Computer underground Digest Sat May 2, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 20 Editors: Jim Thomas and Go

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

Skeptic Tank!

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 (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: 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 be illegal. 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: JT: Hello? 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 operator for? Op1: U.S. Long Distance. JT: How much will accepting the call cost? Op1: What? JT: How much will it cost me to accept these charges? What are your rates? 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: JT: Hello? 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? Op2: What? JT: What are your rates? Will this be expensive? Op2: I don't know. Just a minute, I'll have to check with my supervisor. (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 the call? 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" attitude. 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 self-inform. 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 themselves. 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 presidential candidates. ** 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.) ** Greetings, 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 national audience. George Bush signed legislation last year, to greatly enhance the nation's "electronic highway system" that already connects 1.3-million computers. 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 this network. 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. Here's how: 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 further permission. 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 reporters. 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; e-mail/jwarren@well.sf.ca.us [ 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. ] cc: 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 From: Moderators 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: jrickard@teal.csn.org). 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 RINGING CONNECT 2400/NONE 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 Upper/Lower Case 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? echnical Matters Command: p 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 in Colorado (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.) Command: i Information About The Candidate (1) Brief Biography (2) What people say about him (3) Other Published Sources (-)Previous Menu (0)Top Level Menu (G)oodbye...Log off Command: r Type P to pause, S to stop, N to skip to next msg orward or everse Multiple ew Messages arked Messages elective Retrieval ndividual Message(s) bort Retrieve Which One? N Pause after each msg(Y/N)? Y Command: d 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 ( ownload,

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 investigatory uses." "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 enforcement purposes. 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 marketing database]. Mary Culnan, School of Business Administration, Georgetown University MCULNAN@GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU ------------------------------ 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 events.... 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 computer networks. 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 area. 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