Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 12, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 12 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 Sun Feb 12, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 12 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 Copi Editor: E. T. NaShrdlu CONTENTS, #7.12 (Sun, Feb 12, 1995) File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314) File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd) File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international File 4--Defamation in cyberspace File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd) File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd) File 7--Cu In The News File 8--Conferences that may be of interest File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 15:04:19 -0500 (EST) From: slowdog Subject: File 1--If Amended, the Implications of Exon's Bill (S 314) If Sen. Exon's bill passes, this will be the text of the law. Items in [brackets] are the portions that are being deleted or changed. The text itself that is not within these brackets is how the law will look. Comments to follow. 47 USC Sec. 223 TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] Obscene or harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and facilities in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications (a) Prohibited acts generally Whoever - (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications device - (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication] which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues, without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (D) [makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which comversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number of who receives the communication; or (2) knowingly permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both. (b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution (1) Whoever knowingly - (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone], telecommunications device makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the conversation; or (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (2) Whoever knowingly - (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone, makes] by means of telecommunications device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the communication; or (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both. (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation. (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than [$50,000] $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than [$50,000] $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either - (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings. (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (c) Restriction on access to subscribers by common carriers; judicial remedies respecting restrictions (1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) of this section from the [telephone] telecommunications device of any subscriber who has not previously requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such communication. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on account of - (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) any access permitted - (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation by a provider of communications that communications provided by that provider are communications specified in subsection (b) of this section, or (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to restrict access to restrict access to communications described in subsection (b) of this section. (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider of communications services to which subscribers are denied access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such action shall be limited to the question of whether the communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the category of communications to which the carrier will provide access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access. =========================== > (a) Prohibited acts generally > > Whoever - > > (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign > communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications > device - > > (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] > makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, > request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication] > which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; Here's an important bit. "Transmits or otherwise makes available" is different from the earlier law. It DOES pleace a burden of responsibility upon the provider of service. NOTE that unlike other portions of the law, boths old and new versions, this part DOES NOT include the word "knowingly". Crucial, crucial point. > (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation > ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to > annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called > number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications > device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues, > without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse, > threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who > receives the communication; No anonymous annoying! Does this mean we can't raid IRC channels anymore? Or flame people from (sp?) accounts? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 22:44:32 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 2--UofMich student expelled for "obscene" story on Net (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (Jason Gull) Date--4 Feb 1995 20:14:29 GMT The local (Ann Arbor, MI) paper ran a story yesterday regarding a sophomore at the University of Michigan (whose name is Baker, I believe) who was expelled yesterday (or Thursday) as a result of a story he "transmitted on the Internet." The story the student wrote apparently involved the brutal rape and torture of a woman. The name of the woman in the story is also the name of another student on campus, which seems to have been the spark that got the kid kicked out. The story seems to have been in one of the USENET groups, because according to the paper, the story was first brought to the attention of University officials by an alumnus -- an attorney in Moscow who just happened to spot the story on USENET. The irony of the fact that this morality-policeman in Moscow was scouring the groups is apparently lost on the Ann Arbor News. What is truly frightening, and deserving of more coverage in the news, is that the FBI is now investigating this kid, and an agent in the local FBI office has officially stated that they're contemplating federal obscenity charges against him. Remember, this isn't pictures/video he's accused of sending, it's purely text. (Raunchy, disgusting text, I'm sure, but plain 'ol ASCII). Anyone have any other news on this? (I'll post more when I find it.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 14:41:02 -0500 From: kingego@IO.ORG(Greg Boyd) Subject: File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #7.09 - Libel international >Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:47:24 -0600 >Subject--Re: Libel & Defamation in the Information Age > >Several clarifications are needed and will, I think, >ease people's minds abit. > >Eric Eden wrote, in part: ... >> 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. Of course, this discussion is based on American libel law. The Net, however, is accessible from countries with different rules. In Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, the customary burden of proof shifts in defamation cases; if someone sues a newspaper for libel in Canada, the lawyers *for the paper* must show that the reporter and editors did no wrong -- one result of this is that the defence of truth is used sparingly, since it necessitates providing a legal proof of every word in a newspaper story. Libel trials are extremely rare in Canada, perhaps because the expense of legally proving a piece of journalism runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, countries that use British common law principles do not admit the defense of absence of malice, which is a uniquely American idea. (Yes, we are jealous.) My main point is that, since the Net is international, perhaps a party who felt themselves wronged could sue for libel in a jurisdiction where the laws are weighted more in favor of the plaintiff than is possible in the U.S.A. (Just like recent Net-related prosecutions in the U.S.A., in which BBS operators from one state find themselves defending charges originating from another, generally less civilized state.) Some years ago a political figure in a Caribbean country brought a libel suit againt an American television network. His lawyers brought the suit into a Canadian court, stating that since the program had been available to Canadian cable viewers, this was jusified (most in Canada believed it was because of our plaintiff-friendly libel laws.) P.S.: I am not a lawyer, and therefore unqualified to render a useful opinion on international Net libel law. I submit this as a journalist with some practical knowledge of libel and defamation law, and in the hopes that you may encourage a real expert to address my observations. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 13:57:18 From: "Carolina, Robert" Subject: File 4--Defamation in cyberspace In a recent exchange on this topic in CuD 7.09, Eric Eden and Henry Itkin have been disagreeing about burdens of proof in defamation cases. This can be a complicated area because the actual process of the law tends to be shortened into various "rules of thumb" such as "if you can prove it is true you are probably not liable". Just to clarify the process under common law (i.e. individual US state law), roughly speaking: 1. The plaintiff (the alleged victim) in a defamation case has the burden of proving that the defendant published a defamatory statement. "Publisher" by the way includes the author as well as the actual publication in which the defamation is printed. The plaintiff does NOT have to prove that the statement is untrue. (But see discussion below.) 2. If the plaintiff can show this first step is completed, then the assumption is that the defendant is liable. It is now the DEFENDANT's burden to show why he or she should not be held liable. One such affirmative defense is "truth". That is, if he can prove that the statements made are true then he will not be held liable. 3. Note that each state has the opportunity to alter the rules presented above, and some US states have tougher or weaker standards. Most US states do not change the standards due to point number 4 below. 4. If you live in a jurisdiction where the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution applies, there is a Federal Constitutional issue which comes into play. (Bear with me, it has been a while since law school.) If the plaintiff (alleged victim) in a case is deemed to be a "public figure", then he is required to prove that the defendant had actual malice when making the statement in question. There are a number of cases which define how public you have to be before you are a "public figure", and I won't go into that. But assuming that the plaintiff IS a public figure, then the matter will turn on whether he can prove actual malice. (Hold on tight, here is where the confusion sets in.) One method used to demonstrate actual malice is for the plaintiff to show BOTH that the statement is false, and that the author should have known it was false when he made the statement. Obviously, no journalist will go through this detailed set of calculations before writing a story. (If he asks us, of course, we do the calculations for him). Instead, the journalist operates on a rule of thumb that "if I can prove it's true I am probably all right". This is a fairly cautious restatement of the standard above and will probably help to keep people out of trouble, but if in doubt please consult with a lawyer familiar with your own case and local law. (If, like me, you live in a common law jurisdiction where the 1st Amendment does NOT apply, then you need to be much more cautious than in the US. In fact, be aware that when you post to the Usenet you are probably "publishing" in the UK as well.) Finally (home stretch) if the court determines that the defendant is liable for defamation, the next question is "how much does he have to pay". This is the question of damages. The relevant inquiry is: "how much damage can the plaintiff show as a result of the defamatory publication". If one were to publish allegations in the New York Times that a stock broker is a "cheat and embezzler", then this will probably damage the person quite a bit. If, on the other hand, you send an e-mail to one friend alleging that your neighbour slapped you while hanging up clothes, this will probably not generate a huge amount of damages. If you want to read more about it, I co-authored a piece entitled "Multimedia Defamation" which appeared last year in International Media Law Review. In addition, my colleague Nick Braithwaite has an article on this subject which should be accessible on our firm's World Wide Web server. The URL is ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 22:28:38 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 5--Internet Censorship in Africa (fwd) ---------------- (Emmanuel Ohajah) Subject--Internet Censorship in Africa Dear All, Back in June 1994 I wrote an article (Computer Weekly June 16 1994 Computer privacy, Highway patrol) which was very critical of the creeping censorship and government control of computer networks in the UK and USA Since then I have been told that IT experts in Africa wishing to develop computer networks, set up internet connections or even use a telecommunications provider other that the state PTT face similar obstacles from their respective governments. What's more phone calls are routinely monitored and satillite access is restricted or at least discouraged. A visiting civil rights lawyer from Cameroon suggested to me that many African governments do not want to see a proliferation of communications mediums because they will be unable to keep track of their subjects. I am not sure if this is true but I would appreciate details of any overzealous African government attempts at monitoring internet traffic or censorship of electronic communications. If any African governments have given any justifications for the control or censorship of electronic communications please speed the details to me! Thanks in advance. Emmanuel Ohajah If you would like to see my article and other research then please mail me at ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 12:43:01 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 6--*** STILL CENSORED *** (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (Dan Gannon) Date--Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:35:54 GMT STILL CENSORED FROM THE INTERNET! Banished CPU has been -- and remains -- censored from the Internet. The (Canadian) CBC PrimeTime News camera crew has recently interviewed me for 4 hours about the situation. We are being unscrupulously censored for politically and financially motivated reasons. Here is the complete story: Banished CPU, a Freedom of Speech BBS, has been distributing Holocaust Revisionist material through the Internet since 1991. The material addresses, in an objective manner, the question of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED during the so-called "Holocaust". The facts are both "politically inconvenient" and undeniable. Over the years, organized Jewish pressure has succeeded in cutting off our link to the Internet numerous times, using their traditional methods of boycott, slander and terror. Netcom, a large commerical Internet provider based in San Jose, California, served as our latest connection to the Internet for almost a year, until they censored Banished CPU on November 26, 1994, violating the contract they had formed with me. Before I signed on with Netcom, I informed them of the nature of the material I distribute, and inquired about the level of Freedom of Speech they offer. I was told -- by a Netcom sales representitive who identified herself as "Sherri" -- there would be no restrictions or censorship of any kind, as long as the material conformed to U.S. law (which, of course, it does.) Agreeing to the stated terms, I paid the initial sign-up fee and continued paying them each month for the connection to the Internet. After a couple months of organized Jewish pressure, an unsigned electronic message arrived from Netcom, informing me that I would no longer be allowed to distribute messages in most Internet message areas (USENET newsgroups). The message specified only 12 newsgroups that I would be allowed to post to, forbidding me from posting to any of the other 7,000+ newsgroups (including many 100% appropriate newsgroups such as soc.history!) The message stated plainly that they were not willing to discuss the issue. For months, I reluctantly obeyed the new "rule", even though it violated the verbal contract they had entered into earlier. Then I distributed a Free Video Offer to a couple dozen newsgroups outside of their arbitrary list of 12. The video was "David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper", which greatly infuriated and panicked the Holocaust Lobby. David Cole, producer of the video, is Jewish -- NOT a "Nazi" or an "anti-Semite" by any means. Hundreds of copies were sent all over the world within a matter of weeks. Requests were still pouring in when we were abruptly cut off. At first, Jewish pressure tried to get me kicked off for "profiteering" (an informal taboo on the Internet). A lady named Margaret from Netcom wrote to me, informing me of the complaints and asking me to cease and desist. In reply, I pointed out that I was not "profiteering" by any stretch of the imagination -- I was merely giving out free, legal copies of someone else's video, and not collecting any money whatsoever. Margaret wrote back, apologizing for the misunderstanding. The next day, however, I discovered that our link to the Internet was no longer functional. I made countless long distance phone calls to Netcom's offices in California. I left messages with receptionists for their managers, supervisors and technical support staff. For eight full days, nobody at Netcom would take or return my calls. In the meantime, Banished CPU's link to the outside world was cut, effectively censoring me and all of my callers. I discovered that Netcom was DELETING all of my callers' mail, which was in many cases both important and irreplaceable. Finally, after 8 days of silence, someone at Netcom called and left a message on my answering machine, informing me that Banished CPU had been cut off because I posted to newsgroups other than the 12 that they had illegally mandated. They violated their contract, bowing to the Jewish demands to censor me. Now, almost 3 months after Netcom first censored us, I am still unable to procure another Internet connection, even though one small Internet provider ("Quicknet") has supposedly been trying to provide us with a link. According to Quicknet, some "Internet committee" or individual (whose Internet e-mail address is is refusing to process the necessary re-registration form. Censored we remain. In the meantime, messages addressed to myself and my callers are reportedly still being deleted by Netcom, returning no warning message whatsoever -- giving the impression that the messages are received but ignored. Netcom continues in their unethical behavior, and is refusing to speak to the CBC PrimeTime News. Should you wish to contact Netcom and let them know how you feel about their unprofessional behavior, the following information may be of some use: Netcom's address: 400 Moorpark Avenue, Suite 209, San Jose, CA 95117 Internet e-mail address: Toll-free sales line: 1-800-501-8649 Technical support line: (408) 983-5970 Emergency pager number: (408) 951-1193 Sincerely, Dan Gannon (a.k.a. Maynard) ___________________________________________________________ | | | Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech! | | (And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.) | | | | 28800 bps (9 lines with V.FC)............(503) 232-9202 | | 14400 bps (11 lines with V.32bis)........(503) 232-6566 | | 9600- bps (12 lines with V.32)...........(503) 232-5783 | |___________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: 09 Feb 95 13:56:58 EST From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 7--Cu In The News Most Computer Intrusions Unreported =================================== The Pentagon's Center for Information Systems Security (CISS) attempts to penetrate DoD systems worldwide, via the Internet. The govt hackers were able to gain entry to systems 95% of the time, and only 5% of the break-ins were detected. Of those, only 5% were reported to higher-ups in the organizations. ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12 Spoofing and Hijacking ====================== In a related story to the above, Computerworld ran a story about CERT's alert concerning IP Spoofing and Session Hijacking. The story includes comments from several security specialists, who express concern about continued attacks of this type. ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995 pg.12 InfoTerrorism ============= Sure, hackers are a problem, but what are you going to do about high- tech military-style assualts on your datacenter? The miltary-industrial complex has several weapons that could (in theory) be used by a disgruntled employee or info-terrorist. Items such as high-energy guns that emit data destroying pulses, and EMF bombs that paralize your systems, are some the technologies that threaten your system. Yet another reason to lay awake at night, worrying. ComputerWorld. Jan. 30, 1995. pg.1 Deadbeat BBS, Beat & Dead ========================= Novell and Microsoft have reached an agreement that will close the Deadbeat BBS, located in New Jersey. The teenage-sysop will pay $25,000. in damages to the software giants, in restitution for the 60+ Novell and MS products that were allegedly available for downloading on the board. ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995. pg.8 Big Brother *is* Watching ========================= Analytic Concept's "GameCop" software is just what the overseer ordered. The program watches active windows on a PC to see if a game is running. If one is, a customizable message displays a stern warning for the employee to get back to work. GameCop can also, optionally, sound an alarm to embarass the slackard in front of their cellmates..err co-workers. ComputerWorld. Feb. 6, 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0800 From: Susan Evoy Subject: File 8--Conferences that may be of interest CPSR Members and Friends, If you are planning to attend one of these conferences, or another that may be related to CPSR's work, please contact CPSR at or (415) 322-3778 for easy ways for you to be a presence for CPSR. CONFERENCE /EVENT SCHEDULE National Conference on Ethics in America: Promoting Trust, Truth, and Universality, Long Beach, CA, Feb. 22-24. Contact: 310 985-8222 310 985-5842(fax) Technologies of Freedom: State of the Nation (A conference on the progress of the National Information Infrastructure), Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC, Feb. 23-25. Contact: 202 408-1403 202 408-1134 (fax) Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago Circle Center, UIC, IL, March 2-4. Contact: 312 996-5463 Unions and the Information Superhighway, March 2. Contact: 416 441-2731 Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Fourth Annual Meeting, Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Crystal City, VA, March 2-4. Contact: 812 855-6450 National STS Meeting and Technology Literacy Conference, Arlington, VA, March 2-5. Contact: 814 865-3044 (ph) 814 865-3047 (fax) Midwest Conference on Technology, Employment, and Community, Chicago, IL, March 3-4. Proposals due by Jan. 8. Contact: 312 996-5463 (ph) 312 996-5766 (fax) Local-Global Creative Tension, '95 PC Forum, Phoenix, AZ, March 5-8. Contact: 212 924-8800 (ph) 212 924-0240 (fax) Technologies for the Superhighway, IEEE COMPCON 95, Stanford Court Hotel, San Francisco, CA, March 5-9. Contact: (advance program) 510 422-2199 408 973-1325 (fax) Microcomputers in Education Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, March 13-15. Contact: Pat Southwick, ASU, Box 870908, Tempe, AZ 85287-0908 Towards an Electronic Patient Record '95. Orlando, FL. Mar. 14-19, 1995. Sponsored by Medical Records Institute. Contact: 617-964-3926 (fax). Access, Privacy, and Commercialism: When States Gather Personal Information, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, March 17. Contact: Trotter Hardy 804 221-3826 Geographic Information Systems '95, Vancouver, BC, March 27-30. Contact: 604 688-0188 (ph) 604 688-1573 (fax) Computers, Freedom and Privacy CFP'95, Burlingame CA, Mar 28-31 Contact: ETHICOMP95: An international conference on the ethical issues of using Information Technology, DeMontfort University, Leicester, ENGLAND, March 28-30, 1995. Contact: Simon Rogerson 44 533 577475 (phone) 44 533 541891 (Fax). National Net '95: Reaching Everyone. Washington, DC. Apr. 5-7, 1995. Sponsored by EDUCOM. Contact: or call 202/872-4200. Information Security and Privacy in the Public Sector. Herdon, VA. Apr. 19-20, 1995. Sponsored by AIC Conferences. Contact: 212/952-1899. Cultivating New Ground in Electronic Information Use of the Information Highway to Support Agriculture - USAIN, Lexington, KY, April 26-29. Proposals for solicited papers or project demonstrations by 12/31/94. Contact: ACM Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI'95), Denver, CO, May 7-11. Contact 410 263-5382 1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 8-10. Contact: NPTN's Annual Affilate & Organizing Committee Meeting --1995: An International Free-Net Community Computing Conference, Arizona State University, May 17-20. Contact: 216 498-4050 216 498-4051 (fax) ErgoCon '95 - Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference & Exposition, San Jose, CA, May 22-24. Contact: Abbas Moallem 408 924-4132 (ph) 408 924-4153 (fax). Proposals for papers, posters, workshops, or panel discussions: Deadline Nov. 1 Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications on Wall Street, Pace University, New York, NY, June 7-9. Contact: 914 763-8820 (ph) 914 763-9324 (fax) Identifying Grand Challenges in Socially Responsible Computing, Durango, CO, June 11-14. Contact: Ben Shneiderman IDT 95 12th Congress - Information Markets and Industries, Paris, FRANCE, June 13-15. Organized by ADBS (Society of information professionals), ANRT (National Association of Technological Research), and GFII (French association of information industries). Contact: 33 1 43 72 25 25 (ph) 33 1 43 72 30 41 (fax) Workshop on Ethical and Professional Issues in Computing, RPI, Troy, NY, June 24-28. Deadline for submissions: April 15. Contact: 518 276-8503 518 276-2659 (fax) Internet Society's 1995 International Networking Conference, Honolulu, HI, June 28-30. Abstract submission deadline Jan 13. Contact: 703 648-9888(ph) Key Players in the Introduction of Information Technology: Their Social Responsibility and Professional Training, BELGIUM, July 5-7, 1995. Contact: Paper submissions by Nov. 2, 1994 Alliance for Community Media's International Conference and Trade Show, Boston, MA, July 5-8. Proposal Submissions by 1/31/95. Contact: Rika Welsh 617 321-6400 617 321-7121 (fax) 18th International Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, The Sheraton, Seattle, WA, July 9-11. Contact: Joint International Conference Association for Computers and the Humanties- Association for Literacy and Linguistic Computing 95, University of California, Santa Barbara, July 11-15. Deadline for paper submissions: Dec. 31. Contact: Eric Dahlin: 805 687-5003 Tenth Annual Conference on Computing and Philosophy (CAP), Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 10-12. Contact: Robert Cavalier 412 268-7643 Conference on Organizational Computing Systems COOCS '95, Sheraton Silicon Valley, Milpitas, Aug. 13-16. Paper Submissions by 1/4/95. Contact: Computers in Context: Joining Forces in Design, Aarhus, DENMARK, Aug. 14-18. Contributions for papers, proposals for panels, workshops, and tutorials (in 6 copies - not by facsimile or e-mail)): Deadline for receipt Jan 5. Contact: Computers in Context, Aarhus University, Dept. of Computer Science, Bldg. 540, Ny Munkegade 116, DK-8000 Aarhus C, DENMARK. Libraries of the Future - IFLA. Istanbul, TURKEY, Aug. 16-19. Contact: AI-ED '95: 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Washington, DC, Aug. 16-19. Contact: 804 973-3987 "Designing for the Global Village," HFES, Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel, Santa Monica, CA, October 9-13. Contact: 310 394-1811 310 394-2410 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (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: Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: 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: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: /mirror/ The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU Sociology gopher at: URL: gopher:// 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 #7.12 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank