CuD WWW additions and a one- week break, SB 314 - _
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
From <@uga.cc.uga.edu:owner-cudigest@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU> Thu May 4 03:46:39 1995
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id DAA12219; Thu, 4 May 1995 03:45:45 -0700
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 0123; Thu, 04 May 95 06:42:32 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BS id 7886; Thu, 4 May 1995 02:34:46 -0400
Received: from UIUCVMD.BITNET by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8a) with
NJE id 1131 for CUDIGEST@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU; Thu,
4 May 1995 00:55:05 -0500
Received: from UIUCVMD (NJE origin SMTP@UIUCVMD) by VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4267; Thu, 4 May 1995 00:55:03 -0500
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Thu, 04 May 95 00:55:00 CDT
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1) with
BSMTP id 0785; Thu, 04 May 95 00:52:49 LCL
Date: Thu, 04 May 95 00:52 CDT
From: Cu Digest (email@example.com) <TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: Cu Digest, #7.35
Computer underground Digest Wed May 3, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 35
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Emo X-editor: Judy Tenuta
CONTENTS, #7.35 (Wed, May 3, 1995)
File 1--CuD WWW additions and a one-week break
File 2--SB 314 -- _The_Criminalization_of_Free_Speech
File 3--SotMESC Announcement
File 4--CFP - Advanced Surveillance
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 22:32:21 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: File 1--CuD WWW additions and a one-week break
A few additional 'Zines have been added to the CuD www site.
Phracks (thru #46) and Crypt Newsletter are now available,
as well as a few additional pointers to other cyber-related
The CuD URL IS:
CuD will likely not come out for another week to ten days.
For some unknown reason, I assigned 10 page term papers to
a class of 300 students, and will be spending the next week or
so grading, giving exams, and dealing with the end of the
term. But, keep the articles comin, and #735 should be out
on either May 10 or 14.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 18:59:40 GMT
From: kurz4768@ELAN.ROWAN.EDU(BRIAN KURZYNOWSKI)
Subject: File 2--SB 314 -- _The_Criminalization_of_Free_Speech
I. The provisions set forth in S.314 that will become law if passed.
A. "Sexually explicit material" is no longer allowed to be
transmitted from telecommunications devices, and
doing so is punishable by law.
B. Harassment over telecommunications media is illegal, and
punishable by law.
C. Telecommunications service providers whose customers violate the
law will also be held responsible.
D. Violators of this law will be punished with
1. up to two years in prison.
2. up to $100,000 in fines.
II. Senator Exon, the creator of the legistation, gives the purpose
in his introduction speech, and in his editorial.
III.There are problems with S.314.
A. There are legal problems.
1. Anything that violated the Constitution of the United
States is unconstitutional.
a. S.314 violates the First Amendment.
b. S.314 violates the Fourth Amendment.
c. S.314 is unconstitutional.
2. There are legal questions that have yet to be answered by
B. There are practical problems with S.314.
1. The Internet is too big to impose laws on because it is
2. Service providers would be forced to screen messages for
sexual content before they are sent, and such a huge
amount of information is sent through the National
Information Infrastructure daily that checking every bit of
data is all but impossible.
IV. The possible effects of passing S.314 are negative.
A. The violation of any constitutional guarantee weakens the
B. There would be a decline in the popularity of the Internet.
C. The free-speech and democracy represented by the Internet would
come to a halt.
D. It would put a damper on the economy.
V. There are possible alternatives to S.314
A. The monitoring of public forums as opposed to invading privacy.
B. Narrowing down sexually explicit material to something like
C. Removing the threat of prosecution from service providers, and
limiting it to violators.
D. The investigation of technology for parents to restrict their
children's Internet access,
thereby leaving the decision of what is fit for minors up to the
parent's, and not up to the
E. Let the citizens of the Internet take care of themselves, and
decide what is fit and what is not.
Thesis: S.314 has legal problem, practical problems, and
poses some negative all around effects, and therefore should not be
passed into law.
The Communications Decency Act of 1995, aka The Cyberspace Bill,
aka S.314 is a bill recently introduced to the Congress of The United
States. It is intended to curb sexually explicit
materials being sent from one place to another electronically, or
through telecommunications media. This includes such forms of
communication as telephone systems, computer "nets," and
even private electronic mail systems. However, the provisions set
forth in S.314 pose problems. S.314 is unconstitutional, impractical,
and has some possible negative side effects, and therefore
should not be allowed to pass into law.
S.314 is not a law onto itself. It edits currently standing
legislature, particularly the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.),
even more particularly, section 223. After the current
law is edited, the provisions are the following. Any communications
that are "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" are
prohibited from being transferred over any telecommunications device.
Any communications which are intended to harass, threaten, or
annoy are prohibited as well. Anybody who transmits over a
telecommunications device any of the prohibited material above shall
be fined up to $100,000, or spend up to two years in prison.
Whoever "permits any telecommunications faculty under their control
to be used for any purpose prohibited in this section (223) shall be
fined" up to $100,000, or spend up to two years in
prison (47 U.S.C. 223 (a)).
These are the basic provisions set up S.314. Before the
problems with the legislation are discussed, let us look at the
purpose of the bill. Senator Exon, the creator of the bill, states
his purpose in several places. In his introduction speech, according
to Pfohl, Exon states "I want to keep the Information Superhighway
from resembling a red-light district (1)." Exon also
wrote an editorial to the Washington Post explaining himself and his
legislature. He says that the Communications Decency act "modernizes"
current laws against harassment, indecency, and obscenity for computer
users. He says that S.314 is intended to make the Internet safer for
all users. According to Exon, The Communications Decency Act offers
the same protection to computer users that has been offered to
telephone users for years. It is supposed to curb the fear,
harm and annoyance associated with the obscene computer message. He
ends the article with a question. Should we give up, let Americans be
subjected to pornography and smut on the Internet, and blame it on
the First Amendment (A 20)? While his intentions are noble, what
he's doing is reducing all of the information on the Internet to
information suitable for children. There are many problems with his
The first problem with S.314 is the most obvious. It has to do
with whether or not the bill is even legal. The Constitution of the
United States is the backbone of our legal structure. If a law
goes against the Constitution, it is unconstitutional, and is
therefore invalid. S.314 violates at least two of the Constitutional
Amendments. According to Crowley, "Civil rights groups say
legislation would create enormous new intrusion of privacy and free
speech (A1)." The amendments that deal with these rights are the
First and Fourth Amendments.
The First Amendment states the "Congress shall make no law . .
. abridging the freedom of speech . . .." And, it is a
Constitutional requirement that any free-speech censorship be as
unrestrictive as possible ("On-line Censorship" 2). Exon's
amendment clearly places limits on free-speech. Also, it is very
broad in that it bars the use of any sexually explicit language.
This law forbids too much free speech to be considered even close to
legal. It is definitely not as unrestrictive as possible, and it
violates the First Amendment.
Holding service providers responsible for the actions of their
customers also violates the Constitution. Holding them responsible
would force service providers to screen all messages
before they were sent. This would be to protect themselves against
prosecution. Forcing them to do this violates the Fourth Amendment,
which is "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures . . .." The Fourth is our guarantee to the right of
privacy, which S.314 clearly goes against. Forcing service
providers may, in fact, violate the Eighth Amendment, which is that
no excessive bail or fines be imposed, or cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted. Isn't it excessive to fine someone for a
crime they didn't commit, or even know about? I feel that this would
be an unusual punishment.
There aren't only legal problems with S.314, but there are
practical problems with the bill as well. One problem is that our
government is trying to put restrictions on an information
infrastructure that doesn't only exist in the United States, but is
global. To an internet user, it is not hard to set up an internet
account overseas, where pornography is legal, fill it with sexually
explicit and obscene materials, and leave it open to the public.
Because of today's technology, this is a piece of cake. It isn't
practical to have a law that can be circumnavigated without
blinking an eye.
Another practical problem is the sheer volume of messages sent
through the Internet daily. According to Seiger, service providers
would have to closely look at every private communication, E-mail
message, public forum post, mailing list document, and file archive
carried by its network (1). On Prodigy, just one of at least a
dozen commercial service providers, approximately 75,000 messages are
transmitted daily (Yang 71). The number of transmitions in the
Unites States daily is so high that nobody even wants to speculate on
the number. Just who is going to do all of this reading of messages?
It's just not practical to censor 75,000 multiplied by 12 messages
every day. And that is only commercial access providers.
There are many private service providers as well. According to
Seiger, bulletin board services account for one-third of all netizens
(internet citizens) (2). File archives in the United Stated
contain billions of files, all of which would have to be gone
through, piece by piece, to eliminate any prohibited material. The
amount of information available on, and sent through the National
Information Infrastructure is too enormous to be controlled.
In addition to legal problems, S.314 could create some other
negative results. The first problem that could be created is, in
fact, because of the legal problems that are present. If this
bill is allowed into law, although it completely violates two
amendments and may violate a third, it would weaken the Constitution.
Each time the Constitution is violated, it is easier and easier to
violate it again. That is a bad thing. The Constitution is the main
piece of paper that upholds our legal system. The rights granted to
us in the Constitution are ours as Americans, and should be
protected to the fullest. The Constitution is for the people, and
the government is by the people, and therefore, the people should get
the rights guaranteed them. Our rights are precious, and
nobody has the right to take them away.
According to a poll I took of Internet users, there would also
be a decline in the popularity on the Internet. I put out a poll, and
the results showed that 76% of people in various Usenet News
discussion groups said that if S.314 is passed, they would either use
the Internet less, or stop using it altogether. Further, 42 out of
the 60 bulletin board operators and system operators that responded
to the on-line questionaire said that they would have to severely
restrict their internet access, or cut it out completely. That is a
big cut in the population of the Internet.
Because of such a decline in Internet popularity, A variety of
other problems are possible. The free-speech and democracy
represented in the Internet would come to a halt. One of the
features that makes the Internet so popular is that it puts people
around the world in touch. One example of how the Internet was used
in democracy is a nationwide protest against the bill. Through
discussion groups and E-mail, organizers of the protest
reached students on over 100 campuses. Because of the speed and ease
with which the protest was started, and because of the
"broad coalitions of student groups" reached, are evidence,
organizers say, of how the Internet has changed communication and
democracy. Without the number of people currently on the
Internet, (which would drop) this type of speed isn't possible
(Herszenhorn A 29).
Another example of the democracy available on the Internet is
the petition against S.314 that can be signed through electronic mail.
If this bill is passed, the Internet as we know it would not
be the same. The Internet, as it stands now is a powerful democratic
force, and most of the people who use it do not want to see it change.
One other possible change that would be brought about by S.314
is negative on the economy. All of the people that use the Internet
pay for the service. Wether they pay for it in tuition, pay
per hour, or pay a once a month fee, they pay. It would make sense
that if fewer people are on the Internet, there would be less spending
on the Internet, and the less money people spend, the worse it is for
the economy. With such a decrease in the popularity of the
Internet (a major advertising strategies of computer vendors), there
would also be less spending on computers and high-tech equipment.
Thirty-eight percent of all economic growth in the U.S. since 1990 has
been due to business and consumer spending on high-tech equipment
(Mandel 22). While there are no estimates on how badly the economy
would be affected by the passing of the bill, clearly the effects
would be negative.
There are, however possible alternatives to S.314. The
government could re-draft the bill, which they are considering, to fit
within First and Fourth Amendment guidelines. To do this, the
speech regulated would have to be significantly narrowed. For
example, child pornography and such materials that are currently
illegal to sell and possess in the U.S. would be prohibited. To fit
within Fourth Amendment rights, only public forums such as the Usenet
Newsgroups would be monitored for illegal materials. The Fourth
Amendment would have to be protected, and public forums are fair game
to prosecutors. Another piece that would need to be taken care of is
the provision that calls for the prosecution of service providers.
You can't hold one person responsible for the actions of another.
Another alternative to the bill would be to drop it altogether.
Then the government could invest in technology that would let parents
control what kind of material is available to their children.
Electronic lockout devices would be feasible for this type
One other possible alternative would be to let the Internet
Users, being that the Internet is worldwide, govern themselves. It is
working so-far. I have seen at least 25 people already turn
in fellow Internet users for hate-mail and child pornography.
Internet users do not want to see the Information Superhighway turned
into a red-light district, just as much as Exon doesn't want to see
it. Let us set the standards for what is suitable for our net.
With all of the problems related to S.314, it would not be a
good idea for it to become law. The bill's language is too
restrictive, and the language restricted is too broad. It isn't
practical to regulate a world wide computer net, and the sheer volume
of notes transmitted daily in the U.S. makes it ridiculous to control.
Furthermore, the provisions of S.314 are not in accordance with
the Constitution. And to top off all of that, there are some very
possible, and very real, negative side effects that could come from
the passing of S.314. While the bill is intended to protect
children and adults from being harassed and being offended, there
must be another way to do it. Evidently S.314 is not the route to
clean up the Information Superhighway.
Bruce, James and Richard Pfhol. "Analysis-S.314, The Communications
Decency Act of 1995." INTERNET. Electronic Messaging Association.
Crowley, Stephen. "Senate Panel Backs Smut Ban on Internet."
_The_New_York_Times_. 24 March, 1995. A1+.
Exon, James. "We Can't Allow Smut on the Internet." Editorial.
_The_Washington_Post_. 9 March, 1995. A20.
"Fight Online Censorship." _ACLU_CyberLiberties_Alert_. INTERNET.
ACLU Information. 2/23/95.
Herszenhorn, David. "Students Turn to Internet for Nationwide
Protest Planning." _The_New_York_Times_. 29 March, 1995. A29.
Mandel, Michael. "The Digital Juggernaut." _BusinessWeek_. The
Information Revolution. 22+.
Seiger, John. "Senator Exon Introduces Online Indecency
Legislation." _CDT_Policy_Post. INTERNET. News: alt.talk.EFF.
United States Congress. "Communications Act of 1934." U.S.C. 223.
Washington, DC: GOP, 1934.
United Stated Congress. Senate. "Communications Decency Act of
1995." 104th Congress. S.314 Washington, DC: GOP, 1995.
_United_States_Constitution_. Amendment One.
_United_States_Constitution_. Amendment Four.
_United_States_Constitution_. Amendment Eight.
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 18:56:47 -0500
From: Robert E. Jones <email@example.com>
Subject: File 3--SotMESC Announcement
P.O. Box 573
Long Beach, Ms 39560
Founded in 1989, this organization is dedicated to preserving the
integrity and cohesion of the computing society. By promoting computer
education, liberties and efficiency, we believe we can secure freedoms
for all computer users while retaining privacy.
Every month more services, networks, countries and facilities are integrated
into the world-wide networks than ever before. The demand is increasing.
Future network implementations and schemes need to be formulated and put
into place to meet this demand so that everyone can be online throughout
the world. Let us be united together in information and communication.
Join Today !!!
Student/Military: $20+ Citizens: $40+ Corporations: $1,000+
Overseas: add $10
All memberships will receive the SotMESC Newsletter to keep informed.
Providing scholarships to promote educated users.
Keeping members informed via the newsletter on events.
Providing Legal commentary to those members with such needs.
Working towards being able to provide a machine to members to gain
-accounts on and Internet services.
Attending conventions and providing reports to the members
-of the SotMESC via the newsletter.
Attending debates to dispute computer roles and cultures.
Providing and conducting panels and debates at conventions.
Recycling used computers and reintroducing them to a societies' needs.
The SotMESC NewsLetter :::
A most informative array of articles and notices. Convention topics
and dates, along with ongoing activities. Computer news on the Network
community. Advice on preventing Government intervention and infiltration.
Networking information and sites. BBS prospects. Monthly mailings.
Internet applications and sites to utilize, free programs listed.
A -MUST- for anyone with a Modem !!! Etc . . .
The SotMESC is a network/bbs/computer affectionado group of people that
wish to protect their services they freely enjoy. This involves goals along
the line of keeping the Internet open to the public and encouraging a wide range
of applications for it, promoting BBS services, protecting privacy, watching
the government and private business to ensure no foul-play, and the like.
Our scholaraship is open to those with interests in the computer
realm to get a chance to broaden their horizons and get an opportunity to
apply themselves by going to college. We are promoting this to the users
in the hacker community who do not get such a chance as often as their
intelligence would dispute.
Our notable members include: Pentagon personnel, Hacker convention
organizers, Members of various hacker organizations, Security consultants,
International representatives and others associated with these fields,
Commercial owners, legal representatives, and site Administrators.
I hope this helps explain some things we do . . And what we are.
P.O. Box 573
Long Beach, Ms 39560
Anyone on the networks, bulletin boards or familiar with the issues
of the computer realm can now get more information in an up-to-date
format by joining the SotMESC. Our newsletters come out on a monthly
basis and feature articles about current computer legislation, conventions,
Internet sites and information, bulletin board numbers of value, and
details of the activities we are conducting to promote computer usage
over the lines, networks and courts.
Getting this newsletter is conditional to joining the SotMESC in
helping us provide programs and funding for projects to secure computer
usage and education. These projects include our scholarship fund,
computer relocation program for discarded systems, counseling, promoting
responsible laws for computer usage, and associated activities.
To get this information, and your membership in the SotMESC,
send your contributions to the address above.
Students - $20 Citizen - $40 Corporate - $1,000
If you are interested in keeping up with what is happening on the
Internet, and the multitudes of networks incorporated, you need to join
the SotMESC. Our newsletter is packed with information on a monthly
basis full of FTP Sites, Gopher information, Telnet access, mosaic, other
services and applications, and many events occurring.
This service is a virtual history of who is doing what when and where.
Never be lost again on finding applications, programs or help. And the best
part is, a portion of all proceeds put into our organization goes back into
the Internet. We have hosted conferences at conventions, on networks and
in work groups. For students, we have initiated a scholarship program to
promote the literacy of network cooperation. And as we grow, we hope that
one day we can provide a free server on the Internet to all members to
utilize to its fullest extent.
As the Internet grows, grow with it. Subscribe today.
P.O. Box 573
Long Beach, Ms 39560
F R E E D O M P R I V A C Y
We oppose the Clipper Chip and secret encryption techniques.
We believe in Freedom on the networks for public access.
We believe in Privacy for every individual on the networks.
We oppose the restriction of information on the networks.
We approve of the advancement of technology and intelligence.
We strive for a higher education for all via the networks.
We work to integrate the world in cooperation on the networks.
--Distribute to those that wish to know more about the Internet--
The SotMESC scholarship fund is to advance those that wish to
learn more about the computer sciences, their applications and
The qualifications are for the person desiring such a scholarship
to print a 15-20 page report in APA 4.0 detail an aspect of
All entries will be judged and measured by the SotMESC Scholarship
committee. Those that are accepted will be summarily reviewed by a
second group from the SotMESC and those that are deemed of quality will
receive scholarships based on their weighted averages.
This scholarship is open to anyone. All submissions will become
the property of the SotMESC. All authors will be recognized for their
submissions. Any and all references should be cited.
This fund is open and applicable to all accredited colleges and universities.
The amount of the scholarship and terms will vary accordingly.
P.O. Box 573
Long Beach, Ms 39560
-- Distribute this document freely as you see fit --
Date: 29 Apr 1995 13:22:30 -0400
From: "Dave Banisar" <banisar@EPIC.ORG>
Subject: File 4--CFP - Advanced Surveillance
CALL FOR PAPERS
Advanced Surveillance Technologies
Privacy International, and
Electronic Privacy Information Center
4 September 1995
Over the past decade, fundamental changes have taken place in the
nature and the environment of surveillance. New information systems
offer an unprecedented ability to identify, monitor and track a
virtually limitless number of individuals. Some leading-edge
technologies are likely to revolutionize the practice of
surveillance. The factors of cost, scale, size, location and
distance have, in many instances, become largely irrelevant.
The impact of political and economic change throughout the world has
also created unforeseen dimensions to surveillance. The evolution of
a Global Information Infrastructure will have a profound impact on
the scope of potential surveillance of individuals. The end of the
cold war and the privatization of public sector activities has
magnified the impact of change. The merging of technologies has also
created new opportunities for wide-scale surveillance.
The nature of surveillance has changed to the extent that modern
information systems involve a pre-requisite of general surveillance
of populations. The pursuit of perfect identity has created a rush
to develop systems which create an intimacy between people and
technology. Advanced biometric identification and sophisticated ID
card systems combine with geographic tracking to create the
potential to pinpoint the location of any individual. The use of
distributed databases and data matching programs makes such tracking
economically feasible on a large scale.
Extraordinary advances have recently been made in the field of
visual surveillance. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems can
digitally scan, record, reconfigure and identify human faces, even
in very poor light conditions. Remote sensing through advanced
satellite systems can combine with ground databases and
geodemographic systems to create mass surveillance of human
The globalization of information systems will take information once
and for all away from the protection and jurisdiction of national
boundaries. The development of data havens and rogue data states is
allowing highly sensitive personal information to be processed
outside any legal protection.
At a more intimate level, research is underway in more than a dozen
countries with the aim of implanting microchip technology directly
into the human brain. US and European medical institutes have
already conducted many such operations. The creation of a direct
link between the human brain and computer technology is at an
advanced stage. Such procedures are initially aimed at stimulating
dead senses and paralyzed limbs. Within two decades, it is possible
that such implants will be at a sufficiently advanced stage to
enable complex interaction between the brain and external
The science of nanotechnology, which involves the re-configuration
of individual atoms and molecules, will present the potential for
virtually undetectable covert surveillance.
These and other developments are changing the nature and meaning of
surveillance. Law has scarcely had time to address even the most
visible of these changes. Public policy lags behind the technology
by many years. The repercussions for privacy and for numerous other
aspects of law and human rights need to be considered sooner rather
This one day conference will present an overview of these
leading-edge technologies, and will assess the impact that they may
have in the immediate future. Experts and analysts will discuss the
nature and application of the new technologies, and the public
policy that should be developed to cope with their use.
The conference theme is unique, and interest in the event has
already been expressed from throughout the world.
The first session will assess new dimensions in current surveillance
technologies. The remainder of the day will be devoted to exploring
technologies which are in the formative stage of development.
Preliminary List of Topics:
o Advanced Satellite Surveillance
o Microchip Implants
o Biometrics and perfect identity
o Advanced Geodemographic Systems
o Data Havens and Rogue Data States
o Information Warfare
The conference will be held in Copenhagen, and is timed to coincide
with the 17th annual international meeting of privacy and data
Number of participants : approximately one hundred
Cost: US $75 - Individuals/non-profit organizations
$175 - Commercial organizations
Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center
are now requesting abstracts for papers. Papers should be directed
at a general audience, and should either present an overview of an
aspect of advanced surveillance technology, or they should discuss
the likely use and impact of the technology.
Abstracts or papers can be emailed to Privacy International at:
Alternatively, they can be sent to :
Privacy International Washington Office
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Web address: http://privacy.org/pi/
gopher/ftp cpsr.org /cpsr/privacy/privacy_international/
David Banisar (Banisar@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org
Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST <your name>
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:email@example.com
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (184.108.40.206) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (220.127.116.11) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (18.104.22.168) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.35