Computer underground Digest Wed Jan 18, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 04 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 Jan 18, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 04 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 Copy Reader: Laslo Toth CONTENTS, #7.04 (Wed, Jan 18, 1995) File 1--GIF Tax Rumors- Threat or Menace? (Resp #1) File 2--Re CuD 7.02 - Compuserv/Unisys GIF tax File 3--The InterNewt File 4--cu in the news File 5--INFORMATION ACCESS: Not Just Wires (fwd) File 6--Re: COOCS'95 Deadline extended until January 30C File 7--**How do I protect my program??** File 8--Comment on D. Batterson's article (CuD 6.106) File 9--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 14:12:31 -0600 From: /G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU1=0205465@MHS-MC.ATTMAIL.COM Subject: File 1--GIF Tax Rumors- Threat or Menace? (Resp #2) Date: 1/12/95 1:06 PM Subj: GIF Tax Rumors: Threat or Menace? For those of you who haven't been reading your email lately, or who have managed to escape the net's Crisis of the Month Club, on December 28th CompuServe issued an unnecessarily tangled, poorly worded press release that contained the words "patent," "GIF," "royalty," and "CompuServe." Pat Clawson, the President and CEO of TeleGraphix Communications Inc., spread the word to the world, along with his own interpretation. For the next two weeks, all "the usual places" on the net (CompuServe's GRAPHSUPPORT forum, Telecom Digest, Computer underground Digest, and various UseNet newsgroups) exploded with scads of non-lawyers' interpretations of a document that was clearly written (or at least approved) by lawyers. Serveral days ago, CompuServe issued another statement, clarifying the whole mess. If I may abstract it: 1) The GIF image format, which CompuServe invented and promoted, uses LZW compression to bring down the image size. 2) At the time, CompuServe was under the impression that LZW was public domain. In fact, it was (being?) patented by Unisys. 3) Unisys wants its dough. Any package which uses LZW compression or decompression, including anything that can make or display a GIF image, infringes on their patent. 4) CompuServe negotiated a pass-through agreement: for a nominal sum per copy sold, you can sublicense the LZW/GIF code from CompuServe. 5) However, the terms of CompuServe's agreement with Unisys require that they only sub-license software that was written specifically to communicate with CompuServe. 6) If that =isn't= what your software is for, then you need to negotiate your =own= agreement with Unisys for the offending LZW routines, or stop selling software that uses them. In his January 2nd screed, Pat Clawson of TeleGraphix misinterprets points four through six above. His interpretation, which is now ricocheting around the net, argues that GIF is now legally restricted to CompuServe only. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course, Pat Clawson is not without fiscal interest in this controversy, either. Within a day or so of his first call to arms, his company had offered a competing spec, called GEF. Of course, at first his would be the only software that could read it, which is always good for the ol' market share, eh Pat? Oh, except now he's promoting yet another graphics standard, RIPScript ... as evidenced by the fact that his Internet email address has changed from PATCLAWSON@telegraphix.com to rip.support@telegraphix.com. On top of that, four days later Unisys' Public Relations department made an announcement in CompuServe's GRAPHSUPPORT forum that is even better news. 7) Unisys only wants to charge royalties from communications software vendors who are charging a fee for software intended to connect to a commercial online service. 8) Unisys explicitly says that they will not charge a royalty for "non- commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications, including those for use on the on-line services" or for "non-commercial, non-profit offerings on the Internet, including +Freeware+." 9) They also made it pretty clear that they won't charge for selling images, whether via World Wide Web pages, CompuServe fora, or local bulletin boards. It's the software vendors whose software =makes= the images who'll have to pay. In other words, unless you =sell= =communications software= specifically for connecting to =commercial online services= such as CompuServe or America Online, and your software displays GIFs, you'll have to pay a royalty. CompuServe estimates that the royalty will work out to around 11 cents per copy of the software sold. If you want to explore alternatives to sub-licensing from CompuServe, or you want to make sure that you are covered, email lzw_info@unisys.com and =ask them=. Everybody else can relax, sit back down, and let this month's Panic of the Month ebb away. There is no FCC modem tax, there is no FCC proposed rule to outlaw religious broadcasting, Craig Shergold doesn't want more postcards, and there is no conspiracy to tax, license, restrict, or outlaw GIF files. P.S. Thank all holy Gods that everyone involved is including a date and an email address in their messages on the subject. Hopefully, we won't be hearing about this "new threat" in five years. P.P.S. Come to think of it, the FCC Modem Tax memetic infection started with a CompuServe public announcement, too. "CompuServe Public Relations: Threat or Menace?" Nah, it's probably just a coincidence. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:09:43 +0500 From: rich@PARIS.INTERTV.COM(Richard Forno) Subject: File 2--Re CuD 7.02 - Compuserv/Unisys GIF tax That just shows a few things. Firstly, it shows Compuserv's desire to get noticed in the GII. They have probably lost marketshare to smaller places such as AOL or due to people getting full-service accounts at work and/or school. CServe figures that by adding this tax, they will get a return on the existing .GIF Technology already in cyberspace. Wrong! That's like the already-trampled-and-beaten PGP horse. That's like having the federal government attempt to liscence and control EVERY copy of PGP in existence and the subsequent use of the program thereof. IT WON'T WORK!! Finally, since the public liscence conditions weren't made available from Compuserv, I agree that it is their sneak attack on the online community. If Compuserv feels this strongly about the widespread use of GIF technology in the advancement of the Global Information Infrastructure (which I would think as flattering, at least) they would rethink this half-crazed concept of theirs. There are other, more flexible image types that can easily fill the gap in W3 sites and other GIF areas. IMHO, this is a major blunder for Compuserv. It shows their motive for existence as only for profit --forget helping advance on the GII, they just want bucks. Not to mention, if .GIF was designed for use by the shareware community, doesn't this kind of go against the shareware concept and further show CServ's attempt to grandfather in this tax? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 14:00:41 -0800 From: dbatterson@ATTMAIL.COM(David Batterson) Subject: File 3--The InterNewt Newt and the Art of the Internet By David Batterson As the Religious Reich continues to march to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers," we can expect the clueless Newtbies, chainsmoking Helmsmen and Rush dittohead dorks to increase their invasion of the Net. Of course, they will not be satisfied with the Internet status quo, but will immediately want to change things around to suit their rightwing agenda (and placate their corporate contributors). Let's prognosticate what we might expect if they have their way. Senator Jesse Helms will be setting up a WWW home page for the tobacco industry, where we can view video clips on the joys of smoking, read informative text on how curbing smoking is an infringement of our Constitutional liberties, see .GIF photos of celebrities smoking away, and listen to .WAV files of cigarette manufacturer CEOs testifying before Congress that there's no evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer. Address: http://www.rightwing.puk Speaker Newt Gingrich will set up a gopher site, where you can to read and post in delightful new Newsgroups like jobs.many.entrylevel, alt.gay.hangem, people.orphanages.buildem, legal.aid.nofunds, TV.public.disband, defense.budget.skyhigh, environment.pollute.whocares, and tobacco.ifyagotem.smokem. You'll have to learn some new terminology when the "Sieg Heil" crowd takes over. Don't worry, though; there will not be prison time for first time offenders who still use the old meanings. You will be required to subscribe to National Review, however, to catch up. The definition of WWW (World Wide Web) will be changed to We Want Wealth. Archie and Veronica will be banned, and be replaced by earlier comic strip characters Mutt and Jeff (to reflect the same age and brainpower of our new leaders). URL (Uniform Resource Locator) will probably become Unscrupulous Republican Liars. IRC (Internet Relay Chat) becomes Irresponsible, Reprehensible Congress. WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) switches over to Women Are Insignificant Servants. SLIP/PPP (Serial Line Internet Protocol/Point-to-Point Protocol) will see its definition fall by the wayside. The terms will soon stand for Slippery, Lame Internal Policies/Petty Political Pugnaciousness. TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) will stand for Take Control and Plunder/Ignore Populace. And FTP (File Transfer Protocol)? That's easy. It will soon mean: Fuck The People. See ya on the Net, and don't forget to give the third-finger salute to the new Congressional leadership. 8^/ ### David Batterson contributes to WIRED, CONNECT, WAVE, Portland Computer Bits, ComputorEdge and other publications. Cyberaddress: dbatterson@attmail.com. Copyright 1995; all rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 12:21:41 -0800 From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 4--cu in the news Check Fraud ========== According to the American Banksers Association (ABA), check fraud has risen 136% over 1991 levels. Some of the culprits are desktop publishing and laser printers, which allow for easier forging of payroll checks. The ABA countermeasures for these developments include direct deposit, software that watches for suspicious-looking check numbers, and discouraging legitimate customers from printing their own checks on plain-paper. (ComputerWorld. 12/5/94 pg 8) Cyberspace and the Law ==================== Edward Cavazos, attorney and author of _Cyberspace and The Law_ (MIT Press), is briefly interviewed in the Dec. 5, 1994 issue of ComputerWorld. Cavazos warns that there are several pitfalls for businesses that allows employees access to the Internet. These include copyright violations, privacy issues, and possible libel problems. (pgs 114-116) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:47:34 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 5--INFORMATION ACCESS: Not Just Wires (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ************************************** * Copyright Karen Coyle, 1994 * * * * This document may be * * circulated freely on the Net * * with this statement included. * * For any commercial use, or * * publication (including electronic * * journals), you must obtain the * * permission of the author * * kec@stubbs.ucop.edu * ************************************** ACCESS: Not Just Wires By Karen Coyle (University of California, Library Automation) (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Berkeley Chapter) ** This is the written version of a talk given at the 1994 CPSR Annual meeting in San Diego, CA, on Oct. 8. ** I have to admit that I'm really sick and tired of the Information highway. I feel like I've already heard so much about it that it must be come and gone already, yet there is no sign of it. This is truly a piece of federal vaporware. I am a librarian, and I and it's especially strange to have dedicated much of your life to the careful tending of our current information infrastructure, our libraries, only to wake up one morning to find that the entire economy of the nation depends on making information commercially viable. There's an element of Twilight Zone about this because libraries are probably our most underfunded and underappreciated of institutions, with the possible exception of day care centers. It's clear to me that the information highway isn't much about information. It's about trying to find a new basis for our economy. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the way information is treated in that economy. We know what kind of information sells, and what doesn't. So I see our future as being a mix of highly expensive economic reports and cheap online versions of the National Inquirer. Not a pretty picture. This is a panel on "access." But I am not going to talk about access from the usual point of view of physical or electronic access to the FutureNet. Instead I am going to talk about intellectual access to materials and the quality of our information infrastructure, with the emphasis on "information.". Information is a social good and part of our "social responsibility" is that we must take this resource seriously. >From the early days of our being a species with consciousness of its own history, some part of society has had the role of preserving this history: priests, learned scholars, archivists. Information was valued; valued enough to be denied to some members of society; to be part of the ritual of belonging to an elite. So I find it particularly puzzling that as move into this new "information age" that our efforts are focused on the machinery of the information system, while the electronic information itself is being treated like just so much more flotsam and jetsam; this is not a democratization of information, but a devaluation of information. On the Internet, many electronic information sources that we are declaring worthy of "universal access" are administered by part-time volunteers; graduate students who do eventually graduate, or network hobbyists. Resources come and go without notice, or languish after an initial effort and rapidly become out of date. Few network information resources have specific and reliable funding for the future. As a telecommunications system the Internet is both modern and mature; as an information system the Internet is an amateur operation. Commercial information resources, of course, are only interested in information that provides revenue. This immediately eliminates the entire cultural heritage of poetry, playwriting, and theological thought, among others. If we value our intellectual heritage, and if we truly believe that access to information (and that broader concept, knowledge) is a valid social goal, we have to take our information resources seriously. Now I know that libraries aren't perfect institutions. They tend to be somewhat slow-moving and conservative in their embrace of new technologies; and some seem more bent on hoarding than disseminating information. But what we call "modern librarianship" has over a century of experience in being the tender of this society's information resources. And in the process of developing and managing that resource, the library profession has understood its responsibilities in both a social and historical context. Drawing on that experience, I am going to give you a short lesson on social responsibilities in an information society. Here are some of our social responsibilities in relation to information: 1. Collection 2. Selection 3. Preservation 4. Organization 5. Dissemination 1. Collection: It is not enough to passively gather in whatever information comes your way, like a spider waiting on its web. Information collection is an activity, and an intelligent activity. It is important to collect and collocate information units that support, complement and even contradict each other. A collection has a purpose and a context; it says something about the information and it says something about the gatherer of that information. It is not random, because information itself is not random, and humans do not produce information in a random fashion. Too many Internet sites today are a terrible hodge-podge, with little intellectual purpose behind their holdings. It isn't surprising that visitors to these sites have a hard time seeing the value of the information contained therein. Commercial systems, on the other hand, have no incentive to provide an intellectual balance that might "confuse" its user. In all of the many papers that have come out of discussion of the National Information Infrastructure, it is interesting that there is no mention of collecting information: there is no Library of Congress or National Archive of the electronic inforamtion world. So in the whole elaborate scheme, no one is responsbile for the collection of information. 2. Selection: Not all information is equal. This doesn't mean that some of it should be thrown away, though inevitably there is some waste in the information world. And this is not in support of censorship. But there's a difference between a piece on nuclear physics by a Nobel laureate and a physics diorama entered into a science fair by an 8-year-old. And there's a difference between alpha release .03 and beta 1.2 of a software package. If we can't differentiate between these, our intellectual future looks grim indeed. Certain sources become known for their general reliability, their timeliness, etc. We have to make these judgments because the sheer quantity of information is too large for us to spend our time with lesser works when we haven't yet encountered the greats. This kind of selection needs to be done with an understanding of a discipline and understanding of the users of a body of knowledge. The process of selection overlaps with our concept of education, where members of our society are directed to a particular body of knowledge that we hold to be key to our understanding of the world. 3. Preservation: How much of what is on the Net today will exist in any form ten years from now? And can we put any measure to what we lose if we do not preserve things systematically? If we can't preserve it all, at least in one safely archived copy, are we going to make decisions about preservation, or will we leave it up to a kind of information Darwinianism? As we know, the true value of some information may not be immediately known, and some ideas gain in value over time. The commercial world, of course, will preserve only that which sells best. 4. Organization: This is an area where the current Net has some of its most visible problems, as we have all struggled through myriad gopher menus, ftp sites, and web pages looking for something that we know is there but cannot find. There is no ideal organization of information, but no organization is no ideal either. The organization that exists today in terms of finding tools is an attempt to impose order over an unorganized body. The human mind in its information seeking behavior is a much more complex question than can be answered with a keyword search in an unorganized information universe. When we were limited to card catalogs and the placement of physical items on shelves, we essentially had to choose only one way to organize our information. Computer systems should allow us to create a multiplicity of organization schemes for the same information, from traditional classification, that relies on hierarchies and categories, to faceted schemes, relevance ranking and feedback, etc. Unfortunately, documents do not define themselves. The idea of doing WAIS-type keyword searching on the vast store of textual documents on the Internet is a folly. Years of study of term frequency, co- occurrence and other statistical techniques have proven that keyword searching is a passable solution for some disciplines with highly specific vocabularies and nearly useless in all others. And, of course, the real trick is to match the vocaubulary of the seeker of information with that of the information resource. Keyword searching not only doesn't take into account different terms for the same concepts, it doesn't take into account materials in other languages or different user levels (i.e. searching for children will probably need to be different than searching done by adults, and libraries actually use different subject access schemes for childrens' materials). And non-textual items (software, graphics, sound) do not respond at all to keyword searching. There is no magical, effortless way to create an organization for information; at least today the best tools are a clearly defined classification scheme and a human indexer. At least a classification scheme or indexing scheme gives the searcher a chance to develop a rational strategy for searching. The importance of organizational tools cannot be overstated. What it all comes down to is that if we can't find the information we need, it doesn't matter if it exists or not. If we don't find it, we don't encounter it, then it isn't information. There are undoubtedly millions of bytes of files on the Net that for all practical purposes are non- existant . My biggest fear in relation to the information highway is that intellectual organization and access will be provided by the commercial world as a value-added service. So the materials will exist, even at an affordable price, but it will cost real money to make use of the tools that will make it possible for you to find the information you need. If we don't provide these finding tools as part of the public resource, then we aren't providing the information to the public. 5. Dissemination: There's a lot of talk about the "electronic library". Actually, there's a lot written about the electronic library, and probably much of it ends up on paper. Most of us agree that for anything longer than a one- screen email message, we'd much rather read documents off a paper page than off a screen. While we can hope that screen technologies will eventually produce something that truly substitutes for paper, this isn't true today. So what happens with all of those electronic works that we're so eager to store and make available? Do we reverse the industrial revolution and return printing of documents to a cottage industry taking place in homes, offices and libraries? Many people talk about their concerns for the "last mile" - for the delivery of information into every home. I'm concerned about the last yard . We can easily move information from one computer to another, but how do we get it from the computer to the human being in the proper format? Not all information is suited to electronic use. Think of the auto repair manuals that you drag under the car and drip oil on. Think of children's books, with their drool-proof pages. Even the Library of Congress has announced that they are undertaking a huge project to digitize 5 million items from their collection. Then what ? How do they think we are going to make use of those materials? There are times when I can only conclude that we have been gripped by some strange madness. I have fantasies of kidnapping the entire membership of the administration's IITF committees and tying them down in front of 14" screens with really bad flicker and forcing them to read the whole of Project Gutenberg's electronic copy of Moby Dick. Maybe then we'd get some concern about the last yard. In conclusion: 1. No amount of wiring will give us universal access 2. Just adding more files and computers to gopherspace, webspace and FTPspace will not give us better access 3. And commercial information systems can be expected to be.... commercial ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 21:21:03 -0800 From: Rob Kling Subject: File 6-- Re: COOCS'95 Deadline extended until January 30C Deadline extended until January 30 ........ Call for Papers: Behavioral & Social Impacts Track Conference on Organizational Computing Systems COOCS `95 Sponsored by ACM SIGOIS This conference has three tracks, and I'm posting here because I believe that the Behavioral & Social Impacts Track will interest some readers. While conferece focusses on "org computing systems," interorganizational communications, telecommuting, commerce on the nets, electronically connected voluntary groups as organizations, computer-mediated communication in diverse forms, and many other such broad topics can fit ... as computing/telecomm crosses org boundaries in so many ways these days. Rob Kling Chair, Behavioral and Social Impacts Track ---------- Topics for Track II: Behavioral and Social Impacts o Social processes in the development and use of electronic journals o Social processes in the development and use of digital libraries o Social impacts of organizational re-engineering o Organizational impacts of computerization of large applications o Integrating information systems and small groups o Social-technical systems analysis (theory and case studies) o Organization and ramifications of mobile offices o Open systems policies, standards, and impacts o Social aspects of globally distributed organizational computing o Theoretical approaches for understanding the development, use and/or social impacts of information technologies o The influence of technology and work organization on work life o The cultural dimensions of computerization within and between organizations IMPORTANT DATES Submission due: January 30, 1995 Author notification: March 8, 1995 Manuscripts due: May 10, 1995 Conference dates: August 13-16, 1995 ------------------------------------------- CONFERENCE SPECIFICS: ------------------- Conference Location: Sheraton Silicon Valley ----Milpitas (near San Jose), California August 13-16, 1995 (Immediately after the Workflow `95 conference) As we endeavor to move toward more effective and efficient organizations, we must take into account technical, social, and organizational aspects of computerization. This conference is organized as three tracks in order to address these aspects. I. Business processes track II. Behavioral and social impacts track III. Technical aspects track Advances in tools, processes, technologies, and methodologies that facilitate the use of information systems in organizations can improve the way information is made available and used. This conference is intended to bring together researchers and practitioners interested in the introduction, management, deployment, and analysis of information and processes within organizations. The scope of the conference is intended to cover areas related to this goal, including but not limited to: Track II: Behavioral and Social Impacts o Social processes in the development and use of electronic journals o Social processes in the development and use of digital libraries o Social impacts of organizational re-engineering o Organizational impacts of computerization of large applications o Integrating information systems and small groups o Social-technical systems analysis (theory and case studies) o Organization and ramifications of mobile offices o Open systems policies, standards, and impacts o Social aspects of globally distributed organizational computing o Theoretical approaches for understanding the development, use and/or social impacts of information technologies o The influence of technology and work organization on work life o The cultural dimensions of computerization within and between organizations ------------------------------ Track I: Business Processes o Workflow systems, models, and theories o Process meta-models and meta-modeling o Models and strategies for business process design, and re-engineering o Measurement-based approaches to organizational analysis o Process acquisition, monitoring and management tools o Business systems formalisms o Experiences with process models and process management tools Track III: Technical Aspects o Organizational computing systems and infrastructure o Groupware o Object and database models and systems o Computer supported collaboration and negotiation o Distributed AI, expert systems, multi-agent models o Coordination technology and workflow technology o Multimedia information storage, retrieval, and communications Each track of the conference will have a program chair and a program committee. Thus, each paper should be submitted to the program chair of the most appropriate track. (See below for all 3 track chairs) Rob Kling (behavioral track chair) Dept. Information/Computer Sci University of California Irvine, CA 92715 USA Phone: +1 714 856 5955 Fax: +1 714 856 4056 email: kling@ics.uci.edu If a submission falls within several tracks, please submit it to one program chair, and note the overlap in a cover letter, so that the submission can be properly considered. Each submission will be critically reviewed and judged by the appropriate program committee(s). Submissions to the conference can be in the form of papers, or demonstration, panel, workshop or tutorial pro- posals. Papers can take either of two forms: (1) Research investigations present original work in any of the areas of interest to the conference. (2) Case studies discuss projects which introduce innovative tools, technologies or methodologies into particular organizational settings, and critically analyze the results and impact of the project. RESEARCH PAPERS -- Papers should present original reports of substantive new work or integrative reviews. Theory, methodology, and concept papers should present new theories, empirical results, methodologies or concepts that stimulate new ways of thinking about, supporting, or studying organizational information systems (broadly conceived). All papers should provide a concise message to the audience about how the work relates to previous research or experience and what aspects of the work are new. Papers will be evaluated on the basis of originality, significance of the contribution to the field, quality of research, and quality of writing. Papers should not exceed 12 ACM camera-ready pages. It is possible that some papers will be presented at the conference in poster sessions. Papers must include an abstract of no more than 100 words. Papers must be twelve pages or less, including abstract, figures, and references, printed in double columns, in 12 point Times font, on 8.5"X11" paper (See proceedings of COOCS'93 or CSCW'94 for examples.) ------------------------------ Demonstration proposals should be 3-5 pages long, and include enough information to allow the committee to judge the relevance and significance of the work. Please include machine requirements. Panel proposals should motivate the subject of the panel and give brief biographical sketches of proposed panel members. Workshop and Tutorial proposals should motivate the workshop/tutorial and its relevance to this conference. For tutorials, provide an outline and a brief biographical sketch of the proposers. For workshops, motivate the workshop, indicate how you would select participants, and outline the format of the workshop. Proposals for both half-day and full-day workshops and tutorials are welcome. Authors should submit five copies of the manuscript or proposal, in English, together with a cover sheet, to the appropriate Program Chair by January 4, 1995. The cover sheet should contain (i) submission type; (ii) title; (iii) names, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses (if available) of all authors; (iv) contact author; (v) keywords and abstract. Information on paper format can be obtained from any of the Program Co-chairs. IMPORTANT DATES Submission due: January 4, 1995 Author notification: March 8, 1995 Manuscripts due: May 10, 1995 Conference dates: August 13-16, 1995 Conference Co-Chairs Nora Comstock Clarence A. Ellis Comstock Connections Dept. of Computer Science 3103 Loyola Ln. University of Colorado Austin, TX 78723 U.S.A. Boulder, CO 80309 U.S.A +1 512 928 8780 voice and fax +1 303 492 5984 loyola!nora@cs.utexas.edu (UUCP) skip@cs.colorado.edu PROGRAM CHAIRS John Mylopoulos (business track) Rob Kling (behavioral track) Dept. of Computer Science Dept. Information/Computer Sci University of Toronto University of California Toronto, Ontario, CANADA Irvine, CA 92715 USA Phone: +1 416 978 5180 Phone: +1 714 856 5955 Fax: +1 416 978 1455 Fax: +1 714 856 4056 email: jm@ai.toronto.edu email: kling@ics.uci.edu Simon Kaplan (technical track) Dept. of Computer Science University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, IL 61801 USA Phone:+1 217 244 0392 Fax: +1 217 333 3501 email: kaplan@cs.uiuc.edu REGISTRATION/LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS WORKSHOP ARRANGEMENTS TREASURER Keith Swenson Jeanie Treichel Fujitsu OSSI Sun Microsystems Lab, Inc. 3055 Orchard Dr. 2550 Garcia Avenue, UMTV 29-01 San Jose, CA 95134 Mountain View CA 94043 Phone: +1408 456 7667 Phone: +1 415 336 5260 Fax: +1 408 456 7050 Fax: +1 415 691 0756 kswenson@ossi.com email: jeanie.treichel@Sun.COM ------------------------------ From: Warren Smith Subject: File 7--**How do I protect my program??** Date: Sun, 8 Jan 95 16:32:30 -0500 I have spent two years of part-time work writing a program which I hope to sell sometime. I would like users to try the program for a time, say a month, before they can decide to buy it - I hate spending my money on a program that I later find is no good. The question is - how do I protect all my work against all the pirates out there. Do I force users to use a 'Dongle'? Is there a better way? Even the 'Dongle' is not foolproof. And I have to absorb the cost of the Dongles given to potential customers who don't later buy the program. This also would prevent distribution by wire. I notice some programs are being distributed on CDROM with a password needed to access parts of the program. Can anyone tell me where I can find help. Any Associations which might help me? By the way, which 'Dongle' is the best? Sorry to offend all you liberated freedom loving pirates out there. Thanks, Warren. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 15:55:02 -0500 From: Petrocelli@AOL.COM Subject: File 8--Comment on D. Batterson's article (CuD 6.106) Item 2 talks about "old fashioned" market surveys and his opinion that they are somehow ridiculous when compared to the on-line, electronic version. He writes: But an e-mailed (or online) survey would be the best way to go. PRODIGY already has online opinion polls, with instant results available for viewing, so it could be done easily enough. Online market research is unintrusive, is digital in nature [no inputing by data collectors is required], and surveys can be done according to the respondent's time schedule, NOT the market research firm's. This major market research firm has its head stuck in the sand, as do many other ones. This is a wonderful sentiment but, alas, an unscientific one. To properly conduct a survey of any type requires a random sample. Surveys conducted on an on-line service are only valid if you are studying people who call on-line services or as a supplement to a phone survey. Otherwise, characteristics of people who are on-line will skew your results. When the day comes that everyone is on-line, when we have a truely global, electronic community then on-line surveys will make sense. Until that time the time-honered way of using a phone and imposing on their goodwill will be the best way to gather market intelligence aside from showing up at someone's office and doing it in person. We should never confuse asking someone for a moment of their time with an abrigment of freedom. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) 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: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 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/Publications/CuD ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU Sociology gopher at: URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci 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 #7.04 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank