Computer underground Digest Wed Mar 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 23 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 Mar 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 23 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Intelligent Agent: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Monster Editor: Loch Nesshrdlu CONTENTS, #7.23 (Wed, Mar 22, 1995) File 1--Hong Kong's I-net Provider Raids, and Internet Digital Voice File 2--Conference - First Amendment In Cyberspace File 3--Gibson, Sterling Arrange MTV Donation To EFF-Austin (fwd) File 4--Re: Campaign to Defeat Communications Decency Act File 5--(fwd) American Library Association Draft Computer Policy (fwd) File 6--FTC Legislative Alert (Telemarketing legislation) File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 23:33:54 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 1--Hong Kong's I-net Provider Raids, and Internet Digital Voice Forwarded from: In, Around and Online- Issue 2.10 - Week Ending 3/10/95 ======================================================= Copyright (C) 1995 Robert Seidman ( All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for non-commercial purposes. HONG KONG POLICE told Internet providers whose equipment was seized in March 3rd raids that they could pick up their equipment. The raid left only one provider up and running in the British colony. There is still some confusion on why the police bothered to raid them over the lack of a $96 (750 Hong Kong Dollars) license. The operators of services shut down in the raid have stated they will not put their services back online until they have received their licenses. The seven operators, mostly newcomers to the exploding market had been engaged in a price war with the one commercial service left operational after the March 3 raid, Hong Kong SuperNet. We have it easy in the states, SuperNet charges about $25/hour for daytime use and about $12.50/hr. off-peak. The grounded competitors offered services at a cheaper prices ranging from about $6-$8/hr. (Seidman's newsletter is free and ambitious in its overview of the Internet and the online services. Anyone who is interested in a subscription should sending e-mail to LISTSERV@CLARK.NET and -- in the BODY of the message -- writing: Subscribe Online-L Example: SUBSCRIBE ONLINE-L Robert Seidman.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:33:47 -0600 From: Barad@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU(Meredith Barad) Subject: File 2--Conference - First Amendment In Cyberspace THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN CYBERSPACE THE JOHN HENRY FAULK CONFERENCE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT Sponsored by The Center for American History The University of Texas at Austin Tuesday, April 18, 1995 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Joe C. Thompson Conference Center 26th St. and Red River 1:00-1:20 Introductions 1:20-1:30 The Legacy of John Henry Faulk, by Michael Burton 1:30-3:15 Panel I: The First Amendment in Cyberspace 3:30-5:00 Panel II: Who is Driving on the Information Superhighway? 5:00 Reception at the Center for American History. "The First Amendment in Cyberspace" will explore the legal definition of free speech on the information superhighway, censorship online, universal access to the Internet, and new directions for information technologies in the 21st century. Conference speakers Introduction: Michael Burton, author of John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind and former journalist specializing in educational and media awareness issues Panel I: Mike Godwin, online counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation Katie Hafner, technology reporter for Newsweek and author of Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier Peter Lewis,The New York Times correspondent on cyberspace issues John Seigenthaler, chair of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and former editorial director for USA Today Eugene Volokh, professor of copyright and constitutional law at UCLA Law School and author of "Cheap Speech and What it Will Do," forthcoming in The Yale Law Journal Frederick Williams, Mary Gibbs Jones Centennial Chair, UT College of Communication, and author of The People's Right to Know: Media, Democracy and the Information Highway (moderator) Panel II: Smoot Carl-Mitchell, managing Partner in Texas Internet Consulting and president of Matrix Information and Directory Services and the Zilker Internet Park Gary Chapman, coordinator for the 21st Century Project at UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs and former executive director of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Jon Loehman, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, focusing on regulation and planning in the telecommunications industry James Love, director of Economic Studies at the Center for the Study of Responsive Law and the director of the Center's Taxpayer's Assets Project in Washington D.C. Yolanda Rivas, M.A. student, Communication and Technology Policy Program in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at UT specializing in online access issues for Latin America Bruce Sterling, author of The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier, science fiction author, journalist, and editor (moderator) The Faulk Conference is presented in honor of Texas humorist John Henry Faulk, a victim of the blacklist during the McCarthy years. The Faulk Conference is free and seating is on a first come, first serve basis. The conference brochure and conference summaries will be posted at For more information contact the Center for American History at (512) 495-4515 or e-mail ********************************************* Martha Norkunas Center for American History SRH 2.101 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712 Phone: 512-495-4515 FAX: 512-495-4542 internet address: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:10:56 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 3--Gibson, Sterling Arrange MTV Donation To EFF-Austin (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 22:10:05 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Jackson PRESS RELEASE MTV-EUROPE DONATES 500 POUNDS TO AUSTIN CYBERSPACE CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP Austin, March 21, 1995 EFF-Austin, an Austin, Texas civil rights group concerned with electronic network access and free expression, gratefully acknowledges a contribution of 500 pounds from the European branch of MTV Music Television. The donation came in response to an MTV publication titled "Global Communication: Channel Your Experience," which was released in conjunction with the 1994 First European Music Awards, held at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Cyberpunk science fiction writers William Gibson and Bruce Sterling created an original collaborative artwork for the "Global Communication" project. MTV-Europe then contributed a cheque for 500 pounds to the two authors' favorite charity -- EFF-Austin. "We've seen some oddities in our five years on the electronic frontier," said EFF-Austin President David Smith, "but this one takes the cake. Not only are we so hip that we get contributions from MTV-Europe, but now we can describe ourselves as 'William Gibson's favorite charity.'" For more information, contact Steve Jackson, EFF-Austin secretary ( ** Steve Jackson - yes, of SJ Games - yes, we won the USSS case - fnord ** yes, INWO is out - - dinosaurs, Lego, Kahlua! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 19:19:36 -0600 From: Stephen Smith Subject: File 4-- Re: Campaign to Defeat Communications Decency Act ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:29:48 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Levendosky If it will be helpful, you can distribute my column on this bill. It ran on the NYT wire last week for two days, but many on the internet may not have read it. Feel free to use it. Charles Levendosky Editorial Page Editor Casper (Wyoming) Star-Tribune email: tel: 307-266-0619 ---------- `DECENCY ACT' A FLASHER IN HIDING (EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, has a national reputation for First Amendment commentary. His columns recently won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award and The Baltimore Sun's H.L. Mencken Award.) By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY c.1995 Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune (Distributed by New York Times Special Features) There's a nasty bill lurking in the Senate, like a flasher hiding in a doorway waiting for the opportunity to throw open his trenchcoat and show you his wares. When it's too late to turn away. The bill, S. 314, was introduced by Sen. J. James Exon, D-Neb., and Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash. It's called the "Communications Decency Act of 1995." Don't let that fool you, there's nothing decent about it. The bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Code to force those, who allow others access to the Information Superhighway, to monitor their customers' communications. If the provisions of the bill are violated, those who allow access to the information highway face potential federal criminal prosecution that could lead to $100,000 fines and/or two years in prison. On the Information Superhighway, there is no way to monitor a moving message. It's broken into digital packets that scoot over telephone wires across the world. If you were to look at one packet, it would be indecipherable. It's only a small bit of the information sent ---- not unlike putting a normal letter into a shredder and then sending each strip to the recipient in separate envelopes along with hundreds of other envelopes each containing a strip from different pieces of mail. Messages in transit on the information highway are impossible to monitor. That means the organization that provides access to Internet must monitor the information flow from the source or at the receiver's end. That is possible. But it makes the access provider a Big Brother agent of the federal government who leans over your computer. The bill doesn't define what would be legally "indecent." The vagueness of this term could apply to lovers or married couples who are e-mailing one another sweet murmurs about the night before. It could apply to, by some subjective standards, to a photo of a child lying bloody in a street, killed by a drive-by shooter. It could apply to a photo rendition of one of Auguste Rodin's most famous sculptures, "The Kiss." It could apply to many of Pierre Renoir's paintings. Or any of the classical paintings of nudes that museums have put on the Internet. The bill can be characterized as a federal agent muscling a private citizen. Agent Big Brother in your study or in your workplace, breathing on your neck, reading over your shoulder. Leaning on you. Leaning over the person with whom you are communicating. Apparently, the intent of the bill is to protect children who might stumble on something too adult for them on the information highway. It's a wrong-headed approach --- the atom bomb solution --- it would blow away the free flow of information. It would melt the promise of this Electronic Gutenberg. The information highway is an interactive medium. Consumers can control their own access. Parents can control the access of their children. America Online already gives parents control over what chat sessions are available to their children. More can be done, and is being done, so that parents can select and control their children's access to the vast variety of information offered on the electronic highway. As this indecent bill is written, it would apply to public and university libraries that offer their patrons the use of online computers, according to Daniel Weitzner, deputy director of the Center of Democracy and Technology. Libraries could be fined; librarians jailed. Think of it, a librarian imprisoned because some patron found his way through Internet byways to the Penthouse calendar nude of the month. It's bad law. It places criminal liability, not on the actor, but on the provider. A legal parallel would be to frame the law so that a gun dealer who sold a legal weapon to a qualified citizen would be prosecuted if that citizen later shot his neighbor. And, worse, a broad range of content would be actionable under this bill. Less discussed by critics of this bill, are ramifications for newspapers and news organizations who use the information highway. Newspapers, like the Casper Star-Tribune, who go online with their product, do not necessarily have their own access to the Internet. In the Star-Tribune's case, the access provider is the University of Wyoming. By this bill, the university could be liable for criminal prosecution for something the Star-Tribune put on Internet; therefore, it might want to monitor what news the Star-Tribune put online. What happens to freedom of the press then? News decisions could be taken away from the editor of the papers, or newspapers might elect to keep their product off the information highway. Either way the public suffers. More and more newspapers are making portions of their dailies available through the information highway. This intersection of the press with telecommunications will cause headaches for First Amendment experts for decades to come. The electronic media has never enjoyed the liberties guaranteed by the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. Now there is a convergence of the two and American must either opt for greater freedom for the electronic media or less for the press. Wrap up this bill in its soiled trenchcoat, lock it in a closet, and toss away the key. This issue needs a great deal more thought than either Sen. Exon or Sen. Gorton have given to it. Keep liberty a priority. There are better ways to protect our children than sacrificing the free exchange of information and ideas. Copyright Casper Star-Tribune March 5, 1995 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:29:03 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 5--(fwd) American Library Association Draft Computer Policy (fwd) Here is more evidence to support my thesis that librarians are just the coolest. David Smith * Calendar of way cool e-things: * Mar 15-17 SXSW Multimedia President, EFF-Austin * Mon Mar 20th EFF-Austin General Meeting Board of Directors, CTCLU * April 1-2 Robofest ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ============================================================ Date-- Mon, 20 Mar 1995 10:55:29 CST From--Cyndi Robinson Subject--Draft Interpretation Following is the draft Interpretation on Access to Information, Services and Networks, drafted by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee. The Committee welcomes all comments on the draft. Comments can be forwarded to or by mail to the Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 50 E. Huron, Chicago, IL 60611. Please feel free to distribute this draft widely. ================================================= DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Draft Version 1.1 3/5/95 ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC INFORMATION, SERVICES, AND NETWORKS: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the foundation for self-government. Freedom of expression encompasses the freedom of speech and the corollary right to receive information. These rights extend to children as well as adults. Libraries and librarians exist to facilitate these rights by providing access to, identifying, retrieving, organizing, and preserving recorded expression regardless of the formats or technologies in which that expression is recorded. It is the nature of information that it flows freely across boundaries and barriers despite attempts by individuals, governments, and private entities to channel or control its flow. Electronic technology has increased the speed and universality of this flow. Although we live in a global information village, many persons do not have access to electronic information sources because of economic circumstances, capabilities of technology, and infrastructure disparity. The degree of access to electronic information divides people into groups of haves and have- nots. Librarians, entrusted as a profession with the stewardship of the public good of free expression, are uniquely positioned to address the issues raised by technological change. Librarians address intellectual freedom from a strong ethical base and an abiding commitment to the preservation of the individual's rights. The American Library Association has expressed these basic principles of librarianship in its CODE OF ETHICS and in the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS and its Interpretations. These serve to guide professional librarians and library governing bodies in addressing issues of intellectual freedom and the rights of the people they serve. The constant emergence and change of issues arising from the still-developing technology of computer-mediated information generation, distribution, and retrieval need to be approached by librarians from a context of established policy and constitutional principles so that fundamental and traditional tenets of librarianship are not swept away. In making decisions on how to offer access to electronic information, each library should consider its mission, goals, objectives, cooperative agreements, and the needs of all the people it serves. The library should address the rights of users, the equity of access, and information resources and access issues. THE RIGHTS OF USERS All library system and network policies, procedures or regulations relating to electronic resources and services should be scrutinized for potential violation of user rights. User policies should be developed according to the policies and guidelines established by the American Library Association, including GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AFFECTING ACCESS TO LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES AND FACILITIES. Users have the right to be free of interference and unreasonable limitations or conditions set by libraries, librarians, system administrators, vendors, network service providers, or others. This specifically includes contracts, agreements, and licenses entered into by libraries on behalf of their users. No user should be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. No user's access should be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, notice and a means of appeal. Users have a right to full descriptions of and access to the documentation about all electronic systems and programs they are using, and the training and assistance necessary to operate the hardware and software. Users have the right of confidentiality in all of their activities with electronic resources and services provided by the library, and the library shall ensure that this confidentiality is maintained. The library should support, by policy, procedure, and practice, the user's right to privacy. Users should be advised, however, that security is technically difficult to achieve and that electronic communications and files are safest when they are treated as if they were public. The rights of users who are minors shall in no way be abridged. EQUITY OF ACCESS Electronic information, services, and networks provided directly or indirectly by the library should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users. Once the decision is made to use library funds to provide access to electronic information, the user must not be required to pay to obtain the information or use the service. When resources are insufficient to meet demand, rationing service may be necessary to provide equitable access. All library policies should be scrutinized in light of ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO INFORMATION ACCESS: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. INFORMATION RESOURCES AND ACCESS ISSUES Electronic resources provide unprecedented opportunities to expand the scope of information available to users. Libraries and librarians should provide material and information presenting all points of view. This pertains to electronic resources, no less than it does to the more traditional sources of information in libraries. (See DIVERSITY IN COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS.) Libraries and librarians should not deny or limit access to information available via electronic resources because of its allegedly controversial content or because of the librarian's personal beliefs or fear of confrontation. Information retrieved or utilized electronically should be considered constitutionally protected unless determined otherwise by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Providing access to electronic information, services, and networks is not the same thing as selecting and purchasing material for a library collection. Libraries may discover that some material accessed electronically may not meet a library's selection or collection development policy. It is, therefore, left to each user to determine what is appropriate. Parents who are concerned about their children's use of electronic resources should provide guidance to their own children. (See FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS; ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND SERVICES IN THE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA PROGRAM; and ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS) Just as libraries do not endorse the viewpoints or vouch for the accuracy or authenticity of traditional materials in the collection, they do not do so for electronic information. Libraries must support access to all materials on all subjects that serve the needs or interests of all users regardless of the user's age or the content of material. Libraries and librarians should not limit access to information on the grounds that it is perceived to be frivolous or lacking value. Libraries have a particular obligation to provide access to government publications available only in electronic format. Libraries may need to expand their selection or collection development policies to reflect the need to preserve materials central to the library's mission as a retrievable copy in an appropriate format to prevent loss of the information. CONCLUSION By applying traditional tenets of intellectual freedom to new media, librarians provide vision and leadership in an arena where it is so clearly needed. Our services have never been more important. James Madison wrote, "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." ------------------------------ From: Druff <71553.1102@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 6--FTC Legislative Alert (Telemarketing legislation) Date: 20 Mar 1995 17:45:16 GMT Legislative Alert! New proposed Federal Trade Commission Rules on Telemarketing pose a great threat to businesses, sysops, list brokers, copywriters, printers, desktop publishers, etc., and to freedom of speech! Your Immediate Attention Is Called To 16 CFR Part 310 Telemarketing Sales Rules Note: Section 310. Definitions...includes...the use of facsimile modems, or any telephonic medium. Your attention is called to "Assisting and Facilitating" Section 310.3[b] [1] {page 11} of the proposed rule sets forth a general prohibition against assisting or facilitating deceptive telemarketing acts or practices. Assistors who engage in these activities will violate the rule if they know, or should know, that the person they are assisting is engaged in an act or practice that violates the rule. The five types of assisting and facilitating activities listed in the proposed rule are as follows: first, providing lists of customer contacts to a seller or telemarketer [e.g., serving as a list broker]...and fifth, providing any script, advertising, brochure, promotional material, or direct marketing piece to be used in telemarketing. Section 310.4[b] [pages 14 & 15] is an abusive act or practice and a violation of the rule to call a person's residence to offer, offer for sale, or sell, on behalf of the same seller, the same or similar goods or services more than once within any three month period... Page 25 - #7 - The proposed rule states that the term "telemarketing" includes the use of a facsimile machine, computer modem, or any other telephonic medium, as well as calls initiated by persons in response to postcards, brochures, advertisements, or any other printed, audio, video, cinematic or electronic communications by or on behalf of the seller... Page 25 - #8 - The proposed definition of "telemarketing" includes within the rule's coverage On-Line information services which a person accesses by computer modem. Section 310.3 [a] [4] {page 11} would prohibit consumers from paying by check over the phone without prior written authorization while allowing credit card holders to do so without prior written authorization. This would discriminate against the 75 million consumers who do not have a credit card, the millions of consumers who have no usable credit on their credit card and the businesses, most of them small or new, who cannot obtain credit card merchant status to accept credit cards. It would also further the monopoly of Visa and MasterCard and the up to 21 percent interest they charge credit card users. Please read the proposed rules in their entirety to ascertain their possible effect on your business, the telemarketing industry and the growth of the Information Super Highway. Since most businesses and individuals are totally unaware of these proposed rules, it is important that this information is distributed through every means possible so that interested parties have the opportunity to comment and protect their interests. Written comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 1995. A public workshop-conference will be held at the Chicago Hilton on April 18th through April 20th from 9am to 5pm. Five paper copies of each written comment should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade Commission, Washington DC 20580. To encourage prompt and efficient review and dissemination of the comments to the public, all comments should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, on either a 5< or 3= inch computer disk, with a label on the disk stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document. Submissions should be captioned: "Proposed Telemarketing Sales Rule" FTC File NO. R411001. The full 50 pages of the proposed rules can be downloaded from the NYACC Bulletin Board, file name "FTC" - phone 718-539-3338. I would appreciate your feedback and a copy of any comments that you intend to submit and I suggest that you disseminate this information as widely as possible. Ronald A. Stewart 126 13th Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Phone 718-768-6803 Fax 718-965-3400 ========================================================= From--Druff <71553.1102@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject--FTC Alert (more info) Date--20 Mar 1995 17:45:51 GMT Proposed comments to FTC about written authorization required for checks by phone Under Section 310.3 [a] [4] of the proposed rule, it is a prohibited deceptive telemarketing act or practice for a seller or telemarketer to obtain or submit for payment from a person's checking, savings, share, or similar account, a check, draft, or other form of negotiable paper without that person's express written authorization. For example, a telemarketer cannot submit an unsigned draft on a consumer's bank account without that consumer's prior written authorization. This Section of the proposed rule would discriminate against the 75 million Americans who do not have a credit card [1990 census] and the millions of credit card holders who want to make a purchase by phone, fax, computer, computer bulletin board, etc., but who have no usable credit on their card. Would discriminate against the thousands of new and small businesses who cannot obtain Credit Card Merchant Status to accept major credit cards and reduce their sales by not being able to accept a customer's check over the phone. The rules would allow credit card payments over the phone, increasing the monopoly of MasterCard and Visa with their up to 21 percent charges to consumers. Would effectively kill the rapidly growing "checks by phone" industry, putting over 20 companies (and their employees) out of business and costing countless less sales to the thousands of clients these businesses are now servicing. Fraud associated with checks by phone is less than with credit cards. Any consumer can take a check to his or her bank and, since consumer's signature is not on check, have the check kicked back to the bank it was originally deposited in and have their account credited. As with credit card sales over the phone, it is the merchant that is at risk, not the consumer. The FTC must demonstrate why checks over the phone must require prior written authorization from consumers [which would effectively negate its usefulness] while allowing credit card purchases by phone without prior written authorization. In order for the Information Super Highway to continue to grow, checks by phone will play a positive important role. People will be shopping from their personal computers, from their TV sets using their interactive remote control device...on computer bulletin boards and on the Internet and by fax machine. Consumers will need ways to transmit money over the phone and fax lines and businesses will need ways to receive money by phone line and fax and by computer. 75 million Americans do not have a credit card and thousands of legitimate businesses cannot qualify for credit card merchant account status to accept major credit cards. To preclude checks by phone will cause great economic loss to the American economy. If banks received numerous complaints about checks by phone they would stop paying them [checks without account holders signature]. Handicapped, the elderly, shut-ins, etc., would be further penalized by being forced to address envelopes, purchase postage stamps, and going to a mail box instead of being able to conveniently give a check over the phone. If future information and statistics demonstrate that checks by phone produces more fraud and complaints than credit card fraud, the FTC can revisit this issue in future rules. No anecdotal evidence presently exists that this is currently the case. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995) 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@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. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) 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: +39-464-435189 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 Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: 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 #7.23 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank