Computer underground Digest Wed July 28 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 56

Computer underground Digest Wed July 28 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 56
ISSN 1004-042X

Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Coop Eitidor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior

CONTENTS, #5.56 (July 28 1993)
File 1--Akron Anomaly BBS UpDate (Seizure Warrant)
File 2--Call for Paper: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference
File 3--Credit Reports and National
File 4--UPDATE #19-AB1624: PROGRAMMERS! START YOUR ENGINES!
File 5--Community Network Survey Results Available

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from [email protected]. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115.

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 the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
UNITED STATES: ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /pub/CuD/cud
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 93 11:48:32 EDT
From: David Lehrer <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--Akron Anomaly BBS UpDate (Seizure Warrant)

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The AKRON ANOMALY BBS was raided last summer
because of allegedly "pornographic" files it possessed (for
background, see CuD #5.23). Subsequent events indicated that the raid
was an excessive exercise in local law enforcement zeal. Under
pressure, the sysop pleaded guilty to a minor misdemeanor charge to
avoid costly legal entanglements. But, the case continues to raise
issues, and CuD will address some of these in a forthcoming issue. The
following is an update on the case)).

=-=-=-=-=-=-= Akron Anomaly =-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups:
akr.newsadmin,cle.general,oh.general,news.admin.policy,comp.org.e

There have been some recent developments in the Akron Anomaly case.
Briefly, some materials have been returned to Mark Lehrer, sysop of
The Akron Anomaly BBS. These materials do not include any of the
email that was on the system at the time it was seized
approximately one year ago. The email is being held by the Ohio
Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

=-=-=-=-=

This file contains:
<1> Description of property to be searched and seized (from search
warrant).
<2> Excerpts from the transcript of court proceedings, related to
the hardware to be forfeited.
<3> List of seized material (from David Lehrer).
<4> Notice from chief Stahl that returned software can be picked
up.
<5> List of actual items returned (from David Lehrer).
<6> Letter from chief Stahl saying the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Investigation has everything else.

=-=-=-=-=

<1> Description of property to be searched and seized (from search
warrant).

Quote:
PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED AND SEIZED
Computer(s) used to operate the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board and
data contained in them, computer disks and/or tapes containing data
involved in the operation of the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board,
records of users of the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board and the items
they have uploaded to or downloaded from the Akron Anomaly Bulletin
Board, financial records related to the operation of the Akron
Anomaly Bulletin Board, and other associated items including but
not limited to modems, disk drives, printers and software programs.

%executed June 18, 1992%

=-=-=-=-=

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT

STATE OF OHIO, ) CASE NO. 92-07-1789
)
Plaintiff, ) Robert Incorvati
) Assistant Summit County
vs. ) Prosecutor
)
MARK LEHRER, ) Donald S. Varian
) Attorney at Law
Defendant. )
- - -

Visiting Judge Presiding: Lorain, Ohio--Robert J. Corts

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS March 8, 1993 %excerpts%

MR. INCORVATI: %prosecutor's explanation of reducing two 2nd degree
felonies to a 1st degree misdemeanor%
The State of Ohio is also in possession of Mr. Lehrer's
>computer system. It's my understanding that is currently in
>possession of BCI and according to Rule 11F negotiations will be
forfeited to BCI in Columbus.

THE COURT: Now, I'm not sure I understand the charges. Pandering
obscenity?

MR. INCORVATI: The original charge, that's correct.

THE COURT: Was that done by means of computer, is that what I
understand?

MR. INCORVATI: Exactly, exactly. It was a computer, computer log-
on network that was available, and at the time it appeared that
information that may have been accessible to that or through some
work been accessible to it may have involved minors.
With respect to the State's case, there is indeed question
as to whether in fact that is a provable point, whether the minors
were involved on that.

THE COURT: etc. . . .
--Continued--

THE COURT: Very well.

MR.VARIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I would only add, I think, we
have agreed to the facts as have been presented other than I think
>there are unrelated soft disks, floppy disks that would be
>returned to the defendant that are unrelated to any sexual related
>matter.
> The hardware, I think, is what we agreed would go to the
>Bureau of Criminal Identification.
I think further that it's the prosecutor's position, and
correct me if I'm wrong, that we would be entering a plea to a
misdemeanor and they are not requesting any jail time or any
probation.
If that is the fact, at this time we are prepared to enter
a plea of guilty to possession of criminal tools and -- attempt to
possess criminal tools.

MR. INCORVATI: Attorney Varian is correct.

>THE COURT: So I understand, what needs to be forfeited
>specifically?

>>MR. INCORVATI: The hardware itself, if you will.

>THE COURT: What is that?

MR. INCORVATI: Specifically, I don't know. I can tell you that it
is a computer system.

THE COURT: Could you tell me?

>MR. VARIAN: My client would know the very best, but it's
>basically a computer, a disk drive, a -- is there a printer there
>-- and a printer.

>MR. INCORVATI: Also have the monitor and keyboard as well.

MR. VARIAN: Correct.

>>THE COURT: There is not going to be any difficulty with
>>identifying --

MR. VARIAN: They already have it.

>MR. INCORVATI: In fact, we are in possession of it.
In fact, also as attorney Varian states, we are in
possession of some of the software associated with that, that is
available for the defendant to pick up.

THE COURT: %continuation of the plea% . . .

=-=-=-=-=

<3> List of seized material (from David Lehrer).

MISSING ITEMS LIST:

for reference:
PROPERTY LISTED BY STEVE STAHL THAT HE TOOK FROM THE HOME OF DAVID
LEHRER, 58 BERMONT AVE., MUNROE FALLS, OH, ON 6/18/1992 UNDER THE
GUISE OF THE ABOVE SEARCH WARRANT--THIS LIST AS WRITTEN BY STAHL.
----------------------------------------------------------
Page 1-
ITEM # Quantity Description of property taken

1 1 US Robotics Modem
2 1 Home Built Computer
3 1 Loop Monitor
4 1 IBM Keyboard
5 1pk of 10 3.5 DD Diskettes

6 1 Epson Printer
7 1 Leaquer Int Corp (mouse)
8 1 Archive Corp Drive (cartridge tape)
----------------------------------------------------------
Page 2-
Item #

9 Misc. Wires
10 1- 5 1/4 Disc w/viruses
11 3- 3M DC 600A Data Cartridge Tapes
12 1- Letter w/check (fee)
13 1- OS2 IBM Operating System
14 1- Notebook w/documentation
15 1 pkg w/198 3 1/2 discs

16 1 pkg w/3 cases 210 5 1/4 discs
17 1 case w/59 5 1/4 discs
18 1 case w/89 5 1/4 discs
19 1 bag w/misc. records
----------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF ITEMS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED:

PART A: Itemized List
1. Line Item 10: "1- 5 1/4 Disc w/ viruses"
These are anti-viral programs Mark uses in his normal work
activities. Stahl wouldn't recognize a 'virus' program if it
bit him.

2. Line Item 11: "3- 3M DC 600A Data Cartridge Tapes"
These had NO 'sexually related' matter of any kind on them.

3. Line Item 12: "Letter w/check (fee)"
This is NOT 'sexually related' matter.

4. Line Item 13: "OS2 IBM Operating System"
This is Mark's REGISTERED copy of IBM OS/2 Operating System.
Mark is an IBM-approved beta test site for IBM's OS/2
software. 'They' returned Mark's BACKUP discs of OS/2.
IBM takes a very dim view of use of mis-appropriated
REGISTERED software. (and this case is posted all over their
own internal network--at their request)

5. Line Item 14: "1- Notebook w/documentation"
This is NOT 'sexually related' matter.

6. Line Item 19: "1 bag w/misc. records"
This is NOT 'sexually related' matter.

7. Line Items 15-18:
a) 5 diskette storage cases.
b) Approximately 300 of the more than 560 diskettes taken
contained NO 'sexually related' matter whatsoever.
They DID contain an enormous library of entirely 'shareware'
programs.

PART B: Things Taken But Not Documented List
IMPORTANT: --we want four items returned that Stahl took, but did
NOT DOCUMENT on his seizure inventory list:

1) ALL E-mail of the several hundred Akron Anomaly users
improperly and (my opinion) illegally taken, examined and kept
by Steve Stahl. Also all FidoNet E-mail in automatic transfer
and/or storage when Stahl 'pulled the plug'.

2) All copies made of data from the Akron Anomaly. Disclosure
of all existent copied data and its location prior to its
return.

3) The listing file from the hard disk of all users of the Akron
Anomaly.

4) The detailed library file from the hard disk that identifies
each of the diskettes taken by Stahl. i.e. precisely those
that are shareware library and those that are input area
backups.

Backup copies of this missing data probably exist, either in
Stahl's department or OBCI (or BOTH). I can't imagine them not
making copies when checking out software that could have an auto-
destruct feature.

=-=-=-=-=

<4> Notice from Chief Stahl that returned software can be picked
up.

Quote:
May 5, 1993

"Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has
returned to us certain software that they have determined is to be
returned to you. You need to come to the police station Monday -
Friday, 7:30AM - 3:30PM to pick up and sign for this property."
[signed: Steve Stahl]
=-=-=-=-=

<5> List of items actually returned (from David Lehrer).

The items 'returned' by OBCI were picked up and signed for at the
Munroe Falls police station on Friday, June 18, 1993 by Mark Lehrer
and his father David, with an attorney accompanying to oversee this
activity.

Items received Friday June 18th were:

53 diskettes
27 unopened/blank
16 with a commercial label i.e. DeScribe, Sierra
10 of OS/2 software backups

1 coaster for cold drinks

Period.

NO E-mail was returned.

=-=-=-=-=

<6> Letter from Chief Stahl saying the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Investigation has everything else.

Quote:
June 21, 1993

Mr. Mark Lehrer
58 Bermont Ave.
Munroe Falls, Ohio 44262

Dear Mr. Lehrer,

I appreciate you coming in to pick up your property
on June 18, 1993. I did want to advise you that we have
no more of the equipment that was seized. The rest of it
was turned over to BCI. Based on your notation, it appears you
feel you are entitled to other materials. We were
told by the prosecutor's office that we would receive a
list of items you felt you were entitled to upon completion of the
case. The case was disposed of on March 8, 1993.
To date we have received no list. On May 4, 1993 any re-
maining equipment we had in our evidence was turned over to BCI
pursuant to the court ordered disposition.

If you feel additional items need to be returned, I
suggest you contact them at P.O. Box 365 London, Ohio 43140, Attn:
Investigations Supervisor.

Sincerely,

signed
Steve Stahl

COMMENT: Not even attorney Varian had heard of any such
arrangements as this. The individual referred to at OBCI is John
Lenhart, Superintendent. Note also Stahl's first letter is dated
May 5th, one day after his 'contact' with OBCI to turn over his
'evidence'. David Lehrer

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 11:31:40 EDT
From: Paul Higgins <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Call for Paper: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference

CALL FOR PAPERS

The National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS) invites
proposals for original papers to be presented at a two-and-a-half-day
invitational conference on "Legal, Ethical, and Technological Aspects
of Computer and Network Use and Abuse." The conference, which will
include 40 participants representing a diverse set of perspectives and
areas of expertise, will be held in Irvine, California on December
17-19, 1993. Up to three successful applicants will receive travel
expenses and room and board at the conference. Papers will be
included in the conference proceedings and may be published
subsequently in a book or journal symposium.

The conference will focus on the ways in which the law, ethics, and
technology can contribute to influencing and enforcing the bounds of
acceptable behavior and fostering the development of positive human
values in a shared computer environment. Primary attention will be on
unwanted intrusions into computer software or networks, including
unauthorized entry and dissemination of viruses through networks or
shared disks. Discussions will deal with such issues as access to
information, privacy, security, and equity; the role of computer
users, academic institutions, industry, professional societies,
government, and the law in defining and maintaining legal and ethical
standards for the use of computer networks; and a policy agenda for
implementing these standards.

Papers are invited on any aspect of the conference theme. Especially
welcome would be papers reporting on empirical research, surveys of
computer users, and case studies (other than those that are already
well-known). Interested persons should submit a summary or outline of
no more than 500 words, together with a brief (one-page) resum% and a
statement (also brief) of how one's expertise or perspective might
contribute to the meeting. Proposals will be reviewed by an advisory
committee convened by NCLS and successful applicants will be asked to
prepare papers for the meeting. Papers must be the original work of
the author, not previously published, in good academic form, and
between about 5,000 and 8,000 words (25-30 double-spaced pages) in
length.

Deadline for receipt of proposals is 5 p.m. Eastern Time, September
15, 1993. Applicants who are selected to prepare papers will be
informed by October 1, 1993. Draft papers will be due December 3,
1993. Final versions of the papers, revised in light of conference
discussions, will be due approximately two months after the
conference.

NCLS is an organization sponsored jointly by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar Association,
dedicated to improving communication between members of the legal and
scientific/technical professions and exploring issues at the
intersection of law, science, and technology. Funding for this
meeting has been provided by the Program on Ethics and Values Studies
of the National Science Foundation. For further information please
contact Deborah Runkle, Directorate for Science & Policy Programs,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1333 H Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20005. Phone: 202-326-6600. Fax: 202-289-4950.
E-mail: [email protected].

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 14:13:08 EST
From: Dave Banisar <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Credit Reports and National

Credit Reports and National Security

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a provision
that allows for FBI access to credit reports using only a letter
instead of a judical warrant in cases that they say involved national
security. There is concern that this will be subject to abuse and that
the necessity has not been proven. Several privacy and consumer
groups sent this letter opposing the provision.

I was unable to easily find the actual text but will get it after I come
back from vacation.

Dave Banisar
CPSR Washington Office

July 12, 1993

The Honorable Dennis Deconcini
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6475

Dear Chairman DeConcini;

We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the
Administration's legislative proposal to amend the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to obtain consumer credit reports in foreign
counterintelligence cases.

The FBI seeks a national security letter exemption to the
FCRA to obtain personal information from consumer reporting
agencies without a subpoena or court order. A national security
letter gives the FBI the authority to obtain records without
judicial approval and without providing notice to the individual
that his or her records have been obtained by the Bureau.
Similar FBI proposals were rejected in previous years after
Congressional leaders expressed concern over the civil liberties
issues raised.

Although the current draft proposal is more comprehensive
than those circulated in previous years, the changes and
additions do not alter significantly the central character of the
proposal. The Administration's 1993 proposal includes explicit
limits to dissemination of obtained information within the
government, penalties for violations including punitive damages,
and reporting requirements. These provisions are positive
changes from the legislation put forward in previous years, but
they do not save the proposal from its intrinsic flaws.

Therefore, the reasons for our fundamental opposition to the
current proposal remain the same: 1) the FBI has not demonstrated
a compelling need for access to consumer credit reports; and 2)
legislation that implicates civil liberties should be addressed
separately and not as part of the authorization process.

There are only two instances in which Congress has
authorized the FBI, in counterintelligence investigations, to
obtain information about individuals pursuant to a national
security letter but without a subpoena, search warrant or court
order. First, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
of 1986 included a provision requiring common carriers to
disclose subscriber information and long distance toll records to
the FBI in response to a national security letter. Second,
congress included in the 1987 Intelligence Authorization Act an
amendment to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that
requires banks to provide customer records to the FBI in response
to a similar letter. In that case, the FBI presented to Congress
its case for obtaining financial records in foreign counter-
intelligence cases and the difficulty of obtaining those records
without a court order.

in both instances when congress has previously authorized
the national security letter, Congress recognized that the
procedure departs dramatically from the procedure necessary to
obtain a court order.

The FBI's current proposal seeks similar access to
individuals' credit records held by consumer reporting companies.
The FBI has yet to adequately justify its need to add such highly
personal, sensitive information to the narrow category of records
subject to the national security letter exemption.
The Bureau claims obtaining credit reports will allow it to
more easily determine where a subject of an investigation banks
-- information the FBI claims will help them effectuate their
ability to access bank records under the RFPA. We opposed the
national security letter exemption in the RFPA and do not endorse
the FBI's slippery slope approach to ensuring that they can more
easily obtain financial information in foreign
counterintelligence cases. This information can be and is
routinely gained without credit reports. We do not believe
convenience is a sufficient justification for this significant
exception to the law.
The FBI further argues that obtaining banking information
through a credit report is preferred because it is actually less
intrusive than those investigative methods that would otherwise
be used. While we too are frustrated that other information-
gathering techniques are frequently too intrusive, our objections
to the other techniques do not lead us to endorse yet another
technique that is also intrusive and that weakens existing
privacy law.
Finally, we object to using the authorization process as the
vehicle for pursuing this change. The national security latter
exemption, because it diminishes the due process and privacy
protections for individuals, must be given the most careful
consideration. The FBI's proposal should be introduced as
separate legislation on which public hearings can be held. only
in this way can the Committee test thoroughly the FBI's case for
the exemption and hear from witnesses who object to the change.

We urge you to reject the FBI's proposal in its current
form. We are available to work with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

Janiori Goldman Michelle Meier
Privacy and Technology Project Consumers Union
American civil Liberties Union

Marc Rotenberg Evan Hendricks
Computer Professionals for U.S. Privacy Council
Social Responsibility

cc: Members, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Honorable George J. Mitchell
Senate Majority Leader

The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
Subcommittee on Technology and the Law

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 10:42:07 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--UPDATE #19-AB1624: PROGRAMMERS! START YOUR ENGINES!

July 20, 1993

Okay, all you programmers who volunteered to create readers, indexers,
print utilities, etc., for California's legislative data --HERE'S YOUR
FIRST CHANCE.

GAIN FAME AND GLORY (if not wealth :-) ! Be the FIRST to create
legislative data-handling utilities and share the source-code with the
world. Do it fast, and you/it can amaze and impress legislators at
the Aug. 18th Senate Rules Committee hearing on AB1624.

The Legislative Data Center (LDC) has provided bill-author Bowen's
office with six diskettes full of sample legislative data in the
various forms in which it exists internally, at the LDC and/or the
Office of State Printing (OSP).

They also provided documentation-files in electronic form.

With some kindly Sacramento assistance, Tim Pozar now has all of these
files available across the Internet in the anonymous ftp directory
(file transfer protocol) on kumr.lns.com.

To obtain copies of the files, use the command "ftp kumr.lns.com".
Login as "anonymous" and use your mailing address as a password.

Be sure to use the command "binary" to transfer the files intact.
Use the command "cd pub/ldc" to change to the proper directory.
Then the command "mget *" to get all of the files. After all of the
files are retrieved, type the command "quit" to end the ftp session
and log out of kumr.kns.com.

If you have ftp problems, contact Tim:
Internet: [email protected] FidoNet: Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555
Snail: Tim Pozar, KKSF, 77 Maiden Lane, San Francisco CA 94108
POTS: +1 415 788 2022 Radio: KC6GNJ / KAE6247

According to LCD notes that accompanied the diskettes, the files include:
cgml.sou - California Generic Markup Language (CGML) parser table
codes.fmt - documentation of CGML (the LDC formatting language, that does
*not* give the page- or line-numbers by which amendments are defined)
measures.fmt - documentation of Page II (the OSP typesetting input, which is
the only source of the page- and line-numbers of printed bills)
*cg.ina - introduced bill, in the Assembly, coded in CGML
*cg.ams - amended bill, in the Senate, coded in CGML
*.cg - Constitution part, state code or uncodified statute, coded in CGML
ab????.ina - bill introduced in the Assembly, coded in Page II
ab????.ams - Assembly bill amended in the Senate, coded in Page II
*.pg2 - Page II tables for introduced, amended, enrolled and chaptered bills
*ca - committee analysis
*fa - floor analysis
*cf - committee vote
*fv - floor vote
*s - bill status
*h - bill history
*ve - Governor's veto message
063093.boo files apparently concern the Assembly and Senate Daily Files.
If you have questions AFTER you have diligently diddled these files and
become totally frustrated, send specific questions to me and I'll try to
scrounge up some answers. [No guarantees, though. :-) ]

Let me know if/when you think you have some code working, and we'll figure
out how best to gloriously - and *timely* - flaunt it in Sacramento. :-)
[Note: I will be at the Telluride Tele-Community conference and mostly offline
7/22-7/26.]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 16:34:17 EDT
From: Doug Schuler <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Community Network Survey Results Available

Community Networkers,

A few months ago I distributed a community network survey to several
electronic forums. I stated that I'd make the survey results available
electronically and I've received quite a few requests for the results.
I've *finally* moved them to a site suitable for anonymous ftp.

ftp to atlas.ce.washington.edu
login = anonymous
password = e-mail-address
cd to pub/seattle-community-network/community-networks/surveys

The completed surveys, explanatory information and blank surveys
are also in the directory. I hope to maintain up-to-date information
so completed surveys on systems not previously described or completed
surveys that reflect major changes in status are welcome. I'd prefer
that these be mailed to me. My address is [email protected].

I've received nearly 30 completed surveys so far.

I hope that this information is useful. Thanks to everybody that's
participated!

-- Doug

P.S. I've purposefully kept the survey short. I'm interested in
comments on improving the survey.

Completed (or nearly completed) Surveys
---------------------------------------

CIAO-trail-freenet Vancouver, B.C., Canada
IGC San Francisco, CA
SPACECON Merritt Island, FL
african-studies-bbs Madison, WI
akron-regional-freenet Akron, OH
boston-peace-and-justice-hotline Brighton, MA
chippewa-valley-freenet Eau Claire, WI
columbia-online-information-network Columbia, MO
cruzio Santa Cruz, CA
denver-freenet Denver, CO
ecoline Burlington, VT
eugene-community-network Eugene, OR
FACTS Fayetteville, NC [nearly ready]
heartland-freenet Peoria, IL
mt-view-community-network Mountain View, CA
national-capital-freenet Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
new-mexico-network Albuquerque, NM
rtk Washington, DC
santa-cruz-county-wan Santa Cruz, CA
seattle-community-network Seattle, WA [nearly ready]
slo-county San Luis Obispo, CA
suncoast-freenet Tampa, FL
sustainable-development-info-network Cambridge, MA
toronto-freenet Toronto, Ontario, Canada
triangle-freenet Triangle Park, NC
youngstown-freenet Youngstown, OH

++++++++++++
Thanks to David Barts and Coralee Whitcomb for help with this.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.56
************************************