Computer underground Digest Wed Oct 28, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 53 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, #10.53 (Wed, Oct 28, 1998) File 1--Fwd: Two ISPs Seized Over Usenet Content File 2--Dreamscape Responds to AG seizure of ISP equipment File 3--Press Release: Sam Ramer, Carol Pub Co., Resist Assimilation File 4--The Swedigh Personal Register (Personal Information) Law File 5--Spammer sued File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:40:26 -0500 From: Robert A. Costner Subject: File 2--Dreamscape Responds to AG seizure of ISP equipment Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Dreamscape ISP, illegally raided in connection with child porn on usenet newsgroups, can be found at http://www.dreamscape.com/ ---- forwarded message ------ From--Eric Cordian Subject--Dreamscape Responds To--cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Date--Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:50:14 -0600 (CST) Dreamscape has posted a reponse to the antics of New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco on its website. It will be interesting to see if any of the evidence from this illegal seizure is allowed in court. ----- STATEMENT OF DREAMSCAPE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SEIZURE OF INTERNET EQUIPMENT On October 27th, the New York State Police, acting under the orders of Attorney General Dennis Vacco, seized computer equipment used by Dreamscape to provide its Internet subscribers with access to thousands of newsgroups which are available through the Internet. The seizure was purportedly for the purpose of gathering evidence of illegal conduit by persons originating child pornography. Dreamscape is not accused of any wrongdoing. Dreamscape remains fully operational and continues to provide service to its customers. While Dreamscape supports the Attorney General's goal of preventing harm to minors through the spread of child pornography, Dreamscape is disappointed that the Attorney General has utilized unnecessary and unlawful tactics which significantly interfere with the rights of all Americans to utilize the Internet. Dreamscape does not create the articles, pictures, or other information available to persons using the Internet. Instead, Dreamscape acts solely as a conduit allowing individual senders and receivers to communicate with each other without review, supervision, censorship, or interference by Dreamscape. In this manner, Dreamscape acts in the same manner as a telephone company which merely completes calls between senders and receivers, without monitoring those communications in any way. Dreamscape has, in the past, repeatedly cooperated with law enforcement agencies in tracing the identity of persons who originate pornographic materials. To the extent the Attorney General seeks to protect children by stopping the exchange of pornographic materials, that can and should be done by prosecuting the originators and recipients of said material to the fullest extent of the law. The remedy is not, however, to shut down and paralyze the Internet. Dreamscape, and other Internet providers, cannot control the content of material transmitted over the Internet. Dreamscape's subscribers have access to over 30,000 newsgroups, to which they can transmit messages and receive messages. It is not possible for Dreamscape or any other Internet provider to screen, review, and censor the hundreds of thousands of messages created, transmitted and received each day. Federal law recognizes that an Internet provider is not liable for the content of any messages, which the Internet provider simply transmits through cyberspace. At least one Federal Court in New York State has determined that any effort by state officials to restrict the operation of the Internet is an unconstitutional violation of federal rights and unlawful interference with interstate commerce. Dreamscape remains ready and anxious to work with law enforcement officials in identifying violators of State and Federal laws against child pornography. However, Dreamscape also intends to actively oppose overzealous and unlawful efforts which have the effect of destroying the ability of its thousands of customers to legitimately utilize the Internet. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:28:38 +0100 From: Luca Sambucci Subject: File 3--Press Release: Sam Ramer, Carol Pub Co., Resist Assimilation Online Freedom Federation http://www.off-hq.org October 27, 1998 For immediate release Sam Ramer, Carol Publishing Company, Resist Assimilation Author Sam Ramer and his publishing company have appealed the federal court decision halting sales of his book The Joy of Trek. In a joint brief filed with the federal appellate court in New York City, Ramer and Carol Publishing Group advanced a number of compelling legal arguments to establish that the district judge abused his discretion and applied the wrong legal standard in granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Paramount. Earlier this summer, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti granted Paramount's request to ban the sale and distribution of the book pending the outcome of a full-blown copyright infringement trial in which the studio will seek over $22 million in damages. Ramer, a self-proclaimed loyal "Trekster" since the age of 6, dedicated The Joy of Trek to his wife and intended it as a humorous guide to help non-fans like her understand the fierce devotion we fans hold for Star Trek in all its incarnations. The lower court found that the book, by "relating synopses of individual episodes and encapsulations of the various characters and alien species[,] . . . copies the heart' of the Star Trek properties." Judge Conti decreed that the "fictitious history [of Star Trek] is a story, created and owned by Paramount." In addition, he rejected the defense claim that the book was protected by the doctrine of "fair use," as well as the argument that Paramount has abandoned its right to pursue damages after failing to bring legal action with regard to the hundreds of other unauthorized books on Star Trek. Obviously, if left unchallenged the ruling could deal a deadly blow to fanfic and other forms of fandom by removing legal hurdles and emboldening Paramount to renew its campaign against websites and other fan media. Despite the obstacles presented by the lower court's injunction, Ramer and his publisher have demonstrated extraordinary ingenuity and perserverance. Indeed, in a bold tactical maneuver worthy of a starfleet captain, Carol Publishing has countersued Paramount, whose lawyers notified bookstores that they would be in contempt of court for continuing to sell the book, even though the terms of the injunction permit sales of existing inventory. Carol Publishing seeks unspecified damages for harm to its business reputation and interference with its business relationships caused by Paramount's actions. Whether Carol Publishing has balanced the odds by capitalizing on Paramount's apparent legal blunder remains to be seen. Meanwhile, OFF continues to pledge its support to Sam Ramer, and encourages its members to make themselves heard. Ultimately, nothing less than fandom itself is at stake. --- The Online Freedom Federation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of freedom of speech on the Internet. Its executive council can be reached at . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:53:49 -0600 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 4--The Swedigh Personal Register (Personal Information) Law source http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/personal-register-law.html THE SWEDISH A new Swedish law about handling of personal information in computers took effect on 24 October 1998. The law makes much of the publication of information about individual persons on the Internet illegal, such as criticism of named persons, publication of lists of references in scientific papers or the sending of e-mail messages outside of Europe. Summary of the Swedish Personal Register Law The object of the law is to protect against invasion of privacy through handling of personal information. The law defines "handling of personal information" as any handling of personal information, automatic or manual, like collection, registering, organizing, storing, treatment or change, retrieval, use or transmission, publication, collating, blocking or deleting. This law, however, only applies to handling of information which is wholly or partly automatic (for example by using computers), or which is contained in a structured collection of personal information available for search or retrieval. Personal information is defined as any kind of information, which directly or indirectly refers to a living physical person. The law specifies exceptions where the law is not valid: Wholly private registers handled by a single person for his or her personal needs, registers published in newspapers, books or broadcast programs, registers used only by journalists, authors or artists. REQUIREMENTS ON TREATMENT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Personal information may only be handled for specified and justifiable goals. Collected information may only be used for the purpose, for which it was collected. Personal information must be correct and up-to-date and must not be kept longer time than needed for the purpose of the collection. Personal information may only be handled with permission from the person, whose information is handled, or for certain other justified uses. SENSITIVE INFORMATION It is not permitted to handled personal information which reveals race or ethnic origin, religious or political opinions, membership in trade unions and information about health or sexual behaviour. There are a few exceptions from this, a society may handle information who are its members, even though the organization is connected to a particular religious faith or political view, and medical organizations may handle medical information about their patients, researchers may handle information for research purposes and such information may also be handled or published with permission from the person, whose information is handled. TRANSMISSION TO THIRD COUNTRIES Personal information may not be transmitted outside of Europe without permission from the person, whose information is handled, except with explicit permission from this person, to fulfill legal obligations or to protect vital interests. CONTROL AND PUNISHMENT The upholding of the law is controlled by a special government agency, the Data Inspection Agency, and breaking the law may be punished through damages to the registered person, fines and prison up to two years. Critique of the act PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET WOULD BE ILLEGAL If you interpret the act literally, it would mean that the following acts would be illegal: * Writing of an e-mail message to a recipient outside Europe without the prior permission of the recipient. * All Internet-based discussion forums (except those run by newspapers, since newspapers are excempt from the law) in which any information about a person is mentioned without the permission of that person. * Publication on the Internet of any scientific paper, which contains lists of references, unless each person in the list of reference has given permission in advance. * Any criticism of a named person, where that person does not give permission for the criticism. For example, criticism of politicians would not be allowed, a trade union would not be allowed to criticize named employers, etc. This does not agree very well with the Swedish constitution, which says that society should protect the rights of citizens to communicate with each other, especially communication about political and religious issues. However, the constitution contains a clause saying that the rights to communicate can be restricted in order to protect personal privacy, so the lawmakers claim that the law is not in contradiction to the constitution. WHY ARE SOME VOCATIONS EXEMPTED The law has also been criticized for the exemption for authors, journalists and artists: Freedom of speech should be a right for everyone, not only for certain vocations. THE LAW IS NOT NEEDED Criticism of the law has also said that the law is not needed, since there are other laws, like laws about racial agitation, defamation of character, etc. which are better ways than this law to regulate unwanted communication. WILL THE LAW REALLY BE UPHELD The previous Data Act, which the new law replaces, also made most of the Internet illegal. However, this law has only been upheld by the government very irregularly. In one case, an online forum was forbidden to discuss political and religious issues, in another case, an author was forbidden to write his book using a computer. In the second case, however, this decision was revoked on appeal to the government. The new act, however, does not allow appeals to the government, only to courts of law, which can be expected to follow the words of the law. Local governments have been forbidden from publishing notes from their meetings on the Internet. In most cases, however, personal information has been published on the Internet without repressional acts from the government. Probably, the new law will also not be upheld, but the risk that the government can apply the law, when something is published, which they do not like, has been said to be an argument against the new law. The agency responsible for upholding the law, the Data Inspection Agency, says that it will strictly interpret the letter of the law, but that they may, because of limited time, not have time to act against uncontroversial information, like naming the nobel prize winners on the Internet. IS SWEDEN FORCED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION TO ENACT THIS LAW? The law was passed by the Swedish parliament with only the small liberal party and a few stragglers from other parties voting against it. When asked why they passed a law which restricts freedom of speech in this way, they say that they had to pass this law, in order to fulfill a directive from the European Union. However, opponents of the law says that this directive was not meant to be applied to publication of personal information, it was only meant to be applied to structured collections of personal information. Also structured collections would however cause problems, for example a list of references in a scientific paper is obviously a structured collection and would thus be illegal, unless each of the authors of the papers in the reference list gave their permission, and to obtain such permission would often be very difficult. WILL THE GOVERNMENT AMEND THE LAW Because of the criticism, the government has asked the Data Inspection Agency to investigate, whether publication of local government protocols and some other publication might be exempted from the law. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:50:13 -0700 From: Don Smith Subject: File 5--Spammer sued In WA State, the AG's office filed it's first suit against a spammer. in court. ==================================== IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING STATE OF WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. JASON HECKEL, doing business as NATURAL INSTINCTS, Defendant. NO. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND ADDITIONAL RELIEF UNDER THE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES--CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MAIL ACT COMES NOW, plaintiff, State of Washington, by and through its attorneys Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General; Sally Reed Gustafson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Paula Selis, Senior Counsel, and brings this action against defendant named herein. The state alleges the following on information and belief: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.1. This Complaint is filed and these proceedings are instituted under the provisions of RCW 19.86, the Unfair Business Practices--Consumer Protection Act, and RCW 19.190, the Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act. 1.2. Jurisdiction of the Attorney General to commence this action is conferred by RCW 19.86.080 and RCW 19.190.030(2). 1.3. The violations alleged herein have been and are being committed in whole or in part in King County, in the State of Washington by defendant named herein. /// /// II. DEFENDANT 2.1. Defendant Jason Heckel is the sole proprietor of Natural Instincts. Natural Instinct's principal place of business is located at 4676 Commercial Street Southeast, Suite 201, Salem, Oregon 97302. 2.2. Defendant Jason Heckel, doing business as Natural Instincts, conducts business in Washington through unsolicited commercial electronic mail transmitted over the Internet to Washington residents. III. NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE 3.1. Since at least February 1996, defendant has sent unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. In 1997, defendant developed an online 46-page booklet entitled "How to Profit From the Internet." Defendant sells his booklet and associated pamphlets by using unsolicited electronic mail to solicit customers to purchase his products. 3.2. Defendant sends electronic mail messages to individuals worldwide. Many of those individuals are located in Washington. A copy of a typical unsolicited electronic mail message received by a Washington consumer is appended as Exhibit A. The message states, in part, the following: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" NOT A PROBLEM! I am about to share with you a unique opportunity to start a very successful business or take an existing one to new heights. By taking advantage of the following breakthrough knowledge in marketing trends, you will soon discover the art of "How to really make money on the Information Super Highway!" 3.3. The electronic mail message goes on to cite a number of testimonials from those who have already purchased defendant's product, and offers additional "free" incentives if the recipient makes a purchase. These incentives include "free" software, a "free" calling card, "free" "bonus" reports, and "free" "How to Reports." Defendant also offers as an incentive a "private list" of "50,000 e-mail addresses." The cost of defendant's product package is $39.95. 3.4. In order to send unsolicited electronic mail messages to thousands of individuals in an efficient manner, defendant utilizes a software program called "Extractor Pro." Extractor Pro extracts or "mines" electronic mail addresses from various Internet sources and automatically sends out messages to those addresses upon defendant's entering the appropriate command. Using the Extractor Pro software, defendant sends between 100,000 and 1,000,000 unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages per week. 3.5. On average, defendant sells thirty to fifty of his product packages per month. Consumers purchase by filling out an order form which may be downloaded from the electronic mail message solicitation, and mail the form, along with payment, to defendant's address. 3.6. Defendant knows or has reason to know that he sends unsolicited commercial electronic mail to Washington residents. 3.7. Defendant is in competition with others in the State of Washington engaged in similar business. IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 3.7 and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full. 4.2. Computer users are alerted to the existence of electronic mail messages intended for their receipt by a display on their computer monitors. The display will list the message by its purported sender and a brief subject line which generally describes the body of the message. In order to read or "download" the entire message, the user usually must click a cursor on the text of the subject line, at which point the text of the message is displayed. 4.3. The purpose of the subject line in an electronic mail message is to describe the message's text. This enables a computer user to have discretion over whether and when to read the entire text of the message. Emergency or personal messages may take precedence over commercial messages. Similarly, work-related messages may take precedence over commercial messages. 4.4. Defendant's unsolicited electronic mail messages display various subject lines. Rather than accurately describing the content of the text, these subject lines mislead recipients as to the true nature of the message itself. For example, defendant displays "Did I get the right e- mail address?" and "For your review--HANDS OFF!" as subject lines in his unsolicited electronic mail messages. Neither of these subject lines accurately describes the content of the messages. Rather, they constitute an attempt to entice the recipient into downloading and reading the entire text of the message. "Did I get the right e-mail address?" misleads the recipient into thinking that someone he or she knows is trying to make contact. "For your review--HANDS OFF!" creates the misimpression that the text of the message contains classified information, specifically intended for the recipient. 4.5. The use of false or misleading information in the subject line of a commercial electronic mail message violates RCW 19.190.030(1)(b). Pursuant to RCW 19.190.030(2), defendant's violation of RCW 19.190.030(1)(b) constitutes a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. 4.6. The conduct described above constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition in violation of RCW 19.86.020. V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 5.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 3.1 through 4.6 and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full. 5.2. Electronic mail messages sent via the Internet contain a header, which tells the recipient the source of the original message, as well as any points of transmission on the message's path to the eventual recipient. A typical header will show the path of computers which sent the electronic mail message to the ultimate recipient. The specific computers are identified by a series of computer and domain names, and Internet protocol address numbers. Often there are several computers involved in transmitting the message to its final destination. By examining the names and numbers which identify each computer along the transmission path, it is possible to determine who originally sent the message, and which Internet service providers transmitted it to its ultimate recipient. 5.3. It is also possible for a sender to disguise or obscure the true routing of an electronic mail message by manipulating the transmission path information in the message's header. Defendant engages in this practice. He manipulates the information in his messages' headers to reflect that his solicitations originate at computers which are different from his. For example, some of defendant's header information indicates that the originating computer is located at the domain name "13.com." See Exhibit A. In fact, "13.com" is a domain name assigned to someone other than defendant. Defendant's messages do not originate from the "13.com" domain. Accordingly, defendant misrepresents the transmission path of his electronic mail messages by obscuring their true point of origin. 5.4. It is a violation of RCW 19.190.030(1)(a) to misrepresent the transmission path of a commercial electronic mail message. Pursuant to RCW 19.190.030(2), a violation of RCW 19.190.030(1)(a) constitutes a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. 5.5. The above-described conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and unfair methods of competition in violation of RCW 19.86.020. VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 6.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraph 3.1 through 5.5 above, and incorporates them herein as if set forth in full. 6.2. Washington residents who receive unsolicited electronic mail messages from defendant often attempt to respond by clicking on their computer's "reply" icon in order to send defendant a message protesting the receipt of the original electronic mail message. Those who attempt to contact defendant are often unsuccessful in doing so. The message they attempt to send back using the "reply" icon comes back designated "undeliverable." Often the reply message is undeliverable because defendant uses a return electronic mail return address that is invalid by the time the recipient attempts to respond. The return address is rendered invalid either because (1) the Internet service provider who provides defendant's electronic mail account immediately cancels it upon discovering it is being used to send unsolicited bulk electronic mail without the service provider's approval or (2) the vast number of irate replies in response to defendant's messages overload the capacity of the return electronic mail address to receive more messages and result in the account's eventual shutdown. 6.3. Despite the fact that defendant's electronic mail accounts are either immediately canceled by his Internet service provider or quickly lose their capacity to receive replies, defendant continues to send out unsolicited electronic mail. Once an electronic mail account is canceled, defendant simply opens another account and sends out another bulk mailing. Additionally, defendant maintains several electronic mail accounts simultaneously, so that he will have a continuing means to send out his messages. 6.4. Defendant bombards hundreds of thousands of electronic mail addresses weekly without affording his recipients the ability to respond to his solicitations. Washington's law requires that a sender of unsolicited commercial electronic mail truthfully identify the originating electronic mail address of the transmission. RCW 19.190.020(1)(a). This requirement affords the recipient the ability to reply to the sender directly whether it be to verify the validity of the source of the message, or to protest the receipt of the unsolicited message and request no further correspondence from the sender. 6.5. Defendant fails to provide a valid return electronic mail address to recipients. Though the return electronic mail address accurately reflects the source of the original message at the moment the message is sent, its almost instantaneous invalidity renders it useless to recipients. By posting a seemingly valid return electronic mail address which, in fact, is impossible to respond to, defendant misrepresents the status of his electronic mail account. 6.6. The conduct described above constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition in violation of RCW 19.86.020. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff, STATE OF WASHINGTON, prays for relief as follows: 7.1. That the Court adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged in the conduct complained of herein. 7.2. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct complained of in Paragraphs 4.4 and 5.3 constitutes violations of the Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act, Chapter 19.190 RCW, and pursuant to RCW 19.190.030(2) constitutes per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW. 7.3. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct complained of in Paragraphs 4.4, 5.3 and 6.5 constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW. 7.4. That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining defendant and his representatives, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all other persons acting or claiming to act for, on behalf of, or in active concert or participation with defendant from continuing or engaging in the unlawful conduct complained of herein. 7.5. That the Court assess civil penalties, pursuant to RCW 19.86.140, of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per violation against defendant for each and every violation of RCW 19.86.020 caused by the conduct complained of herein. 7.6. That the Court make such orders pursuant to RCW 19.86.080 as it deems appropriate to provide for restitution to consumers of money or property acquired by defendant as a result of the conduct complained of herein. 7.7. That the Court make such orders pursuant to RCW 19.86.080 to provide that plaintiff, State of Washington, have and recover from defendant the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees. 7.8. That the Court order such other relief as it may deem just and proper to fully and effectively dissipate the effects of the conduct complained of herein, or which may otherwise seem proper to the Court. DATED this _____ day of ______________, 1998. CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Attorney General SALLY R. GUSTAFSON Senior Assistant Attorney General _____________________________ PAULA SELIS, WSBA #12823 Senior Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998) 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) CuD is readily accessible from the Net: 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 #10.53 ************************************