Computer underground Digest Wed Feb 28, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 18 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: 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 Wed Feb 28, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 18 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU) News Editor: Gordon Meyer ( 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, #8.18 (Wed, Feb 28, 1996) File 1-- CDT Press Release/2d suit against CDA File 2--Are you feeling threatened by the CDA? File 3--British virus writer to jail for 18 months File 4--(Fwd) RE: White House Not Decent File 5--Response to "French Book Banning" File 6--NIU President Responds to Telecommunications Bill File 7--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: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:09:15 -0600 From: Stephen Smith Subject: File 1-- CDT Press Release/2d suit against CDA Following is a relase prepared by the Center for Democracy and Technology on the challenge to CDA: CDA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FAILS TO RECOGNIZE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE INTERNET On Monday, February 26, the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, the American Library Association, America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft, NETCOM, The Commercial Internet eXchange, The Newspaper Association of America, Wired Magazine, Hotwired, Families Against Internet Censorship, and several other plaintiffs filed suit in a Federal Court in Philadelphia PA seeking to overturn the Communications Decency Act on the grounds that it is a violation of the First Amendment rights of all Internet users. In a 55 page complaint that details the history of the Internet and outlines how the network operates, the CIEC intends to educate the court on how the Internet functions and why the broad content regulations imposed by the CDA threaten the very existence of the Internet as a viable medium for free expression, education, and commerce. Among other things, the CIEC challenge argues that: * The Internet is a unique communications medium which deserves First Amendment protections at least as broad as those afforded to print media. * Individual users and Parents, not the Federal Government, should determine for themselves and their children what material comes into their homes based on their own tastes and values. * The CDA will be ineffective at protecting children from "indecent" or "patently" offensive material online. The CIEC challenge is separate from the case brought by the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, Planned Parenthood, and several other plaintiffs in the same Philadelphia court on February 8, 1996. The ACLU effort has made significant and important headway in the past several weeks. The CIEC case will reinforce the ACLU's efforts while focusing on the unique nature of the Internet and alternatives to government content regulations. ACLU and CIEC attorneys are closely coordinating their efforts, and it is expected that the courts will eventually consolidate the two cases. The outcome of the legal challenges to the CDA will likely determine the legal status of speech on the Internet and the future of the First Amendment in the Information Age. Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Members and Plaintiffs The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition is a large and diverse group of Internet users, businesses, non-profit groups, and civil liberties advocates, who share the common goal of protecting the First Amendment and the viability of the Internet as a means of free expression, education, and commerce. CIEC members believe that parents, not the United States Government, are the best and most appropriate judges of what material is appropriate for themselves and their children. Named Plaintiffs in the CIEC Challenge to the Communications Decency Act: American Library Association America Online, Inc. American Booksellers Association American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Society of Newspaper Editors Association of American Publishers Association of Publishers, Editors and Writers Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Commercial Internet eXchange Compuserve, Inc. Families Against Internet Censorship Freedom to Read Foundation HotWired Ventures Ltd. Interactive Digital Software Association Interactive Services Association Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Network NETCOM On-Line Communications Services, Inc. Newspaper Association of America Prodigy, Inc. Society of Professional Journalists Wired Ventures Ltd. Members of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition: Americans for Tax Reform Association of American University Presses, Inc. Association of National Advertisers Association of Research Librarians Center for Democracy and Technology Coalition for Networked Information Media Access Project Media Institute Microsystems Software, Inc. National Assoc. of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges People for the American Way Recording Industry Association of America Special Libraries Association Surfwatch Software, Inc. University of California Santa Barbara Library ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:47:15 -0500 From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM Subject: File 2--Are you feeling threatened by the CDA? To any interested parties: We have become aware of an effort to promote the voices of people who are presently not represented in the pending law suits challenging the CDA. If you feel that material you have posted, are posting, or will be posting may be considered "indecent" or "patently offensive," you might want to consider getting involved. Jim Crawford, a partner at the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, is preparing an amicus brief in support the ACLU's challenge to the indecency provisions contained in the recently passed telecommunications law. The brief will focus on the overbreadth of the CDA, with particular emphasis on two groups of amici -- content providers (those who place content on the Internet that the CDA now criminalizes or potentially criminalizes under its overbroad language); and access providers (ISPs, mainly). As to content providers, the argument will be that there is a tremendous amount of socially valuable expression on the Internet that could be termed "indecent," or "patently offensive," depending on the community standards to be applied, under the CDA's overbroad provisions, but which should not be censored as to adults or minors. Amici want to provide the court with very specific examples of such expression. Among others, Crawford is interested in physicians' or medical groups; universities and professors; artists; musicians; museums; and businesses (who may use provocative advertising and marketing techniques). In other words, if you are concerned that the content of your postings may be considered "indecent" or "patently offensive," the amici may be interested in hearing from you. Anyone who is interested in being considered for amicus status should forward a statement of interest to Jennifer in Jim Crawford's office at Please feel free to pass this on to other persons who may be interested. Thank you. Vic Walczak ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:59:11 -0600 (CST) From: Crypt Newsletter Subject: File 3--British virus writer to jail for 18 months In mid-November 1995, the English trial of virus-writer Chris Pile ended with a bang after months of stops and starts when the 26 year-old Devon man was sent away for 18 months as punishment for spreading and inciting others to distribute the SMEG computer viruses, programs of his design. It was a depressing tale that stretched over a year, from Pile's arrest and the confiscation of his computer by New Scotland Yard's computer crime unit in 1994, to his conviction in Crown Court in mid-1995, to the inevitable sentencing which sent him up for a year and a half stint in an English bighouse the same week when many others in computerland where trotting out shiny new wares at ComDex in Las Vegas. During the case, Pile admitted to five counts of unauthorized access to computers to facilitate crime and five of unauthorized modifications of computer software between 1993 and April 1994. He also confessed to a charge of inciting others to spread viruses. The English newspaper The Independent referred to Pile, known briefly as the Black Baron in the virus underground, as a "'mad and reclusive boffin' who wreaked havoc on computer systems by spreading [viruses] . . . across the world . . ." [Webster's New World Dictionary informs readers "mad boffin" is Brit slang for "mad scientist."] The Times asserted Microprose had been struck by one of Pile's SMEG viruses and estimated that it lost 500,000 pounds in business and wasted 480 man hours checking files for Pile's replicating code. Another company, named Apricot, was claimed to have been closed while clearing a third of its machines from a Pile-written virus infection. In America, Dr. Alan Solomon - developer of the UK-based Solomon Anti-virus Toolkit (S&S International), worked the news of Pile's downfall into a presentation given by his firm at ComDex in Las Vegas, Nevada. The following week, Graham Cluley - a colleague and employee of Solomon at S&S, privately remarked on the Compuserve on-line service that the severity of Pile's sentence surprised him. The treatment of Pile, an unemployed self-taught programmer, by the English press was slightly reminiscent of the US media's portrayal of Kevin Mitnick. For the press, Pile was writ large as a young cyber-madman bent on corrupted programming that resulted in computer data damage escalating into the millions of dollars. Worse, his code was said to be in the hands of shadowy criminal arch-fiends in the US and Europe. Mitnick, of course, had been attributed with cartoonish superhuman malevolence by the US media, a man dangerous enough to bring down the Internet, steal the Christmas card list from your computer and/or break into military computers controlling NORAD. English newspapers repeatedly reprinted the activation message from Pile's SMEG.Pathogen virus. "Your hard disk is being corrupted courtesy of PATHOGEN! Programmed in the U.K. (Yes, NOT Bulgaria!) [C] the Black Baron 1993-94. Featuring SMEG v0.1: Simulated Metamorphic Encryption Generator! 'Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.....' Unfortunately some of your data won't!!!!!" Only superficially baleful and menacing, the message was a mixture of quote from an English TV show named "Red Dwarf" and the stereotypical gloating anti-style of previous virus writers to numerous to count. For The Independent Pile was the "most famous" of virus-writers and the "most dangerous" of a small band of them working in England. The Independent exaggerated when adding further that Pile's viruses, called SMEG.Queeg and SMEG.Pathogen, were "the two most sophisticated ever written." This was probably surprising news even to the anti-virus software developers interviewed for the Black Baron stories. Indeed, Alan Solomon's "Virus Encyclopedia," a compilation of technical notes on computer viruses gives them a page a piece, neither much more nor less than the hundreds of other entries in the book. Pile's viruses, however, had reached "criminal elements" working in Northern Ireland, the US, and Germany, according to the Independent. The demonization and denunciation of Pile was unusually harsh in light of the fact that prosecution witness Jim Bates commented to Crypt Newsletter that UK authorities were uninterested in sending officials overseas to collect evidence on the SMEG viruses in the United States because a guilty verdict had been arrived at by mid-1995. Bates was the prosecution's point man in the case against Pile. He was, perhaps, the most experienced for the job, having played a starring role in another famous U.K. computer crime case - the prosecution of Joe Popp for the AIDS Information diskette extortion scheme - in 1991. In late 1989, Jim Bates was among the first to examine software called the AIDS Information Trojan. The AIDS Info Trojan, as it became known, was used as part of a computer blackmail attempt launched by Popp, an erratic scientist living in Cleveland, Ohio. Popp had concocted a scheme to extort money from PC users in Europe. It involved the programming of a software booby-trap that masqueraded as a database containing information on AIDS and how to assess an individual's risk of contracting the disease. The database, as one might expect, was trivial and contained only the barest information on AIDS. However, when an unwitting user installed the software, the AIDS Information Trojan created hidden directories and files on the computer while hiding a counter in one of the system's start-up files. Once the count reached 90, Popp's creation would encrypt the directory entries, alter the names of files with the intent of making them inaccessible and present the operator with a message to send approximately $200 to a postal drop in Panama City for a cure reversing the effects of the program. The AIDS Information Trojan came with a vaguely menacing warning not to install the software if one didn't intend to pay for it at once. Popp mailed 20,000 sets of the trojan on disk to users in Europe, apparently subscribers to a now defunct magazine called PC Business World. The plan quickly fizzled but Bates was among the first to analyze Popp's A on it to English authorities. The disks were eventually traced back to Popp and New Scotland Yard began a lengthy process of extraditing him to England to stand trial for computer blackmail in connection with the disks, a battle which took almost another two years. Bates was flown to Cleveland during this time to present evidence in court which persuaded American authorities to hand over Popp for extradition to London. Bates also analyzed Popp's original AIDS Information Trojan software, source code and a program which was evidently intended to reverse the effects of the logic bomb, thus regenerating a victim's data. However, instead of going smoothly, the Popp trial became a source of controversy. It was claimed the Cleveland man was unfit to stand trial because he began wearing a cardboard box over his head, making it impossible to determine whether he was legitimately non compos mentis or merely shamming. As a result, Bates said to Crypt, Popp was declared a "public disgrace" by the court and ejected from the country. In England, this is an unusual classification which, apparently, allows the case to remain open, the purpose being - on this occasion, according to Bates - to discourage by intimidation the authoring of books or a publicity tour of talk shows in the United States by the defendant. At the time, it was difficult to tell if Bates was being serious or facetious. Chris Pile, unlike Joe Popp, appeared not to be flat crazy. Plus, his computer viruses worked too well. It didn't take much work to scare the uninformed with them. And Pile's legal defense team was unable to muster the kind of sophisticated defense necessary to mitigate Jim Bates' expertise. For Pile's prosecution, Bates furnished collection and evaluation of evidence relating to the spread of the Pile/SMEG viruses and damages attributed to them. Pile, said Bates, had attached a SMEG virus to a computer game and uploaded it to a bulletin board system in the United Kingdom. The virus writer had also targeted the Dutch-made Thunderbyte anti-virus software, initially by infecting one of the company's anti-virus programs distributed via the shareware route. After examining software and source code for Pile's computer virus encryption engine, named the SMEG, Bates also maintained Pile had invested a great deal of time in fine-tuning subsequent editions of it so it specifically generated computer virus samples opaque to the Thunderbyte anti-virus scanning software. Although there has been little unusual about this habit of virus writers since 1993, it surely must have seemed remarkable techno-magic to the English Crown Court. The judge treated it so. "I dare say you were looking forward to reading in the computer press about the exploits of the Black Baron," said judge Jeremy Griggs to the defendant. "Those who seek to wreak mindless havoc on one of the vital tools of our age cannot expect lenient treatment," he thundered before sending Pile over for eighteen months. In the wake of Pile's sentencing, English newspapers continually exaggerated the virus-writer as an international menace. The Times of London echoed The Independent's hyperbole, maintaining Pile had written a "training manual" for virus-writers found "in America and Northern Ireland where it was being used by criminals." Ali Rafati, as part of Pile's legal defense, said his client was a "sad recluse." The real Pile is difficult to describe in any detail even though an excessively overwrought and lugubrious "Biography of a virus-writer" was written about him by a cyber acquaintance and circulated widely in the computer virus underground in 1994, just before he was arrested by New Scotland Yard. As bombastic as anything written by The Independent, Black Baron's biography begins: "In 1969 Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon. It was a momentous year for the world. But no-one [sic] at the time paid much attention to a baby boy being born in a town in southern England. This baby boy was destined to grow into one of the most infamous computer virus writers of all time. In 1969 The Black Baron was born!" Curiously, almost 80 percent of the Black Baron's "biography" is a reprint of material written by Ross M. Greenberg, a semi-retired programmer who wrote the Flu_Shot and VirexPC sets of anti-virus software. The reprint dates from 1988 and contains standard anti-virus rant and rave, calling virus-writers "worms." One supposes it could be called mildly irritating by the thin-skinned. In any case, if the Black Baron's biography is taken at face value, Greenberg's anti-virus-writer spiel was the seed that formed the basis of Pile's desire to write viruses as a means toward impressing people. Black Baron's biography reads (errors reprinted), ". . . when computers stop attracting social inadequates, but whom I am refering to the arrogant members of the anti-virus lobby as well as the nefarious virus authors. But what of the Black Baron? What is he? Is he a malicious criminal? A computer terrorist? A social inadequate trying to reassure himself of his own inadequacies through destroying computer data? I don't [believe] so. I have spoken to Black Baron on a number of occassions. He is happy to discuss his work, and, at my request, he has even released a document detailing the design of SMEG. He doesn't feed on the panic and fear that SMEG viruses such as Pathogen and Queeg cause. Rather he revels in the embarrasement and panic which his software causes the arrogant anti-virus writers." At the time, Pile was unemployed. The "biography" concludes: "After talking with him, I understand the Black Baron. I feel sorry for him as well. He is a highly gifted individual who has not been given a chance by computer society. So he has made his own chance. We all need recognition. Mainly through employment, but we as thinking machines must receive recognition for our abilities. Otherwise we sink into melancholy and paranoida. Black Baron has received his recognition. We, the computer society are responsible for the creation of Pathogen, Queeg, SMEG and all the other computer viruses. We have no one to blame but ourselves. It is our desire to keep the computer fraternity a closed club which has alienated so many of our colleagues. By rubbing their noses in it, so to speak, we have begged for trouble, and like the inhabitants of Troy, we have received it." English newspapers reported Pile had confessed to police he had written the viruses to "increase his self-esteem" and because England appeared not to have produced any virus writers capable of programming samples capable of spreading in the real world. The legal offices of Rafferty and Woodmansea, Pile's legal team were contacted repeatedly by Crypt Newsletter but could not be reached for opinion. Surprisingly, a secretary on the end of the phone claimed they lacked e-mail addresses. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 21:20:41 -0500 From: IPS@OLYMPUS.NET(Steve O'Keefe) Subject: File 4--(Fwd) RE: White House Not Decent Sent-- Sunday, February 25, 1996 9:43 AM To-- (Reprinted without permission from the Seattle Times Personal Technology section) White House Site Blocked Add the White House to the Internet's extensive list of dens of sin. Surfwatch, a widely used software program that prevents access to, and downloading of, sexually explicit material on the Internet, accidently blocked access to the White House home page recently - all because a "White House for Kids" Web site address contained the word "couples." That's a dirty word in the Surfwatch universe because many sexually explicit online sites use it as part of their come-on. In this case, "couples" merely referred to the Executive Branch tandems of President and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore. Surfwatch fixed the problem within hours, although some might still find the site offensive. For political reasons, that is. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 07:47:54 -0800 (PST) From: beust@SOPHIA.ILOG.FR(Cedric Beust) Subject: File 5--Response to "French Book Banning" Declan McCullagh writes : (I'm already hosting a book banned by the French government: : Ok this is it. I have tried my best to resist the urge to reply, but this new mention is one too many. I can't let any more misinformation spread like this. First of all, I have nothing against you. Declan, and I respect the cause you *think* you are defending, but I will try to show that you have gone too far in this quest, and that you lost the minimum sense of "esprit critique" under the so-called motivation of defending free speech. Le Grand Secret is *not* a "book banned by the French government". It is a book banned by Francois Miterrand's family, on their request (and that of their lawyer's, who also has many good reasons to see this book withdrawn from the shelves as I will make clear below). The book hasn't been censored because of so-called sensitive material contained in it, but on the sole criterion that it relates private details of Mr. Mitterrand and relatives. This is a simple breach of privacy affair, not an attempt to hide away information from the public by some government cabal (remember, there is no cabal, and this applies to real life too :-)). If you had the curiosity to have the book read by a French speaking person, they would have let you know very quickly that this book contains *nothing* sensational. You can read here and there a few clear abuses of privileges (implying the lawyer I mentioned above, thus his haste to have the court censor it), but nothing unsuspected (you do expect the relatives of the president of a nation to have some privileges, don't you ? I am not saying this is normal, but just that it can be expected, and is no secret). Now, let me try to explain why you shouldn't be hosting this book. In France (just like in the United States and more and more countries), the government is trying to have a stake at -- somehow -- introducing regulations in the Internet. France might have its own CDA very soon. This kind of very unfortunate affair (*) is exactly what the government is expecting to justify a quick intervention and the creation of hasty measures to stop this den of pirates that dwell in the Internet. For you are a pirate, Declan, because you are violating the copyright law that applies to this book (the United States signed the Berne agreement regarding copyright and intellectual property). Are you aware of this ? Are you aware that what you are doing is exactly the same as hosting a pirate copy of, say, Microsoft NT, on your web page and say to all "come and download it" ? Don't you have the impression that by trying to defend the free speech on the Internet, you are doing exactly the opposite ? It's curious to see that as soon as the mere consideration of free speech comes into play, all actors (you first, this might apply to the EFF as well) suddenly lose all sense of criticism and are more hasty to wave blindly the banner of free speech than initiate a more thorough enquiry in order to make sure what this is all about. Please, Declan, don't think I am bashing your overall work. I am just trying to say you should be more careful when exercising your right to fight censorship and promote free speech. Regards, Cedric BEUST (*) (I remind the CUDers that it all started when a French cybercafe decided to put the book online right after it was withdrawn from the stores. I can elaborate and give more precise details on how and why the bartender was arrested afterwards in case this is of interest) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 03:23:52 -0600 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 6--NIU President Responds to Telecommunications Bill NIU RESPONDS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL President John E. La Tourette February 16, 1996 Since passage earlier this month of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, colleges and universities across the country have been struggling to understand the potential implications of the bill's so-called "indecency" provisions as they relate to faculty, staff and student use of the Internet. As you may know, a federal judge in Philadelphia recently granted a temporary restraining order that prohibits the U.S. Justice Department from enforcing the indecency provisions; however even that decision left supporters and opponents confused. Clearly, this issue will not be definitively resolved anytime soon, and we recognize the need to address campus concerns in the interim. In consultation with NIU legal counsel and policy experts at the American Council on Education and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, I offer the following thoughts. At the heart of the controversy are provisions which prohibit Internet users from sending "indecent" material to minors or from making such material available in any way that could be accessible to children. Critics have also charged that a little-noticed provision in the indecency section of the legislation would ban all discussion of abortion on computer networks. (On this point, President Clinton has clearly stated that the Justice Department will not enforce a provision that is clearly in violation of the First Amendment.) Two basic issues define this controversy: the definition of indecency, and institutional and individual liability. As these are issues of infinite complexity, no official or organization has yet issued a definitive interpretation of the legal issues involved. The American Council on Education, the American Library Association and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities are working in Washington to craft technical amendments to the Telecommunications Bill that would resolve many of the issues that concern their member institutions. Additionally, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill (SB1567) on February 9 which would strip out the indecency provisions altogether. Controversy surrounding use of the Internet clearly identifies a mismatch between the speed of technological advancement and our nation's ability to thoughtfully deal with ensuing constitutional questions. Further, the legal questions with which we are faced go far beyond issues of alleged "indecency." For example, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) recently urged its members to adopt a "code of ethics" for students using the Internet, and suggests that students be required to agree to follow the code before being given e-mail addresses. AASCU's recommendation follows an incident at the University of Maryland in which a student posted unsubstantiated hearsay on the Internet about a local woman whom he said had been abusing her high school-aged daughter. The student listed the woman's phone number on this world-wide post, and she subsequently received numerous harrassing calls. AASCU's most recent posting on this subject suggests that colleges, universities and other providers of Internet access could be held harmless for indecent or harrassing posts by students if the network manager can show that the institution has taken good faith, reasonable, effective and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access to minors to (indecent) communications. It remains unclear, however, how an institution could prove "good faith" in an environment where students have access to many campus computer servers, and where millions of e-mail and other Internet communications by students and faculty are sent daily. AASCU officials also note that the Justice Department will likely develop guidelines for owners and operators of computer servers on what "reasonable and appropriate" measures they can take to avoid transmission or display of indecent content to minors. AASCU plans to further discuss the implications of the Communications Decency Act at a meeting next month of campus governmental relations and communications representatives; NIU will be represented at that meeting. In the meantime, Northern Illinois University will continue to foster and protect academic freedom in teaching, research and creative artistry as strongly as ever. That this will continue is unmistakably guaranteed by the governance standards of the Board of Trustees and the University Constitution. The University has not changed any policy or any operation as a result of this law being passed -- there is still access to the Internet, home pages and the other uses which have been provided to our academic community. Moreover, it is unlikely that reasonable and responsible use of this communications tool will result in adverse consequences for individual members of the university community. University employees are financially protected in the responsible performance of their duties through the newly strengthened Indemnification Policy in our new Board's bylaws. At the same time, we take very seriously any real or potential threats to academic freedom, and will continue to closely monitor developments in this case. Although there are many unanswered questions that we could discuss internally, it is more appropriate for faculty and staff concerns to be communicated to our elected officials in Washington. A list of their names and addresses, including e-mail addresses, is attached. The telecommunications act was several years in the making, received extensive bipartisan support, and was intended to liberate technology and make it work more effectively for all citizens. Unfortunately, as often happens in our legislative process, some unintended provisions made their way into what is otherwise a positive set of reforms. We all have an interest in seeing the goals of the original legislation realized. At the same time, we are appropriately concerned about the imposition of vague, "community-based" decency standards on the normal, scholarly activities of this or any institution of higher learning. _________________________________________________________________ Illinois Senators Carol Moseley-Braun SH-320 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1301 202/224-2854 E-Mail: Paul Simon SD-462 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1302 202/224-2152 E-Mail: _________________________________________________________________ U.S. Representatives from Northern Illinois Districts Philip M. Crane 233 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-1308 202/225-3711 J. Dennis Hastert 2453 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-1314 202/225-2976 FAX: 202/225-0697 E-Mail: Donald Manzullo 426 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-1316 202/225-5676 _________________________________________________________________ President John E. La Tourette February 16, 1996 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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 #8.18 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank