Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 7, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 33 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, #10.33 (Sun, Jun 7, 1998) File 1--TELECOM Digest V18 #80 File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998 File 3--EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- June 26 File 4--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked File 5--FRC comments on Cyber Patrol's block of AFA.net (fwd) File 6--Fan-wrttien Star Trek Book Sued for $22 Million File 7--Online activism comes of age in India File 8--REVIEW: "Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998) Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@TELECOM-DIGEST.ORG Subject: File 1--TELECOM Digest V18 #80 Source - TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 May 98 Volume 18 : Issue 80 ((MODERATORS' NOTE: For those not familiar with Pat Townson's TELECOM DIGEST, it's 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 * ======" )) ================== This is just an update on the 'Internet Kidnapping' case which was first reported here in the Digest on Wednesday March 20, 1996 (in volume 16, issue 131 'Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion') and on Friday, April 5, 1996 (in volume 16, issue 163 'Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty'). Richard Romero, believed to be 39, a native of Brazil and resident of Jacksonville, Florida in 1996 was a frequent user of Internet Relay Chat, and in several sessions on line, he posed as a fifteen year old boy named 'Kyle'. During those sessions he chatted frequently with another fifteen year old boy in Mt. Prospect, IL, a northwestern suburb of Chicago. He and the boy exchanged photos (he had a photo of some child who became 'Kyle' for his purposes) and at some point in their various conversations on line, he became himself, and began to talk with the Chicago-area boy on a regular basis via telephone. After several phone conversations and online chats, the boy decided to run away from home, and go live with Romero in Florida. At some point in their various conversations, the boy's mother found out about the online/telephone relationship and asked her son to break it off immediatly and have no further contact with Romero. Romero came to Mt. Prospect on March 18, 1996 and checked into a motel in the community where the boy met him the next day. From there, they went to the Greyhound Bus Station in Skokie, IL where they boarded a bus bound (eventually) for Jacksonville, FL. leaving at 9:15 AM. When the boy failed to appear in school that day at the regular time, school authorities contacted his mother. His mother went immediatly to check the boy's room, where she found he had packed many of his clothes in a duffle bag which was missing. He had also packed his computer into a backpack. The mother reviewed her phone bills and other items in the boy's room and found Romero's address and telephone number in Jacksonville. The rest was easy ... Police were able to detirmine that a boy matching the description of her son and Romero -- whose picture she had seen earlier when she confronted her son about his online companion -- had been seen boarding a bus for Florida that morning at the Greyhound Station in Chicago. The bus would be stopping for a dinner break just a couple hours later in Louisville, KY at about 6:00 PM. FBI agents in Louisville met the bus when it pulled in to the station there, and placed Romero under arrest. On April 5, 1996, the story in the Digest reported that Romero had chosen to remain silent in court. He appeared without an attorney and the judge (a) appointed an attorney to represent him and (b) entered a plea of not guilty. Since that point, Romero has had two trials. His first trial actually ended as a mistrial, with a jury which could not reach a decision. His second trial, which was concluded late last year, resulted in a finding of guilty by the jury on charges of kidnapping, and transport- ing a minor with the intent to engage in sexual activity. At his sentencing on Thursday, May 21, 1998, Romero was sentenced to 34 years in federal prison. US District Court Judge Charles Kocoras in Chicago stated that, "Richard Romero's crimes represented the worst thing anyone can imagine," and that "Romero created a nightmare for the family, for which there is no comparable dimension in the course of human experience." Virginia Kendall, the assistant US attorney handling the case, said that Romero was the nation's first convicted 'Internet kidnapper'. (Quote marks around 'Internet kidnapper' inserted by TELECOM Digest Editor.) And that concludes still another chapter in the history of the net. When this story first appeared in the Digest in March, 1996, I received mail from a couple readers who objected to the use of the word 'Internet' as an adjective for 'kidnapper', however, since the very beginning of this saga, the accounts which have appeared in the print media -- most noticably the {Chicago Sun-Times} have routinely used the phrase when discussing Romero. I've sent written objections to the newspaper about that description, but to no avail. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:12:14 -0400 (EDT) From: jw@bway.net Subject: File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998 SLAC Bulletin, June 1, 1998 ----------------------------- The SLAC Bulletin is a low-volume mailer (1-5 messages per month) on Internet freedom of speech issues from Jonathan Wallace, co-author of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt 1996) and publisher of The Ethical Spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org). To add or delete yourself: http://www.greenspun.com/spam/home.tcl?domain=SLAC Free Speech as a Tragedy of the Commons by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net Can free speech cause a tragedy of the commons? In other words, can there be too much speech? In the original parable of "The Tragedy of the Commons", each villager has the right to keep as many sheep as he wants on the commons shared by the village, and each has an incentive to add at least one more sheep. If everyone acts accordingly, the commons will be ruined. The author, Garrett Hardin, later said that he should have titled his work, "The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons". Users of Usenet and unmoderated mailing lists experience a phenomenon which feels like a tragedy of the commons. Someone shriller and angrier than the average user begins posting an endless series of intemperate rants; soon more reasonable users unsubscribe from the group and the "polluter" is left alone. Is this really a tragedy of the commons? A public mailing list certainly feels like a "commons", available to everyone. If it is not policed by a list moderator, every user is free to add one more comment--one more insulting or intemperate posting--polluting the virtual commons as surely as the sheep pollute the real one. The analogy breaks down when we examine the list phenomenon more closely. A list is "push" technology: once you subscribe, all the messages arrive automatically; you do not do anything more to select or request them. The inevitable death of an open mailing list is dictated by the fact that you are purchasing a package of things-- messages--which arrive together. Since anyone is free to include a poison message in the lot, at some point the content of the entire list will lose interest, the good content outweighed by the bad. But whatever tragedy is experienced in the death of a mailing list bears no relationship to speech delivered via "pull" technology--in a bookstore or on the World Wide Web. As long as the speech I want is available and I am free not to select the speech I don't, there can be no tragedy of the commons. The existence of a disfavored sheep somewhere is not a tragedy of the commons unless its consequences are the wrongful death of my sheep. In a world where speech is delivered via "pull", my sheep and yours can co-exist. If a Usenet mailing list is a commons, it is only by virtue of the peculiarity of its technological means of delivery as an indivisible object. (I am oversimplifying and ignoring the possible application of filters or killfiles to exclude the speech I don't want.) However, a list lacks something which most commonly understood "commons" share: necessity. There may be only one green outside town on which to graze your sheep, but there are a myriad mailing lists, and this one is being pushed at you only because you requested it. If you're not happy with it, choose another, or start your own. Similarly, the collection of all Usenet mailing lists is not a commons, because you are not required to subscribe to any other list and nothing that happens on another list can affect yours. Similarly, seen vaguely from a distance, the set of all movies playing in my city may seem to be a commons. You may complain of the predominance of Hollywood action adventures. Nevertheless, movies are a pull technology, and you may choose to see only the most literary foreign films shown in revival houses. Looked at this way, a commons is something pushed upon us and which we do not have the option to reject. The air we breathe is a commons, but the airwaves are not, as we decide whether to have a television in the house and choose the programs we watch. Under this approach, no medium of communications is a commons with the possible exception of certain verbal and visual speech in public places. Books, movies, web pages are not push technology. Television programming and Usenet email are pushed at us only as the result of a choice we made. This "push/choice" analysis justifies very limited speech regulation, of a type that has already been found valid under the First Amendment: reasonable time, place and manner restrictions of bullhorns, public speaking and billboards, all of which are unavoidable push technology in public places. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:07:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 3--EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- June 26 EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- JUNE 26 Yes, it's back! Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Event Co-Chairs Esther Dyson and John Perry Barlow for EFF Rocks the Fillmore v. 2.0! The Electronic Frontier Foundation invites you to join us on Friday, June 26 at 7:00pm for a raucous night of partying, rock & roll and the finest digerati schmoozing this side of the Microsoft hearings -- all in the name of freedom of speech, privacy, and security online! Since 1991, the EFF has been working to ensure that the Internet remains the world's first truly global vehicle for free speech, and that the privacy and security of all online communication be preserved. Help us keep up the fight! Tickets are only $10, and are available through BASS: In California: 510-762-2277 Out of State: 800-225-2277 VIP tickets, entitling you with a backstage pass, admission to the exclusive VIP lounge, a hosted bar, and stellar nibbles start at a tax-deductible $250 apiece. To order VIP tickets, call 436-9333, #106. Remember: Your freedom to speak freely and your online privacy are under attack constantly. As you read this, there are members of Congress trying to resurrect the Communications Decency Act, to enact encryption "key recovery" surveillance systems, to mandate that libraries censor Internet access (even for adults) to criminalize the use of encryption, to tax Internet usage, and to strip the public of its fair use rights to copyrighted online materials and raw information in databases. It's up to you to help us fight them! EFF is a not-for-profit, member-supported organization. We are only as strong as our membership is generous. Do your part now to protect the electronic frontier! Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 07:33:04 -0700 From: Bennett Haselton Subject: File 4--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [Give credit to GLAAD for reacting this way.] http://www.glaad.org/glaad/glaad-lines/980601/03.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> June 1, 1998-- GLAAD INVITES AFA TO JOIN IFS CRITICISM: The religious political extremist group, The American Family Association (AFA) announced that the Cyberpatrol, the popular Internet filtering software (IFS) has blocked its Website due to the fact that the AFA violates filter guidelines on "Intolerance." Until the AFA's site had been blocked, the group had been a vocal advocate for of filtering software and had assisted in the marketing of another IFS, X-STOP. GLAAD, on the otherhand, has long been a staunch advocate for free speech on the Internet and has once more challenged IFS in its recent groundbreaking report "Access Denied." GLAAD Interactive Media Director, Loren Javier said, "Perhaps now the AFA understands the value of free speech for all on the Internet. GLAAD hopes the AFA will combat Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring IFS use by schools and libraries." For more information contact Loren Javier, GLAAD Interactive Media Director at (510) 831-1092 or javier@glaad.org. bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 22:19:17 -0700 From: Bennett Haselton Filtering Out Decency > > Cyber Patrol, a popular Internet filtering software package, has > decided to block the American Family Association (AFA) website > because the AFA violates Cyber Patrol's filter guidelines on > "intolerance," according to an AFA press release. It's no wonder. > CultureFacts has learned that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against > Defamation (GLAAD) is a charter member of Cyber Patrol's oversight > committee. > > GLAAD is a homosexual media group that promotes transgenderism, > childhood anti-"homophobia" education, and tolerance for > sadomasochists, as well as other bizarre sexual behaviors. AFA > has been a vocal advocate for filtering software and has assisted in > the marketing of another filtering program, X-STOP. > > In response to AFA's announcement, GLAAD called on the AFA - which it > characterized as a "religious political extremist group" - to join it > to combat "Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring > [Internet filtering software] use by schools and libraries." GLAAD > has been an outspoken opponent of internet filtering software, > because most of them block homosexual-oriented sites. > > It was pressure by GLAAD that turned Cyber Patrol around. According > to press releases from the GLAAD website, the Northhampton, > Massachusetts, company Cyber Patrol formerly blocked > homosexual-oriented sites. However, following criticism from the > homosexual community in late 1995, Cyber Patrol formed an oversight > committee comprising representatives "from diverse areas of expertise > and experience." In February 1996, GLAAD joined Cyber Patrol's > oversight committee as a charter member. GLAAD Director of > Information Services Loren Javier says, "This gesture demonstrates > their understanding that gay men and lesbians are a very important > part of the internet community." > > Cyber Patrol (www.cyberpatrol.com) does not filter out homosexual > groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian > Task Force and, of course, GLAAD. > > - KLE > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Loren R. Javier > Interactive Media Director > GLAAD > Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation > javier@glaad.org2244 > fax: 415.861.4893 > > GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive > representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual > orientation or identity. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 15:17:51 +0200 From: Luca Sambucci Subject: File 6--Fan-wrttien Star Trek Book Sued for $22 Million Online Freedom Federation http://www.off-hq.org June 02, 1998 For immediate release Set Phasers on Sue -- Fan-written Star Trek Book is the Target of $22 Million Lawsuit Reversing a 30 year practice, Paramount Pictures has sued Star Trek fan Samuel Ramer and his publishing company in federal court in New York for writing an unauthorized book about the world of Star Trek fandom. Ramer is the author of The Joy of Trek: How to Enhance Your Relationship with a Star Trek Fan. Thirty-four year old Ramer, a self-proclaimed loyal "Trekster" since the age of 6, dedicated the book to his wife and intended it as a humorous guide to help "non-fans" like her understand the fierce devotion fans hold for Star Trek in all its incarnations. Paramount, represented by the Manhattan law firm of Richards & O'Neil, argues that the book violates the copyrights of 220 Star Trek episodes, and is seeking civil damages in the amount of $22 million, as well as an order banning sales of the book. At the outset, lawyers for Ramer and his publishing company have raised a number of compelling arguments in defense of the book. Most notably, they illustrate how for 30 years Paramount tolerated and even encouraged fans to engage in technically unauthorized activities in order to maintain interest and enthusiasm for the then-struggling franchise. They point to over 100 unauthorized books, including the famous Star Trek Concordance by Bjo Trimble. Trimble, who was instrumental in the letter-writing campaigns to save the original series from extinction, wrote the beloved Concordance as a comprehensive encyclopedia and episode guide. Had Paramount adopted the same stance with Trimble as it has done with Ramer, Star Trek would have been an obscure footnote in entertainment history, rather than the unparalleled success that it has become today. Sadly, with Gene Roddenberry gone and Paramount swallowed up by monolithic Viacom Corporation, appreciation and respect for fans has given way to litigation and disdain, as Viacom continues its misguided campaign to eliminate interactive fan participation in the Star Trek universe. OFF expresses its full support for Samuel Ramer and his publisher, and will continue to post updates on the case. Meanwhile, OFF supporters are encouraged to write to Viacom with their concerns. As always, be polite and articulate in order to be taken seriously. --- The Online Freedom Federation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of freedom of speech on the Internet. Its executive council can be reached at . Representatives of the various presses can contact OFF's Public Relations council at to more quickly arrange to speak with OFF representatives. Local presses will be deferred to their local representative for official comment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:35:44 -0400 From: Udhay Shankar N Subject: File 7--Online activism comes of age in India Online activism =============== Online activism comes of age in India ------------------------------------ The net, they say, is a perfect place for activism to happen. How else can people from all over the world keep in touch with each other, almost in real time, independent of time zones, all for the price of a local call ? Better still, activists also have Gilmore's Law on their side: The net treats censorship as damage and routes around it. In India, however, the story is a little different. The people who would be most effective at activism - voluntary organisations and individuals - usually weren't aware of what the net could do for them, even if they had access to it, which they usually didn't. But that is beginning to change. The Background -------------- In the bad old days, there was only ERNET. And net access was restricted to the lucky few who could beg, borrow or steal an account on it. So, the online scene was mainly confined to the BBSes - and what a vibrant and rollicking atmosphere it was ! Everybody knew everybody else, it seemed, and the air was thick with ideas, jokes and (usually friendly) insults. Quite the collegial atmosphere. Ideal breeding ground for activism, should it be needed. And quite suddenly, it was needed. The BBSes, which were run by enthusiasts in their spare time using funds from their own pocket, were suddenly deemed to be profit-making corporate entites worthy of taxation. And the DoT doesn't believe in half-measures. They wanted Rs1.5 MILLION annually from each BBS operator as "license fee". Obviously, no operator could afford to pay that kind of money. There was an uproar, and a group called FREE was formed. They won. The license fee was withdrawn. You can read about it at http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/FREE/. From their letter to the Sectretary, DoT, released 3 August '94 : Given the increasing importance of data communications, FREE is hereby founded as a body dedicated to protecting the rights and representing the interests of the electronic community in India vis-a-vis various policy-forming bodies within the Indian government, with a view to preserving and enhancing our fundamental rights in the electronic domain. FREE is the 'Forum for Rights to Electronic Expression', India's telecom watchdog. And this was India's first brush with online activism. That isn't my story, though. I want to talk about what happened later. What's happening now, in fact. India's next great brush with online activism, and why it's different this time. Reach out and touch someone --------------------------- Ever since VSNL opened its doors to the public as India's one and only ISP in 1995, response has been good. Braving lack of dial-in lines, lack of infrastructure and lack of technical knowledge of the support staff, the Indian public has been sampling what the net has to offer at an ever growing rate. And one of the "killer apps" on the net has been net telephony. The ability to call people anywhere in the world, using your net connection. Even if they don't have a net connection. For the price of a local call. In fact, the telecom consultancy Frost and Sullivan (Mountain View, Calif.) projects that the IP phone market will balloon to nearly $1.9 billion worldwide by 2001. Naturally, VSNL as the monopoly provider of overseas telecom service, isn't happy about this. In fact, they insert a clause into their terms of service banning this. But they're on shaky legal ground here. And it's probably unenforcable technically too. Besides, everybody's doing it. And there it stood. People were checking out Voice on the net, and VSNL was quietly fuming in the background. Until recently. When they decided to do something about it, and block access to some of the popular websites promoting voice on the net. They did this by configuring their hardware to report that these sites were "inaccessible", whenever anyone tried to go to these sites on the web. As of 21/04/98, these were the sites known to be blocked, all related to internet telephony - Vocaltec (http://www.vocaltec.com/) WebPhone (http://www.NetSpeak.com/). Net2Phone (http://www.Net2phone.com) The online community reacted with outrage. And they're doing something about it. A petition has been filed by a private citizen, Dr. Arun Mehta of Delhi with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to overturn the "ban", and to make VSNL cease and desist from such "bans" in future. What is interesting, however, is that this time, the activism seems to be qualitatively different. Activism ? Huh ? ---------------- The BBS license issue never really made national headlines. It was fought and won in obscurity, and mostly by techies. The man on the street never heard of it, and wouldn't have cared if he did. Now, however, the following factors have come into play: o The number of internet users in India is reaching critical mass. o There exists a watchdog body in the form of the TRAI o Private ISPs are just around the corner o The non-techie is willing to get involved, this time. Online activism looks like entering a vibrant phase in India. This is going to be interesting. Stay tuned. ============== Udhay Shankar N is a net.consultant based in Bangalore and helps run the internet strategy consultancy, Arachnis. More details at http://www.arachnis.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:23:11 -0800 From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor" Subject: File 8--REVIEW: "Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster BKDGTLIT.RVW 980322 "Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster, 1997, 0-471-24952-1, U$12.95/C$18.50 %A Paul Gilster gilster@mindspring.com %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1997 %G 0-471-24952-1 %I Wiley %O U$12.95/C$18.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 %P 276 p. %T "Digital Literacy" Having said many unkind things about the hype surrounding the World Wide Web, I *do* acknowledge that the Web is useful. It's value, however, lies not in graphics or a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) interface, but in the invention of the URL: the Uniform Resource Locator. Text based dinosaur that I am, I find URLs in mail messages to be more useful than almost any approach to the Xanadu of hypertext. Utility lies in informational substance and ease of access thereto, not in multimedia style. As a card carrying propellorhead, therefore, I greatly appreciate Gilster's avowed non-technical approach to the net. "The Internet Navigator" (cf. BKINTNAV.RVW), despite the efforts of literally hundreds of authors, is still the most mature general guide to the Internet. "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW) stands alone after all this time as the only solid answer to the second question every net novice asks. Now, in this present work, Gilster once again draws back the unnoticed curtain behind the smoke and noise to reveal that which we truly need to make the Internet work: critical analysis. (I should note that it is not quite present: this is a reissue, for some reason, of a book I somehow missed two years ago. In responding to the draft of this review, Gilster has said that he would have made some additions if he had been given the opportunity.) The first chapter introduces digital literacy as a new skill made necessary by a new type of information utility: the computer, and more particularly the computer network. The text briefly looks at the changes in style and even substance of data in the new medium, and at those who use, do not use, praise, and decry the net. Yet this is mere introduction, for all that it covers the total contents of most "information superhighway" books. Chapter two develops a definition of this new literacy. Drawing upon the historical changes from speech to phonetic writing, from scrolls to codex, and from hand copying to moveable type, Gilster demonstrates that it is the interaction with content that changes. And, whereas in the immediately previous media information could not be questioned, on the net, information not only can be critiqued, but must be. Chapter three seems to be somewhat of a digression as Gilster describes a day using the Internet. It does, however, give a quick and realistic picture of what information use on the net is like in reality right now. In one sense, though, it does a minor disservice to the book. All of the information Gilster obtains is deemed to be trustworthy. There is little mention of spam and other junk, nor of the ubiquitous "404" indicator of abandoned sites on the Web, nor of the assessment, in terms of a Usenet news posting, of whether this shrill electronic cry is a vital warning or an ill- tempered complaint. While some evaluation is done, the critical analysis promoted in the first two chapters is missing. Chapter four, however, takes up the slack. Most of the details here; and the chapter is very detailed; are concerned with determining the identity, background, and credentials of providers of content on the net. Even when all the information is available on the Internet, chapter five notes that perception can be distorted by presentation. Web pages linked to supporting materials lend credibility to proposals that may very well be built on thin air, or at least badly lopsided foundations. Chapter six is an examination of the various models of libraries, traditional, online commercial, and Internet, that are developing in the current environment. Ultimately Gilster proposes a design that may not be fully supported by either the installed base of technology nor social will, but the discussion is a definite wakeup call for many information providers. But it is chapter seven that demonstrates the real strength of the net: the multiplicity of voices that can be accessed in any situation. This strength carries the inevitable downside and caveat: the reader/user is fully responsible for pursuing and judging the data. The price of being informed is eternal searching. As a singular book on a vital topic, this work is not written to the excellent standard of "Finding it on the Internet." A number of resources for analysis and information gathering are either missed, or mentioned only briefly. Time, of course, is one of the most important. Contrary to popular impression, the Internet is not necessarily a source of instant or ready answers. Development of resources is indispensable. While note was made of the need for search engines to check material presented on Web pages, the DejaNews and Rendezvous sites are useful as search engines on another matter: the determination of the history, interests, expertise, and biases of individuals. Mailing list archives can be another source of similar information. The last, best resource any seasoned netizen has is a circle of acquaintances; personal contacts with a range of experts in a variety of fields that would astound the literati of any pre-digital age. Gilster's look to the future, in chapter eight, is disappointing in light of the insightful work that preceded it. While fair and balanced, avoiding both the rose coloured digital crystal ball and the mechanized cyberpunk dystopia, this final piece in the book does not travel much beyond a generally informed look at short range futures in technology. Still, while the tag end does not provide you with any last minute advice or guidance, the book overall gives much useful advice on developing the new literacy of the digitally networked age. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKDGTLIT.RVW 980322 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998) 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) CuD is readily accessible from the Net: 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 #10.33 ************************************