Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 5, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 87 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 Nov 5, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 87 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 Cu Digest Homepage: CONTENTS, #7.87 (Sun, Nov 5, 1995) File 1--Re: Spam Response (CuD 7.86) File 2--CuD as of late File 3--Re: Cyberangel FAQ File 4--Re: Attention Spammer: The War Has Started File 5--Re: Cyberangels (Cu Digest, #7.86) File 6--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 08:56:46 -0500 From: trebor@ANIMEIGO.COM(Robert J. Woodhead (AnimEigo)) Subject: File 1--Re: Spam Response (CuD 7.86) Barry Gold makes some interesting suggestions for detecting and removing SPAM, but the problem with them is that they require transactions over the internet in order to verify the veracity of messages. Egad, you thought the Web was a bandwidth hog? A better approach would be a cooperative network of sites that sniff out the stench of spam, and provide this information to client sites who can then delete the offending bits when they appear, and refuse to forward them. This would require some extra cpu horsepower but less network bandwidth. Needless to say, the spam alert messages ought to be cryptographically signed to prevent spoofing. Also, some safeguards to help prevent the abuse of the automatic email monitoring that would be necessary will have to be considered. Barry's suggestion does have merit for mailing lists, as they act as exploders and so the checking overhead per email message generated is reasonable. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:36:23 -0500 From: Norman Lyon Subject: File 2--CuD as of late What has been happening to Computer Underground Digest? It used to be a journal that seemed to place online liberties above the ideals of a particular sect of morality. Lately, this has included support of invasion of privacy against a "spammer" and the backing of a right wing vigilante pseudo organization that declares online war on anything its members find offensive. Movements now being published in CuD are the same sort that you have been attacking since your inception. Yes, some of the viewpoints you're supporting, by inclusion in the magazine, strike some nerve when standing up for civil liberties. Yet the same views do just as much as the Cliper chip and the "online decency act" for diminishing rights. You're advocating the removal of freedom of privacy and letting your readers believe that a trial by a lawfully appointed court is not needed for the online community. You also seem to be advocating that the moral right has the authority to dictate what we can and can not do online, all in the name of the law. Yet much of what this dictation preaches is not the enforcement of laws, but enforcement of a particular morality. Will this level of immature journalism continue, or will I be able to count on the intelligent, mature, and civil minded magazine that I have counted on come back in the near future? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:45:59 +0000 From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" Subject: File 3--Re: Cyberangel FAQ Wonderful. Just what we need - another bunch of kooks running around the net acting as self-appointed "saviors" of us all. Their disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law is obvious from the tone of their FAQ, wherein they relegate Constitutional guarantees to "privileges" to be granted or withheld on some fuzzy-minded notion of majority concensus. Will we next see them attempting to apply the tactics of the CoS? In light of the current political disconfort the net's instantaneous access to news and on-scene data is causing the power brokers in Washington, D.C., is it reasonable to speculate what hidden agenda these self-proclaimed "guardians" may have? Should the net community regard them with the same jaundiced eye with which the NYC transit police viewed them? Should netters consider "volunteering" as cyber "angel" guard-geeks in order to watch the watchers? Should netters even go so far as to stage well-publicized, carefully-managed Web sites which are, in reality, merely bait to attract and identify the likes of these? While nobody encourages REAL crime, the "guardians" overly-altruistic pronouncements smack of nothing so much, in the opinion of this writer, as the mouthings of neighborhood bulliy wannabes seeking to impose their standards on everyone; to impose their prejudices and parochialism on all and sundry by menas of implied threats, intimidation and harassment: the very things they CLAIM to oppose. These "angel" guard-geeks seem to forget that the net is global in nature. Are they blind to the beam in their eye as they seek to rip the splinter from ours? Why else use tactics and espouse ideals that cast them in the image of bigots or "small town red-necks"? Are they and their talk-show "fearless leader" attempting to play into that audience for political gain? What practical difference is there between their goals, their promotion of some "safesurf" business enterprise (in which they fail to disavow any financial interest), their demands for enhanced ID screening, and the actions of any fascist state whose goons demand "your papers, please" at gunpoint? Will they next advocate stationing of armed guards and checkpoints at the entry to print media newsstands, or TV receivers? Haven't we got enough problems on the net without these guys? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 02:02:27 GMT From: chip@UNICOM.COM(Chip Rosenthal) Subject: File 4--Re: Attention Spammer: The War Has Started >From: Barry Gold >1. Mailing lists: two steps: The proposed rememdy is unsatisfactory. It will reject perfectly legitimate messages, and fail to stop (in my experience) the most common forms of mailing list attacks. > a) Improve majordomo and listserv to recognize obviously forged > headers and dump the messages. This is a simple change. Oh-oh. I get very nervous when people talk about "simple changes" to mail and news. Things are seldom simple. If not due to technical issues, then due to inertia. > If the supposedly "verified" From: line is non-conforming, trash the > message. Some examples include: > . more than one "from" address > . totally ridiculous site names, especially where the > top-level domain (the last one) isn't one of the "standard" > three-letter names or a two-letter country code. "non-conforming" with respect to what? RFC-822, the bible for email headers, says multiple addresses in From: headers is perfectly acceptable. I have seen precisely *one* spam attack with multi-address From: headers. On that basis we are going to ban an entire class of legitimate (but admittedly infrequent) addresses? I think not. > b) A further improvement involves actually verifying the From: > line before sending the message out again. This would be more > work, but would make the spammer's job much more difficult. When > processing a message, majordomo/listserv should open an SMTP > connection to the site shown in the "From:" header. Try to open an SMTP connection to "". Surprise! There is no computer called "". This suggestion also banishes all people who are not directly connected to the Internet, but can send and receive Internet email. (Such as folks running "uucp" dialup links into an Internet host that forwards their mail.) And what happens when the host is down and not responding? sendmail (a popular SMTP transport) has a fairly complex method for queueing and retrying messages. Are you suggesting that all list administrators implement the same measures? Again, I think not. The worst part of this solution is that it will be ineffective. A good number of list spammers (I'd guess somewhere around half) *do* use legitimate addresses, and would pass all of the checks suggested. The "best current practice" for this problem is to screen submissions, and have list agents reject messages that do not correspond to a subscriber in the list. This has been reported to be extremely effective in stopping list spams. This solution, which is effective and sounds very simple, has significant difficulties of its own. What about the user that subscribes as "" but submits a message as "" or ""? What about "list exploders" that further redistribute messages to multiple people? What about "mail-to-news gateways", which post list messages to *local* newsgroups, where the Usenet tools make it easier to manage large-volume lists? As I pointed out at the top, nothing is "simple" when it comes to email, unless you are willing to overlook the details. The moral of the story is that: (1) things are being done (*effective* things), and (2) the solutions are not as easy as they might appear. The current state of spam defenses is as follows: (1) thanks to the hard work of several volunteers (clewis, snowhare, et al), Usenet spam rapidly is becomming ineffective, (2) list managers are looking at ways to shore up their defenses, and some have implemented effective counter-measures, and (3) personal email is wholly open and unprotected, and clearly will be the next frontier for spammers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 02:11:44 GMT From: haldeman@SAS.UPENN.EDU(Gene N. Haldeman) Subject: File 5--Re: Cyberangels (Cu Digest, #7.86) I am certain I won't be the only one to respond to this, but I will have serious problems living with myself if I do not. The CYBERANGELS mean well, and in fact the original Guardian Angels mean well; but meaning well doesn't cut it if the actions taken on that "well-meaning" turn out to be destructive to the culture that the well-meaning think they are protecting. So, I take the CYBERANGELS purpose, as listed by them, point by point to try to show the CYBERANGELS that this is misguided, and in a word, irrational. >The purpose of the project is >a) To promote and protect the idea that the same laws of decency and respect >for others that apply in our streets should apply also to the Internet. First, the net is a different culture than the ones we find on the streets of our cities. Where in the world is anyone given the option to express themselves globally with a few keystrokes? And which laws of decency and respect are we discussing here? The laws of decency and respect in the USA? As the Guardians are New York City based, I'd have to assume that as an arbiter of what's right and wrong, they'll disappoint the folks in central Kansas by not going far enough, and many of the folks in their own city by going so far as to censor conversation easily heard in Washington Square Park. a) WHOSE laws of decency and respect? >b) To protect our children from online abuse. I'm fairly recent to Usenet/Internet; I've only been involved for about 6 years now, but I have never heard of any child being abused online. I've heard stories of children on certain online services who have been picked up by the unscrupulous, and in some cases, molested. But in these cases, were these children abused ONLINE? Could this not happen by way of the phone lines as well? Are you going to, like the FBI begin tapping phones? If what you object to is that a child ventures into an adult area and hears some language that he or she is not used to, then I ask why the parents are not parenting. If your response to this is that parents can't watch everything their child does, then my question is will the Guardians be able to watch everything the child does? If so, then I think I can probably find some babysitting work for your Angels; they're certainly more capable than any parent around. b) Clarify what you mean by "online abuse" >c) To pressurize service providers to enforce their Terms of Service. Even if you do this, who is to say I can't start my own online service which REQUIRES each member to upload explicit photos? (Note please that this is an EXAMPLE of what someone could do -- I wouldn't, personally) What if the Terms of Service allow the things *YOU*, as Angels, and self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong, disagree with? Besides, I see evidence that most providers are adamant about their Terms of Service; you see, they have to be, or they will gain a bad reputation. They're business people, and as such, they are conservative. Violate ToS on AOL, and you will be most likely to be booted within the week. Admittedly, there is a problem with throwaway accounts, but if AOL can't police that, I guarantee you can't. c) How on earth can you pressurize service providers to enforce ToS more than they already do, and more than the pressure that has already been put upon them? >d) To give advice and assistance to victims of hate mail, harassment and >sexual abuse online. Victims of hate mail have many options open to them. The first and best method of dealing with it is to delete it. The problem here is that that idiot who wrote me a piece of hate mail has every right to do so, and I have every right to delete it, or write hate mail back. Harassment, of course, properly documented is a crime which any ISP will support a user on. There are a few cases, primarily associated with the assault from the Scientology folks where certain ISPs might back down. In that case, it should be easy in this age to find another provider which will stand tall against such criminal behavior. As far as sexual abuse online is concerned, I'm afraid the Angels are going to have to define it a little more clearly (see my response to b). Are you talking about the fact that some clueless males send "wanna fuck" messages to any woman who happens to be posting on the newsgroup, or venturing into IRC? I would suggest that most women know how to deal with ignore the jerk, and if harassment results, you inform your ISP or the need for Angels here, either. d) Advice and assistment, however, is fine; perhaps here is where the Angels might shine. If they set up a site where people can go to when they have problems that can't be resolved by way of their ISP, I don't think too many people would have a problem with that. >e) To watch out for users violating terms of service by committing >cybercrimes and to report them to relevant authorities (Sysadmins, or even >Police). When they are genuine crimes, fine. But the Angels should be aware that a crime in Minneapolis may not be a crime in Istanbul or Tokyo or Stockholm. The Angels have traditionally been very close to committing crimes themselves; or at least very dangerous examples. e) You'd better be DAMNED sure you're not stepping on someone's rights; which means you'd better be aware of what's legal and illegal in every country that a given message has passed through; the rights of the originator, and the rights of the end receiver of such message, whether it be binary or ASCII, and if it's encrypted, you'd better be able to decrypt it accurately. If the message is encoded in PGP, I wish you luck. >f) To help to make unnecessary Government legislation by showing Government >that the World Net Community takes the safety of our children and the well >being of all its members seriously. Well, hell, we ALL want that. The question is balancing that need against the capabilities. The Internet Guardian Angels are showing here a naivete only matched by the most clueless of newbies. The problem is that there are problems enough caused by enforcers of law who are actually *trained* in enforcing law (CF the news from Philadelphia or Los Angeles during the past year). When I hear people who know NOTHING about a communities standards mouthing off about how they are going to patrol said community, it makes me very nervous. Whose billyclubs will be pounding on your head the next time you speak honestly on Usenet? Will they be the billyclubs of the so-called CyberAngels? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:01:24 -0400 From: ACLUNATL@AOL.COM Subject: File 6--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update ---------------------------------------------------------------- October 25, 1995 ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: * Universities Censor Student Internet Use * Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation * Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online Indecency Legislation * Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access * Conferences ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases/Issues) ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Universities Censor Student Internet Use In a knee-jerk reaction to the cyber-porn scare, many universities around the country have begun to enact policies to regulate student Internet use. The ACLU believes that university censorship of student Internet usage is inconsistent with the principles of academic freedom. In addition, state universities are required as state institutions to uphold the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. The Internet flourished for years as primarily an academic -- and uncensored -- domain. Colleges should not now cave in to the Luddites by enacting restrictive computer usage policies. Here are a few examples of university computer usage policies that tread on cyber-liberties: * After a year-long battle that made national news, Carnegie Mellon University is expected this November to approve a policy to censor certain Usenet newsgroups on Andrew, their flagship computing system. Their decision to censor is based on fear that the university could be held criminally liable under state obscenity and harmful to minors laws for providing access to newsgroups that "might be" obscene. The administration refused to accept the suggestion of both the CMU Faculty Senate and the ACLU that the computer network be categorized as a library, which would entitle the network to an exemption from the Pennsylvania obscenity statute. * The University of Minnesota will not allow students to have "offensive" content on their web sites, or even to create links to "offensive" content elsewhere on the Internet. They have also adopted the double standard of commercial services like America Online and Prodigy -- despite U of Minn's explicit content control, student web pages must include a disclaimer that the university takes "no responsibility" for anything on the pages. * At George Mason University, the "Responsible Use of Computing" policy begins with the following statement: "The following rules are not complete; just because an action is not explicitly proscribed does not necessarily mean that it is acceptable." (One could hardly imagine a better example of ambiguity with the potential to chill protected speech.) The policy creates a Security Review Panel that investigates reports of "offensive" computer behavior. As could be predicted, the backlog of cases before this panel is already quite long. (The head of the Security Review Panel is none other than Dr. Peter Denning, husband of Dr. Dorothy Denning, infamous proponent of the Clipper Chip.) On the bright side, students and faculty groups continue to hotly oppose these policies when they arise, and have been instrumental in shaping Internet usage policies to be less inhibitive of free speech and privacy rights. The following online resources will be useful to students and faculty faced with a draconian Internet usage policy: * Report on Computers at Harvard, by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard: _Very_ comprehensive and useful report on students' computer usage rights on Harvard's network. Included are five general principles for computer use, an application of the general principles to specific aspects of computer use, and a discussion of areas where Harvard should take immediate action to secure students' rights on the network. Available at gopher:// * Web Site on CMU Censorship Proposal: Thorough history and database of documents on Carnegie Mellon University's battle over online censorship. Also includes information on CMU's Coalition for Academic Freedom of Expression (CAFE). See * ACLU letter and legal analysis to CMU: send a message to with "Letter to CMU" in the subject line. The ACLU will continue to monitor university polices that restrict online free speech and privacy rights. The ACLU urges all students and faculty to actively work for university computer usage policies that protect their rights. To inform the ACLU of a computer usage policy at your school that may violate cyber-liberties, contact Ann Beeson, ACLU, ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation Congress recently named the official conferees to the telecommunications bill. The Senate version of the telco bill (S 652) contains the Exon Amendment, approved 84-16 by the Senate on 6/14/95. The House version of the telco bill (HR 1555) contains the Cox/Wyden Amendment (the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act), approved 421-4 on 8/4/95. The House version also contains Exon-like amendments to the existing federal obscenity statute, which came out of the House Judiciary Committee and were adopted as last-minute additions through a larger Manager's Amendment on 8/4/95. The conference committee is in charge of reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the telco bill, including the obviously incompatible provisions regarding online content. While more details are offered in the list below, the following facts should be highlighted: _Notable Conferees_ Senator Exon: sponsored the Exon Amendment and launched the cyber-porn scare. Senator Gorton: original co-sponsor of the CDA. Representative Hyde: sponsored the inclusion of indecency amendments to the federal obscenity laws in the House telco bill. Representatives White, Markey, Goodlatte, Fields, and Barr: spoke in favor of Cox/Wyden amendment on the House floor during the telco debate. _Some Absent Conferees_ Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy: sponsored the study alternative to the CDA in the Senate (Senator Leahy is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee). Representatives Cox & Wyden: sponsored the Cox/Wyden "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act." Senators who voted against the CDA. _Other Notable Facts_ All the Senate conferees voted for the CDA. All the House conferees voted for the Cox/Wyden amendment. All the House conferees also voted for the Exon-like indecency amendments to federal obscenity laws. However, they may not have been aware of this vote because it was not a separate vote but rather a vote to approve the Manager's amendment, which contained many provisions unrelated to the censorship legislation. Given the conferees named, it is highly likely that the House leadership, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will play a substantial role in the conference process. THE LIST OF CONFEREES: Conferees from the House were assigned to particular titles of the telco bill; Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all titles. The list that follows indicates the titles over which each conferee has jurisdiction, and the conferee's relevant committee status, party, and area of constituency. *Title I: Development of Competitive Telecommunications Markets (contains the Cox/Wyden amendment) Title II: Cable Communications Competitiveness Title III: Broadcast Communications Competitiveness *Title IV: Effect on Other Laws (contains the Exon Amendment and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute) Title V: Definitions Title VI: Small Business Complaint Procedure Representatives from the House: Jurisdiction over Titles I and IV (these conferees may participate in discussions to reconcile the conflicting online content provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon Amendment, and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute): Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Bliley, Thomas J. (Richmond, Virginia) all titles Fields, Jack (Houston, Texas) all titles Oxley, Michael G. (northwest Ohio) all titles White, Rick (northwest Washington) all titles Barton, Joseph (Fort Worth, Texas) I, II, IV, V Hastert, J. Dennis (northeast Illinois) I, II, IV, V Klug, Scott (Madison, Wisconsin) I, III, IV, V, VI Democrats: Dingell, John D. (southeast Michigan) all titles Markey, Edward J. (northeast Massachusetts) all titles Boucher, Rick (southwest Virginia) all titles Eshoo, Anna G. (San Francisco Bay Area, California) all titles Rush, Bobby L. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Hyde, Henry J. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Moorhead, Carlos J. (Los Angeles area, California) all titles Goodlatte, Robert W. (Western Virginia) all titles Buyer, Steve (northwest Indiana) all titles Flanagan, Michael P. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles Democrats: Conyers, John (Detroit, Michigan) all titles Schroeder, Patricia (Denver, Colorado) all titles Bryant, John (Dallas, Texas) all titles Title I only (these conferees may participate in discussions to revise the Cox/Wyden Amendment, but may not participate in discussions to reconcile the conflicting online content provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon Amendment, and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity statute): Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Paxon, Bill (western New York) I, III Frisa, Dan (New York, New York) I, II Stearns, Cliff (northeast Florida) I, III Democrats: Brown, Sherrod (northeast Ohio) I Gordon, Bart (central Tennessee) I Lincoln, Blanche Lambert (northeast Arkansas) I Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of rank: Republicans: Gallegly, Elton (southern California) I Barr, Bob (western Georgia) I Hoke, Martin R. (northeast Ohio) I Democrats: Berman, Howard L. (Los Angeles area, California) I Scott, Robert C. (Richmond, Virginia) I Lee, Sheila Jackson (Houston, Texas) I Conferees from the Senate Commerce Committee, in order of rank (the Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all titles): Republicans: Pressler, Larry (South Dakota) Stevens, Ted (Alaska) McCain, John (Arizona) Burns, Conrad (Montana) Gorton, Slade (Washington) Lott, Trent (Mississippi) Democrats: Hollings, Ernest F. (South Carolina) Inouye, Daniel K. (Hawaii) Ford, Wendell H. (Kentucky) Exon, James J. (Nebraska) Rockefeller, John D. (West Virginia) For a copy of the online indecency amendments, send a message to with "Online Indecency Amendments" in the subject line of the message. For more information on the legislation and what you can do to fight it, see: ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online Indecency Legislation As noted above, the online community should continue to urge the conference committee to remove the censorship provisions from the telco bill. At the same time, a coalition has formed to organize litigation to challenge these provisions if they are signed into law. The first step is the selection of plaintiffs. We need plaintiffs who use online networks to discuss or distribute works or art, literary classics, sex education, gay and lesbian literature, human rights reporting, abortion information, rape counseling, controversial political speech, or any other material that could be deemed "indecent" and therefore illegal under the proposed law. We received a tremendous response to our first call for plaintiffs, in the last issue of the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update. Thanks to all the organizations who contacted us. We urge other groups to join the battle to save free speech in cyberspace. Please contact Ann Beeson at the ACLU if your organization is interested in being a plaintiff in this ground-breaking litigation that will define First Amendment rights in cyberspace. 212-944-9800 x788, ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access In addition to the online censorship provisions in the telco bill, the ACLU is seriously concerned about the effect of other provisions in the bill on universal access. For more information about the effect of the telco bill on universal access and other public interest matters, see the Ad Hoc Site Against the Telecommunications Bill, co-sponsored by Center for Media Education, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Media Access Project, People for the American Way, and Taxpayer Assets Project, at ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oct 26, 5 pm: "Law in Cyberspace: Free Expression and Intellectual Property on the Internet," Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey NW, Gewirz Conference Room, Gewirz Hall. Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and Student Intellectual Property Law Association. Panelists include David Post (GULC Law professor and author of column on cyberspace law in American Lawyer); John Podesta (GULC professor and former senior policy advisor to President Clinton on govt information policy); and David Johnson (co-founder of the Cyberspace Law Institute, President of Lexis Counsel Connect). Nov 3, 8 pm: John Perry Barlow on "Creating Cyberculture," Kane Hall - University of Washington in Seattle. $12 ($10 students). The lecture is part of a series, co-sponsored by the ACLU of Washington, that explores the impact and implications of the technology revolution on art and culture. Other cosponsors include 911 Media Arts Center, the University of Washington's New Media Lab, and the University of Washington Technical Communications Department. Nov 16, 5 pm: Nadine Strossen (National President, ACLU) speaks on "Defending Pornography: A Feminist Perspective on New Technologies and Old-Fashioned Sex," GULC, 600 New Jersey NW, 12th Floor Ballroom, Gewirz Hall. Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and the Student Bar Association Speakers Fund. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for news on the ACLU's world wide web site, under construction at In the meantime, you can retrieve ACLU documents via gopher at gopher:// (forgive the less-than-updated state of our gopher -- we've devoted all our resources to WWW construction!). If you're on America Online, check out the live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Ann Beeson ( American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line. For general information about the ACLU, write to ---------------------------------------------------------------- **PLEASE REPOST WITH HEADER INTACT** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 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 DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. 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 #7.87 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank