Computer underground Digest    Sun  May 26, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 39
                          ISSN  1004-042X

      Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
      News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
      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, #9.39 (Sun, May 26, 1997)

File 1--HACK - Texas Driver's License database on the web
File 2--PI/GILC UK Crypto Conference Cybercast
File 3--EX-VIRUS WRITER CLINT HAINES DIES OF OVERDOSE AT 21
File 4--Last parts of <gov.*> stories and query about status
File 5--Interactive ACT-UP Civil Disobedience Training Online
File 6--Cyberculture Studies (fwd)
File 7--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: Sun, 25 May 1997 17:23:12 EDT
From: Martin Kaminer <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--HACK - Texas Driver's License database on the web

------- Forwarded Message

Date--Sun, 25 May 1997 11:15:33
From--FringeWare News Network <[email protected]>

Sent from: Paco Xander Nathan  <[email protected]>

URGENT NEWS RELEASE -

Regarding the release and use of personal information from Texas motor
vehicle records, i.e. our recent news about the "www.publiclink.com"
web site, the Texas legislature will vote on the floor TOMORROW over
SB1069, which would attach a criminal penalty to such information use,
except for "permitted disclosures".

Note that these criminal penalities and their exceptions have been
substituted onto a proposed bill which was already in play (SB1069)
in the Texas Senate, one which had already been passed in the Texas
House. The bill and its history are available online at:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/

Search for "SB1069" under the bill search link. The Texas legislature
is currently in session, which only happens once every two years, and
only a matter of days remain in the current session for introducing
any legislation.

After "www.publiclink.com" went online, a lawsuit was filed against
the site's publisher, the site was taken down, and the story earned
widespread headlines.

Governor George Bush Jr., et al., expressed concerns over protecting
the privacy of Texas citizens vis-a-vis Internet services such as
Public Link, while failing to mention that Texas State offices have and
will continue to receive revenue from the bulk sales of this same data.

For example, if another driver cuts you off in traffic, you take down
their license plate number, then go home, check the Public Link web site
to find out: the name of the car's owner, where that person lives, with
whom that person lives, their race/height/weight/birthdate, a list of
their neighbors, how they have voted in recent elections, what criminal
convictions they have, etc.

My own comments on KVUE-24 news and the CNN Headline News trailer, along
with similar comments online by Mike Godwin, et al., of EFF, have shown
the "double-edged sword" effect of regulating such information.

Certainly the issue of protecting privacy vs. freedom of information
(since this information is and will remain public record in Texas) comes
to mind, as has the most prevalent argument coming from women's groups
in Texas, that such information, even though it has been available for
years, now placed on the Internet can pose a public threat in terms of
assisting stalkers.

But the real issues run much deeper. On one hand, the information is
available (and has been for years) to anybody with enough means to
hire an attorney or investigator: "Please give me a list of all the
women over age 65, widowed, living alone in a particularly wealthy block
of Dallas". That one *might* cost you $75, but think of the potential
return-on-investment for b&e specialists, televangelists, and other
social vultures.

Public Link has merely made this same data, derived from public record,
available to all who have Internet access. Restrictions from the Texas
legislation on who/what can be listed on the Internet would be pointless
because servers could easily move to Louisiana, Mexico, or even somewhere
out in the Indian Ocean....

One the other hand, look at the trade-off of who's agenda will be served
by making this data only available to those parties authorized for the
"permitted disclosures". Consider that investigative journalists have
used this kind of data to breach stories in the public interest which
the wealthy and powerful might otherwise attempt to keep quiet. Consider
on the flip side that this kind of information is regularly used by the
personnel staff at large corporations, who need to make decisions on
hiring new employees and therefore buy computer-based records about
private individuals: voting records, criminal records, worker's comp,
any available medical data, etc.

Here's the scenario: a personnel director needs to choose between two
applicants for a position, let's say one is a woman from a racial minority
who has had a previous C-section birth and voted Democrat in the past four
elections; then the other applicant is a white male who voted Republican
in the past elections on record. Now really, given the cost of medical
insurance and employee relations these days, whom are they going to pick
for the job?

This exact data is at question. It is commericially available and in
widespread use throughout "human resource departments" and "security"
firms. Moreover, an older issue of workplace drug testing brings in
related concerns. Random drug testing used in corporate America is at
best 60% accurate, i.e. practically meaningless, BUT those tests provide
employers and government agencies with a legal "foot-in-the-door" for
correlating all of the personal information listed above along with the
individual's medical records and SSN. Think about it. Think really hard
about the implications, for a long time, and then ask yourself if drug
testing really concerns "family values", not to mention the other privacy
abuse practices in question.

To the point of Texas Senate Bill 1069, an unofficial comment from one
Texas capitol legislative analyst responsible for independent research of
this issue was that "journalists are going to hate this bill."

If you read the text of SB1069, it becomes hauntingly clear that government
agencies, employers, insurance companies, private investigators, and even
firms which conduct "surveys, marketing, or solicitations", will all keep
their bulk access to Texas citizens personal data, BUT that any other use
would become a criminal offense. Furthermore, this portion of the bill is
what has been added at the last minute, i.e. subsequent to the news reports
about Public Link.

To wit, it will be fine for a spammer to buy and use the data to tailor
"bulk distribution" mailings, but it will become a criminal offense for
anybody to place the same exact data up for public use on a web site.

Also, it will be fine for personnel managers and insurance agents to use
this data in private while deciding about an individual's hiring potential
or quoted insurance rates, but it would become a criminal offense for a
newspaper journalist (or Internet email list participant) to access the
same exact data in public record for the purposes of, say, exposing illegal
hiring practices.

Note that this bill has been slid through the voting process quietly, as a
deliberate act by the legislators. It was substituted onto a bill already
passed by the House, and then "recommended for local & uncontested calendar"
by the Senate, i.e. so as not to draw public attention.

If you live in Texas, we urge you to take action. Flood the legislature.
If you are an attorney or expert familiar with Texas State privacy laws,
please render a written opinion faxed to your representative. Current
estimates project that the SB1069 will pass the Texas Senate tomorrow (i.e.
quietly while most of the state is off on holiday).

1984 is only 13 years away...

Paco Xander Nathan
FringeWare Inc.
25 May 1996
Austin, TX, Earth

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

Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 00:29:18 +0100
From: Dave Banisar <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--PI/GILC UK Crypto Conference Cybercast

For those of you interested in hearing a live cybercast of the Privacy
International/GILC conference on UK cryptography policy, theURL is:

   http://www.encryption.co.uk

Speakers will include Phil Zimmermann, Whit Diffie, Ross Anderson, and Carl
Ellison.
The Department of Trade and Industry and the National Criminal Intelligence
Service will also present. The event is being hosted by the London School
of Economics.

A copy of the agenda is available at:

  http://www.privacy.org/pi/conference/dti/

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 15:08:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--EX-VIRUS WRITER CLINT HAINES DIES OF OVERDOSE AT 21

CRYPT NEWSLETTER 42
April -- May 1997


EX-VIRUS WRITER CLINT HAINES DIES OF OVERDOSE AT 21


Long-time readers of Crypt Newsletter will be astonished to hear
death -- due to heroin overdose -- came to the famous Australian
virus-writer Clint Haines on his twenty-first birthday, April 10.
He was from Brisbane.

Writing in the Usenet comp.virus newsgroup On April 19, Rod Fewster,
a moderator of one of the Fidonet's virus information newsfeeds and
one who knew Haines, said:

"Clinton Haines, who earned his place in virus-writing history at=20
the age of fifteen as Harry McBungus, became a household name in
the=20 virus world by the time he was eighteen as Terminator-Z
and=20 TaLoN . . . [Haines] gained widespread fame a couple of years
ago=20 with front-page newspaper headlines yelling about how his No
Frills=20 virus had stopped the Australian Taxation Office dead in
its tracks=20 for two days, and was regarded by his peers as one of
the best virus=20 writers of all time . . . [He] will be cremated
tomorrow morning.

"Clint quit virus writing two years ago to concentrate on his
university studies and he had the intelligence to go a long way in
his chosen field of microbiology, but unfortunately being
intelligent doesn't always give you street smarts.

"Clinton Haines/Harry McBungus/Terminator-Z/TaLoN died from an
overdose of heroin . . . on his twenty-first birthday."

Haines' interest in controlled substances could be seen in frequent
posts to the Usenet where the University of Queensland student waxed
enthusiastically on topics ranging from the synthesis of LSD and
methamphetamines to his own experiences with Prozac. In April, it
all came off the rails, rendering him dead and an acquaintance
comatose.

For example, on the date-rape drug, rohypnol: ". . . a friend of
mine had 10 rohypnols and a 6-pack, woke up in the lockup with 25
stitches=20 in his head and a broken arm, and couldn't remember a
single thing=20 from the last 12 hours . . . turns out he was
vandalizing a train seat=20 and the security guards beat the shit
out of him . . . then he got off=20 at the next station only to try
skateboarding and broke his arm."

On speed and LSD: ". . . I assure you people that LSD and
amphetamines are a rather wondrous combination, the ceaseless and
energetic progression of thought along a myriad gossamer threads of
abstract reality . . . throw nitrous on top of that and you have God
mode happening . . . thinking is simply a matter of choosing where
you want to go inside your mind and insight/thought rushes abound to
the point of not having enough time in which to follow every branch
point . . . to the point where your individual thought threads meld
themselves into higher denominations . . ."

Haines rambled wildly on his thrill at sniffing laughing gas: ". . .
nitrousing out in this state of mind can be <I>wicked</I> because
you go so far out on a mental limb . . . sometimes you get to this
point where everything becomes completely fluid, not in the physical
sense, but one can see, perceive, visualize, etc., every
ramification of everything that goes on in the particular mental
environment you construct . . . including, say, the passage of a
tennis ball under the influence of gravity, or the evolution of an
argument and the interplay of multiple factors, even your own
thought reasoning . . . when one nitrouses out to a point of total
thought fusion, and the concurrent realization/visualization of an
extended range of thought capabilities occurs, one gets the rare
chance to 'refit' aspects of one's mind, much like getting into
newly-washed clothes or something."

And, sadly, on heroin synthesis in a post on September 20, 1996:
"WARNING ---- MAKE SURE you cut the rock so produced down to NO MORE
than 30% purity -- otherwise you'll end up killing a whole bunch of
people . . street-grade heroin is usually in the range of 10-20%,
maximum."

The Australian VLAD virus-writing group promptly published a
memorial virus to Haines, called "RIP Terminator Z," according to a
story by technology writer Julie Robotham in a piece published in
the April 29 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Fewster commented to Crypt Newsletter, "[Clint Haines] had a bright
future ahead of him, and in my opinion could have done some good in
the world if he'd just kept his head together."

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

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:31:13 -0400
From: Paul Kneisel <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--Last parts of <gov.*> stories and query about status

DID THE CREATION OF <gov.*> VIOLATE CIVIL SERVICE RULES?

by tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)

Most of the newly-created 200+ news groups in the <gov.*> hierarchy are
formally moderated. This raises several issues concerning Civil Service
employment norms as well as broader issues of discrimination.

The basic core of people behind <gov.*> was chosen outside the normal
established Civil Service procedures. "A call for volunteers was issued on
the email list <[email protected]>, which was created to hash out the
issues involved in creating a <gov.*> hierarchy. Those who responded to
this initial call recruited some additional members."[1]

The formal notion that people "volunteered" for <gov.*> does not alter
anything concerning Civil Service requirements. Nor might the fact that the
"volunteers" get no special financial rewards for their work moderating or
administering <gov.*> groups. Renumeration can occur in the area of special
training or of improved working conditions, or both. In other words, two
low -level clerks may normally sort mail for eight hours a day. Let one,
however , be freed for four hours to moderate a group and that person's
working condition can be far more pleasant than the other who is still
limited to the boring job of sorting mail all day.

A similar point holds for training. The <gov.*> "volunteer" moderator gets
a considerable amount of extra experience, all of which can look very good
on a job resume; the other clerk does not. In this sense, "volunteering"
becomes a lateral job transfer, even if there are no other salary increases
or improvements in working conditions. But normal Civil Service regulations
also require that such lateral transfer opportunities be officially posted.

I do not believe that the official rules of the U.S. Civil Service
recognize <[email protected]> as an official location for job postings.
Nor does the private word-of-mouth recruitment of people satisfy any
government regulation of open posting of job openings.

The idea of a Civil Service functioning according to declared procedures
was a great advance for democracy. No longer did one's opportunity for job
advancement depend on Uncle William being a Cabinet Minister or mom the
King's mistress. Nor, non-discriminatory Civil Service rules expanded,
could one be formally denied government employment because of
ethnic/racial/national or gender reasons. Civil Service regulations
equalized job hiring and promotion opportunities for all.

The issue of ethnic/national/racial and gender discrimination also appears
in the <gov.*> recruitment of volunteer moderators. The demographics of the
existing Internet are severely twisted towards a race[2] (white) and a
gender (male). It seems reasonable to infer that the composition of the
list <[email protected]> reflects this bias. There is certainly nothing
illegal with the demographic bias of the Internet, until that bias involves
the promotion, training, or lateral transfer of government employees. Then
the issue of bias is quite relevant and any actual bias exceedingly illegal.

Of course anyone might have subscribed to <[email protected]> and many
would have had known that government jobs were--in any fashion
whatsoever--advertised on the list. The same point could be made for some
hard-copy magazine like _White Guys Quarterly_. But this was not the case
and it appears exceedingly unlikely that any reasonable man or woman would
have turned to a Census discussion list when seeking government employment,
transfer, or promotion.

The Civil Service and discrimination problem does not disappear with  some
<[email protected]> subscribers "recruiting some additional members."
Rather it replicates the classical activities of the Ol' Boys Club. At one
point such word of mouth information was the norm in government hiring and
promotion. You got the job because you heard about the job and the other
man or woman did not. Perhaps you heard from your old roommate at Eton,
Oxford, or Harvard. Or you played golf with them, attended the First
Episcopalian Church with their father, or shared a joint membership in the
Benjamin Davis Hunting Club. This was one of the major ways that the Ol'
Boys Clubs around the world and throughout history maintained their power.

It was something that was ultimately deemed socially destructive and
discriminatory. It led to the development of the professional Civil Service.

Hiring, promoting, or transferring via the Ol' Boys (Inter) Network is also
something that <gov.*> should be legally powerless to reinstitute.

The volunteers for the top level HCC also reflect the composition typical
of Ol' Boys networks.

All twelve are male. None have Asiatic surnames, and only one (Sacarto)
could be arguably Hispanic. Ten of the twelve represent the U.S. or United
Kingdom. The two "international" representatives are Ian Barndt and Paul
Nielson, names not likely to reflect any other world culture outside
northern Europe.

Of particular interest is the total absence of women administering the 200+
group addition to the world's Village Green. Did the twelve men make a
conscious determination to exclude women? Or did they look around, see only
men, and not even notice that women were lacking?

One wonders which of the two is worse.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Richard A. Bjorklund, "Re: HCC members and moderators ," 18 Mar 1997,
e-mail to P. Kneisel. Bjorklund is the official postmaster the National
Science Foundation and FinanceNet. Both groups were intimately involved in
creating <gov.*>. He is also a member of the top-level international
Hierarchy Coordinating Committee responsible for administering <gov.*>.

[2] I use the word "race" guardedly. "Race" as a scientific concept has no
meaning; it is a mystical construct. But "racism"--a pattern of
discrimination based on the false concept of race--certainly exists. Thus I
use the term "race" in the above context to indicate the continuation of
racial bias.

[END INSERT: CIVIL SERVICE]

[BEGIN INSERT: d00d VS. DOD]

SHOULD THE PENTAGON CONTROL ANY PART OF THE INTERNET?

or

d00d versus DOD in Cyberspace

by tallpaul (Paul Kneisel)

"... the teenage hacker is just as deadly an opponent as a Force XXI
soldier assaulting a position."
-- Douglas D. Buchholtz[1]
Lieutenant General
Director for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems
Joint [DOD] Staff (J6)

While the newly created <gov.*> hierarchy on UseNet created some 200+
groups, users should not think that this is the end of the matter.
Documents for <gov.*> now hypothesize about the creation of yet another top
level hierarchy called <usgov.*>[2]. Don't confuse this with <gov.us.*>;
the two are entirely different.

One purpose for the suggested <usgov.*> hierarchy is to allow the
Department of Defense (or DOD) to establish special groups on the UseNet,
dedicated to DOD issues and with a special dissemination controlled not by
the existing Internet Service Providers but by the DOD itself.

"... the NetNews system and supporting software can provide a very
convenient form for internal communications within a government, or
internal communications between a closed set of agencies. The internal
newsgroups are called 'local' newsgroups within the Usenet NetNews system.
Each local newsgroup hierarchy must have a unique prefix. The prefix 'gov"
is reserved for public newsgroups with wide distribution, but another
prefix could be created by a particular government or agency. For example,
'usgov. dod' could be a prefix reserved by the Department of Defense within
the U.S. government, which is reserved for internal use by the DOD. In this
example, DOD news server sites would exchange these groups only with DOD
and other approved sites."[2]

This is rather like arguing that the public address system at the shopping
mall can "provide a very convenient form for internal communications
between a closed set of stores." UseNet is likely the least appropriate
form on the Internet for the exchange of such "closed" information. The
information broadcast over UseNet is not sent over secure point-to-point
communications lines like the famous Hot Line between Washington and Moscow
of the Cold War period. A far more accurate UseNet analogy would be
distributing information by throwing xeroxed leaflets on the ground at the
Village Green and then having tireless clerks examine each leaflet to see
if it is addressed to you .

Nor, except for the name, is there anything "local" about "local" groups. I
sit in New York and read posts to the "local" <israel.*> group;
hypothetically, someone in New Dehli or Dublin could as easily read posts
to the "local" <tx.*> group with news and discussions related to Texas. At
one time most Internet Service Providers would not carry such
geographically distant groups. But that was in the pre-competitive bad old
days of expensive hard disks and bandwidth. Today, almost all major ISPs
advertise "full Internet access" and carry upwards of 20,000 different news
groups.

Nor, *at present*, is there any ability for the UseNet protocols to permit
the DOD or any other group to limit the ability of ISPs to intercept and
re-transmit such material to non-DOD sites.[3] Last year's battle involving
the Church of Scientology and the net illustrated the impossibility of
limiting the spread of information.

In short, absent massive intervention into cyberspace by the U.S. federal
government, backed by the military might of the DOD, there is no way that
such DOD or any other material could be "reserved for internal use," as the
<gov.*> FAQ hypothesizes.

How might such an intervention develop? One way is to adopt a new federal
law saying "don't look." In the age where official DOD policy on
non-heterosexuals in the military is "don't ask; don't tell" the idea of
"don't look" is not as strange as it may first appear.

Nor need it be part of some future sci-fi scenario.

It is already done and part of U.S. law.

Cellular phones broadcast on an easily accessible part of the public
airwaves. When they first came out, anyone with an inexpensive Radio Shack
receiver could listen to the entire cellular band. You might think that
this disturbed the Wall Street-types discussing mega-million deals who
wanted a bit of security. And it did.

How did the companies and government respond? If you thought that the
companies soon added strong encryption or other forms of hardware security
you'd be wrong. Instead, the government passed a law making it illegal to
listen in, and required receiver manufacturers to cut the band out of the
capability of their future products.

Naturally, the hacker mags like _2600_ soon ran articles on how to modify
the new receivers to give them back the old capability.

One can easily imagine a new hacker group called "Dear Blabby" that
intercepts all of the otherwise-confidential DOD communications and posts
them to <alt.politics.pentagon.internal>. This provides Pentagon
info-security with roughly the same "biggest bang for the buck" of a small
damp firecracker in a typhoon. But these are the days after the $400 hammer
and $500 coffeepot via the military procurement procedures. Today, after
the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the estimated increased cost of
boosting the U.S. info-security system is three billion over the next five
years.[4] The cost estimate did not include the price of protecting <usgov.
dod.*> from the machinations of the evil 14-year-old cyber-terrorist Baron
ScullDrool working out of dad's rec room.

At the risk of being unpatriotic, I say we bring back the Red Menace and
save the money.

In order to defend against aggression you first have to be aggressed upon.
Pumping DOD material over UseNet while demanding that it not be improperly
distributed promises to make the Pentagon the "victim" of every curious
Internet sysop in the world. Such victimization creates an equal need to
defend against it.

In this sense, the inappropriate move by the DOD onto UseNet permits the
organization to extend itself into every part of UseNet in order to defend
itself against a vulnerability that should never have existed in the first
place. If the DOD wants limited channels of info-distribution it should not
use the net. And if it want to use the net, it should not worry about
having its mail read by any UseNet user. But the world's citizens hardly
have an obligation to act as unpaid security consultants for the Pentagon.

The issue of civil liberties is far more important. <usgov.dod.*> creates
another fait accompli where the U.S. government moves to control parts of
the global Internet, backed by the full might of the same government
against those "cyber-terrorists" who would resist. In this sense the
Pentagon neo-Pretorians[5] reverse von Clauswitz's dictum that "war is the
continuation of politics by other means."

One way this is done is by redefining the classical dichotomies like
internal vs. external; foreign vs. domestic; war vs. peace; violent
resistance and civilian vs. military. It is easy to argue that the Internet
produces a unique breakdown of these dichotomies. But then, if one so
wishes to so describe them, so do a number of other things from moveable
type to the telephone.

The forces behind such Orwellian redefinitions are neither confined to the
DOD not the forces instituting such concerns into law. (There is, in fact,
a strong DOD current opposed to neo-Pretorianism today.[6]) One of the most
ominous redefinitions concerns the very nature of state sovereignty and
state-citizenship, again presented as the need to combat terrorism.

One such effort is Presidential Decision Directive 39 of 21 June 1995.[7]

The unclassified portion of PDD-39 states that "We shall vigorously apply
extraterritorial statues to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend
terrorists outside the U.S. When terrorists wanted for violation of U.S.
law are at large overseas, their return for prosecution shall be a matter
of highest priority and shall be a continuing central issue in bilateral
relations with any state that harbors or assists them. Where we do not have
adequate arrangements, the Department of State and Justice shall work to
resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiations
and conclusion of new extradition treaties."

The gang that can't declassify straight failed to delete a paragraph marked
SECRET when it released unclassified sections of PDD 39 in response to a
Freedom of Information Act request by the Federation of American Scientists.

That paragraph states "If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a
state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall
take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by
force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government ...."

Could we really see elite anti-terrorist units of the U.S. government
covertly invading the Netherlands to kidnap some junior high school d00d
for reading DOD documents on the Internet?

The idea has a farcical character.

But then we remember that it is not a third-rate movie scenario by a
second-rate screen writer. It is a scenario developed by some leading
thinkers from the Pentagon and parts of academia whose speculations and
advocacy are publicly available on the net. So, thanks to incompetent
clerks, is the kidnap provision of PPD 39.

Need this be the famed pot of gold at the end of the global information
superhighway?

We think not.

FOOTNOTES

[1] quoted by Major Jay W. Inman, I Corps G6, CAMO. 3 Feb 1997, via <http:
//www.infowar.com>. accessed 15 Feb 1997.

[2] "GOVNEWS: GOV Hierarchy Frequently Asked Questions: FAQ #28: Can gov.*
newsgroups be used for internal, confidential, or closed distribution
communications?" <http://www.govnews.org/govnews/info/govnews-faq.html>.
accessed 17 Mar 1997.

[3] One can use encryption for every message but this defeats the purpose
of using UseNet instead of e-mail and secure servers. Public key encryption
systems like PGP are designed for one-to-one communications and are
unsuitable for widely disseminated discussions on UseNet; private key
systems like DES are insecure when used by thousands of potential users,
each of whom needs the "private" key to read and post messages.

[4] "Report on the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare
for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology," 25 Nov
1996, released 8 January 1997. <http://www.jya.com/iwd.htm>. accessed 30
Mar 1997.

[5] for "neo-Pretorianism" see Col. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., "Melancholy
Reunion: A Report on the Collapse of Civil-Military Relations in the United
States," "I.N.S.S. Occasional Paper #11, Oct 1996, (United States Air Force
National Institute for Security Studies, U.S.A.F. Academy, Colorado: 1996).
<http://www.usafa.af.mil/inss/ocp11.htm>, accessed 22 Feb 1997.

[6] See, for example, "Prisoner 2223055759" [sic: Col. Charles J. Dunlap,
Jr .], "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." _Parameters_,
Winter 1992-93. This paper, formally a social-science fiction short story,
was a co-winner of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92
Strategy Essay Competition. <http://carlisle-www.army.
mil/usawc/Parameters/1992/dunlap.htm>, accessed 22 Feb 1997. While the form
of Col. Dunlap's arguments are fictional, the story has non-fictional
footnotes equal in length to the story itself.

[7] <http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm>, accessed 8 Mar 1997.

[END INSERT: d00d VS. DOD]


-- [email protected] (Paul "tallpaul" Kneisel)

NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:

Please note that my e-mail address is back to "[email protected]" and is no
longer "[email protected]"


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

Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:42:13 -0600
From: Joey Manley <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Interactive ACT-UP Civil Disobedience Training Online

Free Speech TV has created an online RealVideo application based
on ACT-UP's civil disobedience training materials and AIDS
Community TV's video documentation of an ACT-UP training session.
This is the first _interactive_ video FStv has posted, and one of
the first politically useful video applications anywhere on the
web.

The training "modules" (twelve in all) will be presented every
Thursday beginning today, May 22, for three months.  All modules
will be archived indefinitely.

Visitors to the site will need the RealVideo player to watch the
video.  A Javascript-enabled copy of Netscape Navigator or
Microsoft Internet Explorer is necessary to experience the
interactive features.

Free Speech TV is a programming service dedicated to providing
cable and internet broadcasts of progressive, community-based,
activist video covering issues routinely ignored or distorted by
the mainstream media.

Joey Manley
Web Editor, Free Speech TV
http://www.freespeech.org/

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

Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 21:57:12 EDT
From: Judith Preissle <[email protected]>
Subject: File 6--Cyberculture Studies (fwd)

I am forwarding this message on request of the sender.  jude

*************************************************************
* Judith Preissle                                           *
*************************************************************
-------------------Original message----------------------------
Judith Preissle,

Hello, my name is David Silver.  I am the founder of the
Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies, a non-profit
organization devoted to the study and development of
cyberculture.  I was wondering if you would be interested
in posting the following message to QUALRS-L?  I believe
it may be of interest to many members of the list.

If you have any comments and/or questions, do not hesitate
to email me.

Thanks,

David Silver

---------- Forwarded message ----------

 A fully operational version of the Resource Center for
      Cyberculture Studies is now up and running:
               <http://otal.umd.edu/~rccs>

WHAT IS RCCS?

 The Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies is an online,
 not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to research, study,
 teach, support, and create diverse and dynamic elements of
 cyberculture.  Collaborative in nature, RCCS seeks to establish and
 support ongoing conversations about the emerging field, to foster a
 community of students, scholars, teachers, explorers, and builders of
 cyberculture, and to showcase various models, works-in-progress, and
 on-line projects.

 In the future, the Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies hopes to
 sponsor a number of collaborative projects, colloquia, symposia, and
 workshops.  Presently, the site contains a collection of scholarly
 resources, including university-level courses in cyberculture, events
 and conferences, and related links.  Further, the site features an
 extensive annotated bibliography devoted to the topic of cyberculture.
 Finally, the site includes "conversations/collaborations," an online
 listing of scholars researching various elements of cyberculture.

WHAT'S NEW?

 Since its initial launch in January 1997, RCCS has developed two
 new major features.  The first is "Conversations/Collaborations."
 Here, visitors are invited to browse through the research interests
 and undergoing projects of a number of scholars, researchers, and
 instructors affiliated directly and indirectly with the field of
 cyberculture.  Moreover, visitors are encouraged to contribute
 their own entries, listing their interests and contact information.

 The second new feature is called "Internet Interviews."  This
 section includes a list of links to online interviews with a
 number of digerati.  The list includes Nicholas Negroponte,
 Allucquere Rosanne (aka Sandy) Stone, Sherry Turkle, and Gregory
 Ulmer.

          Feel free to circulate this announcement
                as far and wide as you wish.

Questions?  Comments?  Contact:

David Silver
Founder, Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies
Graduate Student, Department of American Studies
University of Maryland, College Park
<[email protected]>

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

Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 7--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:   [email protected]

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  [email protected]
(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 #9.39
************************************

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.661.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.