Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 8, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 79 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 8, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 79 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 Urban Legend Editor: E. Greg Shrdlugold CONTENTS, #6.79 (Wed, Sep 8, 1994) File 1--New indecency rules proposed for all online services (fwd) File 2--Sex, the Internet and the Idiots File 3--Symposium Announcement & Call for Papers File 4--Reaffirming Life through an Online Death File 5--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 9-1-94) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 11:52:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Godwin Subject: File 1--New indecency rules proposed for all online services (fwd) (MODERATORS' NOTE: In CuD 6.76 we ran a post on the Exon Amendment to S 1822. S.AMDT.2404, sponsored by Senator J. James Exon (D. Neb.), raised concerns that proposed federal restrictions on "indecency" could adversely affect computer communications by placing the onus of liability on the carrier. Contrary to some reports, the EFF does not approve of the amendment. For those wishing further information, the full Bill is: S. 1822 (Sponsored by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D., S. Car.). Official Title: A BILL TO FOSTER THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. At last report, the Bill (with the amendment) has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce (on 26 July). We're not aware of subsequent action taken since. The following fowarded post clarifies the amendment)). >From farber@eff.org Thu Sep 1 10:47:31 1994 Posted-Date--Thu, 1 Sep 1994 09:29:09 -0400 Date--Thu, 25 Aug 1994 14:32:40 -0600 From--djw@eff.org (Daniel J. Weitzner) I. Overview 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. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier, as opposed to the originator of the content, threatens to limit the free flow of all kinds of information in the online world. If carriers are operating under the threat of criminal liability for all of the content on their services, they will be forced to pre-screen all messages and limit both the privacy and free expression of the users of these services. Senator Exon's amendment raises fundamental questions about the locus on liability for harm done from content in new digital communications media. These questions must be discussed in a way that assures the free flow of information and holds content originators responsible for their actions. II. Summary of Exon Amendment The Exon amendment which is now part of S.1822, expands section 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 known as the Helms Amendments, having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms. These sections have been the subject of extension constitutional litigation. If enacted into law, these amendments would require that anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available" indecent communication take prescribed steps to assure that minors are prevented from having access to these communications. In the case of 900 numbers, acceptable procedures include written verification of a subscriber's age, payment by credit card, or use of a scrambling device given to the subscriber after having verified his or her age. Failure to do so would result in up to a $100,000 fine or up to two years imprisonment. III. Carrier Liability and Threats to the Free Flow of Information These provisions raise serious First Amendment concerns. (Note that we use the term 'carrier' here to refer to a wide range of information and communication service providers. This does not suggest that these entities are, or should be, common carriers in the traditional sense of the term.) Overbroad carrier liability forces carriers to stifle the free flow of information on their systems and to act as private censors If carriers are responsible for the content of all information and communication on their systems, then they will be forced to attempt to screen all content before it is allowed to enter the system. In many cases, this would be simply impossible. But even where it is possible, such pre-screening can severely limit the diversity and free flow of information in the online world. To be sure, some system operators will want to offer services that pre-screen content. However, if all systems were forced to do so, the usefulness of digital media as communication and information dissemination systems would be drastically limited. Where possible, we must avoid legal structures which force those who merely carry messages to screen their content. Carriers are often legally prohibited from screening messages In fact, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, electronic communication service providers are generally prohibited from examining the contents of messages or information carrier from one subscriber to another. Extension of the 900 number rules to all electronic information services may be unconstitutional The regulation of indecent 900 number programming was only accomplished after nearly a decade of constitutional litigation, with rules being overturned by the Supreme Court. The regulations were finally found constitutional only after being substantially narrowed to meet First Amendment scrutiny. Since the access methods offered by online service providers are significantly different than simple telephone access to 900 services, we doubt that the same constitutional justifications would support the newly expanded rules. This issue requires considerable study and analysis. Content creators, or those who represent the content as their own, should be responsible for liability arising out of the content In sum, it should be content originators, not carriers, who are responsible for their content. Any other approach will stifle the free flow of information in the new digital media. IV. Next Steps Having only just received the language offered by Senator Exon, EFF still needs to do further analysis, and consult with others in the online community. We also hope to speak with Senator Exon's staff to understand their intent. Another important hearing will be held on S.1822 in mid-September by the Senate Judiciary Committee. By that time, we hope to have this issue resolved. While we agree that these carrier liability problems are in need of Congressional consideration, we do not believe that the time is ripe to act. Before any action is taken, hearings must be held and careful evaluation of all the issues, not just indecency, must be undertaken. Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Policy Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1001 G St. NW Suite 950 East, Washington, DC 20001 +1 202-347-5400(v) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) From: eye WEEKLY Subject: File 2--Sex, the Internet and the Idiots eye WEEKLY August 4 1994 Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EYE NET EYE NET SEX, THE INTERNET AND THE IDIOTS by K.K. CAMPBELL There are two breeds of moron attracted to the Internet's relation to sex -- reporters and wankers. These categories may overlap, but that's beside the point. Canadian newsmedia owe a great deal of Internet education to Judge Francis Kovacs and his infamous Karla Homolka trial publication ban. That elevated the Internet to headline material. It is humorous to watch reporters/editors grope for net.literacy. Talk with Justin Wells (stem@sizone.pci.on.ca) and Ken Chasse (root@sizone.pci.on.ca), the chaps who created alt.fan.karla-homolka as a lark, then found themselves hounded by reporters asking for "banned information, please." Or check out The Star's early stories, where Usenet newsgroups are called "computer billboards" -- whatever the hell those are. MEDIA MORONS Mainstream journalists without a rallying issue like a trial ban invariably end up with nothing better to do then bang the drum about the 3 Ps: pedophilia, piracy and pornography. Take the recent Internet "child molesters" silliness. Some teen somewhere is enticed into sex with an adult -- through America On Line, not the Internet -- and we have an "epidemic." Chicago's Harlan Wallach (wallach@mcs.com) reported in alt.internet.media-coverage how some dink named James Coates wrote a column for the July 15 Chicago Tribune called "Beware cybercreeps lurking on the Internet." True enough. But Coates' purpose is to frighten the middle class with some probably made-up story about "Vito," who cruises the net hoping "to have sex with children in wheelchairs." I understand Coates' pain. I can't spend 10 minutes in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) before someone asks if I'm a child in a wheelchair looking for a sex partner. Wallach told eye Coates has been going like this for months now -- "a master at work." Couple of weeks ago, California nuclear research facility Lawrence Livermore Labs discovered one computer held some dirty pictures. An employee gave away a password. Someone used that access to store the images. People could connect and get them. Nothing was hacked. Big deal. But on July 13, CNN reporter Don Knapp swooped in to whip up hysteria. Doom was clearly imminent. "Computer security specialists were surprised to find what may be the largest computer collection ever of hardcore pornography at the nation's top nuclear weapons and research laboratory," Knapp intoned ominously. Almost 2000 megs! Gol-ly! (Incidentally, 99 per cent of it was individual shots of nude/semi-nude women, no sexually explicit acts. Playboy stuff.) CNN rang Wired magazine writer Brian Behlendorf (brian@wired.com) and woke him at home, excited about "a big break-in at Laurence Livermore." Hackers and porno! If CNN was lucky, the hacker was a child molester. Behlendorf consented to an interview. CNN immediately asked him to "find some pictures of naked women on the Net for us." Behlendorf recounted the incident: "I really wasn't interested in doing that. I don't know of any FSP/FTP sites offhand anyways, and really didn't want to be associated with pictures of NEKKID GRRLS."* But amiable Behlendorf slid over to alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels and grabbed a picture of a model in a swimsuit. He also picked up a landscape, a race car and a Beatles album cover "to show that other images get sent over Usenet as well," naively thinking this point would be made -- though he stresses he by no means condones distributing copyrighted images, "clean" or otherwise. Behlendorf was then made to sit beside a terminal displaying Ms String-Bikini throughout all his comments. "They made me keep returning to that damn bikini image ... over and over." But intrepid reporter Don Knapp assured us all is well -- for now. "Spokespeople for the national laboratories insist that at no time were the pornographers, nor the software pirates, able to cross over from the research network into the classified network. The labs say that, while they are embarrassed, national security was not breached." Whew. YOU'RE GETTING VERY STUP- ERR, SLEEPY... Then you have regular net.wankers. Whoever said, "Never underestimate the intelligence of the American public," must read alt.sex.* newsgroups. For instance, the charismatic Aabid (aabid@elm.circa.ufl.edu) wrote a touching post called "I would like an enema myself!" to newsgroup sci.chem (science: chemistry). "Looking for a Middle Eastern M or F to help me with my enema desires. If you can be of assistance please email me." Readers of sci.chem were very intrigued and Aabid has made many interesting new friends. The greatest example of alt.sex stupidity is: The Hypnosis Program. As a joke, Indiana's Steve Salter (ssalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) posted to alt.sex.stories that he had a "hypnosis program" -- which you cleverly slip onto another person's computer where it will so mesmerize the unsuspecting target, he/she becomes your SEXUAL PLAYTHING, BENDING TO YOUR EVERY WHIM! For weeks after, global village idiots pestered him for copies. "I must have received over a hundred requests via private email or in alt.sex.stories for a copy of the program," Salter told eye. He had to publicly post a reply to stem the tide: "No offense, but get a rather large clue. There is no such animal. That was a joke. I thought it was obvious. How many people out there really want to hypnotize someone secretly? What the fuck is wrong with all of you?! What age group are we dealing with here? There is no such program!!! Sheesh..." Personally, I'm in agreement with David Romm (71443.1447@compuserve.com) who wrote: "I really liked the hypnosis program. It was much better than Cats." MASSAGE MY MEDIUM To get your own porn, there are lots of sites. Ask for the latest in the alt.sex groups. Check out alt.binaries.pictures.erotica to grab a few images. For text erotica, read in alt.sex.stories . If you can't access alt.sex groups because, say, your university is run by prudes, write (ahem) "Hot Stuff" (anon1ea3@nyx10.cs.du.edu) for details about his mail-server. He makes available hundreds of stories. We at eye have yet to sample this collection but are intrigued by two items: "Perils of Red Tape," which we assume reveals the lust-riddled world of civil service, and "Tales from the Network," the story of lonely boys sitting around Friday nights fingering their groins in IRC, praying someone with a female- sounding alias drops by. * FootNote: NEKKID GRRLS is idiomatic fresh-off-the-BBS net.wanker- speak. This language can be learned by hanging around newsgroups like alt.2600 . To convince others you are a deadly cool net.cruiser, write: "HEY, elite pir-8 d00ds! I got more NEKKID GRRLS philes than ANY OF U!!!! And U censorship loosers can SUCK MY DICK!!!!!" Send it to alt.sex . Make sure to cross-post to the comp.sys.ibm.* hierarchy because PCs are the most common computer and you will reach a wider audience. If you can manage it, post through an anonymous account and leave your personal signature with real address in the text of the message. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright Full issue of eye available in archive ==> gopher.io.org or ftp.io.org Mailing list available http://www.io.org/eye eye@io.org "Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 18:12:38 GMT From: shallit@GRACELAND.UWATERLOO.CA(Jeffrey Shallit) Subject: File 3--Symposium Announcement & Call for Papers Final Announcement and Call for Papers Symposium "Free Speech and Privacy in the Information Age" Davis Centre University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue, West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada Saturday, November 26, 1994 RATIONALE: The "information superhighway" will have a profound effect on our lives and the way we communicate in the 21st century. But how will it transform and be transformed by our understanding of traditional freedoms, such as free speech and privacy? This one-day symposium is intended to address the ethical, philosophical, and legal implications of the Internet and related communications technologies. Expert speakers from industry, academia, government, and the legal profession will discuss free speech and privacy in the information age. A wide spectrum of opinion will be represented. The symposium will host a poster session for contributed papers; see below for submission information. During the symposium, there will also be demonstrations, conducted by University library staff, of the Internet and its applications as a research and communications tool. WHO SHOULD ATTEND: * University and public librarians; * local, provincial, and federal government officials concerned with information and communication technology; * Internet users and computer system administrators from industry and academia; * feminists concerned with impact of the new technology; * lawyers interested in information and communication technology; * journalists from print, radio, television, and other media; * professors and students of sociology, philosophy, law, ethics, computer science, and electrical engineering. SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM: 8:00 - 9:00 AM Registration, coffee, and doughnuts Internet demonstration by library staff 9:00 AM Opening and Official Welcome 9:10 AM Professor JAY WESTON, Carleton University and the Ottawa Freenet: "Old Freedoms and New Technologies: The Evolution of Community Networking". 9:50 AM Professor URSULA M. FRANKLIN, FRSC, Massey College, University of Toronto: "Global Gossip, Homeless Information, and the Notion of Public Health". 10:45 AM Break 11:00 AM HENRY SPENCER, SP Systems and University of Toronto: "Computer System Administration in an Age of Uncontrolled Information Flow". 11:40 AM Professor GAILE POHLHAUS, Women's Studies and Theology and Religious Studies, Villanova University: "The Use of the Internet as a Vehicle for Pornography - Do We Really Care?" 12:20 PM Lunch Internet demonstration by library staff 2:10 PM (Keynote Address) The Honourable Mr. Justice JOHN SOPINKA, Canadian Supreme Court: "Freedom of Speech and the Protection of Privacy under the *Charter* in the Information Age". 3:05 PM Professor MARGARET ANN WILKINSON, Faculty of Law and Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Western Ontario: "Perceptual Differences in Approaches to Censorship: Information Intermediaries and the Implementation of Law". 3:45 PM Break 4:00 PM PARKER BARSS DONHAM, Political Columnist, Halifax Sunday Daily News and CBC Political Panellist, Nova Scotia: "A Free and Unshackled Internet -- If Joseph Howe Were Designing Cyberspace". 4:40 PM Professor Emeritus THELMA McCORMACK, Department of Sociology, York University: "Must We Buy Into Technological Determinism?". 5:20 PM Closing Remarks CALL FOR PAPERS: There will be a poster session for contributed papers. Contributed papers should be no more than 10 pages in length, and on a topic relevant to the symposium's theme. Submit contributed papers BEFORE October 31, 1994 to: Free Speech and Privacy Symposium c/o Prof. Jeffrey Shallit Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada You will be notified of the decision by telephone, fax, or electronic mail. SPONSORSHIP: The symposium is being sponsored by the Institute for Computer Research, University of Waterloo; the Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo; the Dean of the Arts Faculty, University of Waterloo; and Electronic Frontier Canada. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Prof. Harriet Lyons, Women's Studies and Anthropology, University of Waterloo Prof. Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo GETTING THERE: The symposium will be held at the William G. Davis Computer Research Centre at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario. Waterloo is approximately 80 minutes west of Toronto, Ontario, and is accessible from Toronto via car, airport limousine, bus, and rail. By Air: The nearest airport is Toronto. Airways Transit limousine serves the Waterloo area from Toronto airport. Reservations must be made at least 24 hours in advance by calling (519) 886-2121. The regular one-way fare is $43. There is a special symposium fare of $23 one-way; specify the "Free Speech Symposium" when making reservations, and be sure to have complete flight information ready when you call. By Car: From Detroit/Windsor/London: take Highway 401 east. (*) Exit at Route 8 west. Follow Route 8 to Route 7 east. Take Route 7 to 86 North, and exit at University Avenue West. Follow University Avenue approximately 3 km to the main entrance of the University (200 University Ave. West). From Toronto: take Highway 401 west, and follow the directions beginning with (*) above. From Buffalo: take the QEW to Highway 403 West. Exit the 403 at Highway 6 North. Take Highway 6 North to the 401 West, and follow the directions beginning with (*) above. By Bus: From Toronto: Kitchener is served by Greyhound Bus Service; about 10 buses a day, each direction. For schedule information, call (800) 661-8747. From London: Kitchener is served by Cha-co Trails; about 3 buses a day, each direction. For schedule information, call (800) 265-9460. Once at the Kitchener bus terminal, Kitchener Transit runs buses every 10-30 minutes to the University of Waterloo. Take buses 7D or 8B from the terminal. Travel time is approximately 25 minutes. By Rail: VIA rail has infrequent service to Kitchener from Chicago/London and Toronto. For schedule information, contact them at (800) 361-1235 (Ontario only). ACCOMMODATIONS: Symposium attendees should make their own hotel reservations. The Waterloo Inn (475 King St. North, Waterloo) has reserved a block of rooms for the symposium until October 26, at the special symposium rate of $70 (CDN) for a single room and $76 for a double room. Contact them at (519) 884-0220, and specify the "block ID Free100". Other hotels/motels reasonably near the Waterloo campus include: * Destination Inn, 547 King St. North, Waterloo, (519) 884-0100. Single $53, Double $63. * Comfort Inn, 190 Weber St. North, Waterloo, (519) 747-9400. Request the corporate rate of Single $60, Double $69. * Best Western Walper Terrace Hotel, 1 King St. West, Kitchener, (519) 745-4321. Near Kitchener Bus Terminal. Request the corporate rate of Single $69, Double $69. REGISTRATION: Last Name: ____________________ First Name: ___________________ Organization: ____________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ City: ___________________ Province/State: __________________ Postal Code: _______________ Country: _________________________ Phone: _____________________ Fax: ____________________________ E-mail: ___________________________________________________________ Registration fees: Before October 31 After October 31 StudentCDN $20 / US $16 CDN $30 / US $24 GeneralCDN $75 / US $60 CDN $90 / US $72 Registration fee includes admission to all sessions, Internet demonstration, lunch, two coffee breaks, copies of printed material, and GST. (GST No. = R119260685) Registration payment: If paying by cheque, please make cheque out to "University of Waterloo", payable in either US or Canadian Funds, and mail to: "Free Speech and Privacy Symposium" c/o Wendy Rush Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 Canada You can also use a credit card. Please provide the following information: Card name (Visa, Mastercard, or American Express): Card number: Expiry date: Amount (Specify in Canadian dollars ONLY): Cardholder's Name (please print): Cardholder's Signature: ___________________________________________ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Wendy Rush at (519) 885-1211 ext. 3688, or Jeffrey Shallit at (519) 888-4804. Fax inquiries can be sent to (519) 885-1208. E-mail inquiries can be sent to: sfsp@graceland.uwaterloo.ca On the Internet, you can get a copy of this program by typing "finger sfsp@graceland.uwaterloo.ca". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 21:18:54 CDT From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 4--Reaffirming Life through an Online Death kj died. On August 21, about 10:30 p.m. Kathleen Johnston was a nudge shy of 50, rather lonely and unhappy. Brilliant, articulate, and rather shy in person, she was a dynamic extrovert online. Her health prevented her from applying her Wellesley background and an M.A. and Ph.d in physical sciences toward a full-time professional career. So, in her final years, she immersed herself in The Well, the bay area electronic community populated by equally bright and articulate folk. There, she made friends, found foes, provoked, nurtured, challenged, baited, and both earned respect and generated animosity from those she encountered. What made kj's death different from most deaths was that, when she was no longer able to participate fully on The Well, she wrote her own death notice, a simple statement, and posted it in the Well's obituary topic on June 25. Kathleen Johnston. September 29, 1945 - July or August, 1994. The days are dwindling, as is my energy, so I won't be around to correct your copious errors in logic. It's been fun. Of metastatic cancer. kj &;-) kj's post generated scores of immediate responses, and a second topic was opened. Nearly 400 additional posters offered their poems, sympathy, and tear-stained well-wishes. Almost 300 more appeared immediately after her death. The event drew media attention: In his ONLINE column in the San Francisco Chronicle (1 Sept, '94: THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/1/94 "Death Leaves Well Bewildered") observed: That's kj's death is famous now was just luck. Two years ago, or two years hence, she could have died just like anyone else, without making the papers. But right now what happens online is new and different. That an ordinary citizen named Kathleen Johnston should die of cancer is not fodder for Time and the Washington Post. But that kj on the WELL should die -- and that her death provoke the online response that it did -- that makes news. We're just beginning to get a handle on the idea of living online, after a decade or so of making it up as we go along. This inevitably includes deciding, in the chaotic way that collective decisions get made online, how we are going to respond to death. The thing is, we just don't know what to do. Americans have always tended to improvise. This works for things like technology, marketing, or statecraft. But it serves us poorly where death is concerned. Time Magazine (5 Sept, '94: p. 18) was more straight-forward: CHRONICLES: WELL-WISHERS ON THE INTERNET Is cyberspace as cold and anonymous as it is reputed to be? Members of the WELL, a San Francisco-based computer bulletin board, recently found out. On June 29, Adele Framer, who calls herself tigereye, posted a message: "Kathleen Johns((t))on -- kj -- on the WELL, who's housebound in the final stages of cancer, could use a little help with light meals once or twice a week." The following are excerpts from the exchange that followed. KJ herself is noticeably absent. She was in no shape to take part in a message board. The Time piece added 17 posts believed to typify the spirit of the discussion. But, the media, I think, missed the real story. kj's was much more than a death around which a community commiserated electronically. This should not be a story about posts. It's a story of people coming together, sharing experiences, grieving, squabbling, learning, and growing. The real story is that the electronic medium, while certainly of value in helping a stunned community cope with the grief of losing one of their own through an E-death watch, provided the means to reach out more tangibly to kj. And, more importantly, to reach out to each other. The real story is how one woman devoted her energy to organizing meals and assuring that kj would be cared for. How a male, often in mortal online combat with kj, visited her and together in her final days experienced a mutual growth and understanding. How others, who fought with kj in public, were uneasy about participating in the online or physical events prior to the death. It's about the rallying, about the phone calls, about the supportive e-mail sent to kj, about the visits at home. It's about friends, acquaintances and strangers visiting in the hospice in the final days, comforting her, reading to her, holding her hand. Most of all, the story is not about death, it's about life. It's about how online antagonists recognize their own demons and with pain and self-reflection confront them. It's about how friends and strangers give of themselves in ways that transcend the ASCII world in which they normally meet. It's about the courage to make peace, the sacrifice of care-giving, the shared community of grieving. Most of all, the story is about how the electronic medium brings people together, face-to-face, heart-to-heart, even in death. The media saw and reported only ASCII, and made invisible the mandala that gave it soul. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 9-1-94) 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 60115, USA. 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: +32.69.45.51.77 (ringdown) UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) 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 #6.79 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank