Computer underground Digest Tue Jun 6, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 46 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji
Computer underground Digest Tue Jun 6, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 46
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
Tibia Editor: Who built the Seven Towers of Thebes?
(Answer still pending)
CONTENTS, #7.45 (Tue, Jun 6, 1995)
File 1--A Seduction In Cyberspace?
File 2--Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
File 3--Illinois Legislater "Discovers" Net Porn (news excerpt)
File 4--Canadian Police Chiefs Ponder Crime on the Infobahn (fwd)
File 5--GovAccess.120: Christian Coalition urges net censorship (fwd)
File 6--Voice System Up-Date
File 7--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: 03 Jun 95 04:03:33 EDT
From: Walter Scott <email@example.com>
Subject: File 1--A Seduction In Cyberspace?
On May 18th, Daniel Montgomery left Seattle for an as yet unknown
location. His departure has caused, in its wake, a frenzy of media
coverage. And that magic word -- "INTERNET" -- is attached to this
Daniel Montgomery is 15 years-old and potentially gay. Until May
of this year, he was what Tahoma High School Assistant Principal Rob
Morrow would call a "nice young man." More than being a "nice young
man," Daniel Montgomery was a teenager exploring cyberspace via
America Online. Through a chat room on America Online, Daniel met
someone calling himself "Damien Starr." Eventually, Starr may have
enticed Daniel to leave his Maple Valley home.
According to a published report in the 6-2-95 edition of the
Seattle Post Intelligencer, Starr's user profile on America Online
indicates Starr is 18 years-old, gay, and resides somewhere on Nob
Hill in San Fransisco. Starr and Daniel Montgomery apparently
communicated, for a period of time, on America Online and by way of a
password-protected 1-800 phone number. According to the Seattle Post
Intelligencer and Bill Montgomery -- Daniel's father -- Starr had
suggested that, if Daniel was discovering he is gay, and revealed such
to his parents, they probably would kick him out of his home. Bill
Montgomery believes this may have played a role in why Daniel
Montgomery left -- ostensibly because Daniel had not discussed his
sexual orientation with his parents, and Daniel's mother had stated
negative feelings about gays in the past. Thus, Bill Montgomery
asserts Daniel may have been particularly open to another suggestion --
that Daniel come join Starr.
When Daniel left, he apparently did so after receiving a bus
ticket in the mail from Starr. Since then, Daniel has sent 2 E-Mail
messages to his father stating that he's doing OK while making more
money than his parents, according to reports from several broadcast
news organizations here in Seattle. Bill Montgomery doesn't KNOW if
this is true but states that, if what Daniel had claimed is true, at
least part of it is temporary. Soundbites aired on TV news (KOMO-TV
and KING-TV - 6-2-95) illustrate Bill Montgomery suspects his son is
being groomed for sex. According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer,
that assessment may, in part, be drawn from Daniel's sister. She lives
in Southern California and has informed Bill Montgomery of reports
she's seen on TV about groups that seduce young gay males by offering
protection from parents who might not be supportive of a homosexual
orientation in their children. The Seattle Post Intelligencer
summarizes Montgomery's description of the "group's" method of
operation as enticement to run away followed by provision of food and
money for a short time, and then culminating in requests for sexual
favors in return. The Seattle Post Intelligencer, and broadcast news
organizations in Seattle, are not, however, reporting confirmation of
Starr has contacted the Montgomery family four times, again,
according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, to assure them Daniel is
not in any danger. As stated previously, Montgomery doesn't doubt this
for the time being. But, Montgomery also told the Seattle Post
Intelligencer that Starr is probably a recruiter who might have been
recruited into the "group" not so long ago.
Bill Montgomery is not saying whether he will ask America
Online to provide Starr's real name and/or other information on Starr
retained by America Online. The Seattle Post Intelligencer, though,
reports that the FBI won't deny they are interested in asking America
Online to reveal information on Starr. And "sources" are stated by the
Seattle Post Intelligencer as indicating that the FBI continues to
investigate the case.
There are several interesting factors in this turn of events.
Some of those factors can be appreciated more easily by people who
live in Washington state and in the Puget Sound in particular.
1. Washington state's Legislature just finished a regular
session and special session -- back-to-back. Those sessions
provided high political drama -- even for the online
community. Until late last month, we were faced with a
"harmful to minors" bill addressing, among other things,
availability of sexual material to minors via online
services. The bill easily passed the Legislature but was
vetoed by Governor Lowry. A veto-override attempt did not
fall so short that people here -- who were and are opposed
to the legislation -- can breathe a sigh of relief; the
issue WILL come back another day -- possibly quite soon.
2. The Legislature also passed legislation which would
change Washington state's laws dealing with run-aways.
This legislation was partially vetoed. The result is a
firestorm of resentment among a significant number of
parents. They feel as though long-awaited relief has been
stolen by a Governor who doesn't appreciate parenting
issues in this state. For example: Laws existing through
this Spring required that a child at the age of 13 could
legally run away from home. Parents were powerless to do
anything about such behavior unless the child was acting
under the coercion of others in very strict
circumstances. The new law is only slightly more
restrictive on whether minors can run away -- certainly NOT
restrictive enough to make Daniel Montgomery's act of
running away an illegal act. Such laws, as those existing
prior to the most recent regular session of the Washington
state Legislature, have been in place for several years
to provide abused children with the means to escape parental
abuse if running away would accomplish that goal.
3. A local TV station (KIRO) recently ran a series of
reports called "Net Sex." Those reports were
sensationally promoted with language that implied
children can and do access sexually explicit sections of
the INTERNET -- something which might be a threat to
children if unsuspecting parents aren't watching what
their kids are doing online. The actual reports, however,
were reasonably balanced. But, the reports left Seattle
sensitized to the existence of sexually explicit materials
on the INTERNET.
4. We have the copious and invalid use of the word
"INTERNET" in broadcast reporting of the Montgomery
run-away. We also have a case in which a 15-year-old
ran away to circumstances the father of that 15-year-old
asserts are probably sexual in nature. All four of the
factors listed here may eventually come together as a
dangerous brew is or will be created.
In the current social and political climate, the Montgomery
run-away; the Baker case; the incidents where children download
instructions on how to make pipe bombs and then construct them; an
incident where a young girl seduces an adult male into a sexual
encounter after online meetings; incidents where online pedophiles do
there thing, and so much more seem to draw us headlong toward events
we may regret some years from now. I wonder if there is no other way
to see what is out there to be seen.
Politicians revel in such events as those referred to above. I
believe it is no strange coincidence that Senator Exon's legislation
(Communications Decency Act) moved into the fast lane of Congressional
action at around the same time as news broke on the Baker case. It is
not novel for politicians to orchestrate their policies and agendas
around politically favorable current events. I expect more instances
of perceived or actual online abuse, and for politicians to take
advantage in the ways only politicians can.
Whether it's Washington state, New York state, Alabama or
Washington, DC, I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe
there is any room left to assume reason will necessarily prevail over
emotion built to a fever-pitch. I see emotion more places than I
don't, and rancorous emotion at that. I also see associated and
ever-growing polarization. It actually frightens me because I think I
know what all that HIGH emotion will promulgate.
=========== UPDATE ==================
On Sunday [6-4-95] Seattle area teenager Daniel Montgomery -- who
had run away from home in mid-May at the possible coaxing of an AOL
subscriber -- met with his parents at a San Francisco airport.
According to various Seattle news media reports, Montgomery told his
parents, at that time, he was doing ok and had not been harmed.
Subsequently, reports from local media have exhibited an amazing
cacophony of inaccurate or incomplete information. For example: Even
on the day that Daniel Montgomery met with his parents, the Seattle
Post Intelligencer reported that Montgomery had been seen by a Seattle
Metro bus driver. According the the Seattle Post Intelligencer,
Montgomery had told the bus driver he was on his way out of town, and
Montgomery had shown the bus driver what the bus driver thought to be
a bus ticket to Florida.
Once it was clear that Montgomery had met with his parents in
San Francisco, local news media issued conflicting stories as to
whether Montgomery would stay with his parents or grandparents. More
than one news organization implied a strained relationship between
Montgomery and his parents
In the past two days, some news media organizations have stated
AOL was under some pressure to reveal information on a subscriber
using the alias "Damien Starr." However, other news media
organizations were stating that AOL was resolute in its policy not to
reveal information about subscribers. Even so, today, [6-6-95] several
broadcast organizations (KING-TV, KIRO-TV, KIRO radio, and KOMO radio)
now report that AOL has terminated the person who used the Damien
Starr alias. KOMO radio broadcast the following in a news program this
America Online says it's complying with a subpoena
and giving investigators information about the
account of Damien Starr. That's the name used by a
man suspected of luring a teenaged boy to San Francisco.
The computer service has also terminated the man's
account. The boy's now back with his family in
Maple Valley. [Maple Valley is a small community
in the Seattle area]
KING-TV takes us a step further with a report that Damien Starr
is under investigation by the FBI for a possible violation of the Man
Act. KIRO-TV states that AOL terminated Damien Starr because Starr
allegedly solicited a minor in violation of AOL's policies.
It's rather difficult to know what is truth, what is perception,
and what is true at one moment and not in the next moment, hour, or day in
this case. What seems certain, though, is that events pertaining to
the running away and/or seduction of Daniel Montgomery are not
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 15:53:32 GMT
Subject: File 2--Re: Protecting kids from porn on Web -- html enhancement
Can the parents prevent their children from viewing
unwanted Web pages?
Yes. There is a simple solution.
The senate's Communication Decency Bill is ultimately harmful and
moreover it won't work because Internet does not know any country
boundaries. Nevertheless, the politicians are making impassioned
arguments that the children must be protected from the pornographic
materials and other unwanted materials (like how to make a bomb). Do
they have a valid point? Well, let me rephrase the question :
If you have a simple way to prevent your kids from viewing some adult
materials or other unwanted stuff available on the Web, would you use
it to control their access? Particularly if that objective can be
accomplished without any censorship laws or any inconvenience? Also
free of cost too? I suppose most parents probably would.
Below the proposed solution is introduced in a question answer form.
Q1. Why is this fuss? I don't see any problem. Therefore no solution
A. Actually, there is a problem. Do you want your 10-year old kid to
read Hustler magazine? There are actually lots of adult materials on
the Web (and there are going to be more in the future) which are even
more unsuitable for young children. Concerned parents want to protect
their kids from viewing such materials available on the Web. Also,
adult page authors don't want any kids to view their stuff. Its apparent
that the Internet is going to be so useful that kids should be
encouraged to surf the Net. Currently there is no good solution to
If something is not done by the net-citizens themselves, the
politicians can generate enough public support to curtail freedom of
expression on the Net. Despite all the hype, only a small percentage
of the general population are on the Net and thus netters are powerless
to the law-makers majority of whom are not friends of the Net.
Q2. Can anything be done? How?
A. Yes. Concerned parents and educators can control access on Web. All
it needs is a little cooperation from the Web browser designers (like
people at Netscape and NCSA Mosaic) and also from the adult Web page
In the next version of the Web navigators, just introduce a new HTML
tag . If a WWW browser encounters this tag enclosed inside
the part of a HTML document, then the browser will
simply refuse to load or render the document. The author of a Web page
should put that tag in all of his pages containing materials that he
does not want to be seen by young children.
At the time of installing the browser, a password will be asked from
the person (who is assumed to be an adult) installing the
program. This password is for identification of the installer. As a
default, the checking is enabled. To allow a parent (the
adult installer) the freedom to view adult-only stuff, the browser can
have a command line option "-unrestricted". If that option is used,
the program will ask for a password for identification (only at the
beginning of the session).
This way, a parent protects the kids from unwanted stuff on the
Net. Also, the adult page authors are protected from unwanted
attention from kids. It involves no cost, no laws or hassles.
Q3. What about gopher and FTP sites?
A. This solution works for any HTML page which many come via HTTP,
gopher or FTP protocols. Besides, now the Web is the most popular
part of the Net. However, external gif/jpeg files cannot be prevented
because they are not in HTML. So, by this tag trick, all the unwanted stuff
that is not in HTML cannot be barred.
Q4. Why would the purveyors of net pornography comply to use the
HTML tag in their pages?
A. It seems that the people who are posting adult materials on their
Web pages would like to prevent the young children from accessing the
pages. That's why they build such lame "adult access shield" which
asks "don't click here if you are under eighteen". So, we can hope
that an author of a Web page containing adult stuff will be glad to
put this HTML tag at the beginning of the all Web pages containing
adult materials. One can send an e-mail to remind the author in case such
a page is not properly tagged.
Q5. Why should Netscape people or Mosaic people support the tag?
A. Because implementing the tag is very easy and all protective
parents and educators would be glad to have the support for such a
tag. Such a tag should become a part of the standard HTML.
Q6. But browsers are freely available and a kid can download his own
copy of a browser himself. Also, a smart kid can hack something to get
around the efforts of access control. What about that?
A. Yes, this could be a problem. But automated software techniques
(using some operating system support) can be used to ensure that
no secretly installed browser exists in the system.
A determined smart kid cannot not prevented from accessing anything he
wants. He can possibly write his own browser and other tools. Heck, he
can buy his own PC, have his own Internet connection and set up a
Web server with his own home page containing adult materials! So, let
us be concerned about the no-so-determined kids.
Q7. Can't we use SurfWatch software or other such tools?
A. SurfWatch (http://www.surfwatch.com) is a newly announced tool that
seem to allow the concerned parents to prepare a list of offending
sites. Any site in the list will be denied access to the browsers
used by the children of the customer of SurfWatch.
However there are serious problems.
- Nobody can maintain an up-to-date and exhaustive list of
sites. There are many obscure sites all over the world. New Web pages
are appearing and disappearing dynamically everyday. You may block the
Penthouse site, but your kid may possibly be viewing far more unwanted
stuff from some obscure site in Netherlands if that site is not
included in your list.
- SurfWatch will maintain a list of unwanted sites for you (if you
pay extra monthly fee). Then you will need to trust SurfWatch to
decide what is good or bad for your kids.
- You will have to pay for the blocking software as well as a
optional list of sites maintained by SurfWatch company.
- The browser will need to check a list of possibly thousand sites
for every single Web access just to make sure it is not one of
those. Won't it be slow?
- A WWW site can host thousands of separate Web pages only a few of
which probably contain adult materials and the rest are possibly
harmless or useful. So blocking access to a site is not a good
idea. If SurfWatch starts maintaining a list of offending Web pages,
the list will be in very very long indeed. It is a hopeless idea to
maintain a list of unwanted sites or unwanted URLs.
Q8. The tag seems to be a good idea. Can it be used for other
A. This tag idea can be generalized to classify Web documents in
variety of ways and it will greatly facilitate cataloging the Web
documents. Web desperately needs such categorization so that your
browser can select and reject Web materials of all sorts based on your
priorities. This will cut down noise as well as litigation.
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 16:11:13 -0500
From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 3--Illinois Legislater "Discovers" Net Porn (news excerpt)
Source: Chicago Tribune, May, 1995
Legislator cruises the internet and can't believe his eyes By Christi
SPRINGFIELD--Sen. Walter Dudycz ((Ill. state legislator) has seen some
of the weirdest, kinkiest stuff of his life in the few short weeks he
has had access to the worldwide computer network known as the
Child pornography. Sex talk. Serious come-ons and propositions. "You
wouldn't believe some of this stuff," said Dudycz (R-Chicago). "Every
time I sit down at the computer I've got some pornographic picture
waiting for me."
In only a few weeks, Dudycz has seen how ugly things can get on the
Internet. So this spring, is sponsoring a bill in the General
Assembly to forbid adults from soliciting minors for sex on the
Internet. The Senate already has approved the measure, and it awaits
consideration in the House.
Dudycz says it's the first of many bills to come, as he continues to
prowl the Internet and discover the societal perils he's sure it
((Observation that child pornography is already illegal and that
the Internet's newness leaves some grey areas. The article notes
that Georgia and Florida have passed laws targetting the
Internet, and Illinois and California are considering similar
((The article notes that policing the Internet and policing the
corner store are similar in that anybody can file a complaint. It
summarizes how on-line services can find people who are
responsible for supplying "obscene" material. It notes that
civil libertarians argue against restrictive legislation such as
the Exon Bill pending on Congress)).
"This has everything to do with the novelty of the Internet to the
bill writers," Godwin said.
"We're in a generation between people who never had this technology
and people who grew up with it," Godwin said. "In this transition
period, they're not comfortable. So their impulse is to regulate."
((The article notes that Dudycz is new on the nets, and--as a
detective in the Chicago Police Department, he decided to go
"undercover" to see "how intimate" people wanted to get)).
He filled out his computer profile to say he is a 15-year-old girl
from Chicago and set up a screen name. Dudcyz doesn't want to
disclose the name he uses, but it is similar to "Bashful."
Dudcyz said "Bashful" is routinely propositioned as "she" moves from
chat room to chat room and talks with other users via e-mail and
instant messaging systems. Dudcyz gets a lot of pornography, and one
person has invited "Bashful" to pose nude for him.
One recent night, as other senators were heading home from a week of
session, Dudycz stayed after hours in the empty Senate offices and
When he signed on, there already were three pornographic photographs
sent to him by other users. Two were garden-variety porn, and he
tossed them out. The third was an amateurish photograph of an
obviously underage girl in a state of semi-dress. Dudycz stored the
screen name of its user to follow up on it later.
((The article describe a "chat room" encounter with a 39 year old
engineer who, believing Dudycz was a 15 year old female,
suggested a sexual liason)).
So far, Dudycz hasn't busted anybody for solicitation. But he has
compiled a list of screen names and is corresponding with several in
anticipation of a sting operation by Chicago police.
As for his bill, Dudycz said, he hopes it will at least alert parents
to what's going on on the Internet.
((The article concludes with a warning by Dudycz to parents
suggesting that when they think their kids are doing homework on
the computer, maybe they're not)).
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 17:29:21 EDT
From: Mitchell A. Pravatiner
Subject--Christian Coalition Pledges to Restrict Access to Porno on the Net
On Thursday 5/17, the Christian Coalition unveiled their "Contract with the
American Family" yesterday (5/17). A number of prominant republicans --
including Newt Gingrich & Phil Gramm, have pledged to work to pass the CC's
contract. And don't forget either that the repub presidential candidates
are very interested in appealing to the CC.
One of the items in the "Contract" seeks to restrict childrens access to
pornography on the Internet.
All this spells more bad news for us -- and gives one more reason why we
need to get behind Leahy.
>From the Contract with the American Family (pages 27 & 28)
Protecting children from exposure to pornography on the Internet and cable
television, and from the sexual exploitation of child pornographers.
1. Enactment of legislation to protect children from being exposed to
pornography on the Internet
PORNOGRAPHY, BOTH SOFT CORE and hard core, is freely available on the
Internet to virtually anyone with a home computer. Several magazines post
pornographic images that can be viewed by anyone, including children, for
free. There are also numerous sites on the Internet where hard core
pornography depicting a variety of explicit acts, even rape scenes and
bestiality, are available free and can be accessed with a few clicks of a
Christian Coalition urges Congress to enact legislation to protect children
from being exposed to pornography on the Internet. Criminal law should be
amended to prohibit distribution of, or making available, any pornography,,
soft core or hard, to children, and to prohibit distribution of obscene
hard core pornography to adults.
2. Enactment of legislation to require cable television companies to completely
block the video and audio on pornography channels to non-subscribers.
Many children throughout the country are exposed to pornography, often hard
core, on cable television because of incomplete scrambling of the signal on
pornography channels. Cable companies have asserted that it is the parents'
responsibility to guard their children. Christian Coalition believes that
the responsibility should be on the cable companies to help parents keep
pornography out of their homes. Cable companies should not be allowed to
transmit pornography to non-subscribers. We urge Congress to require cable
television companies to completely block the video and audio on pornography
channels to non-subscribers.
3. Amending the federal child pornography law to make illegal the possession of
any child pornography
Sexual exploitation of children though child pornography continues to be a
major problem in society. Possession of child pornography should be a
crime. President Reagan proposed such a law in 1988, hoping that those with
collections of child pornography would destroy them for fear of federal
prosecution. In an 11th hour compromise on the bill, however, a conference
committee of House and Senate members changed the Reagan bill to
criminalize only the possession of "three or more" items of child
pornography, videos, magazines, etc. Thus, federal low sanctions the
possession of some child pornography -- less than three pieces. A person
with two hour-long videotapes depicting the rape of a child cannot be
charged with a federal crime, yet a person with three photos depicting a
child in a lascivious pose can. Christian Coalition urges that the federal
child pornography law should be amended to make illegal possession of any
For the other side of the story, check out CDT's archives:
Information on the Communications Decency Act issue is also available
through auto-reply email.
General info about the CDA issue firstname.lastname@example.org
Status of the legislation email@example.com
Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center For Democracy and Technology
1001 G Street NW, Suite 700 East
Washington, DC 20001
PGP key via finger (v) +1.202.637.9800
For more info on CDT: email or visit http://www.cdt.org/
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 95 18:35:31 +0800
Subject: File 6--Voice System Up-Date
[> The DEF CON Voice System is now up at (801) 855-3326 <]
Voice Bridge / Voice BBS / Voice Mailboxes / Private Chat
The Voice system has beed changed all around to now support a fast
Voice BBS, VMBs and multiple 8 port conferences. Anyone can create
their own VMB, etc.
This voice bridge has been set up for people of like interestes
to meet and discuss computers or whatever they want. Running on
borrowed equiptment the systems is still under construction, but
This is the same bridge that will be used for DEF CON III, a
computer conference in Las Vegas this August. People who can not
attend can call in and listen to the speakers during the day, or talk
with other people at the convention. Oh, some people wondered about
the cost.. it's whatever you pay to call this number, normal long
[> 24 hours at (801) 855-3326, all are welcome to call <]
PGP Key (2.3a & 2.6) Available on key servers. Voice (AT&T) 0-700-TANGENT
DEF CON FTP: ftp.fc.net /pub/defcon http://www.defcon.org
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 7--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: comp.society.cu-digest
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
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 comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:firstname.lastname@example.org
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (22.214.171.124) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (126.96.36.199) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (188.8.131.52) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
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 #7.46
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank