Computer underground Digest Sat May 2, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 20 Editors: Jim Thomas and Go
Computer underground Digest Sat May 2, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 20
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Associate Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Jr.
Arcmeisters: Brendan Kehoe and Bob Kusumoto
CONTENTS, #4.20 (May 2, 1992)
File 1--COCOT Scam or Simple Exploitation?
File 2--Pres. Candidates ONLINE (Perot, Bush, Clinton, Brown, etc.)
File 3--Ross Perot for President BBS
File 4--FBI attempting to use mailing lists for Investigations
File 5--Society and Tech Online
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 (22.214.171.124),
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 email@example.com.
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
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: Fri, 24 Apr 92 19:01:13 CDT
From: Jim Thomas
Subject: File 1--COCOT Scam or Simple Exploitation?
Telephones and long distance service are crucial to modemers, and most
of us have become accustomed to the abuses of providers, especially
COCOTS and smaller long distance carriers. COCOTs, Customer-Owned
Coin-Operated telephones, are bad enough when they rip-off the general
public, but when they exploit a captive population, they can be
unethical, perhaps illegal. The scenario of one example of COCOT abuse
and a high-rate long distance carrier illustrate the problem.
A caller (C), recently released from a federal prison, was sent to the
Salvation Army Freedom Center (SAFC) (a community corrections center
at 105 S. Ashland in Chicago) to serve out the final months of his
sentence. He made two collect calls to a friend (JT) on March 24
(10.20 pm) and March 31 (9.29 pm). Believing these were routine
calls, JT accepted them. The two calls were for $10.40 (for 20
minutes) and $5.23 (for five minutes). Neither charge includes taxes.
The phone at the SAFC is a COCOT, and the long distance carrier is
U.S. Long Distance.
When prisoners are released from the custody of a prison to a
community center, they normally immediately call their family and
close friends to assure them they are fine and to provide a new
address and other information. Released prisoners are generally not
likely to have long distance credit cards or to be consumer-literate
on the nuances of long distance billing. Newly released prisoners
rarely have sufficient financial resources, and in Illinois, most come
from low-income backgrounds. Consequently, excessive phone costs are
being imposed on those least-able to afford it. The SAFC is taking
advantage of the importance of communication with the outside and with
the lack of consumer literacy to exploit ex-offenders and their
families. Their stated purpose to "help" prisoners is not served by
these excessive rates of which the SAFC receives a substantial
flat-rate portion and perhaps an additional percentage.
Whatever the ethics of the SAFC COCOT, it seems aided by apparently
deceptive practices of the long distance company, USLD, which may
JT received his March telephone bill from GTE, his local carrier. He
noticed that the charges were billed by Zeroplus dialing, a billing
agent that handles calls for a number of long distance carriers. He
called his local GTE representatives to complain, and was told by two
supervisors that GTE could do nothing, that they only collected the
fees *for* other carriers, and that consumers should be consumer
literate and be aware of who the long distance carrier is *before*
accepting a call. They indicated that customers should also inquire
about the toll charges before accepting. Even when raising the issue
of possible fraud, GTE personal were indifferent. Although
acknowledging that they received "many" complaints, they emphasized
that it was the consumers' responsibility to educate themselves.
JT obtained the number for USLD's customer service, which turned out
also to be Zeroplus Dialing. So, he called Zeroplus to further
investigate the charges. Zeroplus indicated that they, too, were
merely a billing agent (as well as customer service representatives),
and that the carrier was U.S. Long Distance (USLD) out of San Antonio,
Texas. They indicated that they were powerless to adjust a billing
and suggested calling USLD directly. They also indicated that GTE was
able to adjust billings. GTE vehemently denied this, but a return
call to Zeroplus prompted two supervisors to check, and they indicated
that, according to their contract, GTE personnel were mistaken.
(Another call to GTE to ask for an explanation in the discrepancy
between the claims led to another denial.
A call to USLD was initially less than satisfactory. A representative
there indicated that they had nothing to do with the billing. They
only set the rates, and JT must take billing problems up with
Zeroplus. JT again called Zeroplus, who indicated that USLD's claim was
nonsense, and USLD was the only company who could provide information
about the bill, the COCOT, and handle the complaint. The information
about billing procedures provided by supervisors seems confusing. As
near as JT could determine from the conflicting information provided,
USLD claimed only to set rates, not involve itself with billing or
rate adjustment. Zeroplus Dialing claimed only to process and collect
the charges, not adjust billing. GTE claimed only to serve as billing
agent, and claimed to have no authority to adjust billing. Each
organization referred JT to the others.
Neither USLD nor Zeroplus were willing or able to provide information
about the identity of the COCOT or the location of the telephone,
although GTE was able to identify the location (but not the owner) in
about 60 seconds. According to C, the caller, there was no information
on the telephone itself identifying it as a COCOT, and the only marker
on it was a sticker that indicated a repair number, but no
other identifying information.
JT's recollection was that when he accepted the calls in March, the
long distance operator *did not* identify with a company, but said
only: "Long distance operator with a collect call from C. Will you
accept it?" This seemed to be a normal inquiry and was sufficiently
close to the "AT&T long-distance" format that the call was
unquestioned. But, because of time that had elapsed, it was possible
that JT's recollection of the March calls was flawed. To be sure, JT
arranged for C to call several times in late evening of April 24. C
made three collect calls to JT with the following results. The ensuing
dialogue was written as it transpired and was heard by both JT and C:
Call 1, about 11:30 pm -- The phone rang:
Op1: long distance operator with a collect call from C.
Will you accept?
JT: Which long distance operator?
Op1: This is the long distance operator.
JT: I mean, which long distance company are you the long distance
Op1: U.S. Long Distance.
JT: How much will accepting the call cost?
JT: How much will it cost me to accept these charges? What are
Op1: I don't know. I'll have to connect you to my supervisor.
The operator then disconnected, although in talking with his
supervisor later, the disconnection seemed a legitimate accident. On
disconnect, C immediately called back.
Call 2 -- This call came through an automated voice message system in
which a pre-recorded male operator's voice announced that a company
called "American" had a long distance call from (pause for caller to
identify himself). The pre-recorded voice then continued: Dial 5 to
reject the call, 0 to accept, otherwise stay on the line. Believing
that "stay on the line" meant that a live operator would answer, JT
stayed on the line, but the original message repeated several times.
Wondering if dialing a 9 would connect to a live operator, JT dialed
9. Whether through inadvertent dialing or through the system's failure
to recognize the 9, the call went through as "accepted." Both JT and
C immediately disconnected. The GTE supervisors' earlier advice to
inquire about LD tolls is rather difficult when it is not possible to
speak with an operator. Legal? Apparently. Shady? Deceptively so! On
disconnect, C called JT a third and final time.
Call 3, about 11:50:
Op2: Long distance operator with a collect call from C. Will you
accept the call?
JT: Which long distance company are you with?
Op2: U.S. Long Distance.
JT: How much will the call cost if I accept?
JT: What are your rates? Will this be expensive?
Op2: I don't know. Just a minute, I'll have to check with my
(placed on hold for about 15 seconds)
Op2: The first eight minutes will be $7.46, and 42 cents for each
additional minute. Do you accept the call?
JT: What if we only talk for five minutes?
Op2: It's a flat rate.....do you accept the call or not?
JT: Even for a short call?
Op2: (pause) The first minute would be $5.92. Do you accept
JT: Just a minute, I'm calculating....
A little over a minute of discussion interspersed with the operator's
insistance that JT make a decision on accepting, even though it was
made clear that he was calculating, created pressure to accept, so JT
asked to speak to a supervisor. The operator said "just a moment,"
and disconnected him. However, the phone rang about 30 seconds later,
and the USLD supervisor was on the line apologizing for both accidental
disconnects. The supervisor was helpful and courteous, and not
unsympathetic to the situation. She discussed the billing policies and
the USLD system for about 20 minutes. However, she indicated that the
USLD policy was to indicate immediately that the call was from U.S.
Long Distance when the operator connected with the charged party, and
seemed concerned that their operators failed to do so.
What is to be made of this?
1. USLD's DECEPTION: The failure of multiple operators to immediately
identify themselves and their company when connecting with the party
called may or may not be intentional, but the result is deceptive.
Whatever the stated policy of USLD, there is unequivocal evidence that
their operators, either by informal norm or by tacit operator
procedures, violate what all supervisors indicated to be a legal
requirement to self-identify when connecting with customers. The
introductory words ("long distance operator with a collect call
from...") are said quickly and are glossed over, and normally the
party called doesn't listen with sufficient care to determine that
"long distance operator" isn't preceded with a company name. The
focus is generally on *who* is making the call, not with the need to
pay cautious attention to a quickly-spoken carrier name (or whether
the name is spoken at all). Further, the dialogue reveals that the
initial words were "Long distance operator" and not "This is the long
distance operator," which removes the second or so that listeners
require to get their audio bearings that an extra word or two would
provide. If AT&T's claim to be *THE* long distance company has merit,
then one would normally associate the initial words "long distance
operator with a collect call from..." with an established company.
Whatever the motivation, USLD's operators seem to employ a deceptive
method by which a small long distance carrier that charges
exceptionally high rates can confuse and mislead a customer.
2. GTE'S "RESPONSIBILITY:" GTE distanced itself from what it agreed
can be abusive practices of those for whom it serves as a billing
agent: a) It claimed "nothing can be done" because it's only the
billing agent; b) It claimed that abusive policies of others are
unfortunate, but not their problem--it's the fault of deregulation
(akin to saying people don't rip-off people, opportunities do); c) It
"blamed the victim" by saying that it is consumers' responsibility to
be consumer-literate. Let's look at this rationale:
a) NOTHING CAN BE DONE: If an LD carrier for whom GTE is a billing
agent is alleged to engage in deceptive practices in violation of
either law or policy, GTE is under no obligation to treat that carrier
"neutrally" as GTE personnel claim. If they uncritically accept the
responsibility of collecting for any company that repeatedly engages
in deceptive practices, then it effectively acts in collusion with the
offender. One would hope for a more ethical response from an
enterprise such as GTE that claims to be a staunchly reputable
company. If they are actually saying they can do nothing in the face
of alleged deception other than shrug their shoulders and collect
their cut, then they promote deceptive practices. Even a sympathetic
"we'll look into it" response would be better than blowing off the
complaining customer with a "tough luck kid, ya shoulda knowed better"
b) DEREGULATION'S THE PROBLEM: Telling a ripped-off customer that
it's deregulation, not peoples' behaviors, that cause problem is
akin to the Secret Service telling BellSouth that the Legion of Doom
wasn't guilty of breaking into their computers--it was the
computer's weak security that was at fault. Len Rose, Craig Neidorf,
and Shadowhawk learned that this line of reasoning has little currency
when a teleco alleges victimization. Unethical behaviors are the
problem, not deregulation. For GTE to use this excuse to distance
themselves from their obligation to assure that they do not promote
rip-off by serving as a collection agent for those ripping-off is
merely another form of denying both the problem and their obligation
to investigate complaints for which there is evidence of deception.
Instead of aligning themselves with an ethical position, GTE aligns
with the problem.
c) THE CUSTOMER SHOULD KNOW BETTER: Should consumers be
consumer-literate? Absolutely! Is it possible to be consumer literate
in this situation? No way! The problems of collecting information
after the problem occured were difficult, and JT still lacks answers
to the questions he posed to over a dozen teleco personnel in as many
day-time, full-rate long distance calls. Consider just a few of the
problems in becoming "consumer literate:"
When a long distance carrier is less than forthcoming about its
identity when connecting with a collect call, and when it's initial
spiel to a customer gives the impression that it is a familiar,
common, company rather than one that charges high rates, consumers are
put at a disadvantage. When asked about billing costs, operators do
not have this information readily available, and one operator
(operator 2) gave rates different from those given by a
supervisor--the operator gave inaccurate information. Further, when
an *automated* system connects with a consumer, there is no
opportunity to investigate the rate structure. If there is no obvious
way to connect with on-line personnel, it is impossible to
The multi-tiered billing structure and, in this instance, the initial
unwillingness of each company to accept responsiblity for the billing
policy creates further difficulties in obtaining information. Queries
to operators and supervisors on a number of basic issues led to "I
don't know," "We don't have that information," or "we can't give that
information out." It is unreasonable to expect the average consumer to
be functionally literate when there are so many barriers to obtaining
information. Ironically, a GTE supervisor who strongly argued that
consumers should familiarize themselves with teleco policies gave out
significant erroneous information: JT asked whether there were some
higher authority than this supervisor to whom he could appeal in
discussing the problem. She claimed unequivocally and absolutely that
she was the ultimate arbiter, and there was no one higher.
Subsequence calls indicated she was in error. Although she did not
intend to deceive and simply coded the question in a limited way
(despite multiple rephrasings), she nonetheless misinformed. Her
information would lead one to believe that there were no other channels
to be pursued at GTE, which would deter most customers from additinal
inquiry. Further, either GTE personnel or Zeroplus personnel were in
substantial error when identifying GTE's contractual ability to
adjust charges. If teleco supervisors and managers cannot sort out
fundamental responsibilities, how can consumers be expected to be
"consumer literate?" Although the GTE supervisor was otherwise
cordial, her error provides a significant example of the distorted
information given to consumers even when they try to inform
3. THE ETHICS OF THE SALVATION ARMY FREEDOM CENTER: The SAFC should
be held to account for exploiting those people it ostensibly is
contracted to serve. The SAFC reportedly receives a portion of the
initial connect charge in two separate categories. One figure was
$1.40, and the other $1.75. The USLD personnel providing these figures
did not know if they were combined or if the SAFC receives an
additional percentage of the toll over the initial connect charge.
Whatever the details, the SAFC is being compensated by people who can
ill-afford such exorbitant rates. It is not clear whether there are
COCOTS for personnel who are not recently released prisoners in the
area of the facilities for employees or "civilians." Nor is it known
whether coin-operated phones elsewhere in the facilities have carriers
with more traditinal rates. SAFC personnel with whom JT spoke
claimed to have no knowledge of the telephone policies, who was in
charge, who collected the money, or who made the decisions for
selecting specific carriers. Whatever the reasons, the SAFC is
engaging in a practice that questions both their integrity and their
stated purpose of facilitating ex-offenders' return to society.
4. WHAT IS THE CUSTOMER'S RESPONSIBILITY? Judging from this incident,
it is impossible for consumers to inform themselves of the nuances of
teleco policies. It is not that there are too many separate policies
created by deregulation (as GTE personnel and others claimed). Rather,
there are too many teleco-created obstacles to obtaining information
and too many levels for the intrusion of misinformation, some given
intentionally, some inadvertently. In a sad and rather ironic way, the
consistent misinformation or deception of telecos partially supports
the contention of phreaks and hackers that unauthorized intrusions
into industry computers are necessary to help provide information on
corporations that seem unaccountable for their actions.
The telephone has long been a semi-friendly device that we come to
accept as part of everyday life. Most consumers do not expect
answering a ringing telephone to be an occasion for potential rip-off
by telecos that claim to serve, rather than abuse, us. Unfortunately,
given the behavior of those acting on behalf of some telephone
companies, the telephone is becoming a potential enemy and instrument
of abuse. Rather than serving as an instrument that brings people
closer, the actions of telephone abusers, including teleco personnel,
are making us more distrustful.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Readers of Pat Townson's TELECOM DIGEST
continually identify teleco abuses and relate how they can be resisted
(Telecom Digest is available on usenet). In cases such as this,
several responses might be useful. First, those receiving collect
calls should question the operator to determine the identity of the
carrier if not initially given. Parties should also request a
detailed rate structure that includes the cost of the initial
connection, the cost-per-minute, and any additional charges. Second,
when alleging abuses, filing complaints with appropriate agencies,
such as the state's public utilities/commerce commission, is crucial
to bring to legislators' attention the problems of COCOTS,
questionable carrier practices, and other issues. Third, letters to
the telecos involved, legislators, and others also increases the
visibility of the problem. Finally, if otherwise legitimate
organizations, such as the SAFC, are utilizing carriers or COCOTS that
abuse public trust, the matter should be brought to their attention.
If they are under contract to another organization, as the SAFC is to
the Illinois Department of Corrections, then the contracting
organization should also be notified. It also is often possible to
involve watchdog or consumer advocacy groups (in Illinois, Citizen's
Utility Board and others) to provide suggestions for responding.
When telecos challenge the ethics and social competency of hackers,
they claim to hold the moral highground and object to what they
perceive as predatory behavior when their own ox is gored. When their
own practices are challenged, they are far less willing to apply the
same standards of behavior to themselves that they expect from others.
Like Woody Guthrie said, "Some rob ya with a six-gun, some with
a fountain pen."
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 22:58:58 PDT
From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren)
Subject: File 2--Pres. Candidates ONLINE (Perot, Bush, Clinton, Brown, etc.)
Please copy, post & circulate
It's time to have an ONLINE presidential debate/forum.
Here is the message I just faxed and snailmailed to the indicated
** Please send your own request (feel free to modify this one if you wish).**
** If they get enough requests, they will be pressured to participate. **
** (When you send a request to them, please send a note of it to me.) **
We invite you to join an ONLINE presidential candidates' forum.
Ross Perot has proposed using "electronic town-hall meetings" to
allow citizens to participate in their/our government.
Jerry Brown has reaped national headlines from "going online" on a
small computer network (GEnie) to discuss his candidacy with a
George Bush signed legislation last year, to greatly enhance the
nation's "electronic highway system" that already connects 1.3-million
There are about 8- to 15-million people who are "online" -- using
computer-teleconferencing and electronic-mail services across this
cooperative web of computers called the "Internet." Several million
people regularly read news and participate in public discussions using
Perot and Brown have shown that they know how to use these "electronic
highways" to share their views with those whom they propose to
represent. We ask you to do the same.
We ask you to make your views available to 8- to 15-million people.
You can do so, at little or no cost to you or to your audience.
1. You will "speak" by electronically "posting" your remarks on the
network within a one-week period -- at any time and place that is
convenient for you, night or day, using any normal telephone. [also,
please see item 9, below]
2. You will post (1) position-statements and comments on issues of
interest to you, similar to"opening remarks" in a face-to-face debate,
and (2) your responses to questions from reporters selected by the
nation's leading news media.
3. The reporters will be chosen by daily newspapers with at least
250,000 circulation, plus recognized national news-magazines, plus the
national television networks. These organizations will be invited to
select one of their editorial/news staff to pose questions to you
throughout the one-week period. Reporters will be encouraged to pose
follow-up questions and to post special note if a candidate fails to
respond to a question by the end of the week's forum.
4. Both the candidates and the reporters will be encouraged to
consult with others in drafting their questions, responses and
comments. The number of questions per reporter will be limited by
agreement among that group.
5. For each question or comment, reporters will be limited to
10-lines x 80-characters/line. Each of your responses will be limited
to 40-lines x 80-characters/line. There will be separate facilities
provided where you can post more extended comments and
position-papers, if you wish to do so.
6. All participants will agree that their questions, responses and
comments are to be in the public domain and may be copied without
7. The participating reporters will agree to accept electronic-mail
from anyone wishing to send it to them during the one-week period, and
their electronic addresses will be attached to each of their
questions. Thus, everyone else online will be able to suggest
questions and offer additional information and comments to the
8. In parallel with this debate/forum where participation will be
limited to presidential candidates and the questioning reporters,
there will also be a nationwide public forum in which everyone online
may discuss the questions, your responses and the issues that are
raised -- via an established system for such discussion already in use
by several million people.
9. We will schedule this forum as soon as one or more major
national candidates agree. It will take place regardless of whether
all candidates choose to participate.
10. There will be no cost to your campaign -- assuming that your
campaign has access to a personal-computer with a telephone-modem and
can find someone you trust* who can operate it and is familiar with
how to use the network.
* - If you cannot locate a computer person, we will be happy to
distribute a request for volunteers across the network for you.
A copy of this has been faxed and mailed to other candidates as noted,
below. Copies have also been posted to numerous online newsletters
and newsgroups, and e-mailed to numerous leaders across the network.
You may be somewhat-able to gauge likely-interest in this proposal by
the number of similar requests you receive in the next several weeks,
by phone-call, fax and "snailmail."
I would be happy to discuss this with you or your staff, and look
forward to your timely reply -- which will also be promptly publicized
across the nets.
I remain, Sincerely,
/s/ Jim Warren
Electronic Civil Liberties Initiative
345 Swett Road
Woodside CA 94062
415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814; firstname.lastname@example.org
[ And, for identification purposes only: founder, InfoWorld newspaper;
Contributing Editor & "futures" columnist, MicroTimes (~200,000 circulation);
organizer & Chair, First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (1991); a
recipient, first Pioneer Awards (1992), Electronic Frontier Foundation;
founding host, PBS television's "Computer Chronicles" series; founding
President, Microcomputer Industry Trade Association; member, Board of
Directors, Autodesk, Inc.; etc. ]
H. Ross Perot, P.O.Box 517010, 12377 Merit Dr.#1100, Dallas TX 75251-7010
attn: Sharon Holman or Tom Luce, unofficial campaign honcho/a
national/800-685-7777; in Texas/214-419-5000; fax/800-925-1300
Jerry Brown, 2121 Cloverfield Blvd.#120, Santa Monica CA 90404-5277
attn: Jodie Evans, campaign manager
national/800-426-1112; in California/310-449-1992; fax/310-449-1903
George Bush, 1030 15th St. NW, Washington DC 20005
attn: Robert Mosbacher, campaign manager
national/202-336-7080; [no 800-number]; fax/202-336-7117
Bill Clinton, P.O.Box 615, 1220 W. 3rd St., Little Rock AR 72201
attn: Dave Wilhelm & Jeff Eller, campaign manager & campaign spokesperson
national/501-372-1992; [no 800-number]; fax/501-372-2292
[Send other copies to the presidential candidates of *your* choice.]
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 16:21:33 CDT
Subject: File 3--Ross Perot for President BBS
One candidate who has gone on-line is H. Ross Perot, independent
candidate for President. This month's (May, 1992) issue of BOARDWATCH
MAGAZINE (for information, contact Jack Rickard at:
email@example.com). as a lengthy article on Perot and his "new
vision" for an electronic democracy. BOARDWATCH reports that Dave
Hughes, sysop of the former Rogers Bar BBS in Colorado Springs,
established the Ross Perot for President BBS as a way of an
"electronic town hall." The number is: (719) 632-3391. Below are
selected excerpts of what you see when you log in:
atdt 1 719 632 3391
Welcome to the H. Ross Perot
Support BBS of Old Colo City
THE ELECTRONIC BACK ROOM
AT ROGERS BAR!
First Name? jim
Last Name? thomas
Calling from (City,State)? DeKalb, IL
TBBS Welcomes JIM THOMAS
Calling From DEKALB, IL
Is this correct? Y
VIDTEX TRS-80 1/3 VT-52 ATARI H19/H89/Z19
IBM PC Televid 925 VT-100
Enter letter of your terminal, if not listed: F
Terminal Profile Set to:
ANSI codes Allowed
IBM Graphics Allowed
Line Feeds Needed
0 Nulls after each
Do you wish to modify this? N
Please Enter a 1-8 character Password to be used for future logons. This
password may have any printable characters you wish. Lower case is considered
different from upper case and imbedded blanks are legal. REMEMBER THIS
PASSWORD. You will need it to log on again.
Your password? xxxxxxxxx
Re-enter New password to verify: xxxxxxxxx
You are caller number 467
You are authorized 30 mins this call
Searching Message Base ...
You have no personal messages waiting.
** Online for H. Ross Perot **
urpose of this BBS
olorado Campaign Information
essage Boards Where You Can Start A Topic
ead All Messages all Boards Now
nformation about Perot
iles - Upload, Download or Read Longer Documents
ho are last 127 Callers?
Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing
This BBS is put up to help those interested in the
H. Ross Perot potential Presidential Candidacy:
(1) Find out legal requirements for signing petitions
(2) Find out where/who/when you can sign
(3) Learn more about Perot and his views
(4) Locate other interested supporters
(5) Register to help out
(6) Discuss Perot and the Campaign BBS style
(This BBS operates courtesy of Dave Hughes, from the premises
of Old Colorado City Communications, 2502 West Colo Ave, #203
Colorado Springs, CO 80904. 719-632-4848 voice. It uses the
phone line 719-632-3391 which, since 1980 has been used
effectively to conduct 'online politics' from Rogers Bar.)
Information About The Candidate
(1) Brief Biography
(2) What people say about him
(3) Other Published Sources
(0)Top Level Menu
Type P to pause, S to stop, N to skip to next msg
orward or everse Multiple
Which One? N
Pause after each msg(Y/N)? Y
Type P to Pause, S to Stop listing
Recent Uploads to the System:
SPEECH1 7040 Perot Speech before National Press Club
LIMBAUG1 3308 Rush Limbaugh's Reaction on Compuserve
WELL0325 12868 Heavy Discussion on the 'Well' (Calif)
BOOKS 373 List of Books about Perot
INSIGHT 6912 A Reporters View of Perot in his element
OFFICE 1939 Colorado Springs Office Organized
BIO 5888 Biography of Perot
USATODAY 2638 Extracts of Perot Views on Issues
TRIGGER 13274 Debate on Perot's 'Trigger Happy' potential
NATPRESS 41088 Full Text National Press Club Speech
CONTACTS 5893 Perot Organizers in Other States
IDEAS91 7266 1991 Ideas and Positions taken by Perot
WELL0418 11400 Well discussion of 'responsibility'
THE-DEFICIT 3982 Key Issue # 1 - The Deficit
EDITORLTR 2515 Letter to Editor, local CS paper
HELP 0 new jersey
UFOBBS.TXT 308 PHOENIX LIBERATOR EXCITING NEW NATL UFO BBS (
rotocol, xamine, ew, ist, or elp
The idea of a board that serves as a community forum and a place for
obtaining speeches and other documents pertaining to candidates for
political office is nifty. As Jim Warren (above) suggests, politicians
should be persuaded to move into the 21st century and contribute to the
development of cyberspace.
From: Dave Banisar
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 21:49:11 EDT
Subject: File 4--FBI attempting to use mailing lists for Investigations
Source: Computer Privacy Digest and Risks 13.54
FBI attempting to use mailing lists for investigation
The 20 April 1992 issue of DM News, a direct marketing trade
publication, reports that within the past two weeks, Metromail and
Donnelly Marketing (two of the very largest mailing list companies)
were approached by the FBI which is seeking mailing lists for use in
investigations. Other mailing list firms also received feelers
according to the story. "Neither of the identified firms would discuss
details, but one source familiar with the effort said the FBI
apparently is seeking access to a compiled consumer database for
"The FBI agents showed 'detailed awareness' of the products they were
seeking, and claimed to have already worked with several mailing list
companies, according to the source."
Metromail, according to the article, has been supplying the FBI with
its MetroNet address lookup service for two years. The FBI said that
the database is used to confirm addresses of people the FBI needs to
locate for an interview.
This marks the first time since the IRS tried to buy mailing lists in
1984 that a government agency has attempted to use mailing lists for
In a separate but related story in the April 24 issue of the Friday
Report, a direct marketing newsletter, the RBOC's are teaming up with
other firms to develop white page directories on CD-ROM. For example,
US West has a joint venture with PhoneDisc USA of Marblehead, Ma. The
article states that the company offers lists failing mailing list
enhancements to law enforcement agencies. [NOTE: an enhanced list
means the names and addresses were matched with a marketing database
and additional demographic information was added to the list from the
Mary Culnan, School of Business Administration, Georgetown University
Date: 29 Apr 92 18:41:02 EDT
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 5--Society and Tech Online
GEnie's Public Forum*NonProfit Connection area (home of CuD back
issues on GEnie) has announced a series of online conferences on
Technology and Society.
For CuD readers that may be GEnie users, here's the schedule of
ward Rheingold -- Virtual Reality
When Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia experienced virtual
reality, he said, "They made LSD illegal. I wonder what they are
going to do about this stuff."
With a head-mounted display and sensors monitoring body movement,
people are already walking through computer-simulated buildings
before construction and firing weapons from remote tanks. What
will the future look like? What decisions should we make now,
before the full impact of virtual reality?
Howard wrote _Virtual Reality_, edits _The Whole Earth Review_
and consults with the US Congress Office of Technology
Assessment. He has written for such publications as _The New
York Times_, _Esquire_, _Playboy_ and _Omni_. His other
(excellent!) books include _Tools for Thought_ and _Excursions to
the Far Side of the Mind._
May 10: Steve Cisler -- Public Access to Information
Steve, an expert on national information issues from Apple Computer,
will join a discussion of public access to information and public
control over high-speed data highways.
May 24: Katie Hafner -- Social Consequences of Computer Networks
Co-author of _Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier_,
Katie will talk with us about the communities that have grown up around
May 31: Jerry Berman -- Free Speech Online
Founder of the ACLU Privacy and Technology Project and now director
of the Washington, DC, office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
Jerry will join our discussion about who controls the content of
electronic communication and the systems through which it travels.
All conferences will begin at 9pm EDT in the PF*NPC conference
If the issues and discussions raised by the conferences warrant,
future issues of CuD may contain summaries or excerpts from these
conferences as appropriate.
End of Computer Underground Digest #4.20
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank