Computer underground Digest Tue 5 October, 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 36 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (email@example.com) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (firstname.lastname@example.org) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Copernicus Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, III Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #11.36 (Tue, 5 October, 1999) File 1--What's a "Coupe Adolator"? File 2--Prologue to UCITA File 3--Islands in the Clickstream. Digital Autumn. Sept 4, 1999 File 4--STORY: "Activism vs Hacktivism" from HateWatch File 5--CFP2000 Set for Toronto: Proposals Wanted File 6--SANS NewsBites Vol. 1 Num. 19 File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Aug, 1999) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. TO UNSUB OR CHANGE ADDRESS, SEE ADMINISTRAVIA IN CONCLUDING FILE --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 10:45:15 -0300 From: "Carlos Alberto Teixeira"
Subject: File 1--What's a "Coupe Adolator"? + | Editor: Jim Thomas (email@example.com) | News Editor: Gordon Meyer (firstname.lastname@example.org) | Archivist: Brendan Kehoe | Coupe Adolator: Etaion Shrdlu, III - Dear Jim & Gordon. Curiosity killed the cat, I know, I know. But *please* what does it mean a Coupe Adolator? (Etaion Shrdlu, III) Thanks in advance, ((CuD Moderator's Note: Our copy editor, Etaion Shrdlu, III, sometimes is less attentive to detail than we would like, but he works rather cheaply and does windows so we can't fire him. A "coupe adolator," of course, is Shrdlu-ese for copy editor. Probably)). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:32:11 -0700 From: Joshua M.K. Masur Subject: File 2--Prologue to UCITA Intellectual property owners, unsatisfied with the scope of rights available under copyright law, decide to try to expand their rights using contract. They seal their products with a wrapper, not to be opened unless the purchaser agrees with the terms of the "license" printed upon it. Sound familiar? It should. It's the record industry in the 1930s. Judge Learned Hand, of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered the greatest American jurist on intellectual property issues, was faced with the issue in 1940. His decision? Using "licenses" to expand copyright was unconstitutional. The federal Copyright Act preempted all contradictory state law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution In 1940, in a case called RCA v. Whiteman, Judge Hand wrote, "Certainly when the 'common-law property' is in a work which the Copyright Act covers, there can be no doubt; Congress has created the monopoly in exchange for a dedication, and when the monopoly expires the dedication must be complete." In other words, intellectual property proprietors make a trade when they opt to protect their works with copyright. They get all copyright's protections, including criminal sanctions for particularly egregious offenders. In return, they grant all other rights to the public. In the 1930s, that meant allowing broadcast of their sound recordings. In the 1980s and 90s, that means allowing creation of archival copies, or incidental necessary copies of software, rights specifically granted under section 117 of the Copyright Act. Which is to say, the fight over UCITA ain't over yet. UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, formerly known as Proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial Code) may have been ratified by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws this afternoon in Denver. But this battle is far from over, even if it has changed venue. Now the focus shifts to state legislatures, at least one of which -- Washington -- is virtually certain to enact UCITA. Then come the inevitable court challenges. And therein lies the problem for UCITA: it attempts to use contract to expand on copyright, creating what David Nimmer calls "copyright plus." (Nimmer is author of the leading copyright treatise and the person who introduced me to this case and this line of thought.) But copyright is not the baseline protection; as Learned Hand noted, it is the maximum. And because federal law -- and in this case, the Constitution that provides explicitly for copyright -- trumps state law like contracts, UCITA's viability is at least open to serious question. Back before he was a Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that when we say that something is the law, what we mean is that we predict that a court, if faced with a specific question, will rule in a certain way. If you need to predict what the courts will do, my money's still on Learned Hand. ________________________________________ RCA Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Whiteman 114 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1940) Case citations omitted L. HAND, Circuit Judge. This case comes up upon appeals by the plaintiff, RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., and the defendants, Paul Whiteman and W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation Before the action was brought Whiteman had filed a complaint against W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation and Elin, Inc., to restrain the broadcasting of phonograph records of musical performances by Whitemans orchestra. By leave of court RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., then filed the complaint at bar, as ancillary to Whitemans action, asking the same relief against W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation and Elin, Inc., as Whiteman had asked in his action, and in addition asking that Whiteman be adjudged to have no interest in the records of his performances, because of contracts between him and itself. Whiteman thereupon discontinued his action, leaving only the ancillary action in which the judgment on appeal was entered. The dispute is as to whether W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation, as the purchaser of phonographic records prepared by RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., of Whitemans orchestral performances, may broadcast them by radio. Whitemans performances took place in studios of RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., which arranged for their reproduction upon ordinary phonographic disc records, and which, with the consent of Whiteman, sold the records to the public at large. Of the nine records here in question five were sold between November, 1932, and August 15, 1937, during which period every record bore the legend: Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast. (Apparently the four earlier records did not advise the purchaser of any such limitation.) After August 15, 1937, this notice was changed to read as follows: Licensed by Mfr. under U.S. Pats. 1625705, 1637544, RE. 16588 (& other Pats. Pending) Only For Non-Commercial Use on Phonographs in Homes. Mfr. & Original Purchaser Have Agreed This Record Shall Not Be Resold Or Used For Any Other Purpose. See Detailed Notice on Envelope. These later records were inclosed in envelopes which even more clearly gave notice of the same limitations. W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation every week bought from a New York company, Bruno-New York, Inc., such records as it needed; it used them thereafter to broadcast over its radio system. Bruno-New York, Inc., had bought the records in question under a contract with RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc. in which they agreed after its date (August 9, 1937) to resell only for non-commercial use on phonographs in homes as per the notice appearing on the record labels and envelopes. It may be assumed that W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation is charged with notice of the legends on the records, and with the contract of Bruno-New York, Inc., and that it broadcasts them on its radio system in disregard of both. The questions raised below were whether Whiteman and/or RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., had any musical property at common-law in the records which radio broadcasting invaded; whether Whiteman had passed any rights which he may have had to RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., under certain agreements, not necessary to be set out; and whether, if either Whiteman or RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., had any such common-law property, the legends and notice enabled them, or either of them, to limit the uses which the buyer might make of the records. The judge held that all of Whitemans rights had passed to RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., which for that reason was entitled to enjoin the broadcasting of these records; and that Whiteman was also entitled to an injunction against W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation because it was unfair competition to broadcast his performances without his consent. All parties appealed except Elin, Inc. The RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., appealed because the judge did not recognize its common-law artistic property, arising out of the skill and art necessary to obtain good recording, and also because of the affirmative relief granted to Whiteman. Whiteman appealed because of the holding that he had lost all his rights to RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., under its contracts with him. W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation appealed because any relief was granted against it It is only in comparatively recent times that a virtuoso, conductor, actor, lecturer, or preacher could have any interest in the reproduction of his performance. Until the phonographic record made possible the preservation and reproduction of sound, all audible renditions were of necessity fugitive and transitory; once uttered they died; the nearest approach to their reproduction was mimicry. Of late, however, the power to reproduce the exact quality and sequence of sounds has become possible, and the right to do so, exceedingly valuable; people easily distinguish, or think they distinguish, the rendition of the same score or the same text by their favorites, and they will pay large sums to hear them. Hence this action. It was settled at least a century ago that the monopoly of the right to reproduce the compositions of any author his common-law property in them was not limited to words; pictures were included. This right has at times been stated as though it extended to all productions demanding intellectual effort; and for the purposes of this case we shall assume that it covers the performances of an orchestra conductor, and what is far more doubtful the skill and art by which a phonographic record maker makes possible the proper recording of those performances upon a disc. It would follow from this that, if a conductor played over the radio, and if his performance was not an abandonment of his rights, it would be unlawful without his consent to record it as it was received from a receiving set an d to use the record. Arguendo, we shall also assume that such a performance would not be an abandonment, just as performance of a play, or the delivery of a lecture is not; that is, that it does not publish the work and dedicate it to the public. Nevertheless, even if Whitemans common-law property in his performances survived the sale of the records on which they were inscribed, it would be very difficult to see how he, or a fortiori the maker of the records, could impose valid restrictions upon their resale. Concededly that could not be done (regardless of the present statutory prohibition) if the restriction went to the resale price. It would also have been impossible if the restriction forbad the buyer to use the article except with other articles bought of the record maker. We do not, however, have that question to decide, for we think that the common-law property in these performances ended with the sale of the records and that the restriction did not save it; and that if it did, the records themselves could not be clogged with a servitude. Copyright in any form, whether statutory or at common-law, is a monopoly; it consists only in the power to prevent others from reproducing the copyrighted work. W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation has never invaded any such right of Whiteman; they have never copied his performances at all; they have merely used those copies which he and the RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc.; made and distributed. The putatively protected performances were themselves intended for that purpose and for that alone; the situation was precisely the same as though Whiteman and RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., had combined to produce an original musical score and inscribe it upon records. The records at bar embodied Whitemans common-law property his contribution as a conductor in precisely the same way that the record of such a score would embody his composition. Hence the question is no different from whether he might disseminate a musical score to the public at large, but impose a limitation upon it that buyers should not use it to broadcast for profit. Whatever might be said of that if the sale were not a publication it will hardly be argued that if it was a publication in the sense that that destroys the common-law property, the restriction upon the use of the record would be valid notwithstanding. Restrictions upon the uses of chattels once absolutely sold are at least prima facie invalid; they must be justified for some exceptional reason, normally they are repugnant to the transfer of title. If the common-law property in the rendition be gone, then anyone may copy it who chances to hear it, and may use it as he pleases. It would be the height of unreasonableness to forbid any uses to the owner of the record which were open to anyone who might choose to copy the rendition from the record. To revert to the illustration of a musical score, it would be absurd to forbid the broadcast for profit of its record, if any hearer might copy it and broadcast the copy. Thus, even if Whiteman and RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., have a common-law property which performance does not end, it is immaterial, unless the right to copy the rendition from the records was preserved through the notice of the restriction. As applied to books, where the problem is precisely the same, there is not very much law as to whether such restrictions prevent complete dedication, but the judges who have passed upon the question have declared, at times with much certainty, that they are nugatory. In 1898 the Court of Appeals of New York flatly so decided in Jewelers Mercantile Agency v. Jewelers Publishing Co., and that is the leading case. Judge Putnam had held the same in 1896 and he was followed by Judge Townsend, Judge Lacombe and Judge Ward. In his dissenting opinion in International News Service v. Associated Press, Mr. Justice Brandeis spoke of the law as well-settled to that effect. It is quite true that if publication were merely a question of intent, these decisions are wrong, for the intent is obvious not to dedicate the whole right. The problem is not so simple; in dealing with a monopoly the law imposes its own limits. Certainly when the common-law property is in a work which the Copyright Act covers, there can be no doubt; Congress has created the monopoly in exchange for a dedication, and when the monopoly expires the dedication must be complete. If the records were registrable under the act, the restriction would therefore certainly not limit the dedication. The fact that they are not within the act should make no difference. It is indeed argued that by virtue of Donaldson v. Becket, there is a perpetual common-law copyright in works not copyrightable under the act; we have answered that argument in Fashion Originators Guild v. Federal Trade Commission, and need not repeat what we said. That being true, we see no reason why the same acts that unconditionally dedicate the common-law copyright in works copyrightable under the act, should not do the same in the case of works not copyrightable. Otherwise it would be possible, at least pro tanto, to have the advantage of dissemination of the work at large, and to retain a perpetual though partial, monopoly in it. That is contrary to the whole policy of the Copyright Act and of the Constitution. Any relief which justice demands must be found in extending statutory copyright to such works, not in recognizing perpetual monopolies, however limited their scope. It is true that the law is otherwise in Pennsylvania, whose Supreme Court in 1937 decided that such a legend as the records at bar bore, fixed a servitude upon the discs in the hands of any buyer. We have of course given the most respectful consideration to the conclusions of that great court, but with much regret we find ourselves unconvinced for the reasons we have tried to state. However, since that is the law of Pennsylvania and since the broadcasting will reach receiving sets in that state, it will constitute a tort committed there; and if an injunction could be confined to those sets alone, it would be proper. It cannot; for even if it be mechanically possible to prevent any broadcasting through the angle which the state of Pennsylvania subtends at the transmission station, that would shut out points both in front of, and beyond, Pennsylvania. We must therefore choose between denying any injunction whatever since in our judgment the act is unlawful only in Pennsylvania or enjoining W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation from broadcasting throughout the Union and in Canada in order to prevent a tort in Pennsylvania alone. This would be an obvious misuse of the writ which goes only in aid of justice. Whiteman and the plaintiff also rest their case upon the theory of unfair competition, depending for that upon International News Service v. Associated Press. That much discussed decision really held no more than that a western newspaper might not take advantage of the fact that it was published some hours later than papers in the east, to copy the news which the plaintiff had collected at its own expense. In spite of some general language it must be confined to that situation; certainly it cannot be used as a cover to prevent competitors from ever appropriating the results of the industry, skill, and expense of others. Property is a historical concept; one may bestow much labor and ingenuity which inures only to the public benefit; ideas, for instance, though upon them all civilization is built, may never be owned. The law does not protect them at all, but only their expression; and how far that protection shall go is a question of more or less; an author has no natural right even so far, and is not free to make his own terms with the public. In the case at bar if Whiteman and RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., cannot bring themselves within the law of common-law copyright, there is nothing to justify a priori any continuance of their control over the activities of the public to which they have seen fit to dedicate the larger part of their contribution. We are adjured that courts must adjust themselves to new conditions, and that in the case at ba r justice clearly points the way to some relief. We cannot agree; no doubt we should be jealous to execute all reasonable implications of established doctrines; but we should be equally jealous not to undertake the composition of substantial conflicts of interests, between which neither the common-law, nor the statute, has given any clue to its preference. We cannot know how Congress would solve this issue; we can guess and our guess is that it would refuse relief as we are refusing it but if our guess were the opposite, we should have no right to enforce it. If the talents of conductors of orchestras are denied that compensation which is necessary to evoke their efforts because they get too little for phonographic records, we have no means of knowing it, or any right to assume it; and it is idle to invoke the deus ex machina of a progress which is probably spurious, and would not be for us to realize, if it were genuine. Finally, appeal is made to the doctrine that W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation is guilty of a tort or at least that it is a factor in determining its unfair competition because it induces Bruno-New York, Inc., to violate its contract with RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc. Whatever remedies RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., may have under that contract, they are not before us. As between Bruno-New York, Inc., and W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation, the contract is a nullity; RCA Manufacturing Company. Inc., had no power to impose the pretended servitude upon the records; and W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation is free to buy and use them in entire disregard of any attempt to do so. It scarcely seems necessary to discuss the strange assertion that to broadcast the records in some way invades somebodys right of privacy, presumably Whitemans. Nor need we say that insofar as radio announcers declare, directly or indirectly, that the broadcast of a Whiteman record is the broadcast of a Whiteman performance, that conduct is a tort which Whiteman could enjoin. That would indeed be unfair competition. It follows that the complaint must be dismissed, and for reasons which make it unnecessary to determine how far Whitemans contracts with RCA Manufacturing Company, Inc., preserved any common-law copyrights he might have had, if they had survived the sale of the records. Judgment reversed; complaint dismissed; costs to W.B.O. Broadcasting Corporation. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 08:17:30 -0500 From: Richard Thieme Subject: File 3--Islands in the Clickstream. Digital Autumn. Sept 4, 1999 Islands in the Clickstream: Digital Autumn Everywhere I look I see signs of autumn. Here in the upper midwest it is still warm before a cold front and rain moves in over the weekend. The first fallen leaves litter the lawn. Gardens are overgrown with flowers that seem to be growing wildly because they know it will soon be fall and they had better get everything in before the petals drop. When the front moves in, the wind will shift to the northwest, dark clouds will lower in the sky, and the temperature will drop suddenly. We will look up at what I called in my youth "a wanderer's sky." The weather will have changed not only in the world but in our hearts. It will be time to follow the prompting of our hearts, the stirring of desire, to climb while we can climb in the mountains of another country. When I lived along the mountains in Utah, autumn began at the peaks. Scrub oak and mountain mahogany turned red, aspen turned yellow, and fir and pine stayed green. There always came a September morning when the peaks were powdered with the first snow, then the snow came down the mountain, the snowline getting lower and lower until one day - as you sat over coffee in a warm cafe with a friend - the snow would blow into the valley and whiten the landscape and you knew that sooner or later everything would disappear and go under. The weather in the heart is what matters most. When I wrote this summer of my wife's diagnosis of breast cancer, your response - those many of you who wrote notes of encouragement or shared your experience - was remarkable. Email streamed through my computer to my wife's, providing a steady updraft when our anxiety was deepest. One of the most powerful responses came from a man who wrote that he "lost my wife to breast cancer nine years ago. After her diagnosis we had just a few months together and in between the minutiae of trying to keep her comfortable at home we tried to close the book on our shared lives and cherished the moments left to us together. What I remember most vividly is watching the timer on the microwave tick on as I prepared her food, slowly clicking relentlessly toward what we knew would come, yet being so focused on the reality of THIS MOMENT and SHE IS STILL HERE that I don't think I will ever entirely lose that sense of being here and now." My wife's prognosis, after surgery, is more optimistic. The doctors think they got it all. We have time for another picnic. The intensity of our focus diminished as our anxiety diminished and we slipped back into the forgetfulness that seems to characterize so much of waking life. We didn't want to forget what it meant to be so present to our own lives, we didn't want to lose the ferocious clarity of that sharp light in which we had lived, but forgetfulness seems to be bred in the bone like denial to enable us to face the day without flinching. And yet ... we don't entirely forget. There is a Sufi story of a man at a bazaar who saw Death looking for him. He raced off and caught a train for New Delhi just as it pulled away. Death saw him as he left and said, 'Funny, I wonder what's he doing here. I have an appointment with him next Tuesday in Delhi.' Autumn feelings. Autumn thoughts. Inquiries from clients about speaking are increasingly skewed toward e-commerce. There is an urgency in their voices because everyone is afraid of falling behind. In a business climate in which paranoia is a benchmark, that's appropriate. In real life, though, it's not. There is no ahead or behind in real life. There's only life. The translation of the content of our symbolic lives into the digital domain is nearly absolute. All commerce is e-commerce. We don't talk about "telephone commerce" because telephony is ubiquitous. We have been assimilated into the way the digital manipulation of images and symbols has transformed how we speak, how we think, how we feel. Even those who aren't wired are being rewired by those who are. Software, chips, and digital devices grow, live, and die faster than fruit flies. The length of a generation contracts, and the limbo bar of the age at which people make millions on IPOs goes lower and lower. But that's the Little Picture. The Big Picture is only seen when we are seized by ultimate concerns and everything else vanishes, when we are focused on "the reality of this moment" and that which abides. And what abides? Once I thought I had answers to that question. Now all I have is questions. What is the particular gift this day has given me? Who have I loved, and have I dared to love them as well as I could? Have I contributed to the well-being of another, have I enhanced their sense of dignity or expanded the possibilities of their lives? Have I flown as close to the fire at the heart of the mysteries of love and knowledge as I dare? And of everything I have received, have I given anything back? Are those questions really about the digital world? Yes, because the digital world is the world now. Nobody saw exactly how it would happen, just as nobody got e-commerce right. All the predictions were way off. God help the prognosticators in a world that lurches here and there like a lovable drunk. We don't know what we don't know. But we do know that shorter days, the first snowfall in the mountains, and the aching of our hearts when we love are all somehow inextricably bound together and imaged in the digital world like autumn leaves of a thousand colors that are falling fast, oh fast, and are swept along the street in the wind, while the fractal branches of trees uplift in all the possible patterns that exist into the starless sky. ********************************************************************** Islands in the Clickstream is an intermittent column written by Richard Thieme exploring social and cultural dimensions of computer technology and the ultimate concerns of our lives. 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 email@example.com 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 organizations - the human dimensions of technology and work - and "life on the edge." Islands in the Clickstream (c) Richard Thieme, 1999. All rights reserved. ThiemeWorks on the Web: http://www.thiemeworks.com ThiemeWorks P. O. Box 17737 Milwaukee WI 53217-0737 414.351.2321 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 19:24:08 -0400 From: Paul Kneisel Subject: File 4--STORY: "Activism vs Hacktivism" from HateWatch Activism vs Hacktivism David Goldman (Director of HateWatch) 5 Sep 99 On September 4, 1999 the Ku Klux Klan web site at www.kkk.com was vandalized. The entire KKK web site was replaced with the contents of the HateWatch web site. HateWatch has not nor ever will condone such behavior. Not only is this type of action illegal but it has the effect of calling into question the legitimacy of the online civil rights movement as a whole. In the strongest possible terms, HateWatch condemns this type of "hacktivism" against the Ku Klux Klan web site or any web site, regardless of the rationale. This week, David Goldman founder and Director of HateWatch was interviewed for an article in the Village Voice concerning the recent hacking of the anti-gay web site godhatesfags.com. Mr. Goldman stated that hacking hate sites, "...as a tactic to be used by the civil rights community, is a misguided one. Limiting someone's speech...even temporarily takes away one of the greatest advantages the civil rights community has on the Web: exposing bigots using their own words." Rather than defacing racist web sites which only hurt the cause, HateWatch invites those that are interested to volunteer at HateWatch or another similar organization. Education and participation, not acts of vandalism, will make the web a more tolerant community. HateWatch (www.hatewatch.org), founded in 1996, is a nonprofit organization that combats the growing and evolving threat of online bigotry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:09:45 -0400 From: Ari Schwartz Subject: File 5--CFP2000 Set for Toronto: Proposals Wanted ============================================================= C D T P O L I C Y P O S T *********************************************************************** A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE from THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY *********************************************************************** Volume 5, Number 17 August 9, 1999 ============================================================= CONTENTS: (1) CFP2000 Set for Toronto: Proposals Wanted; October 15 Deadline (2) Special Programs Planned (3) Subscription Information (4) About the Center for Democracy and Technology ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of firstname.lastname@example.org This document is also available at: http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_5.17.html _______________________________________________________________________ (1) CFP2000 SET FOR TORONTO: PROPOSALS WANTED; OCTOBER 15 DEADLINE The next Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP) conference, the pre-eminent forum for issues regarding democracy and technology, is scheduled for April 4-7, 2000 in Toronto, Canada. CDT is taking an active role in preparations, through in-kind sponsorship and membership on the conference's program committee. CFP2000 marks CFP's 10th anniversary. As always, the CFP audience will be as diverse as the Net itself, with attendees not only from government, business, education, and non-profits, but also from the community of computer professionals, hackers, crackers and engineers who work the code of cyberspace. For CFP2000, the program committee is seeking proposals for conference sessions and speakers with an emphasis on finding policy and technical solutions to the more difficult issues that face freedom and privacy on the Net. Proposals are welcomed on all aspects of computers, freedom and privacy. The organizers are particularly interested in proposals that tackle the hard questions, look at old issues in new ways, articulate and challenge key assumptions, and present complex issues in all their complexity. Proposals are due by October 15, 1999. See http://www.cfp2000.org/submissions for more information. For general info, visit the CFP2000 site: http://www.cfp2000.org/. And for an excellent summary of CFP '99, go to http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/NotesCFP99.html CDT will send you more information about CFP as the conference nears. In the meantime, we hope that you will join us in submitting proposals. _____________________________________________________________________ (2) SPECIAL PROGRAMS PLANNED There will be two new programs at CFP2000: 1) A workshop on Freedom and Privacy by Design will bring together implementors and those who have studied the social issues of freedom and privacy to generate ideas for freedom-enhancing systems that we should field, and implementation strategies for fielding them. See http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/ for more information. 2) Full time college or graduate students may compete for financial support to attend the conference and for cash prizes. See http://www.cfp2000.org/students/ for more information. _____________________________________________________________________ (4) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center for Democracy and Technology, are received by Internet users, industry leaders, policymakers, the news media and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to email@example.com In the BODY of the message (leave the SUBJECT LINE BLANK), type subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with NOTHING IN THE SUBJECT LINE and a BODY TEXT of: unsubscribe policy-posts _______________________________________________________________________ (5) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: firstname.lastname@example.org World Wide Web: http://www.cdt.org/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 9:42:36 -0600 (MDT) From: The SANS Institute Subject: File 6--SANS NewsBites Vol. 1 Num. 19 This is the last week to enroll at discount prices for SANS Network Security '99 in New Orleans in October. See www.sans.org for more info. RK ********************************************************************** SANS NEWSBITES The SANS Weekly Security News Overview Volume 1, Number 19 August 5, 1999 Editorial Team: Kathy Bradford, Rob Kolstad, Bill Murray, Alan Paller, Howard Schmidt, Eugene Schultz ********************************************************************** 2 August, 1999: FIDNET Rumors Dispelled 2 August, 1999: Critical Infrastructure Council Created 1 August, 1999: Catching - and Punishing - Cyber-Criminals 31 July, 1999: Microsoft and Compaq Vulnerabilities 30 July, 1999: Chinese Group's Sites Under Cyber Attack 30 July, 1999: Code Theft Case Decision Upheld 30 July, 1999: Encryption Tax Break 30 July, 1999: Michigan Internet Crime Bill Violates First Amendment, Commerce Clause 30 July, 1999: Congress Prohibits FIDNET Spending 29 July, 1999: FIDNET 29 July, 1999: The War on Viruses Gets Some Updates 29 July, 1999: Some EU Members are Noncompliant With Data Protection Directive 29 July, 1999: Digital Signatures Now Empowered in California 29 July, 1999: Chinese Software Pirate Jailed 29 July, 1999: It's Their Job to Break Into Systems 29 July, 1999: Canadian Tax Workers Suspended for Inappropriate E-mail 29 July, 1999: Government Y2K Command Center *********************** This Issue's Sponsor ************************* Network-1 Security Solutions Securing e-Business Networks: Protecting Your NT Servers With Embedded Firewalls CyberwallPLUS-SV is the first embedded firewall for NT servers. It secures your valuable servers with network access controls and intrusion prevention. This is a must-have if you manage NT servers in an "electronically open" organization. *** Win a free trip to NS99 *** Win a FREE trip to SANS Network Security 99 in New Orleans, October 3-10, 1999. Visit http://www.network-1.com/eval/eval699.htm and register to receive a CyberwallPLUS evaluation kit before August 31, 1999 and your name will be entered into the drawing. Network-1 will pay all transportation, lodging and conference expenses of the lucky winner. ********************************************************************** 2 August 1999 FIDNET Rumors Dispelled FidNET is a network of intrusion detection sensors and analytical centers designed to secure federal information systems from cyberattacks. Despite rumors that it was designed to monitor private communications (See July 29 and 30 stories below), it appears to be on track. http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0802/fcw-newssecurityside-08-02-99.html 2 August 1999 Critical Infrastructure Council Created President Clinton signed an executive order creating the National Infrastructure Assurance Council as part of an overall plan to protect the United States from cyberterrorism. The Council will include representatives from federal, state, and local government, and from the private sector. http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0802/fcw-polsecurity-08-2-99.html 1 August 1999 Catching - and Punishing - Cyber-Criminals Author says companies' security systems should be audited regularly, and that cyber-criminals should be punished commensurately with those who commit "real world" crimes. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/hotbutton01.htm 31 July 1999 Microsoft and Compaq Vulnerabilities A number of security flaws in Microsoft Office 97 and some of Compaq's machines could allow malicious intruders to damage data. Some Hewlett-Packard machines may also be vulnerable. http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/000199.htm 30 July 1999 Chinese Group's Sites Under Cyber Attack Sites devoted to a Chinese meditation group known as Falun Gong, which has been banned in China, have come under attack worldwide. The attacks appear to be the work of the Chinese government. In one instance, a server belonging to the FAA experienced an attack engineered to appear as though it came from Falun Gong. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21030.html http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/biztech/articles/31china-sect.html 30 July 1999 Code Theft Case Decision Upheld A federal appeals court upheld a district court ruling which blocks Avant! from selling certain software because it is likely that the company used misappropriated code. http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/069123.htm 30 July 1999 Encryption Tax Break Congressman Porter Goss (R-Fla) wants to offer a tax break to companies that develop encryption products that enable key recovery or other methods of giving the government access to the encryption keys. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21014.html 30 July 1999 Michigan Internet Crime Bill Violates First Amendment, Commerce Clause A Federal District Court Judge has issued an injunction to block a statute intended to protect children from online sexual predators. The judge's opinion said the law was so broadly worded that it would curb legitimate speech on line and would violate parents' rights to raise their children and teach them values without excessive government interference. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/articles/30michigan.html 30 July 1999 Congress Prohibits FIDNET Spending The House Appropriations Committee's budget for the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State expressly forbids any spending on the proposed intrusion detection system. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU19990730S0005 29 July 1999 FIDNET The proposed Federal Intrusion Detection Network (FIDNET) is being roundly criticized for its seemingly Orwellian approach to privacy. The plan calls for intrusion monitors to be installed on government computers and would alert other systems to break-ins. Some have suggested that private networks will be monitored as well. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20994.html http://www.newspage.com/cgi-bin/NA.GetStory?story=h0728191.701&date=19990729&lev el1=46510&level2=46515&level3=821 http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990729S0013 29 July 1999 The War on Viruses Gets Some Updates A number of updated software tools should help companies protect themselves against virus infection without disconnecting their servers and losing valuable work time. http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990729S0019 29 July 1999 Some EU Members are Noncompliant With Data Protection Directive Nine members of the European Union (EU) have been given two months to comply with the data protection directive or face condemnation and fines. http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9907294eudata 29 July 1999 Digital Signatures Now Empowered in California California's Governor Davis signed into law a bill which recognized digital signatures as legally binding. Some problems they will encounter include the lack of good digital signature software and the varying acceptance of digital signatures from state to state. http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9907294dig 29 July 1999 Chinese Software Pirate Jailed In a case believed to be the first of its kind, China has sentenced a man to four years in jail for software piracy. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21003.html 29 July 1999 It's Their Job to Break Into Systems Canada's Domus Security employs experts to test security systems. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/072999t2.html 29 July 1999 Canadian Tax Workers Suspended for Inappropriate E-mail Six employees of revenue Canada each received a two day suspension for using the work e-mail system to share offensive jokes. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/990729/2661118.html 29 July 1999 Government Y2K Command Center The government is setting up a command center in a former Secret Service facility to deal with Y2K emergencies. http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/20998.html == End == Please feel free to share this with interested parties. For a free subscription, e-mail with the subject: Subscribe NewsBites Email with complete instructions and your SD number (from the headers) for subscribe, unsubscribe, change address, add other digests, or any other comments. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Aug, 1999) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: email@example.com DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) The mailing list is automated, so no human lies at the other end. CuD is readily accessible from the Net: UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (220.127.116.11) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (18.104.22.168) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ Readers wishing to auto-set their browsers to receive the latest issue of CuD can point to: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/latest.html 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 #11.36 ************************************
<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage
Page maintained by: Jim Thomas - firstname.lastname@example.org