Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 5, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 09 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 Sun Feb 5, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 09 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 Icecreamer: B. Robbins CONTENTS, #7.09 (Sun, Feb 5, 1995) File 1--Libel & Defamation in the Information Age (fwd) File 2--CFP'95 Program/Registration Information File 3--New Draft of Telcom Bill Out File 4--NIST Mugshot ID database - thousands cataloged on CD File 5--Update on "Ethics & Privacy on the Internet" Survey File 6--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 22:23:45 -0600 (CST) From: Avi Bass Subject: File 1--Libel & Defamation in the Information Age (fwd) Reply to: Discussion List for Journalism Education Date--Tue, 10 Jan 1995 09:55:09 EST From--"Eric J. Eden" I thought this article might be interesting for some members on this list Eric Eden r3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu EricEden@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------- Libel & Defamation in the Information Age By Eric Eden On the Internet, where abnormal behavior is the status quo, tempers can flare in the heat of debate and word wars can last for days or even weeks. It's not uncommon for users to ridicule, harass or insult those who disagree with them. But if you damage someone's reputation by trying to embarrass them in a public forum, you could be sued for libel or defamation. After all, there's no reason to assume that the messages you send through cyberspace are immune from lawsuits. "The Internet culture right now is for users to refute speech with speech," says Dave Marburger, the attorney who represented Brock Meeks in one of the first defamation lawsuits in the United States involving the Internet. "But as the Internet culture gets more diverse, users will start refuting speech with lawsuits." There have only been a handful of libel and defamation lawsuits filed involving the Internet so far, but as the Net grows, the number of lawsuits will probably increase. If the few court battles that have been decided involving libel and defamation on the Net are any indication of how the law will be applied to the Internet in the future, it's worth your time to learn what's libelous or defamatory on the Internet and what's not. Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. You can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news group or mailing list. In April of 1993 Gil Hardwick, an anthropologist in Australia, was ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 in damages because he defamed Rindos on an international mailing list. After Rindos lost his job at the University of West Australia, Hardwick posted a message on an international disscussion group that suggested Rindos was fired because he was a bully and had sexually molested a local boy. Rindos filed a defamation lawsuit against Hardwick because he felt the message had hurt his chances of finding a new job. In a letter to Rindos's attorney, Hardwick wrote "Let this matter be expedited and done with....I can do nothing to prevent it, lacking any resources whatsoever to defend myself." Like most people, Hardwick didn't have the money to hire a lawyer or finance an expensive legal battle. "He (Rindos) suffered a great deal of personal hurt because of the message," said Supreme Court Justice David Ipp in the West Australian. "The damages award must compensate him and vindicate his reputation to the public." The Internet is an informal forum and people often write personal things about other users, but you can be held accountable in court for making libelous or defamatory remarks in public forums just like Hardwick was. "We know that as the Internet grows, there will be more and more lawsuits involving libel and defamation," says attorney David H. Donaldson, editor of Legal Bytes, an electronic magazine that discusses legal issues involving computers and networking. "The only question is if the number of cases will grow steadily or if there will be an explosion of lawsuits all at once." Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are that you won't end up in court. "Make it clear when you are stating your opinion," says Donaldson, "Always state the facts that your opinions are based on just to be safe. You probably won't lose a libel or defamation lawsuit if you can back up what you write with solid facts." For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true. Meeks was sued by Suarez Corporation Industries in April of 1994 for writing an investigative story about the company and its services in his electronic newsletter -- the CyberWire Dispatch. Meeks had no libel insurance, no publishing company backing him up and a lot of legal fees to cover. (His lawyer charged him $200 an hour.) The only thing Meeks had was his house -- and he didn't want to sell it to pay off a lawsuit. Meeks defended his article in numerous posts on the Net, "All of my facts were rock solid. Although the article was delivered with a fair amount of attitude, I don't believe that I'm in dangerous waters," he wrote. Benjamin Suarez, owner of Suarez Corp., filed the suit because he felt that Meeks had damaged his reputation and hurt his business by saying he was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams," and saying "he (Suarez) has a mean streak." To back up his opinion, Meeks cited accusations made by the Washington state attorney general's office concerning Suarez's direct marketing practices. In August of 1994 Suarez Corp. made Meeks an offer he couldn't refuse. They agreed to settle the case for $64 -- to cover administrative court costs. The company refused to comment on why they agreed to settle the lawsuit. If the case had gone to trial, Meeks's lawyer thinks Meeks would have been able to win anyway. "The defendants in libel or defamation suits involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or was negligent." Marburger's only regret is that they didn't get to set that precedent in court. Although the Meeks case doesn't really mean anything in the law books, it does show that if you're responsible and can prove what you write on the Net is true, people will be less likely to take you to court. If you just make something up and your sources aren't reliable, you could lose big like Hardwick did. "You have to follow the same rules that journalists do if your going to write and distribute controversial material about other people," says Donaldson. The increasingly common phenomenon of online forums creates the possibility for you to reach large audiences, but it also creates the ability for you to commit defamation or libel -- something that an ordinary citizen didn't have to worry about in the past. Before the growth of online communication, people who didn't work in the media usually didn't have to worry about libel or defamation. "Libel laws apply to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations," explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit." Like a newspaper or TV station, you are responsible for making sure the material you distribute -- or broadcast -- over the Internet is not libelous or defamatory. Lani Teshia-Miller never meant to defame anyone, but when she took over the distribution of a tattoo FAQ she almost ended up in court. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ she inherited contained a lot of generalizations based on contributions from unattributed sources. Although she listed her name on the FAQ, she didn't edit out several defamatory statements. One review of a San Francisco tattoo artist in the FAQ said, "He's getting old and having problems with his eyesight. His quality is really bad and he hurts people." After the artist hired a lawyer and threatened to sue, Teshia- Miller changed the FAQ's wording to reflect a more factually-based and less-hysterical view. The review now says, "His eyesight is not what it used to be." After the FAQ was changed and Teshia-Miller apologized, the artist dropped the lawsuit. "It turned out to be a good experience for me," said Teshia- Miller. "I'm a lot more careful about what I allow on the artist list, and I now have a very long disclaimer at the beginning of the FAQ." Every person you write something negative about won't sue you for defamation or libel, they might flame you or just try to set the record straight by replying to the message. But if you post false information about another user and disgrace them in public, they have the right to take you to court -- and they could win a big settlement if they can prove you were negligent. Medphone, a Fortune 500 company that manufactures medical instruments, has filed a $200 million lawsuit against Prodigy user Peter DeNigis. Medphone filed a "systematic program for defamation and trade disparagement" lawsuit against DeNigis after a stockholder reported that he was making several negative posts about Medphone a day on Prodigy's Money Talk Forum. DeNigis, a former Medphone stockholder, lost more than $9,000 last year by selling off his investment in the company. In one post DeNigis wrote, "My research indicated the company is really having a difficult time. No case, no sales, no profits and terrible management. This company appears to be a fraud. Probably will cease operations soon." Although the accusation that Medphone is a "fraud" is very serious -- and potentially defamatory -- DeNigis might be able to win the lawsuit if he can prove what he wrote is true in court. "The Medphone case is a clear indication that libel and defamation is something for Internet users to think about," says Johnson. There are court cases in progress right now that will decide if access providers such as Prodigy, America Online and Compuserve are responsible for defamatory remarks broadcast over their services, but there is no legal ambiguity about whether individual users can be sued for making defamatory or libelous statements. Individual users are responsible for making sure the information they distribute is not libelous or defamatory. The Internet has made world wide, instantaneous communication easy. The average user now has the power to be heard by hundreds or even thousands of other users, but in terms of libel and defamation, the Net is not a new world of freedom. The reality is that libel and defamation laws are enforceable in the virtual world just like they are in the real world. # # # You may distribute this article freely for non-profit purposes. Otherwise contact the author (Eric Eden -- R3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu) for reprint permission. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:47:24 -0600 From: Henry Itkin Subject--Re: Libel & Defamation in the Information Age Several clarifications are needed and will, I think, ease people's minds a bit. Eric Eden r3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu wrote, in part: > Libel & Defamation in the Information Age > By Eric Eden > > Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove > you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. Absolutely right. It is the _plaintiff_ who must prove that a wrong has been done. See further mention below. > You can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed > defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news > group or mailing list. Partially right. The post need _not_ be in a "public" area, however. You can libel someone through private e-mail. If even _one person_ (beyond the defendant and the plaintiff) is exposed to the defamatory statement, a libel may have occurred. > Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged > their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are > that you won't end up in court. ... > For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his > own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely > because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true. As noted above, this is technically incorrect. The defendant does _not_ have to prove that the statement was true. Instead the plaintiff must prove it was _false_. There's a big difference. For one thing, if a lawsuit is truly groundless, then the defendant isn't required to say anything in court. Lacking proof of falsity, the lawsuit is dismissed. > "The defendants in libel or defamation suits > involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says > Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words, > the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or > was negligent." This really muddies an already-difficult concept. For now, let's just say that how much "fault" the plaintiff has to show on the part of the defendant depends on how "public" a figure the plaintiff is determined (by the court) to be. If plaintiff is ruled a "public" person, then in most states, the defendant will have a somewhat easier time of it. Best to all. Hank Itkin (itkin@uni.edu) University of Northern Iowa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:41:11 EST From: Eric Eden Subject--Re: Libel & Defamation in the Information Age On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:47:24 -0600 Henry Itkin said: >> Libel & Defamation in the Information Age >> By Eric Eden >> >> Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove >> you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. > >Absolutely right. It is the _plaintiff_ who must prove that a wrong has been >done. See further mention below. > >> You can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed >> defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news >> group or mailing list. > >Partially right. The post need _not_ be in a "public" area, however. You can >libel someone through private e-mail. If even _one person_ (beyond the >defendant and the plaintiff) is exposed to the defamatory statement, a libel >may have occurred. Yes. Libel could occur through private e-mail but the fact that it is Private makes it a weaker case. Most of the cases to date revolve around messages that have been posted in public forums on Compuserve and Prodigy or on mailing lists. >> Anybody can sue you for libel or defamation if they think you damaged >> their reputation, but if you can prove what you say is true, chances are >> that you won't end up in court. > >... > >> For example, Brock Meeks, a full-time journalist who also distributes his >> own electronic magazine, avoided losing a defamation lawsuit largely >> because he could prove an article that he sent over the Net was true. > >As noted above, this is technically incorrect. The defendant does _not_ have >to prove that the statement was true. Instead the plaintiff must prove it was >_false_. There's a big difference. For one thing, if a lawsuit is truly >groundless, then the defendant isn't required to say anything in court. >Lacking proof of falsity, the lawsuit is dismissed. The legal experts I interviewed for this story felt that even though the burden of proof is on the plaintiff's shoulder, defendants are less likely to lose in court if they can prove what they said is true. Especially if the plaintiff does have some evidence. If a plaintiff knows the defendant can prove what he or she wrote was true they will probably settle or drop the case. My personal opinion is that you should be able to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that what you write is true. If you can't prove it, you should do some more research or ommit the statement. Not only for ethical reasons but also because when your giving information to a large audience you should be sure what you are writing is true. However, technically you are correct. >> "The defendants in libel or defamation suits >> involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says >> Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words, >> the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or >> was negligent." > >This really muddies an already-difficult concept. For now, let's just say >that how much "fault" the plaintiff has to show on the part of the defendant >depends on how "public" a figure the plaintiff is >in most states, the defendant will have a somewhat easier time of it. The public figure issue is very complex and that's why I decided not to tackle it in this story. However, I do believe that Marburger's statement is correct. Thanks for your honest critique, Eric Eden r3eje@vm1.cc.uakron.edu EricEden@AOL.COM ------------------------------ From: Carey Heckman Subject: File 2--CFP'95 Program/Registration Information Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 09:11:31 -0800 (PST) The Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy Sponsored by: * ACM SIGCOMM, SIGCAS, SIGSAC, and * Stanford Law School 28 - 31 March 1995 San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel Burlingame, California CONNECT WITH OTHERS WHO ARE DETERMINING HOW COMPUTERS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS WILL AFFECT YOUR FREEDOM AND PRIVACY... JOIN US AT CFP'95. We have reached the crossroads of the Information Age. No longer is the electronic frontier inhabited solely by a small band of technical pioneers sharing a common code of conduct. Computer and telecommunications technologies have become part of mainstream living, conversation, and politics. These changes compel us to reexamine the definition of our rights and the processes by which those rights are being defined. The Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy will assemble experts, advocates and interested people from a broad spectrum of disciplines and backgrounds in a balanced public forum to explore and better understand the definition of our rights at this crossroads. Participants will include people from the fields of computer science, law, business, research, information, library science, health, public policy, government, law enforcement, public advocacy, and many others. Featured speakers include: John P. Morgridge, Chairman, Cisco Systems Esther Dyson, Release 1.0/EDVenture Holdings, Inc. Roger W. Wilkins, Professor of History and American Culture at George Mason University and commentator, National Public Radio Margaret Jane Radin, Professor of Law, Stanford University Willis H. Ware, RAND Some of the topics in the CFP'95 program include: FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC SPEECH -- Exploring recent controversies in online free speech, including a Socratic forum that will ask whether the Constitution can indeed be viewed through a technologically transparent lens. HIS MASTER'S VOICE... -- Probing the future for "net propaganda" from governments, government officials, and politicians, and who will pay so whose message will get to whom. STUDENT DATABASES: FOR EDUCATION AND FOR LIFE? -- Looking at how gaining the benefits of nationwide information about K-12 students could also spell serious privacy problems. CAN THE NET SURVIVE COPYRIGHT? CAN COPYRIGHT SURVIVE THE NET? -- Delving into the controversies surrounding copyright protection that throttles freedoms and copyright protection that protects just rewards for creativity. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: PAVING OVER PRIVACY -- Examining the privacy implications of tracking and surveillance technologies now being planned for vehicles and roadways nationwide. "IT OUGHTA BE A CRIME..." -- Debating with law enforcement representatives about who should set the rules for governing the net and when should bad manners become a crime. WHEN DO THEY NEED TO KNOW 'WHODUNNIT'? -- Discussing the right time and places for identified, anonymous, and pseudonymous transactions. TRANSACTION RECORDS IN INTERACTIVE SERVICES: WHO WATCHES THE SERVERS? -- Looking at the issues raised by the collection of personal information as part of the new interactive home entertainment, telecommunications, and online services. DEFINING ACCESS PARADIGMS: LIBRARIES, RURAL AREAS, AND INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS -- Evaluating the differing models of "open access" to Internet and computer-mediated communications in the library, rural, and lesser-developed country contexts. THE CASE AGAINST COMPUTERS: A SYSTEMIC CRITIQUE -- Daring to discuss whether computers may be doing our world more harm than good. A NET FOR ALL: WHERE ARE THE MINORITIES? -- Examining how and to what degree minority groups participate on the net and asking whether social class is relevant to net participation or non-participation. WHO OWNS THE LAW? -- Reviewing the debate over legal citation form and online databases, and what it means to all of us. CAN WE TALK LONG-DISTANCE? REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS TO SECURE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS -- Covering export and import controls, outright prohibitions, and other technical and policy obstacles to secure international communications. The Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy will also offer a number of in-depth tutorials on subjects including: * Inside Washington: The New Congress and Secrets of Advocacy * National ID Card Initiatives * The Law of Fundamental Rights for Non-Lawyers * Everything You Need to Know to Argue About Cryptography * Digital Activism * Inside the World of Law Enforcement * Intellectual Property for the Information Age FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CFP'95: Web: http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html Gopher: gopher://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95 FTP: ftp://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95 Email: Info.CFP95@forsythe.stanford.edu Fax: (415) 548-0840 Call: (415) 548-9673 REGISTRATION Please register for the conference by returning the conference registration form along with the appropriate payment by any method listed below. The registration fee includes conference materials, three luncheons (Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday), two banquets (Wednesday and Thursday) and evening receptions (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday). Registration Fees are: If mailed by: February 24 March 14 after 14 March Conference Fees $335 $395 $445 Tutorial Fees: $155 $185 $220 Registration is limited to 550 participants, so register early and save! By Mail: By Fax: (with Check or Credit Card) (with Credit Card only) CFP'95 Registration Send Registration Form P.O. Box 6657 (415) 548-0840 San Mateo, CA 94403 Available 24 hours By Phone: By Email (at your own risk*): (with Credit Card only) (with Credit Card only) (415) 548-0840 Register.CFP95@forsythe.stanford.edu 9 am to 5 pm Pacific Time * Information for sending a PGP-encrypted registration available at http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html and ftp://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95. CFP'95 Scholarships: The Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy will provide a limited number of full registration scholarships for students and other interested individuals. These scholarships will cover the full costs of registration, including three luncheons, two banquets, and all conference materials. Scholarship recipients will be responsible for their own lodging and travel expenses. Persons wishing to apply for one of these fully-paid registrations should contact CFP'95 Student Paper and Scholarship Chair, Gary Marx at: Gary.Marx@colorado.edu or call (303) 492-1697. Hotel Accommodations: The Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy will be held at the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel in Burlingame, CA. This facility is spacious and comfortable, and is easily accessible from the airport and surrounding cities. Because of the intensive nature of the conference, we encourage our attendees to secure their lodging at the conference facility. Special conference rates of $99/night, single or multiple occupancy, are available. ************************************************************************* * Our room block is limited and these conference rates are guaranteed * * only until February 17,1995, so we urge you to make your reservations * * as early as possible. * ************************************************************************* After February 17 but before March 15, the special conference rate will be $110/night, single or multiple occupancy. When calling for reservations, please be sure to identify the conference to obtain the conference rate. Hotel Reservations: (415) 692-9100 or (800) 228-9290 or fax (415) 692-8016. Official Airlines: Special convention airfare discounts have been arranged on American and United Airlines. Bungey Travel, (800) 286-4391 or (415) 325-5686 or fax (415) 321- 5309, will be happy to assist you in any manner. Please identify yourself as attending the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference and you will automatically receive a 5% discount off nonrefundable discounted US tickets or 10% off of all unrestricted US coach fares. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 18:21:28 CST From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: File 3--New Draft of Telcom Bill Out ================================================================= FINS SPECIAL REPORT February 1, 1995 ================================================================== NEW DRAFT OF TELCOM BILL OUT No "Steamroller" In Sight But the "Monster Model" is Alive Washington, DC--The new draft of telecommunications legislation, the "Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995," was released at a press conference by this morning (Feb 1, 1995), by Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It may come as a non-surprise to some... the draft bill does not have a steamroller attached in any fashion, contrary to the prediction from telco whiz kid Dave Farber, which went surfing around the Net--without any confirmed source of information last month. The Vice President and democratic members of Congress have been informed of the draft and are expected to make additions and suggestions, according to the chairman. * There is a "universal service" provision, which the chairman reluctantly conceded, "the people want." * There are procompetitive provisions that byte hard on the RBOCs if they try to freeze out competitors with their monopoly power. This includes: * a fine of $1,000,000 for each and every "willful failure to comply with the terms of an interconnection agreement; * a fine of up to $500,000,000 against any Bell operating company that "willfully, knowingly, and without reasonable cause fails to implement the interconnection requirements ... more than 3 years after enactment of the [act]; * a fine of $250,000,000 for each offense arising in "any pattern of willful noncompliance with those [interconnection] requirements as demonstrated by the failure to meet those requirements in any successive 3-month period beginning more than 3 years after [enactment]. * There will be a gold mine in "cream skimming" filling the treasuries of corporate centers of power, at the expense of local ratepayers, moving tens of billions of dollars annually from the latter to the former and further exacerbating the obscene wealth of the top 100,000 families that already own most of the private wealth in the United States. * There will be a "monster model" of telecommunications combining conduit and content, with all the worst possible consequences for diversity of information sources as the trillion dollar financial reach of the telco's gobble up or beat into oblivion everyone in sight. * There is no attention to the needs of society disregarded by the marketplace and the predator telco industry. * There is no attention to the needs of handicapped people, although the chairman said this was more the result of timing, and provisions will be added later. What this proposal will do, according to chairman Presser is: * Provide "freedom of choice" among competing firms [who are [allowed to stay in business by the grace of the lords of cyberspace] * Provide "freedom of choice" among cable services, including phone companies in competition with traditional cable firms [if they choose to compete with each other. In fact, Bell Atlantic has already announced its intention to lease the cable company lines to avoid both the investment and the competition ] [Wired, Feb 1995] * Provide "freedom of choice" among electric utility firms to provide telephone, cable or other telecommunications services [an idea floating around somewhere somehow] Speaker Newt Gingrich and the democrats have yet to add their full measure of "telco feudalism," to this legislative package. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 21:25:58 -0500 (EST) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 4--NIST Mugshot ID database - thousands cataloged on CD [This is just an informational forward, and does not represent official EFF positions or statements in any way. NOTE: I'm not the original author of this so please look at the original headers carefully if you mean to reply to him/her.] Date--Wed, 1 Feb 95 13:39:32 EST From--Craig Watson Subject--Mugshot Identification Database National Institute of Standards and Technology announces the release of NIST Special Database 18 Mugshot Identification Database (MID) NIST Special Database 18 is being distributed for use in development and testing of automated mugshot identification systems. The database consists of three CD-ROMs, containing a total of 3248 images of variable size, compressed with lossless compression. Each CD-ROM requires approximately 530 megabytes of storage compressed and 1.2 gigabytes uncompressed (2.2 : 1 average compression ratio). There are images of 1573 individuals (cases), 1495 male and 78 female. The database contains both front and side (profile) views when available. Separating front views and profiles, there are 131 cases with two or more front views and 1418 with only one front view. Profiles have 89 cases with two or more profiles and 1268 with only one profile. Cases with both fronts and profiles have 89 cases with two or more of both fronts and profiles, 27 with two or more fronts and one profile, and 1217 with only one front and one profile. Decompression software, which was written in C on a SUN workstation [1], is included with the database. NIST Special Database 18 has the following features: + 3248 segmented 8-bit gray scale mugshot images (varying sizes) of 1573 individuals + 1333 cases with both front and profile views (see statistics above) + 131 cases with two or more front views and 89 cases with two or more profiles + images scanned at 19.7 pixels per mm + image format documentation and example software is included Suitable for automated mugshot identification research, the database can be used for: + algorithm development + system training and testing The system requirements are a CD-ROM drive with software to read ISO-9660 format and the ability to compile the C source code written on a SUN workstation [1]. Cost of the database: $750.00. For ordering information contact: Standard Reference Data National Institute of Standards and Technology Building 221, Room A323 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Voice: (301) 975-2208 FAX: (301) 926-0416 email: srdata@enh.nist.gov All other questions contact: Craig Watson craig@magi.ncsl.nist.gov (301)975-4402 [1] The SUN workstation is identified in order to adequately specify or describe the subject matter of this announcement. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the equipment is necessarily the best available for the purpose. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 10:12:26 -0700 From: Urs Gattiker Subject: File 5--Update on "Ethics & Privacy on the Internet" Survey Dear Netter About 8 months ago a survey on ETHICS AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET was mailed through this NetWork to you and many others. The data we have gathered has been analyzed and one of the reports materialising from it is mentioned below. If you are interested in a complete copy, please feel free to drop me a line and again, thanks for your cooperation and help. The program on ETHICS AND PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET is continuing and a new survey assessing additional issues as well as regulation, cryptography and cyberspace is in the final stages of the development. Cordially Urs E. Gattiker MORALITY AND TECHNOLOGY, OR IS IT WRONG TO USE A SELF-MADE ENCRYPTION DEVICE, AND CREATE OR LET LOOSE A COMPUTER VIRUS? Urs E. Gattiker Helen Kelley Centre for Technology Studies, The University of Lethbridge, CANADA Abstract Stories about computer-related actions (e.g., placing a document about how a computer virus works on an electronic network/bulletin board) were presented to users. Data indicate that women end-users compared to men have a less libertarian sense of what is right and wrong; as well, younger respondents are more libertarian than their older compatriots. Data also indicate that participants are less likely to endorse civil liberties and more concerned about the harm and violations of social norms when the scenario describes a context- specific situation. How users act, feel and respond toward computer- mediated behaviours and actions raise questions for researchers and policy makers. For example, how do researchers and policy makers maintain and protect the privacy of individuals, and at the same time ensure moral conduct by end-users who enjoy using the electronic highway. Suggestions are made for developing theoretical models of moral judgment in the cyberspace domain as well as policy (e.g., U.S. Clipper chip debate). Published reports of some of our findings can be found in: Gattiker, U. E., & Kelley, H. (1994). Techno-crime and terror against tomorrow's organisation: What about cyberpunks. E. Raubold and K. Brunnstein (Eds)., Proceedings of the 13 World Computer Congress -- IFIP Congress '94, Hamburg (pp. 233-240). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. Gattiker, U. E., & Kelley, H. (1995). Morality and Technology, or is it wrong to create and let loose a computer virus. In J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. & R. H. Sprague (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1995, Hamburg (pp. 563-572). Las Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Additional papers are currently being written. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--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 #7.09 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank