
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 <federman@popd.netcom.ca>
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 <tallpaul@nyct.net>
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)
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm>

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 <http://www.gilc.org>) which has over 30 member
organisations world wide.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yaman Akdeniz <lawya@leeds.ac.uk>
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 <info@hip97.nl>
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 <jamie@mccarthy.org>
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 <http://www.techserver.com/infotech/10.30.97/tech08.html> 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 <http://yi.com/home/MarquardtAngela/>
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
<http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/bf-cp0.html>

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)
<http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/aol/aolsuit.html> .

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) <http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie/lawsuit.html>

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) <http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/typhoon2.html> (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).
<http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers2.html>

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  <http://www.newmedium.com/aclu/join.html> 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: <http://www.firstamendment.org>

Lynn Decker
Coordinator of Online Programs
ACLU National Office
125 Broad Street, New York, NY
See us on the web at <http://www.aclu.org>

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 <danny@staff.cs.usyd.edu.au>
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 <epic-news@epic.org>
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 <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
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
************************************

