💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0761.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 10:59:13.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Wed Jul 19, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 61
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
CONTENTS, #7.61 (Wed, Jul 19, 1995)
File 1--Senate Prayer - "Lord, save our kids from porn"
File 2--Beyond the Rimm
File 3--cybercensorship
File 4--(fwd) Hackers busted in Colorado
File 5--A response to a spammer (fwd)
File 6--Exon is unknown to the public
File 7--TIS CFP FYI
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 01:53:49 -0500
From: jthomas2@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
Subject: File 1--Senate Prayer - "Lord, save our kids from porn"
((MODERATORS' NOTE: This isn't satire!!)
prayer (Senate - June 12, 1995)
[Page: S8127]
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, Lord of all life, we praise You for the advancements in
computerized communications that we enjoy in our time. Sadly, however,
there are those who are littering this information superhighway with
obscene, indecent, and destructive pornography . Virtual but
virtueless reality is projected in the most twisted, sick, misuse of
sexuality. Violent people with sexual pathology are able to stalk and
harass the innocent. Cyber solicitation of teenagers reveals the dark
side of online victimization.
Lord, we are profoundly concerned about the impact of this on our
children. We have learned from careful study how children can become
addicted to pornography at an early age. Their understanding and
appreciation of Your gift of sexuality can be denigrated and
eventually debilitated. Pornography disallowed in print and the mail
is now readily available to young children who learn how to use the
computer.
Oh God, help us care for our children. Give us wisdom to create
regulations that will protect the innocent. In times past, You have
used the Senate to deal with problems of air and water pollution, and
the misuse of our natural resources. Lord, give us courage to balance
our reverence for freedom of speech with responsibility for what is
said and depicted.
Now, guide the Senators as they consider ways of controlling the
pollution of computer communications and how to preserve one of our
greatest resources: the minds of our children and the future moral
strength of our Nation. Amen.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jul 95 08:21:57 EDT
From: Lance Rose <72230.2044@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 2--Beyond the Rimm
The Net did a swell job of defending its turf from errant
government porn regulation by deep-sixing the badly misleading Rimm
study, and causing Time magazine to recant. This certainly shows the
astounding and still growing power of the Net organism. But it also
raises the question: to what ends does the Net flex its muscles?
For instance, the Net excels at self-protective acts against
overt moves threatening the Net as a whole, like taking down the Rimm
study, or making adjustments making spamming more difficult after
Canter & Siegel. But what about more subtle moves? Net-based
activities did not stop the FBI wiretapping act last year. Nor would
they have made a dent in the Exon bill in the '94 incarnation had the
telecom deregulation bills of that year stayed alive.
The difference here seems to be in terms of media attention. A
move with big media attention gets a big net response; a move that
catches the news reporters asleep also catches the Net napping.
The potential danger here is huge, and obvious. If the Net as
a whole responds to mass media apperances, what is to stop those
controlling the mass media from manipulating the power of the Net? Is
the Net just a dumb creature that responds on a low level to dimly
perceived threats to its existence, or is it (or can it be) a
higher-order product of the smart minds that comprise it?
As to the self-protective aspect, how well does the Net respond
to events that do not rip at its very fibre? We have shining examples
of a few years past -- the role of the Net in stopping the reactionary
coup in Russia, and in getting out word on the repressive violent
tactics of Chines gov't. leaders against students. As wonderful as
these effects were, they were also a low-order use of the Net: using
it as a robust communications medium.
What about Net community responses to events other than those
that threaten the Net as a whole? You can see the Net operate as a
community to protect itself. But what else might it accomplish? Are
there other social agendas or political results towards which the Net
may turn its power in the future? Should there be, or should the Net
be value-neutral (the issue of its very existence apart),
acknowledging the diverse political views and needs of its
inhabitants?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 15:03:06 -0400
From: christij@UNIX.ASB.COM(Joseph Christie)
Subject: File 3--cybercensorship
When I was a young child my momma read to me, a lot. She chose the
books. When I got older the books I read were picked by her and my
teachers. As I got older, I started to pick my own books from the ones
made available to me by momma and my teachers.
When I got a little older I was introduced to the public library. I
picked out the books but they were always shown to momma for approval
before I checked them out. As time went by, I started asking momma's
approval less and less as my own tastes and preferrences developed but
I still asked her opinion frequently.
Momma was not very well educated and before the 8th grade I was
reading things that she did not understand and had never been exposed
to. Technical and science books as well as philosophy, religious texts
other than the bible and some fiction that could be called "of
questionable taste". She would sometimes look at what I was reading
but I knew she didn't really understand much of it. She did not forbid
me from reading things she didn't understand nor did she forbid me
from reading those that she understood but did not approve, she had
faith that she had instilled in me a good grounding for making my own
value judgements. She knew I might sometimes make mistakes and also
that sometimes I might choose to expose myself to things that she
would not approve.
I don't ever remember a time when momma wished that the government
would step in and relieve her of the overwhelming burden of deciding
what was acceptable for me to read. The term "family values" is
bandied about more and more lately. Isn't responsibility one of the
most important "family values" that we are expected to learn? We learn
responsibility for ourselves, out pets, our family members. Much of
what we learn while growing up centers around responsibility.
Shouldn't parents demonstrate that responsibility by exercising
control over their children rather than allowing some distant,
faceless bureaucrat to dictate what is available to their family.
When the discussion turns to the topic of adult material and children
using computers, the politicians are saying that we are so incapable
or so negligent in this particular instance that they must step in and
tell us how to behave to protect our children from what the
politicians don't understand themselves. How would these same parents
feel if the government was trying to legislate that in order to become
well rounded citizens, all children MUST be exposed to sexually
explicit material by the age of say 7 or 8. It is the same principle
just different particulars. We wouldn't have too much problem rallying
support behind defeating that one though, would we?
If the politicians were truly concerned about the welfare of children
in this country their time and money could be better invested. How
about some serious AIDS education? How about more money for public
schools? How about let's not gut the school lunch program and the
infant immunization programs? How about some real drug and alcohol
education and treatment? More children die from tobacco and alcohol
related death than from sex in this country, where's all the political
outrage on this crisis?
It is the parents themselves that must make the decisions about their
own children and what they are exposed to as they grow up. Children
are constantly barraged by sex in the media and in advertisements that
surround them every day all day. Computers are just one more place
they see it. Most of what the public and the politicians are outraged
about is already illegal. Children being propositioned, children being
lured away from home by perverts and pedophiles are all against laws
already on the books. What we need is education not legislation. Teach
the parents, don't write more laws. As Frank Zappa said, "We are a
nation of laws, poorly written and randomly enforced."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 22:07:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 4--(fwd) Hackers busted in Colorado
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Here is the pathetic excuse for a headline article, as printed in the
Denver Post:
(Note: All typos are the fools who typed this up)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
(Front Page Headline) COMPUTER-CRIME RING CRACKED (Monday June 19, 1995)
Quartet accused of hacking into Arapahoe college's system,
inciting illegal acts.
----------------------------------------------
(Fourth Page Article) 4 ACCUSED IN COMPUTER HACKING CASE (By Marlys
Duran) Suspects used equopment at college to incite criminal acts,
officials say.
Arapahoe County - Hackers calling themselves "The New Order" allegedly
gained access to the Arapahoe Community College computer and used it
to distribute tips on how to committ crimes.
One man operated a computer bulletin board on which
contributors from throughout the world exchanged how-to information on
crimes ranging from credit-card fraud to high-tech burglary,
authorities said.
Computers were seized from the homes of four hackers, ranging
in age from 15 to 21. Secret Service experts were called in to help
crack the computer files.
Investigators found software for breaking passwords, lists of
private passwords for several computer systems, instructions for
cellular telephone fraud, private credit reports, lists of credit-card
numbers and electronic manuals on how to make bombs and illegal drugs.
In a 97-page affidavit detailing the 18-month investigation,
investigator John Davis of the Arapahoe district attorney's office
said that the hackers "operate with an attitude of indifference to the
rights and privacy of others and have made efforts to teach and
involve others in their criminal enterprise."
((Remainder deleted))
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 07:01:20 +0200
From: Maurice Hendrix <mhe@CRAY-3.XS4ALL.NL>
Subject: File 5--A response to a spammer (fwd)
From--Hanno Liem <hardware@xs4all.nl>
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following post was a response to a spammer who
complained about the cancelling of his posts. The spammer was not
Canter and Siegel, but the comments are a perfect respose to C&S's
complaints about cancelling spam)).
> This evidently was in regards to a post sent to several pertinent
> mailing lists, including one I operate here at my own site,
When people do this I always like to say in a Monty Python manner:
You do not get it. I will tell you. I hope you will get it.
You spammed.
We do not like spam. Spam is bad. Spam hurts the net. We like the net.
So we do not like spam. In fact, we hate spam.
What is spam? Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times.
What is lots and lots? We will not tell you. Why? We think you might
post one less, and then say it is not spam. But we will tell you this:
count the things on your hands and feet. It is near that.
What is spam not? Spam is not a bad post. Spam is not a bad post lots
and lots of times. Spam is not a post in the wrong place. Spam is not
a bad post in the wrong place lots and lots of times.
Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times.
We do not care what is in a spam. We do not care if it is in the right
place or the wrong place. If we cared, that would be bad. If we did not
like a post, we could say it is bad, so it is spam. Or we could say it
is in the wrong place, so it is spam. That would be worse than spam. So
we say a thing is spam if it is the same thing lots and lots of times.
One more time: spam is the same thing lots and lots of times.
Why is spam bad? The more times it is there, the more room it takes
on each site's disk, and the more time it takes to get it to all of
the sites. It should take just a small bit of room on each site's
disk, and take just a small bit of time to get there. So spam is a
lot of waste.
Why else is spam bad? The more times it is there, the more times we
have to see it. Some folks pay for their news by the note, or by the
byte, or by how much time it takes them to get it. Some have to pay
for each post in a group they read, and their site does not care if
they read the post. So spam is not fair.
Why else is spam bad? Spam makes folks mad. They post notes and say
that they are mad. Lots and lots of notes. We call these notes
"flames." So spam makes lots and lots of flames.
Why is a small spam bad? Some folks think that if a small thing is
not bad, then the same thing big is not bad too. So if a small spam
is not yelled at, then there will be lots and lots of big spams.
What did you do? You sent the same thing lots and lots of times. So
you spammed. Spam is bad.
We do not care what you said. We do not care if it was in the right
place. You sent the same thing lots and lots of times. That is spam.
That is bad.
Some folks like to get rid of spam when they see it. We think that is
good. We like them. We think they are good.
When they get rid of spam, they get rid of all of it. They do not try
to think if some of the posts are in the wrong place and just get rid
of those ones. That would be bad. As bad as to say that a post is
spam if they did not like it. No, they get rid of all of them. That
is the right way to get rid of spam.
Not all folks think we should do this. There are a few, like Dave
Hayes, who think spam should be left there, that we should all be free
to spam and spam and spam. But there are lots and lots more who think
spam should be got rid of.
Why are we mad at you? You spammed. But there is more: when we said
we were mad, you said you did not spam. And you said few of us were mad.
And you said your spam was not bad because it was in the right place.
And you said that we should not get rid of it. Or that we should not get
rid of the ones in the right place.
You said you will do it no more. We do not know if we think that is
true. Why? You said things that we think are bad. You did things that
we think are bad. So we do not trust you. We think you might do it the
next time you think of a thing you want lots and lots of folks to hear.
How can you make us think you will do it no more, and that you are good
folks?
(1) Say that what you did was spam.
(2) Say that what you did was bad.
(3) Say that you feel bad since you did this bad thing.
(4) *Then* say that you will do it no more.
Then we might trust you. Then we might not be mad at you.
That is not too hard for you to get, is it?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 10:33:07 -0500
From: m-atkinson@NWU.EDU(Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: File 6--Exon is unknown to the public
It seems that most of the general public have no idea about the Exon
Bill, aka the Communications Decency Act.
My mother is a well-informed liberal lawyer in New York City.
Speaking with her on the telephone last night, I asked her what she
thought of Exon. Her response: "Huh?"
She had heard of it, of course. She thought it was a great idea,
because it would Protect The Children. Naturally, she was appalled
when I told her what it really is about.
Clearly, to get the issues out in the open where they belong, we need
better national media involvement. If we could get the national media
to believe (as I do) that Exon is the first step in a massive
trouncing of the First Amendment, we would hopefully be able to
mobilize public opinion, and defeat it.
------------------------------
Subject: File 7--TIS CFP FYI
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 12:16:33 -0700
From: Rob Kling <kling@ICS.UCI.EDU>
CALL FOR PAPERS --
The Information Society (an International
Journal)
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kling/tis.html
Information and Call for Papers for "The Information Society"
journal, published quarterly by Taylor & Francis
Titles of articles published in Vol. 9 (1993) and Vol. 10 (1994)
Subscription Form
Revised [7/5/95]
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
An International Journal
An "information technology revolution" that can stimulate
significant social change is clearly underway. The exponential
growth in computational capability per unit dollar will continue at
least for the next several decades. Communication bandwidth is
undergoing simultaneous exponential growth. Connectivity among
individuals, companies and nations is forming what some are
calling cyberspace and virtual communities and new forums and
formats for electronic publishing, communication and commerce.
Since wealth, power and freedom of action derive from control
over, access to, and effective use of, information and expertise, the
shifting organization of information technologies and social life --
large scale and small scale -- is a major concern. These combined
trends have stimulated discussions the relationships between
technological change and social change. The term Information
Society has been a key marker for many of these studies and
discussions.
"The Information Society" journal, published since 1981, is a
key forum for thoughtful analysis of the impacts, policies, system
concepts, methodologies and cultural change related to these
trends. It is a refereed journal that publishes scholarly articles,
position papers, short communications and book reviews.
"The Information Society" is a multidisciplinary journal whose
audiences include policy- and decision-makers and scientists in
government, industry and education; managers concerned with the
effects of the information revolution on individuals, organizations
and society; and scholars with an interest in the relationship
between information technologies, social/organizational life, and
social change.
The Information Society is undergoing a transition under the
leadership of its new Editor-in-Chief, Rob Kling. This CFP lists
some of the members of the new editorial board. The journal's
editorial board will be experimenting with new electronic and
paper formats, including a web server for abstracts and tables of
contents. In addition, we are experimenting with a policy to allow
authors to identify 5 people who may recieve copies of the issue in
which their article appears.
Rob Kling is soliciting individual articles and proposals from
people who wish to organize and edit special issues. He is
interested in provocative analytical articles or empirical studies
that are written to advance our understanding of the relationships
between information technology, related social practices and
policies, and social change. TIS articles are typically 4,000-7,500
words long, and are written vividly with coherent analyses and
minimal jargon. TIS also publishes shorter "position statements"
of up to 2,000 words and debates in a new section, called "The
Forum."
Among the topics addressed within the journal are:
* changing National Information Infrastructures, especially as
they influence cultural expectations and social practices,
* the politics of change in National Information
Infrastrustures,
* the implications of the coming surge in electronic data
interchange (EDI) and electronic commerce among
businesses globally,
* the ability of companies to "outsource" portions of their
information processing to different countries around the
world, creating transborder data flow issues for the countries
involved and increasing the rapidity with which jobs migrate
globally,
* meanings and implications of political/economic systems
that are based on universal access to baseline information
services or fees-for-all-services,
* options for, and implications of, various forms of "electronic
democracy",
* the rise of "virtual communities" of persons worldwide
engaging in "many-to-many" communication among their
participants, irrespective of borders or corporate structures,