Computer underground Digest Tue Mar 23, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 14 Editors: Jim Thomas and G

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Tue Mar 23, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 14 Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Associate Editor: Etaion Shrdlu CONTENTS, #4.14 (Mar 23, 1992) File 1--Alternative To The Well File 2--Reader's Reply: Craig's Legal Fees File 3--EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners File 4--Readers' Reply: "Bury Usenet?" (CuD #4.10) File 5--More on the Internet Debate File 6--Abstract: What Scholars Want & Need from Electronic Journals File 7--Cyberspace Candidate for Congress File 8--BloomBecker's Legal Guidelines at CV&SC Conference (reprint) File 9--NASA hacker sentenced (Reprint from RISKS DIGEST #13.29) Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au. To use the U. of Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the quotes) to archive-server@chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu. European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893. 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 as long as the source is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:23:31 EST From: mpd@ANOMALY.SBS.COM(Michael P. Deignan) Subject: File 1-- Alternative To The Well There is another system on the internet - The InteleCom DataForum - at 192.67.241.11, which gives access to anyone for only $10 a month, unlimited time. No flat-rate/hourly charge combo. Very affordable for a college student who doesn't have USENET at his/her local school, or needs an alternative login from a terminal server, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 14:10:14 GMT From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU(Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory Subject: File 2-- Craigs' legal fees Keith Moore writes: >Also, why are we asked to send money directly to the law firm that >defended Craig, and not to Craig himself? I should imagine that this arrangement is set up (a) because it is administratively convenient, and (b) so as to avoid the allegations that Craig is feathering his own nest. All monies received from, or on behalf of, clients must be placed into that client's trust account. This is the account into which a lawyer must place monies received in advance from his/her client for safekeeping until a bill is rendered to the client. The purpose of such an arrangement is so that the lawyer has some form of guarantee that he will get paid (at least to the extent that he has money on trust). Secondly, if the money were to be sent directly to Craig, there would no doubt be the cynical few who would raise (quite correctly I'd imagine) the problem of how we can guarantee that _all_ the money donated will be used for his trial defence. I hope this clears up some of the mystery. Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au PS-- I am in no way connected with Craig or his cause! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 11:04:45 -0500 From: Craig Neidorf Subject: File 3-- EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners ++++ Text of original message ++++ >Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 18:49:32 -0500 >To: eff-board, eff-staff >From: van (Gerard Van der Leun) >Subject: EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners > > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > >ENGELBART, KAHN, WARREN, JENNINGS AND SMERECZYNSKI >NAMED AS FIRST WINNERS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S PIONEER >AWARDS > >Cambridge March 16,1992 > > >The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five >winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial >contributions to the field of computer based communications. The >winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont, California; Robert Kahn of >Reston, Virginia; Jim Warren of Woodside, California; Tom Jennings of >San Francisco, California; and Andrzej Smereczynski of Warsaw, Poland. > >The winners will be presented with their awards at a ceremony open to >the public this Thursday, March 19, at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in >Washington, DC, beginning at 5:15 PM. Most winners are expected to be >present to accept the awards in person. The ceremony is part of this >week's Second Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy that is >taking place at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in D.C. > >Mitchell Kapor, President of the EFF, said today that: "We've created >the Pioneer Awards in order to recognize and honor individuals who have >made ground-breaking contributions to the technology and culture of >digital networks and communities." > >Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national and >international computer-communication systems from November, 1991 to >February 1992. Several hundred nominations were received by the >Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the final winners were selected by a >panel of six judges. > >The criteria for the Pioneer Awards was that the person or organization >nominated had to have made a substantial contribution to the health, >growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications. > > The Pioneer Winners > >Douglas Engelbart is one of the original moving forces in the personal >computer revolution who is responsible for many ubiquitous features of >today's computers such as the mouse, the technique of windowing, display >editing, hypermedia, groupware and many other inventions and >innovations. He holds more than 20 patents and is widely-recognized in >his field as one of our era's true visionaries. > >Robert Kahn was an early advocate and prime mover in the creation of >ARPANET which was the precursor of today's Internet. Since the late 60's >and early 70's Mr. Kahn has constantly promoted and tirelessly pursued >innovation and heightened connectivity in the world's computer networks. > >Tom Jennings started the Fidonet international network. Today it is a >linked network of amateur electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs) with >more than 10,000 nodes worldwide and it is still growing. He contributed >to the technical backbone of this system by writing the FIDO BBS program >as well as to the culture of the net by pushing for development and >expansion since the early days of BBSing. He is currently editor of >FidoNews, the network's electronic newsletter. > >Jim Warren has been active in electronic networking for many years. >Most recently he has organized the First Computers, Freedom and Privacy >Conference, set-p the first online public dialogue link with the >California legislature, and has been instrumental is assuring that >rights common to older mediums and technologies are extended to computer >networking. > >Andrzej Smereczynski is the Administrator of the PLEARN node of the >Internet and responsible for the extension of the Internet into Poland >and other east European countries. He is the person directly >responsible for setting up the first connection to the West in post- >Communist Middle Europe. A network "guru", Mr. Smereczynski has worked >selflessly and tirelessly to extend the technology of networking as well >as its implicit freedoms to Poland and neighboring countries. > >This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Dave Farber of the >University of Pennsylvania Computer Science Department; Howard >Rheingold, editor of The Whole Earth Review; Vint Cerf, head of CNRI; >Professor Dorothy Denning Chair of George Washington University's >Computer Science Department; Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0, Steve >Cisler of Apple Computer, and John Gilmore of Cygnus Support. > >For more information contact: >Gerard Van der Leun >Director of Communications >Electronic Frontier Foundation >155 Second Street >Cambridge, MA 02141 >(617) 864-0665 >Internet: van@eff.org > >Gerard Van der Leun >Communications Director EFF >van@eff.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 16:51:24 EST From: Wes Morgan Subject: File 4-- Readers' Reply: "Bury Usenet?" (CuD #4.10) (In response to "Bury Usenet," in CuD #4.10): I would like to address a point which neither Steinberg nor Sanio mentioned; the "variety" factor. I certainly agree with Steinberg's implied position that television is a vast wasteland. However, there are still many portions of the television medium which provide useful, informative services. The obvious example for US viewers is PBS, which consistently airs in- tellectually stimulating and through-provoking programs. For those of us served by cable television, the Discovery Channel, CNBC, C-SPAN, and Lifetime Medical Television are additional examples of "quality TV", in my opinion. With Usenet, we can find parallels for both "Three's Company" and the Discovery Channel. Can Steinberg deny the beneficial aspects of newsgroups such as comp.sys.sun.*, comp.unix.admin, or comp.lang.c? While there are certainly newsgroups which have degenerated into digital shouting matches, there is still a wide variety of rational, informative discussion in Usenet. Steinberg mentions the lack of "collaboration" among Usenet participants. As rebuttal to that statement, I offer the dozens of situations/problems for which I have found solutions/resolutions via Usenet newsgroups. I have been made aware of countless bugs, security holes, and "lurking" problems through Usenet. I've also participated in several beta tests of software through Usenet; I've reviewed papers and policies, received bug reports on my own code, and shared my own experiences with hundreds of Usenet readers. >He describes USENET as >"a noble but failed experiment" and suggests to abandon it and >research other directions in order to improve communications and >quality of life. Is the television or print media in danger of abandonment? I don't think so. It still serves a large group of people, whose needs and wants lie in almost every part of the intellectual spectrum. >Browsing may be hard in high-traffic boards, especially when the subject >information is poor or dated during a longer-lasting discussion thread. I'd point out that finding something decent on the television may be equally difficult; the routine location of a "quality" program on the radio is almost impossible. Of course, we all develop our own personal "schedule" of quality television and radio programs; I'm sure that each of us could easily rattle off the time slots of those programs which we find appealing. We may examine several copies of a given magazine, evaluating its relevance to, and addressing of, our needs or preferences. If a particular magazine doesn't appeal to us, we cancel that subscription (or stop borrowing it from a library or friend). I'm sure that each of us could easily rattle off the names of those magazines which we find appealing. An identical "scheduling" occurs among Usenet readers. As we participate in Usenet, we naturally dismiss those newsgroups which we find unappealing; the Usenet "subscription" mechanism implements this quite well. At one time or another, I have read every newsgroup carried by my site; over the years, that huge list has been "pared down" to those 250 newsgroups which appeal to me. I would assume that every Usenet reader does the same; I don't believe that anyone could read *every* newsgroup. Given this personal "scheduling", what is the difference between Usenet and any other medium? >- "low bandwidth", meaning messages in 80-column ASCII opposed to multi- > media communication This is an almost necessary limitation of the medium. Sites participating in Usenet run the gamut of computing systems; almost every type of computer system is represented in Usenet. While there are Crays and Suns on the net, there are also AT&T 3b1s, PCs, Macintoshes, Primes, and even (I believe) a Tandy Color Computer or two. Many Usenet sites cannot support multimedia; should those sites be excluded? Should Steinberg deprive himself of a sub- stantial audience by submitting his articles in multimedia format? >Steve's comments on poor mastership of written language sound a bit >arrogant and elitist to me. They certainly do. Does Steinberg wish to replace newsgroup moderators with "grammar police"? {sarcasm++;} Shall we accept the _MLA Handbook_ as the sole authority for Usenet style? Perhaps we should adopt "The Elements of Style" or the GPO Style Manual as our Writs of Common Wisdom. As an alternative, we may simply require a cer- tain score on the _Usenet Qualification Examination_. Of course, all pros- pective Usenet articles must be properly justified and proofread. {sarcasm--;} Usenet works; it may have a few worn springs in its digital suspension, and some of its passengers may be a bit rowdy, but it stills takes more people from point A to point B than any current alternatives. Moving on to Steinberg's comments on moderated newsgroups....... >> However, there is the insidious danger of moderator bias. Does the same danger exist in the television or print media? Does the same danger exist when you submit a book to a publisher? Does the same danger exist when you submit a paper to a journal? This "insidious danger" (as Steinberg so hyperbolically phrases it) is a natural, necessary part of the moderation/editing process. How can it be a "danger" when all participants in the process know that certain editorial standards are being applied? Most newspapers reserve the right to edit Letters to the Editor; why doesn't anyone complain about that? Newspapers do not print every letter they receive; why don't we hear a great hue and cry about that 'bias'? I believe that this behavior continues, unassailed, because all parties involved understand that it is part of the natural pro- cess. >> Whether Townsend actually censors messages he disagrees with is not >> important. Actually, Patrick is *incapable* of "censoring" messages with which he disagrees. He may choose not to include your article in his digest; that's his right/obligation as the editor/moderator. However, he is NOT censoring you; you may still distribute that article far and wide, through several different media. He has no means by which he can pre- vent you from doing this. Therefore, he is not censoring you; he is merely preventing you from using HIS service to disseminate your infor- mation and/or opinions. This is NOT censorship; it is management. While Random House may not accept your book for publication, do they prevent you from securing the services of Bantam Books as your publisher? I don't think so. Why, then, is Patrick's parallel action assailed as "censorship"? >> The perception -- and the possibility -- are there. That perception, and its related possibility, are present in every form of mass media. That possibility applies to _Newsweek_, _Southern Living_, _Byte_ and _The Edmonton Herald-News_ equally. How do you propose to eliminate this possibility in every form of mass communication? More importantly, why should an electronic journal be held to a different standard than its hardcopy counterparts? >>1: There is no danger because an alternate group with no moderator can >>be easily formed. > >This is completely orthogonal to my article on USENET. Sure, we can >start an alternate group, but this just brings us back the noise >problem and we will be no closer to a more effective USENET. Why is this orthogonal? You have now argued, in successive articles, that both unmoderated and moderated newsgroups are inefficient; how, then, shall we meet your goal of a clean, efficient electronic mass medium? >If a moderator can censor, and >many people think he is, then the newsgroup is surely less trustworthy >than an unmoderated one. Let me ask you this: do you base your entire opinion on one source of information? I read national, regional, and local newspapers; I have found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues. In Usenet, I read both info.academic-freedom and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk; I have found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues, since one is moderated and the other is free of moderation. >I merely used Townson's newsgroup because his moderation has become >the most controversial. I don't think Townson would disagree with >this. I certainly could have used CuD as my example, and pointed out >that many people believe that the anti-hacker viewpoint is censored >from the digest, but this perception is held by fewer people. This perception may exist, but both mailing lists are experiencing sustained growth. Could it be that people accept a certain bias or influence in a given medium, just as we do with our daily newspaper or television news broadcast? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:14:54 CST From: William Vajk (igloo) Subject: File 5-- More on the Internet Debate The following article just appeared in comp.society. I feel it represents, by its mere presence, the proper challenge to the Intertek nonsense. The author, Steinberg, clearly sets out to stir debate, and does that adequately, though I saw nothing which is not a compilation restatement of discussions which have been on the net for years. The article I read in CuD 4.09 falls short of being "professional" by that mystical inch that's as good as a mile. I understand McMullen's charitable review a kindness to help inspire a young man to continue and therein to progress. Collaborations on a professional level abound as a direct consequence of usenet and the internet. There are many undocumented private mailing lists serving scientific and technical interests. Article follows: ====================================================================== From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: File 6-- Abstract: What Scholars Want & Need from Electronic Journals Message-ID: <9203192256.AA06649@clarity.Princeton.EDU> Date: 19 Mar 92 22:56:44 GMT Sender: socicom@auvm.american.edu Lines: 109 Abstract of paper to be presented at ASIS 1992 SESSIONS ON "FULL-TEXT ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO PERIODICALS," sponsored by the ASIS Special Interest Group on Library Automation and Networking (SIG/LAN) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) at the 55th ASIS Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh Hilton, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 26-29, 1992. Session II. Full-Text Electronic Access to Periodicals: Strategies for Implementation WHAT SCHOLARS WANT AND NEED FROM ELECTRONIC JOURNALS Stevan Harnad For scholars and scientists, paper is not an end but a means. It has served us well for several millennia, but it would have been surprising indeed if this man-made medium had turned out to be optimal for all time. In reality, paper has always had one notable drawback. Although it allowed us to encode, preserve and share ideas and findings incomparably more effectively than we could ever have done orally, its tempo was always lamentably slower than the oral interactions to which the speed of thought seems organically adapted. Electronic journals have now made it possible for scholarly publication to escape this rate-limiting constraint of the paper medium, allowing scholarly communication to become much more rapid, global and interactive than ever before. It is important that we not allow the realization of the new medium's revolutionary potential to be retarded by clinging superstitiously to familiar but incidental features of the paper medium. It is also useful to remind ourselves now and again why scholars and scientists do what they do, rather than going straight into the junk bond market: They presumably want to contribute to mankind's cumulative knowledge. They have to make a living too, of course, but if doing that as comfortably and prosperously as possible were their primary motive they could surely find better ways. Prestige no doubt matters too, but here again there are less rigorous roads one might have taken than that of learned inquiry. So scholars publish not primarily to pad their CVs or to earn royalties on their words, but to inform their peers of their findings, and to be informed by them in turn, in that collaborative, interactive spiral whereby mankind's knowledge increases. My own estimate is that the new medium has the potential to extend individual scholars' intellectual life-lines (i.e., the size of their lifelong contribution) by an order of magnitude. What scholars accordingly need is electronic journals that provide: (1) rapid, expert peer-review, (2) rapid copy-editing, proofing and publication of accepted articles, (3) rapid, interactive, peer commentary, and (4) a permanent, universally accessible, searchable and retrievable electronic archive. Ideally, the true costs of providing these services should be subsidized by Universities, Learned Societies, Libraries and the Government, but if they must be passed on to the "scholar-consumer," let us make sure that they are only the real costs, and not further unnecessary ones arising from emulating inessential features of the old medium. PSYCOLOQUY, an peer-reviewed electronic journal sponsored by the American Psychological Association and co-edited and archived at Princeton and Rutgers Universities, is attempting to provide a model for future scholarly electronic periodicals of this kind. REFERENCES Garfield, E. (1991) Electronic journals and skywriting: A complementary medium for scientific communication? Current Contents 45: 9-11, November 11 1991 Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20. Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control, New York: Cambridge University Press. Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498. Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disagreement in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62. Harnad, S. (1986) Policing the Paper Chase. (Review of S. Lock, A difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication.) Nature 322: 24 - 5. Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Invited Commentary on: William Gardner: The Electronic Archive: Scientific Publishing for the 90s Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991). Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2 1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach Holme Publishers, 1992; and in A. L. Okerson (ed.) Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, 2nd edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992). Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for Electronic Publishing (in press) Katz, W. (1991) The ten best magazines of 1990. Library Journal 116: 48 - 51. Mahoney, M.J. (1985) Open Exchange and Epistemic Progress. American Psychologist 40: 29 - 39. Wilson, D. L. (1991) Testing time for electronic journals. Chronicle of Higher Education September 11 1991: A24 - A25. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:32:53 PST From: tenney@NETCOM.COM(Glenn S. Tenney) Subject: File 7-- Cyberspace Candidate for Congress The following is my online announcement of my candidacy to the U.S. House of Representatives followed by a copy of my platform and a brief bio. I also have available a copy of the press release I sent out on Business Wire. A photograph is also available. Please email or call if you want more info. Equally, if you don't want me to email you again as my campaign progresses, please let me know. Since it is my intention to serve as an online representative, I felt that you would find this interesting... Yes, I would be most appreciative of any and all legal campaign donations except from Political Action Committees. If you aren't sure what is and isn't an allowable donation, just let me know... Glenn Tenney For Congress 2111 Ensenada Way San Mateo, CA 94403 Voice or Fax: (415) 574-2931 +++++++++++++++++cut here for online announcement of my candidacy MARCH 6, 1992, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA: Progress begins with initiative, a coming together of a vision and the will to accomplish great things. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs know this very well. For too long, career politicians have laid barriers in the way of people working to build a humane, viable future with the tools that technology has given them. When the people have asked for widespread access to telecommunications, computing power, and education, old-school politicians have pointed to the necessity for defense spending instead of making investments in the future. That's why I'm announcing my candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in the reapportioned twelfth Congressional District of California. My district covers most of the area from San Mateo up to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. As a Democrat, I will be challenging our twelve year incumbent in the June Primary. A few weeks ago I asked Congressman Tom Lantos' staff how he voted last year. Their initial response was to hand me the glossy advertising brochure that our tax dollars paid for. When pressed to find out how he voted, or didn't vote, I was ushered into their library, shown to the Congressional Record, and told to look it up myself day by day. This is how my representative, from one of the most technologically advanced districts, brings information to his constituents. Career politicians have remained dedicated to high defense spending while the real tools needed for worldwide economic competition are lying dormant. We need to encourage the young, trained minds of our country, and to provide the communications power to unleash that talent. Every day we are faced with non-technical problems such as health insurance, jobs, and our economy, but I feel very strongly that our country needs to look at the future of technology: how it can be used or abused, and how it is abusing all of us. Technology is advancing far faster than our laws can cope, which raises many legal, sociological, ethical, and constitutional questions. Answering these questions requires both an understanding of the technology and actual experiences with the technology. Our greatest resources for the future are our children and our world. Our country needs to take a proactive role in producing the best educated future generation that we can, as well as having a place for that generation to live and be productive. We need to find innovative and creative ways to put technology to work for our future rather than putting up legislative roadblocks to the future. Providing the information and education we and our children need to be competitive in the future is coupled to our economy. We can't be productive today, nor can our children compete in the future, without information and education. We must plan for the twenty-first century today. We are faced with a society of economic haves and have-nots. Most of us actively involved with technology and information access know that information is power. We are fast becoming a nation of information "knows" and "know-nots", and those who do not have the information will be in an even more devastating position than those who are just economically disadvantaged. Our government itself works to keep information unavailable to us. We need to bring information to the people, and get information from the people to our elected officials. This will help bring the power back to the people. You can be an elected official without being a career politician, but you can't legislate technological issues unless you understand the technology. We need elected officials who are online and accessible, and with whom information flows -- to them and from them as a dialogue. One of the problems of our political system is that it takes money to win. Too often these funds come from Political Action Committees. The traditional view has been that campaign funding is spent to "get the message out". The online community finally has a chance to use this new medium to not only get a message out, but to discuss the issues without spending obscene amounts of money. Let's use my campaign as a demonstration of the power of online politics. Pass this release and my platform on to your friends and colleagues, and around your town. Even though California's twelfth Congressional District covers the area from San Mateo up to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, these issues need to be discussed online and in the media nationwide. We of the online community are currently an under-represented constituency. Let's change that. Let's get Congress online. Even an online campaign isn't free. Network etiquette precludes me from asking for campaign contributions, but please do contact me directly: Paid for by the Glenn Tenney for Congress Campaign Committee 2111 Ensenada Way San Mateo, CA 94403 Voice/Fax: (415) 574-2931 tenney@netcom.com or Compuserve: 70641,23 (also MCI Mail, America Online, and others) --30-- +++++++++++++++++cut here for a copy of my platform Congressional Candidate Glenn Tenney's Platform For Our Future MARCH 6, 1992, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA: Most candidates look like every other candidate on most issues. I am differentiated on high-tech issues. Here's how I feel about a few traditional and technological issues: * We need to be competitive in the "global village" world economy, to focus on America without being protectionist. Education and information are keys to achieving these goals. * Our country, from the top down, needs to look years into the future instead of just months. Our country and our businesses also need to understand that our people are our major asset for the future. We must rescue our environment to have a future. * Being in business for myself, not being wealthy, and having raised five boys means that my wife and I live the health care problem daily. A tax credit next year doesnUt help us pay our insurance premium next month, let alone help us find insurance. Our country must commit to defining and providing a minimal level of health care to everyone. * When my wife and I decided to become parents we fortunately had access to all the information and options, and had the right to a choice. I am pro-family and pro-choice. * Recent events in what was the Soviet Union offers us the opportunity of our lifetime to take dramatic steps towards world peace, and a true peace-time economy. We must significantly reduce our defense budget while helping defense businesses and their workers transition to non-defense ventures. Our country's enormous supply of talent currently committed to defense-related projects can be put to effective and innovative use in solving many other problems. We can do this and maintain defensive strength. * We must encourage businesses to invest in our future both by reducing long term capital gains taxes (for capital that is actually a long term investment in our future) and providing tax incentives for research and development. Having participated in chip designs, and seeing how biotechnology is progressing, I know that many innovations require a large long-term capital investment. * There are tremendous changes waiting to happen if only we can provide high-speed computer and data networks between our universities, public schools (K-12) and homes. We need to take steps to wire our country for Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) or 'fiber to the home.' Affordable ubiquitous networked computing will have an effect that can hardly be imagined by those outside of the field. * Most people get their news from television. About two-thirds of our homes receive that news on cable TV, yet only a small number of companies choose what channels are available. Cable TV affords us many advantages, yet like all technologies it is a double edged sword. We need policies that better deal with these "monopolies", and which provide for true competition. * Technology is encroaching more and more into our everyday life, and abusing our privacy along the way. These issues hit all of us when applying for credit, going to the doctor, applying for a job, and even when making an 800 toll-free phone call. For example, there are companies providing computers to doctors' offices in exchange for access to all of their records. These problems are affecting everyone, and are not esoteric technological issues. I am committed to protecting our privacy at home and on the job. * The computer networks criss-crossing our country are the highways of tomorrow. These networks are an 'online electronic frontier' connecting such diverse groups as a Native American Tribal school with an M.I.T. mathematics class. The electronic frontier is a new publishing medium, and a new 'place' of assembly raising many issues of privacy and rights of free speech. Online we can achieve what political consultants want: a way to get a message to many people. A key element of being online is that the people can also get their message TO their representatives. This technology affords us the opportunity to discuss issues with our representatives. * We need ready access to information, especially flowing to and from our government at all levels. Information is power, and we the people must recapture the power that should be ours. Paid for by the Glenn Tenney for Congress Campaign Committee 2111 Ensenada Way San Mateo, CA 94403 Voice/Fax: (415) 574-2931 tenney@netcom.com or Compuserve: 70641,23 (also MCI Mail, America Online, and others) --30-- ++++++++++++++++++++++ cut here for a copy of my brief bio Congressional Candidate Glenn Tenney Talks a Bit About Himself MARCH 6, 1992, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA: I've never had a desire to be a career politician. Apparently, few politicians in recent times have carried a vision to Washington. That's why I have decided to act on my vision of our country's future in the twenty-first century by working with you, as your representative in Washington. My vision sees an information revolution that has already started and will be as dramatic as was the industrial revolution. We need legislators who can truly understand future technologies and how to use them to our advantage instead of having the technologies abuse us. I take our future and my campaign seriously. I am compelled to help prepare our country for the next century even if that means becoming an elected official and putting my career on hold. I've been professionally involved in various aspects of technologies (software and hardware) having begun operating system and compiler design some 28 years ago, even before graduating high school. I've been "online" since then, being "hand's on" with technology having designed and implemented many small and large systems as well as having programmed on dozens of systems. I've also researched and written about technology, and about people's fears of technology. I've been self-employed (or a "high-tech entrepreneur", depending on how you want to view it) since I formed my own company in 1974. Since then I've been involved in a few Silicon Valley high-tech startups including the very beginning of the personal computer industry, as well as chip designs and a few others. My company has been a "mom and pop" venture since Susan and I were married in 1976. I have two children and three step-children. I grew up in the Chicago area and moved to San Mateo county in 1972, raising our children in San Mateo since 1976. I turned 43 years old the day after I announced my candidacy. The following are some important aspects of who I am... BA in Management (with honors), Saint Mary's College of California. Senior Member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and member of the IEEE Computer Society. Participating Member, IEEE USA Intellectual Property Committee (dealing with employed inventors rights, and copyright/patent issues and legislation). Member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Chairperson and Organizer of The Hackers Conference (an annual International high-tech conference) since it was originated by Stewart Brand of The Whole Earth Catalog. Member of the program and organizing committee of the first Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy held last year. Former Member of the Board of Trustees, Peninsula Temple Beth El. Licensed Amateur Radio Operator (a "ham", callsign AA6ER). Licensed Private Pilot (single engine land, instrument rated). I've also been President of a variety of local computer and amateur radio groups, and I am still involved with these groups and many other organizations. Paid for by the Glenn Tenney for Congress Campaign Committee 2111 Ensenada Way San Mateo, CA 94403 Voice/Fax: (415) 574-2931 tenney@netcom.com or Compuserve: 70641,23 (also MCI Mail, America Online, and others) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 92 18:21:11 EST From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 8-- BloomBecker's Legal Guidelines at CV&SC Conference (reprint) J.J. Buck BloomBecker, the director of the National Center for Computer Crime, called for the adoption of a new nationwide set of legal guide- lines concerning computer crime. BloomBecker, speaking at the 5th annual Computer Virus & Security Conference, proposed 5 points: 1. The creation of a $200 crime law deductible. Damages incurred below that figure would not be the subject of criminal action. 2. The creation of a civil course of action for inadequate computer security 3. The making of reckless computing a felony. "Reckless computing" is classified as anything which could potentially cause damage. 4. The making a careless computing a misdemeanor. 5. The enactment of greater protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Bloombecker's recommendations and supporting statements were the subject of much conversation at his conference session. Donald Delaney, New York State Police Senior Investigator, decried the setting of a deductible for computer crime, pointing out that in the struggle against cellular phone call-selling operations, it is often an arrest for a single call under $200 that shuts down an on-going multi-thousand dollar fraud operation. (reprinted from ST REPORT #8.12 3/20/92 with permission) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 13:05:09 -0700 From: Bear Giles Subject: File 9-- NASA hacker sentenced (Reprint from RISKS DIGEST #13.29) >From the 17 March 1992 _Rocky Mountain News_: Hacker ordered to get mental help (Reuter) A computer hacker who pleaded guilty Monday to breaking into NASA computer systems as ordered to undergo mental health treatment and not use computers without permission from a probation officer. Richard Wittman, 24, of Lakewood [Colorado] was sentenced to three years probation by Denver U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver in a rare prosecution for breaking into a computer system. Wittman pleaded guilty last fall to one count of breaking into a National Aeronautics and Space Administration computer. Prosecutors said Wittman had spent four years trying to get into computer systems. In a plea bargain, Wittman admitted gaining access to NASA's computer via a malfunction in a bulletin board service. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #4.14 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank