Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 4, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 45 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 Jun 4, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 45 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Tibia Editor: Who built the Seven Towers of Thebes? CONTENTS, #7.45 (Sun, Jun 4, 1995) File 1--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online File 2--Ban Nothing, Question Everything (Eye Reprint)(fwd) File 3--Some Questions for Canter and Siegel in re Their Book File 4--Student Loses Scholarship. We All Lose A Little Freedom File 5--Library of Congress Signs Nat'l Dig Library Fed Agreement File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 20:12:10 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 1--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online CHRISTIAN AMERICAN MAY/JUNE 1995 TECHNO-PREDATORS Computer Porn Invades Homes Editor's note: Pornography victimizes women and entices young people. This article contains graphic information about the growing availability of pornographic pictures via computer bulletin boards and the Internet. Christian American hopes this information will be useful to parents and others who wish to safeguard their computers from this growing threat. By Jeffrey M. Peyton Youth pastor Tim McNabb used to love browsing through the Internet, a world-wide computer network, in search of electronic "pen pals." "I've had some of the most stimulating theological discussions ever with some people on the net," he said. "But more and more, I was having to wade through so much garbage to find someone who really wanted to talk." One day McNabb was having a theological conversation with a young woman who kept trying to turn the conversation in a sexually-suggestive direction. McNabb, who is married with children, was shocked. "It turns out she was only 16," he said. "I couldn't believe it." McNabb experienced a mild form of what some Internet veterans know as cybersex, the electronic equivalent to talking dirty on the telephone. Today McNabb, one of an estimated 30 million people dialing in from his home computer, accesses Internet only when he has to, and his communications software at home is password-protected. Unfortunately, the experience that shocked McNabb is tame compared to some material available on commercial dial-in bulletin boards and, worse, free and easily through the Internet. Today, all anyone needs to access hard-core pornographic photos is a computer, a modem and a phone jack. The technology revolution has led to a sudden explosion in illegal, obscene pornography distribution - all right under the noses of law enforcement and, in some cases, parents who unknowingly have given their children the ability to access such information. "Right now, people are operating in 'ignorant' mode," said Donna Rice Hughes of Enough is Enough, a national organization dedicated to stopping pornography. "They have no idea what's happening." Increasingly, porn purveyors are re-distributing photographs through "home pages" on Internet's world-wide web. This material is free for anyone who knows where to look. (Internet's public network is called a web because Internet forms an electronic "web" connecting computers in cities around the world. If one computer on the web is unavailable, information is re-routed though another computer via the web. The home page, literally a computer's address on the web, is the graphic equivalent to turning the page of an electronic magazine.) Some porno pages on the web deal mostly with pin-ups, along the lines of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, but most offer images far more disturbing. These photographs can be copied to computer disks or printed on paper and permanently kept by the user or shared with friends. "Children can dial into the system and download anything," Hughes said. "It's all available, subdivided into specific sections." Illegal pornographic images are available to anyone with the right computer equipment. Of particular concern to parents is the rampant availability of legal pornography, since the law distinguishes between pornography, which may be legal, and obscenity, which is illegal. And, Special Agent Ken Lanning of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit told the Associated Press, "as computers become less expensive, more sophisticated and easier to operate, the potential for abuse increases." In order to test how easily accessible porn is to computer users, a Christian American reporter accessed several menu selections arranged by subject. Topics included bestiality (sex with animals), torture/mutilation, snuff (killing a victim after sexually assaulting her) and child pornography. Categories are sub-organized for convenience - images under bestiality, for instance, are subdivided by type of animal. Not all topics included photographs. "This stuff would make a Hustler subscriber squirm," Hughes said. "There are hundreds of options. They're all easy to get, and they're all free for the taking." No Control Many parents feel better knowing their children are working on the computer rather than watching television, but at least TV offers control devices that can block objectionable channels. Now, with Internet and other computer bulletin board systems, the same child who is prohibited from watching MTV can see graphic sexual pictures on his or her personal computer. "You can see anything and talk to anybody," McNabb said. Legal Briefs Recent cybersmut incidents demonstrate that more law enforcement patrols are needed on the information speedway. The University of Michigan expelled a sophomore who posted email messages - which he claims were pure fiction - that described the rape, torture and murder of a classmate. The student, 20-year-old Jake Baker, spent 29 days in jail after authorities charged him with interstate transmission of a threat. "Torture is foreplay," Baker wrote in the introduction to one of his pieces. "Rape is romance, snuff is climax." In Fresno, Calif., in 1993, Mark Forston was convicted of sodomizing a 16-year-old boy he had met and lured to his home via a computer network. In Sacramento, William Steen was convicted on charges stemming from sending pornographic computer files to two 14-year-olds. National lawmakers are becoming aware of the growing need to regulate computer porn and are struggling for realistic ways to do it. Senators Jim Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) are sponsoring a bill that would curtail transmission of obscene, indecent or harassing telecommunications. Exon says the Baker case strengthens his belief that a crackdown on a growing Internet "red-light district" is needed. "When I see my 8-year-old granddaughter sitting at the computer back in Nebraska, and I know stuff like what this student wrote is available, I get upset. (Some Internet users) are trying to say anything goes, and I think that is wrong." No Boundaries Because no one "owns" the Internet - its very nature defies boundaries - many users feel there should be no limitations on what is available through the system. Their protests raise difficult questions about how Internet can be effectively policed. What community standard should apply to a forum that transcends state, even national, boundaries? Do laws apply based on the location of the server (usually a mainframe computer that provides Internet access to hundreds of users) or the location of the individual downloading information? For instance, in June 1994, Robert and Carleen Thomas, operators of an "adult bulletin board service" in California, were convicted in U.S. court in Memphis, Tenn., on obscenity charges because of images downloaded in Tennessee. Tens of thousands of Internet users have emailed petitions denouncing the Exon bill to Capitol Hill and the White House, claiming that any attempt to regulate the information super highway would be paramount to regulating free speech. Robert Knight, cultural studies director for the Family Research Council, told the Washington Times that such doomsday wailing misses the point. "Obscene materials are not protected, no matter what the method of transmission," Knight said. "The point is not to go after the Internet, but to begin enforcing laws against obscene materials. "If child pornography pictures are transmitted by Internet or by U.S. mail, it shouldn't make any difference in terms of enforcement." To encourage your senators to support the Exon-Gorton measure to curb computer porn, write to them at the U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. 20510. Or call the Capitol switchboard and ask for your senator: (202) 224-3121. For more information on computer pornography and what you can do to safeguard your home, write to Enough is Enough! at P.O. Box 888, Fairfax, Va. 22030, or call (703) 278-8343. Copyright =A91995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all contents. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 22:02:56 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 2--Ban Nothing, Question Everything (Eye Reprint)(fwd) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY May 25 1995 Toronto's arts newspaper every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EYENET EYENET BAN NOTHING Question everything by K.K. CAMPBELL I was on CBC Newsworld's Faceoff two Tuesdays ago (May 16). Topic: censorship on the net. My opponent was Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Take a wild guess which side I took ... The forces of censorship are amassing and, I hate to say it, if Canada maintains its traditions, we're doomed. The term net.cop will have a more real meaning than it does today. Our saving grace might be the U.S. If the U.S. abides by its own tradition of banning very little speech, Canucks will always be able to get an account in the U.S. and thus maintain our voices. While the net.illiterate assholes on Parliament Hill play Emperor For A Day, citizens will telnet across the border and publish whatever they want, from American computers. Here are the main three points I tried to make on the show: DIGITAL BOOK BURNERS Farber and his ilk are the moral descendants of book burners. But because books and printed matter have much stronger legal protections, The Modern Inquisition finds it easier to target CPUs and sysadmins. Right now, the panic-mongers in government and the media blame just about every social ill on the net. But the main theme today is bombs: "You can learn how to make bombs from reading the net! This evil must stop!" It's somewhat true. There is a file called The Terrorist's Handbook which circulates cyberspace. (It has a real wanky "WareZ d00d" feel to it and I wouldn't trust it for a second.) There's also The Anarchist's Cookbook making the rounds, which details everything from blowing up suspension bridges to cooking LSD in your kitchen. (Regard it with the same suspicion.) Sure enough, when I arrived at CBC studios, I saw that Farber had a printout of one of these text files. It was a good thing I had walked over to the World's Biggest Bookstore on my lunch hour and bought a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook for $34.75. Information on bomb building. Right off the shelf. "Ah, but that costs money," the pro-censorship forces would counter. "You can copy it off the net for free. Anticipating that objection, I strolled over to the Metro Reference Library last Saturday. There, on the main floor, sat a horrible collection of terrorist information: the Encyclopedia Britannica. I grabbed volume 21 (right off the shelf), flipped to page 323 and read the section on explosives. I photocopied it for about a buck and strolled back out with the detailed description of how to make an ammonium nitrate fuel oil bomb -- exactly like that used in the Oklahoma City bombing. I hope Allan Rock and the feds attend to this outrage immediately and write legislation to regulate these damn libraries. FIGHT SPEECH WITH SPEECH, NOT COPS Farber kept suggesting that Nazis and hatemongers are using the net as a propaganda tool. This is uninformed opinion of the first order. The net is terrible as a "propaganda tool" because it's a two-way medium. Newsgroups are interactive. Racists are forced to answer questions. When Farber says, "Millions of people see what these people write," complete the image for him: "Millions of people see these people ridiculed and humiliated in intellectual debate over and over again." That is pretty ineffective propaganda. In the finest of anarchist traditions, the naturally produces people who rebut every hate-mongering pamphlet that denies the Holocaust happened. Canada's Ken McVay is one famous example. He's built an enormous reservoir of historical documents that permanently shred the revisionist pamphlets. Every time the same old pamphlets are uploaded to cyberspace, someone quickly tags on the real story. "And that's the beauty of the Internet: once it's refuted in an honest and academic fashion, you can't run away from it," McVay says. "The most intellectual among them (revisionists) are stupid and completely inept when it comes to historical research. And, of course, they are liars. That being the case, why on Earth would anyone want to shut them up or force them underground? I want to know who I'm dealing with. I want to know where they are. And I want to know how their minds work." It's dramatic to watch. No need for Thought Cops. As Deborah Lipstadt writes in Denying The Holocaust: "The main shortcoming of legal restraints is that they transform the deniers into martyrs on the altar of free speech." CENSORSHIP SUPPORTS THE STATUS QUO Throughout history, censorship has only worked to uphold the status quo. It keeps the strong strong and the weak weak. In 1871, Prussia's "personal honor" laws were intended to prevent insults against groups, such as Jews. Not surprisingly, the courts never upheld them for Jews, but rigorously used them to prevent criticism of Prussians, clerics and the military -- the status quo. At the turn of the century, France never charged the anti-Semitic enemies of Captain Alfred Dreyfuss. Of course, when Emile Zola wrote his famous tract "J'Accuse," he was charged with libel against the clergy and had to flee to England. In 1965, the British Race Relations Act was passed to combat racism. The first people charged under it? Black Power leaders, labor leaders, no-nuke activists. Britain's National Front thrives. In 1974, Britain's National Union of Students passed a resolution against "openly racist and fascist organizations." It was designed specifically to prevent anti- Semitism. A year later, it was invoked to prevent Israeli/Zionist speakers from touring. The National Front was delighted. Think all this is ancient history? How about Canada's infamous 1992 Supreme Court decision in "Butler vs. the Queen"? It was hailed by pro-censorship feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon as being a great step forward for women in the "battle" against sexual images. Two-and-a-half years later, we find that it has been used by the authorities to seize and confiscate material from well over half of all the feminist bookstores across the country. In fact, Customs actually seized two of Dworkin's own books. It was also used against gays and lesbians. "Traditional" sexual material was never touched. When are people who work for change going to learn that when they support censorship, they are building their own gallows? If they want to change society, why are they working to transfer still greater powers to the state? If they believe in change, they simply cannot support censorship. The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright Mailing list available eyeNET archive --> "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 21:13:56 CDT From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 3--Some Questions for Canter and Siegel in re Their Book ((MODERATORS' NOTE: Canter and Siegel are best known for "spamming the nets" with the infamous 1994 "Green Card" advertisement that was sent to thousands of newsgroups and mailing lists. Then, they wrote a book lauding the spam practice, and claimed that fortunes were waiting to be made on the Internet. CuD was the victim of their spam, although the quick action of gatemeister Chip Rosenthal minimized the damage. Within the next week, CuD will run a special issue on Canter and Siegel, including a review of their "How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway," which is billed as a "Guerrilla Guide." The book is a rather confusing mixture of self-serving commentary, mean-spirited attacks on their critics, sloppy thinking, and gross errors. Before completing the review, I thought I would provide Canter and Siegel the opportunity to clarify a few questions I had after reading it)). =========================== 2 June, 1995 TO: Laurence A. Canter and Martha S. Siegel FROM: Jim Thomas RE: Help me Understand Your Book Please help me. I am doing a review of your book, _How to Make a FORTUNE on the Information Superhighway: Everyone's Guerrilla Guide to Marketing on the Internet and Other On-line Services_, which will be part of a special issue on you both in Cu Digest within the next week. To help me assure accuracy in writing my review, perhaps you could answer some questions I have now that I've carefully read, line-by-line, the full 234 pages of your tome. I have found so many confusing and illogical passages, gross errors that suggest a "fictional work adapted from a true story," and sloppy thinking and writing, that I am wondering if it was intended as a Swiftian satire. Here are a few examples that I found curious: 1. On page 190 of your volume, you strongly suggest that Michael LaMacchia, an MIT student, was indicted for software piracy. You write: "Still, one thing does seem to be typical of many hackers, they don't care about breaking the law. The two most famous examples of this are Craig Neidorf and Michael La Macchia. Neidorf went down in the annals of hacker fame for stealing a program that detailed the operations of Bell South's emergency 911 telephone system. For this Neidorf was arrested and convicted, although he received only a year's probation as punishment." It is not that you grossly err in identifying these two individuals as "hackers" or as "famous examples" of cyber-criminals who "don't care about breaking the law." This I attribute to simple ignorance and cavalier indifference to fact. My concern is with your falsehoods. Because you identify yourself as competent, credentialed, credible professionals, and because you seem to pride yourself on "being right," perhaps you could provide the source for the above claims. Those who have read the the indictment in the LaMacchia case, which as practicing attorneys I assume you would before making your claims, are aware that LaMaccia was not indicted for piracy. I wonder if you are also aware that the federal judge dismissed the charges against LaMacchia. My question: On what basis do you proclaim LaMacchia a "famous example" of law-breaking when he was not so-judged by the court? More serious are your allegations against Craig Neidorf. You explicitly claim that "NEIDORF WENT DOWN IN THE ANNALS OF HACKER FAME FOR STEALING A PROGRAM THAT DETAILED THE OPERATIONS OF BELL SOUTH'S EMERGENCY E911 TELEPHONE SYSTEM ((emphasis added))." For this, you say, HE WAS CONVICTED. There are several fundamental errors in this short passage. First, a "program" was not at issue in the case. Second, Neidorf was not brought to trial for theft, as even a cursory review of his indictment (or even media accounts) would reveal. Third, Neidorf was not only NOT convicted, but the prosecution withdrew the charges even before it concluded presenting its case. It had no case. Fourth, there was no evidence adduced in court, nor am I aware of even anecdotal information, to indicate that Neidorf was a "hacker." He published a newsletter ABOUT hackers, a small, but hardly an inconsequential detail, as a federal prosecutor learned in a humiliating experience with a botched prosecution. My questions: 1) Does such a statement, which publicly defames Craig Neidorf, constitute an intentional lie, astonishing intellectual sloppiness, or simply an indifference to truth? 2) Are you prepared to publicly apologize to Craig Neidorf for this reckless comment that some might argue is libelous? 3) Are you willing to publicly recant that passage now that you have been corrected, or will you insist on letting such a defamatory smear stand? If you wish to read the indictments and other related legal documents and commentary, you can find them in the back issues of Cu Digest. 2) In reading your book, I had the feeling that I was reading a 234 page match-book cover: "MAKE A FORTUNE IN YOUR SPARE TIME--tear the cover off, send it in...."--Chapter headings and passages allude ad nauseam to "making a fortune," "getting rich," and "making money." My question: Are you as hopelessly driven by the mercenary spirit in real life as the book suggests, or does the subtext of your book reflect merely an ironic satire on shameless amoralism and the disingenuousness of advertising and consumerism that you practice? 3) You seem not to like people on the net very much. Despite the occasional caveat, your work (as the title would corroborate) seems an indiscriminate assault on all those who inhabit "cyberspace." You make sweeping generalizations about the "Net society," "Net participants," and the "Net community," in which your invective includes so many pejorative terms that I stopped counting. Geeks is the mildest. My question: Is it good business practice to offend the community in which you're trying to make a buck? 4) Nowhere in your book did you demonstrate that you understood why the response to your advertising gimmick, called "spamming," infuriated people. In fact, you seemed not only surprised, but angry that people would react against indiscriminate flooding of Usenet, Bitnet, and other Newsgroups, as well as mailboxes, with repititious advertisements. Indeed, you seem proud to the point of boastful that you spammed the net, and unless you were speaking in some primitive code, it seemed clear that you were advocating to others that they do likewise to make a fortune. Further, you conflate "spamming" and "advertising," assuming that the ill-will you raised was soley due to violation of an advertising taboo. Did I misread, or do you really not understand the implications of flooding newsgroups and mailboxes with millions of identical posts? Nowhere, not in a single line, did I find even a hint that you saw such an action as--at the least--rude. Quite the contrary--you write as if it's your right to be uncivil boors, while criticizing your victims when they complain of your predation. My question: Did you ever take an ethics course? If so, did you pass? 5) I have tried to drop you a note (to the address listed in your book and to the contact identified as "Laurence A. Canter" at on the information provided through Unix's nslookup). Using a variety of Unix programs (mail, ping, nslookup, whois, traceroute, and others), It appears that is down or otherwise unreachable. Perhaps this is merely a momentary glitch, perhaps not. My question: Do you have net access, or do you not? If not, is it because your "spamming" strategy has so discredited you that you are unable to find a reputable provider? 6) You claim that you are being "censored" by "cancelbots" which have been designed to identify and cancel posts that are identical and that are distributed to numerous newsgroups at once. As attorneys, I'm surprised that you seem not to understand the meaning of the term "censorship." You label those who engage in and support cancelbots as "hypocrites" and worse. My questions: 1) Are you really unaware that spamming is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the net? 2) Do you really not know that those opposing spamming do so because spamming is disruptive to systems and individual users? 3) Do you really not know that most system administrators support cancelbots? 4) Are you really unaware that cancelbots are not content-driven, but distribution driven? 5) Are you being disingenuous or merely ignorant when you feel that it is your "right" (as you repeatedly claim) to advertise as you wish (as long as you violate no statutes), while simultaneously complaining when others exercise their right of speech to communicate to you their displeasure with your disruptive behavior? 7) You argue in your conclusion that you are pioneers and you believe that you are paving the way for others. Paving the way for what? Certainly not for net advertising or commercialism, which has long been a fact of net life, and is recognized by most of us as a valuable enrichment of the net. The homepages of the publishing and music industry are just two examples of how information and commercialism can be productively integrated. After reading your book with great care, I can only conclude that your own "pioneer" effort has been the advocacy of spamming. But, this is a minor issue. What troubles me is that, while stating that you are pioneers, both the mood and the text of your book suggest a different metaphor, that suggested in your subtitle: "EVERYONE'S GUERRILLA GUIDE TO MARKETING." The term "guerrilla" denotes small bands of militants who harass an enemy with destructive acts for the purpose of driving the enemy from the field. The term connotes a state of war in which the guerrilla aims to hurt the adversary. My question: Do you honestly believe that "guerrilla warfare" is a sound commercial strategy, or is this more satire by which you poke fun at net-hucksters, unethical advertising tactics, and destructive behavior? 8) Throughout your book, you demonstrate a disregard for common courtesy and display what I interpret as a Nietzschean ethical relativism. To your readers who might traverse the internet to seek their fortune, you advise: Along your journey, someone may try to tell you that in order to be a good Net "citizen," you must follow the rules of the cyberspace community. Don't listen. The only laws and rules with which you should concern yourself are those passed by the country, state, and city in which you truly live. The only ethics you should adopt as you pursue wealth on the I-way are those dictated by the religious faith you have chosen to follow and your own good conscience (p. 12). You scoff at Usenet's (and other) "Netiquette rules" for posting, and call it dogma (p. 200). You add: Of the supposed moral issue, there is little left to be said. Making money on the Internet in whatever way seems best to you is not a moral question as long as you conduct yourself with basic honesty and obey the law (p 207). In all societies, there are norms of basic etiquette. Participating in an electronic forum doesn't change normative expectations of participants. You seem not to know that legality is not necessarily a sufficient criterion for appropriate behavior in civilized society. More to the point is the bald disingenuousness of your rather facile rationalization for engaging in disruptive behavior. After decrying electronic vandals, rudeness, and "crime," you seem to glorify and advocate many of those same acts. For example, even while claiming that one's mailbox is not a public forum, you defend junkmail, comparing it to unsolicited advertising delivered by the postal service. Do you not understand that, for those computer users who are charged by the message, by the space used for file storage, or for on-line time, that the costs of junk mail are passed on to the consumer? Are you really so ignorant of how the web operates that you believe that your spam is limited to Usenet news groups? Are you so completely ignorant of the medium you profess to know that you are unaware that much of spam winds up in others' mailboxes instead of newsgroups? Do you really not know how much space can be wasted, how disruptive your posts are to some systems, and how aggravating it is especially for non-Usenet users when spamming occurs? It will eventually be for the courts to determine whether such disruptive, costly, and resource-draining behaviors such as yours are illegal. A case could be made that you are nothing more than electronic "Vandals" intent on sacking the net with admitted guerrilla tactics. However, in your defense, I offer that perhaps your history education is sufficiently incomplete that you confuse "pioneers" with "Vandals"." >From my reading of your book, there is little to support your identification with the former, and much with the latter. But, a metaphoric quibble isn't my point. It's this: You claim on one hand that you have not broken any laws. You also claim to find "hacker" activity abhorrent. Yet, you arguably are as willing to violate legal norms as those "hackers" you ridicule. Your spam didn't simply flood Usenet newsgroups. You targeted academic groups as well, and your indiscriminate posting, which you defend and glorify, flooded some mailboxes. This is merely the behavior of a Vandal. To reach some of those posters, you had to "hack" your way into private, moderated lists. You had to circumvent established procedures to trespass where you were neither wanted nor invited. In short, to reach some lists you did more than post to a public forum---you crashed into private spaces through trickery. It is not just that you trespassed into private domains, it is that you defend this costly and disruptive practice and then wonder why others are bothered by your behavior. My question is this: Why are you so sure that your own behaviors and those you advocate are within the law? I look forward to your answers to these questions so that I may complete my review of your work as objectively as possible. Of course, because you do not know me, you may not with to respond. Let me introduce myself: My name is Jim Thomas. I am an academic who has been on the nets for over a decade. I subscribe to several dozen Usenet groups, virtually all of which were hit by your spam. These were deleted easily enough. I subscribe to a dozen highly specialized academic Bitnet discussion groups. These posts arrive in my personal mailbox. Your spam cluttered my box and caused me delays and other consequences. I edit an electronic, moderated, newsgroup, Cu Digest (or CuD). This group does not accept public posts. Posts sent to the group do not go to the group, but to me. In order to post to the group without permission, one must "hack" the address. Three times in the past year, spam that was publicly attributed to you--the Green Card, about which you brag, a "get out of debt" spam that was identified from the return route as originating from, and a recent health book advertisement that the "clients" claim was initiated by "Canter and Siegel who wrote that book"--was hacked into this group. That you found a way to automate trespassing makes it no-less acceptable. Is it illegal? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, if you are counselling your clients to trespass in order to "make their fortune on the Internet," as both your words and deeds indicate, then I do have to wonder about the private ethics that you hold up as the model of good conscience. After reading your volume and being a victim of your actions, I am saddened that, for me, the best single adjective that fits your behavior and the intellectual tone of the volume is: dishonest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:54:26 -0400 From: Matthew Saroff Subject: File 4--Student Loses Scholarship. We All Lose A Little Freedom (Originally from: comp-academic-freedom-talk@EFF.ORG (comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list) Student Loses Scholarship. We All Lose A Little Freedom by Jim Crawley, editor ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Kim may be the first person ever to have his own home page on the World Wide Web censored. The 17-year-old high school senior lost his National Merit scholarship, possibly admission to Harvard and his satirical Web page. Earlier this year, the Bellevue, Wash., student created an "Unofficial Newport High School Home Page" on his home computer and posted it in a public directory of his Internet provider, according to a recent article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He also submitted the page to the Yahoo directory. Included under a category about students' likes, Kim provided links to three other servers that had a Playboy centerfold, an article about masturbation and another about oral sex, the paper reported. "I put a satire of the school on the Internet as a joke," Kim told a reporter. The page was noticed by a staff member at another Bellevue school, who reported it to Newport High officials. Their response was to withdraw the school's endorsement of Kim's National Merit scholarship -- he has a 3.88 grade point average and posted a near perfect score on the SAT. He automatically lost the $2,000 scholarship. Then, the principal sent faxes to the seven top-rank colleges that Kim applied to. Soon, afterwards, Harvard rejected his application. While Kim and attorneys from the ACLU are asking the school district for $2,000 and a public explanation of the school officials' "violation of Kim's free-speech rights," the school hasn't paid up nor showed signs it will. The scary part of this story -- other than it's true -- is that it's only the beginning of a trend. You don't need to be a soothsayer to predict that other schools, Internet providers or companies will try to determine what is appropriate content. It's already happened. But, the Kim case is the first time a government entity has censured (and censored) someone for publishing a Web page on a non-government computer. And, if unchecked and uncorrected, it sets a horrific impediment on the Web and its development. While a person's home is their castle (please note the WEBster's gender neutrality), a person's home page may not be safe. As the Web grows into a full-fledged, powerful replacement for some forms of the printed word, Web publishers must be assured that they are protected by the First Amendment. So far, freedom of the press doesn't cover publications that are based entirely on recycled electrons. If that lapse continues much longer, more and more bureaucrats, legislators and demagogues will try (and succeed) to censor the Web. And, then no one will be laughing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 16:37:41 EST From: "Rhea Zimbar" Subject: File 5--Library of Congress Signs Nat'l Dig Library Fed Agreement May 24, 1995 Contact: Guy Lamolinara (202) 707-9217 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SIGNS NATIONAL DIGITAL LIBRARY FEDERATION AGREEMENT The Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, the Commission on Preservation and Access and officials from 14 other research libraries and archives on May 1 signed the National Digital Library Federation Agreement. Recognizing "the important leadership role that the Library of Congress has played in raising as a national issue the need for such a national digital library," those institutions taking part agreed to "bring together -- from across the nation and beyond -- digitized materials that will be made accessible to students, scholars and citizens everywhere." "The Library of Congress is proud to be a member of the National Digital Library Federation and to continue its leadership role in building a collection of digitized materials that will bring unique materials reflecting America's heritage and culture to all," said Dr. Billington. The Commission on Preservation and Access, whose president is Deanna B. Marcum, is a private, nonprofit organization. Its mission is to develop and support collaboration among libraries and allied institutions to ensure access to and preservation of resources in all formats. At the signing, held at Harvard University, participants agreed to establish a collaborative management structure, develop a coordinated approach to fund-raising and formulate selection guidelines that will "ensure conformance to the general theme of U.S. heritage and culture." "The Library of Congress and the scholarly community will benefit from participation in the National Digital Library Federation, particularly by working with the federation members to increase access to the nation's research collections in libraries and archives both large and small," said Winston Tabb, Associate Librarian for Collections Services. In addition to the Library of Congress, and the Commission on Preservation and Access, those institutions signing the agreement are: Columbia University, Cornell University, Emory University, Harvard University, National Archives and Records Administration, New York Public Library, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Southern California, and University of Tennessee and Yale University. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 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 CUDIGEST 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) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/ 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 #7.45 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank