Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 31 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 07

Computer underground Digest    Sun  31 Jan, 1999   Volume 11 : Issue 07
                           ISSN  1004-042X

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

CONTENTS, #11.07 (Sun, 31 Jan, 1999)

File 1--Islands in the Clickstream. Words, Words, Words. 1-23-99
File 2--Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (CDT #5.2 fwd)
File 3-- Netizens Safe from Prosecution Under Net Censorship Law
File 4--ACLU v. Reno - 98-5591 (Excerpt from Decision)
File 5--Re: Microsoft Zealotry
File 6--Youth Pleads Guilty to sending "hate e-mail"
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)



Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:24:32 -0600
From: Richard Thieme 
Subject: File 1--Islands in the Clickstream. Words, Words, Words. 1-23-99

Islands in the Clickstream:
Words, Words, Words

Last week's column (When Computers are Free to be Computers) was a
jazz-like riff using images in words in the search for an image of a world
of images beyond words  - life as we might live it inside a grid of virtual
communication, our thoughts like electrons traveling on interlacing wires.

A reader named Michael Goldhamer (
challenged that vision:

"Dear Richard Thieme," he wrote,

"I too have dreamt of something similar to what you discuss, how computers
could widen our communicative powers, but reading your letter forces me to
doubt it. Look at how quickly and easily words bring up images and permit
our attention to move freely down all sorts of different channels in rapid
succession with little ambiguity.

"While it is true that words might be augmented by pictures, language has
been perfected over thousands of  years. Language itself is multi-modal and
I doubt we shall ever be able to convey images faster than we can in
language. You can take me on your little image-filled joy-ride in words far
more easily than any other way.

"In fact, the Internet may prove to be the renaissance of text...."

as the Renaissance was, in fact, the renaissance of writing, as writing was
the renaissance of speech, speech the renaissance of gesture and guttural
utterance ...

Now, far be it from me to deride this textual medium in which I live and
move.  I am probably the Last of the Print-text People. Most colleagues in
the speaking profession use slides in their presentations, but I prefer to
make pictures out of spoken words. That creates a completely different kind
of transaction between audience and speaker. It's like building a virtual
fire, then lighting it. When it works, we engage with one another with
intransitive attention, enmeshed in a dynamic flow. To follow intuitively
the energies that flow back and forth between a speaker and an audience,
surfing the currents of the group mind that emerges in the moment, is more
like reading Tarot cards than lecturing. When an audience looks at slides
or reads words in sound-bite bullets, it engages another part of the brain,
and unless images have been so well integrated into the presentation that a
new unity is created, that flow is broken.

When I am in the presence of an artist - or a web site - that successfully
integrates words, images, sounds in a coherent whole, something new,
something rare is taking place. But speaking about that new unity using
only words is like "dancing about architecture."

In his latest book, "Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st
Century," Bob Horn claims that a new auxiliary language is emerging that
integrates words and visual elements. Horn's book contains nearly 3000
visual elements in 270 pages, so it's a book about our new visual language
composed in visual language. He tries to describe in images and words the
syntax and grammar of this new sea in which we are just learning to swim.

Still, Horn's book is only a baby step along the way.  I was imagining life
well into the next century, as different from ours as robots on Mars are
from steam engines. I was trying to illuminate something that includes and
transcends whatever infrastructure might evolve. I was searching for a way
to describe that deeper conscious intentionality that underlies all real

Remote viewing, by way of example, is a kind of clairvoyance that
intelligence agencies explored for several decades. Remote viewing is
migrating now into the domain of competitive intelligence. It seems that RV
is a primitive function located in the brain stem. Impressions of distant
places or events are received as images. "Higher" brain functions
immediately begin to interpret those images in words. Our beliefs skew our
experience so that our experience will seem to support our beliefs. Part of
the art of remote viewing consists of learning how to compensate for those
filters so the first impression can be held lightly in a kind of freeze
frame and clearly seen. It's like listening around the corners of your mind
for quanta that come from all directions.

Communication is a function of the intention both to send and to receive.
Everyone, everything, is radiating information always, and all we have to
do to receive it is learn how to pay attention. Listening closely is a
learned skill.

We have all had the experience of someone trying hard not to hear us. We
know what we have to do to get their attention. We raise the level of our
intentionality and penetrate their defenses.  We discover that
communication is a function, not of the media we use to communicate, but of
our intention to connect. When I intend that you "get" it, you get it, even
when "it" is a wordless communication of love, compassion, or deep respect.

Talking about communication on this deeper level is inseparable from
talking about spirituality. Once we know that life is a web in which we are
all enmeshed, we discover an obligation to become as conscious as we dare
of what we are sending, then accept responsibility for modulating the
signal if it sounds like static or noise. The evolving electronic
infrastructure - the immersive 3-D virtual collaboratory landscape in which
we will live - will replicate primitive brain stem functions like Remote
Viewing at a higher level of the fractal of life. The infrastructure will
disappear through habitual use and become background noise, just as our
hardwired language-making brains have become the presupposition of human

The universe is an open-ended system, always evolving, always free to find
new ways of arranging molecules in self-conscious clusters. We use words
like "sacred" to mean those moments when we experience a nexus, self to
Self. The connection itself is experienced in silence, but we seem
compelled to express it, telling stories, storing memories in clusters
designed to remind us of the deeper possibilities of life when we have
slipped back into the routine slumber that we call our lives.


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: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:38:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Ari Schwartz 
Subject: File 2--Child Online Protection Act (COPA) (CDT #5.2 fwd)

Source:  The Center for Democracy and Technology  /  Volume 5, Number 2
         CDT POLICY POST Volume 5, Number 2          January 12, 1999

  ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact **
        Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of 

A broad coalition of 20 groups representing publishers, Internet service
providers, journalists, the technology industry and civil liberties
interests has joined the court fight against Congress' latest effort to
censor the Internet. The coalition, which includes CDT, submitted a "friend
of the court" brief yesterday to a federal judge in Philadelphia hearing
the case challenging the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA).

COPA, intended to protect children from sexually explicit material online,
was enacted after the Supreme Court in 1997 held unconstitutional Congress'
first effort to regulate Internet content, the Communications Decency Act
(CDA). Many of the groups joining in the brief yesterday were among the
plaintiffs that successfully defeated the CDA.

The coalition urged the court to hold COPA unconstitutional under the First
Amendment.  The coalition's 35-page brief argues that less restrictive and
more effective user-controlled alternatives -- such as filtering software
and other technologies -- do a far better job of protecting children in a
global medium than government controls.

A copy of the brief is available at


The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) prohibits commercial web site
operators from offering material that is suitable for adults but considered
"harmful to minors" unless such sites verify the age of all visitors. The
language, based on Representative Oxley's censorship bill (H.R. 3783), was
added to the massive spending legislation that Congress approved on October
16, 1998.

Despite its stated intention, COPA is bound to be ineffective in protecting
children online, since much offensive Internet material originates
overseas. Meanwhile, especially in light of concerns about privacy on the
Internet, COPA's requirement that all sites offering any material that may
be unsuitable for children must verify their users' ages will discourage
adults from accessing material that is appropriate for them.  Also, the Act
burdens speech by forcing publishers of a wide range of material to
stigmatize it by labelling it as "adult only."


* Text of COPA

* CDT's Constitutional Analysis of H.R. 3783 (the Oxley bill)

* Policy Post 4.25: House and Senate Each Pass Censorship Legislation

* CDT's testimony on H.R. 3783 (as introduced)



Immediately after COPA was signed by President Clinton, the American Civil
Liberties Union and others challenged the law in federal court in
Philadelphia. The U.S. Justice Department is defending the law.  Last
November, Federal District Court Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., temporarily
blocked prosecutors from enforcing COPA, and ruled that the law likely
violates the First Amendment. A preliminary injunction hearing, with
witnesses by both sides, is scheduled to begin January 20th, with a ruling
from Judge Reed expected by February 1st.  In preparation for the
evidentiary hearing, parties filed briefs on Monday, January 11, 1999.


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
Internet users, industry leaders, policymakers and activists, and have
become the leading source for information about critical free speech and
privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications

To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to

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

    unsubscribe policy-posts

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

Contacting us:

General information:
World Wide Web:

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: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:23:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Thomas 
Subject: File 3-- Netizens Safe from Prosecution Under Net Censorship Law


Netizens Safe from Prosecution Under Net Censorship Law
Philadelphia Judge Bars Enforcement of Child Online Protection Act

6:00 PM, Monday, February 1, 1999

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - In a case brought by civil liberties groups to
overturn the government's new law aimed at censoring content on the
Internet, District Court Judge Lowell Reed issued a preliminary
injunction protecting Internet speakers from prosecution and fines.
In addition, Judge Reed denied the government's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint.  The case was filed by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union, and
the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"The content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought," wrote
Judge Reed in his decision this afternoon.  "[P]erhaps we do the
minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which
they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of
their protection."

"In granting our preliminary injunction, Judge Reed has found that
plaintiffs are likely to win this case on its merits, that Internet
users would suffer irreparable harm if the statute were enforced,
and that our First Amendment rights to communicate would be
stifled," explained EFF staff attorney Shari Steele.  "The judge
clearly understood the importance of his ruling here, and we're
obviously pleased with the results."

Enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton last
December, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) makes it a federal
crime to "knowingly" communicate "for commercial purposes" material
considered "harmful to minors."  Penalties include fines of up to
$50,000 for each day of violation, and up to six months in prison if
convicted of a crime.  The government may also bring a civil suit
with penalties of $50,000 for each violation in addition to criminal

The court's ruling today denied the government's motion to dismiss
while granting EFF and the other plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.  The government had claimed that the
plaintiffs did not have standing because they were not commercial
pornographers.  The court held that the law, which imposed liability
on any speaker for making any communication for commercial purposes
that was "harmful to minors," was not limited to pornographers and
was a violation of the free speech rights of adults."  In addition,
the court found that there was nothing in the text of the law that
would be applicable to only pornographers, and that COPA could apply
to any Web site that contains only some material considered "harmful
to minors."

"The court has protected Internet speakers from prosecution for
engaging in constitutionally protected speech," said Steele.
"Plaintiffs in this case are not pornographers; they offer resources
on obstetrics, gynecology, sexual health, visual art, poetry, gay
and lesbian issues, books, photographs and online magazines."  She
added, "Judge Reed has recognized what the Supreme Court has said
time and time again -- the free speech rights of adults may not be
reduced to allow them to read only what is acceptable for children."

EFF joined the case on behalf of its members who fear prosecution or
other enforcement under the statute for communicating, sending, or
displaying material "harmful to minors" in a manner available to
persons under age 18 for commercial purposes.  None of EFF's members
can prevent their communications from reaching minors without also
preventing adults from accessing their speech.

"COPA is a vague, overbroad, and largely ineffective law, using our
children as hostages," said Jon Noring, publisher of OmniMedia
Digital Publishing and an EFF member named in the case.  "From a
business perspective, it would gravely impact the emerging
electronic book industry, effectively closing down certain business
models among U.S. electronic book companies, and leaving them to
foreign competitors who will not be so constrained."  He concluded
that "COPA is just a bad law that benefits nobody."

"My biggest concern is that COPA threatens the free flow of
non-pornographic information that is nevertheless valuable to adults
and older minors," said EFF member Bill Boushka, the publisher of
High Productivity Publishing who submitted an affidavit in the case.
"While I could conceivably afford some kind of age verification
system for my site, the mechanics of the process would destroy the
effectiveness of my site in providing openly available material for
researchers, law students, political activists, and even

Complete case materials and the judge's decision are available on
the EFF Web site.  See


The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the first civil liberties
organization devoted to ensuring that the Internet remains a truly
global vehicle for free speech, and that the privacy and security of
all on-line communications are preserved.  Founded in 1990 as a
nonprofit, public interest organization, EFF is based in San
Francisco, California and maintains an extensive archive of
information on free speech, privacy, and encryption policy at


Electronic Frontier Foundation

     Alex Fowler, Director of Public Affairs (San Francisco, CA)
     Tel: 415 436 9333, x103; E-mail

     Shari Steele, Staff Counsel (Washington, DC)
     Tel: 301 283 2773; E-mail

EFF Members

     Bill Boushka, High Productivity Publishing (Minneapolis, MN)
     Tel 612 677 0652; E-mail

     Jon Noring, OmniMedia Digital Publishing (South Jordan, UT)
     Tel 801 253 4037, E-mail

     Rufus Griscom, Nerve: Literate Smut (New York, NY)
     Tel 212 732 3995, E-mail

     Gabriela Sankovich, Good Vibrations (San Francisco, CA)
     Tel 415 974 8985, x206; E-mail

### END ###

  Alexander Fowler
  Director of Public Affairs
  Electronic Frontier Foundation

  Tel: 415 436 9333; Fax 415 436 9993

  You can find EFF on the Web at 

  EFF supports the Global Internet Liberty Campaign


Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:56:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest 
Subject: File 4--ACLU v. Reno - 98-5591 (Excerpt from Decision)




   et al. :


   v. :


   JANET RENO, in her official capacity as :

   Attorney General of the United States. : NO. 98-5591

                            M E M O R A N D U M

   Reed, J. February 1, 1999

   The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that
   "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
   Although there is no complete consensus on the issue, most courts and
   commentators theorize that the importance of protecting freedom of
   speech is to foster the marketplace of ideas. If speech, even
   unconventional speech that some find lacking in substance or
   offensive, is allowed to compete unrestricted in the marketplace of
   ideas, truth will be discovered. Indeed, the First Amendment was
   designed to prevent the majority, through acts of Congress, from
   silencing those who would express unpopular or unconventional views.

   Despite the protection provided by the First Amendment, unconventional
   speakers are often limited in their ability to promote such speech in
   the marketplace by the costs or logistics of reaching the masses,
   hence, the adage that freedom of the press is limited to those who own
   one. In the medium of cyberspace, however, anyone can build a soap box
   out of web pages and speak her mind in the virtual village green to an
   audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have
   imagined. In many respects, unconventional messages compete equally
   with the speech of mainstream speakers in the marketplace of ideas
   that is the Internet, certainly more than in most other media.

   But with freedom come consequences. Many of the same characteristics
   which make cyberspace ideal for First Amendment expression -- ease of
   participation and diversity of content and speakers -- make it a
   potentially harmful media for children. A child with minimal knowledge
   of a computer, the ability to operate a browser, and the skill to type
   a few simple words may be able to access sexual images and content
   over the World Wide Web. For example, typing the word "dollhouse" or
   "toys" into a typical Web search engine will produce a page of links,
   some of which connect to what would be considered by many to be
   pornographic Web sites. These Web sites offer "teasers," free sexually
   explicit images and animated graphic image files designed to entice a
   user to pay a fee to browse the whole site.

   Intending to address the problem of children's access to these
   teasers, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA"),
   which was to go into effect on November 29, 1998. On October 22, 1998,
   the plaintiffs, including, among others, Web site operators and
   content providers, filed this lawsuit challenging the
   constitutionality of COPA under the First and Fifth Amendments and
   seeking injunctive relief from its enforcement. Two diametric
   interests -- the constitutional right of freedom of speech and the
   interest of Congress, and indeed society, in protecting children from
   harmful materials -- are in tension in this lawsuit.

   This is not the first attempt of Congress to regulate content on the
   Internet. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996
   ("CDA") which purported to regulate the access of minors to "indecent"
   and "patently offensive" speech on the Internet. The CDA was struck
   down by the Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997)
   ("Reno I") as violative of the First Amendment. COPA represents
   congressional efforts to remedy the constitutional defects in the CDA.

   Plaintiffs attack COPA on several grounds: (1) that it is invalid on
   its face and as applied to them under the First Amendment for
   burdening speech that is constitutionally protected for adults, (2)
   that it is invalid on its face for violating the First Amendment
   rights of minors, and (3) that it is unconstitutionally vague under
   the First and Fifth Amendments. The parties presented evidence and
   argument on the motion of plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order
   on November 19, 1998. This Court entered a temporary restraining order
   on November 20, 1998, enjoining the enforcement of COPA until December
   4, 1998. (Document Nos. 29 and 30). The defendant agreed to extend the
   duration of the TRO through February 1, 1999. (Document No. 34). The
   parties conducted accelerated discovery thereafter. While the parties
   and the Court considered consolidating the preliminary injunction
   hearing with a trial on the merits, the Court, upon due consideration
   of the arguments of the parties, ultimately decided that it would
   proceed only on the motion for preliminary injunction. (Document No.
   39). There necessarily remains a period for completion of discovery
   and preparation before a trial on the merits.

   The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the entire action pursuant to
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing in
   addition to her arguments in response to the motion for preliminary
   injunction. (Document No. 50). The plaintiffs filed a response to the
   motion to dismiss (Document No. 69), to which the defendant filed a
   reply. (Document No. 81).

   On the motion of plaintiffs for preliminary injunction, the Court
   heard five days of testimony and one day of argument on January 20,
   1999 through January 27, 1999. In addition, the parties submitted
   briefs, expert reports, declarations from many of the named
   plaintiffs, designated portions of deposition transcripts, and
   documentary evidence for the Court's review. Based on this evidence
   and for the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss will be denied
   and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be granted.


Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 21:42:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim King 
Subject: File 5--Re: Microsoft Zealotry

There have been many responses to my essay on the Microsoft debate. For
that I am thankful. I don't have time to address each objection
individually. But I'd like to make a few quick points in reply.

Firstly, a little background info. I'm an experienced embedded and
applications software engineer. I'm also not particularly fond of
Microsoft. And I certainly don't trust Bill Gates. If I use Microsoft's
products, it's only because they offer the greatest value to me. My latest
firm decision has been to scrap Windows and set up a nice Linux desktop
box. I no longer believe Microsoft offers the optimal solution for my
needs. But being familiar with the tradeoffs, I still can't in good
conscience recommend Linux to a computer neophyte, and I do get asked.

My major concerns in the affair are two. Firstly, I want to know that my
tax dollars are being used properly. After all, they're one of the reasons
I have to scrimp and save for that new Linux box. Secondly, I want to know
that current precedent will allow future products and technologies to
thrive, and improve my life more over the long run. From what I can tell,
the free market is still my best shot. This is one of the reasons free
speech is so important. On the other hand, antitrust enforcement, both in
theory and practice, has always worked against the competitive market. I
don't want to go into the issue here. But I do want to assure you that
I've made an informed decision. I am not myself a blind zealot.

I'm familiar with all of the economic points that were brought up. They've
all been addressed before. None are consistent with the available
evidence. This includes the approach of Simon Van Norden, who argued that
antitrust law pursues the public interest. This is a good start, as the
free market does not always pursue an optimal level of collective good.
Mr. Van Norden writes, "The issue is not monopoly... [We] need to ask
whether the company tried to limit competition in a way that harmed the
public interest." This is true enough. But how is it that antitrust is in
the public interest or that free-market anti-competitive behavior is not?

But all of this misses the point of the essay. Of course I attacked straw
men. I didn't define the issues or measurement techniques. I didn't do any
analysis. This was all on purpose. Because I wasn't primarily trying argue
my viewpoint, although I'd be happy if what I wrote caused opponents of
the free market to reconsider their views. I was rather trying to point
out how demonization distorts the debate... Demonization like that in the
previous sentence, when I dubbed those who disagree with me "opponents of
the free market."

The reason I focused on the word "monopoly" is because it's an
emotionally-laden word that is in common popular use. I could just as
easily have focused on the word "coerce." Microsoft is said to have
coerced business deals. But, by definition, a free market is without
coercion. There are really only two kinds of pressure Microsoft can bring
to a deal. They can make a big offer. Surely, it's fair for one to tender
a price to perform a service, such as abiding by restrictions that benefit

Or they can threaten to sue. That is, they can sic the government on their
opponents. I fear this. But it isn't an antitrust problem. It's a problem
with the legal system. The law fundamentally fails to be an equalizer of
wrongs when it's accessible only to the rich. Knocking Microsoft down a
notch isn't going to right any unanswered wrongs.

Even Mr. Van Norden, whose prose I admire, uses questionable rhetoric. He
says the DoJ's enforcement activities further "the public interest." But
Microsoft is "forcing" others to do their bidding. Please, don't get me
wrong. I don't want to slight him. Judging from the whole of his response,
I believe he is open-minded, very intelligent, and honest. He's framed the
issue better than I have. I can only assume that he picked this rhetoric
up from the popular culture.

And that bothers me. Because pop culture doesn't understand the best
arguments of Microsoft's defenders. At least it hasn't addressed them. In
this vein, Peter Kaiser accuses me: "He builds straw men and burns them to
the ground." After which he builds some pretty spiffy straw men of his
own. And to prove my point, he litters liberally with words like "monopoly
power" and "coerce." I didn't use these words to describe the government's
conduct. Although it would have been much more appropriate.

Please, I challenge you, explain to me how loaded rhetoric is scientific.
How does it further justice? What is right about it? How does it not show
a hate of success? What is it if not revulsion, prejudice, and hostility?
How can this approach fail to be illegitimate? When those who fight with
inflammatory discourse so often don't have the ideas to back it up.
Surely, we've seen this behavior in anti-pornography zealots. Even as a
moral conservative and a concerned father, their rhetoric I equally
despise. Their views I equally reject. And on the same grounds.

It appears I'm a man without two countries. But at least I'm not alone.


Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:58:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Thomas 
Subject: File 6--Youth Pleads Guilty to sending "hate e-mail"

Source: Chicago Tribune, 30 Jan '99: p 10

LOS ANGELES--A Chinese-American man accused of sending hate
e-mail to more than 70 people of Hispanic descent, many of them
uiniversity professors, has agreed to plead guilty to the
charges, federal officials said.

U.S. Atty. Alejandro Mayorkas told a news conference Thursday
that the victims, mostly associated with universities, stretched
from California to Massachusetts and received e-mail messages
saying such things as "I hate your race" and "I want you all to

Kingman Quon, 22, of Los Angeles faces up to 7 years in jail and
a fine of up to $700,000. He is expected to formally plead guilty
at his first appearance in U.S. Distrcit Court in Los Angeles on
Feb. 8.


Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators 
Subject: File 7--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 #11.07

<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage

Page maintained by: Jim Thomas -