Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 16, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 30 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.30 (Wed, Apr 16, 1997) File 1--Responses to Cokie Roberts' column on the Net and government File 2--Re: CuD, #9.29 - More Responses to Cokie Roberts File 3--Internet, Telephones, and Duct Tape (More on Roberts) File 4--Re: CuD, #9.29, Sun 13 Apr 97, Cokie Roberts, et al. File 5--Brock Meeks vs. Cokie Roberts (fwd) File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 15 Apr, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--Responses to Cokie Roberts' column on the Net and government Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [Hayek has it right -- we shouldn't fetishize democracy. Democracy is at best a means to a freer society, not a guarantee of one. Under the weight of a homogenous majority, a democracy can be more oppressive than a benign dictatorship. Instead, we should pursue liberty as a goal. -Declan] ******************* Date--Fri, 11 Apr 97 20:08:00 DST From--"Halpert, James - DC" This column is remarkably unfair -- at its core an elaborate bait and switch. Petitioning the government over the Net has nothing to do with cyber-stalking or cyberporn -- and is a considerable leap away from electronic town hall referenda. Whatever the merits of instant electronic referenda, giving the public an opportunity to comment on federal agency decisions is what agency rulemaking is supposed to be all about -- only until recently, such organizing efforts have required significant resources. The Net has helped to change that. The logical extension of the Roberts' position is to call for congressional offices to disconnect their telephones so that mass call-in campaigns by the Christian Coalition, AARP and other well-funded, highly disciplined grassroots groups are not heard. Are these troops more reflective than Net users. Hardly (remember the CDA juggernaut). But the Roberts wouldn't dream of closing the doors of power to that sort of campaign. They attack the Net because it is new, scary to them and some of their readers, and therefore an easier target. -- Jim Halpert ******************* Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:47:03 -0400 From--Theodore Baar To--"'declan@well.com'" Declan - regardings Roberts whining diatribe....... I have an interesting point you might consider. The philosophical keystone of the Protestant Reformation rested on the concept that man deals directly with God and did not require a priest to stand between or mediate for him. Likewise we now have an alledgedly "representative" government that, at least according to Ms. Roberts, stands between us and governance to protect us from ourselves and teach us our "place". No doubt she includes herself in this "protector" class as a jo urnalist to help we poor peasants "understand" our appropriate relationship to governance. I suggest she brush up on democracy real soon or start reading books on Oliver Cromwell. Her points on the dangers of direct democracy are of course true with one small caveat, direct involvment is the last hope we have because their is no representative government. I have no representation in Washington. For 30 adult years I've watched the democratic led permanent government, including their journalistic water carriers, represent everyone but the people who really make this country work. Government by special inetre st and whining is not representative government, don't kid yourself. Now the, so to speak, first representative is Bill Clinton. I am quite certain he represents the the embodiment of the permanent government and every belief Cokie & her ilk hold privately dear, otherwise why would the press be so supportive. Based on that I dare say that representative government has failed miserably. If representative government is foiled by nonsense like the last two years of democratic party nonsense and direct government is then blocked (all in our best interests of course) it will then mark the end of our democracy. The remaining moderates (check out the blue dog democrats and Ben Campbell of Colorado) will be forced to extremes to seek redress, thus my reference to Cromwell. What Ms. Roberts, like so many, does not understand is that Gingrich and his people are not the rabid attack dogs of facism they alledge but in fact the last reasonable men. If things get ugly I suspect none of us will like who leads the next wave. Ted Baar ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.omegacom.com Omegacom, Inc. Providence, RI 02906 Boston, Providence (RI), Saco (ME) and St. Croix (USVI) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ****************** Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT) From--Anthony Jankowski To--declan@well.com thanks for sharing the Cokie and Mr. Cokie column! the whole thing is laughable, and I'm sending a note to her via All Things Considered... Cokie and her ilk, i.e. the other talking head pundits, are deathly afraid of the Net, NOT because it's "anti" democratic, but for the very reason that IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE than those that allegedly represent us! I don't know what Internet she's using, but from my travels, I've seen everyone represented on the Net quite well, straight, queer, liberal, con- servative, radical, anarchist, skin-heads, nazi-lovers, black, white, rich, poor, etc.. the Forum is wide open, the very opposite of what goes on in the "halls of Congress". Her and hubby open the column with the standard scare tactic that phoney- baloney moralists use-- the "kids get porn on the Net" ploy... their implication that "parents have no control over what their kids are seeing" is a flat out LIE. there are now dozens of software packages available to parents that want to screen what their kids are seeing. but then they move right into their real concern--- politics, and their ability to make money off of politics. They wax eloquently about what the Founding Fathers wanted in terms of representative government. Please, let's get REAL, here! Did the Founders advocate career politicians? Did the Founders advocate a system where large corporations make campaign contributions, and get tax breaks, tax subsidies (corporate welfare) from the government in return? While the Roberts' comment on stopping the "money chase", we ALL KNOW very well that is NOT going to happen under the status quo! The People have spoken. As author and film maker Michael Moore (Downsize This) pointed out, "less than 50% of the eligible voters voting is an act of civil disobediance!" The People NO LONGER BELIEVE IN THE SYSTEM for good reason. The average person's needs are NOT being met by the current system, and under the Constitution it is our complete right to creat a new system, in fact, it is our civic duty to do so. Now we have a tool at hand which allows for every voice to be heard, the Net. Computers and the Internet were not even conceivable to the Founding Fathers, so naturally it made more sense to advocate a "representative" speaking collectively for the People. But given the proven capabilities of the Net, would they still feel that way, or would they conceive a different system? I agree totally with Ms. Vincent. Important issues should, MUST be put on national referendums. ONLY THEN will everyone have their input taken seriously. The silly notion that "all we have to do is fix the current system and all will be well" is just that: SILLY and laughable. The problems we have now have been building for the last 100 years! Our elected representatives (some of them in office for almost that long) have had every oppportunity to fix the system, and show that it is democratic. THEY HAVE MISERABLY FAILED!!!!! It's time for the corruption to END, plain and simple. The People are finally wising up, and the Net can be thanked for that. Ms. Roberts' will soon be out of a job, and that's what really concerns her... with many more Voices available on the Net, we no longer need the likes of Ms. Roberts, with her self-serving agenda. Like the dinosaurs, there kind is about to become extinct. A centralized, representative system will always be corruptible by monied interests. However, a de-centralized system, with only 85% participation, using the Net as a vote-collecting tool, would totally shift the power back to where it needs to be: The Average Citizen. The lobbyists cannot BRIBE US ALL-- it wouldn't be "cost effective". Anthony Jankowski "A conservative government is a hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli, former Prime Minister of England... will the U.S. ever have a Jewish president? a woman? a Black? an Oriental? Sudden Impact Graphics http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6645 "Who cares for the Heart?" Shri P. Rajagoplachari ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:17:16 -0400 (EDT) From: George J Kamenz Subject: File 2--Re: CuD, #9.29 - More Responses to Cokie Roberts I really felt it necessary to respond, almost as if my words might have a positive impact. The quoted material is in each case attributed, I hope correctly. But first: Kookie Roberts' editorial was laughable. Totally off the mark. Second, sober reflection is a good thing! Take a deep breath and try to calm down! (I suppose that applies to everyone except Declan who usually appears more rational than the rest. ;-) On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Cu Digest is was written: > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:31:21 -0600 > From: Sue Ashdown > Personally my blood runs cold when I think of the representative > democracy Cokie has in mind. Her brother, Tommy Boggs, of the Washington > law firm Patton, Boggs & Blow made quite a name for himself as a lobbyist > arguing strenuously on behalf of erstwhile Guatemalan dictators and death > squad financiers in the 1980's and early 1990's. First, what is to prevent "erstwhile Guatemalan dictators and death squad financiers" from getting email accounts? Second, one lobbyist takes money from sleazes and that weakens Kookie's argument? Hey! Wake up! There *is* porn on the 'net. Pedophiles and murderers *do* use the 'net. Why doesn't that weaken yours? Third, her brother is a lobbyist? Well, what do you know. I suppose that you've never heard the story of Cain and Abel? Ms. Roberts is as responsible for her brother as Seth (the rumored third son) was responsible for Cain. Fourth, your choice of lobbying firm is a *cowardly* ad hominem attack, you pathetic pinhead. > Date--Fri, 11 Apr 97 20:08:00 DST > From--"Halpert, James - DC" > disciplined grassroots groups are not heard. Are these troops more > reflective than Net users. Hardly (remember the CDA juggernaut). First, some sarcasm: And as we all know there are no juggernauts on the 'net. Don't we? Second, I suspect the a fairer view would see the various email virus warnings and "make money fast" spams as being as reflective of 'net users as the CDA is of the "Telecom Reform" thingy *that was passed all at once*, and those who crafted it. > Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:47:03 -0400 > From--Theodore Baar > Likewise we now have an alledgedly "representative" government that, at > least according to Ms. Roberts, stands between us and governance to > protect us from ourselves and teach us our "place". No doubt she includes > herself in this "protector" class as a journalist to help we poor > peasants "understand" our appropriate relationship to governance. Finally something I almost agree with. I used to view (you guys sure the editorial was written by NPR's Cokie Roberts?) NPR and especially the slightly humorous commentators as a source of a more balanced view. That was before they started letting people who know nothing about it comment on the 'net. Then I knew they were. It is good to know what it looks like from the outside. > Date--Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:18:25 -0700 (PDT) > From--Anthony Jankowski > Cokie and her ilk, i.e. the other talking head pundits, are deathly afraid > of the Net, NOT because it's "anti" democratic, but for the very reason that > IT IS DEMOCRATIC AND MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE than those that allegedly > represent us! I don't know who said it, and it has probably been abused quite a bit, but it is said that the masses would vote for free bread and daily circuses. The problem with democracy is that the world is full of idiots, thiefs, and liars. The good guys are greatly outnumbered. Caution is indicated. ------------------------------ Date:Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:26:54 -0400 From: "Webb, Dean" Subject: File 3--Internet, Telephones, and Duct Tape (More on Roberts) This is in regards to the Cokie Robert's article in issue 9.29. When I read her article, I became outraged. How dare she, a privileged member of the journocrats, dare attack a form of communication freer than she ever dreamed imaginable? Normally, journalists are the first to holler when 1st Amendment rights are threatened, as it presents to them what seems to be a slippery slope. Banning porn on the 'net would eventually lead to swastikas on your local rags as they shut down their news bureaus and stick to reporting on flower-arranging parties and our victories overseas, right? That's the way it seemed whenever someone or some group tried to get newspapers to quit carrying ads for topless, nude, or strip clubs, seeing as how they can tempt our children into evil ways. Now, the source of free speech is being gagged by its own bedfellows. To be precise, *attempted* to be gagged, as it certainly is not only alive and well, but at full volume to boot. When I read the responses to the article, I became proud once again to be an American. We still have the freedom not only to express ourselves, for good or for ill, but we also have the ability to voice our dissenting opinions as loudly and as strongly as we choose in as direct a manner to our leaders as we can find. Democracy is not threatened by lively public debate. There will be no mob rule because of the Internet. If anything, our society will break off into niche groups (as it is doing so now), where people of differing interests will find themselves banding together to support a common cause, while still opposing each other on other issues. Such is the stuff of politics, and thus it ever was and thus it ever shall be. I would like Ms. Roberts and others of her ilk to apply their logic evenly or *not at all.* To illustrate this, let us consider the Internet as it compares to our telephone system and why all our telephones need extensive security devices attached to protect the innocent if such devices should apply to the Internet. Telephones allow free access to congresspeople. This access is even more insidious than email. Phone access allows direct voice contact to those in power, which email does not. Should the congressperson choose to disregard either email or telephony, all that need be done is delete the email or ignore the call. The catch is that the phone call ties up much more in the way of communications resources than does the email: it shuts down a precious phone line. Therefore, if emailing our congresspeople en masse would be a bad thing, calling them would be even worse. Congresspeople need to be insulated from those they represent, so their phone numbers should be unpublished and secured by the appropriate agencies. These phone numbers should be made available only to lobbyists and journalists who wish to take advantage of their access, rather than serve as governmental watchdogs. Similar restrictions should apply to their email addresses. Telephones allow access to pornographic materials and other unpleasantries. Our innocent children could dial a 1-800 number at random, using phrases to provide guidance as to what numbers to dial. My own daughter yesterday suggested 1-800-SPANK ME as a possible number for kids who had parents too busy to discipline them properly. I dialed the number just to see if it worked and who would answer. I was neither surprised nor pleased when it turned out to be a phone-sex line. What if my daughter, in her unsuspecting innocence, dialed that number? We have programs to protect us on the Internet, but do I really need to get clearance from a parental approval box on my phone just to dial 1-800-FLOWERS? If Ms. Roberts is right, then the answer is a yes. I would also, according to the logic of Ms. Roberts, need a device to prohibit calling or being called from anyone someone else decided was "kooky" (pun only slightly intended). That would be nice, actually, if I could program it myself, but it would also cut out lots of potentially legitimate callers. What if a blocked number changes hands without my knowledge and gets assigned to a dear friend of mine? What if I block all pay phone numbers and I get stranded one night with only a pay phone to call home? I cannot accept such stringencies on either phone line or Internet line, and neither would Ms. Roberts, if I am permitted to think on her behalf. I think she understands the telephone as well as she needs to and loves it dearly. I think she would scream murder at the thought of someone putting a clamp on her ability to dial out and answer calls as a responsible adult all in the name of curbing the activities of the irresponsible. What can be said for the Internet can be said for practically any media, all the way down to simple grunting. (I certainly don't want any sicko making simple grunts near *my* children!) Let us then, therefore, put duct tape across all our mouths and bind our hands that we might never hurt anyone ever again. Let us also fill our ears with wax and bury ourselves in lead coffins that we might be protected against those who find ways to break their bonds and strip themselves of their muzzles, who would do such things only to create mischief and inflict mayhem, right? Ms. Roberts certainly found an inviting target in the Internet, but the gun she is firing can be used on herself just as easily. I am a responsible parent because I do not delegate my responsiblities as a parent to any other caretaker. I and my wife set the rules in our house, and we enforce them. We spend time with our children teaching them the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. I do not need any government-imposed stumbling blocks to be placed in my path: I can navigate these difficult channels of parenthood on my own, thank you very much. It's obvious that Ms. Roberts detects a threat to those of her ilk from the Internet, but her attacking, rather than embracing, this new media reveals not only her ignorance, but also her fear. Shame on her for using the media to recruit others to her evil, closed-minded, Internet-hating cult! I should have my newspapers filtered so her offensive ideas do not infect the impressionable minds that live in my house... Ms. Roberts represents a shameful part of our society. It is that part that uses government, media, and networks of special interests as a bully pulpit to crusade against anyone else gaining access to it and/or threatening their own grip on it. This part of society is losing its control and it will fight tooth and nail, possibly even down and dirty, to preserve its control. This, too, will pass. The Greeks had a word to describe this sort of person: hubris, one who challenges even the gods. Ms. Roberts would do well to brush up on her Greek, as well as her Latin, for there is the saying, *vox populi, vox dei.* (The voice of the people is the voice of God.) The Internet, more than any other mode of communication, is the *vox populi.* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:35:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Jack Subject: File 4--Re: CuD, #9.29, Sun 13 Apr 97, Cokie Roberts, et al. I am not entirely sure how Mr Ted Baar made the leap from US citizens petitioning their government by email being somehow analogous to the benefits (however nebulous) brought to 17th-century England (not to mention Ireland) by the efforts of Oliver Cromwell. But when he paints the US mass media as somehow being in the pocket of the present occupant of the White House, he would seem to be somewhat more than out of touch with the current content of television and newspaper commentary. And when he drags the recently censured Speaker of the House into his rambling diatribe as the savior of the democratic process I become completely adrift in his political Sargasso. Cokie Roberts, like many writers faced with deadline, latched onto something she appears not to understand well. But, hey--the Internet is fair game. So what? What she writes (or Mr Baar, or I, for that matter) will not have the faintest effect on how electronic communications between the people and the government will develop. Surely, we can all find something of somewhat greater substance to fill our Sunday-evening email boxes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:45:36 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger Subject: File 5--Brock Meeks vs. Cokie Roberts (fwd) (MODERATORS NOTE: From Brock Meeks and CyberWire DIspatch, who once again illustrates why he's about the best Cyber-journalist around!)) Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu From http://www.msnbc.com/news/wwwashington.asp, April 16 How the Net will kill democracy Media elite discovers new plot! WASHINGTON - Some 200-plus years of democratic government in the United States is "under attack" and a thriving, politically active Internet community is the perpetrator. That's the theme of a recent syndicated column by ABC News talking head and National Public Radio commentator Cokie Roberts and her husband, Steve Roberts, a columnist for the New York Daily News. The hysterical tone of the column is astounding. The Robertses claim that computers facilitate the ability of people to "get in touch with each other on public policy issues." Horrors! Further, this new, digital democracy-slaying beast comes close to fulfilling Ross Perot's notion of nationwide electronic town halls that "let the politicians know what we want, so then they will do it! No more pandering to the big contributors, no more deals between members, just the voice of the people will be heard!" At this revelation, the Robertses write: "We hear that and shudder." These are the same sentiments I heard last year during a House hearing discussing how to wire Congress for the next century. Reading the column was like deja vu all over again, to borrow from that great political pundit, Yogi Berra. The Robertses claim that electronic, participatory government would mark the end of deliberation among lawmakers, that there would be "no more consideration of an issue over a long period of time, no more balancing of regional and ethnic interests, no more protection of minority views." PARTICIPATION KILLS DEMOCRACY? Bull. All this would be laughable if the column had been cranked out by some backwater hack on a second-rate newspaper in a third-rate state. Instead, it carries Cokie's byline, who, according to a cover story in the April 5 issue of the National Journal, is noted as being among a handful of the most influential journalists in Washington. "She's a celebrity, but an influential one," the Journal writes. This sort of journalistic tripe is poison and yet at the same time, grist for the mill among the twisted jackals that make up Congress and who, it seems, have no qualms about using the Internet as a personal whipping post whenever it suits their fancy. The Robertses column falls within days of another equally remarkable event: A nationwide "town hall meeting," cybercast by Democracy.Net with Rep. Rick White, R-Wash. The cybercast interview of White, broadcast in RealAudio with a simultaneous live chat happening, flies in the face of the column for a few reasons. PUTTING LAWMAKERS WITHIN REACH First, Democracy.Net, strung together on a shoe-string budget with borrowed equipment and staff, easily and effectively puts lawmakers within grasp of the public. Unlike a physical town hall meeting, where if you can't make it in person you lose out, on Democracy.Net there is a full audio archive of White's remarks along with a full transcript of the chat. The Roberts claim that electronic, participatory government would mark the end of deliberation among lawmakers. A member of Congress answering to the public, in real time, might frighten Cokie Roberts, but to me it's the beginning of a new movement to breach an ever-widening gap between a public that feels far too removed from its government and impotent when it comes to being a part of the process. To White's credit, he took question after question from those firing away at their keyboards. He was frank and honest. "How refreshing!" remarked one person in the real-time chat, "A congressman with a brain!" Just think, a member of Congress at the mercy of the public they are sworn to serve and not a lobbyist within earshot. How revolting! AVOIDING THE MEDIA ELITE Another reason this democracy.net experiment works is that there is no middle man, other than some software and a keyboard. Yes, a moderator, Wired Magazine editor Todd Lappin, did field the questions and pass them on to White. But Lappin handled the job with the even-handedness usually reserved for C-Span. The "Washington Media Elite" are as reviled by the public as the Congress itself; this process effectively takes the media out of the meeting. White doesn't brook with the Robertses' assessment of the Internet. "I'm not as skeptical," White told me in a phone interview. In a short statement highlighting his appearance on democracy.net, he says: "The Internet is one of the best new tools we have to create a more open democracy the Internet is helping bring the issues before Congress into the homes of people across our country. This is a positive development and one that will help foster more participation in our government." White said his experience on democracy.net was "great fun," but like other such experiments using the Net, "it's an initial first step down a long path" to putting people more in touch with their government. However, White said the experience on democracy.net "doesn't quite substitute for the direct feedback" in a face-to-face town hall meeting, where there are no intermediaries. He said there's no reason to believe that members of Congress, in the future, won't be able to carry out their own version of electronic town hall meetings, via video conferencing links, "where we could look at each other face-to-face on a laptop screen." BAN GRASSROOTS LOBBYING? The Robertses, for whatever reason, believe that putting Congress within a modem's reach of the public would threaten its very existence, "thanks to the Internet." Yet I know of no one making a case for every single issue being voted on by the public, via modem, and therefore usurping the duty of Congress to carry out debate on the issues. All anyone is asking for is more of a voice, more of a presence. And that's what the power of the Internet can help facilitate. Jock Gill is a former White House staffer and an original member of the Clinton '92 campaign that first incorporated the power of the Internet into a presidential campaign. He noted in a message to the Interesting Persons mailing list, run by Internet icon Dave Farber, that the current two-party system relies on "top down, legacy media branding and communications structures, which are clearly seen as not producing useful solutions to tomorrow's pending problems." Gill maintains that this is one reason why "citizen participation" is at an all-time low. "This lack of participation is the greatest threat to our security, not the content or habits of the Internet," he writes. On the Fight-Censorship list, James Halpert put a fine edge on his critique of the Roberts' thoughts: "The logical extension of the Roberts' position is to call for congressional offices to disconnect their telephones so that mass call-in campaigns by well-funded, highly disciplined grassroots groups are not heard. Are these troops more reflective than Net users? Hardly." UNANIMITY ON THE NET? NOT! Another thing that irks me is that the Robertses column assumes that Congress could be held hostage to a digital band of nationwide activists just waiting to hijack critical items of the national agenda. As if Netizens all spoke with one voice and always agreed on every issue. As Halpert so adroitly dead-panned: "Hardly." I have to applaud the efforts of those like White who are taking a stand and helping to push the envelope in an atmosphere that is at best chilly when it comes to the Internet. Unfortunately, he's in an even smaller minority than the Democratic Party. Access to the public via the Internet is no panacea for what ails Congress, but it can help foster a better dialog and allow people to feel more connected to their lawmakers. If we can just lead them to these digital waters, I'm sure those behind efforts like democracy.net can make them drink. Meeks out . . . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 15 Apr, 1997) 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 post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB 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 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) (860)-585-9638. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ 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 #9.30 ************************************