Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 17 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 03

Computer underground Digest    Sun  17 Jan, 1999   Volume 11 : Issue 03
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas (
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer (
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Copy Editior:   Etaion Shrdlu, Jr.
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage:

CONTENTS, #11.03 (Sun, 17 Jan, 1999)

File 1--Microsoft Zealotry
File 2--Islands in the Clickstream. Surfing the Web. Jan 2, 1999
File 3--Does Y2K Mean Prisoners Running Amok? (fwd)
File 4--REVIEW: "Year 2000 in a Nutshell", Norman Shakespeare
File 5--Book: Communities in Cyberspace now available
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)



Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:03:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim King 
Subject: File 1--Microsoft Zealotry

Microsoft Zealotry: Thoughts on the Debate
 by Tim King

There are two subjects that often turn to mush when discussed in popular
circles: theology and economics. No one would try to tell an engineer how
to build a bridge, or a pilot how to fly an airplane. But in theology and
economics, everyone's an expert. This makes open debate almost worthless
to students who like me want to discover the truth. There are no mentors
to clearly and constructively point out my errors, or confirm my analysis.

The truth is elusive. Too often we are mere ideologues who can't agree
even on established maxims. This is bad enough among professional
economists and theologians. But it's even more ubiquitous among laymen. In
this atmosphere, reason is trying to explain to my two-year old daughter
the effects of change in the volume of money on the slope of the inflation
curve. Her eyes glaze over, and the conversation quickly degenerates into
"No, Daddy! You do _this_!" So I do it. What else can I do? I only hope
that someday she learns to understand.

I believe there is an answer to the dilemma. Objectivity. This sounds
simple enough, but it's hard to find. I need to know my own limitations.
To step outside of my own self-interest. To be willing to discard
everything I believe in, if it means accepting reality. I need to admit
that I'm basically an ignoramus. And no one likes to be an ignoramus.

                                * * *

These problems arise in Microsoft's tribulations. As you know, economists
have formally defined monopoly. Its causes and effects are well
understood. Why, then, is it impossible to agree whether Microsoft is a
monopoly? Additionally, there are recognized ways of dealing with
monopolies, and antitrust legislation isn't one of them!

There are many common misunderstandings. Monopoly is harmful because it
restricts productivity. In other words, it's inefficient. But a monopolist
cannot charge whatever he wants. Nor even necessarily what the market will
bear. His profit can only be as much as it would cost his potential
competitors to enter the market. As soon as he asks for more, he'll have

And monopoly is not always a bad thing. Monopoly is better than nothing.
Copyrights and patents are limited monopolies that enable innovation. And
government-owned industries, such as water and sewer, and public goods,
such as defense, would not be provided adequately (we presume) if it
weren't for a government monopoly.

Of course, no market is purely competitive. No business is a pure
monopoly. Every firm, from the largest multi-national to the smallest
coffee-shop, has characteristics of both. But which one is more prevalent
with regard to Windows 98 and NT?

Can't we find at least part of the answer in history? Microsoft has been
challenged. It has seen MacOS, OS/2, BeOS, Linux, Solaris, and a host of
others. And it may see many more before it eventually retires. Windows'
continued dominance should not concern us here. Competition doesn't
require that a dominant firm be unseated, only that others be able to
contend for the spot. Innovative competition is what we see here. And it
often results in a wide disparity of market share, as one firm fights to
stay ahead of the pack.

I've treated the economic issues haphazardly because I'm commenting on the
quality of debate, to highlight prevalent misconceptions. My goal is not
to write an economic treatise. For one thing, I'm less than qualified. And
so many have already been written that Gates' defenders seem to have run
out of new things to talk about. The Cato Institute, for example, has a
large collection of papers at that explore the economics.

                                * * *

I find it strangely ironic that those who condemn Microsoft for Windows
vociferously demand that Sun be compensated with regard to Java. They
defend a single dominant portable-language standard as necessary, but
decry a single dominant OS as cruel. They want someone to enforce Sun's
copyrights, and also to destroy Microsoft's. Isn't it Microsoft's right to
restrict how its intellectual property can be used? Isn't this also what
gives Sun the right to put conditions on Java? There seems to be a

But, it is said, this doesn't apply to Microsoft, since it has such a
powerful market position. We accept that the competitor who provides us
the greatest utility ought to get our business. Microsoft is attacked for
shutting out competitors. But, it is pointed out, Windows has plenty of
competition. The objection comes: none of the alternatives are adequate.
So then why should they succeed? What exactly is wrong with triumphing
over inadequate rivals? The argument begs the question. It ought to be
rejected on its face.

Of course, I don't expect any of the hard-core anti-Microsoft zealots to
be swayed. Little of this is my own work. It repeats what came before. And
they weren't persuaded by any of that, either. It merely caused them to
make their protestations more clamorous.

They re-repeat again the discredited stories of path dependence: QWERTY
vs. Dvorak, VHS vs. Beta. They make absurd claims. ("No one can stand
against Microsoft's advertising budget. Or against its team of lawyers.")
They make claims that cannot be backed up by facts. ("Microsoft makes
bloated, useless, overpriced software that has no value to anybody.") They
think that a free market is something that can be abridged by a bigger
offering, but not by violent force. They perpetuate common myths regarding
predatory pricing, robber barons, and free-market monopolies.

One humorous claim was that there is actually a trunk full of cash buried
at One Microsoft Way. This magic money, apparently, is to be used to pay
for the antitrust edicts the company must endure. Of course, I'm sure that
this was meant only figuratively. That Microsoft can make up the lost
productivity. But that's just the point. Every dollar that's spent
satisfying the trustbusters is a dollar that can't be used elsewhere in
the economy to provide good things for you and me, and all the other
people without political connections.

I could go on for days. I can't help but think that the impetus for these
views has nothing to do with science. Nothing to do with justice. With
what's right. It shows a simple hate of Microsoft and of success
generally. It is revulsion. It is prejudice. It is hostility. It is the
desire to see Bill Gates taken down a few notches because we don't like
egotistical nerds.

                                * * *

The antitrust arguments are specious at best. I really don't understand
why anyone would adopt them. Likewise, Microsoft's defense in the Sun suit
is unconvincing. At least these views are self-consistent. Intellectual
property is notionally similar to real property. And it needs to be
protected in order for the market to exist. If there's any benefit in the
market, it must avail to both Sun and Microsoft.

This is not to say that I'm infallible. I expect that I've made a grievous
error somewhere. But I don't know where. I can't find it. The harder I
look, the more elusive it becomes. In any case, I have all but given up on
the platitudes I hear from popular sources. There is little to be achieved
in their emotionally-laden debates. Cries of "Is not!" and "Is too!"
echoing from a distant school yard are a poor source of wisdom. It is
notoriously difficult to get truth from a propagandist. As difficult as
converting a true believer.

If there is a truth to be learned, I don't believe it can be had by the
disingenuous methods we learned in school. It won't come to light through
the political process. The image is not enhanced by demagoguery. The
answer demands attention to detail. It requires a clear understanding and
a rational mind. It summons us to hours of devoted study. To slough off
the old views that are dissonant with the new. Change is never an easy
process. May we each have courage to innovate.


Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 14:38:23 -0600
From: Richard Thieme 
Subject: File 2--Islands in the Clickstream. Surfing the Web. Jan 2, 1999

Islands in the Clickstream:
Surfing the Web

No, not THAT web. The REAL web.

Three times this week I awoke with a strong impression of
particular people, all of them important to me, all of them
distant. I hadn't heard from any of them in a long time. In each
case, the sense of their presence was unmistakable, persistent.
And significant email from each was waiting on the server.

Now, consciousness weaves a deceptive web, and the way we
interpret events in our lives is subjective. The weight of events
in our histories is determined by our emotional filters. How we
pattern or tell our stories always involves choices, making each
of us an artist of our own lives.

So I know skeptics will suggest that fleeting impressions of
distant friends bob in and out of consciousness all the time like
oracular readings in a magic eight ball and only the waiting
email made me remember those impressions. And all one can say is,
yes, I understand what you are saying, and I am saying that this
was not like that at all. These were distinctively strong
impressions that made me think, even before I booted up, "I
wonder if ..." and the waiting email finished the sentence with
relevant details.

More than knowing, this is knowing in a way that we know that we
know.  Knowing that we know empowers us to get behind what we
know and ride the slipstream.

The beliefs or consensus realities of communities constrain how
we think.  That's why "outsiders," free from institutional and
organizational constraints, can be valuable. Who we invite into
our lives does make a difference. They either affirm and validate
our strengths and disclose new possibilities or limit and narrow
our options.

Years ago, when I worked in the Episcopal Church, I offered a
workshop called "The Invisible World" about the deeper dimensions
of consciousness.  It was intended to disclose to people who
lived on land, as it were, that most of the planet was covered by
water. With the right diving equipment, we could become as
comfortable in the ocean as on the beach. But you had to know
there was water, then something under the water, then want to see
it, then learn how to dive.

I asked people in small groups to disclose some of their liminal
experiences. The newsprint was soon covered with instances of
every kind of boundary experience imaginable. When the members of
the group looked into that mirror of its collective self and
realized that all their unusual experience was ordinary, they
realized how they had limited themselves.

Without reminders, we forget who we are and of what we are
capable. When we remember, it discloses the possibility of a
different kind of life, life as a game that is three dimensional,
four dimensional, more dimensional than that. We develop an
intuitive sense of which currents are worthy of following into
the depths.

That our government conducted a program for several decades in
remote viewing (anomalous cognition, a kind of clairvoyance), is
now well known.  According to Joe McMoneagle, one of the more
successful remote viewers, the process of learning to trust
images that arrived so lightly in the depths of a meditative
state was subtle and complex. There were plenty of misses as well
as hits because the symbolic filter that interprets unconscious
knowledge weaves a tapestry that is always congruent with our
beliefs and keeps our egos in control. Learning how to filter
that filter through a different filter altogether adds a new
dimension to our understanding.

The government was interested in remote viewing because of its
practical value. All intelligence must be cross-correlated and
understood in terms of intentions, meanings, the Bigger Picture,
so results of RV alone were never trusted, any more than a single
intercepted message tells the whole tale.  Because competitive
intelligence and counter-intelligence are necessary to compete in
a global knowledge economy, some corporations are experimenting
in remote viewing. Naturally,  our consensus reality inhibits
open discussion of even the possibility.

New ideas migrate from the edge to the center. The doctor who
first discussed battered child syndrome says that when he first
spoke openly about it, he was greeted by silence. No one asked
questions. Out in the hallway, however, a physician would say,
you know, I did see symptoms like those just the other day....

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Now we "all know" there's such a thing as "battered child
syndrome" and we know how we know it.

I have had the same experience giving talks about UFO phenomena
to educated professionals. Someone often hangs back and waits to
share a secret of which he acts almost ashamed, what happened one
night when he and other fighter pilots were scrambled after a
radar target or what someone confided in the middle of the night
at some remote outpost in Viet Nam.

When we enter the real web, the nodes that represent others glow
according to their power in our lives. We follow vectors of
energy in the medium of our collective consciousness, navigating
as if in a mist irradiated intermittently by sudden sun.
Symbols link to symbols which suddenly symbolize something beyond
the power of symbols to say.

When we see through symbols on our monitors into the
consciousness manipulating pixels into luminous images, we
maneuver in a web of which the Internet is merely an emblem. The
nexus is unmistakable. But this is an experience into which we
can allow ourselves to settle or be led, not something that can
be taught. Teaching in this domain is only a way of drawing
pictures that depict the edge of the ocean and invite us to wade
into the surf. Once we know there is a coastline,  then we can
choose to dive.... and one day know what it means to sink and sit
lightly on the reef, breathing in and breathing out, chasing
nothing, letting everything in the sea that is wondrous and
strange come to us.


Islands in the Clickstream is a weekly column written by
Richard Thieme exploring social and cultural dimensions
of computer technology. Comments are welcome.

Feel free to pass along columns for personal use, retaining this
signature file. If interested in (1) publishing columns
online or in print, (2) giving a free subscription as a gift, or
(3) distributing Islands to employees or over a network,
email for details.

To subscribe to Islands in the Clickstream, send email to with the words "subscribe islands" in the
body of the message. To unsubscribe, email with "unsubscribe
islands" in the body of the message.

Richard Thieme is a professional speaker, consultant, and writer
focused on the impact of computer technology on individuals and

Islands in the Clickstream (c) Richard Thieme, 1998. All rights reserved.

ThiemeWorks on the Web:

ThiemeWorks  P. O. Box 17737  Milwaukee WI 53217-0737  414.351.2321


Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:06:13 +0200
From: "Abolish (Capital Punishment)" 
Subject: File 3--Does Y2K Mean Prisoners Running Amok? (fwd)

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here's another of our occasional "Y2K will doom us"
series. This, from another list, suggests that prisoners may run amok
when prison locks won't work. Maybe somebody should show them the
"any key")).

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Prisoners Await Y2K Day

by Spencer Ante

10:30 a.m.  15.Oct.98.PDT

Among the more outlandish scenarios envisioned by Year 2000
doomsayers is that the millennium bug will crash prison security
systems and open the razor-wire gates, setting loose untold
numbers of violent and dangerous offenders.

"People joke about doors flying open but it's a very distinct
possibility," said Dr. Michael Harden, an information technology
manager for 20 years and author of a study that examined the
impact of Y2K on embedded computer systems.

"If a prison is defined by its ability to control inmates and all
these systems break down, a prison ceases to become a prison and
it becomes a hotel."

Harden's concerns are echoed by corrections officers, law
enforcement officials, and security experts who gathered in
Austin, Texas, on Thursday for a conference focusing on Y2K's
impact on prisons.

At the very least, observers say, Y2K could disrupt prison
security enough to put corrections officials in jeopardy. And in
the most unsettling scenario, a Y2K crash could seriously
compromise a prison's perimeter security.

Though it's hard to generalize about the potential impact of the
millennium bug on the nation's jails, virtually all the experts
agree that governments have been slow to respond to the challenge.

Peter O'Farrell, a physical plant systems consultant and speaker
at Thursday's Year 2000 and Embedded Systems conference, said the
Massachusetts' correctional system hired a Y2K manager only two
weeks ago.

"The difficulty is in trying to get people to buckle down and go
through their systems," said O'Farrell.

Prisons: A Y2K Minefield?

The computer and database-driven prison system is a potential
minefield of Y2K glitches. The parole system at the California
Department of Corrections, for example, is built atop three
distinct databases. Then there are the inmate records, which are
maintained by computers in most prisons and jails -- though
conventional paper files are often kept.

"[Y2K] could have an impact in terms of management's ability to
maintain inmate records," said Jim Ricketts, president of
Technology Systems International, a company that is developing a
new generation of high-tech prisons.

Ricketts said that foul-ups of that nature could result in the
premature release of prisoners.

But David Hall, an embedded systems expert with the Cara
Corporation, scoffs at the idea. After completing Y2K risk
assessments at three state prisons, Hall believes that
computerized security systems are not widespread enough for the
millennium bug to pose a real threat.

"We're finding that there are a lot less problems than we thought
there would be," he said. "Everything we've found can be fixed,
providing that facilities [departments] start now."

But Michael Harden said the corrections systems has an Achilles
heel in the form of the thousands of embedded chips -- computer
chips permanently burned with software code -- hidden throughout
the facilities.

"You couldn't build a modern prison today without computers.... It
makes them very vulnerable [to Y2K]," said Harden. "The more
modern the prison, the more likely it is to be reliant on computer
chips or computer systems for control of all their security

In a typical office building, embedded chips hide inside badge
readers, elevators, fire-detection systems and electric
generators. A prison has all those systems, plus security cameras,
door locks, alarm systems, and communications networks.

"It's not like a school," said Hall, another speaker at Thursday's
conference.  "If the power goes down, you can't send the prisoners
home. The stuff that happens in prisons becomes more critical."

California: Bright Spot in a Dark Picture?

The California Department of Corrections runs the nation's largest
prison system -- the state's inmate population is nearly 50
percent larger than that of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Furthermore, California's parole system keeps tabs on 107,693

"I'm confident that we've got a good handle on things," said Larry
Wagner, chief technology officer for the state's prison system.
"The comfort level is reasonably high."

Wagner said California has been making progress on heading off Y2K
pitfalls, largely because the state got an early jump.

On 3 October 1997, Governor Pete Wilson signed an executive order
declaring Y2K an official state priority. In that order, he
directed every state agency to defer new computer projects until
essential systems were brought into compliance.

Wilson set a fix-it deadline of 31 December 1998, and ordered the
Department of Information Technology to coordinate and fund the
state's Y2K compliance efforts. Under the program, the California
Department of Corrections received an extra $5 million
specifically for Y2K.

Wagner said his department's critical software applications will
be fixed before Wilson's deadline. For example, the Interim
Parolee Tracking System, the statewide parolee database that feeds
information to federal computers at the Department of Justice, is
already Y2K compliant.

Wagner is developing formal Y2K contingency plans, but he expects
the 15,000 desktop PCs and tens of thousands of embedded systems
within the California prison system to be up to snuff by 30 June

Still, it hasn't been easy.

"The desktop problem has frankly shocked even me as to the degree
of problems we're discovering," said Wagner. He said he found Y2K
problems in computers purchased as recently as this year.

Wagner said that hardware and software vendors such as Microsoft
and Oracle have been reluctant to guarantee the compliance of
their products. In other cases, statements made by vendors have
proven false or inaccurate, though he declined to give specifics.

Federal Prisons: A Mixed Bag

If the California Department of Corrections is emerging as one of
the handful of Y2K success stories, the jury is still out on the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.

As with all federal agencies, the bureau is expected to eradicate
the Y2K bug by 31 March 1999. However, the Department of Justice,
which oversees the federal prison system, was downgraded from a
"D" to an "F" rating in a recent congressional Y2K report card.

"I really don't think the bureau [of prisons] is extremely
sensitive to Y2K," said Buford Goff, who runs Buford Goff and
Associates, an engineering firm that specializes in the planning
and construction of security systems for correctional facilities.

Goff said he has designed security systems for prisons in 33
states, which translates into more than 200,000 prison cells.

Edward Ayscue, head of facilities management at the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, said that the bureau has completed its inventory of
embedded systems. However, he declined to provide a specific
completion date for fixing them all.

"We'd like to be finished with repairs by the end of the calendar
year," said Ayscue, "but unfortunately there are some vendors who
have not verified the compliance of their equipment."

Ayscue said the Federal Bureau of Prisons has hired an outside
firm to test the department's scores of embedded systems. That
work will begin late this year or in early 1999.

Furthermore, he said the bureau is working on contingency plans --
many which are modified versions of existing prison contingency
plans. Nevertheless, Ayscue admits that the bureau will not be
able to test every embedded computer chip.

"That's impossible," he said. "We rely on manufacturers to give us
credible information."

Some experts criticize what they say is a lack of testing in
federal prisons.

"I don't believe there has been a significant level of testing of
embedded systems in prison," said Harden. "The few tests that I
have seen are not reassuring."

Cautious Optimism

Despite the fears that the Year 2000 will wreak havoc in the
correctional system, Goff and other experts believe that Y2K's
impact on the prison system will be minimal if officials attack
the problem seriously and quickly.

Even if they do, though, Hall thinks prisons could feel the
effects of external Y2K disasters resulting in local power
failures and communications breakdowns.

If that happened, and the worst-case scenarios did indeed
materialize, one expert floated the surreal forecast that free
citizens, bereft of life's necessities, could end up racing to the
well-stocked coffers of their local prison.

"You're probably going to end up with a mob at the prison gate,"
predicts O'Farrell.

"You've got a year's supply of food, you've got heating,
electricity, a hospital, and a gymnasium," he said. "Everything
you need is there."


Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:18:30 -0800
From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor" 
Subject: File 4--REVIEW: "Year 2000 in a Nutshell", Norman Shakespeare

BKY2KNSH.RVW   981030

"Year 2000 in a Nutshell", Norman Shakespeare, 1998, 1-56592-421-5,
%A   Norman Shakespeare
%C   103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA   95472
%D   1998
%G   1-56592-421-5
%I   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O   U$19.95/C$29.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515
%P   336 p.
%T   "Year 2000 in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference"

*Can* the Year 2000 problem be put in a nutshell?  (Please?)

And isn't it just a tad late to be starting this?  (On the other hand,
Nutshell books *are* generally worth waiting for.)

Part one is a general overview of the situation.  Chapter one starts
with a rather exaggerated doomsday scenario, including concerns that
have already been seen, and thus have been addressed.  At the same
time, it ignores the "upstream" multiplier effect of supplier and
infrastructure failures.  However, it does go on to note needs and
concerns for management of the potential failures.  Management and
budgeting considerations are expanded in chapter two.  Legal questions
are addressed in chapter three, in a somewhat generic fashion.  Some
standard planning models and assumptions are given in chapter four.  A
little technical information in chapter five may help with
calculations for dates and windowing or packing solutions.  Chapter
six looks at the desktop PC; which is interesting in view of a very
heavy COBOL and IBM mainframe and mid-range emphasis elsewhere (as
well as a few PC related goofs in the doomsday scenario).
Unfortunately, some of the information is missing and some is wrong in
regard to the desktop.  There is no mention of a "cold rollover" test
for the CMOS/system date, and the statement about Excel's date
interpretation is incorrect.  (I have confirmed this in my own
testing.)  On the other hand, the warning about internally developed
applications is quite important.

Part two provides some forms and checklists to help organize a Year
2000 project, including triage, inventory, and a project template.
There are about a hundred pages of COBOL references and tutorial in
part three.  Date functions get extensive listings in part four with
attention to general types, COBOL, PL/1, MVS LE, Visual Basic, and C.
There is a conceptual look at code scanners in chapters eighteen and
nineteen.  An appendix lists Web sites for Y2K vendors, tools, and
other resources.

Was it worth waiting for this?  I'm not sure.  There is little wrong
with the information, but neither is this a cut and dried quick fix
that you might expect from the Nutshell series.  An unrealistic
expectation in the case of the disaster of the century, admittedly,
but there you are.  Still, with the big iron emphasis, and the big
project orientation, the material is this work seems to be coming
later than it would have been necessary to start these kinds of
projects.  There is relatively little in the volume for small
businesses depending upon desktop machines, and almost nothing on
fallback plans for non-compliance in the supply chain.  The material
is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as it needs to at
this late date.

On the other hand, it's no worse than any of the others.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998   BKY2KNSH.RVW   981030

Find virus, book info
Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)


Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:29:24 -0800
From: Marc Smith 
Subject: File 5--Book: Communities in Cyberspace now available

I am pleased to announce that _Communities in Cyberspace_ is now available!
Published on Routledge, the volume addresses a range of issues related to
online social interaction and collective organization, including identity,
social control, social network structure, and collective action.  The book
can be found at at:

Here is material from the book jacket:

"I give it my highest recommendation to anyone interested in getting past
the hype, both positive and negative, to read what serious social scientists
have to say."
 -- Howard Rheingold, author of The Virtual Community

"A very important and intriguing collection, well-organized and presented.
What the ultimate impact of cyberspace communities will be, especially on
geographical or 'traditional' communities, is still anybody's guess. This
collection is a great first step in helping us to understand the new
opportunities, as well as threats, of this vast new electronic space."
 -- Doug Schuler, author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change.

"A must-read for anyone interested in the emerging social ecologies of
virtual spaces. Communities in Cyberspace has some of the best work I have
seen in the sociology of virtual exchanges, including race, gender, identity
construction, and gift exchange."
 -- Kate Hayles, University of California, Los Angeles

In cyberspace, communication and co-ordination is cheap, fast, and global.
With powerful new tools for interacting and organizing in the hands of
millions of people world-wide, what kinds of social spaces and groups are
people creating? How is the Internet changing our basic concepts of
identity, self-governance and community?

This wide-ranging book looks at virtual communities in cyberspace and their
relationship to communities in the physical world. The roles of race,
gender, power, economics and ethics in cyberspace are discussed by leading
experts on the subject, grouped into  four main sections:

*  Identity
*  Social order and control
*  Community structure and dynamics
*  Collective action

Communities in Cyberspace investigates how the idea of community is being
challenged and rewritten by the widespread use of online interaction. This
edited volume is an essential introduction to the landscape of social life
in cyberspace. It will appeal to academics, students and professionals, and
to those concerned about the changing relationship between information
technology and society.

Contributors: Byron Burkhalter, Judith S. Donath,  Milena Gulia, Laura J.
Gurak, Peter Kollock, Christopher Mele, Jodi O'Brien, Elizabeth Reid, Anna
DuVal Smith, Marc A. Smith, Willard Uncapher and Barry Wellman.

Marc Smith is a research sociologist at Microsoft Research.
Peter Kollock is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of
California, Los Angeles.
Both have lectured widely on the history and development of cyberspace.


Marc Smith

Marc A. Smith
Research Sociologist
Microsoft Virtual Worlds Group


Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators 
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup:

Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:

Send the message to:


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
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
  UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/CuD
    Web-accessible from:
         ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/
         in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE: in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:

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 #11.03

<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage

Page maintained by: Jim Thomas -