Computer underground Digest Wed Feb 24 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 12

Computer underground Digest    Wed  24 Feb, 1999   Volume 12 : Issue 12
                           ISSN  1004-042X

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

CONTENTS, #12.12 (Wed, 24 Feb, 1999)

File 1--Y2K Preparedness list server
File 2--SLAC Bulletin for February 15, 1999
File 3--Press release: Nuremberg Files mirrored
File 4--TELECOM Digest V19 #12
File 5--GA HB213 Computer Porn and Child Exploitation  Prevention Act
File 6--E-Zine List (resource locator)
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)



From: JCook77745@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:09:24 EST
Subject: File 1--Y2K Preparedness list server

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Another in our series of a "Y2K disaster
coming to you soon!"))

   This is to inform you of a brand new list server that has been
set up by Michael Dougherty of Professional Support Inc. for
sending information to everyone on the list about Y2K

  I have started a series at our church on Y2K preparedness and
other churches are starting to get their people informed and
prepared also.  The reason I have started to prepare our church
is in the hopes that other churches will get their churches
prepared to help reduce the fear and panic when our food, water,
electricity and other goods get disrupted. As some of you know
our Nuclear energy generation plants are going down in July
taking away 20% of our electricity during a high peak usage time.
I started the preparedness meeting on generators and how and why
to convert them to propane. I have addresses of places that sell
conversion kits and have helped at least 4 people get generators
and given them the information so they could convert them.

   I would like to stress that if you post anything to the list
that you would try to keep the subject matter focused on
preparedness rather that news articles on Y2K itself.  Someone
sent me a list of web sites that cover different aspects of
preparedness and I will be posting it first.  As always there are
exceptions to the rules, like when we got information from
National Guard officers who informed World Net Daily that our
Nuclear Power plants are being taken off line.

   If anyone should want information on Y2K, what it is, how it
will effect us and information on it's possible dangers, then
that person can post a request to the list and I am sure, with
the information I and others have, we can bring them up to speed
in a hurry.

  We should extend a big thank you to Michael for doing this,
because in the end we will all benefit and hopefully save a few
lives in the process.

James R. Cook

We set up the list service.  The way to join is to send an email addressed to:

In the body of the email or on the subject line type :

subscribe y2kready 


subscribe y2kready Jim Cook

You will get a reply back that you were entered successfully.  To send an
email to everyone on the list, simply address your email to :

When the server gets your message, it will disseminate it to everyone on the
list.  The list is setup to also distribute replies made to
everyone sees everything that is sent.  If you want to send a private response
reply to a listing, be sure to change the addressee to the email address of
that individual user.

Michael A Dougherty, President
Professional Support, Inc.
PO Box 1015
187 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA  01887
(978) 988-0616 x224
(978) 988-0623 fax
visit our web site:


Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:53:59 GMT
Subject: File 2--SLAC Bulletin for February 15, 1999

The SLAC Bulletin consists of occasional updates to Sex, Laws and
Cyberspace, by Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan (Henry Holt
1996), about Internet censorship. To subscribe to the list, point
your browser to
Unsubscription information appears at the bottom of this message.

by Jonathan Wallace

In an Oregon case, a jury returned a verdict for substantial
damages against the publisher of the Nuremberg Files website,
which published lists of abortion doctors with their home
addresses. When a physician on the list was murdered, a line was
placed through the name; when a doctor was wounded, the name was
listed in gray.  Though the anti-abortion focus of the site was
clear, nothing on the site specifically advocated violence
against the doctors.

After the verdict, the ISP hosting the site closed it down,
claiming a terms of service violation.

The verdict, which will likely be reversed on First Amendment
 grounds if appealed, acutely illustrates the way society  blurs
 the distinction between morality and legality. Not everything
 which we find shockingly immoral is, or should be, illegal. In
 the case of a decision assigning liability for pure speech---for
 that is all a web page is---more consideration should have been
 given to the goals of the first amendment, and the precedents
 already established in free speech law.

Decades of Supreme Court decisions, long preceding the Internet,
have established that even the explicit advocacy of violence is
protected except in the small subset of cases in which the speech
is capable of inspiring immediate action against a victim. A
book, pamphlet or web page calling for the murder of a group of
people, repulsive as it is, is not illegal under this rule.
Standing on the proposed victim's doorstep, addressing an angry
armed mob, would be.

One Supreme Court precedent involved a speech given at an
isolated farm to a racist group. The advocacy of violence was not
aimed at specific individuals, but at members of a race who were
not present. In another case, a dissident said that if he were
drafted, the first person he would point his rifle at would be
President Johnson. The Court held that this statement was too
conditional to constitute an immediate threat of action.

The lawsuit was brought under a 1994 law, the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act. The name of the law itself indicates
that it was brought to address actions taken on the front steps
of the targeted location, not on a web page.

The act creates a criminal penalty and a civil remedy against
"whoever..... by threat of force.....intimidates or interferes
with, or attempts to interfere with" any user or provider of
reproductive health services. Congress did not have the
authority, in passing this act, to expand the limits of the
Supreme Court definition of a threat. It could only target a
particular type of threat meeting the Supreme Court criteria. The
Files web site did not meet the Supreme Court standard, and the
judge should never have permitted the case to be submitted to a

Thus, the Nuremberg Files web site could have legally called for
the murder of abortion doctors. Unlike speech on a doctor's
doorstep intended to inflame an armed mob, it is very unlikely
that a court will find that speech on the web is sufficiently
immediate to constitute an illegal advocacy of violence under the
Supreme Court rule. The jury's verdict was based on shock and
rage at the defendant's ideas. But it is very dangerous to jump
from the reaction that an idea is shocking to the presumption
that it is illegal or should give rise to civil liability.

An interesting question is whether the behavior of the Nuremberg
Files webmaster would be illegal even if performed on a doctor's
doorstep. Holding up a piece of paper with the proposed victim's
name and drawing a line through it might not constitute the kind
of immediate inflammatory speech which could be prosecuted even
in that context---not in the same way as shouting "Kill him now!"
to an angry mob.

Once you clear away the fog of rage, it is hard to find the
illegal activity in the morally horrifying Nuremberg Files page.
The site reprinted publicly available information. In order to
turn this activity into a crime, we would need privacy laws which
don't currently exist, providing civil liability for revealing
the identity or address of a person who doesn't want this
information known. Even then, there would be a strong free speech
issue concerning the circumstances under which the newsworthiness
of a person's identity overrides his desire for privacy.

Once we acknowledge that the first amendment protects the
communication of a person's name and address, we are forced to
look for nuances to make the behavior which shocks us illegal.
Suppose I print the names and addresses of the congresspeople who
voted to impeach the president on a website where other language
leads you to infer that I want you to write and thank them. You
print the same information on a website where certain prose leads
the reader to infer you are very angry at them. How much nuance
in your writing does it require for a jury to find that you are
advocating violence against the congressfolk?  Once juries or
courts get involved looking for nuances in pure speech, we are
all at risk.

When we make speech like the Nuremberg Files site illegal, the
temptation is then to keep drawing the circle further out. At
some point it becomes illegal to make statements like "the world
would be better off if no doctors performed abortion" or to write
a novel involving the killing of abortion doctors. Then we have
to get involved in very fine distinctions: is the novel by
someone well-known in the mainstream, like John Grisham, or by a
fringe figure who belongs to an anti-abortion group? For the
purposes of the first amendment, there is no distinction, and
cannot be any, between A Time to Kill and The Turner Diaries. Of
course, it is frequently debatable whether a depiction advocates
the acts of violence it describes--shades of the centuries old
debate as to whether The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic
work. (I believe it is, by the way.) The next step is to take
similar or practically identical speech and decide whether it is
acceptable based on the identity of the speaker.  In the sixties,
Roy Rogers appeared on television wearing an American flag shirt,
but Abbie Hoffman was blacked out when he tried to do the same.

Abortion is legal and constitutionally protected in this country.
The key to protecting the right to abortion is to guard the
people who deliver the service and prosecute the people who
physically attempt to harm
them.  This does not and should not extend to silencing those
who oppose abortion, no matter how virulent their speech.


Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:58:09 +0100
From: Karin Spaink 
Subject: File 3--Press release: Nuremberg Files mirrored

Today, Monday 22 feb 1999, I've opened a mirror of a
site that got itself a 100 million dollar fine in a US
court in January of this year (Portland, Oregon,
federal jury) and that was subsequently closed by the
provider. The site was maintained by anti-abortionists
and listed the names and some addresses of abortion
doctors and public defenders of the right to abortion.
The site known as "The Nuremberg Files", was ruled to
be "an incitement to violence". It is currently mirrored at

The reason for mirroring the site is that the ruling
blurs the distinction between morality and legality,
and that between words and acts. I consider the ruling
to be detrimental to free speech and, although I
loathe the page, I feel obliged to mirror it.

The mirror is preceeded by an elaborate motivation /
introduction. My column in the Dutch newspaper Het
Parool  will carry today a Dutch
translation of my motivation.

I will of course gladly answer any questions.


Karin Spaink,

phone:	+ 31 20 - 6222 776

occupation:	writer and columnist;

President of ,
	an organisation that hosts banned political websites;
Defendant in Scientology vs Spaink and XS4all
	(winner of the first Scientology Internet copyright case),
	see .


Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:50:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: File 4--TELECOM Digest V19 #12

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Feb 99 14:50:00 EST    Volume 19 : Issue 12

((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:
                    * * ======"  ))

Date--Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:40:38 -0500
From--Monty Solomon 
Subject--Lawsuits Challenge Search Engines' Practice of 'Selling'


Lawsuits Challenge Search Engines' Practice of 'Selling' Trademarks

An Internet surfer seeking Playboy's Web site decides to get help from
Excite, a major search engine. The prospector goes to Excite's home page
and enters the word "Playboy" in the search box. Then a funny thing

A banner advertisement for an explicit pornographic Web site appears,
high above the list of pages generated by the search. But that site has
nothing to do with Playboy.

Is it sneaky and illegal for Excite to display a non-Playboy
advertisement to a user who enters the trademarked words "Playboy" or
"Playmate?" Or is it fair play because search engines, like the Yellow
Pages, naturally create the opportunity for advertising aimed at people
seeking certain information?

Last week Playboy Enterprises Inc. gave its answer to the question by
filing an important lawsuit against Excite Inc. and Netscape
Communications Corp., a licensee of Excite's search engine. The suit
challenges their practice of having advertisements for pornographic
sites appear whenever a user of the search engines enters one of
Playboy's trademarks as a search term.

This practice has "hijacked and usurped" Playboy's reputation, the
company said in legal papers filed in federal court in Los Angeles
last week. The case was recently transferred to federal court in Santa
Ana, California.

The lawsuit, which seeks an injunction and unspecified damages, claims
that Excite and Netscape, by their "unauthorized use" of the Playboy
trademarks to sell targeted banner ads, are committing trademark
infringement, unfair competition and related offenses.

The lawsuit also challenges the companies' practice of providing links
to special directories of pornography sites along with the search
results for "Playboy" or "Playmate." Those directories prominently
feature the sites of advertisers, according to legal papers.

Spokeswomen for Excite and Netscape declined comment on the lawsuit. A
lawyer for Playboy, Jeffrey D. Neuburger, and a spokeswoman for Playboy,
also declined to comment.

The Playboy case is not the only lawsuit that challenges what some
experts say is a common advertising practice at search engine companies.

Last month three subsidiaries of the Estie Lauder Companies Inc. filed
suit in federal court in New York against Excite Inc. and The Fragrance
Counter Inc., an online seller of cosmetics and fragrances.

In its lawsuit, Estie Lauder claimed, among other things, that when a
consumer uses the Excite search engine or Webcrawler, which is owned by
Excite, and types "Estie Lauder" as a keyword, a misleading Fragrance
Counter banner ad appears that features the Estie Lauder name. Estie
Lauder said that The Fragrance Counter is not an authorized retailer of
its products.

Spokeswomen for Estie Lauder and Excite declined to comment on the
lawsuit. A spokesman for The Fragrance Counter, based in Brentwood,
N.Y., said the case was without merit. Based on a recent look at the
sites targeted by the suit, it appears that The Fragrance Counter has
changed its ads so that they no longer contain Estie Lauder's

Online advertising experts say it is a common and lucrative practice
for Internet search engines, many of which are now part of larger
"portal" sites, to sell banner ads linked to particular search
keywords, including trademarked terms.

"I would estimate that 20 to 30 percent of a portal's ad revenues" are
generated from such targeted banner ads, said Marissa Gluck, an analyst
at Jupiter Communications, a New York research firm.

Playboy said it did not object to tying a banner ad to a "neutral"
search term, such as "baseball."

Nick Copley, director of business development for Thomson & Thomson, a
company based in Quincy, Mass., that tracks search engines, said that if
courts hold that banner advertising triggered by trademark keywords may
only be sold to the trademark holder, "it will have quite an effect on
the business model of search engines."

Playboy's lawsuit is much broader than the Estie Lauder case because
it attacks the right of a search engine company to sell banner ads in
this way.

In essence, Playboy is arguing in its suit that a banner ad appearing
with the results of a search for one of its famous trademark terms might
confuse Web users, making them think that Playboy is a sponsor of, or
somehow connected to, the banner ad buyer.

But some legal experts dispute this argument. They claim that consumers
are not likely to be confused about the relationship between a
pornographic banner ad merchant and Playboy when they use the search
term "Playboy."

"I would compare this case to a drugstore, where you walk down the aisle
looking for Tylenol and you spot it on the shelf next to a generic-brand
pill," said Carl Oppedahl, an lawyer who specializes in Internet
litigation. "That is not confusing to the consumer. And I don't think
there is any confusion to Playboy consumers on the search engine Web

Mark Lemley, a professor of law at the University of Texas, also
believes that Playboy will have a difficult time proving that the ad
practices in question cause consumer confusion, assuming that the
banner ads that pop up don't falsely advertise Playboy products or

He added that the Playboy case was interesting because it illustrated
the way that the Internet can help companies target someone else's

"Outside cyberspace, we've always had purely comparative advertising --
'My product is better than yours,'" he said. "But the Internet allows me
to reach customers who are interested in my competitor's products
without making a direct comparison." Banner ads keyed to certain search
terms are just one means to accomplish the goal, he said.

Lemley added that he was not surprised to see Playboy leading the charge
on this issue. In recent years the company has challenged several
Internet practices that it considers a form of piracy, including its
competitors' use of the word "Playboy" in their domain names or in "meta
tags," hidden code in a Web page that is designed to draw the attention
of search engines.

In its legal papers, Playboy said it did not object to tying a banner ad
to a "neutral" search term, such as "baseball." But it claimed that a
banner ad tied to another company's trademark was deceptive and unfair.

Carl S. Kaplan at welcomes your comments and

Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company


Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:45:43 -0500
From: Robert A. Costner 
Subject: File 5--GA HB213 Comp Porn and Child Exploitation  Prevention Act

Source -

I'd appreciate some comments on this bill.  If you will give me "official"
comments, I'll add them to a web page linked to the bill commentary at

Comments from all sides are welcome.

 1  To amend Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of
 2  the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to offenses
 3  related to minors generally, so as to define the crime of
 4  computer pornography; to provide a short title; to define a
 5  certain term; to make it unlawful for any person knowingly
 6  to utilize a computer on-line service, Internet service, or
 7  local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or
 8  entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a
 9  child or another person believed by such person to be a
10  child, to commit certain illegal acts; to make it unlawful
11  for any owner or operator of a computer on-line service,
12  Internet service, or local bulletin board service knowingly
13  to permit a subscriber to utilize the service to commit a
14  violation of this Act; to provide that the fact that an
15  undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved
16  in the detection and investigation of an offense under this
17  Act shall not constitute a defense to prosecution under this
18  Act; to provide that a person is subject to prosecution in
19  this state pursuant to Code Section 17-2-1 for any conduct
20  made unlawful by this Act which the person engages in while
21  either within or outside of this state if, by such conduct,
22  the person commits a violation of this Act which involves a
23  child who resides in this state or another person believed
24  by such person to be a child residing in this state; to
25  provide that, for the purposes of this Act, conduct which is
26  criminal only because of the age of the victim shall not be
27  considered a criminal offense if the perpetrator is 18 years
28  of age or younger; to provide that any violation of this Act
29  shall constitute a separate offense; to provide penalties;
30  to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


32                           SECTION 1.

33  Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 of the
34  Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to offenses
35  related to minors generally, is amended by adding following

 1  Code Section 16-12-100.1 a new Code Section 16-12-100.2 to
 2  read as follows:

 3    "16-12-100.2.

 4    (a) This Code section shall be known and may be cited as
 5    the 'Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation
 6    Prevention Act of 1999.'

 7    (b) As used in this Code section, the term 'child' means
 8    any person under the age of 16 years.

 9      (c)(1) A person commits the offense of computer
10      pornography if such person knowingly:

11        (A) Compiles, enters into, or transmits by means of
12        computer;

13        (B) Makes, prints, publishes, or reproduces by other
14        computerized means;

15        (C) Causes or allows to be entered into or transmitted
16        by means of computer; or

17        (D) Buys, sells, receives, exchanges, or disseminates

18      any notice, statement, or advertisement, or any child's
19      name, telephone number, place of residence, physical
20      characteristics, or other descriptive or identifying
21      information for the purpose of facilitating,
22      encouraging, offering, or soliciting sexual conduct of
23      or with any child or the visual depiction of such
24      conduct.

25      (2) Any person convicted of violating paragraph (1) of
26      this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not more
27      than $10,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one
28      nor more than 20 years, or both.

29      (c)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to
30      utilize a computer on-line service, Internet service, or
31      local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure,
32      or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or
33      entice a child or another person believed by such person
34      to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in
35      Code Section 16-6-2, relating to the offense of sodomy
36      or aggravated sodomy; Code Section 16-6-4, relating to
37      the offense of child molestation or aggravated child
38      molestation; Code Section 16-6-5, relating to the
39      offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes; or
40      Code Section 16-6-8, relating to the offense of public

 1      indecency; or to engage in any conduct that by its
 2      nature is an unlawful sexual offense against a child.

 3      (2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this
 4      subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high
 5      and aggravated nature.

 6      (d)(1) It shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of
 7      a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local
 8      bulletin board service knowingly to permit a subscriber
 9      to utilize the service to commit a violation of this
10      Code section.

11      (2) Any person who violates paragraph (1) of this
12      subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high
13      and aggravated nature.

14    (e) The fact that an undercover operative or law
15    enforcement officer was involved in the detection and
16    investigation of an offense under this Code section shall
17    not constitute a defense to prosecution under this Code
18    section.

19    (f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state
20    pursuant to Code Section 17-2-1, relating to jurisdiction
21    over crimes and persons charged with commission of crimes
22    generally, for any conduct made unlawful by this Code
23    section which the person engages in while either within or
24    outside of this state if, by such conduct, the person
25    commits a violation of this Code section which involves a
26    child who resides in this state or another person believed
27    by such person to be a child residing in this state.

28    (g) For the purposes of this Code section, conduct which
29    is criminal only because of the age of the victim shall
30    not be considered a criminal offense if the perpetrator is
31    18 years of age or younger.

32    (h) Any violation of this Code section shall constitute a
33    separate offense."

  -- Robert Costner                  Phone: (770) 402-3580
     Electronic Frontiers Georgia            run PGP 5.0 for my public key


Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:30:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest 
Subject: File 6--E-Zine List (resource locator)

((CuD MODERATORS' NOTE: For the last few years, John Labovitz has
provided a valuable Net resource by compiling a list of E-Zines.
He updates the list monthly, and his homepage is worth a look.
Here, we offer a summary of the project from his homepage)).

                             ABOUT THE E-ZINE-LIST

What's an "e-zine," anyway?

   For those of you not acquainted with the zine world, "zine" is short
   for either "fanzine" or "magazine," depending on your point of view.
   Zines are generally produced by one person or a small group of people,
   done often for fun or personal reasons, and tend to be irreverent,
   bizarre, and/or esoteric. Zines are not "mainstream" publications --
   they generally do not contain advertisements (except, sometimes,
   advertisements for other zines), are not targeted towards a mass
   audience, and are generally not produced to make a profit.

   An "e-zine" is a zine that is distributed partially or solely on
   electronic networks like the Internet.

A brief history

   I started this list in the summer of 1993. I was trying to find some
   place to publicize Crash, a print zine I'd recently made electronic
   versions of. All I could find was the alt.zines newsgroup and the
   archives at The WELL and ETEXT. I felt there was a need for something
   less ephemeral and more organized, a directory that kept track of
   where e-zines could be found. So I summarized the relevant info from a
   couple dozen e-zines and created the first version of this list.

   Initially, I maintained the list by hand in a text editor; eventually,
   I wrote my own database program (in the Perl language) that
   automatically generates all the text, links, and files.

   In the four years I've been publishing the list, the net has changed
   dramatically, in style as well as scale. When I started the list,
   e-zines were usually a few kilobytes of plain text stored in the
   depths of an FTP server; high style was having a Gopher menu, and the
   Web was just a rumor of a myth. The number of living e-zines numbered
   in the low dozens, and nearly all of them were produced using the
   classic self-publishing method: scam resources from work when no one's

   Now the e-zine world is different. The number of e-zines has increased
   a hundredfold, crawling out of the FTP and Gopher woodworks to
   declaring themselves worthy of their own domain name, even of asking
   for financial support through advertising. Even the term `e-zine' has
   been co-opted by the commercial world, and has come to mean nearly any
   type of publication distributed electronically. Yet there is still the
   original, independent fringe, who continue to publish from their
   heart, or push the boundaries of what we call a `zine.'


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 #11.12

<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage

Page maintained by: Jim Thomas -