Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 10, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 71 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 10, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 71 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Copywrite Editor: Eatingin Shrdlu CONTENTS, #6.71 (Wed, Aug 10, 1994) File 1--EFF Statement on Leahy/Edwards Digital Telephony Bill File 2--Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn File 3--EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data File 4--Electronic Superhighway Introduced in House of Commons File 5--Essay Contest - Future of Print File 6--Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive! File 7--CALL FOR PAPERS - Symposium on Computerized Information Mgmt Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.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, USA. 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 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 RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. 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 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: /mirror/ 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: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 21:51:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 1--EFF Statement on Leahy/Edwards Digital Telephony Bill Leahy and Edwards introduce a narrow Digital Telephony bill with major new privacy protections ============================================================ Today Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representative Don Edwards (D-CA) introduced their version of Digital Telephony legislation. Since 1992, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been successful at stopping a series of FBI Digital Telephony proposals, which would have forced communications companies to install wiretap capability into every communications medium. However, earlier this year, Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards, who have helped to quash previous FBI proposals, concluded that the passage of such a bill was inevitable this year. To head off passage of the FBI's bill, Leahy and Edwards stepped in to draft a narrow bill, and asked for EFF's help in the process. EFF remains deeply troubled by the prospect of the federal government forcing communications networks to be made "wiretap ready," but we believe that the legislation introduced today is substantially less intrusive that the original FBI proposals. Jerry Berman, EFF Policy Director said: "We have opposed digital telephony proposals for the past three years and still do not believe that such legislation is necessary." "Thanks to the work of Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards and Senator Biden, however, the bill contains a number of significant privacy advances, including enhanced protection for the detailed transactional information records generated by online information services, email systems, and the Internet," Berman said. Many online communication and information systems create detailed records of users' communication activities as well as lists of the information that they have accessed. The new legal protection is critical in that it recognizes that this transactional information created by new digital communications systems is extremely sensitive and deserves a high degree of protection from casual law enforcement access which is currently possible without any independent judicial supervision. Under current law, the government can gain access to transactional records with a mere subpoena, which can be obtained without the intervention of a court. Under the new privacy protections in this bill, law enforcement would have to convince a court to issue an order based on a finding that there are "specific and articulable facts" which prove that the information sought would be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. "The fact that law enforcement has to take a case to court in order to get permission to access records is a major new privacy protection which will benefit all users of online communication systems," said Daniel Weitzner, EFF Deputy Policy Director. Another important privacy protection is that there is a cap on the amount of money that can be spent on surveillance technology in the first four years. The Attorney General is authorized to spend up to $500 million on reimbursement telecommunications carriers who retrofit their systems so as to come into compliance with the bill. So that this cap truly functions as a privacy protection, we believe that carriers should only be responsible for complying with the bill if the Attorney General actually pays for modifications. Government should get what it pays for, and no more. "Although we do not support the concept of digital telephony legislation, we believe that if Congress is to pass any version of the bill this year, it should be along the lines of the Leahy/Edwards version," said Berman. "The version crafted by Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards," Berman explained, "is substantially better from a privacy, technology policy, and civil liberties standpoint than the draconian measures offered in the past by the Bush Administration." "As the bill works through the legislative process," Berman continued, "EFF will work to ensure that privacy and public process provisions are strengthened, and that the scope remains narrow -- continuing to exclude the Internet, electronic bulletin board systems, and online communications services such as America Online, Prodigy and Compuserve. Also, we note that the radio communication provisions have not yet been subject to public discussion, and hope that this will occur before the bill is considered by the full House and Senate." FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Berman Policy Director Daniel Weitzner Deputy Policy Director +1 202 347 5400 * * * * * * * * EFF Analysis of and comments on major provisions of the bill ============================================================ A. Key new privacy protections 1. Expanded protection for transactional records sought by law enforcement Senator Leahy and Rep. Edwards have agreed that law enforcement access to transactional records in online communication systems (everything from the Internet to AOL to hobbyist BBSs) threatens privacy rights because the records are personally identifiable, because they reveal the content of people's communications, and because the compilation of such records makes it easy for law enforcement to create a detailed picture of people's lives online. Based on this recognition, the draft bill contains the following provisions: i. Court order required for access to transactional records instead of mere subpoena In order to gain access to transactional records, such as a list of to whom a subject sent email, which online discussion group one subscribes to, or which movies you request on a pay-per view channel, law enforcement will have to prove to a court, by the showing of "specific and articulable facts" that the records requested are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. This means that the government may not request volumes of transactional records merely to see what it can find through traffic analysis. Rather, law enforcement will have to prove to a court that it has reason to believe that it will find some specific information that is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation in the records that it requests. With these provisions, we have achieved for all online systems, a significantly greater level of protection than currently exists for telephone toll records. The lists of telephone calls that are kept by local and long distance phone companies are available to law enforcement without any judicial intervention at all. Law enforcement gains access to hundreds of thousands of such telephone records each year, without a warrant and without even notice to the citizens involved. Court order protection will make it much more difficult for law enforcement to go on "fishing expeditions" through online transactional records, hoping to find evidence of a crime by accident. ii. Standard of proof much greater than for telephone toll records, but below that for content The most important change that these new provisions offer, is that law enforcement will (a) have to convince a judge that there is reason to look at a particular set of records, and (b) have to expend the time and energy necessary to have a US Attorney or DA actually present a case before a court. However, the burden or proof to be met by the government in such a proceeding is lower than required for access to the content of a communication. 2. New protection for location-specific information available in cellular, PCS and other advanced networks Much of the electronic surveillance conducted by law enforcement today involves gathering telephone dialing information through a device known as a pen register. Authority to attach pen registers is obtained merely by asserting that the information would be relevant to a criminal investigation. Courts have no authority to deny pen register requests. This legislation offers significant new limits on the use of pen register data. Under this bill, when law enforcement seeks pen register information from a carrier, the carrier is forbidden to deliver to law enforcement any information which would disclose the location or movement of the calling or called party. Cellular phone networks, PCS systems, and so-called "follow-me" services all store location information in their networks. This new limitation is a major safeguard which will prevent law enforcement from casually using mobile and intelligent communications services as nation-wide tracking systems. i. New limitations on "pen register" authority Law enforcement must use "technology reasonably available" to limit pen registers to the collection of calling number information only. Currently, law enforcement is able to capture not only the telephone number dialed, but also any other touch-tone digits dialed which reflect the user's interaction with an automated information service on the other end of the line, such as an automatic banking system or a voice-mail password. 3. Bill does not preclude use of encryption Unlike previous Digital Telephony proposals, this bill places no obligation on telecommunication carriers to decipher encrypted messages, unless the carrier actually holds the key. 4. Automated remote monitoring precluded Law enforcement is specifically precluded from having automated, remote surveillance capability. Any electronic surveillance must be initiated by an employee of the telecommunications carrier. 5. Privacy considerations essential to development of new technology One of the requirements that telecommunications carriers must meet to be in compliance with the Act, is that the wiretap access methods adopted must protect the privacy and security of each user's communication. If this requirement is not met, anyone may petition the FCC to have the wiretap access service be modified so that network security is maintained. So, the technology used to conduct wiretaps cannot also jeopardize the security of the network as a whole. If network-wide security problems arise because of wiretapping standards, then the standards can be overturned. B. Draconian provisions softened In addition, the surveillance requirements imposed by the bill are not as far-reaching as the original FBI version. A number of procedural safeguards are added which seek to minimize the threatens to privacy, security, and innovation. Though the underlying premise of the Act is still cause for concern, these new limitations deserve attention: 1. Narrow Scope The bill explicitly excludes Internet providers, email systems, BBSs, and other online services. Unlike the bills previously proposed by the FBI, this bill is limited to local and long distance telephone companies, cellular and PCS providers, and other common carriers. 2. Open process with public right of intervention The public will have access to information about the implementation of the Act, including open access to all standards adopted in compliance with the Act, the details of how much wiretap capacity the government demands, and a detailed accounting of all federal money paid to carriers for modifications to their networks. Privacy groups, industry interests, and anyone else has a statutory right under this bill to challenge implementation steps taken by law enforcement if they threaten privacy or impede technology advancement. 3. Technical requirements standards developed by industry instead of the Attorney General All surveillance requirements are to be implemented according to standards developed by industry groups. The government is specifically precluded from forcing any particular technical standard, and all requirements are qualified by notions of economic and technical reasonableness. 4. Right to deploy untappable services Unlike the original FBI proposal, this bill recognizes that there may be services which are untappable, even with Herculean effort to accommodate surveillance needs. In provisions that still require some strengthening, the bill allows untappable services to be deployed if redesign is not economically or technically feasible. C. Provisions that must be changed EFF plans to work on the following issues in the bill as the legislative process continues: 1. Strengthened public process In the first four years of the bill's implementation, most of the requests that law enforcement makes to carriers are required to be recorded in the public record. However, additional demands for compliance after that time are only required to be made by written notice to the carrier. All compliance requirements, whether initial requests or subsequent modification, must be recorded in the Federal Register after public hearings, to allow for public scrutiny. 2. Linkage of cost to compliance requirements -- the FBI gets what it pays for and no more The bill authorizes, but does not appropriate, $500 million to be spent by the government in reimbursing telecommunications carriers for bringing their networks into compliance with the bill. The FBI maintains that this is enough money to cover all reasonable expenses. The industry, however, has consistently maintained that the costs are five to ten times higher. Given the FBI's confidence in their cost estimate, we believe that telecommunications carriers should only be required to comply to the extent that they have been reimbursed. This spending cap is both a safeguard against requiring unnecessary surveillance technology, and a way to guarantee that carriers' expenses for electronic surveillance are truly paid for by the government, not by the customers. 3. Ensure right to deploy untappable services The enforcement provisions of the bill suggest, but do not state explicitly, that services which are untappable may be deployed. The bill should be state directly that if it is technically and economically unreasonable to make a service tappable, then it may be deployed, without interference by a court. 4. Clarify definition of call identifying information The definition of call identifying information in the bill is too broad. Whether intentionally or not, the term now covers network signaling information of networks which are beyond the scope of the bill. To maintain the narrow scope of the bill, this definition should be clarified. 5. Review of minimization requirements in view of commingled communications The bill implicitly contemplates that law enforcement, in some cases, will intercept large bundles of communications, some of which are from subscribers who are not subject of wiretap orders. For example, when tapping a single individual whose calls are handled by a PBX, law enforcement may sweep in calls of other individuals as well. Currently the Supreme Court requires "minimization" procedures in all wiretaps, to minimize the intrusion on the privacy of conversations not covered by a court's wiretap order. We believe that the bill should reinforce the current minimization requirements by recognizing that stronger minimization procedures may be required. * * * Locating Relevant Documents =========================== ** Original 1992 Bush-era draft **, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/Old/digtel92_old_bill.draft, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI/Old, digtel92_old_bill.draft bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital Telephony; file: digtel92.old ** 1993/1994 Clinton-era draft **, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_bill.draft, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94_bill.draft bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital Telephony; file: digtel94.dft ** 1994 final draft, as sponsored **, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94.bill, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94.bill bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital Telephony; file: digtel94.bil ** EFF Analysis of sponsored version **, /pub/EFF/Policy/FBI/digtel94_analysis.eff, 1/EFF/Policy/FBI, digtel94_analysis.eff bbs: +1 202 638 6120 (8N1, 300-14400bps), file area: Privacy - Digital Telephony; file: digtel94.ana ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 13:54:53 -0400 (EDT) From: JMCGRATH@ALBNYVMS.BITNET Subject: File 2--Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn Today, PBS; tomorrow, the InfoBahn >From the Congressional Record, 6-28, Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and urge Members to support the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. I do want to say, however, that unless there are some substantial changes in Public Broadcasting and its relationship to the working people of America, my vote and my position might be very different next year. Mr. Chairman, one of the great dangers in America today, and something that frightens me and many other Americans very much is the growing concentration of ownership in the mass media. Fewer and fewer and larger and larger corporations increasingly control what we see on television, what we hear on the radio, and what we read in the newspapers and magazines. The noted journalist and author Ben Bagdikian has written in his book ~The Media Monopoly~ that by the turn of the century a handful of huge multinational corporations will not only control what we see and hear in America but in fact will be controlling what much of the world sees, hears, and reads. That is a very dangerous trend. Mr. Chairman, it is not an accident that the Rush Limbaughs, the Pat Buchanans, and the G. Gordon Liddys dominate commercial radio talk shows. Their views reflect the interests of the corporations which own those radio networks. It is also not an accident that on commercial radio and television there is very little serious discussion about the enormous problems facing the working people and the poor of this Nation. The average working family in America is in trouble. They are under stress. They are hurting. But that reality is not reflected in the corporately controlled media. Yes, we do have round-the-clock analysis of the O.J. Simpson case and the Menendez brothers saga and the Bobbitt family adventures and the Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan adventure. Yes, we have in-depth analyses of why the Houston Rockets were able to defeat the New York Knickerbockers and why the Washington Redskins did not do so well this last session. Yes, the airwaves are filled with violence and blood and 30-second commercials which are having an extremely negative impact on the cognitive abilities of the young kids of America. But somehow, just somehow there is virtually no programming which explains to the American people why the standard of living of American workers has gone from 1st place in the world 20 years ago to 13th place today. Somehow we do not have programming which deals with that. Somehow there is very little discussion or portrayal on television about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America. I guess we do not have time on TV for that or about the fact that the wealthiest 1 percent of our population owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, or about how multinational corporations are moving to the Third World and are hiring workers at 15 to 20 cents an hour while they are throwing American workers out on the street. I guess that is just not interesting enough to put on our TV airways. Should we be surprised that General Electric~s NBC or the corporations that own the other networks do not focus very much on these issues? Well, I am not surprised, and I think the average American is not surprised. Mr. Chairman, the reason that Public Broadcasting was established and why taxpayers are contributing to Public Television and Radio is that it is supposed to offer an alternative point of view to that offered by the corporately owned networks. It is supposed to give a voice to those who have no voice. It is supposed to be able to deal with controversywithout being afraid of offending corporate sponsors. That is the reason that it exists. It is supposed to take on the entrenched special interests because it is funded by the ordinary people of this country, the people who are not wealthy, the people who are not powerful, the people who do not own ABC, CBS, or NBC. In other words, radical thought that it may be, public television is supposed to represent the interests of the public. I know that is a radical thought, but that is the way it is supposed to be. Sadly, despite what its original mandate was, despite the fact that there is some excellent programming on public television, some very fine children~s programming on public television, despite all of that, very few people can argue that public television has fulfilled its original mandate. In fact, year after year it appears that public television is more and more coming to resemble commercial television. Mr. Chairman, I do not object that there are three regularly scheduled business shows on PBS. I do not object that there are three regularly scheduled shows - Wall Street Week, the Nightly Business Report, and Adam Smith~s Money World. I have no problem with those programs. I do have a problem, however, that there is not one regularly scheduled program on the PBS which focuses on the needs and the problems of the working people of America. If there are three regularly scheduled business shows, why is there not at least one, just one, regularly scheduled show reflecting the interests of working people and organized labor? I do not object that three weekly public affairs shows on the PBS stations are hosted by individuals who have been associated with the National Review, a leading right-wing magazine: William Buckley~s Firing Line, John McLaughlin~s McLaughlin Group, and McLaughlin~s One on One. I do not object to these shows. But I do object that there is not one weekly PBS show which is hosted by a journalist from a labor or a progressive point of view. Our side also has articulate, well-informed journalists and commentators who are capable of presenting interesting and informative television, and that point of view has a right to be heard. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is at a crossroads. If it wants to resemble commercial television, Mr. Crane has a point. If it wants to resemble commercial television, if it wants to go out and hunt for more and more corporate money, then maybe we should say once and for all that it should become a private entity which competes in the marketplace with the corporate media. Mr. Crane does have a point. But I do not think that is what it should be. It seems to me that in a time when more and more of the media is controlled by big money, it is imperative that we really do have a public broadcasting system which deals with the real problems facing the working people of America. Tonight I will oppose Mr. Crane~s amendment. I hope PBS changes, or next year I will not. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 13:15:11 +0000 From: Dave Banisar Subject: File 3--EPIC Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data Electronic Privacy Information Center PRESS RELEASE _____________________________________________________________ For Release: August 9, 1994 2:00 pm Group Seeks Release of FBI Wiretap Data, Calls Proposed Surveillance Legislation Unnecessary Washington, DC: A leading privacy rights group today sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation to force the release of documents the FBI claims support its campaign for new wiretap legislation. The documents were cited by FBI Director Louis Freeh during testimony before Congress and in a speech to an influential legal organization but have never been released to the public. The lawsuit was filed as proposed legislation which would mandate technological changes long sought by the FBI was scheduled to be introduced in Congress. The case was brought in federal district court by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research organization that has closely monitored the Bureau's efforts to mandate the design of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate wiretapping. An earlier EPIC lawsuit revealed that FBI field offices had reported no difficulties conducting wiretaps as a result of new digital communications technology, in apparent contradiction of frequent Bureau claims. At issue are two internal FBI surveys that the FBI Director has cited as evidence that new telephone systems interfere with law enforcement investigations. During Congressional testimony on March 18, Director Freeh described "a 1993 informal survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement authorities." According to Freeh, the survey describes the problems such agencies had encountered in executing court orders for electronic surveillance. On May 19 the FBI Director delivered a speech before the American Law Institute in Washington, DC. In his prepared remarks, Freeh stated that "[w]ithin the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law enforcement regarding recent technological problems which revealed over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully implementing court [wiretap] orders." According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, the FBI has not yet demonstrated a need for the sweeping new legislation that it seeks. "The Bureau has never presented a convincing case that its wiretapping capabilities are threatened. Yet it seeks to redesign the information infrastructure at an astronomical cost to the taxpayers." The nation's telephone companies have consistently stated that there have been no cases in which the needs of law enforcement have not been met. EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. ================================================================ FBI Director Freeh's Recent Conflicting Statements on the Need for Digital Telephony Legislation _______________________________________________________________ Speech before the Executives' Club of Chicago, February 17: Development of technology is moving so rapidly that several hundred court-authorized surveillances already have been prevented by new technological impediments with advanced communications equipment. * * * Testimony before Congress on March 18: SEN. LEAHY: Have you had any -- for example, digital telephony, have you had any instances where you've had a court order for a wiretap that couldn't be executed because of digital telephony? MR. FREEH: We've had problems just short of that. And I was going to continue with my statement, but I won't now because I'd actually rather answer questions than read. We have instances of 91 cases -- this was based on a 1993 informal survey which the FBI did with respect to state and local law enforcement authorities. I can break that down for you. * * * Newsday interview on May 16: We've determined about 81 different instances around the country where we were not able to execute a court-authorized electronic surveillance order because of lack of access to that particular system - a digital switch, a digital loop or some blocking technology which we didn't have to deal with four or five years ago. * * * Speech before the American Law Institute on May 19: Within the last month, the FBI conducted an informal survey of federal and local law enforcement regarding recent techno- logical problems which revealed over 180 instances where law enforcement was precluded from implementing or fully implementing court orders [for electronic surveillance]. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 16:38:20 GMT From: DAZZZSMITH@MAIL.ON-LINE.CO.UK(Dazzz) Subject: File 4--Electronic Superhighway Introduced in House of Commons From: The Telegraph newspaper (UK) Thursday July 28 1994 +--------------------------------------------------------- DEMAND FOR ELECTRONIC 'SUPERHIGHWAY' TO TRANSFORM THE WAY WE LIVE AND WORK Construction of a 15 billion national fibre optic network linking every home, office, school and hospital was called for yesterday by the House of Commons select committee on trade and industry. The electronic 'superhighway' would have far higher capacity than today's standard telephone lines and televisions cables. It would allow the instant two-way transmission of data, graphics, photographs, medical images, high quality television pictures and video. Calling for an easing of regulations on phone and cable companies to achieve this, the influential cross-party committee published a blue-print for Britain yesterday in which it critiscised the Governments "lack of vision" on communications technology. Such a network would have "enormous and far-reaching effects", said the committee. It could revolutionise medicine, education and business, as well as bringing new shopping services and instant electronic delivery of videos to the home. Mr Richard Caborn, Labour chairman of the committee, said: "The developement of a national optical fibre information superhighway which would boost the economy and transform the way we live and work should be a priority for Government. The enthusiasm, sense of purpose and leadership of the type being shown in America and elsewhere towards information superhighways has not been replicated in Britain, despite the widespread dawning of the new information age." The biggest obstacle to the construction of the network was uncertainty on whether and when the Government might lift the ban that prevents BT and other phone companies from transmitting entertainment services. BT has argued that it cannot justify heavy investment in a new network without a guarantee that it will be able to provide such lucrative services over it. The ban was imposed to promote the growth of the cable television industry and introduce greater local competition to the phone market. It is due to run until at least 2001, with a possible review by by Oftel, the regulator in 1998. The committee said that if BT was to invest in a new high capacity network, the Government must make it clear that the ban would be lifted nationwide by the end of 2002. Mr Caborn said the committee favoured an "evolutionary rather than a big bang approach." with the ban being lifted in some cable franchise areas as early as next year and then gradually in all others. One condition on easing the restrictions should be that BT was forced to provde "fair and open" access to its network to allow other companies to play a role in building the superhighway. BT, which has lobbied for the ban to be lifted, Mercury Communications and the Cable Television Association all welcomed the report's recommendations. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Aug 94 18:07:24 EDT From: AdamRCohen@AOL.COM Subject: File 5--Essay Contest - Future of Print I thought you might like to hear about an essay contest sponsored by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The subject is, "Print: Roadkill on the Information Superhighway - Yes or No?" Top prize is $2,500. Essays are due 9/7/94. Basic information about eligibility and the Audit Bureau follows. For more complete information and entry forms, call ABC's Colleen O'Grady at 708-605-0909. Please share this notice with anyone who might be interested. Many thanks. Entry Requirements: Entrants must be employees of ABC-member companies and have worked in the advertising, marketing or publishing industries for 5 years or less as of 9/7/94. Over 4,000 publishers, advertisers and ad agencies are members of ABC. To verify your eligibility, call Ms. O'Grady at 708-605-0909. The Audit Bureau of Circulations is the first and largest circulation-auditing organization in the world. ABC establishes ground rules for circulation auditing and provides buyers and sellers of print advertising with independent verfication of the circulation information needed to make well-informed media decisions. Adam R. Cohen Member, ABC Young Media Professionals Committee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Aug 1994 00:37:34 -0500 From: spaf@CS.PURDUE.EDU(Gene Spafford) Subject: File 6--Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive! Announcing the COAST Security FTP Archive! The COAST group at Purdue are happy to (finally) announce the availability of our security archive. The archive is currently available via FTP, with extensions to gopher and WWW planned soon. The archive currently contains software, standards, tools, and other material in the following areas: * access control * artificial life * authentication * criminal investigation * cryptography * e-mail privacy enhancement * firewalls * formal methods * general guidelines * genetic algorithms * incident response * institutional policies * intrusion detection * law & ethics * malware (viruses, worms, etc) * network security * password systems * policies * privacy * risk assessment * security related equipment * security tools * social impacts * software forensics * software maintenance * standards * technical tips * the computer underground The collection also contains a large collection of site "mirrors" of interesting collections, many of which are linked by topic to the rest of the archive. You can connect to the archive using standard ftp to "". Information about the archive structure and contents is present in "/pub/aux"; we encourage users to look there, and to read the README* files located in the various directories. If you know of material you think should be added, please send mail to and tell us what you have and where we can get a copy. In order of preference, we would prefer to get: -- a pointer to the source ftp site for a package -- a pointer to a mirror ftp site for the package -- a uuencoded tar file -- a shar file -- a diskette or QIC tape If you are providing software, we encourage you to "sign" the software with PGP to produce a standalone signature file. This will help to ensure against trojaned versions of the software finding their way into the archive. Any comments or suggestions about the archive should be directed to "" -- please let us know what you think! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 14:09:07 CDT From: Victor Li Subject: File 7--CALL FOR PAPERS - Symposium on Computer Information Mgmt The 4th Beijing Int'l Symposium on Computerized Information Management (BISCIM'94) Technological Innovations and Marketing in Information Service Industry in Developing Countries October 14-18, 1994 Beijing, People's Republic of China The Organizing Committee of the 4th BISCIM cum Technical Exhibition'94 cordially invites you to participate in this important event with a view to promoting the application of computer, CD-ROM and multimedia technologies in information management. The Symposium will include an extensive Technical Exhibition and an entertaining social programme. The following topics are suggested for contributing papers, but the list is not exhaustive: --Information marketing, promotional techniques and pricing structures --Information equipment and information technology in library and information centres --Automation of information processing --Database development and quality control --Computer and communication integrated new information services --Communication infrastructure for information services --CD-ROM versus on-line services --Multimedia publishing and electronic books --Standards and norms in information exchange and information technology --Internet and its future in developing countries Participants wishing to present papers should submit a full paper in English together with the filled Paper Contribution Sheet to the Secretariat of the Symposium not later than 31 August 1994. An official invitation letter to facilitate entrance visa applications will be sent by the State Science and Technology Committee of China to you upon receiving your registration fee and your full paper. Submissions should be sent to: 4th BISCIM '94 Secretariat c/o Division of International Relation and Cooperation Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC) P.O. Box 3827, 15 Fuxinglu, Beijing 100038, People's Republic of China Voice: national 8514020 international +86 1 8514020 Fax: +86 1 8514025 Telex: 20079 ISTIC CN For more information contact: Victor Li AsiaInfo Services E-mail: ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #6.71 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank