Subject: Cu Digest, #5.15
From: Cu-Digest ([email-masked]) <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 23:34 CST

Computer underground Digest    Sun Feb 21 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 15
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email-masked])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
       Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Seniur

CONTENTS, #5.15 (Feb 21 1993)
File 1--MODERATORS' Corner  (ah, sundry snippets)
File 2--Re SPA/Piracy (CuD #5.14)
File 3--TIME & Puzzlement
File 4--Technology and Populist Publishing (GEnie Reprint)
File 5--"Time Bomb" Detonated In Pennsylvania
File 6--(fwd) CICnet rural datafication / ubiquitous access

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from [email-masked]. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS
at (414) 789-4210; in Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352)
466893; and using anonymous FTP on the Internet from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud, red.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.91) in
/cud, halcyon.com (192.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud, and
ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
European readers can access the ftp site at: nic.funet.fi pub/doc/cud.
Back issues also may be obtained from the mail server at
[email-masked].

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.  Some authors do copyright their material, 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 19:21:51 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 1--MODERATORS' Corner  (ah, sundry snippets)

MISNUMBERING OF #5.14

CuD #5.14 was inadvertently numbered as #5.17.  The date (Feb 17) was
used instead of the issue. Thanks to those who notified us. The type
has been corrected, so if you save CuDs, you should re-number
correctly.

UNSUBBING FROM CuD

For those who wish to unsub from CuD's mailing list, you should
INLCUDE YOUR ADDRESS in the unsub notice. Sometimes, the address in
the "From:' line doesn't correspond to anything on the mailing list.
YOU SHOULD ALSO BE SURE TO SEND THE CORRECT UNSUB ADDRESS.  If your
unsub request doesn't originate from the address listed in the mailing
list, it makes it rather difficult to determine the correct one to
delete.

CuD PUBLICATION SCHEDULE

Beginning with #5.16 (next Sunday), we will try to revert back to the
once-a-week publication schedule and do twice-a-week runs as
infrequently as possible. We will also try to keep the size limits to
about 38-40K, so CuDs will be a bit shorter than previously (by about
10 percent). The mailing list has grown so large that running an issue
takes about two hours. Attempts to run 50-60 megs through the mailer
in such a short time sometimes causes the log-jams.

AMERICA ON-LINE SUBSCRIBERS

AOL subbers have had problems receiving CuD. IBMmers are allowed to
receive mail files of about 7K, and Mac folk about 28K. We tried
breaking CuDs down into smaller sizes for them, but the size limits
are simply prohibitive. We suggest they unite to ask for a more
reasonable file size of about 50K. Sorry we can't be of much help on
this problem.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)

We are now maintaining a list of FAQs that we can make available on
request. It will also be available from the ftp sites.  If there is
interest, we will run it every three months or so as we add to it.

BACK ISSUES

Please read the header for back issue information. We are unable to
send out back issues from the editors' site because of the sheer
volume. Back issues (Vols 1 through 5.15) are available on the ftp
sites, most long-standing BBSes, and many public access systems.
Compressed, they require nearly four megs of disk space.

REPRINTING "OLD" ARTICLES

We are repeatedly asked why we reprint "old" news or news that seems
erroneous. We do this for several reasons, including the following.
First, especially for newcomers or those reading CuDs from a BBS, old
news is new news. Second, some "old" news is repackaged and
recirculated. We feel it's important to provide an archive of the ways
in which this happens. For example, a recent summary of a virus
article contained old news in a new format. We ran it to indicate the
recursive nature of information that is passed on without critique. We
try to indicate this in the "Subject:" line or in a "Moderators' Note"
when this occurs. Sometimes, we goof. The virus article, for those who
asked, was a GEnie reprint, and an accidental deletion removed the
context. We apologize for the confusion.

We also remind some of our critics that Cu Digest has no budget or
staff, is run from a primitive Amdahl running Wylbur as its front end,
and most articles must be reformatted before running.  Our incoming
mail is fairly heavy, and we try to respond personally to each one.
Both editors have full time positions that require 60-plus hours of
investment, and sometimes things simply slip by.  We ain't perfect,
but we try. So, we appreciate criticism, but we hope it is a bit more
constructive than "can't you guys get anything straight?"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:20:51 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: File 2--Re SPA/Piracy (CuD #5.14)

First, it looks like the SPA has identified a significant problem,
that of software piracy.  I agree fully that piracy is wrong, and that
it should be stopped.  But I totally disapprove of their methods.  The
simple statement that many of those who settle out of court with the
SPA are actually innocent was the first thing that shocked me.  The
American justice system is supposed to be the main way of determining
right and wrong, not something used as a bludgeon to force others to
do what you want.  It seems that right and wrong have become
decreasingly less important, and what matters is whether you can pay
the lawyers.  And many small companies simply can't afford a lawsuit.
So the SPA waltz's in, threatens to sue the company, and walks away
with $$$.  Perhaps the SPA could consider "The end doesn't justify the
means" for a little while.  They are using heavy-handed, cruel
tactics.  It may be for a good cause, but that doesn't excuse it.

	Their tactics have been surprisingly effective.  Every single case,
settled out of court.  It is not clear whether that indicates that the
companies don't want to pay for a lawsuit, know that they are going to
lose the lawsuit, or both.  If the company knows that they would lose
a lawsuit, then the SPA should force some settlement, since the
company is guilty.  But if the company is innocent, and can't afford a
lawsuit to prove it, then the SPA can-and does-just threaten, bluff,
and force a settlement.  Then they walk away with money in their
pockets, and no one can do a thing.  It makes me want to puke.

	The double penalty system which the SPA imposes even upon the
companies who agree to be inspected is preposterous.  The company is
forced to pay twice for each copy of the software, once to the SPA,
and once to buy the software.  Why should the company have to purchase
legitimate copies of the software, just because one of their employees
decided to pirate it?  I agree that the offending software should be
removed, but why should the company be forced to buy new copies?
Also, I don't see why the company should have to pay the full price
for the illegal software, and why that money should go to the SPA.
The company did not obtain the full value of the software, it was
probably used without manuals, which limits the use of a piece of
software, and they didn't get the cool box with all the neato screen
shots, pretty pastel colors, and designer logos on it.  They did not
get as much from the pirated program as they would have if they had
bought it, so why should they pay the same amount?  In many cases, the
program may have been used only a small amount, by one employee, which
doesn't justify charging the company the full price.  And why should
the money go to the SPA?  That is the most ludicrous aspect of the
entire fiasco.  If the software has been stolen from the company that
released it, then the company that released it should get the money.
If that compan{chooses to donate part of it to the SPA, then fine, but
there is little reason why the SPA should get it.  Sure, they can say
that they prevent piracy, that they educate people against it, so they
should get it, but the software wasn't stolen from them, so they
should not be recompensated for what they didn't lose.

	I have always wondered how piracy figures are estimated.  It always
seemed to be one of those statistics akin to "35% of Americans don't
answer surveys honestly.", or "21.5% of all shoplifters are never
caught."  From the CuD's description of the estimate, there are a lot
of obvious sources of error.  First, they use the number of Intel and
Macintosh computers sold.  While the Mac figures may be accurate,
since all Macs have to go through Apple sometime, how can they know
the number of IBM computers sold?  There are so many different clone
manufacturers, and all of them would have to know exactly how many
computers they sold, and report that number to the Dataquest mareting
form, for an accurate estimation to be had.  I very much doubt that
all of the minor clone makers did this, so right from the start we
have an inaccurate fact #1.

	The second fact looked fine at first, until I noticed the sentence
"The business applications sales are taken from the report and used to
estimate the the total u7it sales..."  Business applications?
Business applications?  What omniscient genius works for the SPA who
can determine the total unit sales of all software in the U. S. from
the number of business applications sold?  How can you determine the
number of games, 3-D rendering programs, anti-viral utilities, and any
of the other myriad kinds of programs from the number of Business
applications sold?  Say bye-bye to fact number 2!

	I like the pro-Mac direction which the data in the third fact, shows,
but I simply cannot believe that 5 is the average number of
applications owned by Macintosh users.  <Quick check of hard drive>  I
have 24 applications that I have bought, and I don't buy software very
often.  I may not be a typical Mac user (I program, run a BBS, don't
play many games), but I am not as prolific a program purchaser as many
people I know, and even if I am the exception, there would have to be
only 1 person with 24 applications for every 9.5 or so with 3
applications for the average to work.  I simply can't believe that my
24 applications is that far of the norm for the Mac, certainly not far
enough to justify the 5 application/mac theory.  Then when you look at
Intel-based machines, the figures look even worse.  IBM has a much
wider range of most kinds of software available to its users, so one
would expect IBM users to have more software.  It is true that
Macintosh's ease-of-use may promote the buying of more software, but
one would expect the high software availability for the IBM to balance
the ease-of-use factor out.  I am not surprised that the figures are
so off, since part of the way in which those figures were obtained was
by counting returned registration cards.  How many of us actually
return those damn things?  I'm sure that there are a few conscientious
people out there thinking "Of course, I return all of them.  Doesn't
everyone?", but most people aren't like that.  I still have the ones
from Christmas sitting on my desk, waiting to be filled out and
mailed.  So the SPA is now 0 for 3 in their basic postulates.

	I would only argue slightly with the fourth fact, which calculates
average price of a piece of software.  People are probably going to be
more willing to pirate software that they can't afford, so the average
price of a piece of pirated software is probably higher than that of a
bought program.  But that's only an educated guess, and it's difficult
to be sure.  So the SPA actually does have one fact that hasn't been
twisted into nothingness.

	I don't even have to do much to debunk the final assumption.  It's
obvious that a large percentage of the programs that are bought are
bought for computers that were not purchased within the past year.  It
is true that with dropping computer prices, rapid expansion of the
home market, etc.,

many computers are new.  But there are enough that aren't to destroy
the credibility of this assumption.  	So now, using 3 skewed facts, an
inaccurate assumption, and one fact that isn't too far off, the SPA
thiNks that they can obtain an accurate answer.  Somehow I doubt it.
The entire process by which they obtain the answer is so far off, that
I have no credence whatsoever in the answer which they obtained.  I
wouldn't be surprised if it was off by an order of magnitude or more,
in either direction.  But we'll never know, simply because their is no
way to tell the total value of all pirated software.

	There are many other possible reasons for error, most of which the
author of the CuD article states.  It is clear that the SPA's
estimates are incredibly inaccurate, and shouldn't be trusted.  Yet,
although even David Tremblay, the SPA Research Directory, admits fully
that the figures are off, the SPA still uses them, as often as
possible.  They use them in their advertisements, literature, and
educational material, treating the piracy estimates as
incontrovertible fact, despite the fact that their own head of
research admits their inaccuracies.

	In conclusion, the most recent issue of CuD has not left me with a
good impression of the SPA.  I like their educational efforts, and the
fact that they are trying to curb the rampant piracy.  But I feel that
their methods of doing so are too harsh on small businesses, and the
fact that they profit from successfully scaring the target company
makes me doubt that they can maintain a truly objective demeanor.
Since they benefit from intimidating the company subject to
investigation, they have a strong economic incentive to prosecute as
many companies as they can, without regard for innocence, and no
incentive to only attack those that they feel are transgressors,
rather than anyone they can bully.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 93 00:25:50 EST
From: george c smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 3--TIME & Puzzlement

              TIME AND PUZZLEMENT - SUPERMARKET NEWS MAG
    MUGS "CYBERPUNK"; ALL HACKERS LOOK LIKE R. U. SIRIUS, DANCE TO
           HOUSE MUZIK, GOBBLE ECSTASY, QUOTE TIMOTHY LEARY

Buzzwords, like "cyberpunk," I've decided, are cruel pranks
sickeningly ambitious writers at glossy magazines use to make
themselves instant authorities. Media magnification always makes these
terms legitimate whether they are or not, so you know that while the
TIME article on "cyberpunk" two weeks ago was pure baffle-crap (see, I
can make my own buzzword, too), inside 4 months it will have spawned 6
like-minded articles in other supermarket magazines, taking on a
complete life of its own.

So, I'm gonna rehash some of this nonsense now, in hope that you
laugh, because if you don't, when you see it again as truth in the
coming weeks, you just might have to cry,

Didja know,
that the computer virus is "the cybernetic analogue of AIDS," a

disease which has affected millions worldwide and caused horrifying
death and human suffering? According to Phil Elmer-Dewitt of TIME,
it's so!

Didja know,
according to certified geezer Timothy Leary, "the PC is the LSD of the
'90s"?  Like you, I thought this was a fatuous, self-serving
statement. But then I thought about it some more and began to feel
warm inside.  Since I missed LSD when it came around the first time,
it felt good to know that I now had an unending supply of it sitting
on my desk, just in case I felt the need to be "groovy."

Didja know,
that now "cyberpunks" don't look like young men with coke-bottle thick
glasses and plastic pocket-protectors?  No, they look like young, less
warty, versions of Tiny Tim (which is what R. U.  Sirius looks like in
the photo in TIME magazine).  It's true!

Didja know,
cyberpunks listen to "house" music, that "post-industrial," droning,
artsy stuff that bands with names like Surgical Penis Klinik and
Throbbing Gristle couldn't sell in the '80s because it was "too"
alternative, but now it's big business because computer dudes and
dudettes don't like those dead, fat guys in Lynyrd Skynyrd. Yup, it's
true!  And boy am I bummed!  What am I going to do with my Angry
Samoans and Mentors records?

Didja know,
"without visual cues, people communicating on-line tend to flame: to
state their views more heatedly than they would face to face?"  Visual
cues-visual schmoos - here I thought they did it because there was
little chance they would get popped on the jaw for being a jerk.

Didja know,
the movie "Terminator 2"  was a cult film?

Didja know,
that TIME magazine used the same virtual illustration of "virtual
reality d00d sucking the face off a virtual reality d00dette" as the
movie "The Lawnmower Man," and the magazines OMNI, COMPUTE, PC
Computing, Byte, MacWorld, Discover, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, SPIN,
Science News, Playboy, Penthouse, Gent, USA Today, Details, MONDO
2000, Dog Fancy, Cat Fancy, Harpers, The Atlantic, etc., etc., etc.?

Didja know,
that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a group that defends
"exploratory hacking"?  Well, they didn't know and they seemed pissed
in Computer underground Digest when they found out.

Didja know,
that TIME magazine is now sold with samples of cheap men's cologne,
along with ads for "Elvis not dead" books and chemicals which will
chase away your male pattern baldness?  It's true!

George/Urnst, The Crypt Newsletter

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 92 15:12:35 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 4--Technology and Populist Publishing (GEnie Reprint)

GE Mail
From--P.SHAPIRO1                      Phil Shapiro
Sub--Something's Not Quite Right

Something's Not Quite Right in the Publishing World Today

Something's not quite right in the publishing world today.  You'd
think that in this Information Age more people would be writing more
books than ever before, that small new publishing companies would be
springing up to bring promising new authors to market, that a new
Renaissance would be blooming in the world of books, the arts, and
culture in general.  Not so.

It's as difficult as ever, today, to bring a new book to market.  No
established publishing company will consider a manuscript that is
delivered "over the transom" (unsolicited).  The only way to approach
a publishing company is through a book agent, and finding the right
book agent is enough to discourage all but the most intrepid new
authors.

Furthermore, even if the larger publishing houses did take time to
consider a book by a previously unpublished author, and even if they
found the ideas or story fresh and original, they'd decline to market
it unless they could sell sufficiently large quantities of the book to
make a substantial profit.

The publishing of books has become big business.  Books are no longer
treated as precious vessels of ideas, but rather as any other common
commodity.  Wheat.  Pork.  Books.  Shampoo.  Deodorant.

Book lovers cringe at the thought that the business of books has been
reduced to the buying and selling of a crass commodity.  Books are no
mere commodity.  They're one of the most precious things we own.  A
well-written book is the essence of human spirit, captured in tangible
form for all the world to enjoy.

The commercialization of the book, and the sorry state of today's
publishing industry, is well-chronicled in a 1989 book titled, "Beyond
the Bestseller: A Literary Agent Takes You Inside the Book Business,"
by Richard Curtis.  Written by a successful literary agent with over
25 years experience in the business, the book speaks with some candor
about the flawed process which modern publishing houses use to publish
books.

In the final chapter, "Toward Reform," Curtis crystallizes his
comments:

     "The publishing industry is critically ailing, and no one, from
     the creator of the written word to the consumer, is untouched.
     The signs are everywhere, some statistically demonstrable, others
     less tangible but manifest to anyone who has been in the business
     long enough to watch it evolve.  Some of the more commonly voiced
     ones are:
          of publishers on big-name authors.
          selling of publishing companies.
          current best-sellers.
          royalties with authors.
          their influence on editorial policies.
          cheating them out of royalties.

     Obviously, there is no single comprehensive explanation of what
     has gone wrong, nor any all-embracing solution.  Still, it is
     surprising that authors, agents, publishers, booksellers, and
     other book people, highly intelligent individuals all, should
     continue applying patches and poultices to the symptoms when it
     is clear that the dimensions of the problem call for a thorough
     reevaluation of the way things are done in the publishing
     industry."

But while the publishing world looks more dismal than ever, there is
hope on the horizon.  It's entirely possible that new technologies
will arise that will undermine the monopoly the big New York City
publishing houses have on the distribution of books.  Such
technologies could take one of two forms: print and non-print.

If you're talking non-print publishing, you're talking about the
electronic book.  A device the size and shape of a regular book, with
a sharp monochrome screen.  Reading material would be distributed on
some sort of magnetic or optical medium.  Cartridges, it would seem,
would be the favored distribution form.

You plug the cartridge into the device, choose the font size you'd
like to read in (and perhaps the typeface as well).  The device would
then display the text at a user-controllable rate of display,
automatically clearing the screen once the text reached the bottom of
the display.  The rate of display would be controlled by a rotatable
dial that would serve as a sort of "gas pedal" for the device.

Some devices might have hypertext capability built in.  Other devices
might have audio capability built in, where word pronunciation would
be available at the touch of keystroke.  Such extra features would be
available at a premium cost, though.  The basic electronic book would
be manufactured at the lowest possible cost for the largest possible
distribution.

New print publishing technologies are likely to continue along the
lines of the desktop publishing revolution.  What's needed is a
dedicated "bookmaker" device that would accept a high density 3.5 inch
floppy, and churn out a bound book in the output tray.  Using text
compression routines, over two megabtyes of text can be squeezed onto
a high density 3.5 inch floppy.  Two megabytes worth of text is
equivalent to about 250,000 words.  (One page of typed text, 250
words, is equivalent to about 2K of memory.)

So most normal length books could quite comfortably fit onto one high
density 3.5 inch floppy (using the text compression routines.) The
dedicated bookmaker device could then churn out a book on demand.

The advantages offered by a dedicated bookmaker are enormous.
Out-of-print books could be easily retrieved and distributed to those
interested in reading them.  Books could be sent inexpensively across
country by air mail.  (Or, a book could be transferred via modem to
anyone interested in reading it.) A large part of publishing costs is
the printing and physical distribution of the book.  With the
bookmaker device, the cost of distributing the book would plummet
ten-fold.

The consumer could then decide whether to print the book out in hard
copy, or to read the book on the electronic book device.  Those
without a personal bookmaker device in their homes would have access
to such a device at a public library.  (Such a device would be
coin-operated, much like a photocopying machine.)

But most exciting would be the rise of energetic new book publishers
who could take advantage of the economies of the new technology to
distribute works by promising new authors, non-mainstream thinkers,
and others who are currently excluded from the publishing enterprise.

Anyone with access to a disk drive could open up a publishing company.
The resulting flood of new books would most certainly contain a lot of
low quality material.  But the advantages of the bookmaker and
electronic book far outweigh the disadvantages of having to put up
with reams of lower quality prose.  The lower quality prose can simply
be sifted through by book reviewers, who'd erect signposts pointing
towards the truly worthy reading.

In terms of the bookmaker device, it would be best to have the device
be constructed from the lowest cost electronic components that could
still yield high quality print.  So a low-cost printer along the lines
of the Apple StyleWriter, with 360 dots per inch output, and very slow
printing, would serve the purpose of a bookmaker device very well.
The actual bookmaker would be a dedicated device, about the size of a
current 3.5 inch drive, that would plug into a printer like the Apple
StyleWriter.  For the printing of longer books, you would just leave
the device on overnight.

Eventually newspaper and magazines would offer "bookmaker
subscriptions" at a reduced rate than their regular "hard copy"
subscriptions.  These monthly or daily publications would be delivered
either on disk, or via modem.  After all, it doesn't make sense to
print a newspaper across town, and physically deliver it to your front
doorstep, when for the same trouble they could deliver the information
across town, and you could print it (or read it on screen) in your own
home.

In some sense, the sorry state of today's publishing industry is a
welcome impetus for the rise of a new industry based on the
magneto-optic distribution of text.  The primary beneficiary of such a
new industry will be the book consumer, who'll have a far greater
selection of books to read, at a far lower cost.  A populist
revolution in publishing is just around the corner.  And just as
surely as in Gutenberg's day, a new Renaissance will flourish amid all
the creative and expressive arts.

Phil Shapiro
[The author takes an interest in the social dimensions of communications
technology.  He can be reached by electronic mail on GEnie at: P.Shapiro1;
America Online at: pshapiro; Internet:  [email-masked]]
This text is in the public domain.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:38:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: File 5--"Time Bomb" Detonated In Pennsylvania

                 Time Bomb Detonated In Pennsylvania
                          by Dennis McCauley
                           copyright, 1993

        A Pennsylvania meat packing company has filed a civil action
in Bucks County Court against its former systems consultant, charging
that the consultant inserted a software "time bomb" into the client's
RealWorld financial accounting system.

        According to the suit filed on behalf of John Lustig Meats,
Inc., the consulting firm, Sparrow Systems, Inc. of Lansdale, PA, had
provided hardware and software support to Lustig for a number of
years. On May 3rd, 1991, Lustig engaged Sparrow to upgrade the
company's RealWorld system to the new version 6.0. The contract
specified customized programming services in addition to software and
installation charges. Lustig paid Sparrow in excess of $20,000 for
installation of the upgrade.

       On September 15, 1991, Lustig's RealWorld system suddenly
crashed. It would no longer accept orders, nor would it generate
customer information, invoices, or receipts. As a result, the suit
claims, Lustig was forced to handle orders manually, and suffered lost
profits and goodwill, as well as additional personnel costs, and
"investigation and analysis" expenses.

       The "investigation and analysis expenses" refer to Lustig's
hiring of a second consultant, who rather quickly found and disarmed
the time bomb, which was date-sensitive, and had been triggered by the
system clock.

        A brief filed on behalf of Sparrow Systems specifically denied
that a time bomb was installed on Lustig's system. It is interesting
to note, however, that in a short article which appeared in a local
newspaper the day after the suit was filed, Sparrow's president,
William Mann, was quoted as saying, "We don't have any comment about
whether we did or did not install a time bomb." Representatives of
Sparrow Systems have refused comment on the case during preparation of
this report.

        Several uninvolved system consultants indicated that
installation of time bombs, while not standard practice, was not
unheard of as a hedge against clients who failed to pay for services.
A counterclaim filed on behalf of Sparrow Systems alleging that Lustig
owes the consulting firm $2,700 seems to support this theory.

       The case raises serious issues about such practices, including
the ethical considerations involved in placing a potentially damaging
software device in anyone's system, much less that of a client.

        While Lustig v. Sparrow is a civil matter, it remains unclear
as to whether criminal action might be an option in similar cases.
Noted computer crime prosecutor Ken Citarella, of the Westchester
County District Attorney's Office, indicated that the critical
question in determining whether a criminal prosecution was warranted
would be ownership of the software in question. In this case, it
appears that Lustig purchased the RealWorld upgrade through Sparrow
Systems, authorizing Sparrow to make certain agreed-upon custom
modifications, none of which was the inclusion of a crippling time
bomb. As of this writing, Sparrow still retains the source code,
pending the outcome of the litigation.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 93 11:18:52
From: [email-masked]
Subject: File 6--(fwd) CICnet rural datafication / ubiquitous access

This promises to be a good gathering - it's the first time as far as I
know that there's been a major effort to organize folks toward the
goal of wide spread low cost access to the Internet as a goal separate
from the usual push towards high speed networking for elites.

Apologies if you've seen this multiple times, I'm trying to get it out
to some places where it might stir up discussion on how the local,
regional, or national efforts fit in.

Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc.  [email-masked]
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998
4563)

From--KIDSNET Mailing List <[email-masked]>

Date--Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:35:33 -0500
From--Kimberly Shaffer <[email-masked]>
Subject--Rural Datafication Conference Announcement

		   Preliminary Program Announcement

			 Rural Datafication:
       Achieving the goal of Ubiquitous Access to the Internet

			     May 14, 1993
			     Chicago, IL

A joint conference focused on extending the services of the Internet to
difficult-to-reach and typically under-served user communities.

	Jointly sponsored by CICNet and the following state networks

			Illinois: 	netILLINOIS
			Indiana:  	INDnet
			Iowa:     	IREN
			Michigan: 	MichNet
			Minnesota:	MRNet
			New York:	NYSERNet
			Wisconsin:	WiscNet

Conference focus and theme:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CICNet is pleased to announce Rural Datafication as a major
cooperative initiative among nine networking organizations committed to
the creation of ubiquitous data networking services throughout their
region and, indeed, throughout the nation.  As part of this
initiative, these organizations have agreed to co-sponsor a conference
which builds on an already successful collaboration between CICNet and
the above networks and which will focus on two primary areas:

1.  Ways to most effectively respond to user communities which desire
    Internet services but which are currently unable to obtain
    Internet access.

2.  Ways to best enhance existing services to those populations which
    which make use of non-dedicated connections: i.e., users whose
    access to the Internet is via dial-up modem rather than
    high speed dedicated lines.  The focus includes users who use
    SLIP and PPP to get direct connections to the Internet, and users
    who use Internet facilities via dial-up terminal emulation.

Come, join, and assist us as we plan for increased access for
such communities.  Examples include elementary and high schools,
public libraries, small businesses, organizations located in remote
geographic areas, and the rapidly evolving community of users who need
Internet access from their homes.  Help us develop ideas for new
programs and services both useful and interesting.  Meet other people
who are committed to expanding the network's usefulness.

Intended Audience:
++++++++++++++++++

We invite you to meet with us to share information and successes you
may have, to learn from the information and successes of others, to
talk with people interested in developing the potential of networks,
and to discuss ways to develop the rural datafication theme as a major
initiative focused on meeting the needs of the user communities
discussed throughout this announcement.  This conference is
specifically intended for three key communities:

1.  Providers of networked information, whether they be network
    organizations or not, who are committed to assisting us as we
    pursue our rural datafication strategy.

2.  Users of networked information: teachers, researchers, librarians,
    scientists, lawyers, bankers -- in short, those who are interested
    in contributing to and gaining from the growing electronically-
    connected community.  We are particularly interested in attracting
    users interested in the rural datafication concept.

3.  Perhaps of most importance, potential users of networked
    information who which to either learn about the network or advise
    us on how best to construct a truly pervasive and ubiquitous data
    network.

Agenda, dates and times:
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday, May 14th:

Opening remarks begin at 9:15 am
Closing remarks will conclude at 4:30 PM

An optional early registration and opening Reception will be held on
Thursday, May 13th from 5 - 7pm.

Location and fees:
+++++++++++++++++

	McCormick Center Hotel
	Lake Shore Drive at 23rd Street
	Chicago, IL  60616
	+1.312.791.1900
	Conference room rates: Single $85; Double $95

Conference fee: $69 -- includes Friday lunch, morning and afternoon
breaks, and Thursday's registration reception

For Additional Information:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To be placed on the list to receive additional information, please
email, mail, or fax your request for additional information to:

	email:  [email-masked]
	fax:    +1.313.998.6105
	mail:   Rural Datafication
		CICNet
		2901 Hubbard
		Ann Arbor, MI  48105

We will need either your e-mail or postal address with the request for
additional information.  We would like you to list a particular area
of interest that you have, relevant to the theme of the conference.

Queries may also be directed to Julie-Elise Burroughs at
+1.313.998.6103 or to Glee Cady at +1.313.998.6419

Registration:
+++++++++++++

If you wish to register for the conference now, please enclose a check
or money order for $69 made payable to CICNet, Inc, and mail it, along
with the registration information below, to:

		Rural Datafication
		CICNet
		2901 Hubbard
		Ann Arbor, MI  48105

			  REGISTRATION FORM
		    Rural Datafication Conference
			     May 14, 1993
			McCormick Center Hotel
			     Chicago, IL

Please print or type the following information:

	Name:

	Title:
	
	Organization:

	Address:

	City:

	State/Province:

	Postal Code:

	Telephone:

	Fax:

	Email:

	List a particular interest you have which is relevant to the
theme of the conference:

Cancellations:
	Full refunds will be made for cancellations received by April 26th.
	There will be no partial refunds.

Hotel Reservations:
	Please make your reservations directly with the McCormick Center Hotel.
	When you speak with the reservations desk, mention the date and name
	CICNet to receive the special conference rates.

The $69 fee includes Friday lunch, morning and afternoon breaks, and
Thursday's registration reception

Please mail this form along with a check for $69 made out to CICNet:

		Rural Datafication
		CICNet
		2901 Hubbard
		Ann Arbor, MI  48105

      For additional information or assistance, you may send email to
      [email-masked]; for assistance by telephone, call Julie-Elise Burroughs at
      +1.313.998.6103 or Glee Cady at +1.313.998.6419.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.15
************************************