Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 17, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 91 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, #9.91 (Wed, Dec 17, 1997) File 1--Text of S 1482: "No Electronic Theft Act" File 2--Internet Risks and Liability File 3--Policy Post 3.15 -- CDT, EFF, CPSR Call on FCC to Protect File 4--The Big Lie : AAS editorial on "Cyberspace Issues" File 5--Computer humor File 6--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: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:54:12 -0800 (PST) From: CuDigest Subject: File 1--Text of S 1482: "No Electronic Theft Act" ((Moderators' Note: Thanks to the person who sent this over (but who's address was garbled on arrival)). Union Calendar No. 198 105th CONGRESS 1st Session A BILL To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes. October 23, 1997 Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed HR 2265 RH 105th CONGRESS 1st Session [Report No. 105-339] To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 25, 1997 Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. COBLE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, and Mr. CANNON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary October 23, 1997 Additional sponsors: Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. Clement October 23, 1997 Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed [STRIKE OUT ALL AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND INSERT THE PART PRINTED IN ITALIC] [FOR TEXT OF INTRODUCED BILL, SEE COPY OF BILL AS INTRODUCED ON JULY 25, 1997] A BILL To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes. [Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [<-Italic] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `No Electronic Theft (NET) Act'. SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS. (a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term `display', the following new paragraph: `The term `financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'. (b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either-- `(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or `(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18.'. (c) LIMITATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS- Section 507(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking `three' and inserting `5'. (d) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a), by striking `subsection (b)' and inserting `subsections (b) and (c)'; (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `subsection (a) of this section' and inserting `section 506(a)(1) of title 17'; and (B) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by inserting `including by electronic means,' after `if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution,'; and (ii) by striking `with a retail value of more than $2,500' and inserting `which have a total retail value of more than $2,500'; and (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e) and inserting after subsection (b) the following: `(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of title 17-- `(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more; `(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and `(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000. `(d)(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim. `(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include-- `(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense; `(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and `(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'. (e) UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION AND TRAFFICKING OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES- Section 2319A of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: `(d) VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT- (1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim. `(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include-- `(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by conduct involved in the offense; `(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and `(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'. (f) TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES- Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: `(d)(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim. `(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall include-- `(A) producers and sellers of legitimate goods or services affected by conduct involved in the offense; `(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such goods or services; and `(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers, and holders.'. (g) DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION- (1) Under the authority of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1987) and section 21 of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182; 101 Stat. 1271; 18 U.S.C. 994 note) (including the authority to amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements), the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property (including offenses set forth at section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, and sections 2319, 2319A, and 2320 of title 18, United States Code) is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and to adequately reflect the additional considerations set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the guidelines provide for consideration of the retail value and quantity of the items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed. SEC. 3. INFRINGEMENT BY UNITED STATES. Section 1498(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking `remedy of the owner of such copyright shall be by action' and inserting `action which may be brought for such infringement shall be an action by the copyright owner'. SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act modifies liability for copyright infringement, including the standard of willfulness for criminal infringement. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:38:56 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Worona Subject: File 2--Internet Risks and Liability INTERNET RISKS AND LIABILITY An Intensive One-Day Workshop Los Angeles, California January 30, 1998 (See bottom of this memo for additional dates and locations.) WHO SHOULD ATTEND: * Webmasters * Web-content developers * Lawyers * Risk managers * Librarians * Judicial administrators * Public relations directors TOPICS: The Internet * What's the Internet all about? * Live demonstrations and examples * Today's technology: capabilities and challenges * Why traditional computer security isn't enough Computer Law and Policy * How to avoid liability * Recent cases and legislation * Developing effective policies and practices * Common mistakes and how to avoid them * Policy pros and cons Key Areas of Potential Liability * Copyright * Public information and privacy * Defamation and harassment * Pornography, obscenity, and indecency When Precautions Fail * Your rights and responsibilities * Gathering evidence without compromising prosecution * Taking preemptive action * Working cooperatively with law enforcement INVITATION from Charles W. Jermy, Associate Dean Cornell School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions As you know well, colleges and universities are in the midst of an information technology revolution. Faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the general public are using information resources and technologies in new and transforming ways. The Internet and the World Wide Web have become indispensable tools, not just for research and instruction, but for numerous business functions as well: admissions, grade reporting, student services, public information, development, and much more. As we rely on the Web to share information with individuals both inside and outside our organizations, we also take on a new spectrum of risks and liabilities. Those who depend on information technology to do their jobs need guidance on the often very confusing legal requirements governing that technology. The Internet Risks and Liability Workshop is an intensive one-day program that identifies the most effective procedures for ensuring the legal and ethical use of the Internet for a variety of business purposes. The presenters explain -- in non-technical, jargon-free language -- how the Internet really works and what the relevant laws mean. They highlight current legislation and case law, illustrated by live Internet demonstrations. They also describe effective practices for limiting institutional risk and liabilities, while upholding the principles of intellectual property and free expression. The program concludes with guidance on developing institution-specific Internet policies and practicies. As never before, information technology professionals, legal counsel, and policy makers must work together to determine the steps our institutions should take to thrive in the Information Age. I hope you will plan on participating in the program. PRESENTERS Marjorie W. Hodges, J.D. Policy Advisor, Office of Information Technologies, and Director, Computer Policy and Law Program, Cornell University Marjorie W. Hodges is a frequent speaker on the legal and ethical aspects of computer policies. A contributing editor of the national quarterly Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, Ms. Hodges is recognized as a national authority in the field of computer policy and law. She is the leader of the CAUSE Policy Constituent Group and is a contributing author of the monograph "Contemporary Issues in Judicial Affairs," in which she addresses First Amendment issues and computer policy in higher education. Steven L. Worona Assistant to the Vice President for Information Technologies, and Director, Computer Policy and Law Program, Cornell University Steven L. Worona has worked in the field of computer-mediated information storage and delivery for over twenty-five years. Mr. Worona is the creator of Cornell's CUinfo, the first campus-wide information system. He was also a principal developer of the PL/C compiler at Cornell, and of the XCELL+ factory simulation system marketed commercially by Express Software Products, Inc. Mr. Worona serves on a wide variety of technical committees and task forces in the academic computing field and has spoken and consulted internationally on current applications and future trends in computer-based communication. Hodges and Worona are the authors of "Legal Underpinnings for Creating Campus Computer Policy" and "The First Amendment in Cyberspace," both published recently in CAUSE/EFFECT magazine. PROGRAM INFORMATION Internet Risks and Liability will be held in the Sheraton Gateway Hotel at 6101 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, which is conveniently located next to the Los Angeles International Airport. Participants should plan to arrive for registration on Friday, January 30, at 8:00 a.m. and to leave no earlier than 5:00 p.m. The program charge for Internet Risks and Liability is $475. This includes course materials, continental breakfast, and refreshment breaks. Continuing Education Units (CEUs) will be available to program participants. Please register early to secure a space in the workshop as enrollment is limited. Persons whose cancellations are received in writing by January 15 will receive a full refund. Cancellations received after January 15 are subject to a $100 cancellation fee. Substitutions may be made prior to January 27. For additional information and application forms, please call (607) 255-7259 or e-mail us at cusp@cornell.edu. See also ACCOMMODATIONS Participants should make their own reservations by calling the Sheraton Gateway Hotel directly at (310) 642-1111. Please indicate that you will be attending Internet Risks and Liability in order to qualify for the special rate of $99 per night (single or double occupancy). Early reservations are recommended. Room availability and rates cannot be guaranteed after January 8. Twenty-four-hour airport shuttle service is available. ADDITIONAL DATES AND LOCATIONS February 16, 1998 Chapel Hill, NC March 25, 1998 Baltimore, MD April 24, 1998 Dallas, TX The 3-day Computer Policy and Law Annual Seminar will take place at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) on July 8-10, 1998. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:15:28 -0500 From: Graeme Browning Subject: File 3--Policy Post 3.15 -- CDT, EFF, CPSR Call on FCC to Protect The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 3, Number 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 3, Number 15 Decenber 16, 1997 CONTENTS: (1) Civil Liberties Groups Call on FCC to Protect Privacy, Security as FBI Pushes Digital Telephony Law (3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (4) About CDT, Contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of |PLEASE SEE END OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION| _______________________________________________________________ (1) CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS CALL ON FCC TO PROTECT PRIVACY, SECURITY AS FBI PUSHES DIGITAL TELEPHONY LAW Dec. 15 -- Three leading online civil liberties groups have urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to find that the FBI is trying improperly to enhance its surveillance capabilities, and is overlooking key privacy rights, under a controversial 1994 wiretap law. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the FCC on December 12 to take a more active role in protecting privacy as telephone companies and the FBI struggle to implement the new wiretap law. The three groups urged the FCC not to focus solely on personnel security practices and recordkeeping among the telephone companies affected by the law, as it has been doing, but instead to broaden its examination by demanding that the digital technology the companies plan to use be made tamperproof. The Comments, along with detailed background information on CALEA, will be posted soon at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/ CALEA BACKGROUND Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), more commonly called the "digital telephony" law, in October 1994. The law requires telecommunications carriers--primarily local telephone companies and wireless service providers--to upgrade their switching equipment and computer software so that law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance despite the addition of new technologies. Congress passed CALEA to assuage the concern of law enforcement that new digital modes of transmitting information could render wiretapping obsolete. Like so many new technologies, however, digital telephony can be a boon to the pursuer as well as to the wrongdoer. With digital telephony law enforcement officials can amass much more detailed information on a private citizen's calling habits than ever before. The debate over CALEA depends, at least in part, on whether it will be implemented in a way that maintains law enforcement's traditional surveillance capabilities, or whether government will use it as an excuse to exploit the full surveillance capabilities of digital technology. Fcc Proceeding Fails To Give Adequate Attention To Privacy In October, the FCC issued a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" seeking comments from the communications industry, law enforcement agencies and the public on CALEA. The notice focused almost entirely on two areas: the telephone companies' recordkeeping and personnel security practices, and the definition of key terms in the 1994 law. CDT and the other two groups joining in last Friday's filing argue that the Commission has overlooked the issue of privacy in its efforts to flesh out the law, despite Congress' clear directives in the statute that privacy be protected. While the FCC's proposed rules require more detailed recordkeeping and background checks on phone company employees, Congress specifically called for systems designed to protect the privacy of communications not authorized to be intercepted. In CDT's view, this requires telephone companies to withhold information which law enforcement doesn't have specific legal authority to intercept. As telephone companies increasingly adopt packet switching protocols, the separation of call content from packet addressing information becomes critical to ensure that law enforcement doesn't receive call content without probable cause. IMPLEMENTATION DELAYED A series of disputes has delayed the implementation of the law. In the past two years the FBI has twice attempted to draft notices to telephone companies outlining how many wiretap intercepts they can be required, under the law, to perform at one time in any given service area. Both of these drafts have been roundly criticized for proposing a surveillance capacity that far exceeds traditional law enforcement needs. On the separate question of capability, the telecommunications industry earlier this year proposed a compliance standard that calls for switching software upgrades to make interceptions easier. But the FBI opposed adopting that standard because it doesn't go far enough to satisfy the Bureau's demands for enhanced surveillance capabilities. For example, the industry standard calls for tracking capabilities in wireless telephones. The FBI, however, wants other features, such as the ability to continue monitoring parties on a conference call even after the person named in the surveillance order has left the call. The FBI also wants telecommunications carriers to be required to provide law enforcement with more detailed information on a citizen's calling practices. COMPUTER SECURITY Computers increasingly control telecommunications switching, and most of the telephone companies' efforts to comply with CALEA will involve changes to the software that controls switching within the companies' central offices. Carriers will soon be establishing computerized surveillance administration functions, that, in turn, may be networked with other system administration functions and also linked to computers located outside the switching office. All in all, the changes could leave the carriers' systems vulnerable to employees bent on doing mischief, or to malicious hackers. Because of this possibility, CDT, EFF and CPSR have urged the FCC to examine the security of these new software protocols. Among the factors that CDT believes the FCC should require are: * System integrity. Both hardware and software systems must be tamperproof. Most systems have a maintenance function that allows "backdoor" access, which could be used to subvert the entire system. * Simple authentication for individual system users. Fixed passwords for user identification are inherently dangerous because they reside in the system's memory and can be plucked out by technology-savvy wrongdoers. * System-to-system authentication. When whole systems within the telephone industry are networked to each other, it's equally important that each system be able to authenticate contact with another system. * Audit trails which the industry can use to review surveillance activity. * Intrusion detection programs within the telephone systems themselves which will help identify when a surveillance technology is being put to an improper use. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James X. Dempsey, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology +1.202.637.9800, ________________________________________________________________ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 13,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to majordomo@cdt.org in the BODY of the message (leave the SUBJECT LINE BLANK), type subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts _______________________________________________________________ (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:36:07 +0000 From: David Smith Subject: File 4--The Big Lie : AAS editorial on "Cyberspace Issues" Source -- fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Below is an editorial that ran in Wednesday's Austin American Statesman. My response letter is appended below, and I encourage other fight-censorship subscribers to write letters to the editors of their local newspapers. We can yak to each other till the cows come home but we need to express our ideas in other forums and other audiences as well. There are some things I didn't address in my letter that I want to bring up online -- namely that the issues of children, adult material, and filtering is difficult enough without the Statesman deliberately distorting the experience of what it is like to be online. Out of the thousands and thousands of websites that I have looked at in my life I can only remember two instances of "uninvited smut". Once because I didn't read the preceding link page closely enough and the second where someone was making the point about how rarely this happens. Also, being sent an e-mail solicitation to join or look at a sexually explicit site is not the same as being sent pornography. Anyone with an e-mail address knows that if there is pornography on your screen, it's because you took deliberate actions and steps to place it there. That's what it is like to be online but you would never know that from reading their editorial page. Cyberspace issues Austin American Statesman Wednesday, December 03, 1997 It is axiomatic that the federal government should tread lightly around the Internet. The U.S. Supreme Court said so clearly this year in striking down the Communications Decency Act, Congress' attempt to block online pornography. But that doesn't mean the World Wide Web should be a sexual free-fire zone where anything goes whether you want it or not. Anyone with an e-mail address can attest to the flood of sexually explicit messages and solicitations that greet the user nowadays. A conference in Washington this week is exploring ways to make the Internet safe for children and adults who wish not to be entertained by the smut available in cyberspace. They have their work cut out for them because any screening or rating system is greeted by screeches of protest from the civil libertarians who won't care what the children see. It isn't in the government's interest, and possibly not within its grasp, to be the online censor. The solution to uninvited smut via computer should be improving the technology in the marketplace. Among the issues being explored at the Washington conference are filtering software and ratings programs. President Clinton has called for universal self-rating for Internet companies, but that idea has had a tepid reception so far. It is in the best interest of the online companies and Internet providers to offer a filtering system that works. Twice as many households with children have computers as households without children. Those families have a vital interest in protecting their children from the sexually explicit offerings on the Internet. Free speech critics complain the filtering systems filter too much, blocking protected speech as well as pornography. Some family-oriented groups claim they don't filter enough and smut creeps in. Although self-rating has flopped so far, third-party ratings may hold the answer for the civil libertarians and those concerned about pornography online. Under that system, a third-party rates the Web publishers and the individual user can choose the rating he or she prefers. As for the sleazy e-mail messages, Congress is considering bills to make it a criminal act to offer sexual content to minors through e-mail. That may or may not pass Supreme Court muster. But there, too, the answer may lie in improved technology that will allow those who want everything to get it and those who wish to protect themselves and their families from sleazy solicitors to do so. --- end of editorial ----- Letter to the Editorial December 3, 1997 The computer magazine Family PC recently polled 750 subscribers about family life online. While a majority expressed concerns about their children accessing sexually explicit material, 73% of them felt that monitoring their children's use of the Internet, being involved in their children's activities, and setting specific rules for participation would be their approach and strategy to guiding and raising their children online. This is what parents do in real life. In your editorial about cyberspace issues, however, the only solutions to these social and moral issues you think are worth discussing involve sitting around and waiting for the technology that will save us. If you truly want to help parents, cut back on the screeching and fear-mongering about all the bad things that could happen to children online and replace it with some of the common sense advice available at sites like Safe Kids Online (http://www.safekids.com) and Netparents (http://www.netparents.org). You might sell less newspapers but you'll be doing everyone involved a favor. * * * http://www.zdnet.com/familypc/content/kidsafety/results.html -- Family PC Survey http://www.io.com/~kinnaman/pchealth/draft.html -- TISPA page on filtering software & parental guides to the Internet as required by HB1300. David Smith david_smith@unforgettable.com http://www.realtime.net/~bladex File under : Internet activist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:19:54 -0600 From: Jerrold Zar Subject: File 5--Computer humor Here's some lunchtime humor I received on an Internet list from a John Longreco: ~~~ The Techno Terms Dictionary ~~~ 486 - The average IQ needed to understand a PC. State-of-the-art - Any computer you can't afford. Obsolete - Any computer you own. Microsecond - The time it takes for your state-of-the-art computer to become obsolete. G3 - Apple's new Macs that make you say "Gee, three times faster than the computer I bought for the same price a Microsecond ago." Syntax Error - Walking into a computer store and saying "Hi, I want to buy a computer and money is no object." Hard Drive - The sales technique employed by computer salesmen, esp. after a Syntax Error. GUI - What your computer becomes after spilling your coffee on it. (pronounced "gooey") Keyboard - The standard way to generate computer errors. Mouse - An advanced input device to make computer errors easier to generate. Floppy - The state of your wallet after purchasing a computer. Portable Computer - A device invented to force businessmen to work at home, on vacation, and on business trips. Disk Crash - A typical computer response to any critical deadline. Power User - Anyone who can format a disk from DOS. System Update - A quick method of trashing ALL of your software. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--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: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu 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 CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (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 #9.91 ************************************