Computer underground Digest Tue 5 October, 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 36
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
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 (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
| News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
| 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
rthieme@thiemeworks.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 ari@cdt.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
majordomo@cdt.org
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: info@cdt.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: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
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 (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
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 - cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu