Computer underground Digest Sun Nov 16, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 84 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, #9.84 (Sun, Nov 16, 1997) File 1--CuD #9.82 - re: Internet as Scab File 2--"Who Watches the Watchmen: Net Content Rating Systems File 3--XS4ALL refuses Internet tap File 4--Angela Marquardt on trial again File 5--Cyber-Liberties Update, October 17, 1997 File 6--Book Review - The Electronic Privacy Papers File 7--cDc Global Dominatrix Update #23 File 8-- Congressional Action and New Bills File 9--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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:07:37 -0500 From: Mark Federman Subject: File 1--CuD #9.82 - re: Internet as Scab Concerning your article in CuD 9.82, your correspondent wrote: > An interesting article appeared in the October 28 Boston Globe about > striking teachers in the province of Ottawa. The strike is over > typical work rules ("class size, length of the school day, and number > of hours of teaching time"). But one paragraph in particular caught my > eye: > If the strike continues, provincial authorities said, > they will urge parents to educate their children at home > using assignments and learning aids provided on the > Internet. There are a few misconceptions conveyed by the Boston Globe article, and by the interpretation. The teachers' strike was throughout the province of Ontario, closing school doors to approximately 2.1 million children. Although at the beginning, it appeared as if the issues were so-called "typical work rules", this was, in fact, not the case. The strike was over pending legislation which would effectively eliminate all power of local school boards, and give all power and control of ALL education issues, down to and including classroom issues, to the Minister of Education. As the legislation is written and will be passed by the majority provincial government, there is no review by the parliament, no input from local municipalities regarding local concerns or special needs, and no ability for judicial review, save a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. The legislation is so restrictive, in fact, that any employee covered by the Education Act who even expresses an opinion or votes against a policy of the Minister can be summarily fired, without appeal. The bitter icing on the putrid cake proposed by the provincial government was the revelation that the Deputy Minister had a "management objective" to cut $667 million from the education budget, which could only be accomplished by this anti-democratic legislation. This information was leaked only after the provincial Premier, Mike Harris, appeared on television saying that it was not the objective of the government to cut education spending. The impression that the strike was over work rules came from the fact that the full text of the legislation was not made generally available until almost the strike date (the Minister had not even read it in its entirety!). To properly understand it, teams of lawyers had to sift through many referenced Acts, before any proper interpretation of its scope and chilling consequences could be made. The strike was, in reality, a political protest which was supported by over 60% of the general population and by over 80% or parents of school-age children. The only thing the government did right was to provide supplemental, grade-appropriate learning materials for parents over the Internet to keep their children "in tune" with classroom-type activities. Even their disclaimer said that these materials could not supplant the important work teachers do in the class. What the technology allowed was the ability for the children to avoid the typical "post-break" ramp-up period after the two week protest. This perhaps gives some credence to the emerging view that computer-based learning for school-age children is a worthwhile addition to multiply the learning experience; one cannot, however, subtract the teachers from the equation, or even divide the parental support. Faithfully, Mark Federman federman@netcom.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:45:36 -0500 From: Paul Kneisel Subject: File 2--"Who Watches the Watchmen: Net Content Rating Systems For Immediate Release, 11 November 1997 CYBER-RIGHTS & CYBER-LIBERTIES (UK) REPORT, `WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN: INTERNET CONTENT RATING SYSTEMS, AND PRIVATISED CENSORSHIP.' The full report is available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/watchmen.htm =================== Leeds, United Kingdom - Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), a non profit civil liberties organisation launched a new report entitled, Who Watches the Watchmen, on the implications of the use and development of rating systems and filtering tools for the Internet content. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) insists that the debates on regulation of Internet-content should take place openly and with the involvement of public at large rather than at the hands of a few industry based private bodies. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) report suggests that: There is no pressing need in fact for new national legislation for content regulation. National Legislation would be the wrong response. There is confusion between illegal and harmful content. Adults should not be treated like Children. A self-regulatory model for harmful content on the Internet may include the following levels and in this model `self' means as in `individual' without the state involvement: User or Parental Responsibility Parental Software Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) argue that a radical self-regulatory solution for the hybrid Internet content should not include any kind of rating systems and self-regulatory solutions should include minimum government and industry involvement. According to the UK report, child pornography is often used as an excuse to regulate the Internet but there is no need to rate illegal content such as child pornography since it is forbidden for any conceivable audience and this kind of illegal content should be regulated by the enforcement of existing UK laws. Yaman Akdeniz, head of the UK group stated that: `The current situation at the UK does not represent a self-regulatory solution as suggested by the Government. It is moving towards a form of censorship, a privatised and industry based one where there will be no space for dissent as it will be done by the use of private organisations, rating systems and at the entry level by putting pressure on the UK Internet Service Providers.' With rating systems and the moral panic behind the Internet content, the Internet could be transformed into a `family friendly' medium, just like the BBC. But it should be remembered that the Internet is not as intrusive as the TV and users seldom encounter illegal content such as child pornography. Like other historical forms of censorship, current attempts to define and ban objectionable content are vague and muddy, reaching out far beyond their reasonable targets to hurt the promise of open communication systems. Government-imposed censorship, over-regulation, or service provider liability will do nothing to keep people from obtaining material the government does not like, as most of it will be on servers in another country (as happened recently with the availability of the JET Report in 37 different web sites on the Internet outside the UK). Yaman Akdeniz also stated that: `If there is anyone who needs to be educated on Internet matters, it is the government officials, the police and MPs together with the media in the first place but not online users, parents and children. We do not need moral crusaders under the guise of industry based organisations to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable.' When censorship is implemented by government threat in the background, but run by private parties, legal action is nearly impossible, accountability difficult, and the system is not open and becomes undemocratic. These are sensitive issues and therefore, before introducing these systems there should be an open public debate possibly together with a consultation paper from the DTI. Notes for the Media Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) Mr Yaman Akdeniz Address: Centre For Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT. Telephone: 0113-2335033 Fax: 0113- 2335056 E-mail: lawya@leeds.ac.uk Url: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) is a non-profit civil liberties organisation founded on January 10, 1997. Its main purpose is to promote free speech and privacy on the Internet and raise public awareness of these important issues. The Web pages have been online since July 1996. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) started to become involved with national Internet-related civil liberties issues following the release of the DTI white paper on encryption in June 1996 and the Metropolitan Police action to censor around 130 newsgroups in August 1996. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) recently criticised the attempts of the Nottinghamshire County Council to suppress the availability of the JET Report on the Internet. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) covers such important issues as the regulation of child pornography on the Internet and UK Government's encryption policy. The organisation provides up-to-date information related to free speech and privacy on the Internet. Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) is a member of various action groups on the Internet and also a member of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (see ) which has over 30 member organisations world wide. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yaman Akdeniz Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK) at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:21:42 +0000 From: Hacking In Progress Subject: File 3--XS4ALL refuses Internet tap Press release November 13th 1997, Amsterdam, Netherlands. XS4ALL refuses Internet tap XS4ALL Internet is refusing to comply with an instruction from the Dutch Ministry of Justice that it should tap the Internet traffic of one of its users as part of an investigation. XS4ALL has informed the Ministry that in its view the instruction lacks any adequate legal basis. The company's refusal makes it liable for a penalty but XS4ALL is hoping for a trial case to be brought in the near future so that a court can make a pronouncement. On Friday October 31st, a detective and a computer expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory issued the instruction to XS4ALL. The Ministry of Justice wants XS4ALL to tap for a month all Internet traffic to and from this user and then supply the information to the police. This covers e-mail, the World Wide Web, news groups, IRC and all Internet services that this person uses. XS4ALL would have to make all the technical arrangements itself. As far as we are aware, there is no precedent in the Netherlands for the Ministry of Justice issuing such a far-reaching instruction to an Internet provider. The detectives involved also acknowledge as much. Considering that a national meeting of Examining judges convened to discuss the instruction, one may appreciate just how unprecedented this situation is. Hitherto, instructions have mainly been confined to requests for personal information on the basis of an e-mail address. XS4ALL feels obliged in principle to protect its users and their privacy. Furthermore, XS4ALL has a commercial interest, since it must not run the risk of action being brought by users under Civil Law on account of unlawful deeds. This could happen with such an intervention by the provider which is not based in law. Finally, it is important from the social point of view that means of investigation have adequate statutory basis. To comply with the instruction could act as an undesirable precedent which could have a major impact on the privacy of all Internet users in the Netherlands. XS4ALL has no view on the nature of the investigation itself or the alleged crimes. It is happy to leave the court to decide that. Nor will XS4ALL make any comment on the content of the study or the region in which this is occurring for it is not its intention that the investigation should founder. XS4ALL has proposed in vain to the examining judge that the instruction be recast in terms which ensures the legal objections are catered for. The Ministry of Justice based its claim on Article 125i of the Penal Code. This article was introduced in 1993 as part of the Computer Crime Act. It gives the examining judge the option of advising third parties during statutory preliminary investigations to provide data stored in computers in the interest of establishing the truth. According to legal history, it was never the intention to apply this provision to an instruction focused on the future. Legislators are still working to fill this gap in the arsenal of detection methods, by analogy with the Ministry of Justice tapping phone lines (125g of the Penal Code). The Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights demand a precise statutory basis for violating basic rights such as privacy and confidentiality of correspondence. The Ministry clearly does not wish to wait for this and is now attempting to use Article 125i of the Penal Code, which is not intended for this purpose, to compel providers themselves to start tapping suspect users. The Ministry of Justice is taking the risk of the prosecution of X, in the context of which the instruction was issued to XS4ALL, running aground on account of using illegal detection methods. Here, again, XS4ALL does not wish to be liable in any respect in this matter. For information please contact: XS4ALL Maurice Wessling email: maurice@xs4all.nl http://www.xs4all.nl/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 10:48:06 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy Subject: File 4--Angela Marquardt on trial again Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu This is twelve-day-old news but I didn't see it mentioned here. Thanks to Paul Kneisel (Cc'd) for pointing it out. I'm sure we all recall Ms. Marquardt's trial for, and subsequent acquittal on, _linking_ to material banned by the German prosecutor. Now it seems she's in the news again, being charged with publishing information about the first trial. Odd, to say the least. At is the Reuters story: New trial in Germany over radical Internet website Copyright (c) 1997 Nando.net BERLIN - A left-wing German politician acquitted in June of supporting guerrilla acts with information linked to her Internet home page appeared in court again on Friday on new charges emerging from her first trial. Angela Marquardt, 26, former deputy leader of Germany's reform communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), was this time accused of having illegally published the charge sheet of her first trial. The latest proceedings were adjourned after a witness failed to appear in court. "This is a farce," Marquardt told reporters. She said she had only shown the charge sheet to a few friends. [...] The court ruled that Marquardt had set up a hyperlink to the magazine page before the details on sabotage methods were published and did not have any knowledge of their publication. Unfortunately her website doesn't have the latest information available and it's all in German. Anybody know of a good English-language source on her story? The search engines bring back 95% German pages. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:19:13 GMT From: owner-cyber-liberties@aclu.org Subject: File 5--Cyber-Liberties Update, October 17, 1997 Cyber-liberties Update October 17, 1997 Recent Lawsuits Against Spammers As netizens continue to grapple with how to put an end to the unpopular practice of sending mass unsolicited e-mail, otherwise known as spam, the following lawsuits have been recently filed: BigFoot Partners, L.P. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 6, 1997).=20 Internet Service Provider (ISP) BigFoot Partners filed a million dollar lawsuit this month against the bulk unsolicited e-mail (or "spam") company, CyberPromotions, for sending thousands of messages and falsely indicating that the SPAM had been sent by the ISP. The complaint alleges that CyberPromotions intentionally falsified the domain name and the electronic return address so that the messages appeared to originate from BigFoot thereby infringing BigFoot's trademark, committing computer fraud, violating the Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, misappropriating of identity and libel among other theories. BigFoot seeks an injunction to stop CyberPromotions, $1 million in damages and punitive damages.=20 America Online, Inc. v. Over the Air Equipment, Inc. (E.D. Va. Oct. 1997) . In an attempt to protect its Internet service subscribers, America Online (AOL), has filed suit against a company that allegedly sent thousands of unsolicited e-mail to users to encourage them to visit pornographic web= sites. The suit against Over the Air Equipment, a Las Vegas bulk e-mail company alleges several counts of fraud, misappropriation, Lanham Act violations and that AOL suffered harm to its reputation and business interests. Snow v. Doherty, No. 97-CV-0635(RM) (N.D. Ind. complaint filed Sept. 22, 1997) This pro se complaint alleges that the defendant, a commercial spammer, violated the Telephone Consumers Protection Act of 1991 by sending him unsolicited e-mail messages and forcing him to incur the costs related to unsolicited commercial email.=20 According to the complaint, the expenses plaintiff incurred actual expenses by way of increased connection time and additional download time to download unsolicited email from the defendant.=20 Under the TCPA it is unlawful for "any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." In addition the TCPA 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3) authorizes lawsuits by individuals to enjoin senders of unsolicited advertisements, recover actual damages or $500.00, whichever is greater and an individual may receive treble damages if the court finds that the sender "knowingly or willfully" violated the prohibitions set forth in the Act.=20 Typhoon, Inc. v. Kentech Enterprises, No. CV 97-6270 JSL (AIJx) (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1997) (partial settlement). A Japanese ISP, Typhoon, Inc. received a permanent injunction against a company which sent thousands of messages to numerous Internet users through computer equipment owned by the plaintiff without authorization. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants falsely displayed Typhoon's return e-mail address, domain name and trademark. The injunction states that as a result of the spam e-mail messages, Typhoon was defamed, suffered misappropriation of its name and identity, misappropriation of its trademark, was trespassed against, had its services stolen, and was required to spend substantial time and money sorting through e-mail messages that could not be delivered. =09 Parker v. C.N. Enterprises (Tex. Travis County Dist. Ct. Sept. 17, 1997). A Texas Court has entered a temporary injunction against a California resident and his company, prohibiting further spamming of the Internet without consent. The lawsuit, filed by Internet author Tracy LaQuey Parker, who owned the rights to the domain name flowers.com alleged that the defendant used her domain name to fraudulently distributed mass unsolicited e-mail. Parker received thousands of return messages as a result of the defendant's use of her address, preventing her from accessing her Internet account for hours and temporarily shutting down her Internet service provider's mail servers. =20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ About Cyber-Liberties Update: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Cassidy Sehgal (Cassidy_Sehgal@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body. The Cyber-Liberties Update is archived at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html Are you an ACLU member? To become a card carrying member visit the ACLU web site For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cassidy Sehgal |To receive the biweekly Cassidy_Sehgal@aclu.org |ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update http://www.aclu.org |email: majordomo@aclu.org http://www.gilc.org |body of message: |subscribe= cyber-liberties take the pledge: Lynn Decker Coordinator of Online Programs ACLU National Office 125 Broad Street, New York, NY See us on the web at and on America Online keyword: ACLU This Message was sent to cyber-liberties ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:30:42 +1100 (EST) From: Danny Yee Subject: File 6--Book Review - The Electronic Privacy Papers Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu http://www.anatomy.su.oz.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Privacy_Papers.html title: The Electronic Privacy Papers : Documents on the Battle for Privacy in the Age of Surveillance by: Bruce Schneier + David Banisar publisher: John Wiley 1997 other: 747 pages, index, US$59.99 _The Privacy Papers_ is not about electronic privacy in general: it covers only United States Federal politics, and only the areas of wiretapping and cryptography. The three topics covered are wiretapping and the Digital Telephony proposals, the Clipper Chip, and other controls on cryptography (such as export controls and software key escrow proposals). The documents included fall into several categories. There are broad overviews of the issues, some of them written just for this volume. There are public pronouncements and documents from various government bodies: legislation, legal judgements, policy statements, and so forth. There are government documents obtained under Freedom of Information requests (some of them partially declassified documents complete with blacked out sections and scrawled marginal annotations), which tell the story of what happened behind the scenes. And there are newspaper editorials, opinion pieces, submissions to government enquiries, and policy statements from corporations and non-government organisations, presenting the response from the public. Some of the material included in _The Privacy Papers_ is available online, none of it is breaking news (the cut-off for material appears to be mid-to-late 1996), and some of the government documents included are rather long-winded (no surprise there). It is not intended to be a "current affairs" study, however; nor is it aimed at a popular audience. _The Privacy Papers_ will be a valuable reference sourcebook for anyone involved with recent government attempts to control the technology necessary for privacy -- for historians, activists, journalists, lobbyists, researchers, and maybe even politicians. -- Disclaimer: I requested and received a review copy of _The Privacy Papers_ from John Wiley, but I have no stake, financial or otherwise, in its success. -- %T The Electronic Privacy Papers %S Documents on the Battle for Privacy in the Age of Surveillance %A Bruce Schneier %A David Banisar %I John Wiley %C New York %D 1997 %O hardcover, bibliography, index %G ISBN 0-471-12297-1 %P xvi,747pp %K crime, politics, computing 9 November 1997 ------------------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 1997 Danny Yee (danny@cs.su.oz.au) http://www.anatomy.su.oz.au/danny/book-reviews/ ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:47:54 -0800 (PST) From: editor@CULTDEADCOW.COM Subject: File 7--cDc Global Dominatrix Update #23 ________________________________________________________ "We've got more bite than Marv Albert." FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE GLOBAL DOMINATRIX UPDATE _____________ http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/ ____________________ _ _ ((___)) [ x x ] cDc Communications \ / Global Dominatrix Update #23 (' ') October 31st, 1997 (U) Est. 1984 - * - All right, ya punks. Here are five new files, so stop carding the shit out of your mom's favorite porn server and start reading. _____________________/text files\________________________________ 341:"R.I.P." by Poppy Z. Brite. Last Tango in Lawrence? Our intrepid writer burrows into William on the night of his demise. And you thought he was just the guy from the Nike commercials. 342:"Wuss Vandals Get Hassled by the Man" by Rev. Anna Truwe. It's a Martha Stewart moment. Just when you think the rock's under wraps, along comes the Man. Dang. 343:"Some Form of Success" by Weaselboy. Stone walls do not a prison make. Free your mind, grab a boot disk and always wear a condom. And you thought Tony Robbins had all the rad insights. 344:"Wackers: The Secret Life of a 'Fantasy Maker'" by Isis. Sexual politics goes head to head with hand to gland combat. Read this gripping account of one girlie's search for real meaning in her nine to five. 345:"A Day Off for DrunkFux" by DrunkFux. Help me Rhonda. The kids have gone buck wild and they're marching for Jesus. Anyone wanna try to one-up this baby? File submissions: editor@cultdeadcow.com - * - Thanks to the following items of influence this time around: WAREZ: BeOS - It's cDc approved and guaranteed to get you all the lovin' PRINT: _Gravity's Rainbow_ by Thomas Pynchon MUSIC: Big Youth, The Five Alabama Blind Boys, Ry Cooder, Phillip Glass' _Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters_ RERUNS: Kids in the Hall BEVERAGES: Cafe Americano, ice cold Creemore INTERSECTION: St. Denis + Ontario (Montreal) _______________________/ - x X x - \________________________________ Fools better recognize: CULT OF THE DEAD COW is a gift to the women of this world and the trademark of cDc communications. Established in 1984, the cDc is the largest and oldest krewe in telecom, inventor of the e-zine and stool loosener to sysadmins everywhere. Each and every issue is produced on an Apple II for genuine effect. Yo, bee-atch! Find the flavor at these fine locations: World Wide Web: http://www.cultdeadcow.com http://www.L0pht.com/cdc.html FTP/Gopher: ftp://ftp.cultdeadcow.com/cDc Usenet: alt.fan.cult-dead-cow BBS: 806/794-4362 Entry:KILL Any questions, jackass? Grandmaster Ratte' cDc/Phat Daddy & Pontiff Email: gratte@cultdeadcow.com Postal: POB 53011, Lubbock, TX, 79453, USA "cDc. Hyperbole is our business." ______________________________________________________________ Copyright(c)1997 Oxblood Ruffin, Straight Buttah & cDc communications ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:38:12 -0500 From: EPIC-News List Subject: File 8-- Congressional Action and New Bills Volume 4.15 November 10, 1997 Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/ CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND NEW BILLS APPROVED H.R.2369. Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1997. The bill bans modifying scanners to intercept cellular phone calls and increases penalties for intentional interception. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the House Committee on Commerce approved a revised version of the bill on October 29. INTRODUCED HR 2563. Taxpayer Confidentiality Act of 1997. Introduced by Dunn (R-WA) on September 26. Amends IRS code to restrict the authority to examine books and witnesses for purposes of tax administration. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. HR 2581. Social Security Privacy Act of 1997. Introduced by Campbell (R-CA). Limits use of Social Security number. Requires disclosure of uses of SSN by businesses. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. S. 1223. Employee Information Protection Act of 1997. Introduced by Burns (R-MT) on September 26. Amends 1996 welfare bill to require that data collected for "new hires" database be deleted after six months. Referred to the Committee on Finance. S. 1356. To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Internet service providers from providing accounts to sexually violent predators. Introduced by Faircloth (R-NC). Sets civil fines of $5,000 per day for providing an account to a "sexually violent predator." Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 1368. Medical Information Privacy and Security Act. Introduced by Leahy (D-VT) and Kennedy (D-MA) on November 4. General medical privacy bill. The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes) or "unsubscribe" or use the Web form at: http://www.epic.org/alert/subscribe.html Back issues are available at: http://www.epic.org/alert/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--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 #9.84 ************************************