clinton Administration, apparently out of
- fear that U.S. databases would be plundered by European highwaymen,
- submitted a proposal for the sui generis protection of databases to the
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in early 1996. The U.S.
- proposal was similar to a proposal submitted by the European Community
- at the same time.
-
- It may seem odd that the U.S., which currently offers no sui generis
- protection for databases, would submit a proposal for a treaty to WIPO,
- which if accepted, would eventually require the U.S. to adopt such a
- protection. In an attempt to adjust for this apparent inconsistency, on
- May 23, 1996, the Database Investment and Intellectual Property
- Antipiracy Act was introduced into Congress (HR 3531). The U.S. proposal
- at WIPO and HR 3531 were both drafted without any public debate. These
- actions can best be explained as a short sighted end run effort to
- effect quick passage of enactments that would otherwise give rise to
- substantial debate.
-
- THE PROVISIONS -
-
- The provisions of the Directive, the WIPO proposals, and HR 3531 have
- many similar elements. Under these proposals, protection would be
- granted to databases that result from a "substantial investment." This
- is not limited to a monetary investment. Under HR 3531, for example,
- databases will be protected if they result from a substantial investment
- of human, technical, financial or other resources. Additionally, the
- investment does not have to have been devoted to the originating of the
- database, but can apply, under the Directive, to the obtaining,
- verification or presentation of the contents. The protected right
- prohibits others from "using" (HR 3531) or "extracting" (Directive) a
- substantial part of the database. Under HR 3531, "substantial" is
- determined by evaluating whether the use adversely affects the potential
- market for the database. The Directive provides for 15-year protection.
- Whereas, HR 3531 provides for 25 years. These terms are renewable if
- significant changes are made to a database.
-
- ADEQUACY OF CURRENT PROTECTION -
-
- At the heart of the current debate is whether the current copyright
- regime is adequate to protect electronic databases. Protection of
- intellectual property is provided for in the U.S. Constitution "[t]o
- promote the Progress of Science and [the] useful Arts." U.S. Const. Art.
- I, Sec. 8, cl.8. Therefore, in order to encourage such activity, we are
- willing to grant the limited monopolistic protections provided by the
- copyright and patent regimes. However, facts, in and of themselves, are
- not the result of creativity, but are rather discovered. Some consider
- creativity to be Constitutionally mandated, and therefore, extending
- protection to facts could be unconstitutional.
-
- As stated, copyright law requires that there be at least a modicum of
- originality in the selection or arrangement of data. It is questionable
- whether electronic databases have any arrangement at all, or whether the
- arrangement of data is determined merely by the search requests of the
- users. Often, databases will be composed of data that is selected in
- some original manner. However, as the collection, storage and access
- costs of data keep going down, and the demand for databases continues to
- rise, the trend towards truly comprehensive databases (where there is no
- selection) can be expected to increase.
-
- For these and other reasons, many believe that electronic databases
- require new and additional protection. However, as discussed below, the
- sui generis proposals may end up causing more harm than good.
-
- POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF SUI GENERIS PROTECTION -
-
- Fears have been expressed concerning the consequences of implementing
- the sui generis protections as currently contemplated. This new
- protection could result in a barrier to fact gathering by such people as
- journalists, educators, researchers and scientists, who require
- extensive access to information in order to perform their work. Much
- information used by such persons is currently available in the public
- domain or permitted from private sources through various "fair use"
- exceptions to exclusive rights granted to the owners [17 U.S.C. Sec.
- 107].
-
- Additionally, government data that is currently in the public domain may
- no longer be freely available to the public. This is because once a
- substantial investment has been made by a private entity in the
- verification, organization or presentation of the data, then sui generis
- protection may attach to such data.
-
- Electronic databases are dynamic, always changing and growing. HR 3531
- and the Directive provide that terms of protection can be renewed for
- subsequent terms where there is a change of commercial significance. The
- result would be perpetually renewing protection. Such perpetual
- protection was never contemplated for copyrights and patents, and would
- further limit public access to data.
-
- HR 3531 prohibits copying except of an "insubstantial part" of the data.
- This would permit copying only where the copying would not be construed
- to adversely affect the potential market for the data. If micro sales
- become possible and popular on the Internet, and individual pieces of
- data could be sold, would there remain a concept of "insubstantial
- part?"
-
- Due to the extremely high cost of entry, the database industry is
- characterized by a small number of providers. This market monopoly over
- facts, strengthened by a sui generis protection, could be extremely
- detrimental and would go counter to the concept of the free and
- unrestricted exchange of information that the U.S. scientific community
- has long advocated.
-
- Those advocating sui generis protection claim that commercialization of
- data will encourage, rather than stifle database development. While this
- might be true, no studies have been conducted to support this result.
-
- ALTERNATIVES TO SUI GENERIS PROTECTION -
-
- Several alternatives have been suggested to the current proposals for
- sui generis protection.
-
- One is simply to tailor the sui generis model in order to address many
- of the concerns discussed above. For instance, carve out research and
- education exceptions to the use restrictions. Establish a regime for
- compulsory licensing of data from private databases at rates affordable
- by those needing access while adequately compensating the database
- developers.
-
- Another alternative is to rely on the laws of misappropriation. For
- instance, in the case of International News Service (INS) v. Associated
- Press (AP) [248 U.S. 215 (1918)], the Supreme Court prohibited INS from
- transmitting AP's uncopyrighted news reports available on the East Coast
- to its reporters on the West Coast. The Court found that a lead time
- advantage was being misappropriated and enjoined INS from transmitting
- the information for as long as there remained commercial advantage in
- the lead time of AP's early reports. However, the application of the law
- of misappropriation to databases would be unpredictable because various
- factors will have to be raised and proved in each case.
-
- An additional alternative is to simply let the chips fall where they
- may, forcing database developers, without the assistance of monopolistic
- assistance, to compete for business. This competition might take the
- form of providing the best database services, through reliability and
- real-time updates, that no exploiter can compete with. Additionally,
- revenues can follow the current trend on the Internet of selling
- advertising based upon audience size, rather than seeking license fees
- for use.
-
- CONCLUSION -
-
- HR 3531 and the U.S. proposal at WIPO were drafted without seeking
- general input from those who would be most directly affected, namely the
- scientific and academic communities. Both HR 3531 and the U.S. proposal
- to WIPO failed to be enacted. However, it is certain that similar
- proposals will resurface in the near future. The next time around, the
- public will be best served if the proposals are subject to full public
- debate. The implications of sui generis protection are potentially
- enormous, and enactments should not be rushed through due to fear of
- foreign competition or simply to ease the fear of U.S. database
- developers.
-
- ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
-
- Mr. Galkin can be reached for comments or questions about the topic
- discussed in this article as follows:
-
- E- MAIL: wgalkin@lawcircle.com
- WWW: http://www.lawcircle.com/galkin
- TELEPHONE: 410-356-8853/FAX:410-356-8804
- MAIL: 5907 Key Avenue
- Baltimore, Maryland 21215
-
- Mr. Galkin is an attorney with over 10 years representing small startup,
- midsized and large companies, across the U.S. and internationally,
- dealing with a wide range of legal issues associated with computers and
- technology, such as developing, marketing and protecting software,
- purchasing and selling complex computer systems, launching and operating
- a variety of online business ventures, and trademark and copyright
- issues. He is a graduate of New York University School of Law and the
- adjunct professor of Computer Law at the University of Maryland School
- of Law.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:33:35 GMT
- From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com
- Subject: File 3--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, June 19, 1997
-
- http://www.firstamendment.org/
- A new ACLU/EPIC website
-
- Take the First Amendment Pledge
-
-
- As we all await a Supreme Court decision on the future of free speech on
- the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy
- Information Center launched www.firstamendment.org, a website dedicated to
- upholding the First Amendment in cyberspace.
-
- The groups called on President Clinton and members of Congress to be among
- the first to "Take the First Amendment Pledge" and cease any further
- attempts to draft legislation to censor the Internet in the event the
- Supreme Court upholds a lower court decision striking down government
- regulation of the Internet as unconstitutional.
-
- The launch of the website comes as Clinton Administration officials have
- begun publicly discussing a shift in policy on Internet regulation, saying
- that "industry self-regulation" -- not laws criminalizing certain Internet
- communications -- is the solution to shielding minors from online
- "indecency."
-
- "Attempts to censor the Net will not end with the Supreme Court decision,"
- said David Sobel, legal counsel for EPIC and co-counsel in Reno v. ACLU.
- "Proponents of Internet content regulation have already indicated their
- desire to take a 'second bite of the apple' if the Communications Decency
- Act is struck down."
-
- In anticipation of such new attempts at online censorship, visitors to
- www.firstamendment.org are invited to "Take the First Amendment Pledge,"
- which reads: "I pledge to support free speech and free expression for all
- Americans and to urge Congress to uphold the First Amendment to the United
- States Constitution and pass no law abridging our freedom of speech."
-
- People taking the pledge are encouraged to place the "First Amendment
- Pledge" GIF their own websites.
-
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Day of Decision Events
-
- As the countdown continues to a Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. ACLU, the
- first-ever case to look at how free speech principles are applied to the
- Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union is preparing to go live on the
- World Wide Web with a cybercast news conference on the day a decision is
- reached.
-
- Day of Decision Schedule
-
- 1:00 p.m.(E.D.T.) Press Conference and Cybercast
-
- At the ACLU's new national offices at 125 Broad Street in lower Manhattan.
- Reno v. ACLU attorneys, co-counsel and plaintiffs will participate. The
- live cybercast can be accessed through the ACLU's website,
- http://www.aclu.org, and directly through Pathfinder's Netly News at
- http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency.
-
-
- 7:00 p.m. (E.D.T.) Live Chat with ACLU Attorneys
-
- A one-hour chat with ACLU attorneys is planned on ECHO.
-
- Instructions:
- ECHO chats are open to anyone with Internet access.
- Telnet to echonyc.com, or dial 212-292-0910 with your modem.
- Login as echolive, and communicate directly with the Attorneys.
-
- Reno v. ACLU challenges censorship provisions of the Communications Decency
- Act aimed at protecting minors by criminalizing so-called "indecency" on
- the Internet. The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court after a
- federal three-judge panel ruled unanimously last June that the law
- unconstitutionally restricts free speech. The ACLU filed a challenge to
- the law the day it was enacted.
-
- Show your support for the ACLU's challenge to the Communications Decency in
- any -- or all -- of the following ways:
-
- 1) To be notified of a decision in the case by a change in a graphic placed
- on your web site, join our GIF notification Campaign -- instructions can be
- found at: http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/trial/instructions.html
-
- The image will change when the decision is handed down - notifying you, and
- everyone who visits your site.
-
- 2) Take the 1st Amendment Pledge at www.firstamendment.org, a joint
- campaign of the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
-
- 3) Subscribe to the Cyber-Liberties Update. Those of you who already
- receive the update directly will be notified. Those of you who read
- forwarded copies are encouraged to subscribe directly using the information
- in the footer of this document.
-
- 4) And the most important way you can show your support is to Join the ACLU.
- Information is available on our website http://www.aclu.org
-
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
- Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org)
- American Civil Liberties Union National Office
- 125 Broad Street
- New York, New York 10004
-
- To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message
- to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the
- body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a
- message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties"
- in the body.
-
- The Cyber-Liberties Update is archived at
- http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html
-
- For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org.
- PGP keys can be found at http://www.aclu.org/about/pgpkeys.html
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:31:29 -0400
- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
- Subject: File 4--CyberSitter threatens critics for linking, infringement
-
- ((MODERATORS' NOTE: Brian Milburn, pusher of CyberSitter,
- continues to hound his critics, this time with the threat of a
- lawsuit. Milburn's tactics raise a number of issues, as Declan
- McCullagh indicates))
-
- Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
-
- The following note from Milburn's lawyer, which is more rhetorical than
- reasoned, nevertheless raises two interesting points:
-
- * Do you have the right to link to someone without their permission?
-
- * Do you have the right to "open the hood" of software you buy to see if
- it's works as it says it does? (One would think that this is merely reverse
- engineering.)
-
- Milburn says "no" to both questions. In fact, he wants his critics,
- especially Bennett Haselton, to be prosecuted for distributing software
- that allows you to "open the hood" of CyberSitter. But you can never trust
- lawyer letters. So I called up a U.S. Attorney I know who has had some
- experience in criminal copyright cases. Here's what I was told:
-
- "What the law says for criminal copyright is that a person has to
- do certain things for commercial advantage or private gain. I
- don't think there's going to be a criminal violation for two
- reasons: 1. There will be a civil remedy if there is one at all.
- 2. He's nowhere near commiting a crime. [You'd need to prove a
- criminal mindset.] What he's doing is not criminal."
-
- So much for Milburn's "potential criminal claims."
-
- -Declan
-
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- Date--Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:35:25 -0700
- From--"James S. Tyre" <j.s.tyre@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
- To: NETLY-L@relay.pathfinder.com
- Subject--Corporate Intimidation [Was: Re: argh ignore that last msg]
-
- [...]
-
- Despite the May 2, 1997 date of what follows (three days before my
- letter to Brian Milburn), Bennett just received this today from an
- attorney purporting to represent Solid Oak. (Bennett hasn't been at
- Vanderbilt for some time, and their mail forwarding system apparently is
- not the best). Note what the attorney says about links.
-
- -Jim
-
-
- --------------------------------
-
-
-
- The Law Offices of Darren K. Miller
- 100 North Lasalle Street
- 24th Floor
- Chicago, Illinois 60602
- Telephone (312) 346 6363
- Facsimile (312) 346 2209
-
- May 2, 1997
-
- VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
- Mr. Bennett Haselton
- Vanderbilt University
- Box 1161, Station B
- Nashville, TN 37235
-
- Re: Solid Oak Software vs. Vanderbilt University, et al.
-
- Dear Mr. Haselton:
-
- We have been retained by Solid Oak Software ("SOS") with reference
- to your web page located at www.peacefire.org. As you know, you have been
- asked by SOS to discontinue publishing and distributing their material
- which is protected by valid copyrights. This includes, but is not limited
- to the CYBERsitter filter file codebreaker, and the links to various
- private addresses at SOS. Your continued disregard for the demands of SOS
- amount to activities which are civil and criminal in nature. Your attempt
- to shield yourself behind the First Amendment does not apply.
-
- I suggest you read the case of _Religious Technology Center vs.
- Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc._, 907 F.Supp 1361 (N.D.Cal.
- 1995). Your activities amount at the very least to direct infringement on
- many of the exclusive and protected rights of SOS. As you have no ability
- to raise a fair use defense, SOS may seek injunctive relief as well as
- damages if you do not immediately cease publishing and distributing the
- above material, and providing links to the private addresses within SOS.
-
- SOS will not begin to discuss releasing you from civil liability,
- or potential criminal claims for your actions unless you immediately
- comply with the above demands.
-
- Very truly yours,
-
-
- Darren K. Miller
-
- DKM:jlh
-
- cc: Lee Altschuler, Esq.
- Chief, U.S. Attorneys Office
- Northern District California
-
- Solid Oak Software
-
- ***************
-
- Date-- Wed, 2 Jul 1997 10:05:40 -0700
- From--"James S. Tyre" <j.s.tyre@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
- Subject-- Re: our friends at solid oak
- To: NETLY-L@pathfinder.com
-
- Just to add a few more facts to put the "bug" in perspective, since I
- don't recall mention of this in netly at the time:
-
- In mid-April, Bennett wrote a program called the codebreaker which, for
- those who had CYBERSitter, decrypted the weakly encrypted filter file
- into plaintext, so that anyone who chose to run the codebreaker program
- could see, in all its glory, all the bad words and bad sites blocked by
- CYBERSitter. The codebreaker was made available for download on
- Peacefire's site on April 22. One of many URLs where one can find the
- decrypted plaintext is:
-
- http://www.c2.net/~sameer/cybersitter.txt
-
- On April 24, Brian Milburn, the President of Solid Oak, fired off a
- letter to Bennett, threating civil and/or criminal prosecution. In
- addition to what one might expect in such a nastygram, Milburn actually
- accused Bennett of trespass by linking to Solid Oak. Milburn's letter
- is at:
-
- http://www.peacefire.org/archives/SOS.letters/bm.2.bh.4.24.97.txt
-
- The "bug", which Mark Kanter of Solid Oak denies any knowledge of in the
- Wired piece, seems to have first appeared in the CYBERSitter install
- program on April 29. Shirley, this was just a coincidence.
-
- BTW, on May 5, Bennett's incredibly brilliant and wonderful pro bono
- attorney (ya ya, yada yada) fired off a very tame, reasoned and subdued
- response to Milburn. For anyone who wants to be bored to tears with
- legalspeak, its at:
-
- http://peacefire.org/archives/SOS.letters/james.tyre.2.bm.txt
-
- In a huge shocker, little has been heard from Solid Oak since. (Milburn
- was interviewed on about June 3 for a not yet published piece in
- George. He was still making the same threats then, but....)
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
- From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
-
- 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: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
-
- DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
-
- The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
- or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
- 60115, USA.
-
- To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
- Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
- (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
-
- Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
- news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
- LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
- libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
- the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
- On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
- on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
- CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
- 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
-
- In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
-
- UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
- Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/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 #9.52
- ************************************
-
-
-