Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 9, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 35 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 Sun Aug 9, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 35 Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, III Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow-Archivist: Dan Carosone CONTENTS, #4.35 (Aug 9, 1992) File 1--Pack your bags -- Cud's moving! File 2--What's a "CuD?" File 3--Re: Another View of Bellcore vs. 2600 File 4--Re: SURVEY: Is Big Brother Watching You? File 5--BellSouth Shareholders Note File 6--'Pirate' is PC? File 7--"Piracy:" Overstated? (Chic Tribune summary) File 8--'Zine Watch - 2600 and Boardwatch File 9--*NO MORE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ARTICLES* Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost from The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115. Issues of CuD can also 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 in the PF*NPC RT libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and by anonymous ftp from ( and 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: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 02:47:19 -0500 (CDT) From: chip@CHINACAT.UNICOM.COM(Chip Rosenthal) Subject: File 1--Pack your bags -- Cud's moving! Those who receive CuD via Usenet probably know the news by now: the `' vote is over and the newsgroup has been approved. This is good news -- even to the non-Usenet readers. Moving CuD out of the anarchistic `alt' hierarchy and into the mainstream `comp' distribution potentially brings a lot of new readers into the fray. (It also somehow gives an added air of legitimacy to the CuD.) A summary of the voting results appears towards the end of this message. There will be another week or two for the voting results to be reviewed before is actually created. If you are a Usenet reader who could not receive the CuD via, I urge you to drop your mailing list subscription once is operational. Yes, you will receive your CuD in the handy, easy-to-read Usenet format, without a single word edited, modified, or expunged! By switching over to Usenet you will save wear and tear on both our network bandwidth and our esteemed editors. If you are a Usenet administrator -- or know somebody who is a Usenet administrator or aspire to someday become a Usenet administrator :-) please note the following: * The name of the new newsgroup will be `'. * The newsgroup will be moderated, and the address for submissions will be the CuD editors at . * If you maintain a `mailpaths' file, please ensure you update it properly. * Once the new newsgroup is operational, the CuD will be cross-posted into both `' and `' for a period of approximately one month. This will give Usenet administrators and CuD readers a chance to switch over. * After that one month period, the `' newsgroup will be decommissioned. * Please do NOT alias the old name to the new name. The proposed changeover strategy should alleviate any such need. Thanks to all who participated in the vote. If you have any questions or concerns about the newsgroup vote or the Usenet gateway, feel free to drop me a line. Here are the final voting results: PROPOSAL: CHARTER: The Computer Underground Digest (moderated) SUMMARY: This newsgroup will be used to distribute the Computer Underground Digest. The CuD is an open forum for issues relating to the phenomena of computer cracking. It has been in publication since 1990, and is widely distributed in a number of electronic forms. The CuD has been distributed via The newsgroup will be decommissioned once the new newsgroup is stable. === OFFICIAL VOTE TALLY === Total Votes Cast: 263 Valid Votes Cast: 260 Ambiguous Votes: 3 (excluded from count) Yes Votes: 247 (95.00% of valid votes) No Votes: 13 (5.00% of valid votes) Yes-No Margin: 234 Percentage Test: pass (is yes/valid >= 66.67%?) Margin Test: pass (is yes-no >= 100?) VOTE RESULT: PASS (do both tests pass?) === TOP TEN VOTING DOMAINS === 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 === DISTRIBUTION OF VOTES RECEIVED === 7/13 9 ***** 7/14 86 **************************************** 7/15 29 ************** 7/16 10 ***** 7/17 6 *** 7/18 5 *** 7/19 5 *** 7/20 8 **** 7/21 23 *********** 7/22 17 ******** 7/23 5 *** 7/24 3 ** 7/25 3 ** 7/26 0 * 7/27 1 * 7/28 6 *** 7/29 18 ********* 7/30 10 ***** 7/31 8 **** 8/01 2 * 8/02 5 *** 8/03 2 * 8/04 2 * -- Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 | Let the wayward children play. Let the wicked Unicom Systems Development | have their day. Let the chips fall where they | may. I'm going to Disneyland. -Timbuk 3 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 09:23:01 (CDT) From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 4--Re: SURVEY: Is Big Brother Watching You? ((MODERATORS' NOTE: As previous posts in CuD demonstrate, computer privacy in the workplace has become an important issue in the past year. Lorrayne Schaefer has been active in collecting data to enable a specific assessment of the types of policies currently in place in the public and private sectors. CuD will summarize the results of her findings when completed.)) The purpose of this survey is to collect data for a presentation that I will give at this year's National Computer Security Conference in October. I would like to thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. If you have any questions, you can call me at 703-883-5301 or send me email at Please send your completed survey to: Lorrayne Schaefer The MITRE Corporation M/S Z213 7525 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 This survey has been posted on some newsgroups a few months ago. This survey has also been distributed to various conferences over the past few months. All results will be in the form of statistical information and keywords. All participants will remain anonymous. If you have responded to this survey, I give you my thanks. I cannot get a realistic enough picture without those who have spent some time answering these questions. For those who are responding to this survey now, thank you. SURVEY: MONITORING IN THE WORKPLACE 1. What is your title? 2. What type of work does your organization do? 3. Does your organization currently monitor computer activity? (Yes/No) a. If yes, what type of monitoring does your company do (e.g., electronic mail, bulletin boards, telephone, system activity, network activity)? b. Why does your company choose to monitor these things and how is it done? 4. If you are considering (or are currently) using a monitoring tool, what exactly would you monitor? How would you protect this information? 5. Are you for or against monitoring? Why/why not? Think in terms of whether it is ethical or unethical ("ethical" meaning that it is right and "unethical" meaning it is wrong) for an employer to monitor an employee's computer usage. In your response, consider that the employee is allowed by the company to use the computer and the company currently monitors computer activity. 6. If your company monitors employees, is it clearly defined in your company policy? 7. In your opinion, does the employee have rights in terms of being monitored? 8. In your opinion, does the company have rights to protect its assets by using a form of monitoring tool? 9. If you are being monitored, do you take offense? Managers: How do you handle situations in which the employee takes offense at being monitored? 10. What measures does your company use to prevent misuse of monitoring in the workplace? 11. If an employee is caught abusing the monitoring tool, what would happen to that individual? If your company is not using any form of monitoring, what do you think should happen to an individual who abused the tool? 12. Is it unethical to monitor electronic mail to determine if the employee is not abusing this company resource (e.g., suppose the employee sends personal notes via a network to others that are not work related)? Why or why not? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Aug 92 21:03:26 PDT From: Anonymous@CUP.PORTAL.COM Subject: File 5--BellSouth Shareholders Note ((Thought you might be interested in the following text from the BellSouth shareholder report. -ANON-)) Urgent Appeal To BellSouth Shareholders The range of consumer choices, along with the future growth opportunities of BellSouth and the other Bell holding companies, would be sharply limited by H. R. 5096 - the "Brooks bill." This legislation is being pushed through Congress by giant media corporations as a means of keeping competition out of their lines of business. PLEASE WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY, EXPRESSING YOUR OPPOSITION TO H. R. 5096. KEY POINTS TO MAKE WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE: The Brooks bill must be stopped because it would: 1. deny consumers access to a rich array of information services 2. hurt domestic employment and 3. stifle competition. To obtain the name of your representative, call the U. S. Capitol at 202-224-3121. Mail your letter to your representative at U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. For more about the Brooks bill, see pages 1 and 7 of this newsletter, and/or mail the enclosed card. You may also call 1-800-522-2355, ext. 44. Thank you for helping BellSouth preserve its right to compete. Dear Shareholders: We had a strong second quarter. Earnings increased 26 percent, driven by growth in both our telephone and cellular businesses, and by continued cost control. But the good quarterly results were clouded by a discriminatory bill that is moving through the U.S. House of Representatives this summer. And we need your help to defeat it. BILL WOULD HURT CONSUMERS H.R. 5096, also known as the "Brooks bill," would effectively legislate BellSouth and the other Bell holding companies (BHCs) out of promising areas of growth in the industry we know best. It would do this by enacting into law three of the line of business restrictions imposed by the courts at divestiture - including information services, which the courts already have allowed us to enter. The bill is bad for customers, shareholders and employees. Customers would be deprived of many new services that could improve their quality of life. In fact, because BellSouth already has information services in operation, our customers stand to have the door slammed in their faces when it comes to enhancing and expanding existing services. The Brooks bill would hurt shareholders, primarily because it severely limits our ability to increase the uses - and, therefore, the value - of the sophisticated network your capital has helped build. LET CONGRESS KNOW WHERE YOU STAND What can you do? Write or call your Representative in the U.S. House. Tell him or her that you. as someone with a substantial stake in BellSouth. oppose H.R. 5096 because the bill is anti-jobs, anti-consumer and anti-competitive. I know many of you already have written to Congress because you sent me copies of your letters. But this issue is so critical to you, our owners. that I am asking you to write again. You can affect what Congress does. and you can take action to protect your investment in BellSouth. Please add your voice to that of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and hundreds of other groups who oppose the Brooks bill. Write your Representative now. and if you would also like to receive a briefing package on this legislation, please return the enclosed postcard. or call 1-800-522-2355, ext. 44. BellSouth and the CWA aren't afraid to compete for the customer's business.and we shouldn't be denied the opportunity to do so. ======================================================================= Positioning BellSouth for the Future Excerpts from Chairman John Clendenin's remarks at the annual shareholder's meeting in April. "1991 was an extraordinary year in terms of positioning BellSouth for the future. What we're seeing is the natural evolution of a totally flexible new generation of telecommunications technology, and the freeing of people from the communication umbilical cord that has tied them to the office or the home." "It's our conviction that the ability to combine wireless and wireline skills - often in partnership with others - will serve our customers, and hence our owners best." "We're looking at our core telephone network in new ways, including the philosophy of how we use it. We aim to grow our business by making our core telephone intelligent network attractive for other information providers to use. We're looking at ways to deliver more services in joint efforts with others." "RAM Mobile Data puts us on the forefront of another promising market - wireless data transmission. Ultimately, this new technology's growth is expected to parallel the explosive growth of cellular. There are an estimated 10 million potential mobile data users in the U. S. alone." "We are on the leading edge of technology, and we are absolutely committed to staying there. Overseas and here in the U. S. we're setting the pace in developing all the technical and other skills it takes to give customers whatever it takes to communicate, whenever and wherever they want to." "As competitors take local exchange business from us, we have to regain the freedom to get into other areas. Keeping our freedom to provide sophisticated information services, such as distance learning, is our top priority. Eventually, these will be very important markets for us. But some powerful interests, particularly some big media companies that own newspapers and cable TV operations don't want us in information services, and they're lobbying Congress to take away the freedom we've gained from the courts. If they have their way, BellSouth will be kept away from a big portion of the growing telecommunications pie in this exploding Age of Information." "I've got a request: Write your U. S. Representative and your U. S. Senators. Let them know that BellSouth, the other Bell holding companies and America's consumers, shouldn't be denied information services to protect the financial interests of those big media companies. Tell them you oppose H. R. 5096, called the Brooks bill." ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 92 16:54:14 EDT From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 6--'Pirate' is PC? "Texas and the Pirates" With all the publicity computer pirates have been getting lately - what with teenagers nonchalantly tapping into credit-card databases from their bedrooms and bands of foreign technophiles looking for vulnerable spots in computer networks that require high-level clearance to access - security firms are going all out to market their expertise to the nervous masses. { info about the June Computer Security Institute conference deleted.} The two-day conference includes seminars on topics such as "Securing the Simple Network Management Protocol" and "Protecting Against LAN Viruses." To the astute security observer, however, the title of one session - "Hackers and Your Network" - would certainly cause a gasp. As all politically correct technophiles know, hackers are legitimate computer enthusiasts; "computer pirates," by contrast, are those involved in technothievery. Excerpted from the June 1, 1992 issue of INFORMATION WEEK, who should know better. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 10:05:58 (CDT) From: CuD Moderators


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank