Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 24, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 76 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J
Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 24, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 76
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
Copylate Editor: John Holmes Shrudlu
CONTENTS, #6.76 (Wed, Aug 24, 1994)
File 1--ACTION ALERT! PTO Commission Lehman's Intell. Property report
File 2--Good, bad, ugly, confused, and wary
File 3--EFF - "This bill will pass" - Telecom reg - WATCH OUT ISPs!
File 4--Congressional Committee on the Net (fwd)
File 5-- Clinton's Crime Bill - new threat to Sysops? (fwd)
File 6--EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
File 7--Updates on 12-ICPR, Jerusalem
File 8--Fourth International Virus Bulletin Conference
File 9--The CuD Header now Appears at the END OF EACH ISSUE
File 10--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 15:48:13 -0700
From: Jim Warren
Subject: File 1--ACTION ALERT! PTO Commission Lehman's Intell. Property report
Hi all -- [blind cc'ed to numerous folks]
Just spotted this in Dave Farber's interesting-people msgs.
Personally, I think that Lehman and the PTO is permanently-entrenched in
offering nothing better than band-aids to protect the past. I think that
the *only* chance we have for a more-enlightened approach to freedom
versus software monopolies is massive, virulent [articulate] *torching*
of our Congress-creatures. (At the least, it will force the monopolists
to spend much more loot bribing friendly votes from the representatives
they are buying.)
Like always, freedom requires vigilence AND action.
Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc.
firstname.lastname@example.org -or- email@example.com
345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814
>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Aug 16 04:56:33 1994
From: email@example.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
Has anyone here seen the so-called Lehman Panel report? It is
available by ftp from ftp.uspto.gov, in the directory /pub/nii-ip. It
is offered there in several formats. The deadline for comments is
September 7th. (Sorry about the short notice, but I've only just
recently discovered the report myself.)
The Lehman Panel is more officially known as the "Working Group on
Intellectual Property Rights", a subcommittee of President Clinton's
"Information Infrastructure Task Force". The Lehman Panel report
makes a number of recommendations concerning changes to current
intellectual property law, in light of challenges presented by the
National Information Infrastructure (NII) project.
This appears to me to be quite an important report, which could play a
major role in shaping vital aspects of our near-future society. I
find the whole approach taken by the panel disturbing, though perhaps
not surprising. Very briefly, my general concerns are these:
There appears to be a natural tension between current intellectual
property law and the widespread deployment of computer networking.
(John Barlow has put it more simply: "Copyright is dead".) The Lehman
panel's report, rather than trying to accomodate and adapt to the
inevitable effects of the NII, instead recommends tightening up
existing laws, and expanding their scope, in an attempt to preserve
the status quo and protect established interests. It seems to me that
this approach would dramatically undercut the potential of the NII,
making many of its most natural uses and benefits illegal. Worse, I
believe this approach would create a body of law which will make speed
limits look well-respected by comparison, and any attempt to enforce
these laws is likely to be destructive and unpleasant for all of us.
There are numerous other, more specific things in this report which
make me unhappy, too -- such as the presumption that the NII should be
little more than a new marketplace for old businesses; the creation of
gratuitous new rights for major record labels which would hurt
artists, and would enable the record companies to control the digital
audio server industry; and most frightening of all, the shameless
suggestion that the public schools should be used to pound these new
rules into the heads of children as early as Kindergarten.
I've obviously considered firing off a letter of comment myself, but
after I calmed down I realized how little impact that would be likely
to have. So I decided the most constructive thing I could do would be
to post this "alert" here, in the hope that someone with better
qualifications and resources than myself might pick up the ball.
Thanks for your attention.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 09:11 MDT
From: chuck@MU.LAW.UTAH.EDU(Charles Perkins)
Subject: File 2--Good, bad, ugly, confused, and wary
Jerry Leichter knocks down a straw man in his argument that free
market concerns (about cryptograpy and the clipper chip) should not
take precedence over public interest and safety. He correctly argues
that we have regulations for our safety. However, his article assumes
that the proposed regulations will safeguard citizens' safety and
interests in a manner similar to current automotive and industrial
regulations. I do not share this assumption. In fact, I am afraid
that these proposals will reduce my safety and compromise my own
I am not concerned about the ethical use of the powers of observation
that would be created by the digital telephony proposals. I AM
concerned about the unethical uses. The unethical uses by government
officials or criminals (anyone using these avenues without authority
but with the technical ability and illicit knowlege.) I also am
concerned about the precedent this would set. I would like to think
that I have a right to privacy in my communications with others.
From: karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Subject: File 3--EFF - "This bill will pass" - Telecom reg - WATCH OUT ISPs!
An excerpt from Farber's "interesting people" list:
During the final hours before the Senate telecommunications
bill (S.1822) was marked-up by the Senate Commerce Committee, a
provision was added which would expand the current FCC regulation on
obscene and indecent audiotext (900 number) services to virtually all
electronic information services, including commercial online service
providers, the Internet, and BBS operators. This proposal, introduced
by Senator Exon, would require all information service providers and
all other electronic communication service providers, to take steps to
assure that minors do not have access to obscene or indecent material
through the services offered by the service provider.
II. Summary of Exon Amendment
The Exon amendment which is now part of S.1822, expands
section 223 of the Communications Act to cover anyone who "makes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available" obscene or indecent
communication. It makes no distinction between those entities which
transmit the communications from those which create, process, or use
the communication. This section of the Communications Act was
originally intended to criminalize harassment accomplished over
interstate telephone lines, and to require telephone companies that
offer indecent 900 number services to prevent minors from having
access to such services. The 900 number portions are know as the
Helms Amendments, having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms.
These sections have been the subject of extension constitutional
If enacted into law, these amendments would require that
"makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available" indecent communication
take prescribed steps to assure that minors are prevented from having
access to these communications.
If I remember correctly the EFF was quite sure that a bill of this
kind was going to pass, so they rolled over and said "ok" to the one
Now look where it is going to get all of us.
You want to know how to destroy what we have here? Force every
provider, every carrier, and every end-node to verify by legally
acceptable proof of age each and every person online. Since there is
no way to filter newsgroups 100%, you have to accept only those who
are legally of age -- or else you filter every message.
There goes the library connections we've been working for, as an
example. The libraries THEMSELVES could be held legally liable for
permitting a minor to use their terminals if they have Internet
This bill MUST GO DOWN TO DEFEAT. Flood your congressmen and senators
phones RIGHT NOW. DO NOT allow this thing to pass.
While you're at it fire the EFF and rip up your membership cards.
IMHO they're asleep at the switch or have sold us all out. Take your
pick; either is equally bad.
Just what DOES the EFF stand for?
Or perhaps clearing the playing field of all "small guys" so the
telcos, who have been giving you folks operating money, can come in
and take over?
What's the real agenda here guys?
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:36:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Charles Stanford
Subject: File 4--Congressional Committee on the Net (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Fri, 12 Aug 1994 15:35:11 +0400
To--Multiple recipients of list SAIS-L
Subject--Congressional Committee takes to the Net (long)
This is the initial posting from the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by the
Honorable George Brown of California. We have agreed to serve as
the "beta" testers for House Committees trying to learn how to use
the Internet. We posted this message to some of the USENET
newsgroups that discuss topics relevant to our jurisdiction over
Federal civilian research and development activities to:
(1) Increase the number of people who know we do have
(2) Indicate how we can be reached on the net; and
(3) Start learning how to take advantage of this information
system in our daily activities.
Getting the Congress to use Internet has been discussed in a few
threads on various USENET newsgroups of late. Some of you may be
familiar with the E-Mail Pilot Project established by the Committee
on House Administration, chaired by the Honorable Charlie Rose of
North Carolina. Those Members of the House currently maintaining
an electronic mailbox for constituent communications may be found
by e-mailing "firstname.lastname@example.org" with the text "HELP" or "INFO"
in the message body. You will receive an automated response with
the necessary instructions.
Also, the text of legislation introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives during the current Congress is now available on a
W.A.I.S server located at the House Information Systems data
center. The server may be accessed from the directory at
quake.think.com or using the following information:
Database Name: USHOUSE_house_bill_text_103rd
It can also be found on gopher.house.gov in:
Congressional Information/Legislative Resources
The database contains the text of House bills beginning with
October 1993 and is updated daily.
What follows now is the message you will automatically receive in
response to messages sent to email@example.com, the Committee's
Internet address. It describes items like the Committee's gopher
server, which you can also find at gopher.house.gov.
----------- begin -----------
Welcome to the electronic mailbox system for the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of
Representatives. This Internet service is provided for ease of
communication with the Members and staff of the Committee.
If your message is addressed to a specific Member, it will be
printed out in hard copy and forwarded to the Member's office for
response by U.S. Mail.
If your message is addressed to a staff member of the
Committee, it will be forwarded electronically to that staff member
for response. Depending on the nature of the response, it might
reach you in either electronic or postal form.
Messages for the Committee press office will be acknowledged
electronically and then followed up on, if necessary, with material
by post or fax. You can reach the press office directly via
Internet at "firstname.lastname@example.org".
The Committee also maintains a bulletin board on the House of
Representatives Internet gopher server at "email@example.com".
Much of the public information material provided by the Committee
is available on this gopher system.
Much of this information also is available on the Committee's
"Straight Talk" voice-response system. Dial 202/225-3018 and
follow the menu instructions for a touch-tone telephone.
Thank you for contacting the House Science Committee. Please
be patient as we experiment with this new way of better serving
your communications needs. If you wish to write to the Committee,
please direct your correspondence to:
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
2320 Rayburn House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
----------- end -----------
At this time, we suggest you supply both your e-mail and postal
addresses in any communication to the Committee. Each office in
Congress has its own policy for responding to public inquiries.
So, if we forward your e-mail to a particular Member's office, they
may choose to respond with a regular letter. Our Committee hopes
to increase our use of e-mail in responding to public inquiries.
We have chosen the following subset of USENET groups for our
initial foray into the net.world:
Please feel free to repost this message to other groups that might
find the information of value. Your comments on what should be
carried by this channel of communications would also be welcomed.
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515 HOUSESST@HR.HOUSE.GOV
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in this posting are those of the
sender and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee, the
Chairman or any Member of Congress.
** End of text from cdp:pol.access.usa **
This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
service. For more information, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 14:38:00 EDT
From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Subject: File 5-- Clinton's Crime Bill - new threat to Sysops? (fwd)
Look at the civil forfeiture provisions buried deep in the Crime Bill.
Looks like Sysops will be facing civil forfeiture for their OPINIONS now;
the Crime Bill just redefines darn near everything as a TERRORIST ACT.
Here is a synopsis of the wonderful things hidden in the so-called
"Crime Control Act of 1993."
Property Forfeiture for Speeches, Writings and Assembly
by Ross Regnart
The Crime Control Act of 1993
The Crime Control Act of 1993 redefines Illegal Search and Seizure
while eliminating an innocent citizen's civil redress in suits against
government officials and agents. [Title VII Section 2337]
Incorporated: were provisions of proposed S.45 titled "Terrorism
Death Penalty Act of 1991" Both bills contained language which can
charge law abiding citizens of being agents or affording support to
Consider: the Proper Forfeiture Effects on organizations and
individuals when Speeches, Writings, and Assemblies mentioned in S.45
are combined with the Forfeiture Provisions of Biden's SB 266 now
incorporated in The Crime Control Act of 1993: any individual or
organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge
that an associate might commit a terrorist act can have their property
seized. Written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws, a citizen who
allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly
would start out guilty having to prove they did not have knowledge of
unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use
their property. See S.8 Definitions Title VII Section 2332
Politically active organizations and labor unions are especially
vulnerable to The Crime Control Act of 1993 provisions which define
bodily acts as "terrorist acts" A fist fight at a demonstration or
picket line would qualify. The physical act need not cause bodily harm
as its provisions refer to "involving any violent act".
S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 Forfeiture Provisions which seem
aimed at public dissent are written like RICO laws taking on the added
prospect of Political Property Forfeiture. Broadly written intent to
commit terrorist acts is defined: "appear to be intended (1) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy
of a government by intimidation or coercion."
It would appear that provisions contained in Senator Biden's proposed
Senate Bill 266, now included in The Crime Control Act of 1993, target
any group of persons which would dare demonstrate for or against any
issue. Any picket line which is alleged to have blocked public access
could qualify to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should
violence result for any reason at a public assembly, the Property
Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 may be triggered
causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings
and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event.
Demonstrators and/or pickets who left messages on a member or
organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the
system and all its records. The fact the system operator had no
knowledge of any planned violence will Not Prevent Property Forfeiture
of organization and member assets.
Conspiracy is enough. Under provisions of The Crime Control Act of
1993 Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences can
result from "activities which appear to be intended toward violence".
Distributing political action flyers could qualify.
The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions when first examined
are misleading for they give the reader the impression they are after
agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. The "Trojan
Horse" in The Crime Control Act of 1993: anyone in the United States
committing an undefined violent act or attending an assembly can be
charged with terrorism. S.8 Terrorism Forfeiture Provisions Would Be
Retroactive Going Back 4 Years.
Discovery of Witnesses and Evidence Eliminated
If a Defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII terrorist acts and/or
conspiracy seeks to discover from the Department of Justice the
evidence against him, the attorney for the Government may object on the
grounds that compliance will interfere with a criminal investigation or
prosecution of the incident, or a national security operation related
to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation. Example:
Government Civil Forfeiture. Expected: Defense against Government
charges may be difficult where citizens have no access to knowing of
the alleged evidence against them or the right to cross examine
government's secret witnesses.
Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses
in Capital Cases
Chapter 113B Section 138 states that the list of jurors and witnesses
need not be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court
find by a preponderance of the evidence that providing the list may
jeopardize the life or safety of any person.
Title VII Section n2337
The Crime Control Act of 1993 eliminates civil suits against U.S. and
Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from
Government Agents in prusuit of terrorist acts.
Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist
The United States Sentencing Commission shall have the power to provide
an increase in the base offense level for any felony committed in the
United States that involves or is intended to promote international
terrorism. Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches,
Writings and Public Assemblies may be used as evidence by Government to
show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of
the individual or organization they are alleged to have afforded
One person's violent unlawful act at an assembly may be enough for
the Government to allege the assembly Appears To Be Intended Toward
Violence or Activities which could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian
Under current drug forfeiture laws: innocent citizens have been
implicated by informants who will often testify to anything to mitigate
their own arrest. This has resulted in innocent citizens being
arrested and killed by drug agents; forfeiture of the property; and
financial ruination. Under proposed provisions of The Crime Control
Act of 1993 special breaks are afforded informants, even against the
death penalty. Government will have no difficulty Creating Informants
to cause the incarceration of any citizen considered a threat to one's
Disproportionate zero tolerance laws have served as precedents for
expanding forfeiture: Since 1984, forfeiture laws have been operating
on the erroneous contention that property can possess intent to commit
crime. Innocent owners can have their property seized prior to trial
on mere suspicion, starting out guilty, the owner having to prove they
did not have reason to know that their property was being used to
facilitate a forfeitable offense. Government need only show the
property owner was negligent in making his property available for
illegal drug activity to cause its forfeiture.
The Forfeiture Scam: tenants arrested on real property when offered a
sentencing deal by a prosecutor or immunity from further prosecution,
often reply in testimony, "that had the real property owner been
vigilant, he or she could have discovered drug activity taking place on
their property." Government has used against real property owners in
Civil Forfeiture actions the fact that a property owner had reported to
police that a tenant was dealing drugs at their property to show an
owner had prior knowledge of the activity. Elderly citizens afraid to
face machine guns and other threats by drug dealers are especially
vulnerable to having their homes and rental property siezed. Elderly
property owners, often in bad health, are easy prey for Police
The Crime Control Act of 1993 will allow government to use against its
citizens illegally seized evidence. Searches, wiretaps and seizures
that result in obtaining evidence from an invalid warrant issued by a
detached and neutral magistrate found to be invalid based on misleading
information or reckless disregard of the truth may in many instances
override Constitutional 4th Amendment protection against illegal search
S.8 The Crime Control Act of 1993 amends the "Exclusionary Rule" to
add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or
Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or
Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule: sets the
groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to at random invade
innocent owners' homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause.
Government need only assert that "a search and seizure was carried out
in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it
was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment."
Informants: Now being paid by government 25% of net proceeds realized
from Forfeited Assets in drug related seizures could earn similar
amounts causing forfeiture of citizens homes they allege to have been
used by an owner for discussion of attending assemblies which the
informant believed "appeared to be intended toward violence or to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population."
The Crime Control Act of 1993
Informants and law enforcement agencies addressing prevention of
terrorist acts are to be funded by Forfeiture and Fines collected from
terrorists and/or persons alleged to have afforded terrorists material
support. Will Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Right To Free
Expression And Association Be Targeted By Government Agents Who Know
Their Jobs Are Dependent ON Property Seizures, Fines and Arrests?
>From "Property Forfeiture for Speeches, Writings and Assembly," by Ross
Regnart, in the May, 1993 _Asset_Guardian_ newsletter (POBox 513,
Franklin, NJ 07416, 1-201-827-0513). Informational posting of this
article is allowed as long as credit is given to _Asset_Guardian_.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 16:42:34 +0000
From: Dave Banisar
Subject: File 6--EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
EPIC Statement on Digital Telephony Wiretap Bill
The digital telephony bill recently introduced in Congress is the
culmination of a process that began more than two years ago, when the
Federal Bureau of Investigation first sought legislation to ensure its
ability to conduct electronic surveillance through mandated design
changes in the nation's information infrastructure. We have monitored
that process closely and have scrutinized the FBI's claims that
remedial legislation is necessary. We have sponsored conferences at
which the need for legislation was debated with the participation of
the law enforcement community, the telecommunications industry and
privacy advocates. We have sought the disclosure of all relevant
information through a series of requests under the Freedom of
Information Act. Having thus examined the issue, EPIC remains
unconvinced of the necessity or advisability of the pending bill.
As a threshold matter, we do not believe that a compelling case
has been made that new communications technologies hamper the ability
of law enforcement agencies to execute court orders for electronic
surveillance. For more than two years, we have sought the public
disclosure of any FBI records that might document such a problem. To
date, no such documentation has been released. Without public scrutiny
of factual information on the nature and extent of the alleged
technological impediments to surveillance, the FBI's claims remain
anecdotal and speculative. Indeed, the telecommunications industry
has consistently maintained that it is unaware of any instances in
which a communications carrier has been unable to comply with law
enforcement's requirements. Under these circumstances, the nation
should not embark upon a costly and potentially dangerous re-design of
its telecommunications network solely to protect the viability of fewer
than 1000 annual surveillances against wholly speculative impediments.
We also believe that the proposed legislation would establish a
dangerous precedent for the future. While the FBI claims that the
legislation would not enhance its surveillance powers beyond those
contained in existing law, the pending bill represents a fundamental
change in the law's approach to electronic surveillance and police
powers generally. The legislation would, for the first time, mandate
that our means of communications must be designed to facilitate
government interception. While we as a society have always recognized
law enforcement's need to obtain investigative information upon
presentation of a judicial warrant, we have never accepted the notion
that the success of such a search must be guaranteed. By mandating the
success of police searches through the re-design of the telephone
network, the proposed legislation breaks troubling new ground. The
principle underlying the bill could easily be applied to all emerging
information technologies and be incorporated into the design of the
National Information Infrastructure. It could also lead to the
prohibition of encryption techniques other than government-designed
"key escrow" or "Clipper" type systems.
In short, EPIC believes that the proposed digital telephony bill
raises substantial civil liberties and privacy concerns. The present
need for the legislation has not been established and its future
implications are frightening. We therefore call upon all concerned
individuals and organizations to express their views on the legislation
to their Congressional representatives. We also urge you to contact
Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to share
Rep. Jack Brooks
Chair, House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3951 (voice)
(202) 225-1958 (fax)
The bill number is H.R. 4922 in the House and S. 2375 in the Senate. It can
be referred to as the "FBI Wiretap Bill" in correspondence.
Electronic Privacy Information Center
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-9240 (voice)
(202) 547-5482 (fax)
EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 14:04:09 +0300
From: Shmuel Peleg
Subject: File 7--Updates on 12-ICPR, Jerusalem
***** Updates *****
12th ICPR : INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PATTERN RECOGNITION
9-13 October 1994
Renaissance Hotel, Jerusalem, Israel
***** Advance Registration Deadline: 9 August 1994 *****
***** Authors: Camera ready due August 8 at the IEEE Computer Society *****
1. Get full updated information by sending E-Mail to
2. A network of 15 Silicon Graphics computers and 10 NCD X-terminals,
with a high-speed Internet link, will be available. Bring your
Demonstrations!! You could also telnet to your own computer, of
course, and read E-Mail.
3. On-Line information about Jerusalem can be obtained by telnet into
"www.huji.ac.il", login as www, and then select " Line Mode
Interface" followed by " Databases in Israel" and " The
Jerusalem Mosaic". Dont worry if you get some funny symbols. If
you have Mosaic you can select:
4. The Banquet will be a Bedouine feast, combined with a special
sight-and-sound show, at the foot of Massada. An unfogettable
experience! During the banquet, the following announcements will
be made: * IAPR Announcement: New IAPR Executive Committee, Venue
* Nomination of IAPR Fellows
* Best Industry-Related Paper Award
* Best-Paper-Award by the journal "Pattern Recognition"
5. The opening session of the conference will be on Monday, 10 Aug, 08:30 AM:
8:30 Welcome Address: J. Aggarwal, President of IAPR
8:40 Presentation of the K.S. Fu Award
8:45 Address by the winner of the K.S. Fu Award
9:15 Welcome Address: 12-ICPR Conference Chairmen
9:30 Plenary Talk: Avnir, D. - Hebrew University - THE PATTERNED NATURE
10:00 Coffee Break
10:30 Start of 4 Parallel Sessions
6. Master Card is now also accepted for registration payments.
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 09:32:20 +0100
Subject: File 8--Fourth International Virus Bulletin Conference
In light of the last conference announcements, I thought that some readers
may find the following short chunk of information useful:
Virus Bulletin Conference 1994.
The Fourth International Virus Bulletin Conference will be held at the
Hotel de France, Jersey, UK, on 8th and 9th September 1994. Speakers
at the conference include Vesselin Bontchev, Sara Gordon, Alan
Solomon, Joe Wells...
Delegates at VB '94 will gain an insight into virus prevalence on a
range of platforms and discuss technical and management concerns with
internationally acknowledged experts.
The conference registration fee is UK#595, and includes admission to
all sessions, admission to the exhibition, a copy of the conference
proceedings, lunch and mid-session refreshment on both dyas, welcome
reception and dinner on Wednesday 7th September, the coference
reception and Black Tie Gala Dinner on Thursday 8th September.
Anybody requiring further information should Email
email@example.com or fax Petra Duffield on (UK) 01235 559935
(International) +44 1235 559935.
Editor, Virus Bulletin.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 19:21:33 CDT
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 9--The CuD Header now Appears at the END OF EACH ISSUE
We receive periodic complaints from readers that they dislike
scrolling through the 60 lines of CuD (or any digest) header at the
beginning of a file. Their reasons:
1) Some digest-reading software excludes the Administrivia
information, so readers don't know what a CuD is or where to contact
2) Some readers who are interested only in a single article or two
must scroll through a long header that repeats each issue.
3) Some readers store CuDs as individual files, and they would prefer
the header as a separate file.
So, beginning with this issue, we will expermiment with placing the
header information as a separate, concluding file that will generally
remain the same each issue. If it causes problems, let us know.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 10--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
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
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 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
In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +220.127.116.11.77 (ringdown)
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (18.104.22.168) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (22.214.171.124) in /pub/Publications/CuD
aql.gatech.edu (126.96.36.199) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/
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.
End of Computer Underground Digest #6.76
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank