Computer underground Digest Wed May 14, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 37 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, #9.37 (Wed, May 14, 1997) File 1--FBI requests comments on wiretap law implementation File 2--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:39:40 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--FBI requests comments on wiretap law implementation (MODERATORS' NOTE: This issue is a reprint of Declan McCullagh's post from the fight-censorhip list, one of the highest quality and increasingly influential lists on the Net. Declan is becoming one of the leading Net reporters, moving into the elite class of Brock Meeks, Todd Lapin, and a few others). Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu The FBI is requesting comments on how to implement a section of CALEA, the controversial Federal wiretapping law. CALEA, or Digital Telephony, requires telephone companies to ensure that police can easily monitor your phone calls. The published capacity requirements indicate the FBI wants the ability to monitor more than 57,000 telephone lines *simultaneously*. A January 1997 EPIC Alert (4.02) says: Calculating out the percentages provided by the FBI, by 1998 the FBI anticipates an increase of 33 percent of landline interceptions and 70 percent of wireless phones. By 2004, the Bureau estimates a total increase of 74 percent in interceptions of landline phones and 277 percent in wireless phones. Today's FBI notice says: The purpose of this notice is to request written comments and suggestions from the public, including telecommunications carriers, and affected agencies should address one or more of the following points: (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.) -Declan ************** 24662 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices ________________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation Telecommunications Industry Liaison Unit; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice of information collection under review; implementation of Section 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is being sought for the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published on April 10, 1996, in the Federal Register and allowed 60 days for public comment. A summary of these comments are included at the end of this notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 5, 1997. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, D.C., 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to 202-395-7285. Comments may also be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Clearance Officer, Suite 850, 1001 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted to DOJ via fascimile to 202-514-1534. The purpose of this notice is to request written comments and suggestions from the public, including telecommunications carriers, and affected agencies should address one or more of the following points: (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.) Overview of this Information Collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: NEW COLLECTION: The type of information acquired is required to be furnished by law in terms of a carrier statement, as set forth in subsection 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (Pub. L. 103- 414, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010). A template, which is not mandatory, has been developed through the consultative process with the telecommunications industry to facilitate submission of the telecommunications carrier statements. 24663 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices ________________________________________________________________________ Such information is quantitative and qualitative data necessary to identify any systems or services of a telecommunications carrier that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified in the final capacity notice to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. (2) The title of the information collection: "Telecommunications Carrier Statement.'' (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collections; Form number: None. Sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department of Justice. (4) Who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract; BUSINESS OR OTHER FOR PROFIT: Telecommunications carrier, as defined in CALEA subsection 102(8), will respond. The collected data will be used in conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to determine the telecommunications carriers that may be eligible for cost reimbursement according to section 104. The amount and type of information collected will be minimized to ensure that the submission of this data by telecommunications carriers will not be burdensome nor unreasonable. Each telecommunications carrier will submit a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as set forth in the final capacity notice. Based on consultation with industry, information solicited to specifically identify such systems and services that cannot meet the estimated capacity requirements will include: Common Language Location Identifier (CLLI) code or equivalent identifier, switch model or other system or service type, and the city and state where the system or service is located. Unique information required for wireline systems and services would include the host CLLI code if the system or service is a remote and the county name(s) that the system or service serves. Unique information required for wireless systems and services would include the Metropolitan or Rural Service Area number(s), or the Metropolitan or Basic Trading Area number(s) served by the system or service. Confidentiality regarding the data received from the telecommunications carriers will be protected by statute, regulation, and through non-disclosure agreements as necessary. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The FBI estimates that there are approximately three-thousand four-hundred ninety-seven (3,497) telecommunications carriers, with approximately twenty-three thousand (23,000) unique systems or services, that will be affected by this collection of information. The total amount of time required to complete the Telecommunications Carrier Statement will vary, depending upon the total number of systems and services that the telecommunications carrier deploys that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications. The time required to read and prepare information, for one system or service is estimated at 10 minutes. There is also an associated startup time per carrier that is estimated at 2 hours. This startup time consists of reading the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determining data sources. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection is 10,904 hours. These estimates were derived from close consultation with industry. Public comment on this proposed information collection is strongly encouraged. Summary of Comments to the 60-Day Notice Based on industry comments and to conform with the Second Notice of Capacity that was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1997, the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template has been changed to: (a) Remove the capacity field. This information is no longer required because estimates of actual and maximum capacity requirements are being provided by geographical location in Appendices sections A through D of the Second Notice of Capacity. (b) Associate the county(s) field to be unique information required for wireline systems and services only. Pacific Telesis Group (PTG) * PTG is concerned that the startup time does not include time required to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity Requirements itself and match up switch capability with law enforcement needs. This is necessary before the template can be populated, and the time does not appear to be included in current estimates of hours required to complete the survey. Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part that, "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate.'' The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour burden for startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determine data sources. It was never intended to include time to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity. * PTG contends that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine the county for each prefix served by a switch. The difficulty escalates further for those switches located near county boundaries and which include prefixes that serve multiple counties. The work to make these identifications would be administratively burdensome and labor intensive, and would certainly exceed the ten-minute parameter utilized by TILU. PTG would support a change to the provision of information regarding county in which a switch resides, rather than counties served by each prefix within a switch. Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in the traditional engineering and planning database, i.e., Local Switch Demand and Facility (LSD&F) database, this information is available in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map Information. Also, software is available that provides information on wirecenter serving areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call that they were able to extract county information from their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of data from a database and provides instructions for dealing with imports from multiple databases. United States Telephone Association (USTA) * USTA recommends that the final review and public comment period be provided on this notice following the final promulgation of the Final Notice of Capacity requirements and Cost Recovery Procedures. Since the carrier statement is intended to respond to a notice of capacity requirements, responding to item 3c ("capacity'') is problematic. In short, the ability of carriers to complete column 3c, and the burden imposed by column 3c is directly related to the definition of 24664 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices ________________________________________________________________________ capacity in the Final Notice of Capacity requirements. Response: CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part that, "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' This PRA Carrier Statement requires a minimum of 90 days for comment (one 60 day comment period and the current 30 day comment period). If the PRA Carrier Statement was deferred until after the issuance of the Final Notice of Capacity, the template would be unavailable for most of the 180 days. Furthermore, template item 3c ("capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. * USTA believes that the template should apply to switches alone. Response: The "Equipment Type,'' item 3b, is intended for listing equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section 103. * USTA is not convinced that the burden imposed on carriers, especially small companies, by completing the template will be manageable as is implied in the notice [of Information Collection]. Given the lack of certain key definitions and terms upon which the template is based (e.g., capacity, service), this burden in fact could be significant. Response: The concern about burden is based on lack of definitions such as capacity and service. The request for capacity information has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. With regard to services, CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT states in part that, "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a notice of capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *''. The telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section 103. * CALEA requires carriers to be in compliance with the Act's capabilities requirements by October 1998. However, carriers are given three years following the publication of the Final Notice of Capacity in which to comply with the capacity requirements. USTA understands that TILU considers the operative deadline for compliance with the Act therefore is contingent on capacity requirements deadline, not the capabilities requirements deadline. USTA seeks final clarification of this issue. Response: The FBI has no statutory authority to countermand the intentions of the Congress, and it has no authority to waive the statutory compliance dates specified in CALEA. There is, however, a provision and mechanism under CALEA, grounded in the principle of reasonableness, that offers relief to telecommunications carriers where there is a prospect that the capability assistance compliance deadline cannot be met. Section 107 of CALEA permits telecommunications carriers to seek an extension(s) of time from the FCC in order to achieve compliance with the assistance capability requirements under circumstances where a carrier can show that compliance with those requirements is not reasonably achievable through the application of available technology during the compliance period specified in Section 111. The Commission may grant such an extension after consultation with the Attorney General in those cases where such an extension is reasonably warranted. Since CALEA was enacted, it is generally understood that various carriers and manufacturers have moved at different paces in pursuing CALEA capability solutions. Given this, there is support for the perspective that CALEA's provisions, which contain mechanisms for reasonable treatment and compliance date extensions in special cases, should be utilized as enacted. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. * BellSouth is unable to estimate the amount of time required to complete a carrier statement which seeks data concerning the capacity of a system or service that is not a switch with a CLLI code. Response: The "Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have a capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that provides call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section 103. Ameritech * Although the Notice states that carriers should provide information identifying "systems and services'', the FBI should acknowledge that carriers will be providing information only regarding their switches. More importantly however, although the FBI's Electronic Surveillance Interface Document lists different services which the FBI views as subject to CALEA, the generic requirements [industry standard] currently being finalized, focus exclusively on building 'wiretap capability' within the switch. Response: The "Equipment Type'', item 3b, is intended for listing equipment that the carrier believes does not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices as specified in the Final Notice of Capacity to subsection 104(a) of CALEA. As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate * * *.'' The 24665 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices ________________________________________________________________________ telecommunications carrier may need to identify any element in their network or other network (i.e., Service Control Point, Voice Mail System) that does not have the capacity to accommodate the call identifying information or call content as identified in CALEA Section 103. * Ameritech points out that the "capacity'' of the switch has yet to be defined by the FBI. Response: Law enforcement has defined capacity in the Second Notice of Capacity by geographic area as required in CALEA. The switch capacity is not required in the Telecommunications Carrier Statement. Therefore, template item 3c ("capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. SBC Communications Inc. * The estimate of time required to prepare the Telecommunications Carrier Statement, whether using template or not, is potentially understated. It is in the estimation of capacity that most of the work involved in the preparation of a Telecommunications Carrier Statement will occur, not in the preparation of the form itself. SBC estimates that it spent a minimum of 64 hours working on the Initial Capacity Notice developing data that will be used in filling out the Telecommunications Carrier Statement * * *. Response: The PRA Carrier Statement estimates the hour burden for startup time to read the Telecommunications Carrier Statement and determine data sources. It was never intended to include time to evaluate the Final Notice of Capacity. The hour burden estimates were developed through the consultative process with the ECSP Committee. One of the assumptions was that most of the data could be obtained from the Local Switch Demand and Facilities (LSD&F) database or its equivalent. The concern that most of the work will involve capacity estimation will be eliminated because item 3c ("capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template. * Serving areas extend far beyond the location of the switch or other facility and are not kept by county in the ordinary course of business. Response: While we agree that county information does not reside in the traditional engineering and planning database (e.g., LSD&F), this information is available in other databases such as E911 and Wirecenter Map Information. Also, software is available that provides information on wirecenter serving areas. One of the RBOCs stated on an ECSP Subcommittee conference call that they were able to extract county information from their E911 database. The mechanized Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template allows for the import of data from a database and provides instructions for dealing with imports from multiple databases. * Concern was expressed about capacity requirements being stated based upon the conditions at the time of collection and that over time the requirements would change. SBC stated that ongoing collection and validation of data to determine capacity would exceed the time estimates in the Carrier Statement Notice. Response: The Second Notice of Capacity issues estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements in actual numbers. A change in the requirements would only occur on the issuance of a new Notice of Capacity, which would require a response. MFS Communications Company, Inc. * MFS states, "It is not clear that the information sought will be comprehensive or very useful to the FBI in fulfilling its notice requirements under CALEA for three major reasons'' that are listed. First, the FBI's survey of existing switches and telecommunications capacity will likely capture only a minority of telecommunications carriers and will provide a distorted view of the industry. With the enactment of the Telecommunications Act, a number of new firms--like MFS--can be expected to enter or greatly expand their operations in the telecommunications market over the next four years. Obviously, those new entrants' capacity and networks, particularly those entrants who have not yet entered the market, will not be included. The Telecommunications Act also permits carriers to enter local telephone markets as resellers of local service capacity (e.g., AT&T buys capacity from NYNEX and resells it as local service). The impact of such resale activities on an aggregate estimate of capacity are unclear. Second, CALEA includes only public telecommunications networks, and excludes private networks. So long as the definition of private networks is unclear, firms can minimize their CALEA reporting requirements and obligations if they unilaterally classify facilities as "private network'' facilities. Often there is not a crisp distinction between public and private telecommunications networks and services, so there is a strong possibility that the survey will include a mismatch of services. There are many firms, such as shared tenant services (STS) providers that provide telephone service to the tenants of a building or campus and it is not clear whether the capacity of such offerings should be included. Third, CALEA excludes information services. Again, a firm's CALEA obligations can be minimized to the extent that it unilaterally classifies its activities as information services. So long as the precise scope of information and telecommunications services is not defined, some firms will report capacity that others would not. Response: As stated in CALEA, SEC. 104, (d) CARRIER STATEMENT "Within 180 days after the publication by the Attorney General of a Notice of Capacity requirements pursuant to subsection (a) or (c), a telecommunications carrier shall submit to the Attorney General a statement identifying any of its systems or services that do not have the capacity to accommodate simultaneously the number of interceptions, pen registers, and trap and trace devices set forth in the notice under such subsection.'' The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is not a survey and is not mandatory. The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was developed through the consultative process with industry representatives to facilitate submission of the Carrier Statement. The information requested will be used by law enforcement in conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that require immediate modification. In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provided a notice of estimated capacity requirements by geographic area and has selected counties as the appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements for telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service (i.e., wireline carriers). Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists all actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. These requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying information for each county in the United States and its territories. Wireline carriers may ascertain the actual and maximum capacity requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A the county (or counties) for which they offer local exchange service. Law enforcement's county capacity requirements are based on historical interception data and represent its interception needs anywhere in the county. The county requirements apply to all existing and any future wireline 24666 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 1997 / Notices ________________________________________________________________________ carriers offering local exchange service in each county, regardless of equipment type used or customer base. CALEA applies to all telecommunications carriers as defined in section 102(8). Notices will eventually be issued covering all telecommunications carriers. However, the Second Notice of Capacity and its associated Final Notice of Capacity should be viewed as a first phase application to telecommunications carriers offering services that are of most immediate concern to law enforcement--that is, those telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service and certain commercial mobile radio services, specifically cellular service and personal communications service (PCS). The exclusion from the notice of certain telecommunications carriers that have services deployed currently or anticipate deploying services in the near term does not exempt them from obligations under CALEA. * The hour burden depends on how each carrier interprets the meaning of capacity. Response: The Second Notice of Capacity provides capacity requirements based on geographic area and states the estimated actual and maximum capacity numbers and not a percentage. Also, item 3c ("capacity'') has been removed from the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template and therefore should not impact the estimated hour burden to respondents. Synacom Technology, Inc. * Synacom states, "Law enforcement should provide some guidance as to which features and services should be accessible and then determine the capacity required for each feature and service. This is to prevent overbuilding the intercept capacity.'' Also, "The information requested is largely unnecessary, because its resolution is not adequate to accurately measure compliance with neither the CALEA capability requirements nor the capacity notice.'' Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was developed through the consultative process with industry representatives. The information requested will be used by law enforcement in conjunction with law enforcement priorities and other factors to determine the specific equipment, facilities, and services that require immediate modification. * Synacom also states, "* * * the burden to gather the required information is much more difficult to gather as it requires technical expertise to evaluate whether the systems of the telecommunications service provider collectively provide the required access for each of several independent features and services.'' Response: The Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template was simplified to its present form through the consultative process with the telecommunications industry. The telecommunications carriers need only list systems and services that do not meet the requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d). If any system or service does not meet the requirements of CALEA subsection 104(d), it must be reported. * Synacom states that, "There should be a 'jurisdiction' column instead of the 'county', 'city', and 'state' columns.'' Also, "the 'MSA, RSA, MTA, or BTA' field is largely irrelevant.'' Response: In the Second Notice of Capacity, law enforcement provides a notice of estimated capacity requirements by geographical area and has selected counties and market as the appropriate basis for expressing capacity requirements for telecommunications carriers offering local exchange service. Appendix A of the Second Notice of Capacity lists all estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements by county. The selection of county as a means to define law enforcement requirements takes into consideration, by its very nature, a longstanding territorial location that is unchanged, well documented, is understandable to both law enforcement and industry, and takes into consideration a specific law enforcement jurisdiction. These requirements represent the simultaneous number of call-content interceptions and wireline interceptions of call-identifying information for each county in the United States and its territories. Wireline carriers may ascertain the estimated actual and maximum capacity requirements that will affect them by looking up in Appendix A the county (or counties) or Appendices B, C, D for which they offer local exchange service. Law enforcement's county or market capacity requirements are based on historical interception data and represent its interception needs anywhere in the county or market. The county or market requirements apply to all existing and any future wireline carriers offering local exchange service in each county, regardless of equipment type used or customer base. For wireless carriers, individual county boundaries were not considered to be feasible geographic designations for identifying capacity requirements. Instead, law enforcement determined that the wireless market service area would be the most appropriate geographic designations. Although these areas comprise sets of counties, the use of such market service areas best takes into account the greatest inherent mobility of wireless subscribers. What is most important is that historical information on wireless interceptions could only be associated with market service areas. Therefore, the county(s) field of the Telecommunications Carrier Statement Template is information required for wireline systems and services only. Dated: April 30, 1997. Robert B. Briggs, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 97-11708 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-M [Thanks to JYA. --Declan] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 2--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 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 (815-753-6436), 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); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 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 #9.37 ************************************