Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 12, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 17 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 Sun Apr 12, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 17 Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Associate Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Jr. Arcmeisters: Brendan Kehoe and Bob Kusumoto CONTENTS, #4.17 (Apr 12, 1992) **CONT' Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet 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 (,, and To use the U. of Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the quotes) to 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: Mon, 06 Apr 92 10:18:49 EST From: "John F. McMullen (at Marist)" Subject: Panel Discussion on Computer Crime & First Amendment There will be a 2-hour panel discussion on "Computer Crime & First Amendment Concerns" at 10:30AM on Sunday, April 12th at the 17th annual Trenton Computer Festival (TCF'92). I will moderate the panel which will be composed of Donald Delaney, New York State Police Senior Investigator responsible for computer crime and telecommunications fraud; Mike Godwin, in-house counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Emmanuel Goldstein, editor & publisher - "2600:The Hacker Quarterly; and Phiber Optik, well-know hacker (previously arrested by Delaney). TCF is the oldest computer festival/show in the world, preceding even the legendary "West Coast Computer Faire". It is held on Saturday & Sunday, April 11 & 12th at Mercer County College, outside of Trenton, NJ It will contain over 170 commercial exhibits, the largest computer flea market on the East Coast (8 acres) and 2 days of seminars, talks and panel discussions. The keynote speaker (Saturday - 3:00PM) is Paul Grayson, CEO of Micrografx. The New York Amateur Computer Club (NYACC), on of the festival's co-sponsors, is providing bus service from New York City to and from TCF. A bus leaves 11th Street and 6th Avenue at 8:00AM on Saturday and 8:30 on Sunday (The Sunday bus originates in Long Island). For details, call Lewis Tanner (212 928-0577 between 7&9PM). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 92 09:29:10 EST From: 34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET Subject: Bogus News Release - Computers and Children The "News Release" in the latest CUD looks entirely bogus to me. It is unlikely that ANY group would release a legitimate news release anonymously,e.g., even terrorist groups like the ALF, PLO and IRA issue their news releases under thier own banner. Anything less defeats the entire purpose and propaganda objective of making such a "release" at all. So what is the purpose of this release? Perhaps it is a "prank" perpetrated by someone who gained access to someone else's account carelessly left logged in. Perhaps it is an attempt at harassment of the person mentioned at the bottom of the release, akin to the "send Mr. X 10 copies of the encyclopedia" tactic some Usenetters favor when miffed. Or perhaps it is a lead in to a pitch for a donation to a "cause". Whatever the case, as published it is highly suspect, IMHO. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:31:01 CST From: Jim Thomas Subject: Addendum to "News Release - Computers and Children" In mid-March, Ron Hults, of the Fresno (Calif.) police Public Information Office, released a press release announcing a news conference to be held on March 19. The above poster, as have many others, found the press release, which dramatized a BBS link to pedophilia and other extreme activity, sufficiently incredible to doubt its authenticity. The press release indicated that it was the product of the Fresno Police Department's PIO. The release generated passionate discussion on as a reflection of "the ignorance of law enforcement." In this case, however, Fresno police seem to themselves have become victims of their own writer's sensationalism. Detective Frank Clark, who held the news conference advertised by the release, intended only to present a summary of the possible forms of computer abuse to which children are vulnerable. These ranged across the gamut of activities, from the most benign to the most extreme. Detective Clark indicated that the extreme sex offenses to which the release referred constituted about 3 minutes of a 45 minute presentation. The PIO office, as well as the media covering the news conference, focused on the extreme sex-related incidents and ignored the rest. Detective Clark indicated that his purpose was to remind parents of the importance of familiarizing themselves with their children's computer activity. He also used the conference to raise the issue of computer courtesy and ethics, and to identify local resources (schools, classes, and other forums) available for obtaining further information about computer use. The release and subsequent coverage downplayed this. He did not write the release and was unable to review the final text. He was quite unhappy with it, and recognizes (and apologized for) the offense it caused some people. He was quite explicit that, while opposing the use of computers to prey on others, he nonetheless shares many of the concerns about protection of civil and Constitutional rights. The problem with the Fresno PIO press release, as with similar media coverage, is the tendency of writers to find the dramatic angle and ignore the real issues. Perhaps we should all begin to more aggressively contact publishers and other media personnel to educate them on the issues when we find such gross distortion. ------------------------------ From: Net Wrider Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 9:00:25 EDT Subject: "Hacker "Profiles" May Curb Computer Frauds" Hacker 'Profiles' May Curb Computer Frauds Source: THE INDEPENDENT March 21, 1992, Saturday (p. 6) By SUSAN WATTS, Technology Correspondent THE Federal Bureau of Investigation is dealing with computer hackers as it would rapists and murderers - by building "profiles" of their actions. Its computer researchers have discovered that, in the same way that other offenders often favour the same weapons, materials or times of day to perpetrate their crimes, hackers prefer to use trusted routines to enter computer systems, and follow familiar paths once inside. These patterns can prove a rich source of information for detectives. The FBI is developing a modified version of detection software from SRI International - an American technology research organization. Teresa Lunt, a senior computer scientist at SRI, said hackers would think twice about breaking into systems if they knew computer security specialists were building a profile of them. At the very least, they would have to constantly change their hacking methods. Ms Lunt, who is is seeking partners in Britain to help develop a commercial version of the software, believes hackers share with psychotic criminals a desire to leave their hallmark. "Every hacker goes through a process peculiar to themselves that is almost a signature to their work," she said. "The FBI has printed out long lists of the commands hackers use when they break in. Hackers are surprisingly consistent in the commands and options they use. They will often go through the same routines. Once they are in they will have a quick look around the network to see who else is logged on, then they might try to find a list of passwords." SRI"s software, the development of which is sponsored by the US Defense Department, is "intelligent" - it sits on a network of computers and watches how it is used. The software employs statistical analysis to determine what constitutes normal usage of the network, and sets off a warning if an individual or the network behaves abnormally. A more sophisticated version of the program can adapt itself daily to accommodate deviations in the "normal" behaviour of people on the network. It might, for example, keep track of the number of temporary files created, or how often people collect data from an outside source or send out information. The program could even spot quirks in behaviour that companies were not expecting to find. The idea is that organizations that rely on sensitive information, such as banks or government departments, will be able to spot anomalies via their computers. They might pick up money being laundered through accounts, if a small company or individual carries out an unusually large transaction. ------------------------------ From: David Sobel Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:37:37 EDT Subject: CPSR FOIAs FBI CPSR FOIAs FBI In response to the FBI's recent proposal that digital communications networks be configured so as to more easily facilitate electronic surveillance, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking: copies of all records regarding the Bureau's decision to seek new legislative authority for wire surveillance in the digital communications network. And following published reports that the FBI is developing a "hacker profile," CPSR has also requested: copies of all records regarding the Bureau's creation of a "profile" of computer "hackers" or others who seek unauthorized access to computer systems. This request includes, but is not limited to, information concerning the FBI's relationship with SRI International and its use of SRI software. We will post the results of these requests ... but it could be a while. David Sobel CPSR Legal Counsel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 14:52:02 CDT From: Subject: FBI Wants to Tap Phone Firms to Eavesdrop (Reprint) "FBI Wants to Tap Phone Firms for New Eavesdropping Devices" Source: Chicago Tribune, April 12, 1992 (Sect. 7: 9b) NEW YORK (Reuters)--The FBI wants the nations telephone companies to stop rolling out advanced digital phone systems that stymie the agency's practice of listening in on criminal conversations. At stake is the future of the wiretap, one of the bureau's most effective investigative tools, which is getting harder to engineer as phone systems grow more complex. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says modern telephone networks, which rely on digital and fiber-optic systems, are making it difficult to eavesdrop on phone calls in criminal investigations. So the bureau has drafted legislation that would require phone companies to stop deploying digital technology until they can come up with a way for the bureau to preserve the wiretap. For regional and long-distance phone companies that have spent billions of dollars to upgrade systems and galvanize the U.S. lead in telecommunications, the FBI proposals are late at best and anti-competitive at worst. "It is late...this stuff is already out there," said Ken Pitt, a chief spokesman for Bell Atlantic Corp., one of seven regional telephone companies, known as the Baby Bells, formed by the breakup of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. AT&T and the Baby Bells, as represented by the U.S. Telephone Association, oppose the draft bill as written. Researcher Douglas Conn, associate director of Columbia University's Institute for Tele-Information, said the dispute could threaten the U.S. position in global communications. "It is a very, very touch and difficult issue. On the one side is the very real concern of the FBI. On the other are the telephone companies and organizations that support using an advanced telecommunications network to compete internationally," Conn said. But the FBI is pressing forward. FBI Director William Sessions recently wrote a column for the New York Times about the potential threat to the effectiveness of law enforcement. "Wiretapping is one of the most effective means of combating drug trafficking, organized crime, kidnaping and corruption in government," Sessions wrote in the column, which was published last month. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not want the new digital technology that is spreading across America to impair this crucial law-enforcement technique." The FBI says it uses telephone wiretaps in just 1 percent of its investigations and only with a court warrant. But those cases tend to be major ones involving organized crime and drug traffickers. By law, telephone companies are required to assist the FBI in court-approved wiretapping. But company officials say they are baffled that the FBI, long known for inventing ingenious investigative tools, expects them to develop the wiretap technology. The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telecommunications, is also worried about the proposed legislation. "Our most overriding concern is the potential negative impact this could have on the development of the telecommunications infrastructure," said James Spurlock, a top FCC official. "There are real public policy questions here." FCC Chairman Alfred Sikes wants U.S. phone companies to speed up their use of digital systems and fiber optics to compete with technologies surfacing in Japan, France and Germany. Regional phone companies are on the threshold of deploying digital equipment in the local service loops that take in residential customers, the same leg of the service that the FBI uses in wiretapping. But with the coming installation of Integrated Services Digital Network systems into homes and residences, conventional wiretapping devices may produce little more than an incomprehensible jumble of sound. James Kallstrom, chief of the FBI's engineering and technical services division, says the bureau proposal would mean only one more requirement among hundreds that phone companies write into their systems. "We are looking for them to take in our requirements as they take in hundreds of other requirements when they design these things," he said. "The have hundreds of internal design requirements to account for billing and routing and new services. This would be another." Kallstrom also disputed the argument that the FBI's proposals would impede technological development or impose big costs, saying changes could be designed into software or manufactured into switches. Officials from BellSouth Corp., Bell Atlantic, Nynex Corp., among other Baby Bells, as well as telecommunications companies American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and GTE Corp., have met with FBI technicians at an FBI training center to hammer out the problem. "These meetings are better refining the issue" and easing some of the adversity, said BellSouth spokesman Bill McCloskey. But the session resolved little. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 21:17:54 PDT From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren) Subject: POSSIBLE INTEREST: Electr.CivLib - model candidate's statement & ideas Hi, This concerns practical efforts to assure that traditional constitutional rights and protections remain clearly guaranteed, even in the context of modern technology -- in the "Information Age" and across the "Electronic Frontier." For this 1992 election-year, the following offers possible models for do-it-yourself citizen-based political action. Please "copy, post and circulate" this 3-part document wherever and to whomever you wish. Please feel free to modify Parts 2 and 3 however you wish -- over your own signature. After all, freedom always *has* been a do-it-yourself project. This introduction is PART-1 of three parts. PART-2 provides a model cover-letter & facts you might use: 1. First, it *briefly* mentions the electronic civil liberties issues. 2. Its next part is intended to get the attention of a candidate and/or their campaign staff by illustrating cheap, effective net communications. 3. The next part illustrates that a great number of people (candidate- translation: "voters") are involved. 4. *Very important*: It outlines our ability to communicate with masses of people/voters -- at little or no cost. 5. Equally important -- it requests *specific commitment to act* from a candidate. 6. It offers a matching commitment to publicize their position. PART-3 is a model candidate's statement committing to specific action. Note: All successful politicians have mastered the art of *sounding* like they are supportive of the hundreds or thousands of causes and pleas that are urged upon them. Good-sounding, vaguely-supportive statements are worth virtually nothing. Anything less than their issuing a public position statement committing to explicit action must be considered as meaningless. Election season is the one time when we have our best chance at efficient and effective citizen action. All it takes is time and effort. (And, I walk it like I talk it -- I have forwarded customized versions of the cover-letter and model-statement to several state and federal candidates -- all of whom are seeking re-election or election to higher office.) I would be happy to help others working on these issues, time permitting. The more people who send this cover letter and model statement to candidates -- and phone campaign headquarters and ask questions at candidates' forums; the more sensitized they will become to this constituency and these fundamental issues of a free society. Speak and write, now; speak and write, often. "The price of freedom ..." --Jim Warren, Electronic Civil Liberties Initiative, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; fax/415-851-2814 email/ [ For identification purposes only: organizer/chair of First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (1991), first-year recipient of Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award (1992), MicroTimes contributing editor & columnist, Autodesk Board of Directors member, founding of InfoWorld, founding editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal, past chair of ACM, SIGMICRO and SIGPLAN chapters, etc., blah blah blah. ] =============== PART-2, MODEL COVER-LETTER TO CANDIDATE(S) ================ Dear [candidate], A growing percentage of the 12-16 million people who are "online" -- using networked computers -- are expressing increasing concern about protecting traditional civil liberties and personal privacy in the "Information Age." (People are "coming online" at a rate much faster than the explosive growth of personal computing in the past fifteen years.) As they use networked computers for electronic-mail, teleconferencing, information exchange and personal records, they are reporting increasing threats to electronic "speech," "press," "assembly" and personal privacy. Electronic messages can have massive, persuasive impact. For instance: In 1990, a single notice sent out across computer nets prompted 30,000 complaints about Lotus Corporation's plans to sell personal data on 20-million consumers. Lotus quickly withdrew their "Marketplace" product before sales ever began. Or: In Spring, 1991, a single message sent into the computer nets prompted thousands of complaints to Senators Biden and DeConcini. It concerned legislation they had introduced, reportedly requested by the FBI via Senator Thurmond, that would have crippled secure voice and data communications for U.S. citizens and business. The Senators withdrew the proposal with three weeks of the net-circulated note. Who and how many are interested? Almost all users are adults. Most are well-educated. Most have upscale incomes. Most have significant discretion for spending and contributions. Recent published research indicates there are about 14.2-million people sharing 1.3-million "host" computers on the "Internet" network. This includes about 960,000 people using 12,000+ home/personal computers as shared BBSs -- networked electronic "bulletin board systems." These offer free or almost-free teleconferencing and electronic-mail. [Matrix News, Feb., 1992, 1120 S. Capitol-of-Texas Hwy., Bldg. 2-300, Austin, TX 78746.] (In addition, there are also the commercial systems such as CompuServe, Prodigy, GEnie and MCImail -- but they have only several million users and are costly in comparison to the much larger Internet computer matrix.) Mass-discussions of freedom and privacy concerns are escalating. Almost-instant mass-circulated online "newspapers" and "news-groups," plus numerous popular teleconferences, increasingly carry reports of electronic civil-liberties and privacy concerns. Credit-data abuses, covert employer surveillance, corporate espionage, seizure of electronic publications, searches of entire electronic post offices, and government opposition to secure communications are greatly escalating these concerns. These issues are rapidly penetrating the public press and television. Example: The First Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy (1991), prompted well in excess of 80 pages of press, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Business Week, Scientific American, Germany's Der Spiegel, etc.. [For copies, contact CFP#1 chair, Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; 415-851-7075.] Functionally-free, almost-instantaneous mass communication is available. It is trivial for anyone to "broadcast" comments or information across the nets to thousands of people, almost immediately and for free or perhaps costing $15-$20/month. Over a million people read news-groups in USENET, which is just one of thousands of electronic "newspapers." And, system-owners and system-operators -- those often most-deeply concerned about these civil liberties, privacy and content-liability issues -- can have every user of their system receive whatever message they choose, perhaps only once, or perhaps every time each person logs-in. Without cost. Various of these "sysops" are agreeing to inform every one of their users -- often numbering in the thousands -- about candidates who commit to act to protect civil liberties and privacy against new, technology-based threats. We ask for your commitment. A number of people who are well-known across this huge network are asking candidates to commit to specific action, to make clear that constitutional protections unquestionably apply across this new "electronic frontier." We ask that you issue a formal position statement, committing to act on these matters. (We recognize that an informal statement of general principles is of minimal value without specifics or commitment to action.) We ask that you commit to protecting Constitutional freedoms, regardless of technology. Enclosed is a "model" that you might use as a starting point. (It illustrates some of the issues that many people feel are most important.) Commitment is reciprocal. If you commit to act, we will promptly broadcast it far and wide across this massive, high-speed network. And, if your opponent(s) who receive this request, avoid explicit commitment -- by inaction, ambiguous statement or by specific refusal -- we will publicize that with equal vigor. Additionally, some of us are prepared to assist committed candidates to publicize/discuss all of their positions and issues -- not just these online issues -- via this free, fast, pervasive mass-medium. And finally, candidates who address these issues first can generate notice in the public press and television -- especially re protecting freedom of speech, press, assembly and personal privacy. Numerous reporters have shown active interest in these issues, to say nothing of 300-400 computer trade periodicals. Some of us have lists of lay and trade reporters interested in these issues and would be happy to assist your p.r. staff in publicizing your commitment. I appreciate your attention to these comments and requests, and look forward to your timely reply. <> =================== PART-3, MODEL CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT ==================== Guaranteeing Constitutional Freedoms into the 21st Century Preface Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, one of the nation's leading Constitutional scholars, views technological threats to our traditional constitutional freedoms and protections as so serious that -- for the first time in his career -- he has proposed a Constitutional Amendment: "This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, should be construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological method or medium through which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or controlled." -- First Conf. on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, 3/27/91, Burlingame CA In the absence of such a constitutional clarification, legislation and regulation are the only alternatives to assure that citizens are protected from technological threats against their constitutional rights and freedoms. Candidate's Commitment to Action (model statement) Preface: It has been over two centuries since our Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted. The great technological changes in the interim -- especially in computing, telecommunications and electronics -- now pose a clear and present danger to the rights and protections guaranteed in those great documents. Therefore: Commitment: In the first legislative session after I am [re]elected, I will author or co-author legislation reflecting the following specifics, and I will actively support and testify in favor of any similar legislation as may be introduced by others. Further, I will actively seek to include in such legislation, explicit personal civil and/or criminal penalties against any agent, employee or official of the government who violates any of these statutes. And finally, I will keep all citizens who express interest in legislative progress on these matters fully and timely informed. The protections guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments shall be fully applicable regardless of the current technology of the time. This particularly includes, but is not limited to: Speech: Freedom of speech shall be equally protected, whether by voice or in written form as in the 18th Century, or by electronic transmission or computer communication as in the 20th Century and thereafter. Press: Freedom of the press shall be equally protected, whether its information is distributed by print as in the 18th Century, or by networked computers or other electronic forms, as in the 20th Century and thereafter. Liability for content: Just as a printer is not liable for content of leaflets printed for a customer, so also shall the owner or operator of a computer or electronic or telecommunications facility be held harmless for the content of information distributed by users of that facility, except as the owner or operator may, by contract, control information content. Those who author statements and those who have contractual authority to control content shall be the parties singularly responsible for such content. Assembly: Freedom of assembly shall be equally protected, whether by face-to-face meeting as in the 18th Century, or by computer-based electronic- conference or other teleconference as in the 20th Century and thereafter. The right to hold confidential meetings shall be equally protected, whether they be by personal meeting in private chambers, or by computer-assisted or electronic-based means. Self-defense: The right of the people to keep and use computers and communications connections shall not be abridged by the government. Search & seizure: The right of the people to be secure in their papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be fully applicable to their electronic mail, computerized information and personal computer systems. Warrants: No warrants for search or seizure shall issue for computerized information, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the computer system to be searched and the specific information to be seized. Secure information vaults: Just as search and seizure of letters in a post- office, and papers in a bank-vault lock-box, and surveillance of telephone conversations by wire-tap, each require a separate warrant for each postal address, lock-box and telephone line, so also shall a separate warrant be required for each electronic-mail address and/or computer files of each suspect, when stored in a computer facility or archive shared by others. And further, computer files stored in a shared facility or archive by or for a citizen who is neither named in a warrant nor associated with a suspect so-named, may not be used against that un-named citizen, if seized or discovered during legal search of or for files of a suspect. Self-incrimination: No person shall be compelled in any civil or criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be compelled to provide information retained only in their mind, nor otherwise be compelled to assist the translation or decoding of information that he or she believes may be self-incriminating. Property: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, nor shall such property be used nor sold by any government agency for less than fair market value, in which case all such proceeds shall promptly derive singularly to its last owner prior to government seizure. Speedy release: Anyone not accused of a crime shall enjoy the right to a speedy release and return of all of their property, as may be seized under any warrant, particularly including their computerized information. The government shall be fully liable for any damage befalling property or information they have seized. [signed] _____________________________________ [date] _________________ _________________________ [please print or type] _________________________ title / current office / office sought _________________________ address _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ campaign-office voice-phone number _________________________ campaign-office fax number _________________________ campaign-office electronic-mail address [ Additional copies of this model candidate's position commitment are available from: Jim Warren, Electronic Civil Liberties Initiative, 345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; (415)851-7075, fax/(415)851-2814; electronic-mail/ -or- . 4/4/92 For identification purposes, only: Warren was the Chair of the First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy held in March, 1991, a recipient in 1992 of one of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's first Pioneer Awards, is a Contributing Editor and "futures" columnist for MicroTimes, a member of the Board of Directors of Autodesk (one of the nation's half-dozen largest software companies), founded several trade periodicals, and is a writer and entrepreneur, well-known across the computer industry. ] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 12:12:32 CDT From: Moderators Subject: JIM WARREN nominated to the Consumers Union Board of Dirs The Consumer Union has recently nominated JIM WARREN as a candidate for election to their Board of Directors. Jim is one of 13 candidates for six seats on the Board. Candidates are elected by CONSUMER REPORTS subscribers, who are receiving their ballots this month. CuD readers who subscribe to CONSUMER REPORTS should be especially interested in Jim's nomination and consider him as one of their six choices for several reasons: For years, Jim has been a leader in fighting for inexpensive access to computer technology and on-line services. He has also been a primary figure in addressing broader consumer issues, such as consumer rights, credit reporting, and consumer tracking. Jim is a recipient of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's PIONEER award for his sustained contributions to the computer community. In summarizing Jim's accomplishments, Mitch Kapor wrote: 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. Jim's knowledge of and commitment to the issues of consumer rights would make him a valuable addition to the CU Board. If you subscribe to Consumer Reports (or know anybody who does), think about asking them to vote for JIM WARREN as a way of expanding cyberspace representation where it can have an impact. ------------------------------ Date: 03 Feb 92 17:33:41 EST From: The Mad Poet <71110.4334@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: MONDO 2000 poem DOES SHE DO THE VULCAN MIND MELD ON THE FIRST DATE? By Nick Herbert From MONDO 2000, the magazine for cyberspace I want your bra size, baby, Fax number, E-mail address, Modem com code, ID, Phone machine access. Give me your thumb print, password, Blood type and credit check; Give me your antibody spectrum, Your immune response spec. Let's break bread together, baby, Exchange cryptographic primes; Let's link up our parallel ports; And go on-line in real-time. Let's indulge in covalent bondage; Let's communicate in C. Let's merge our energy bodies And bob in the quantum sea. I wanna swim in your gene pool, mama; Snort your pheromones up close range; Tune in your neurotransmitters, Introduce you to Doctor Strange. I wanna surf in your quantum potentia; Mess with your thermostat; Wanna tour your molecular orbits; Wanna feed your Schrodinger cat. Let's surgically merge our organs; Our kidneys, our lungs and our hearts; Let's read physics journals together And laugh at the dirty parts. Let's Bell-connect our bellies With some quantum-adhesive glue; Let's do new stuff to each other That Newton never knew. I wanna feel your viscosity, honey, Melt my rheological mind; Let your female force-field vortex Deform my male spacetime. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #3.25 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank