Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 21 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 15 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji

---
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 Feb 21 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 15 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Seniur CONTENTS, #5.15 (Feb 21 1993) File 1--MODERATORS' Corner (ah, sundry snippets) File 2--Re SPA/Piracy (CuD #5.14) File 3--TIME & Puzzlement File 4--Technology and Populist Publishing (GEnie Reprint) File 5--"Time Bomb" Detonated In Pennsylvania File 6--(fwd) CICnet rural datafication / ubiquitous access Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. 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 comp.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 in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; in Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893; and using anonymous FTP on the Internet from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud, red.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.91) in /cud, halcyon.com (192.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD. European readers can access the ftp site at: nic.funet.fi pub/doc/cud. Back issues also may be obtained from the mail server at mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us. 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 for non-profit 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, 20 Feb 93 19:21:51 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 1--MODERATORS' Corner (ah, sundry snippets) MISNUMBERING OF #5.14 CuD #5.14 was inadvertently numbered as #5.17. The date (Feb 17) was used instead of the issue. Thanks to those who notified us. The type has been corrected, so if you save CuDs, you should re-number correctly. UNSUBBING FROM CuD For those who wish to unsub from CuD's mailing list, you should INLCUDE YOUR ADDRESS in the unsub notice. Sometimes, the address in the "From:' line doesn't correspond to anything on the mailing list. YOU SHOULD ALSO BE SURE TO SEND THE CORRECT UNSUB ADDRESS. If your unsub request doesn't originate from the address listed in the mailing list, it makes it rather difficult to determine the correct one to delete. CuD PUBLICATION SCHEDULE Beginning with #5.16 (next Sunday), we will try to revert back to the once-a-week publication schedule and do twice-a-week runs as infrequently as possible. We will also try to keep the size limits to about 38-40K, so CuDs will be a bit shorter than previously (by about 10 percent). The mailing list has grown so large that running an issue takes about two hours. Attempts to run 50-60 megs through the mailer in such a short time sometimes causes the log-jams. AMERICA ON-LINE SUBSCRIBERS AOL subbers have had problems receiving CuD. IBMmers are allowed to receive mail files of about 7K, and Mac folk about 28K. We tried breaking CuDs down into smaller sizes for them, but the size limits are simply prohibitive. We suggest they unite to ask for a more reasonable file size of about 50K. Sorry we can't be of much help on this problem. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS) We are now maintaining a list of FAQs that we can make available on request. It will also be available from the ftp sites. If there is interest, we will run it every three months or so as we add to it. BACK ISSUES Please read the header for back issue information. We are unable to send out back issues from the editors' site because of the sheer volume. Back issues (Vols 1 through 5.15) are available on the ftp sites, most long-standing BBSes, and many public access systems. Compressed, they require nearly four megs of disk space. REPRINTING "OLD" ARTICLES We are repeatedly asked why we reprint "old" news or news that seems erroneous. We do this for several reasons, including the following. First, especially for newcomers or those reading CuDs from a BBS, old news is new news. Second, some "old" news is repackaged and recirculated. We feel it's important to provide an archive of the ways in which this happens. For example, a recent summary of a virus article contained old news in a new format. We ran it to indicate the recursive nature of information that is passed on without critique. We try to indicate this in the "Subject:" line or in a "Moderators' Note" when this occurs. Sometimes, we goof. The virus article, for those who asked, was a GEnie reprint, and an accidental deletion removed the context. We apologize for the confusion. We also remind some of our critics that Cu Digest has no budget or staff, is run from a primitive Amdahl running Wylbur as its front end, and most articles must be reformatted before running. Our incoming mail is fairly heavy, and we try to respond personally to each one. Both editors have full time positions that require 60-plus hours of investment, and sometimes things simply slip by. We ain't perfect, but we try. So, we appreciate criticism, but we hope it is a bit more constructive than "can't you guys get anything straight?" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:20:51 EST From: tsa@CELLAR.ORG Subject: File 2--Re SPA/Piracy (CuD #5.14) First, it looks like the SPA has identified a significant problem, that of software piracy. I agree fully that piracy is wrong, and that it should be stopped. But I totally disapprove of their methods. The simple statement that many of those who settle out of court with the SPA are actually innocent was the first thing that shocked me. The American justice system is supposed to be the main way of determining right and wrong, not something used as a bludgeon to force others to do what you want. It seems that right and wrong have become decreasingly less important, and what matters is whether you can pay the lawyers. And many small companies simply can't afford a lawsuit. So the SPA waltz's in, threatens to sue the company, and walks away with $$$. Perhaps the SPA could consider "The end doesn't justify the means" for a little while. They are using heavy-handed, cruel tactics. It may be for a good cause, but that doesn't excuse it. Their tactics have been surprisingly effective. Every single case, settled out of court. It is not clear whether that indicates that the companies don't want to pay for a lawsuit, know that they are going to lose the lawsuit, or both. If the company knows that they would lose a lawsuit, then the SPA should force some settlement, since the company is guilty. But if the company is innocent, and can't afford a lawsuit to prove it, then the SPA can-and does-just threaten, bluff, and force a settlement. Then they walk away with money in their pockets, and no one can do a thing. It makes me want to puke. The double penalty system which the SPA imposes even upon the companies who agree to be inspected is preposterous. The company is forced to pay twice for each copy of the software, once to the SPA, and once to buy the software. Why should the company have to purchase legitimate copies of the software, just because one of their employees decided to pirate it? I agree that the offending software should be removed, but why should the company be forced to buy new copies? Also, I don't see why the company should have to pay the full price for the illegal software, and why that money should go to the SPA. The company did not obtain the full value of the software, it was probably used without manuals, which limits the use of a piece of software, and they didn't get the cool box with all the neato screen shots, pretty pastel colors, and designer logos on it. They did not get as much from the pirated program as they would have if they had bought it, so why should they pay the same amount? In many cases, the program may have been used only a small amount, by one employee, which doesn't justify charging the company the full price. And why should the money go to the SPA? That is the most ludicrous aspect of the entire fiasco. If the software has been stolen from the company that released it, then the company that released it should get the money. If that compan{chooses to donate part of it to the SPA, then fine, but there is little reason why the SPA should get it. Sure, they can say that they prevent piracy, that they educate people against it, so they should get it, but the software wasn't stolen from them, so they should not be recompensated for what they didn't lose. I have always wondered how piracy figures are estimated. It always seemed to be one of those statistics akin to "35% of Americans don't answer surveys honestly.", or "21.5% of all shoplifters are never caught." From the CuD's description of the estimate, there are a lot of obvious sources of error. First, they use the number of Intel and Macintosh computers sold. While the Mac figures may be accurate, since all Macs have to go through Apple sometime, how can they know the number of IBM computers sold? There are so many different clone manufacturers, and all of them would have to know exactly how many computers they sold, and report that number to the Dataquest mareting form, for an accurate estimation to be had. I very much doubt that all of the minor clone makers did this, so right from the start we have an inaccurate fact #1. The second fact looked fine at first, until I noticed the sentence "The business applications sales are taken from the report and used to estimate the the total u7it sales..." Business applications? Business applications? What omniscient genius works for the SPA who can determine the total unit sales of all software in the U. S. from the number of business applications sold? How can you determine the number of games, 3-D rendering programs, anti-viral utilities, and any of the other myriad kinds of programs from the number of Business applications sold? Say bye-bye to fact number 2! I like the pro-Mac direction which the data in the third fact, shows, but I simply cannot believe that 5 is the average number of applications owned by Macintosh users. I have 24 applications that I have bought, and I don't buy software very often. I may not be a typical Mac user (I program, run a BBS, don't play many games), but I am not as prolific a program purchaser as many people I know, and even if I am the exception, there would have to be only 1 person with 24 applications for every 9.5 or so with 3 applications for the average to work. I simply can't believe that my 24 applications is that far of the norm for the Mac, certainly not far enough to justify the 5 application/mac theory. Then when you look at Intel-based machines, the figures look even worse. IBM has a much wider range of most kinds of software available to its users, so one would expect IBM users to have more software. It is true that Macintosh's ease-of-use may promote the buying of more software, but one would expect the high software availability for the IBM to balance the ease-of-use factor out. I am not surprised that the figures are so off, since part of the way in which those figures were obtained was by counting returned registration cards. How many of us actually return those damn things? I'm sure that there are a few conscientious people out there thinking "Of course, I return all of them. Doesn't everyone?", but most people aren't like that. I still have the ones from Christmas sitting on my desk, waiting to be filled out and mailed. So the SPA is now 0 for 3 in their basic postulates. I would only argue slightly with the fourth fact, which calculates average price of a piece of software. People are probably going to be more willing to pirate software that they can't afford, so the average price of a piece of pirated software is probably higher than that of a bought program. But that's only an educated guess, and it's difficult to be sure. So the SPA actually does have one fact that hasn't been twisted into nothingness. I don't even have to do much to debunk the final assumption. It's obvious that a large percentage of the programs that are bought are bought for computers that were not purchased within the past year. It is true that with dropping computer prices, rapid expansion of the home market, etc., many computers are new. But there are enough that aren't to destroy the credibility of this assumption. So now, using 3 skewed facts, an inaccurate assumption, and one fact that isn't too far off, the SPA thiNks that they can obtain an accurate answer. Somehow I doubt it. The entire process by which they obtain the answer is so far off, that I have no credence whatsoever in the answer which they obtained. I wouldn't be surprised if it was off by an order of magnitude or more, in either direction. But we'll never know, simply because their is no way to tell the total value of all pirated software. There are many other possible reasons for error, most of which the author of the CuD article states. It is clear that the SPA's estimates are incredibly inaccurate, and shouldn't be trusted. Yet, although even David Tremblay, the SPA Research Directory, admits fully that the figures are off, the SPA still uses them, as often as possible. They use them in their advertisements, literature, and educational material, treating the piracy estimates as incontrovertible fact, despite the fact that their own head of research admits their inaccuracies. In conclusion, the most recent issue of CuD has not left me with a good impression of the SPA. I like their educational efforts, and the fact that they are trying to curb the rampant piracy. But I feel that their methods of doing so are too harsh on small businesses, and the fact that they profit from successfully scaring the target company makes me doubt that they can maintain a truly objective demeanor. Since they benefit from intimidating the company subject to investigation, they have a strong economic incentive to prosecute as many companies as they can, without regard for innocence, and no incentive to only attack those that they feel are transgressors, rather than anyone they can bully. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 93 00:25:50 EST From: george c smith <70743.1711@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 3--TIME & Puzzlement TIME AND PUZZLEMENT - SUPERMARKET NEWS MAG MUGS "CYBERPUNK"; ALL HACKERS LOOK LIKE R. U. SIRIUS, DANCE TO HOUSE MUZIK, GOBBLE ECSTASY, QUOTE TIMOTHY LEARY Buzzwords, like "cyberpunk," I've decided, are cruel pranks sickeningly ambitious writers at glossy magazines use to make themselves instant authorities. Media magnification always makes these terms legitimate whether they are or not, so you know that while the TIME article on "cyberpunk" two weeks ago was pure baffle-crap (see, I can make my own buzzword, too), inside 4 months it will have spawned 6 like-minded articles in other supermarket magazines, taking on a complete life of its own. So, I'm gonna rehash some of this nonsense now, in hope that you laugh, because if you don't, when you see it again as truth in the coming weeks, you just might have to cry, Didja know, that the computer virus is "the cybernetic analogue of AIDS," a disease which has affected millions worldwide and caused horrifying death and human suffering? According to Phil Elmer-Dewitt of TIME, it's so! Didja know, according to certified geezer Timothy Leary, "the PC is the LSD of the '90s"? Like you, I thought this was a fatuous, self-serving statement. But then I thought about it some more and began to feel warm inside. Since I missed LSD when it came around the first time, it felt good to know that I now had an unending supply of it sitting on my desk, just in case I felt the need to be "groovy." Didja know, that now "cyberpunks" don't look like young men with coke-bottle thick glasses and plastic pocket-protectors? No, they look like young, less warty, versions of Tiny Tim (which is what R. U. Sirius looks like in the photo in TIME magazine). It's true! Didja know, cyberpunks listen to "house" music, that "post-industrial," droning, artsy stuff that bands with names like Surgical Penis Klinik and Throbbing Gristle couldn't sell in the '80s because it was "too" alternative, but now it's big business because computer dudes and dudettes don't like those dead, fat guys in Lynyrd Skynyrd. Yup, it's true! And boy am I bummed! What am I going to do with my Angry Samoans and Mentors records? Didja know, "without visual cues, people communicating on-line tend to flame: to state their views more heatedly than they would face to face?" Visual cues-visual schmoos - here I thought they did it because there was little chance they would get popped on the jaw for being a jerk. Didja know, the movie "Terminator 2" was a cult film? Didja know, that TIME magazine used the same virtual illustration of "virtual reality d00d sucking the face off a virtual reality d00dette" as the movie "The Lawnmower Man," and the magazines OMNI, COMPUTE, PC Computing, Byte, MacWorld, Discover, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, SPIN, Science News, Playboy, Penthouse, Gent, USA Today, Details, MONDO 2000, Dog Fancy, Cat Fancy, Harpers, The Atlantic, etc., etc., etc.? Didja know, that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a group that defends "exploratory hacking"? Well, they didn't know and they seemed pissed in Computer underground Digest when they found out. Didja know, that TIME magazine is now sold with samples of cheap men's cologne, along with ads for "Elvis not dead" books and chemicals which will chase away your male pattern baldness? It's true! George/Urnst, The Crypt Newsletter ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 15:12:35 EST From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 4--Technology and Populist Publishing (GEnie Reprint) GE Mail From--P.SHAPIRO1 Phil Shapiro Sub--Something's Not Quite Right Something's Not Quite Right in the Publishing World Today Something's not quite right in the publishing world today. You'd think that in this Information Age more people would be writing more books than ever before, that small new publishing companies would be springing up to bring promising new authors to market, that a new Renaissance would be blooming in the world of books, the arts, and culture in general. Not so. It's as difficult as ever, today, to bring a new book to market. No established publishing company will consider a manuscript that is delivered "over the transom" (unsolicited). The only way to approach a publishing company is through a book agent, and finding the right book agent is enough to discourage all but the most intrepid new authors. Furthermore, even if the larger publishing houses did take time to consider a book by a previously unpublished author, and even if they found the ideas or story fresh and original, they'd decline to market it unless they could sell sufficiently large quantities of the book to make a substantial profit. The publishing of books has become big business. Books are no longer treated as precious vessels of ideas, but rather as any other common commodity. Wheat. Pork. Books. Shampoo. Deodorant. Book lovers cringe at the thought that the business of books has been reduced to the buying and selling of a crass commodity. Books are no mere commodity. They're one of the most precious things we own. A well-written book is the essence of human spirit, captured in tangible form for all the world to enjoy. The commercialization of the book, and the sorry state of today's publishing industry, is well-chronicled in a 1989 book titled, "Beyond the Bestseller: A Literary Agent Takes You Inside the Book Business," by Richard Curtis. Written by a successful literary agent with over 25 years experience in the business, the book speaks with some candor about the flawed process which modern publishing houses use to publish books. In the final chapter, "Toward Reform," Curtis crystallizes his comments: "The publishing industry is critically ailing, and no one, from the creator of the written word to the consumer, is untouched. The signs are everywhere, some statistically demonstrable, others less tangible but manifest to anyone who has been in the business long enough to watch it evolve. Some of the more commonly voiced ones are: of publishers on big-name authors. selling of publishing companies. current best-sellers. royalties with authors. their influence on editorial policies. cheating them out of royalties. Obviously, there is no single comprehensive explanation of what has gone wrong, nor any all-embracing solution. Still, it is surprising that authors, agents, publishers, booksellers, and other book people, highly intelligent individuals all, should continue applying patches and poultices to the symptoms when it is clear that the dimensions of the problem call for a thorough reevaluation of the way things are done in the publishing industry." But while the publishing world looks more dismal than ever, there is hope on the horizon. It's entirely possible that new technologies will arise that will undermine the monopoly the big New York City publishing houses have on the distribution of books. Such technologies could take one of two forms: print and non-print. If you're talking non-print publishing, you're talking about the electronic book. A device the size and shape of a regular book, with a sharp monochrome screen. Reading material would be distributed on some sort of magnetic or optical medium. Cartridges, it would seem, would be the favored distribution form. You plug the cartridge into the device, choose the font size you'd like to read in (and perhaps the typeface as well). The device would then display the text at a user-controllable rate of display, automatically clearing the screen once the text reached the bottom of the display. The rate of display would be controlled by a rotatable dial that would serve as a sort of "gas pedal" for the device. Some devices might have hypertext capability built in. Other devices might have audio capability built in, where word pronunciation would be available at the touch of keystroke. Such extra features would be available at a premium cost, though. The basic electronic book would be manufactured at the lowest possible cost for the largest possible distribution. New print publishing technologies are likely to continue along the lines of the desktop publishing revolution. What's needed is a dedicated "bookmaker" device that would accept a high density 3.5 inch floppy, and churn out a bound book in the output tray. Using text compression routines, over two megabtyes of text can be squeezed onto a high density 3.5 inch floppy. Two megabytes worth of text is equivalent to about 250,000 words. (One page of typed text, 250 words, is equivalent to about 2K of memory.) So most normal length books could quite comfortably fit onto one high density 3.5 inch floppy (using the text compression routines.) The dedicated bookmaker device could then churn out a book on demand. The advantages offered by a dedicated bookmaker are enormous. Out-of-print books could be easily retrieved and distributed to those interested in reading them. Books could be sent inexpensively across country by air mail. (Or, a book could be transferred via modem to anyone interested in reading it.) A large part of publishing costs is the printing and physical distribution of the book. With the bookmaker device, the cost of distributing the book would plummet ten-fold. The consumer could then decide whether to print the book out in hard copy, or to read the book on the electronic book device. Those without a personal bookmaker device in their homes would have access to such a device at a public library. (Such a device would be coin-operated, much like a photocopying machine.) But most exciting would be the rise of energetic new book publishers who could take advantage of the economies of the new technology to distribute works by promising new authors, non-mainstream thinkers, and others who are currently excluded from the publishing enterprise. Anyone with access to a disk drive could open up a publishing company. The resulting flood of new books would most certainly contain a lot of low quality material. But the advantages of the bookmaker and electronic book far outweigh the disadvantages of having to put up with reams of lower quality prose. The lower quality prose can simply be sifted through by book reviewers, who'd erect signposts pointing towards the truly worthy reading. In terms of the bookmaker device, it would be best to have the device be constructed from the lowest cost electronic components that could still yield high quality print. So a low-cost printer along the lines of the Apple StyleWriter, with 360 dots per inch output, and very slow printing, would serve the purpose of a bookmaker device very well. The actual bookmaker would be a dedicated device, about the size of a current 3.5 inch drive, that would plug into a printer like the Apple StyleWriter. For the printing of longer books, you would just leave the device on overnight. Eventually newspaper and magazines would offer "bookmaker subscriptions" at a reduced rate than their regular "hard copy" subscriptions. These monthly or daily publications would be delivered either on disk, or via modem. After all, it doesn't make sense to print a newspaper across town, and physically deliver it to your front doorstep, when for the same trouble they could deliver the information across town, and you could print it (or read it on screen) in your own home. In some sense, the sorry state of today's publishing industry is a welcome impetus for the rise of a new industry based on the magneto-optic distribution of text. The primary beneficiary of such a new industry will be the book consumer, who'll have a far greater selection of books to read, at a far lower cost. A populist revolution in publishing is just around the corner. And just as surely as in Gutenberg's day, a new Renaissance will flourish amid all the creative and expressive arts. Phil Shapiro [The author takes an interest in the social dimensions of communications technology. He can be reached by electronic mail on GEnie at: P.Shapiro1; America Online at: pshapiro; Internet: pshapiro@pro-novapple.cts.com] This text is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:38:00 EDT From: d.mccauley1@GENIE.GEIS.COM Subject: File 5--"Time Bomb" Detonated In Pennsylvania Time Bomb Detonated In Pennsylvania by Dennis McCauley copyright, 1993 A Pennsylvania meat packing company has filed a civil action in Bucks County Court against its former systems consultant, charging that the consultant inserted a software "time bomb" into the client's RealWorld financial accounting system. According to the suit filed on behalf of John Lustig Meats, Inc., the consulting firm, Sparrow Systems, Inc. of Lansdale, PA, had provided hardware and software support to Lustig for a number of years. On May 3rd, 1991, Lustig engaged Sparrow to upgrade the company's RealWorld system to the new version 6.0. The contract specified customized programming services in addition to software and installation charges. Lustig paid Sparrow in excess of $20,000 for installation of the upgrade. On September 15, 1991, Lustig's RealWorld system suddenly crashed. It would no longer accept orders, nor would it generate customer information, invoices, or receipts. As a result, the suit claims, Lustig was forced to handle orders manually, and suffered lost profits and goodwill, as well as additional personnel costs, and "investigation and analysis" expenses. The "investigation and analysis expenses" refer to Lustig's hiring of a second consultant, who rather quickly found and disarmed the time bomb, which was date-sensitive, and had been triggered by the system clock. A brief filed on behalf of Sparrow Systems specifically denied that a time bomb was installed on Lustig's system. It is interesting to note, however, that in a short article which appeared in a local newspaper the day after the suit was filed, Sparrow's president, William Mann, was quoted as saying, "We don't have any comment about whether we did or did not install a time bomb." Representatives of Sparrow Systems have refused comment on the case during preparation of this report. Several uninvolved system consultants indicated that installation of time bombs, while not standard practice, was not unheard of as a hedge against clients who failed to pay for services. A counterclaim filed on behalf of Sparrow Systems alleging that Lustig owes the consulting firm $2,700 seems to support this theory. The case raises serious issues about such practices, including the ethical considerations involved in placing a potentially damaging software device in anyone's system, much less that of a client. While Lustig v. Sparrow is a civil matter, it remains unclear as to whether criminal action might be an option in similar cases. Noted computer crime prosecutor Ken Citarella, of the Westchester County District Attorney's Office, indicated that the critical question in determining whether a criminal prosecution was warranted would be ownership of the software in question. In this case, it appears that Lustig purchased the RealWorld upgrade through Sparrow Systems, authorizing Sparrow to make certain agreed-upon custom modifications, none of which was the inclusion of a crippling time bomb. As of this writing, Sparrow still retains the source code, pending the outcome of the litigation. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 93 11:18:52 From: Chiwatcher@DRKTOWR.CHI.IL.US Subject: File 6--(fwd) CICnet rural datafication / ubiquitous access This promises to be a good gathering - it's the first time as far as I know that there's been a major effort to organize folks toward the goal of wide spread low cost access to the Internet as a goal separate from the usual push towards high speed networking for elites. Apologies if you've seen this multiple times, I'm trying to get it out to some places where it might stir up discussion on how the local, regional, or national efforts fit in. Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563) From--KIDSNET Mailing List Date--Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:35:33 -0500 From--Kimberly Shaffer Subject--Rural Datafication Conference Announcement Preliminary Program Announcement Rural Datafication: Achieving the goal of Ubiquitous Access to the Internet May 14, 1993 Chicago, IL A joint conference focused on extending the services of the Internet to difficult-to-reach and typically under-served user communities. Jointly sponsored by CICNet and the following state networks Illinois: netILLINOIS Indiana: INDnet Iowa: IREN Michigan: MichNet Minnesota: MRNet New York: NYSERNet Wisconsin: WiscNet Conference focus and theme: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CICNet is pleased to announce Rural Datafication as a major cooperative initiative among nine networking organizations committed to the creation of ubiquitous data networking services throughout their region and, indeed, throughout the nation. As part of this initiative, these organizations have agreed to co-sponsor a conference which builds on an already successful collaboration between CICNet and the above networks and which will focus on two primary areas: 1. Ways to most effectively respond to user communities which desire Internet services but which are currently unable to obtain Internet access. 2. Ways to best enhance existing services to those populations which which make use of non-dedicated connections: i.e., users whose access to the Internet is via dial-up modem rather than high speed dedicated lines. The focus includes users who use SLIP and PPP to get direct connections to the Internet, and users who use Internet facilities via dial-up terminal emulation. Come, join, and assist us as we plan for increased access for such communities. Examples include elementary and high schools, public libraries, small businesses, organizations located in remote geographic areas, and the rapidly evolving community of users who need Internet access from their homes. Help us develop ideas for new programs and services both useful and interesting. Meet other people who are committed to expanding the network's usefulness. Intended Audience: ++++++++++++++++++ We invite you to meet with us to share information and successes you may have, to learn from the information and successes of others, to talk with people interested in developing the potential of networks, and to discuss ways to develop the rural datafication theme as a major initiative focused on meeting the needs of the user communities discussed throughout this announcement. This conference is specifically intended for three key communities: 1. Providers of networked information, whether they be network organizations or not, who are committed to assisting us as we pursue our rural datafication strategy. 2. Users of networked information: teachers, researchers, librarians, scientists, lawyers, bankers -- in short, those who are interested in contributing to and gaining from the growing electronically- connected community. We are particularly interested in attracting users interested in the rural datafication concept. 3. Perhaps of most importance, potential users of networked information who which to either learn about the network or advise us on how best to construct a truly pervasive and ubiquitous data network. Agenda, dates and times: +++++++++++++++++++++++ Friday, May 14th: Opening remarks begin at 9:15 am Closing remarks will conclude at 4:30 PM An optional early registration and opening Reception will be held on Thursday, May 13th from 5 - 7pm. Location and fees: +++++++++++++++++ McCormick Center Hotel Lake Shore Drive at 23rd Street Chicago, IL 60616 +1.312.791.1900 Conference room rates: Single $85; Double $95 Conference fee: $69 -- includes Friday lunch, morning and afternoon breaks, and Thursday's registration reception For Additional Information: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To be placed on the list to receive additional information, please email, mail, or fax your request for additional information to: email: may14@cic.net fax: +1.313.998.6105 mail: Rural Datafication CICNet 2901 Hubbard Ann Arbor, MI 48105 We will need either your e-mail or postal address with the request for additional information. We would like you to list a particular area of interest that you have, relevant to the theme of the conference. Queries may also be directed to Julie-Elise Burroughs at +1.313.998.6103 or to Glee Cady at +1.313.998.6419 Registration: +++++++++++++ If you wish to register for the conference now, please enclose a check or money order for $69 made payable to CICNet, Inc, and mail it, along with the registration information below, to: Rural Datafication CICNet 2901 Hubbard Ann Arbor, MI 48105 REGISTRATION FORM Rural Datafication Conference May 14, 1993 McCormick Center Hotel Chicago, IL Please print or type the following information: Name: Title: Organization: Address: City: State/Province: Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email: List a particular interest you have which is relevant to the theme of the conference: Cancellations: Full refunds will be made for cancellations received by April 26th. There will be no partial refunds. Hotel Reservations: Please make your reservations directly with the McCormick Center Hotel. When you speak with the reservations desk, mention the date and name CICNet to receive the special conference rates. The $69 fee includes Friday lunch, morning and afternoon breaks, and Thursday's registration reception Please mail this form along with a check for $69 made out to CICNet: Rural Datafication CICNet 2901 Hubbard Ann Arbor, MI 48105 For additional information or assistance, you may send email to may14@cic.net; for assistance by telephone, call Julie-Elise Burroughs at +1.313.998.6103 or Glee Cady at +1.313.998.6419. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #5.15 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank