Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 20, 1998 Volume 7 : Issue 98 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 Dec 20, 1998 Volume 7 : Issue 98 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, #7.98 (Wed, Dec 20, 1998) File 1--CuD of for Holidays -- Back around January 3 File 2--REMINDER - CuD is Changing Servers - RESUBS ARE NECESSARY File 3--Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century File 4--DC-ISOC Meeting - 1/18/95 File 5--AP/WP/NYT: Online Smut and Bogus Net Stats File 6--Employees Disciplined for accessing Internet "porn" File 7--OPEN LETTER TO NEWT GINGRICH File 8--New authorization to put all people in a secret file... File 9--PRIVACY WATCHDOG OUTS BIG BROTHER... File 10-- Computer, Freedom and Privacy 1996 File 11--"The Underground Guide to Computer Security" by Alexander File 12--SotMESC Information File 13--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Dec, 1995 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: 1--CuD of for Holidays -- Back around January 3 CuD will be taking two weeks off. We will return about Jan 3 with Volume 8. We will continue to read and respond to mail. Happy Holidays, and thanks to everybody who has contributed posts, advice, criticisms, and information over the past year. Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec, 1995 16:19:32 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: 2--REMINDER - CuD is Changing Servers - RESUBS ARE NECESSARY ** CuD IS CHANGING SERVERS ** In about mid-January, Cu Digest will be moving to a new server at We're following the strong consensus of readers and requiring that, to continue to receive CuD after mid-January, you must RE-SUBSCRIBE. Although the move will not take place for a few weeks, you can enter your subscribtion before then, so WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO SUB NOW. Re-subbing is easy. Just send a message with this in the "Subject:" line SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST send it to: Issues will still be sent out from the older server for a few weeks, so the strategy is to collect the resubs first, and then make the transition. If you prefer to access CuD from Usenet, use If you prefer archives, you can use the ftp/www site at (or or the CuD archives at: We also hope to have a mail archive set up soon as well. You can still contact the moderators at: or Please *DO NOT* send inquiries to the server at UIUC. Jim and Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:08:05 -0800 From: Gilberto Arriaza Subject: 3--Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century Dear colleagues: Here is a Call for Papers you might be interested. Gilberto Arriaza. School of Education, UC Berkeley Journal of Social Justice Reconfiguring Power, Challenges for the 21st century Recent backlash against immigrants and affirmative action can be seen as part of a larger struggle over resources, national identity, and more generally (re)configurations of power in the United States in the twenty first century. Demographic trends continue to point to greater diversity in the U.S. population, however there is growing resistance to the adjustments which must be made in society generally, and in the workplace and social institutions (i.e. education, the arts, political parties) in particular, to accommodate those who have historically and who are presently excluded. Already the debates which have emerged over these issues differ in several important ways from the manifestations of social conflict and polarization that occurred in the latter part of the twentieth century. This issue of the Journal of Social Justice is dedicated to exploring the contours and substance of these new struggles. In addition to documenting how these conflicts are being played out in particular social and cultural contexts, contributors will analyze the underlying social and cultural forces and interests which influence how issues are viewed, and how social action and discourse are affected. Beyond analyzing the content and character of those conflicts, contributors are encouraged to illuminate possibilities of influencing how they can be resolved such that greater social justice is achieved. Topics for this issue may include:: Issues of immigration, cultural identity and the nation state. Dismantling of the welfare state, social implications. Schools and the meaning of citizenship, national identity and cultures, and the access to power. Obstacles to Gay, Lesbian and bisexual rights. Crime, violence and social policy. Language, language rights and the dynamics of power. Gender equity, reproductive rights. Local impact of macro level economic and political change. Racial and ethnic conflict. Review: Each submission will be read by a committee of two members. In case a disagreement among them arises, the editors will call for the opinion of a third member.. Format: Submit three hard copies of a 12 size font, double spaced of no more than thirty 8 X 11.5 pages. This includes references. Each paper must have an abstract of no more than one, double space, 8 X 11.5 page. On a separate card of 3 X 5 (approximately) include title, your name, affiliation, local address, telephone numbers, fax and electronic mail, to contact you. Deadline: Submission must be in our office by Monday, May 6th, 1996. No contributions will be accepted after this date. The accepted papers will be part of a panel for AERA '97. Address: c/o Professor Pedro Noguera University of California at Berkeley School of Education Social and Cultural Studies 4501 Tolman Hall Berkeley, 94720 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 01:26:25 -0500 (EST) From: russ@NAVIGATORS.COM(Russ Haynal) Subject: 4--DC-ISOC Meeting - 1/18/95 The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (DC-ISOC) announces its next event, co-sponsored by the Office of the Senior Information Officer of the Smithsonian Institution. "New Year, Fresh Look: The Internet and Legislation" When: Thursday, January 18, 1996 7:00 - 9:00 pm Where: Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Auditorium Freer Gallery of Art Independence Ave and 12 St., S.W. Washington, D.C. As the title suggests, this meeting will discuss how the Internet and Legislation will continue to "Interact" Please mark this date on your calendar. A follow-up meeting announcement with additional details (speakers, topics, etc.) will be made in January. On a related note: As you may have heard, on Wednesday December 6, 1995, the House Conference Committee on Telecommunications Reform approved legislation which has been a topic of debate throughout the Internet. Several organizations are sponsoring "A NATIONAL INTERNET DAY OF PROTEST" on Tuesday, December 12. Rather than re-distribute that announcement in this forum, anyone interested in this protest, or the details of the legislation can visit several web sites such as: Voters Telecommunications Watch ( Electronic Frontier Foundation ( -------------- Meeting Location Information --------------------------- This event will be held in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., e northeast corner of Independence Avenue and 12th St., SW. Use the entrance on the Independence Avenue side of the building (there is a street-level wheelchair entrance as well). Metro: Smithsonian metro stop on the Blue or Orange lines. Take the Independence Ave./Holocaust museum exit. The Freer Gallery is diagonally across the street. Street parking is available after 6:30 pm on the Mall, on Independence Avenue and on l'Enfant Promenade. ---------------------- About DC-ISOC --------------------------- DC-ISOC was formed to meet unique needs of Washington, DC-area Internet planners, builders, and users, and to help represent the Internet to the U.S. government. (For additional information visit: Individuals who are interested in becoming members of DC-ISOC can do so by joining the Internet Society. See their web site at (or call 703-648-9888) for more information Feel free to forward this announcement to anyone who might be interested. If you would like to receive future DC-ISOC announcements directly (i.e. this message was forwarded to you), please register with DC-ISOC at -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our last several meetings have included "door prizes" for attendees. Please contact me if your organization would like to donate any Internet-related items for the meeting. ______________________________________________________________ Russ Haynal - Internet Consultant, Instructor, Author, Speaker "Helping organizations gain the most benefit from the Internet" E-Mail: Business: 703-729-1757 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:31:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: 5--AP/WP/NYT: Online Smut and Bogus Net Stats December 15, 1995 RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) -- Nearly 100 employees at a federally funded laboratory are being disciplined for using their work computers to access sexually explicit Internet sites, officials said Friday. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory suspended the 21 workers who used the sites most frequently. Another 77 workers will receive written reprimands... The usage was discovered when Battelle Memorial Institute, which operates the lab, was trying to determine its Internet capacity for a new building. The sexually explicit addresses showed up on Internet records. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ December 15, 1995 HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- A city man has pleaded guilty to a federal child pornography charge involving pictures transmitted on the American Online service. David H. Gillon, 43, pleaded guilty to interstate distribution of child pornography in U.S. District Court on Thursday. He admitted to transmitting a pornographic picture over America Online in August. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ New York Times [Forwarded] December 18, 1995 "The prospect of Internet censorship raises troubling issues for business." Denise Caruso's column. While most of the outcry has raised valid concerns about the First Amendment and civil liberties, little of the discussion has focused on how censorship could cripple much of the Internet's commercial potential. "This proposal will have more than a chilling effect," Ms. Fulton said. "It may well mean a cold death for everyone except very rich and very cautious media companies." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Washington Post December 18, 1995 Editorial How Many Netheads? IT SOUNDS like a minor statistical dispute, but one whose results take on more significance as claims and counterclaims proliferate about the Internet and its importance. How many people are actually signing on? A survey done for the Nielsen Co. earlier this fall found surprisingly high numbers of net and e-mail users -- about 24 million "affluent" adult users in the United States and Canada alone. But one of that survey's academic advisers says the data were processed wrongly, and the number should be more like 10 million. It seems that serious and habitual Internet use will remain a difficult activity to track with any certainty. Vanderbilt University business Prof. Donna L. Hoffman says the surveyors made some statistical miscalls in characterizing the technical comfort level of the people who were asked to answer questions about their Internet use. Thus, she argued in criticism first reported in the New York Times, those less likely to use or own computers ended up dropping out of the sample, skewing the attempts to generalize to the larger population. But the mathematical arguments here are less interesting than the chasm they point to in discussions of the Internet generally. The distance between life as it looks to users "on-line" and life as it looks elsewhere is hard to measure and in some cases hard to see. You could see this gap, for instance, in the efforts Internet users have made in recent weeks to express their opposition to the restrictive Exon provisions concerning pornography in cyberspace. A much-touted "day of protest" on-line could cause a Net denizen to believe that the entire sentient world was rocked by storms of outrage, while those who don't habitually sign on or don't know how to do so -- including, in all likelihood, many lawmakers -- could be unaware of the outcry. Reports have multiplied of the initial fascination and obsessive focus that the possibilities of on-screen contact produce in so-called "newbies," not to mention the tendency of some habitual net-users to refer dismissively to everything outside the screen as mere "RL," or Real Life. Most predictions of the Internet's usefulness and importance rely on the assumption -- again borne out in most accounts -- that this initial intensity wanes for most users and that e-mail, the World Wide Web and other Internet functions will end up as a broad, everyday tool rather than the province of an insular or obsessive subculture. That era of wide and ordinary usage, though, may creep up and be hard to measure until it has truly arrived. ------------------------------ From: hsu@VA.PUBNIX.COM(Dave Hsu) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 18:26:17 -0500 Subject: 6--Employees Disciplined for accessing Internet "porn" In Cu-D 7.97, notes: >Rather than trying to define the right to privacy at this point, it is better >to look at some circumstances where such a right might arise: ... >(2) Where government agencies or private entities are lawfully collecting >personal data, but more data is collected than is needed to accomplish the >purpose of the data collection. The collection of this excess data might >amount to an invasion of privacy, even though the data is never misused. Not having seen any mention of this yet in the Digest (and understanding the caveat that not all discussions so float up) I bring to your attention a story buried in the "A" section of Sunday's Washington Post on a recent disciplinary action at Pacific Northwest Laboratories taken against several dozen employees accused of using government resources to visit "pornographic" sites. As the story was rather brief, I'll sum up to say that Battelle, which operates the laboratories, claims to have been measuring Internet usage at the facility to estimate new capacity requirements for some new space when they found these accesses in their logs. Presumably, their investigation was comprehensive, as the Post article mentions that the twenty or so biggest users were singled out for additional action. Ignoring the ethical question of misappropriating their employer's resources, which I believe is not in dispute, I ask if anyone has seen a report with more detail about the accounting methods used, and the ethical problems with selective these particular employees apparently solely on the basis of the _content_ of the sites visited. [As I am not a list member, I will watch the Digest for any ensuing discussion] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:38:38 -0800 From: Michael Hollomon, Jr. Subject: 7--OPEN LETTER TO NEWT GINGRICH OPEN LETTER TO NEWT GINGRICH, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Dear Mr. Speaker: I know that congress is currently debating legislation aimed at protecting children from pornography on the Internet. I feel it my duty as an American to make my views known to someone who is in a position to have an impact on this potentially far-reaching issue. First of all I would like to make it clear to you that I am _not_ a pornographer. I neither produce nor nor indulge in the use of pornography. In fact, if it is relevant to the issue at all, I am a Bible believing Christian who feels that pornography is detrimental not only to America's children, but also to the men who choose consume it. I think it would be a wonderful thing to be able to insure that my children are not exposed to obscene or pornographic material, by computer or by any other means. However, I cannot lend support to any of the legislation currently being considered by Congress to censor communication on the Internet, obscene or otherwise. I will forewarn you that this correspondence is going to be rather lengthy, but I beg your indulgence and I hope that you will take time from your busy schedule to hear me out. By way of a very brief history, the Internet is the first ever communications technology created by "the people" for "the people." It's structure and protocols were created and implemented by diverse groups of people for the purpose of sharing materials and resources and making information freely available to other persons on the inter network. It is the result of one of the rare _truly_ democratic dynamics ever encountered on such a large scale. There has never been any form of centralized control over the Internet. The policing of the Internet has always been carried out by local systems administrators ("sysadmins"). However this "police power" was exercised by the sysadmin only over her/his own local system. No one sysadmin had the authority to monitor content or activity on any system on the Internet, save her/his own. Admittedly, the Internet has a rather anarchic structure, but it is one that has worked quite well and, in the absence of any centralized regulation whatsoever, the Internet has grown to the incredibly useful, informative and entertaining concentration of digital information and resources that it is today. As is to be expected with any frontier devoid of a central governing and police authority, there have arisen some areas on the Internet that are not suitable for children. In fact, it could easily be argued that these "places" on the 'net are not suitable for responsible _adults_. While pornography on the Internet is the topic which gets most of the press, and therefore public attention, there are several other types of information available on the 'net which many Americans would find offensive. Examples include inflammatory speech by members or aficionados of this or that hate group, and information of a more palpably dangerous ilk (i.e., how to build explosives and other weaponry). Should any of this type of information be accessible to our children? The answer is an obvious "no." Should this information be accessed by consenting adults? Perhaps not. But then more than a few "reasonable" adults would argue, quite persuasively, that they should be entitled to access any public information that they choose. My point is simply that I heartily agree with anyone who takes the position that our children should be shielded from such unsavory material. Why then do I not support the currently proposed legislation to censor this type of material on the Internet? My reasons are several: 1. NOT EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET IS SUBJECT TO U.S. LAW As you and your colleagues no doubt realize, the Internet is a truly global phenomenon. People access the Internet from over a hundred different nations and from virtually every continent around the world. U.S. legislation to censor the Internet would be equivalent to Canadian legislation regulating what I as an American can and cannot say in an international telephone call from the U.S. to someone in Canada, or even in a telephone call from California to Alaska that happened to use lines which cross Canadian territory. Stated simply, there would be a very sticky problem of personal jurisdiction in attempting to enforce such legislation upon a foreign violator. How can the U.S. prevent someone in Finland from posting a pornographic picture to any given Usenet newsgroup? The simple truth is that, no matter how repulsive the post may be to our sensibilities, there is simply _no_ workable way to prevent foreigners from posting offensive material to the international Internet. And, once material is posted, wherever from, there is nothing to prevent anyone in the U.S., child or adult, who has Internet access from accessing that material. It has often been stated that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. This resilience to blockage was intentionally built into the Internet by its early U.S. military-backed developers. The idea was to develop a communications technology that would be virtually impervious to a large scale nuclear strike. This fact may be contemporarily seen as unfortunate, but the fact nonetheless remains. 2. WIDESPREAD FLOUTING OF UNENFORCEABLE LAW WILL ENGENDER DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW Because of the unenforceability of censorship legislation on foreign violators, any such legislation will have little or no effect on the type of information contained on the Internet. The only real change that such legislation might have would be that offensive material would only be, or appear to be, posted from foreign sources. Law abiding Americans wouldn't post illegal material. But there would be nothing preventing Americans from accessing illegal material posted by foreigners. For this reason, any U.S. legislation which attempts to regulate the content of the Internet will have an inherent loop-hole in it large enough "to drive a truck through." A loop-hole so large, in fact, as to subsume the underlying legislation. The routine disobedience (or technical avoidance) of such legislation would result in our children being no more shielded from harmful material than they would be in the absence of any such legislation. This would no doubt lead to the kind of disregard and disrespect for legislation (and legislators) which followed the advent of the prohibition of alcohol in this country (legislation that ultimately the government had to concede was completely unworkable). Do we really need an "information prohibition?" If it passes, do you want to be responsible for it? 3. UNREASONABLE "CHILL" ON PROTECTED SPEECH Even assuming that it was possible to legislatively control content available on the Internet (which I firmly believe it is not), at what cost would such control come? For fear of subjecting themselves to criminal liability for the offending posts of their members or customers, every sysadmin, BBS system operator ("sysop"), online service and Internet service provider, would have to become a de facto police agent, thoroughly inspecting every piece of email or other electronic correspondence made. This would effectively mean the end of any semblance of digital privacy for law abiding Americans on the 'net. There are of course myriad ways to avoid such eavesdropping (i.e. strong encryption, foreign anonymous remailers and the like), however in order for censoring legislation to have any meaning whatsoever I would assume that the legislature would outlaw these measures as well. Then only criminals would be able to enjoy private electronic communications in America. (The gun control slogan comes to mind: "Make it a crime to own a gun and only the criminals will have guns.") The Federal courts have routinely struck down laws as unconstitutional where the legislation's regulation of unprotected speech affects an unreasonable "chill" on constitutionally protected free speech. Knowing that _every_ electronic communication that I send will be read by any number of intervening systems administrators will without doubt make me much more circumspect about my electronic communications. No longer would I feel free to discuss matters of any personal nature, much less matters concerning confidential business information. In fact _every_ electronic communication would have to be considered by the sender as an open letter to the public. To describe such a scenario as having a chill upon free speech would, I think, be a definite understatement. 4. THE U.S. MAY WELL FORFEIT ITS ENVIABLE POSITION IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION The Internet was originated in America by Americans. The present Internet is a direct legatee of the ARPAnet developed in the U.S. by the Advanced Research Projects Agency. *Almost 3/4 of all Internet hosts today are located in North America (the _great_ majority of those are certainly in the U.S.). Many of the technological and social innovations which make the Internet the phenomenal success that it is were implemented by American free thinkers who were allowed to think freely with few, if any, constraints upon their ideas save the effectiveness of the ideas themselves. The greatest financial beneficiaries of the success of the Internet to date have been U.S. companies providing Internet access, advertising and/or doing business on the Internet. Once Congress starts imposing legislative restrictions on electronic information, the only people which will be hindered by those restrictions will be citizens of the U.S. This will leave citizens of foreign countries in potentially advantageous competitive positions to U.S. citizens. The U.S. just might go from being the country to emulate in information technology to being the country to surpass. Granted, such results are not likely solely from a single piece of obscenity legislation. But one bad law, more times than not, leads to another. It may only take a single ill-advised law to start our esteemed Congress on such a precarious trend. Having said all of the foregoing, are there any workable solutions to protecting children from offensive material over the Internet? In fact, there are. At this point, let me state my position that, among the several responsibilities that come with being a parent, is the responsibility to monitor the materials and information accessible to your children. The information available to children should, without question, be regulated. That regulation, however, should be performed by parents and guardians, _not_ by Congress. I realize that there are many "computer illiterate" parents who have technologically knowledgeable children. However, there is help even for these parents in regulating what their children experience online. Most of the major online services have restrictions of some sort on the seamier sites available on the internet and/or other safeguards which allow parents to control the types of material which their children can access online. In addition, there are other resources, apart from the major commercial online services, which assist parents in this regard. There are software and commercial services which inform parents of unsuitable materials available on the Internet and assist parents with Internet accounts in restricting unauthorized access to those areas by their children. Of course, there will always be those parents who are intimidated by the technology, or simply don't want to take the time to understand it. These parents will certainly sleep a little easier knowing that Congress is stepping in and attempting to protect their children from obscene material. These people, in my opinion, are inexcusably lazy parents who, if they are not going to monitor their children's online communications, should _not_ permit their children to go online. In closing, I would strongly urge that you and the other members of Congress look closely into the several available alternative options of regulating online materials available to children, as Internet censorship simply will not work. Thank you for your time. *Wired magazine, issue 3.12, page 70. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:49:06 GMT From: JeanBernard Condat Subject: 8--New authorization to put all people in a secret file... New official authorisation to put all people in a secret file... November 16th, 1995: In middle of the strike period in France, the Ministry of the Army publish a text dated November 9th giving the authorisation to the Army to put all available data in local files for future uses. The available data mind political, philosophical, religion... opinions of a person called "terrorist" or "victim of a terrorist." :-|] After some hard reactions of certain kinds of persons in France, the French Governmement announce Decembre 16th the complete suppression of this text. Note that the CNIL (Commission Nationale Infortique et Libertes) formed to look at abusive use of laws... have given a positive authorisation to publish the following text... UNCREDIBLE ! > Decret n%95-1211 du 9 novembre 1995 portant application des dispositions > de l'article 31 de la loi n%78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 aux fichiers mis en oeuvre > par la direction generale de la gendarmerie nationale. > > Le Premier Ministre, > Sur le rapport du ministre de la defense, > > (...) > > Vu l'avis conforme de la Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes > en date du 25 avril 1995 ; > Le Conseil d'Etat (Section des finances) entendu, > > Decrete : > > Art. 1er. - Pour l'exercice de sa mission, la gendarmerie nationale est autorisee a > collecter, conserver et traiter, dans les fichiers regionaux, les informations nominatives > qui, etant relatives aux personnes majeures enumerees a l'alinea ci-apres, > mentionnent les signes physiques particuliers, objectifs et inalterables comme > elements de signalement, ou font apparaitre, directement ou indirectement, les opinions > politiques, philosophiques ou religieuses ainsi que les appartenances syndicales de ces > personnes. > >La collecte, la conservation et le traitement des informations enoncees a l'alinea precedent > ne peuvent concerner que : > > 1-- Les personnes qui peuvent, en raison de leur activite individuelle et collective, porter > atteinte a la surete de l'Etat ou a la securite publique par le recours ou le soutien actif > apporte a des actes de terrorisme definis aux articles 421-1 et 421-2 du Code Penal ; > > 2-- Celles qui entretiennent ou sont entretenu avec elles des relations durables et non fortuites ; > > 3-- Les personnes qui sont victimes d'actes de terrorisme ou paraissent etre particulierement > exposees a de tels actes. > > (...) > Fait a Paris, le 9 novembre 1995 > > Par le Premier Ministre ALAIN JUPPE > > Le ministre de la defense, > CHARLES MILLON ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 1995 10:33:51 -0500 From: "Dave Banisar" Subject: 9--PRIVACY WATCHDOG OUTS BIG BROTHER... MEDIA RELEASE Contact: Simon Davies, Privacy International PRIVACY WATCHDOG OUTS BIG BROTHER COMPANIES New report uncovers a massive international surveillance trade funded by the arms industry and led by the UK On Monday 4 December, Privacy International will publish Big Brother Incorporated, a 150 page report which investigates the global trade in repressive surveillance technologies. The report, to be published on several Web sites on the Internet, shows how technology companies in Europe and North America provide the surveillance infrastructure for the secret police and military authorities in such countries as China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Angola, Rwanda and Guatemala The reports primary concern is the flow of sophisticated computer-based technology from developed countries to developing countries - and particularly to non-democratic regimes. The report demonstrates how these companies have strengthened the lethal authority of the world's most dangerous regimes. The report lists the companies, their directors, products and exports. In each case, source material is meticulously cited. Privacy International is publishing the report in digital form in several sites on the Internet to ensure its accessability by interested parties anywhere in the world. Surveillance technologies are defined as technologies which can monitor, track and assess the movements, activities and communications of individuals. More than 80 British companies are involved, making the UK the world leader in this field. Other countries, in order of significance, are the United States, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Germany. _Big Brother Incorporated_ is the first investigation ever conducted into this trade. Privacy International intends to update the report from time to time using trade fair documents and leaked information from whistleblowers. The surveillance trade is almost indistinguishable from the arms trade. More than seventy per cent of companies manufacturing and exporting surveillance technology also export arms, chemical weapons, or military hardware. Surveillance is a crucial element for the maintenance of any non-democratic infrastructure, and is an important activity in the pursuit of intelligence and political control. Many countries in transition to democracy also rely heavily on surveillance to satisfy the demands of police and military. The technology described in the report makes possible mass surveillance of populations. In the past, regimes relied on targeted surveillance. Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders, and political opponents. It is also useful for monitoring larger sectors of the population. With this technology, the financial transactions, communications activity and geographic movements of millions of people can be captured, analysed and transmitted cheaply and efficiently. Western surveillance technology is providing invaluable support to military and totalitarian authorities throughout the world. One British computer firm provided the technological infrastructure to establish the South African automated Passbook system, upon which much of the functioning of the Apartheid regime British surveillance cameras were used in Tianamen Square against the pro-democracy demonstrators. In the 1980s, an Israeli company developed and exported the technology for the computerised death list used by the Guatemalan police. Two British companies routinely provide the Chinese authorities with bugging equipment and telephone tapping devices. Privacy International was formed in 1990 as a non-government, non-profit organisation. It brings together privacy experts, human rights advocates and technology experts in more than 40 countries, and works toward the goal of promoting privacy issues worldwide. The organisation acts as an impartial watchdog on surveillance activities by governments and corporations. For further information or interview, contact Simon Davies in London at The address of the web site is ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:32:02 -0600 From: Stephen Smith Subject: 10-- Computer, Freedom and Privacy 1996 **************************************** Please redistribute widely **************************************** The Sixth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy will take place at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on March 27-30, 1996. CFP96 is hosted by MIT and by the World Wide Web Consortium. You can register for CFP96 by US Mail, by fax, or via the World Wide Web. Conference attendance will be limited. Due to the enormous public interest in CFP issues over the past year, we encourage you to register early. SPECIAL NOTE TO STUDENTS: There are a limited number of places available at a special student rate. These will be allotted on a first-come first-served basis, so register as soon as possible. For more information, see the CFP96 Web page at or send a blank email message to Since its inception in 1991, the series of CFP conferences has brought together experts and advocates from the fields of computer science, law, business, public policy, law enforcement, government, and many other areas to explore how computer and telecommunications technologies are affecting freedom and privacy. Events planned for this year's conference include: - Federal prosecutors square off against civil-liberties lawyers in a mock Supreme Court test of the "Cryptography Control Act of 1996", which criminalizes non-escrowed encryption. - Authors Pat Cadigan, Tom Maddox, Bruce Sterling, and Vernor Vinge divine the future of privacy. - College administrators, students, lawyers, and journalists role-play scenarios that plumb the limits of on-line expression on campus networks. - Panels on international issues in privacy and encryption; on the struggle to control controversial content on the Internet; on tensions between copyright of digital information and freedom of expression; on threats posed by electronic money to law enforcement, privacy, and freedom; on mass communication versus mass media. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:45:36 EST From: "Rob Slade, the doting grandpa of Ryan Hoff" Subject: 11--"The Underground Guide to Computer Security" by Alexander BKUNCMSC.RVW 951129 "The Underground Guide to Computer Security", Michael Alexander, 1996, 0-201- 48918-X, U$19.95/C$27.00 %A Michael Alexander %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1996 %G 0-201-48918-X %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$19.95/C$27.00 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 %O 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 %P 239 %T "The Underground Guide to Computer Security" This book is intended to address the security needs of personal (or desktop) computers, and is one of the few that does. The content addresses those vulnerabilities which *do* plague workstations, and is generally free of "big iron" paranoia and concerns. Alexander's style is a bit flippant, but not at the expense of the information being conveyed. The organization is a trifle odd. (The first half of the "Safe Desktops and Laptops" chapter deals exclusively with passwords, even though few standalone machines use them. Password generators and challenge/response systems, however, are covered in the chapter on networks.) Technical details and specific suggestions do have a number of errors, particularly when dealing with MS-DOS. For those in the know, the chapter on viruses has some oddities, but nothing that would be dangerous to the user. Data security is a tedious and often confusing field. This book is only a start, but could be quite helpful to the non-specialist. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKUNCMSC.RVW 951129 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 15:30:02 -0600 From: Frosty Subject: 12--SotMESC Information The SotMESC is a Non-Profit organization founded in 1989 to secure the freedom and privacy of computers and the networks they reside upon. We (the SotMESC) publish a monthly newsletter to our members detailing information about applications and news occuring within our realm and provide educational services to the public for free to increase the awareness of the computing realm. We also provide a scholarship program to promote understanding of computing and the cultures that reside upon them in the hopes of advancing the potential of society in education. We provide funding as a legal defense for those in need that are taking positions that complement our position in the computing fields. In the interest of promoting equal technological benefits to those that are poor, we have relocated computing systems that were discarded or donated to us into usable systems and given to potential business leaders and scholaries of low financial livings. We are also the only organization to promote the 'Hacking for Humanity' award, given each year in various fields to those persons displaying exemplary work to promote the computing fields and networks in the name of mankind without formal corporate or organizational roots. If there are any details you would like to learn more about, please feel free to get in touch and ask us. Frosty, aka R.E.Jones, ilKhan of the SotMESC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: 13--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 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 post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: 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 CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.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) 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 #7.98 - END OF VOLUME 7 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank