Computer underground Digest Wed Aug 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 69 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 Aug 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 69 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 CONTENTS, #7.69 (Wed, Aug 23, 1995) File 1--CuD homepage File 2--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS File 3--re: File 1--BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 File 4--Heroes and Villains File 5--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 File 6--Cu Digest #7.68 - Heroes and Villains File 7--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 File 8--Software Testing Lab's Web site File 9--Cincinnati Web Pages about Simon Leis and CCCBBS File 10--Intellectual property File 11--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: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:50:08 -0500 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU (Cu Digest) Subject: File 1--CuD homepage We're periodically asked why CuD doesn't have a homepage. We do. It's been up since early winter. The URL: (don't forget the tilde in front of cudigest) Back issues of Cud, CuD indexes, and links to EFF, CPSR, and other relevant homepages are there, along with back issues of Phrack, Crypt New Letter, and other resources. Below is a partial listing from the menu: ==================================== WELCOME TO THE CU DIGEST WWW HOMEPAGE General CuD Information CuD Indexes * CuD Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Back Issues of CuD * CuDs, Volume 7 * CuDs, Volume 6 * CuDs, Volume 5 * CuDs, Volume 4 * CuDs, Volume 3 * CuDs, Volume 2 * CuDs, Volume 1 _________________________________________________________________ Cyber Resource Links * E-Zine Library via EFF * The "Rimm Study" Cyber-porn Debate * Other Links of Interest _________________________________________________________________ Other Links of Interest Cyber Resource Links * NIU Sociology WEB SITE * EFF'S WWW Site * Electronic Frontier-Australia * CPSR's WWW Site * NetWork Newsletter * Center for the Study of On-line Communities * PHRACK's Homepage * Phil Zimmerman Info * Information on Jake Baker Case * Information on SB 314 (Exon's Senate deceny act) * Steve Jackon Games Secret Service page & links * ROCKLIST (Rock music) WWW SITE * Voters' Telecommunications Watch * OCP Telecom/Computer Refernce Guide * Computers, Democracy & Technology Homepage E-Zines and Such * John Labovitz's complete E-Zine resource list * Jim Warren's GovAcesss * Crypt Newsletter * EYE - Toronto's Best E-Zine * PHRACK One-Stop links to many Federal Info resources (CIA, FBI, Lib of Cong, etc) Newsletters and 'Zines Worth Contacting for Subs * Sub to James Love's TAP Newsletter James * John Labovitz's complete E-Zine resource list3 Home Pages worth Looking at * YAHOO's Web-surfer's paradise * Voidmstrs Graphic Homepage * Mark Atwood's Cyber homepage (info resources) * RIPCO (The one and Only) Homepage * The Well (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link * The Well's Gopher Site * Cyber-Publishers' Corner * O'Reilly Publishers homepage * Computer Manuals Online Bookstore ------------------------------ (Andrew Milne) Subject--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS Date--22 Aug 1995 14:26:09 -0700 ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The Church of Scientology has recently been accused of intimidating critics, cancelling posts, engaging in "litigation terrorism," and other alleged actions designed to silence critics. Discussion of these issues proliferates on Usenet's alt.religion.scientology. Links to homepages providing additional details of allegations against CoS can be found on CuD's homepage ( ============================================================= August 22, 1995 NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: LEISA GOODMAN OR EARLE COOLEY (202) 667-6404 WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS Subject: File 2--WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS Date: 22 Aug 1995 14:26:09 -0700 August 22, 1995 NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: LEISA GOODMAN OR EARLE COOLEY (202) 667-6404 WASHINGTON POST SUED FOR VIOLATING SCIENTOLOGY COPYRIGHTS The Washington Post and two of its reporters were sued today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by the Religious Technology Center (RTC), holders of the intellectual property rights of the Scientology religion. According to the lawsuit, the Washington Post and its writers have engaged in "extensive, intentional copyright infringement and trade secrets misappropriattion, targeting confidential Scientology scriptures belonging to RTC." Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, due to the urgent nature of the matter, scheduled an August 25 hearing on the temporary restraining order and impoundment application to get the Washington Post to turn over the misappropriated documents. The lawsuit is an amendment of a complaint that was filed on August 11 against an Arlington man, Arnaldo Lerma, and his Internet access provider Digital Gateway Systems, for copyright and trade secrets infringement. According to Boston lawyer Earle C. Cooley, who represents Religious Technology Center, the newspaper and their two reporters, Richard Leiby and Marc Fisher, were added to the lawsuit because they engaged in their own direct infringements of plaintiff's copyright interests and misappropriation of plaintiff's trade secrets, while at the same time aiding, supporting, encouraging, and facilitating blatant acts of infringement and misappropriation by Lerma. The day after the lawsuit was filed, on August 12, a search and seizure order by Judge Brinkema was carried out at Lerma's home by Federal Marshals and computer software, hardware and documents were confiscated. Church lawyers report that they were able to establish that Lerma lied because, contrary to his assertions that computer discs had been purged of any stolen materials, their electronic experts have already found 63 copyright items among the seized material. The new lawsuit reveals that Lerma sent the protected materials to Leiby when he was put on notice by the Church to stop violating its copyright and trade secret rights. The Church now charges that this was done in an attempt to obstruct justice by concealing the stolen copies from lawful seizure. The suit claims the existence of evidence which shows that Richard Leiby choreographed and instigated Lerma's illegal conduct for his own campaign of harassment against the Scientology religion. According to the lawsuit, Leiby's campaign dates back more than 15 years. Church spokeswoman Leisa Goodman said "The Washington Post and Mr. Leiby violated fundamental journalistic integrity by conspiring with lawless elements on the Internet to harm the religion of Scientology." Once the Church became aware that its materials were in the possession of Richard Leiby, it demanded their immediate return. Leiby and the Washington Post handed the stolen copies over to RTC's lawyers last week on August 15. However, "the return of the materials, a seeming display of good faith, was an utter ruse", the complaint states. "At the same time that the materials were being returned to the Church in Washington, Leiby, Fisher and the Post were getting copies of the same stolen records from the clerk's file in LA where litigation was pending regarding the sealing of such materials. A Post reporter persuaded the clerk's office to take the documents away from a Church employee who had checked out the file, to make copies for the Post," the complaint continues. The Church reacted with an emergency motion to the judge on the case in Los Angeles, who immediately ordered the entire case file sealed on August 15, when he was told that the Washington Post had obtained a copy of the copyrighted and trade secret materials. According to the lawsuit, the Church immediately demanded the materials back and also put the post on notice "that its actions could not remotely be deemed news gathering, but rather constituted wholesale copying of a large amount of copyrighted trade secret information in an attempt to sanitize the illicit acquisition of infringing documents which Leiby and the Post concealed on Lerma's behalf." Church spokeswoman Goodman discounted the notion that any free speech or fair-use issues were involved. "Violators of copyright and trade secret laws traditionally try to hide behind free speech or fair-use claims. The Church is a strong proponent of free speech and fair-use. It publishes its own investigative magazine and cherishes the First Amendment. However, free speech or fair-use does not mean free theft and no one, the Washington Post included, has the right to cloak themselves in the First Amendment to break the law." Despite repeated warnings from Church lawyers, last Saturday the Washington Post published a lengthy article by Marc Fisher, which included quotes from the copyrighted, trade secret materials. "Prior to publication of the article, the defendants were placed on notice that their actions would constitute a violation of plaintiff's rights," said Goodman. "The Post made a serious mistake," RTC's lawyer Earle C. Cooley contends, "in allowing themselves to be manipulated by a few maliciously motivated dissidents who want to use the Post to forward their religious hate campaign. The courts take these matters very seriously. The law is clear: If you are going to violate copyrights, you will have to answer for it in court. This applies to the Washington Post just as much as to anyone else." With this lawsuit, Religious Technology Center is asking the court to order the return of its documents by the Washington Post and grant a permanent injunction against the Post and the individual violators of its rights. It also seeks statutory damages and punitive damages. ------------------------------ From: Technical Intelligence-MN-USA Subject: File 3--re: File 1--BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:03:44 -0500 (CDT) > The Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression, in commemoration of > the fifth anniversary of the August 1, 1990 Boston opening of Robert > Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment, has compiled its fifth annual list > of heroes and villains. These folks are just sore about the fact that Republicans want to shut down the public teat they all suck off. Clearly, they find republicans more repellant than democrats: They only found 4 bad democrats, versus 10 bad republicans. Pipe to: grep "(D" | wc -l 5 Senators Diane Feinstein (D.-California) and Trent Lott Congressman Ed Markey (D.-Mass.). Doggedly persisting in his efforts Congressman Joseph Kennedy (D.-Mass.), who proves that not all Kennedys Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D.-South Carolina); Donald Wildmon's "good" Senators Patrick Leahy (D.-Vermont) and Jim Jeffords (R-Vermont). In Pipe to: grep "(R" | wc -l 11 Pipe to: grep "(R" Congressman Newt Gingrich (R.-Georgia), Speaker of the House of (R.-Mississippi). "Liberal" Democrat Feinstein and redneck Senator John F. Kerry (R.-Massachusetts). One of an increasing number and other idiocies; Senators Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) and Dan Coats (R.-Indiana), for boorish attempts to regulate content in cyberspace; Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R.-Kansas), for punitive moves against the NEA for funding American Family Association; Congressman Robert Dornan (R.-California); Congressman Phil Crane (R.-Illinois); Congressman Dick Armey (R.-Texas); Congressman Richard Neal (R.-Mass.); the Clinton Administration; and others Carver (Mass.) High; Congressman Peter Torkildsen (R.-Mass.), for breaking "good" Senators Patrick Leahy (D.-Vermont) and Jim Jeffords (R-Vermont). In If you want to do art, fine. Do it after you get home from your job. Or go begging to whomever you like. Just don't get the government to come to me with a gun, demanding that I pay for your "artistic expression." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 06:37:22 -0400 From: andrewm@INTERPORT.NET(Andrew Mark) Subject: File 4--Heroes and Villains While David Smith is to be congratulated on his writing style, his portrayal of people and events during the past eight months can only serve one purpose: galvanize those who are genuinely concerned that Cyberspace is, in fact, out of control and should not be freely accessible by all. I don't think that's in anyone's interests. Considering the influence that those who originally brought this issue to the fore, it's probably not a good idea to paint them as fools... particularly when they're not. While I've neither met him or know much about him, I strongly doubt that Jim Exon is the shallow dummy as he's been portrayed here. Consider his position: he represents a LOT of people who feel that their values are undermined by the open access of pornography to kids. It's time for the activist Netters to recognize that Exon's elected responsibility is to REPRESENT his constituency; on this issue, they've made their position pretty clear. For him to ignore their views and values and pretend that there is no issue to be dealt with would be a much greater injustice to them than ANYTHING that he's proposed on this issue. Particularly, in light of the fact that the issue is a real one which is not going to simply 'go away,' no matter how hot the flames get. We've had laws for many years which govern the sale and distribution of pornographic material. While the laws vary among states and communities, one concept is consistent: it's illegal to sell, distribute or otherwise provide pornography to kids under 18. If anything, it's surprising that this issue didn't come up years ago with the Net became publicly accessible. Unlike in-person transactions, where it's well-established that a store-keeper can't sell 'Debbie does the Army' to a youngster, the person making the material available doesn't directly conveys the porn to the minor, it's nonetheless available. Reconciling the established law with the conditions which exist on the Net (i.e. indirect contact) should not be viewed as an option. Until we've addressed the conditions which the Internet presents, we will continue to have indictments and prosecutions of individuals under current laws which can be interpreted so severely that no one in the right mind would go near the Net. It's just a matter of time until one judge rules against a parent who permitted a child to sign onto the WWW knowing that pornography was available there, only to have the other parent file a complaint that the permitting parent, in effect, provided prohibited material to a minor. Finally, Senator Exon raises the issue by proposing penalties if access-providers don't participate in a scheme of centralized censorship (in my opinion, a truly awful concept). Senator Lahey then proposes a not-unreasonable study period to come up with a less severe solution. Rather than really getting behind the Lahey Bill and doing all that's necessary to get a thumbs up on Lahey, most of the Net's energy is spent on flaming Exon. Prior to the most intensive flaming of anyone even 'thinking about' supporting the Exon Bill, Exon was rumored to be willing to postpone the effective date of his bill so that the Lahey's study could be completed. Under that scenario, if something of a solution were offered up which addressed the outstanding legal issue, Exon's un-enacted 'law' could be rescinded so as to allow 'the solution' to prevail. But the Net's continuous, well-publicized flaming of him, without regard for the valid issues that the bill attempted to deal with, forced him into a corner of standing by his extreme position so as not to give the impression that he was yielding to a more moderate position which his constituency would not have easily embraced. In raising the intensity of the flaming, the Netters begged the media to join in the fest. The press saw a wonderful opportunity to add fuel to the fire by quickly looking for (and, of course, finding) statistically inconsequential occurrences, further galvanizing a 'must win' position for Exon bill proponents. The end result: only a few Senators voted against 'protecting our youth,' and the bill passed by almost unbelievable margins. Most pundits agree that had the vote been taken six weeks earlier the Exon Bill would have had to evolve to a more tolerant position or been simply overrun by Senator Lahey's approach. While the more ambiguous end-result from the House opens the door for a moderate resolution of the issue in the House-Senate conference, we won't see it if the flaming continues. What we WILL see is our elected representatives responding to the portion of their constituency with the largest number of people who communicate to them on the issue-- and that won't be the Netters. The most optimistic numbers of Netters is a fraction of the number of adults who consider themselves 'religious' (Gallup Poll, Jan., '95), and in this country, the prevailing religions are not particularly enamored of enabling access to pornography. Painting those who are honestly concerned about these access issues as fools, dummies, and 'ethically-challenged,' and not recognizing and respecting their legitimate point of view will only serve to push the harassed away from moderation and towards a position which can only jeopardize the future of the Internet. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 23:31:06 -0400 From: timk@CYBERCOM.NET(Tim King) Subject: File 5--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 Unfortunately, the BCFE's list of heroes and villians was very high on political rhetoric and rather low on useful discussion about computer-related issues. Although, I guess, maintaining our freedom to express ourselves, in all of its incantations, is an issue which concerns the Internet community at large. In any case, I think the article would have been more useful if it had not used so much loaded language. For example, the 1994 election is described as a "conservative Republican anschluss" brought on by a "legion of the ethically challenged" with "a deafening messianic mean-spirited roar." Newt Gingrich's "wealthy propaganda-spewing ethically dysfunctional personal empire" is an "Orwellian moral sellout" supported by "right-wing media thugs like Cro-Magnon radio talk show host[s]," rulers of a hoard of "supremely oblivious toxic yuppies." Now, I will dispute neither the effectiveness nor the appropriateness of such strong metaphors. Loaded language does indeed have its place, and it is quite useful if used wisely. But much the BCFE article is, in my opinion, severe hyperbole, and it does little to highlight the nature of the issues. There are some points with which I agree and some with which I disagree. The political points are too numerous to go into, so I will try to confine myself to commenting on issues that are pertinent to this list. Says the BCFE, "The 104th Congress... Its... enthusiasm for censorship of cyberspace and telecommunications media... [among other offences] certify that the 104th Congress is the most egregious collection of pro-censorship moral crusaders to hit Capitol Hill in over forty years." I suppose this is why the House, as a body, rejected the Exon amendment. It is clear that, not unsurprisingly, the BCFE does not like the Republican party. But there is something to be said about legislators that ran a platform, and, when elected, actually sought to implement it quickly and directly. As this agenda should have been well known to voters last November, I don't see how we have anyone to blame but ourselves, if indeed the Contract With America is not what we wanted. Anyhow, the Contract With America, if memory serves, doesn't actually mention the censorship of cyberspace. I have neither the time, the space, nor the opportunity to go into the other alleged offences in detail. But it is my sincere opinion that, whether or not condemnation is justified, the BCFE has unequivocally refused these issues the even-handedness they deserve. "Senator J. James Exon... Outraged by the news that some people talk about sex via computer networks, he sponsored the Communications Decency Act (originally S.314)..." As much as I disagree with the Senator's proposed course of action, to be fair, I don't ever recall that he was "outraged... that some people talk about sex via computer networks." However, he was outraged that material he considered obscene was available on the Internet. He was also upset that indecent material was easily available to minors. "Martin Rimm... Rimm's results, which distort and grossly exaggerate both the availability and the nature of sexual material on the Internet, will be repeated by pro-censorship zealots in and out of Congress until they become 'facts.'" Again, I detest the path Marty Rimm appears to have taken, and I have not yet read an adequate defense to the critques of his work. Nevertheless, in all fairness it is a misstatement to say that his results "distort and grossly exaggerate both the availability and the nature of sexual material on the Internet." Why is this so? Because we don't have sufficient objective data to characterize the sexual material available on the Internet. We may never have these numbers. How can we call a set of numbers a gross exaggeration when we don't know what the real numbers are supposed to be? We can use intuition. But as an experienced Net citizen, and as a strong supporter of the Internet, I must, in all honesty, admit that some of Rimm's results intuitively seem accurate. For example, his 83.5% figure -- the percentage of UseNET binaries that are pornographic -- was derived using excessively flawed methodology. Still, I wouldn't be the least surprised if this were close to the real number. In any case, it would appear, a more useful measurement would be the amount of indecent material in non-adult newsgroups. If we assume that the adult newsgroups are blocked from minors, by parents and/or by ISPs, how much adult material is left? Now, of course, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the end of the story, but I digress... "America Online (AOL)... In the words of James Egelhof, ... 'AOL provides the worst Internet service in the country, and charges massively for it. AOL's profits depend on pacifying its user base and quelling dissent and debate, so it enforces a heavily restrictive user agreement against its customers... AOL, bent on presenting itself as a "family service," makes sure that nothing controversial or offensive ever can reach its members.'" This may all be true. I myself do not have, nor do I care for, an AOL account. My reasons for this do overlap somewhat with the objections voiced by Mr. Egelhof. Nonetheless, AOL, as a market competitor, has captured a user base. As much as I may dislike their methods, there are evidently a group of people who do not find them as distasteful. Furthermore, I recognize the right of these subscribers to associate with whom they want and in the forums they desire, not only for their protection, but for my own. If it is true that AOL has marketed itself as a "family service," -- an idea I have not confirmed -- they appear to have found a valid market, and responded to it. I cannot fault them for that. And if AOL's subscribers don't like the restrictions the company puts on their activities, there is plenty of competition. Regarding the hero, Declan McCullagh: "If he had done nothing else, McCullagh would still deserve thanks for discovering that Martin Rimm is the author of the most execrably written novel in the English language, An American Playground." That's funny. I should think that Rimm was simply exercising his right to free speech in authoring his novel. (Translation: The BCFE, by its own logic, should've at least given themselves an honorable mention as a villian for intentionally undermining the artistic value of Marty Rimm's work.) Needless to say, I don't agree with such a one-sided sentiment. Marty Rimm was indeed exercising his rights, and, simultaneously, from what I understand, _An_American_Playground_ is a poorly-written novel. (But, to be completely fair, I've never actually read the book. My opinion could change if I were to do so.) "Mike Godwin is an able communicator who explains in clear and eloquent terms the nature of electronic communication and the indispensability of free expression to a working democracy... Mike has served us well... by going one-on-one with the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed on Nightline..." I agree, and in so doing I include myself in the "us" of the above. And I think that Ralph Reed should take a clue from the fact that I consider myself a conservative christian -- in case you couldn't guess from the rest of my comments. The piece de resistance, though, suggesting at least to me that this article lacks a little something in intellectual honesty, was that Newt Gingrich was the only character to simultaneously make both the top twenty villians list and the top ten heroes list. I'm confused. "Congressman Newt Gingrich (R.-Georgia)... The race to be crowned Most Repellent Politician of Our Time is too close to call, but this Machiavellian sociopath may have an edge..." "Newt said of the [Communication Decency Act], 'It is clearly a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other. I don't agree with it...' Newt evidently meant what he said and has used his considerable power to thwart all cyber-censorship initiatives reaching the House." He hardly sounds like a runner up in "the race to be crowned Most Repellent Politician of Our Time." But even if he is a "Machiavellian sociopath," I guess it's okay, as long as he uses "his considerable power" against the forces of evil, on the side of niceness. Less rhetoric; more informed discussion! ------------------------------ From: a207157@MKSOL.DSEG.TI.COM(daniel b forbes) Subject: File 6--Cu Digest #7.68 - Heroes and Villains Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:03:39 -0500 (CDT) Dear Sirs, I recently read the above referenced Cu Digest and am somewhat puzzled by it. As I understood it, Cu Digest is supposed to be about the progress that is happening in computer usage and access as related to the internet. Yet, this most recent posting from the BCFE Hero's and Villians '94/'95 seemed to be nothing more the a rabid liberal diatribe against many center or center right organizations and people. I did not see any reasonable debate regarding the issues raised and read only a bit related to computer usage and application over the net at all. Has the intent of Cu Digest changed in some way? If the emphasis of this posting is moving toward a much more politicized stance, please update the mission statement at the footer to say so. As reading material goes, it was certainly interesting (albeit biased). But as a measure of current trends in the computer underground, it did seem lacking. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I welcome your response. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:37:03 -0400 From: Carl Hommel Subject: File 7--Re: BCFE Heroes and Villains 1994/1995 I am writing to give you my comments on the above article posted in Cu Digest, #7.68. I have been a software engineer for 10 years, and have followed with great interest the issues covered in your digest. I am a past member of CPSR, and now contribute to the EFF. Politically, I am a libertarian. Despite my interest in the subject matter of the "Heros and Villains" article, and the writing about the many events and people therein, I found the slant, tone and style undigestible. I do not like biased reporting, whether from the Right, or as in this case, from the Left. I realise that you are only reposting the press release from the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression. I agree with your editorial decision that the summary of the year's cases and facts was important - I just wish that it had been more palatable. Although I don't think this letter has enough news content to be worth posting, feel free to publish it if you desire. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 14:52:00 EDT From: WFEN20A@PRODIGY.COM(MR DAVID W BATTERSON) Subject: File 8--Software Testing Lab's Web site Software Testing Labs Didn't Test Its Own Web Site By David Batterson As a wider spectrum of companies move to the Web, many fail to apply the same standards they would follow with a print publication. Sure, the Web is colorful and flashy, but words are still the most important aspect of any publication. Software Testing Laboratories (STL) has the slogan: "Software Quality Assurance for the Real World." Apparently they are too busy testing other companies' applications to proofread their own Web pages. "Principles only, please" In the Jobs page, we see: "STL offers top pay, great benefits, and the team that specializes in software testing. Principles [sic] only, please." I wonder if STL knows the difference between principals and principles. Even Bart Simpson knows that! The copyright was copyWRONG In the STL home page, they haven't yet learned that the copyright symbol is not correctly represented by (c). It should be the HTML tag © instead. That will display correctly in a Web browser. The "(c)" is a variant that should not be used in print or in a Web site. There's a Difference Between "It's" and "Its" In the introductory page, we read that "STL is committed to turning it's [sic] experience and expertise into software products for Test Engineers. STL can extend it's [sic] proven capabilities. . . . STL uses it's [sic] expertise. . . ." Wow, it's amazing I found so many. Watch those trademarks and registered trademarks! On that same page, STL misspells PostScript, spelling it "Postscript" instead. And Adobe has offices in the same Seattle building as STL. Here's the worst sentence in the whole Web site. It can be found in the New page. "Send an [sic] e-mail, and I'll send you a note. . . . If you include your mailing address, and [sic] I'll send copy of THE STL REPORT." For STL's sake, I hope the report is more carefully written than the above. Appearances are important Just like in person, the first impression may turn out to be the last impression you make. People often judge your abilities based on little things. Having a Web page filled with typos gives the impression that you may be sloppy in other things too. Software Testing Laboratories has an excellent reputation, and does work for heavy hitters in the business, including Microsoft, Delrina, Adobe, Asymetrix, Attachmate and many more. All the more reason that a Web site must match the excellence of the work or product the company brings to the marketplace. STL should learn to despise typos as much as they hate bugs. ### STL's Web site is at: David Batterson's Web site is at: ------------------------------ From: Scott Madigan Subject: File 9--Cincinnati Web Pages about Simon Leis and CCCBBS Date: 11 Aug 1995 06:40:02 GMT I am reposting the address for my web pages as I looked to reference the post's title in this group and did not find it. For anyone interested, I am chronicaling the events of the Bob Emerson/CCCBBS case in Cincinnati, Ohio (as well as what information I can gather on the other four confiscations, which are not getting *any* press coverage). At this site there can be found the text of both Emerson's lawsuit and the class action suit filed on behalf of the CCCBBS subscribers, the two newspaper articles from the Enquirer (can you believe this, only two articles in our paper, we have 2-1/2 million people in Hamilton County, you'ld think there would be more for the press to cover), a horde of links to other first amendment sites (some of which I have not seen links to on other more popular sites dedicated to free expression) and soon a complete history of the activities of Simon L. Leis Jr. (did you know his father was bashing bookstores in Cincinnati when Sly Si was still an adolescent contemplating masturbation? I didn't until recently.) There may also be an upcoming section dedicated to the history of another prominate face in Cincinnati law enforcement (although from what I've found so far, relatively new to the censorship game), retired C.P.D. officer Dale Menkhaus (head of the computer crimes task force, or whatever they're calling it this week). Anyone interested can find the site at: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:17:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Williams Subject: File 10--Intellectual property Just a brief note regarding the "intellectual property" discussion you have been carrying. No one involved has mentioned what I call the "Mozart problem": one of the greatest musicians in European, if not world, history, died penniless. I sympathize with the writer advocating abolition of intellectual property: the West Publishing case is a good practical argument in his favor. But what _would_ he do for poor Wolfgang? The answer, I think, is to distinguish between _individual_ and _corporate_ intellectual property. We need a means to reward or creative people; and we need a means to prevent large organizations (by nature conservative and anti-creative) from locking up new ideas, and/or using them for narrow, asocial purposes. Allowing an individual the rights to his/her own work, while preventing large organizations from exploiting that work, is at least part of that means. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 11--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: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 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 /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: 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 #7.02 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank