💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0954.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 11:05:50.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Tue July 8, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 54
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.54 (Tue, July 8, 1997)
File 1--CyberPromo/Wallace meet the Hormel Spammers (fwd)
File 2--(Fwd) Spam Lawsuit
File 3--Solid Oak's response to "G-17 error"
File 4-- Re: CYBERsitter problems
File 5--Islands in the Clickstream
File 6--HIGH CONCEPT VIRUS FILM IN PRODUCTION
File 7--book on hacker cult/underground.
File 8--Underground extract: System X
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 23:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@TELECOM-DIGEST.ORG
Subject: File 1--CyberPromo/Wallace meet the Hormel Spammers (fwd)
Source - TELECOM Digest, Sun, 6 Jul 97 - Volume 17 : Issue 173
((MODERATORS' NOTE: For those not familiar with Pat Townson's
TELECOM DIGEST, it's a an exceptional resource. From the header
of TcD:
"TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but
not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is
circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various
telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and
networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also
gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to
qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell
us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * ======" ))
Date--Sun, 06 Jul 1997 17:08:30 -0400
From--The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject--Hormel Takes Action Against Spammer
The ultimate irony ...
ON THE INTERNET, NO ONE KNOWS THAT SPAM COMES IN CANS
To Internet users, "spamming" means wholesale distribution of
junk e-mail, but to the Hormel Foods Corporation, Spam is a
scrumptious and nutritious pressed meat that they sell in a can.
So Hormel has demanded that junk e-mail distributor Cyber
Promotions Inc. stop using the name Spam and also stop using a
picture of a can of Span on its Internet site. "We want them
to recognize that Spam has been a widely known Hormel Foods
trademark for 60 years and they are not authorized to use that
trademark for their commercial use."
[as summarized from 'USA Today' (July 3, 1997) by Edupage]
------------------------------
Subject--Hormel Objects to Use of Name "Spam"
Date--Sun, 6 Jul 1997 00:00:37 PDT
From--tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Hormel Foods Warns Junk E-mailer to Drop Use of `Spam' Trademark
BY REID KANALEY, THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
PHILADELPHIA--Jul. 3--They kept a lid on their feelings for the last few
years, but the people who can Spam are finally opening up.
They hate ... "spam." At least, they hate to see their beloved product
associated with junk e-mail.
Hormel Foods Corp. has put the Internet's self-proclaimed Spam King,
Philadelphian Sanford "Spamford" Wallace, on notice: It considers his
adoption of the famous luncheon meat's name in connection with Cyber
Promotions Inc., his junk e-mail business, an unauthorized use of the Spam
trademark.
In the online world, the term "spam" is a common and disparaging
reference to unsolicited mass e-mailings that promote everything from
fad diets to get-rich-quick schemes and porn sites on the World Wide
Web.
Wallace said he decided to use "spam" in his name after his most
enraged critics began doing it to him. "I thought it would be catchy,"
he said yesterday. Three months ago, he registered the e-mail domain
names "spamford.net" and "spamford.com." He is often pictured with
cans of Spam.
"The irony here is that we're actually promoting the name Spam. Hormel
is probably getting a benefit from it," contended Wallace.
Hormel thinks otherwise. Wallace is blurring the distinctiveness of
the trademark, company lawyers told him in a stern letter last week:
"Nor does Hormel Foods wish to be affiliated with your company, your
bulk e-mail business, or the usage you have made of Hormel Foods'
trademark, which we view as tarnishing its image." The letter demands
that Wallace drop "spam."
The official response, a letter Wednesday from Wallace's attorney
Ralph Jacobs, was just as emphatic: "If all your client wants is for
Mr. Wallace to agree not to pose next to a can of Spam ... we can
probably work something out. If your client objects to the use of the
word `spam' to refer to my client's business, it's far too late to
change the vocabulary of 25 million Internet users."
------------------------------
From--Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject--Spamford Blows Off Hormel
Date--6 Jul 1997 01:46:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
This is a press release that Cyber Promotions issued on Wednesday
after Hormel demanded that the term "spam" no longer be used to
describe unsolicited messages.
--------------------------------
SPAM I'm Not
Cyber Promotions says "NO" to Cease & Desist from Spam distributor, Hormel
Foods.
For Immediate Release:
Philadelphia 7-2-97 --- Cyber Promotions, Inc., the country's best
known Internet mass e-mail firm, announced today that it had rebuffed
threats by Hormel Foods Corporation over the use of the word SPAM in
connection with unsolicited Internet e-mail. Cyber Promotions
received a cease and desist letter from lawyers for Hormel,
distributors of the Spam meat product, complaining that Cyber had
disparaged Hormel's trademark.
Cyber Promotions rejection of Hormel came in a letter from Cyber's
counsel, Ralph A. Jacobs, Esq., of the law firm of Hoyle, Morris &
Kerr in Philadelphia. In the letter, Jacobs reminded Hormel that
there was no likely confusion because in cyberspace, spam refers to an
e-mail practice, not to a food product, and he quoted a recent {Wall
Street Journal} article in which Hormel's general counsel acknowledged
as much. Mr. Jacob's letter also reminded Hormel's lawyers that a
federal court in New York had rejected Hormel's trademark infringement
case against Jim Henson over a Muppet named Spa'am.
Sanford Wallace, a.k.a. SPAMford, president of Cyber Promotions,
commented: "We had no thought of Hormel when we registered
www.spamford.com. On the Net, when people say spam they think of us,
not a processed meat product. Try searching for spam on the Internet
and you'll find that's true. Our business is e-mail, not canned meat.
It's far too late to change the vocabulary of 25 million Internet
users."
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: None the less I hope Hormel sues him
vigorously and forces him to discontinue *his* use of the term to
describe his practices. Anyone who wishes to sue Spamford and cause
him to have obscene legal bills is my friend. Anyone who wants to
cause him as much grief as possible should be saluted, and that most
definitly includes the various hackers who are trying hard to put him
out of business. Perhaps Hormel should start a web page which has
various recipies involving their meat product and then proceed with
their suit against him. Does anyone know what his current 800 number
is? Netters who want to contact him by phone are asking. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 11:48:13 -0500
From: David Smith <bladex@bga.com>
Subject: File 2--(Fwd) Spam Lawsuit
Here is our foray into the world of fighting spam. Our target :
forged return e-mail addresses to systems the spammers don't have
permission to use.
I can send a copy of the actual lawsuit, upon request.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TEXANS SUE TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INTERNET "SPAM" CLAIMING ELECTRONIC
TRESPASS AND NUISANCE
Austin, Texas, May 28, 1997: Several Internet leaders in Austin,
Texas filed a lawsuit yesterday afternoon against a company and an
individual believed to be responsible for the mass distribution of junk mail
over the Internet, also called "spam." The suit claims that C.N.
Enterprises and Craig Nowak of San Diego, California, sent thousands of
electronic messages selling information on "Free Cash Grants" for
$19.95. The ad's content was not only misleading, the lawsuit claims,
but the company's e-mail used a false return address, causing the
electronic mail boxes of several Austin residents to overflow with
returned copies of the junk mail.
According to the lawsuit, by using a false return address, those who
send junk mail over the Internet can avoid the anger that results
from this controversial practice. They can also avoid dealing with
the thousands of "bounce" messages that result from sending e-mail to
invalid or outdated addresses. "In effect," the lawsuit alleges,
"C.N. Enterprises deliberately dumped tons of its electronic garbage
and pollution" into the Austin residents' mailboxes. The lawsuit
claims that the use of false return addresses on junk e-mail, and the
resulting fallout on those who own the addresses used, is illegal
under the traditional common law causes of action of nuisance,
trespass and conversion.
The lead plaintiff is Tracy LaQuey Parker, a leading Internet
author, who owns the Internet domain name used by C.N. Enterprises
without her permission. Said Ms. Parker, "As a long-time Internet
advocate, I am saddened that the goodwill spirit of the Internet is being
spoiled by irresponsible individuals who forge their identity in order to
make a quick buck. There are plenty of examples of legitimate
commercial uses of the Internet. This isn't one of them."
Joining Ms. Parker in the lawsuit are her husband Patrick Parker
and Peter Rauch, both Ms. Parker's business partners. Also joining the
suit are Zilker Internet Park, Ms. Parker's Internet service provider, which
had to deal with the flood of messages stemming from the "spam," and
two active Texas Internet groups, the Texas Internet Service Providers
Association (TISPA), a group of commercial Internet service providers,
and EFF-Austin, a local Internet civil liberties organization.
(more)
Page Two -- Texans Sue to Recover Damages for Internet "Spam"
John Quarterman, an owner of Zilker Internet Park, stated, "'Spam'
is a large and rapidly growing problem which has cost Zilker Internet
Park and many other ISPs and Internet users much time and money. We
have put many technical blocks in place to limit it. With this lawsuit, we
are taking the next step to help stop this abuse of the Internet."
TISPA and EFF-Austin joined the lawsuit in an effort to broaden
the legal precedent beyond Ms. Parker's single Internet domain name,
according to Gene Crick, TISPA's president. "Increasingly, 'spammers'
are using false return addresses to avoid taking full responsibility for the
harm caused by their unsolicited commercial e-mail," Crick said. "These
forgeries dump huge volumes of unwanted junk mail onto Internet
companies and their customers. TISPA would like to see the court grant
a broad and clear injunction prohibiting this practice."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of LaQuey and the others by Pete
Kennedy and Roger Williams of George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P. of
Austin. Among its other Internet related cases, the law firm has been
involved in lawsuits against the United States Secret Service and Simon
Leis, the Hamilton County (Ohio) Sheriff, over the seizure of private
e-mail.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Plaintiffs:
Tracy LaQuey Parker and Patrick Parker, 512-454-7748
John Quarterman, MIDS 512-451-7620
Gene Crick, Texas Internet Service Providers Association (TISPA),
512-303-1021
Jon Lebkowsky, EFF-Austin, 512-444-5175
Law Firm:
Peter Kennedy or Roger Williams
George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P., 512-495-1400
Media Contact:
Peggy Hubble or Sondra Williams, MEM/Hubble Communications,
512-480-8961
David Smith
bladex@bga.com
512-304-6308
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 19:01:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
Subject: File 3--Solid Oak's response to "G-17 error"
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
This is the letter that Solid Oak Software sent out to one person who wrote
to them reporting a "G-17" error (the fake error that the installer gives if
it detects that you have visited the Peacefire web site).
He was told that he had to pay for the full version. This puts a new spin
on what Milburn said in the PC World article
(http://www.pcworld.com/cgi-bin/database/body.pl?ID=970702181157) when he
admitted that the installer scans the user's hard drive: ""We reserve the
right to say who gets to install our software for free." But even people
who have visited Peacefire can install the software, as long as they pay?
He also said in the article: "If Bennett Haselton is alleging that we get
some kind of information sent to us, I mean that's ridiculous. If the
program fails to install, I don't see how any way shape or form that would
be an invasion of privacy." But judging by the response from Solid Oak tech
support, if you tell them that you got the error, they discern that you have
visited Peacefire and tell you something that isn't true (you can't use the
program) in order to get you to pay them money. Hence, the error results in
information being sent to them that you would probably rather keep private.
I deleted the address of the sender and the text of his original message to
avoid tipping off Solid Oak who the person actually was.
From: Technical Support <support@solidoak.com>
To: [name and address deleted -Bennett]
Date: June 5, 1997 6:38 pm
Subject: File 4-- Re: CYBERsitter problems
I am sorry, but you will not be able to run the trial version of CYBERsitter.
The retail version _will_ install properly, but the trial version will not
install on your computer.
On 06/05/97 6:20pm you wrote...
[a message reporting the G-17 error, text deleted -Bennett]
bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
(901) 366-1452 (home) after 6 PM central time and all day on weekends
(901) 922-6930 (work)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:34:10
From: Richard Thieme <rthieme@thiemeworks.com>
Subject: File 5--Islands in the Clickstream
Islands in the Clickstream:
The Power of Projection, the Power of Digital Presence
Welcome to the blank screen.
A computer monitor glowing in the dark. Pixels constellated
as an image of printed text. The belief that behind those images
is a human intelligence, whose energy and presence you sometimes
swear you can "feel." Once that belief becomes our shared or
consensus reality, you believe that "I" am talking to "you."
Believing is seeing. Believing is the precondition of a
possibility.
So ... here I am again.
Twenty years ago, I moved to Mutton Hollow, a rural area of
northern Utah. Since I had lived only in Chicago, London, and
Madrid previously, this took some getting used to. The pleasures
of a big city were far, far away.
We were high against the Wasatch Front, and the winter skies
were magnificent. I bought a telescope with a long barrel. Since
the seeing was best at the top of the sky where the air was
clearest, I often lay a tarp on the frozen snow so I could lie on
my back and look straight up.
I moved slowly through the star fields, pausing at a cluster
or the Great Nebula in Orion before losing myself in the three-
dimensional darkness among the blue, white, yellow, and blood-red
stars.
The stars and the vast spaces between them became my
companions. I still can't identify most constellations, however.
A constellation is an arbitrary pattern imposed on a random
scattering of stars. I guess I can see it's a bull, but it might
as well be a bear or a crawling baby.
The images our forebears used to connect the dots were
projected from within their own psyches. Once there was a
consensus reality about what they were, the projections became
"real." It really was a herdsman or a bear "out there."
The computer monitor at which we are both looking right now
is a powerful invitation to project a pattern onto what we are
seeing.
Haven't you read an email or an IRC communication when your
emotion was running high, and you could swear you felt the
presence of the sender in the room? As if they were right there
in the words you were reading? Hasn't it sometimes seemed beyond
coincidence when you went on-line with someone on your mind and
bingo! there they were!
Or there their words were. But were they in the words you
read? And did the words mean what you thought they meant?
It is a perpetual dilemma of the human condition that we can
not easily distinguish our projections from genuine perceptions.
Carl Jung said the soul or psyche projects its contents onto
archetypal symbols that invite them. You can tell there's
projection, he said, when there's secrecy, fascination, and high
energy.
A speech I have given for portfolio managers and others
interested in the psychology of investment is called "The Stock
Market, UFOs, and Religious Experience." What do those three
things have in common? All three domains invite powerful
projections, and we think we see "out there" in the economy or
the markets, in the night sky, or in the universe itself that
which we have projected onto it.
Something is out there, something elicited the projection,
but we can't see what it is until we withdraw our projections and
integrate them once again into our selves. Then we can see where
we end and someone else begins.
Confusion of boundaries bedevils online relationships as
well as those in the flesh.
All religious and spiritual traditions have tools designed
to help us integrate our projections into our selves. We call the
process "getting it together," the end result "integrity." We say
we "feel centered," when we take back the power we have projected
onto another or given away.
The pixels on your monitor invite projection.
Secrecy, fascination, and high energy.
How about it? Have they characterized any of your online
exchanges or adventures?
If there is a context for a personal or business
relationship before email is exchanged, the online exchange is
anchored. Face-time and telephone-time too ground the exchange.
When people connect online and do not mitigate their encounter
with a context that grounds it, the projections -- and the sparks
-- can fly.
The greater your intention to crate a context that grounds
your email, the greater the likelihood you will not be
misunderstood. That requires imagination, an ability to see
different interpretations for your words. You may think the words
you sent were crystal clear, but the person on the other end,
returning to their cubicle in a dour mood, may receive them like
a boxing-glove coming out of a closet.
The fewer words you provide, the greater the invitation to
project. The stars can be a bull or a bear or a crawling baby.
In business as well as personal online communication, we are
responsible for creating a context that enables our words to
vibrate with obvious meaning.
The digital image at which you are looking is a simulation
of printed text, which simulated written words, which simulated
spoken words. Reading silently to ourselves is a relatively late
practice. T. S. Eliot may have thought that his "words echo thus
in your mind," but only a few generations ago, schoolchildren
read aloud, all together, so the schoolmaster would know they
weren't shirking. The only real words were spoken words.
Some think spoken words are a specialized kind of gesture.
Gestures are feelings felt so strongly they make the whole body
vibrate like a violin.
When I intend to communicate to you in this medium, all I
have is my intention to focus energy and information so you "get
it." We human beings are nothing but organized systems of energy
and information. That's what computers are too. The words on your
screen are merely the echo of a gesture, feelings felt so
strongly they show up and glow through the words. It isn't words
alone, though, it's the energy or the shape of the energy seen
and felt through the words that you "get." A spirit making the
electrons coalesce by sheer force of will so you see, and
sometimes feel, my presence in the room, in your life, in your
head and heart.
Believing is seeing.
So ... as I said ... here I am again.