Computer underground Digest Sun Oct 12, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 73 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, #9.73 (Sun, Oct 12, 1997) File 1--"Net Law: How Lawyers Use the Internet" by Jacobsen File 2--Markup of H.R. 695 (SAFE) ACT File 3--Secret FBI Files Web Site File 4--Things to Do on the Web When You're Dead File 5--Agent Steal in Gray Areas File 6--Export Controls and Scare Tactics File 7--Netly News special report: "The Privacy Snatchers" File 8--Spam Analysis File 9--THE X-STOP FILES: The Truth Isn't Out There File 10--Mitnick Trial Date Set File 11--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: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:25:25 EST From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan & Trevor" Subject: File 1--"Net Law: How Lawyers Use the Internet" by Jacobsen BKNLHLUI.RVW 970221 "New Law: How Lawyers Use the Internet", Paul Jacobsen, 1997, 1-56592-258-1, U$29.95 %A Paul Jacobsen jacobsen@brainerd.net %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-258-1 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$29.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 254 %T "New Law: How Lawyers Use the Internet" Come on. You give it a title like that *and* stick in an AOL disk and still expect me to refrain from joking? Well then, this is a realistic and reasonable overview of net uses and usefulness for lawyers. Not usage; per se; the coverage of actual Internet applications is fairly brief. The content is more of a sales pitch, in line with other Songline titles, studded with personal testimonials and examples. (The book does, though, properly note that law offices will probably want a direct, dedicated link to the net, rather than the dialup arrangement most other books push.) Along the way there are numerous, helpful resources recommended. A large proportion of these do, as expected, deal with US law, but overall the book is less US-centric than others of its ilk, given that the practice of law must be similar anywhere. "Netlaw" (cf. BKNETLAW.RVW) is for people; "Net Law" is for lawyers. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNLHLUI.RVW 970221 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:05:57 -0500 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 2--Markup of H.R. 695 (SAFE) ACT Source - http://www.house.gov/commerce/full/092497/markup.htm Full Committee Markup September 24, 1997 2123 Rayburn House Office Building PDF Versions of Committee Print and Amendments will be available by 11:00 AM EDT [IMAGE] Some of the the documents below have been created using Adobe Acrobat. To view these documents, you will need the Adobe PDF Viewer H.R. 695 SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION (SAFE) ACT, was ordered reported, amended, by a roll call vote of 44 yeas to 6 nays (Roll Call Vote #42). A unanimous consent request by Mr. Bliley to discharge the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection from further consideration and proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 695, as reported to the House by the Committee on the Judiciary, was agreed to without objection. The following amendments were offered. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Mr. Tauzin, #1, was AGREED TO, amended, by a voice vote. (A unanimous consent request by Mr. Tauzin to have the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute considered as base text for purposes of amendment was agreed to without objection.) An amendment to the Tauzin Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Mr. Markey, #1A, was AGREED TO by a roll call vote of 40 yeas to 11 nays (Roll Call Vote #41). An amendment by Mr. Oxley to the Markey Amendment to the Tauzin Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, #1A(1), was NOT AGREED TO by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 35 nays (Roll Call Vote #40). An amendment to the Tauzin Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Mr. Tauzin, #1B, was AGREED TO by a voice vote. THE COMMITTEE ADJOURNED SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR U.S. House Seal The Committee on Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2927 Commerce@mail.house.gov ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:42:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Ravnitzky Subject: File 3--Secret FBI Files Web Site Please pardon any interruption, but I believe that you may be interested in the Secret FBI Files Website at http://www.crunch.com/01secret/01secret.htm This free site has been carefully compiled from FBI records and lists thousands of important and interesting FBI Files that you can get very easily from the government simply by asking. This material has never, repeat never been published before anywhere. If you are interested in FBI files, this is a wonderful resource. Sorry again for any interruption, and I won't send you any other correspondence, but I hope you can provide me with some feedback on my website, which is real a labor of love. And if you like it, tell a friend. Michael Ravnitzky Second Year Law Student MikeRav@ix.netcom.com http://www.crunch.com/01secret/01secret.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 09:01:28 -0700 From: "Gordon R. Meyer" Subject: File 4--Things to Do on the Web When You're Dead Moderators' Note: Okay, the last thing we "need" is another Internet-based newsletter. Nonetheless, "NetBits" has arrived on the scene and it's fresh, interesting, and helpful. If you're interested in a nice mix of articles on technology, society, and news -- all with a 'net focus -- give NetBits a try. The article below is from their second issue. To subscribe to NetBITS, send email to . Visit the NetBITS Web site at . Things to Do on the Web When You're Dead ---------------------------------------- by David Blatner Perhaps it speaks to my Western-based culture that I was so surprised when a friend of mine [not our friend and colleague Cary Lu, who had no desire to build a Web site before he passed away, as mentioned in TidBITS-399_. -Adam] asked me some time ago if I would host his Web site after he died. I had simply not given any thought to the problem of what happens to a site after someone passes away or can no longer support it for health reasons. This man had put several years of work into his Web site, and it had become an archive of his life's musings and beliefs. He felt (and feels) strongly that this material should remain available to people after he is no longer around to share it, and there is no reason why this shouldn't be possible. The site takes up little space, requires no real maintenance, and holds a treasure-trove of wonderful writing that will probably never see its way into print. I don't know how many elderly people or people with terminal illnesses are currently building Web pages, but I can only assume that the number is increasing and that within the next few years the "passing on" question will become one of significance. There are many important and emotional issues at stake here, as people's personal Web sites become repositories and reflections of who they are and what they feel is important to share with others. I believe this situation calls for an international not-for-profit organization. People could bequest their Web sites to this organization with the knowledge that the site will be available indefinitely to their loved ones and other interested parties. Some small commercial startups already offer this kind of service, but I'm more concerned about people who won't be able to afford an expensive solution that requires trust funds or other sophisticated financing. **Enter the AfterLife** -- AfterLife is just such an organization. Over the past few months, several volunteers have been working together to address the concerns and issues of archiving Web sites after their authors die. The effort is still very much in its developmental stage, and more volunteers are needed. Currently, AfterLife has been donated server space and bandwidth, and the organization is applying for tax-exempt status in the United States. I was honored that my friend asked me to protect something so precious to him, and I willingly agreed. But I wonder how many people's sites are simply being "turned off" when they no longer have a voice (or a checkbook) to sustain them? I keep thinking: if my grandparents had built a Web site, wouldn't I want it archived and available online in the years to come for my grandchildren? Of course, no one knows what the online world will look like in my grandchildren's time. There's no question that the Web will evolve during the intervening years, and AfterLife will be exploring issues surrounding the conversion of Web pages into other formats for the continuance of access when that becomes necessary. Since HTML is relatively simple and HTML files are pure text, Web pages stand a much better chance of surviving into an unknown technical future than content that requires specific hardware or operating systems. CD-ROMs, for instance, may physically last for many years, but that's no help if there aren't any CD-ROM drives to read them or applications that understand the file formats used. You can find more information about AfterLife at the Web site below or by sending email to . If you are interested in either participating as a volunteer or bequeathing your Web site to AfterLife, drop us a line. Although AfterLife is still at an early stage, we want to encourage people to start thinking about the issues involved as the Web, along with the rest of us, continues to age. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:55:31 -0400 From: grayarea Subject: File 5--Agent Steal in Gray Areas ((MODERATORS NOTE: Netta Gilboa, editor of Gray Areas, sent the following information over to us. Gray Areas is a nifty magazine that's been around for a few years, and mixes rock, cyberculture, counterculture, and generally fringe news unavailable elsewhere. It's well checking out)). Two articles by Justin Petersen, a.k.a. Agent Steal, were just published by Gray Areas Magazine. The first is called "Hackers In Chains" and details some encounters Justin had with other notorious computer hackers while in federal prison. The second piece is called "Everything A Hacker Needs To Know About Getting Busted By The Feds. The articles are available on the Gray Areas Magazine Home Page at: http://www.grayarea.com/gray2.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 10:48:22 MDT From: Dave++ Ljung Subject: File 6--Export Controls and Scare Tactics |Which would you rather have export controls on, technology used |for encryption or technology used in the development of nuclear |weaponry? The answer is obvious to most people. Is it? Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot - if you make strong encryption technology available, then you let *any* technology that can be sent through encryption channels available. |Here's the conundrum: The mandarins of law enforcement say that ... |machines employed in the engineering of modern thermonuclear bombs can |be sold to Russian scientists in the former Soviet Union's most famous |nuclear weapons shop. No - the law doesn't say that at all. SGI broke export regulations by selling those computers, your article even admits that later: |Around the same time the Department of Commerce, along with the |Department of Justice, began a criminal investigation of the case. It seems that the 'mandarins of law enforcement' don't like strong encryption *or* export of computing technology that can create nuclear weaponry. |This is similar to the arguments fielded by concerned Netizens |against control of encryption, with one small exception: The first U.S |hydrogen bomb blew a crater one mile wide in the Pacific atoll of |Eniwetok. And the plans for that bomb could have been sent using encryption. There you go shooting your other foot, that must hurt. All you're doing is using the same scare tactics that the 'law' is using to stop encryption. Encryption in itself is not dangerous, but it admittedly can transmit dangerous information. Workstations by themselves are not dangerous, but they can create dangerous things, such as nuclear weaponry. If you use scare tactics to focus on the dangerous possibilities of technology, you might as well hand it all in now. |The four machines, for which Silicon Graphics was paid |$200,000, aren't really supercomputers, argued Thompson. At Silicon |Graphics, he said, they're thought of as "desktop servers," capable of Well - that's what they are. Admittedly the lines between PCs, workstations, servers and supercomputers is no longer clear, I think most of the industry would consider such machines as servers, not supercomputers. |supercomputers made by Cray Research. Conversely, a 486 PC -- what |this article is being written on -- is capable of approximately 12.5 |million operations per second. Compared to it, the SGI machines in |question are, relatively speaking, Crays. Now you're just being silly. Conversely, say, an Altair 8800 -- what this reply is being written on -- is capable of a couple of operations per second. Compared to it, the 486 PC in your house is, relatively speaking, the most powerful computer ever made. Please destroy it immediately - don't let it fall into the hands of the Russkies. |Thus, since Silicon Graphics insisted it was unaware of |Chelyabinsk-70's true nature, there was no need to review the sale. You are absolutely correct. I won't defend SGI because the made a mistake and they broke the law. In fact, they're direct competitors with the company I work for, so I don't really want to discuss SGI at all. But I don't see what this has to do with the *government* selling supercomputers to Russia (which they didn't), or with strong encryption, or ... heck, with anything except maybe the discussion of export controls, which didn't seem to be the point of your article. So, what exactly is your point, George? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:48:12 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 7--Netly News special report: "The Privacy Snatchers" Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Recently the FBI has started to demand a creepy new anti-privacy law. It requires that all future technologies -- from cell phones to WordPerfect -- include a kind of electronic peephole to let law enforcement agents snoop through your private files and communications without your knowledge or permission. One House committee has already approved the FBI's bill. Such easy access is the fantasy of every unethical policeman and corrupt bureaucrat. Now, the police say they'll never peek through this peephole without a judge's approval. But history reveals that time and again, the FBI, the military and other law enforcement organizations have ignored the law and spied on Americans illegally, without court authorization. Government agencies have subjected hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans to unjust surveillance, illegal wiretaps and warrantless searches. Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, feminists, gay rights leaders and Catholic priests were spied on. Even Supreme Court justices were monitored. Can we trust the FBI? Visit the Netly News for a special report on The Privacy Snatchers: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1466,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@TELECOM-DIGEST.ORG Subject: File 8--Spam Analysis ((MODERATORS' NOTE: For those not familiar with Pat Townson's TELECOM DIGEST, it's an exceptional resource. From the header of TcD: "TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * ======" )) ================== Source - TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 Volume 17 : Issue 265 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:02:54 -0400 From--The Old Bear Subject--Spam Analysis Pat: The following is something I did about two months ago to get a better understanding of the kind of "unsolicitied commercial email" that is being spewed into my mailbox. Readers of TELECOM Digest may find it of interest, particularly the observations about: 1. the *size* of the typical spam email message versus the that of the typical legitimate individual message; 2. the volume of spam compared with legitimate messages (other than subscribed mailing lists and other solicited bulk mail); 3. the apparent evolution of a subset of standard English punctuation which might be called 'spammese'. From--oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject--the case of the telltale exclamation point ! Date--Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:48:18 -0400 Since the beginning of the year, rather than deleting email SPAM, I have been filtering it off into a file called "SPAM" for purposes of intellectual curiosity. Well, it being a slow Friday afternoon, I decided to do some analysis. First, let me say that I already filter the 'from:' field to sort mail from subscribed lists and newsletters into appropriate folders. That reduces the mail volume in my general in-box considerably. I also filter mail from about ten individuals from whom I regularly expect to receive mail into a priority folder. That left 2,195 messages as "general" in-box material, or for the 213 days, an average of 10.3 unclassified messages per day. Of these 2,195 messages, I had manually sorted out 715 "spam" messages, or roughly 32% of the total unclassified message traffic. It should be noted that on a 'number of bytes' basis, the percentage of "spam" is much larger, totally 3,385KB of 6,809KB, or 50%. This means that the average "spam" email is 4.74KB compared with the average "real" e-mail being only 2.31KB including headers. A very scary statistic. Having noticed that spammers are not only verbose, but have a propensity to use needless exclamation points in the subject line, I decided to see what would happen if I filtered out any email message from the unclassified message traffic which contained a "!" in the subject line. Of 715 spams, 262 messages were selected -- a detection rate of 37%. Of 1480 "real" messages, 75 were selected -- a false positive rate of only 5%. A further examination of the "false positives" showed that 22 of them related to the contact management software "ACT!" made by Symantec and about which I had been in correspondence with several other users at one point earlier in the year. Obviously, an unfortunate choice of product name. Another 20 messages were replies to subject lines containing "!" which I foolishly had originated myself, such as "Happy birthday!" and "thanks!" -- something I pledge never to do again. That brings random "false positives" to 33, or 2% which may or may not be an acceptable level to any particular email user. In summary, based upon my sample (your mileage may vary), just filtering for exclamation points intercepts 37% of incoming "spam" while erroneously intercepting only 2% of bona fide message traffic. Personally, manually trashing ten messages per day is not so onerous that I would risk losing 2% of my valid unclassified email. But it does provide some indication of how "intelligent" filtering might be possible under current circumstances. Unfortuantely, 'professional' spammers eventually will figure out the filtering algorithms much like professional tax advisors have figured out what provokes an electronic IRS audit flag, or how shrewd job applicants have figured out what will get their resumes flagged by personnel departments which use electronic scanning. Even so, most of the annoying amateur multi-level marketing and chain letter garbage is so stupidly constructed that taking it out of the mailstream should be relatively easy -- even though doing it at the end point remains a tremendously inefficient use of resources. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:01:18 -0700 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject: File 9--THE X-STOP FILES: The Truth Isn't Out There SLAC Bulletin, October 9, 1997 ----------------------------- The SLAC bulletin is a periodic mailer on Internet freedom of speech issues from the authors of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt 1996). For more information, contact Jonathan Wallace, jw@bway.net, or visit our Web pages at http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/. THE X-STOP FILES: The Truth Isn't Out There by Seth Finkelstein So another censorware product has been found to secretly been blacklisting gay and lesbian material, anti-censorship sites, feminist resources and an incomprehensible scattershot collection of totally innocuous organizations. We can treat this as yet another "bad apple" in the endless search for the magic anti-porn program. Or we can use it as a basis for examining why such a program won't ever exist. A censorware blacklist seems to enjoy the enviable status of being assumed perfect until exposed as otherwise. Even though CyberSitter and NetNanny were caught banning the National Organization for Women, and CyberPatrol stigmatizes feminist discussion and electronic newspaper articles about gays as "Sexual Acts", every new expose of this type seems to follow a pattern. First, it is greeted with great surprise (and denial) by too many people. Then the company's public relations staff issues a weasel-worded press release of excuses. Finally, later, we are told that that particular program may have problems, but there's another one which is better, and the cycle begins anew. The X-stop case is notable not for what it was exposed to be banning in secret - that had a heavy helping of the usual suspects who fare badly under any sort of blacklisting. But the significance lies in that the claims it made were such an egregious example of statements which were dubious to ludicrous, yet were frequently uncritically repeated in debate. Journalists would not dream of, say, gullibly accepting a politician's claim that no campaign actions violated controlling legal authority even though all records are secret and would not be disclosed, but the outlandish propaganda of censorware-touters is too often parroted without the slightest skepticism (this isn't restricted to X-Stop, others such as BESS, Websense, etc. have received similar build-ups, and are now starting along the cycle of exposure described above). Just to start, X-stop's marketers made a prominent assertion that their censorware had a blacklist which contained only entries for material which is obscene according to the _Miller_ standard (a definition set out by the Supreme Court). Note this is not a vague claim about "pornography", which is a broad and hard to pin down term, but a very strong statement about a legal standard. Obscenity is a legal terms of art. A complex test must be met, and it is a difficult judicial determination. All material is initially presumed non-obscene until such a ruling. Moreover, obscenity is not a constant, not an intrinsic property, but a geographic variable. It varies from place to place, that is the "community standards" part of the _Miller_ test (note this prong is typically greatly overemphasized by people trying to suppress material, it's just one aspect of a highly involved determination). Just from this, it should be obvious that either X-Stop was lying, or it was a *very* small list. No great knowledge is required, just basic understanding of the meaning of the terms in the claim. And such a list would be unlikely to please many censorware advocates. For example, explicit safer-sex educational information, a frequent subject of controversy, wouldn't be obscene. Perhaps someone wants to be generous, and rewrite X-Stop's claim into something such as "likely to be obscene somewhere in the country". This would still be a near-impossible task to list with any significant coverage of the net. There are so many sites on the Internet, all changing so rapidly, that it would require an army of censors to even try to keep up in evaluating them. And people who have some knowledge of how to make a legal determination typically aren't working for minimum wage. X-Stop's answer to the above barrier was the "Mudcrawler" searching program. However, for a computer program to have any sort of ability to apply a complex legal standard would be an artificial-intelligence breakthrough of Nobel Prize magnitude. It hardly will be the technology of a little company making blacklists. While this perhaps isn't obvious to the general public, it should be clear to anyone with the most minimal familiarity with technical issues. Yet with all of this pointing to the near-impossibility of X-Stop's claims, they passed very much unchallenged. The lesson here isn't "another bad blocker". It is rather how easy it is for even the most absurd censorware public-relations fluff to be taken seriously, while the truth is far different. And that whenever censor-minded people are given free reign to ban with secret blacklists, no matter what they say in public, in reality they also target their traditional enemies - feminists, gays and lesbians, anti-censorship sites, and so on. ---------------------------------------------------- Seth Finkelstein is a software developer who takes a particular interest in censorware and ratings systems. His Web pages on the subject are at http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html. --------------------------------------- Jonathan Wallace The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org Co-author, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/ "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."--Gandhi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:31:49 -0400 From: "Evian S. Sim" Subject: File 10--Mitnick Trial Date Set October 8, 1997 By DAVID HOUSTON City News Service LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A federal judge today seemed to back away from her earlier promise not to let famed hacker Kevin Mitnick anywhere near a computer to prepare for his trial. Mitnick attorney Donald Randolph told U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer there are potentially millions of documents on databases that could take hundreds of hours to inspect and read. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Schindler said if all the documents were printed it would fill up a larger space than the courtroom. Reluctantly, the judge seemed to warm to the idea of allowing the defendant to use a computer. She told Randolph to confer with prosecutors to find the best way for Mitnick to view evidence against him. But Pfaelzer warned: "I'm not going to have a whole succession of unfortunate events to take place because while he was incarcerated we gave him access to a computer." Randolph wants Mitnick to be allowed to use a laptop computer, under supervision, at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center. He promised the computer would be modem-less, to prevent Mitnick from wreaking the kind of havoc he has done in the past. Mitnick was on parole for other computer-related offenses when he and co-defendant Lewis DePayne went on a 1992-95 hacking spree. According to a 25-count federal indictment, Mitnick and DePayne stole millions of dollars in software from high-tech companies, damaged USC computers and used stolen computer passwords. DePayne, who is not in custody, did not show up in court today. Attorney Richard Sherman said his client was in San Francisco. Pfaelzer's comments came during a trial date-setting status conference. The judge tentatively set trial for April 14. But Randolph warned that it might have to be pushed back if it takes longer than expected to view the computer-held evidence. "I'm told it could take more than 200 hours to look at all the stuff that is there," he said. Earlier this year, Pfaelzer told Randolph "no way, no how" would she allow the habitual hacker access to another computer. Pfaelzer has good reason to be leery of Mitnick. He has been before her several times for different, computer-related offenses. In June, she gave him 22 months behind bars for violating his parole and breaking into Pacific Bell's computers. The judge also chastised Randolph for the amount of bills he has submitted to the court for Mitnick's defense---particularly for computer experts. Mitnick has no money and the government is paying the legal bills. "I've rarely ever seen bills that high. I'm absolutely stunned at what those bills look like," she said. "If you think you're going to have an unlimited budget, you're wrong." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 11--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 #9.73 ************************************