💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0414.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 10:48:10.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Tue Mar 23, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 14
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Associate Editor: Etaion Shrdlu
CONTENTS, #4.14 (Mar 23, 1992)
File 1--Alternative To The Well
File 2--Reader's Reply: Craig's Legal Fees
File 3--EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
File 4--Readers' Reply: "Bury Usenet?" (CuD #4.10)
File 5--More on the Internet Debate
File 6--Abstract: What Scholars Want & Need from Electronic Journals
File 7--Cyberspace Candidate for Congress
File 8--BloomBecker's Legal Guidelines at CV&SC Conference (reprint)
File 9--NASA hacker sentenced (Reprint from RISKS DIGEST #13.29)
Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news
group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG,
and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414)
789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4),
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au. To use the U. of
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
quotes) to archive-server@chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu.
European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893.
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 as long as the source
is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, 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: Tue, 17 Mar 92 13:23:31 EST
From: mpd@ANOMALY.SBS.COM(Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: File 1-- Alternative To The Well
There is another system on the internet - The InteleCom DataForum - at
192.67.241.11, which gives access to anyone for only $10 a month,
unlimited time. No flat-rate/hourly charge combo. Very affordable for
a college student who doesn't have USENET at his/her local school, or
needs an alternative login from a terminal server, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 14:10:14 GMT
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU(Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory
Subject: File 2-- Craigs' legal fees
Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> writes:
>Also, why are we asked to send money directly to the law firm that
>defended Craig, and not to Craig himself?
I should imagine that this arrangement is set up (a) because it is
administratively convenient, and (b) so as to avoid the allegations
that Craig is feathering his own nest.
All monies received from, or on behalf of, clients must be placed into
that client's trust account. This is the account into which a lawyer
must place monies received in advance from his/her client for
safekeeping until a bill is rendered to the client. The purpose of
such an arrangement is so that the lawyer has some form of guarantee
that he will get paid (at least to the extent that he has money on
trust).
Secondly, if the money were to be sent directly to Craig, there would
no doubt be the cynical few who would raise (quite correctly I'd
imagine) the problem of how we can guarantee that _all_ the money
donated will be used for his trial defence.
I hope this clears up some of the mystery.
Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
PS-- I am in no way connected with Craig or his cause!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 11:04:45 -0500
From: Craig Neidorf <knight@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 3-- EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
++++ Text of original message ++++
>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 18:49:32 -0500
>To: eff-board, eff-staff
>From: van (Gerard Van der Leun)
>Subject: EFF Announces Pioneer Award Winners
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>
>ENGELBART, KAHN, WARREN, JENNINGS AND SMERECZYNSKI
>NAMED AS FIRST WINNERS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S PIONEER
>AWARDS
>
>Cambridge March 16,1992
>
>
>The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five
>winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial
>contributions to the field of computer based communications. The
>winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont, California; Robert Kahn of
>Reston, Virginia; Jim Warren of Woodside, California; Tom Jennings of
>San Francisco, California; and Andrzej Smereczynski of Warsaw, Poland.
>
>The winners will be presented with their awards at a ceremony open to
>the public this Thursday, March 19, at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in
>Washington, DC, beginning at 5:15 PM. Most winners are expected to be
>present to accept the awards in person. The ceremony is part of this
>week's Second Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy that is
>taking place at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in D.C.
>
>Mitchell Kapor, President of the EFF, said today that: "We've created
>the Pioneer Awards in order to recognize and honor individuals who have
>made ground-breaking contributions to the technology and culture of
>digital networks and communities."
>
>Nominations for the Pioneer Awards were carried out over national and
>international computer-communication systems from November, 1991 to
>February 1992. Several hundred nominations were received by the
>Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the final winners were selected by a
>panel of six judges.
>
>The criteria for the Pioneer Awards was that the person or organization
>nominated had to have made a substantial contribution to the health,
>growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications.
>
> The Pioneer Winners
>
>Douglas Engelbart is one of the original moving forces in the personal
>computer revolution who is responsible for many ubiquitous features of
>today's computers such as the mouse, the technique of windowing, display
>editing, hypermedia, groupware and many other inventions and
>innovations. He holds more than 20 patents and is widely-recognized in
>his field as one of our era's true visionaries.
>
>Robert Kahn was an early advocate and prime mover in the creation of
>ARPANET which was the precursor of today's Internet. Since the late 60's
>and early 70's Mr. Kahn has constantly promoted and tirelessly pursued
>innovation and heightened connectivity in the world's computer networks.
>
>Tom Jennings started the Fidonet international network. Today it is a
>linked network of amateur electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs) with
>more than 10,000 nodes worldwide and it is still growing. He contributed
>to the technical backbone of this system by writing the FIDO BBS program
>as well as to the culture of the net by pushing for development and
>expansion since the early days of BBSing. He is currently editor of
>FidoNews, the network's electronic newsletter.
>
>Jim Warren has been active in electronic networking for many years.
>Most recently he has organized the First Computers, Freedom and Privacy
>Conference, set-p the first online public dialogue link with the
>California legislature, and has been instrumental is assuring that
>rights common to older mediums and technologies are extended to computer
>networking.
>
>Andrzej Smereczynski is the Administrator of the PLEARN node of the
>Internet and responsible for the extension of the Internet into Poland
>and other east European countries. He is the person directly
>responsible for setting up the first connection to the West in post-
>Communist Middle Europe. A network "guru", Mr. Smereczynski has worked
>selflessly and tirelessly to extend the technology of networking as well
>as its implicit freedoms to Poland and neighboring countries.
>
>This year's judges for the Pioneer Awards were: Dave Farber of the
>University of Pennsylvania Computer Science Department; Howard
>Rheingold, editor of The Whole Earth Review; Vint Cerf, head of CNRI;
>Professor Dorothy Denning Chair of George Washington University's
>Computer Science Department; Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0, Steve
>Cisler of Apple Computer, and John Gilmore of Cygnus Support.
>
>For more information contact:
>Gerard Van der Leun
>Director of Communications
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>155 Second Street
>Cambridge, MA 02141
>(617) 864-0665
>Internet: van@eff.org
>
>Gerard Van der Leun
>Communications Director EFF
>van@eff.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 16:51:24 EST
From: Wes Morgan <morgan@ENGR.UKY.EDU>
Subject: File 4-- Readers' Reply: "Bury Usenet?" (CuD #4.10)
(In response to "Bury Usenet," in CuD #4.10):
I would like to address a point which neither Steinberg nor Sanio
mentioned; the "variety" factor.
I certainly agree with Steinberg's implied position that television
is a vast wasteland. However, there are still many portions of the
television medium which provide useful, informative services. The
obvious example for US viewers is PBS, which consistently airs in-
tellectually stimulating and through-provoking programs. For those
of us served by cable television, the Discovery Channel, CNBC, C-SPAN,
and Lifetime Medical Television are additional examples of "quality TV",
in my opinion.
With Usenet, we can find parallels for both "Three's Company" and
the Discovery Channel. Can Steinberg deny the beneficial aspects of
newsgroups such as comp.sys.sun.*, comp.unix.admin, or comp.lang.c?
While there are certainly newsgroups which have degenerated into
digital shouting matches, there is still a wide variety of rational,
informative discussion in Usenet.
Steinberg mentions the lack of "collaboration" among Usenet participants.
As rebuttal to that statement, I offer the dozens of situations/problems
for which I have found solutions/resolutions via Usenet newsgroups. I
have been made aware of countless bugs, security holes, and "lurking"
problems through Usenet.
I've also participated in several beta tests of software through Usenet;
I've reviewed papers and policies, received bug reports on my own code,
and shared my own experiences with hundreds of Usenet readers.
>He describes USENET as
>"a noble but failed experiment" and suggests to abandon it and
>research other directions in order to improve communications and
>quality of life.
Is the television or print media in danger of abandonment? I don't
think so. It still serves a large group of people, whose needs and
wants lie in almost every part of the intellectual spectrum.
>Browsing may be hard in high-traffic boards, especially when the subject
>information is poor or dated during a longer-lasting discussion thread.
I'd point out that finding something decent on the television may be
equally difficult; the routine location of a "quality" program on the
radio is almost impossible. Of course, we all develop our own personal
"schedule" of quality television and radio programs; I'm sure that each
of us could easily rattle off the time slots of those programs which we
find appealing.
We may examine several copies of a given magazine, evaluating its
relevance to, and addressing of, our needs or preferences. If a
particular magazine doesn't appeal to us, we cancel that subscription
(or stop borrowing it from a library or friend). I'm sure that each
of us could easily rattle off the names of those magazines which we
find appealing.
An identical "scheduling" occurs among Usenet readers. As we participate
in Usenet, we naturally dismiss those newsgroups which we find unappealing;
the Usenet "subscription" mechanism implements this quite well. At one
time or another, I have read every newsgroup carried by my site; over the
years, that huge list has been "pared down" to those 250 newsgroups which
appeal to me. I would assume that every Usenet reader does the same; I
don't believe that anyone could read *every* newsgroup.
Given this personal "scheduling", what is the difference between Usenet and
any other medium?
>- "low bandwidth", meaning messages in 80-column ASCII opposed to multi-
> media communication
This is an almost necessary limitation of the medium. Sites participating
in Usenet run the gamut of computing systems; almost every type of computer
system is represented in Usenet. While there are Crays and Suns on the net,
there are also AT&T 3b1s, PCs, Macintoshes, Primes, and even (I believe) a
Tandy Color Computer or two. Many Usenet sites cannot support multimedia;
should those sites be excluded? Should Steinberg deprive himself of a sub-
stantial audience by submitting his articles in multimedia format?
>Steve's comments on poor mastership of written language sound a bit
>arrogant and elitist to me.
They certainly do. Does Steinberg wish to replace newsgroup moderators with
"grammar police"?
%sarcasm++;%
Shall we accept the _MLA Handbook_ as the sole authority for Usenet style?
Perhaps we should adopt "The Elements of Style" or the GPO Style Manual as
our Writs of Common Wisdom. As an alternative, we may simply require a cer-
tain score on the _Usenet Qualification Examination_. Of course, all pros-
pective Usenet articles must be properly justified and proofread.
%sarcasm--;%
Usenet works; it may have a few worn springs in its digital suspension,
and some of its passengers may be a bit rowdy, but it stills takes more
people from point A to point B than any current alternatives.
Moving on to Steinberg's comments on moderated newsgroups.......
>> However, there is the insidious danger of moderator bias.
Does the same danger exist in the television or print media?
Does the same danger exist when you submit a book to a publisher?
Does the same danger exist when you submit a paper to a journal?
This "insidious danger" (as Steinberg so hyperbolically phrases it) is
a natural, necessary part of the moderation/editing process. How can
it be a "danger" when all participants in the process know that certain
editorial standards are being applied?
Most newspapers reserve the right to edit Letters to the Editor; why
doesn't anyone complain about that? Newspapers do not print every
letter they receive; why don't we hear a great hue and cry about that
'bias'? I believe that this behavior continues, unassailed, because
all parties involved understand that it is part of the natural pro-
cess.
>> Whether Townsend actually censors messages he disagrees with is not
>> important.
Actually, Patrick is *incapable* of "censoring" messages with which he
disagrees. He may choose not to include your article in his digest;
that's his right/obligation as the editor/moderator. However, he is
NOT censoring you; you may still distribute that article far and wide,
through several different media. He has no means by which he can pre-
vent you from doing this. Therefore, he is not censoring you; he is
merely preventing you from using HIS service to disseminate your infor-
mation and/or opinions. This is NOT censorship; it is management. While
Random House may not accept your book for publication, do they prevent
you from securing the services of Bantam Books as your publisher? I don't
think so. Why, then, is Patrick's parallel action assailed as "censorship"?
>> The perception -- and the possibility -- are there.
That perception, and its related possibility, are present in every form
of mass media. That possibility applies to _Newsweek_, _Southern Living_,
_Byte_ and _The Edmonton Herald-News_ equally. How do you propose to
eliminate this possibility in every form of mass communication? More
importantly, why should an electronic journal be held to a different
standard than its hardcopy counterparts?
>>1: There is no danger because an alternate group with no moderator can
>>be easily formed.
>
>This is completely orthogonal to my article on USENET. Sure, we can
>start an alternate group, but this just brings us back the noise
>problem and we will be no closer to a more effective USENET.
Why is this orthogonal? You have now argued, in successive articles,
that both unmoderated and moderated newsgroups are inefficient; how,
then, shall we meet your goal of a clean, efficient electronic mass
medium?
>If a moderator can censor, and
>many people think he is, then the newsgroup is surely less trustworthy
>than an unmoderated one.
Let me ask you this: do you base your entire opinion on one source of
information? I read national, regional, and local newspapers; I have
found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues. In
Usenet, I read both info.academic-freedom and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk;
I have found that each provides a different viewpoint on the same issues,
since one is moderated and the other is free of moderation.
>I merely used Townson's newsgroup because his moderation has become
>the most controversial. I don't think Townson would disagree with
>this. I certainly could have used CuD as my example, and pointed out
>that many people believe that the anti-hacker viewpoint is censored
>from the digest, but this perception is held by fewer people.
This perception may exist, but both mailing lists are experiencing
sustained growth. Could it be that people accept a certain bias or
influence in a given medium, just as we do with our daily newspaper
or television news broadcast?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 92 00:14:54 CST
From: William Vajk (igloo) <learn@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject: File 5-- More on the Internet Debate
The following article just appeared in comp.society. I feel it
represents, by its mere presence, the proper challenge to the Intertek
nonsense. The author, Steinberg, clearly sets out to stir debate, and
does that adequately, though I saw nothing which is not a compilation
restatement of discussions which have been on the net for years. The
article I read in CuD 4.09 falls short of being "professional" by that
mystical inch that's as good as a mile. I understand McMullen's
charitable review a kindness to help inspire a young man to continue
and therein to progress.
Collaborations on a professional level abound as a direct consequence
of usenet and the internet. There are many undocumented private
mailing lists serving scientific and technical interests.
Article follows:
======================================================================
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: File 6-- Abstract: What Scholars Want & Need from Electronic Journals
Message-ID: <9203192256.AA06649@clarity.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Mar 92 22:56:44 GMT
Sender: socicom@auvm.american.edu
Lines: 109
Abstract of paper to be presented at ASIS 1992 SESSIONS ON
"FULL-TEXT ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO PERIODICALS," sponsored by the
ASIS Special Interest Group on Library Automation and
Networking (SIG/LAN) and the Association of Research Libraries
(ARL) at the 55th ASIS Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh Hilton,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 26-29, 1992. Session II.
Full-Text Electronic Access to Periodicals: Strategies for
Implementation
WHAT SCHOLARS WANT AND NEED FROM ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Stevan Harnad
For scholars and scientists, paper is not an end but a means. It has
served us well for several millennia, but it would have been surprising
indeed if this man-made medium had turned out to be optimal for all
time. In reality, paper has always had one notable drawback. Although
it allowed us to encode, preserve and share ideas and findings
incomparably more effectively than we could ever have done orally, its
tempo was always lamentably slower than the oral interactions to which
the speed of thought seems organically adapted. Electronic journals
have now made it possible for scholarly publication to escape this
rate-limiting constraint of the paper medium, allowing scholarly
communication to become much more rapid, global and interactive than
ever before. It is important that we not allow the realization
of the new medium's revolutionary potential to be retarded by clinging
superstitiously to familiar but incidental features of the paper
medium.
It is also useful to remind ourselves now and again why scholars and
scientists do what they do, rather than going straight into the junk
bond market: They presumably want to contribute to mankind's cumulative
knowledge. They have to make a living too, of course, but if doing that
as comfortably and prosperously as possible were their primary motive
they could surely find better ways. Prestige no doubt matters too, but
here again there are less rigorous roads one might have taken than
that of learned inquiry. So scholars publish not primarily to pad
their CVs or to earn royalties on their words, but to inform their peers
of their findings, and to be informed by them in turn, in that
collaborative, interactive spiral whereby mankind's knowledge
increases. My own estimate is that the new medium has the potential to
extend individual scholars' intellectual life-lines (i.e., the
size of their lifelong contribution) by an order of magnitude.
What scholars accordingly need is electronic journals that provide:
(1) rapid, expert peer-review, (2) rapid copy-editing, proofing and
publication of accepted articles, (3) rapid, interactive, peer
commentary, and (4) a permanent, universally accessible, searchable and
retrievable electronic archive. Ideally, the true costs of providing
these services should be subsidized by Universities, Learned Societies,
Libraries and the Government, but if they must be passed on to the
"scholar-consumer," let us make sure that they are only the real costs,
and not further unnecessary ones arising from emulating inessential
features of the old medium. PSYCOLOQUY, an peer-reviewed electronic
journal sponsored by the American Psychological Association and
co-edited and archived at Princeton and Rutgers Universities, is
attempting to provide a model for future scholarly electronic
periodicals of this kind.
REFERENCES
Garfield, E. (1991) Electronic journals and skywriting: A complementary
medium for scientific communication? Current Contents 45: 9-11,
November 11 1991
Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20.
Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in
scientific quality control, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific
knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498.
Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disagreement in peer review. Science,
Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62.
Harnad, S. (1986) Policing the Paper Chase. (Review of S. Lock, A
difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication.)
Nature 322: 24 - 5.
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Invited Commentary on: William Gardner: The
Electronic Archive: Scientific Publishing for the 90s Psychological
Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November
11 1991).
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2
1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach
Holme Publishers, 1992; and in A. L. Okerson (ed.) Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, 2nd
edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries, Office of
Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992).
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the
American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic
Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for
Electronic Publishing (in press)
Katz, W. (1991) The ten best magazines of 1990.
Library Journal 116: 48 - 51.
Mahoney, M.J. (1985) Open Exchange and Epistemic Progress.
American Psychologist 40: 29 - 39.
Wilson, D. L. (1991) Testing time for electronic journals.
Chronicle of Higher Education September 11 1991: A24 - A25.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:32:53 PST
From: tenney@NETCOM.COM(Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: File 7-- Cyberspace Candidate for Congress
The following is my online announcement of my candidacy to the U.S.
House of Representatives followed by a copy of my platform and a brief
bio. I also have available a copy of the press release I sent out on
Business Wire. A photograph is also available. Please email or call
if you want more info.
Equally, if you don't want me to email you again as my campaign
progresses, please let me know.
Since it is my intention to serve as an online representative, I felt
that you would find this interesting...
Yes, I would be most appreciative of any and all legal campaign
donations except from Political Action Committees. If you aren't sure
what is and isn't an allowable donation, just let me know...
Glenn Tenney For Congress
2111 Ensenada Way
San Mateo, CA 94403
Voice or Fax: (415) 574-2931
+++++++++++++++++cut here for online announcement of my candidacy
MARCH 6, 1992, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA: Progress begins with
initiative, a coming together of a vision and the will to accomplish
great things. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs know this very well. For
too long, career politicians have laid barriers in the way of people
working to build a humane, viable future with the tools that
technology has given them. When the people have asked for widespread
access to telecommunications, computing power, and education,
old-school politicians have pointed to the necessity for defense
spending instead of making investments in the future. That's why I'm
announcing my candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in the
reapportioned twelfth Congressional District of California. My
district covers most of the area from San Mateo up to Golden Gate Park
in San Francisco. As a Democrat, I will be challenging our twelve
year incumbent in the June Primary.
A few weeks ago I asked Congressman Tom Lantos' staff how he voted
last year. Their initial response was to hand me the glossy
advertising brochure that our tax dollars paid for. When pressed to
find out how he voted, or didn't vote, I was ushered into their
library, shown to the Congressional Record, and told to look it up
myself day by day. This is how my representative, from one of the
most technologically advanced districts, brings information to his
constituents. Career politicians have remained dedicated to high
defense spending while the real tools needed for worldwide economic
competition are lying dormant. We need to encourage the young,
trained minds of our country, and to provide the communications power
to unleash that talent.
Every day we are faced with non-technical problems such as health
insurance, jobs, and our economy, but I feel very strongly that our
country needs to look at the future of technology: how it can be used
or abused, and how it is abusing all of us. Technology is advancing
far faster than our laws can cope, which raises many legal,
sociological, ethical, and constitutional questions. Answering these
questions requires both an understanding of the technology and actual
experiences with the technology.
Our greatest resources for the future are our children and our world.
Our country needs to take a proactive role in producing the best
educated future generation that we can, as well as having a place for
that generation to live and be productive. We need to find innovative
and creative ways to put technology to work for our future rather than
putting up legislative roadblocks to the future. Providing the
information and education we and our children need to be competitive
in the future is coupled to our economy. We can't be productive
today, nor can our children compete in the future, without information
and education. We must plan for the twenty-first century today.
We are faced with a society of economic haves and have-nots. Most of
us actively involved with technology and information access know that
information is power. We are fast becoming a nation of information
"knows" and "know-nots", and those who do not have the information
will be in an even more devastating position than those who are just
economically disadvantaged. Our government itself works to keep
information unavailable to us. We need to bring information to the
people, and get information from the people to our elected officials.
This will help bring the power back to the people. You can be an
elected official without being a career politician, but you can't
legislate technological issues unless you understand the technology.
We need elected officials who are online and accessible, and with whom
information flows -- to them and from them as a dialogue.
One of the problems of our political system is that it takes money to
win. Too often these funds come from Political Action Committees.
The traditional view has been that campaign funding is spent to "get
the message out". The online community finally has a chance to use
this new medium to not only get a message out, but to discuss the
issues without spending obscene amounts of money. Let's use my
campaign as a demonstration of the power of online politics. Pass
this release and my platform on to your friends and colleagues, and
around your town. Even though California's twelfth Congressional
District covers the area from San Mateo up to Golden Gate Park in San
Francisco, these issues need to be discussed online and in the media
nationwide. We of the online community are currently an
under-represented constituency. Let's change that. Let's get
Congress online.
Even an online campaign isn't free. Network etiquette precludes me
from asking for campaign contributions, but please do contact me
directly:
Paid for by the Glenn Tenney for Congress Campaign Committee
2111 Ensenada Way
San Mateo, CA 94403
Voice/Fax: (415) 574-2931
tenney@netcom.com or Compuserve: 70641,23
(also MCI Mail, America Online, and others)
--30--
+++++++++++++++++cut here for a copy of my platform
Congressional Candidate Glenn Tenney's Platform For Our Future
MARCH 6, 1992, SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA: Most candidates look like
every other candidate on most issues. I am differentiated on
high-tech issues. Here's how I feel about a few traditional and
technological issues: