Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 7 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 84 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim

---
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 Nov 7 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 84 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 Ian Dickinson Copy Eatitor: Etaoin Shrdlu, III CONTENTS, #5.84 (Nov 7 1993) File 1--Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 Conference File 2--CFP '94 Scholarship Announcements File 3--Korea 94: Call for Papers File 4--CPSR NII Paper File 5--DES: Broken! File 6--NAFTA mandates software patents (fwd) File 7--Phiber Optik Sentenced to One Year in Prison Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), 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 DL1 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 Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893; In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 ANONYMOUS FTP SITES: AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD. EUROPE: ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland) UNITED STATES: aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/cud ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom) 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. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, 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: 1 Nov 93 09:59:46 CST From: 7TRUBOW@JMLS.EDU Subject: File 1--Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 Conference ((MODERATORS' NOTE: We will re-run the CFP '94 information periodically to remind readers that, although it will be held in March, that various deadlines for proposals, scholarships, and paper competition loom)). COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY '94 Conference Announcement Scholarships, Writing Competition Notice 23-26 March 1994, Chicago, Il. The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy," (CFP'94) will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994. The conference is hosted by The John Marshall Law School; George B. Trubow, professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics Law at John Marshall, is general chair of the conference. The program is sponsored jointly by these Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Groups: Communications (SIGCOMM); Computers and Society (SIGCAS); Security, Audit and Control (SIGSAC). The advance of computer and communications technologies holds great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health and safety and increased participation in government and community, these technologies are fundamentally transforming our environment and our lives. At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the idea of a free and open society. Personal privacy and corporate security is at risk from invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of personal information data bases expose private life to constant scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the traditional barriers between citizen and state and present new tests of Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state and nation may be recast by information exchange that knows no boundaries in global data networks. CFP'94 will assemble experts, advocates and interest groups from diverse perspectives and disciplines to consider freedom and privacy in today's "information society. Tutorials will be offered on March 23, 1994, from 9:00 a.m. - noon and 2:00 - 500 p.m. The conference program is Thursday, March 24, through Saturday, March 26, 1994, and will examine the potential benefits and burdens of new information and communications technologies and consider ways in which society can enjoy the benefits while minimizing negative implications. STUDENT PAPER COMPETITION Full time college or graduate students may enter the student paper competition. Papers must not exceed 3000 words and should address the impact of computer and telecommunications technologies on freedom and privacy in society. Winners will receive financial support to attend the conference and present their papers. All papers should be submitted by December 15, 1993, (either as straight text via e-mail or 6 printed copies) to: Prof. Eugene Spafford, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1398. E-Mail: spaf@cs.purdue.edu; Voice: 317-494-7825 SCHOLARSHIPS The Chair for scholarships is John McMullen, assisted by Jim Thomas, Sociology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. 60115-2854. For more information, contact John McMullen (mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us). Scholarships will cover only the cost of the registration fee, which includes 3 luncheons, 2 receptions, 2 dinners and conference materials. CONFERENCE REGISTRATION INFORMATION Registration fees are as follows: If paid by: 1/31/94 3/15/94 4/23/94 Early Regular Late Tutorial $145 $175 $210 Conference 315 370 420 NOTE: ACM members (give membership number) and John Marshall Alumni (give graduation date) receive a $10 discount from Tutorial and $15 discount from Conference fees. CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: Inquiries regarding registration should be directed to RoseMarie Knight, Registration Chair, at the JMLS address above; her voice number is 312-987-1420; E-mail, 6rknight@jmls.edu. CONFERENCE INFORMATION: Communications regarding the conference should be sent to: CFP'94, The John Marshall Law School, 315 S. Plymouth Ct., Chicago, IL 60604-3907 (Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu) ROOM RESERVATIONS: The Palmer House Hilton, located in Chicago's "loop," and only about a block from The John Marshall Law School, is the conference headquarters. Room reservations only should be made directly with the hotel, mentioning "CFP'94" to get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax. (17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603, Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556) NOTE: More specific information about conference program content will be available December 1, 1993. *********** George B. Trubow, Professor of Law Director, Center for Informatics Law The John Marshall Law School 315 S. Plymouth Ct. Chicago, IL 60604-3907 Fax: 312-427-8307; Voice: 312-987-1445 E-mail: 7trubow@jmls.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Nov 93 10:00:42 EST From: mcmullen@MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM(John F. McMullen) Subject: File 2--CFP '94 Scholarship Announcements The Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP'94) is pleased to announce that it will once again provide a number of full tuition scholarships for attendance at the conference. The conference will be held in Chicago, IL from March 23rd through March 26th, 1995 and will be hosted by the John Marshall Law School under the chairmanship of George Trubow. The conference traditionally attracts an extremely diverse group of persons concerned with issues relating to the rapid development of the "information society"; civil libertarians, information providers, law enforcement personnel, privacy advocates, "hackers", sociologists, educators and students, computer professionals, cryptography advocates, government policy makers and other interested parties have all played major roles in the three previous conference. Speakers at previous conferences have included Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-founders John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor, FBI Deputy Director William A. "Al" Bayse, writer Bruce Sterling, privacy advocate Simon Davies, Harvard University law professor Lawrence Tribe, hacker "Phiber Optik", Georgetown University's Dorothy Denning, "Cuckoo's Egg" author Clifford Stoll, Prodigy counsel George Perry, USA Today founder Al Neuwith, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)'s Marc Rotenberg, Arizona prosecutor Gail Thackeray, and Bay Area Women in Computing's Judi Clark. The scholarships are intended to provide access to the conference to those that would like to attend the conference but are unable to afford the tuition. They are available to undergraduate and graduate students in any discipline (previous student attendees have come from computer science, law, sociology, liberal arts, journalism, and womens' studies backgrounds), law enforcement personnel, hackers, social scientists, and others interested in the future of the information society. Persons interested in a scholarship should send the following information (e-mail greatly preferred) to: John F. McMullen CFP'94 Scholarship Chair Perry Street Jefferson Valley, NY 10535 mcmullen@panix.com (914) 245-2734 (voice) (914) 245-8464 (fax) 1. Personal Information -- Name, Addresses (including e-mail), Phone Numbers, School and/or Business Affiliation 2. Short Statement explaining what the applicant helps to get from CFP'94 and what impact that attendance may have in the applicant's community or future work. 3. Stipulation that the applicant understands that he/she is responsible for transportation and lodging expenses related to the conference. The scholarship includes tuition and those meals included with the conference. 4. Stipulation that the applicant would not be able to attend the conference if a scholarship is not granted. 5. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will attend the conference. 6. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will provide a written critique of the conference to the scholarship committee by April 30, 1994. Applications will be accepted until December 31, 1993 and scholarship winners will be notified by approximately February 1, 1994. Please contact John McMullen at the above e-mail address or phone numbers with any questions. John F. McMullen mcmullen@mindvox.phantom.com Consultant, knxd@maristb.bitnet mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us Writer, ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 19:23:21 CDT From: Joel Sax Subject: File 3--Korea 94: Call for Papers +------------------------Original message---------------------------- Respond to hfrederick@igc.apc.org. Subject--Korea 94*Intl Communication*Call for Papers [Please excuse if you have received this by other channels. Please feel free to cross-post as appropriate. Howard Frederick] Call for Papers International Communication Section INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH "Communication in the New Millennium: Communication Technology for Humanity" July 3-8, 1994, Seoul, Korea The International Association for Mass Communication Research (IAMCR) is the largest professional organization in its field. The Association has consultative status with various United Nations bodies and cooperates closely with regional communication research associations. The conference theme COMMUNICATION IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM: COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY FOR HUMANITY reminds us that the technology and the process of human communication within and between national societies is essential for building a shared world that protects both the biosphere and the sociosphere. All correspondence and submissions shall be directed to the Section convenor: Howard H. Frederick, School of International Service, The American University, Washington, DC 20016 USA. Office: +1-202-885-1635 Fax: +1-202-885-2494 Email: hfrederick@igc.apc.org With the author's permission, papers accepted for the Section's panels will be recommended for appropriate issues of _Journal of International Communication_. PANELS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION SECTION INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE TECHNOLOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION. Examines the impact global channels of communication on international relations. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT: LESSONS FROM RECENT HISTORY. Examines how mass media coverage has affected international crises, with a special focus on events in Asia. Papers are especially invited on Bosnia, Cambodia, Somalia, Korea, Palestine, East Timor. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Explores the the role of international broadcasting in international affairs. THE MACBRIDE MOVEMENT AND THE EVOLVING RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE Investigates the movement for a new international information and communication order, human rights, and especially the evolving right to communicate. Assesses the progress and prospects of the movement toward a new world information and communication order. GLOBAL COMMUNICATION AS A FIELD OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN THE POST COLD WAR ERA Questions the traditional definitions of international communication and its impact on communication education in light of the globalization of all communication research. THE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY: ASIAN CONCERNS. Probes the issues and controversies surrounding regional and international telecommunications policy with a special focus on Asia. OLYMPISM AND GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY. Explores the social and political impact of media channels on sports, and especially the Olympic Games. COMPUTERS AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS. Examines the growing impact of global computer networks on the field of international communications. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION. Discusses how the International Communication Section can assist the emergence of this new academic journal. COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES. Examines role of entertainment programming in national development with a focus on soap opera/telenovelas, serial fiction, infotainment, co-productions, and reality-based series. The International Communication Section will hold elections in Korea for a new President/Convenor. People who are interested in running may send their names to Ingrid Schulze by January 15 (see address below) and should include a curriculum vita and a 250-word statement of intention. Candidates nominations will be accepted until July 1994. The International Communication Section is currently led by a President (Howard Frederick, see above) and three Vice Presidents: Abbas Malek, Department of Radio-Television-Film, Howard University, School of Communications, Washington DC 20059 USA +1-202-806-7927 (o) +1-703-849-0019 (h) +1-202-483-5352 (f) email: amalek@auvm.american.edu ; Ingrid Schulze Schneider, Universidad Complutense, Facultad de C.C.I.I, Avda. Complutense, S/N, Madrid 28040 Spain +34-1-394-2131 (o) +34-1-859-9218 (h) +34-1-859- 9692 (f) ; Anantha Babbili, Texas Christian University, Department of Journalism, Box 32930, Fort Worth TX 76129 USA +1-817-921-7425 (o) +1-817- 732-2990 (h) +1-817-921-7133 (f) email: babbili@gamma.is.tcu.edu How to respond to the Calls for Papers Abstracts (2 pages or about 800 words) should be sent before 15 January 1994 to the convenor. At the same time the author should send a Brief Abstract (200 words) to the convenor. Brief Abstracts of accepted papers will be published in the "Book of Abstracts" which all conference participants will receive in Seoul. The convenors will select Papers to be presented, and inform the authors accordingly by 15 February 1994. At the same time convenors should send Brief Abstracts of accepted papers to the editor of the Seoul "Book of Abstracts", IAMCR Secretary General Robin Cheesman. For Brief Abstracts use the form included in the October IAMCR Newsletter. Or you may send your Brief Abstract by e-mail (preferred). Final papers have to reach convenors not later than 30 March 1994. Abstracts and Papers can be sent by mail or when appropriate by e-mail. Do not use fax, since the quality of fax is not good enough for reproduction and we do not retype them. ------------------------------ From: Dave Banisar Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 21:14:55 EST Subject: File 4--CPSR NII Paper CPSR NII Paper FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Todd Newman (CA) 415-390-1614 Eric Roberts (CA) 415-723-3642 Coralee Whitcomb (MA) 617-356-4309 Marc Rotenberg (D.C.) 202-544-9240 COMPUTER SCIENTISTS RAISE SOCIAL AND DESIGN CONCERNS ABOUT THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY Palo Alto, Calif., October 25, 1993 -- In the wake of sudden corporate mergers and rapid technological developments, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) today voiced concern that the planned information superhighway will not realize its full potential. The public interest organization put forward specific guidelines for the National Information Infrastructure (NII) in a paper titled, "Serving the Community: A Public-Interest Vision of the National Information Infrastructure." Urging the Clinton Administration to move quickly to adopt these principles, CPSR President Eric Roberts said, "Although there is widespread agreement on general goals, there is no specific plan to ensure that these goals are met." "It is much easier to state a vision than to achieve it, " said Dr. Roberts, who is also Associate Chair of the Computer Science department at Stanford University. "And there are many dangers on the horizon that threaten to compromise the value of the NII as a resource for the public. "For example, if a small number of companies dominate the market, we're in danger of stifling competition and innovation on the network. If those same companies control the programming, then open and diverse speech is limited. If pricing structures do not cover universal service, the average person and the poor will be struggling to use the backroads of the information highway. If privacy isn't protected, your TV could keep more detailed records of your finances than the IRS. And, if the NII is not designed to allow everyone to communicate freely and to publish their own contributions, it could become nothing more than a medium for delivering 500-channel television, with interactivity limited to home-shopping and trying to guess the next play during sporting events." CPSR's paper expands on these dangers and makes specific policy and technical recommendations for the newly formed Information Infrastructure Task Force. The Task Force is expected to coordinate network policy for the Clinton Administration. "In its 'Agenda for Action' document, the Administration has set forth a positive vision of what the NII can be," said Dr. Roberts. "To achieve that vision, however, the government must play a major role in the design, development, and regulation of the network." CPSR recommends that the Administration adopt the following policies: o Promote widespread economic benefits by evaluating the NII's economic success using measures that reflect its impact on the society as a whole, not merely the profits of NII investors and service providers. o Evaluate the social impact of the NII by conducting periodic reviews as the NII is implemented and used to guarantee that it continues to serve the public interest. o Guarantee equitable and universal access through an appropriate mix of legislation, regulation, taxation, and direct subsidies. o Promote the development of a vital civic sector by ensuring resources, training, and support for public spaces within the NII where citizens can pursue noncommercial activities. o Promote a diverse and competitive marketplace in terms of the content carried over the NII. o Provide access to government services and information over the NII. o Encourage democratic participation by ensuring full public disclosure, and actively promoting democratic decision-making and public participation in all stages of the development process. o Actively facilitate the seamless connection of America's NII with the information infrastructures of other nations by working to resolve such issues as security, censorship, tariffs, and privacy. o Guarantee the functional integrity of the NII by establishing critical technical requirements including ease of use, widespread availability, full functionality, high reliability, adequate privacy protection, and evolutionary expansion. The recommendations follow from a yearlong review of the NII conducted by CPSR. The process included collecting more than 1,200 suggestions for NII policy from network users across the country, drafting a report, holding special chapter meetings on the NII in Berkeley, Boston, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., and having a multiple-draft review process by the membership. Final changes to the report were made at the annual meeting of CPSR, where the report was adopted unanimously by the CPSR Board of Directors. Dr. Roberts noted that he was very pleased by the level of participation in the NII report. "The computer community knows that the NII is the critical technological issue facing the United States today. Our members were extremely responsive when we asked them to participate in this project, because they understand from their own experience how much the NII has to offer." CPSR also worked closely with the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (TPR), a coalition of more than sixty nonprofit, consumer, labor and civil rights organizations based in Washington, DC. CPSR's paper endorses the principles set forth by TPR. TPR will unveil its founding principles in a press conference, Tuesday, October 26th at 10:00 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. CPSR is planning a conference next April in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the future of the NII, The Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing. The conference will investigate at a more specific level how to achieve the principles in the CPSR report. Founded in 1981, CPSR is a national, nonprofit, public interest organization of computer professionals and others concerned with the impact of computer technology on society. With offices in Palo Alto, California, and Washington D.C., and 22 chapters across the country, CPSR works to encourage public discussion of decisions involving the use of computers in systems critical to society and to challenge the assumption that technology alone can solve political and social problems. CPSR's NII paper is available electronically by sending email to listserv@cpsr.org. In the message write the command "GET CPSR NII_POLICY" The paper will automatically be mailed to you. You can also FTP/WAIS/Gopher cpsr.org/nii/cpsr_nii_policy.txt. For a hard copy of the paper or for more information about CPSR, call 415-322-3778 or write to cpsr@cpsr.org. For information about the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable, contact Jeff Chester at 202-628-2620 or cme@access.digex.net. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 02:03:24 -0800 From: jonpugh@NETCOM.COM(Jon Pugh) Subject: File 5--DES: Broken! I would like to thank everyone who responded to my query regarding a report of DES being broken. I would especially like to thank Charles Mattair for sending me Michael Wiener's entire paper ala PostScript. Mr. Wiener is employed by Bell-Northern Research in Ontario, Canada. Here is the abstract for his paper: "Abstract. Despite recent improvements in analytic techniques for attacking the Data Encryption Standard (DES), exhaustive key search remains the most practical and efficient attack. Key search is becoming alarmingly practical. We show how to build an exhaustive DES key search machine for $1 million that can f ind a key in 3.5 hours on average. The design for such a machine is described in detail for the purpose of assessing the resistance of DES to an exhaustive attack. This design is based on mature technology to avoid making guesses about future capabilities. With this approach, DES keys can be found one to two orders of magnitude faster than other recently proposed designs. The basic machine design can be adapted to attack the standard DES modes of operation for a small penalty in running time. The issues of development cost and machine reliability are examined as well. In light of this work, it would be prudent in many applications to use DES in a triple-encryption mode." The paper describes the basic search as beginning from a plaintext-ciphertext pair and trying keys until one is found which will turn the plaintext into the cyphertext. The basis for the technique's speed is that neither the plaintext or cyphertext needs to be output and thus IO bottlenecks are removed. This technique does not directly attack a given ciphertext without a corresponding plaintext and thus does not directly attempt to break a DES encrypted cyphertext. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see the applicability of this machine in decrypting DES encoded information unless one is in possession of a "Rosetta Stone" using the same key, and I think the chances of that are highly unlikely. The intent of the paper seems to be merely to indicate that DES is within the range of being broken. It closes with a proposal that all serious DES encryption be done in "triple-encryption mode". This is where you encode with key 1, decode with key 2 and encode with key 3. The middle operation seems to be reversed merely to give the operation the effect of being the same as a single DES encryption when the 3 keys are identical, but to get the proper effect the three keys should be different and unrelated. Thus, my initial take from the short report I saw before was misleading. DES is not really "broken" in that there is still no way to take an arbitrary cipertext and turn it into the proper plaintext in the 3.5 hours mentioned in the paper. Once again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I will be making the paper available to the CuD archive and others once I get my anonymous ftp directory set up. It is 424K of PostScript and much too large to mail reliably (although I only lost 1 character when Charles mailed it to me in 10 parts). ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 16:57:40 -1200 From: ygoland@SEAS.UCLA.EDU Subject: File 6--NAFTA mandates software patents (fwd) From--lpf@uunet.uu.net (The League for Programming Freedom) Sender--friedman@frob.com Subject--NAFTA mandates software patents Date--Fri, 29 Oct 93 20:57:36 -0400 [Please post this widely, wherever appropriate. The LPF is also collecting signatures from famous people who would be willing to "lend their names". We plan to send this piece to Congress and elsewhere. If you're interested, please contact lpf@uunet.uu.net.] NAFTA and Software Patents by the League for Programming Freedom If you believe software patents are harmful to software development--or that the patent system for software has problems and needs to be changed--or if you are *not yet sure*--then you need to be concerned about NAFTA now. Opposition to software patents seems to be the majority view in our field. Two ACM surveys at well-attended conferences (SIGCHI and SIGGRAPH) showed a large majority of attendees entirely opposed to software patents. Most of the software companies applying for patents say their actions are for defensive purposes, because they fear being attacked with patents. Among those not prepared to advocate a system of no patents in software--the system the US had until a decade ago--many agree that some change needs to be made. Even the Patent Office has recognized there is a problem, and has scheduled hearings for 1994. But before the hearings start, NAFTA may make them futile. NAFTA probably directly or indirectly prohibits all the proposed approaches for addressing the problem. Those of us entirely opposed to software patents would like to eliminate them. There are two ways of doing this. One is to exempt software from the patent system. NAFTA clearly bars such a change, by requiring that patents apply to products of any kind. Another way is not to issue patents that cover computational steps alone. (This approach would not do anything about the thousands of existing software patents.) NAFTA does not directly address this sort of rule, but the "all fields of technology" requirement may rule out this approach. (There is no way to find out for certain now; what we can predict is that IBM will argue that it is ruled out.) On the other hand, if we do not abolish software patents entirely, we could reduce their harmful impact by changing other aspects of the software patent system. For example, some have proposed that patents on software should last just a few years, since a program a few years old is obsolete for most commercial purposes. But NAFTA requires patents to last at least seventeen years. An automatic mandatory licensing system could eliminate most of the problems that patents cause. However, NAFTA forbids any sort of automatic mandatory licensing. The conclusion: if you believe that software patents cause problems and that a change in the patent system *might* be necessary for software, then join us now in calling for the rejection of NAFTA as it stands, so that this part can be changed. What you should do is write or phone your senators and representative. A brief letter in your own words is the most effective way to communicate your views to them. The following addresses work for all federal legislators: Honorable ... US Senate Washington DC 20510 Honorable ... US House of Representatives Washington DC 20515 It is also useful to send a copy to Representative Gephardt (one of the leading opponents of NAFTA as it stands) as well as your own elected officials. If you write your letter by computer, it would be helpful to send a copy by email to lpf@uunet.uu.net. We could show these copies on other occasions such as when the Patent Office reconsiders the issue. A second proposed treaty, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), has even stronger requirements on patents. So it would be useful to mention in your letter that you are concerned about GATT as well. The success of the Liberal party in Canada gives us a reprieve--a chance for changing NAFTA. It's up to us to make sure this part of NAFTA is reconsidered. Let's not waste this opportunity. For those interested in checking these conclusions, the text of the patents section of NAFTA appears below. Article 1709: Patents [Text as received from U.S. government email server, with whitespace cleaned up.] 1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that such inventions are new, result from an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. For purposes of this Article, a Party may deem the terms "inventive step" and "capable of industrial application" to be synonymous with the terms "non-obvious" and "useful", respectively. 2. A Party may exclude from patentability inventions if preventing in its territory the commercial exploitation of the inventions is necessary to protect order public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that the exclusion is not based solely on the ground that the Party prohibits commercial exploitation in its territory of the subject matter of the patent. 3. A Party may also exclude from patentability: (a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; (b) plants and animals other than microorganisms; and (c) essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, other than non-biological and microbiological processes for such production. Notwithstanding subparagraph (b), each Party shall provide for the protection of plant varieties through patents, an effective scheme of sui generis protection, or both. 4. If a Party has not made available product patent protection for pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicals commensurate with paragraph 1: (a) as of January 1, 1992, for subject matter that relates to naturally occurring substances prepared or produced by, or significantly derived from, microbiological processes and intended for food or medicine, and (b) as of July 1, 1991, for any other subject matter, that Party shall provide to the inventor of any such product or its assignee the means to obtain product patent protection for such product for the unexpired term of the patent for such product granted in another Party, as long as the product has not been marketed in the Party providing protection under this paragraph and the person seeking such protection makes a timely request. 5. Each Party shall provide that: (a) where the subject matter of a patent is a product, the patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent other persons from making, using or selling the subject matter of the patent, without the patent owner's consent; and (b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, the patent shall confer on the patent owner the right to prevent other persons from using that process and from using, selling, or importing at least the product obtained directly by that process, without the patent owner's consent. 6. A Party may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of other persons. 7. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology, the territory of the Party where the invention was made and whether products are imported or locally produced. 8. A Party may revoke a patent only when: (a) grounds exist that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent; or (b) the grant of a compulsory license has not remedied the lack of exploitation of the patent. 9. Each Party shall permit patent owners to assign and transfer by succession their patents, and to conclude licensing contracts. 10. Where the law of a Party allows for use of the subject matter of a patent, other than that use allowed under paragraph 6, without the authorization of the right holder, including use by the government or other persons authorized by the government, the Party shall respect the following provisions: (a) authorization of such use shall be considered on its individual merits; (b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. The requirement to make such efforts may be waived by a Party in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use. In situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, the right holder shall, nevertheless, be notified as soon as reasonably practicable. In the case of public non-commercial use, where the government or contractor, without making a patent search, knows or has demonstrable grounds to know that a valid patent is or will be used by or for the government, the right holder shall be informed promptly; (c) the scope and duration of such use shall be limited to the purpose for which it was authorized; (d) such use shall be non-exclusive; (e) such use shall be non-assignable, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill that enjoys such use; (f) any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the Party's domestic market; (g) authorization for such use shall be liable, subject to adequate protection of the legitimate interests of the persons so authorized, to be terminated if and when the circumstances that led to it cease to exist and are unlikely to recur. The competent authority shall have the authority to review, on motivated request, the continued existence of these circumstances; (h) the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization; (i) the legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization shall be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority; (j) any decision relating to the remuneration provided in respect of such use shall be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority; (k) the Party shall not be obliged to apply the conditions set out in subparagraphs (b) and (f) where such use is permitted to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anticompetitive. The need to correct anticompetitive practices may be taken into account in determining the amount of remuneration in such cases. Competent authorities shall have the authority to refuse termination of authorization if and when the conditions that led to such authorization are likely to recur; (l) the Party shall not authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent to permit the exploitation of another patent except as a remedy for an adjudicated violation of domestic laws regarding anticompetitive practices. 11. Where the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, each Party shall, in any infringement proceeding, place on the defendant the burden of establishing that the allegedly infringing product was made by a process other than the patented process in one of the following situations: (a) the product obtained by the patented process is new; or (b) a substantial likelihood exists that the allegedly infringing product was made by the process and the patent owner has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used. In the gathering and evaluation of evidence, the legitimate interests of the defendant in protecting its trade secrets shall be taken into account. 12. Each Party shall provide a term of protection for patents of at least 20 years from the date of filing or 17 years from the date of grant. A Party may extend the term of patent protection, in appropriate cases, to compensate for delays caused by regulatory approval processes. ------------------------------ Date: Sun 7 Nov 1993 16:04:43 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Phiber Optik Sentenced to One Year in Prison Mark Abene (phiber optik) was sentenced in federal court in New York this past week to one year in prison in addition to 600 hours of community service. The term will start January 7, 1994. It is possible that Abene will be released after completion of 10 months of the sentence. However, he may be eligible for a community corrections program much earlier. Abene was the last of the MOD defendants to be sentenced for computer intrusion and other crimes. Complete descriptions of events, including the indictment, can be found in CuDs 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, and 4.33. Further details will follow next week. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #5.84 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank