Subject: Cu Digest, #5.91
From: [email-masked]
To: Multiple recipients of list CUDIGEST <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 17:07:00 CST

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Dec 5 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 91
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email-masked])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Copy Editor: Tamen O. DeSchrew, III

CONTENTS, #5.91 (Dec 5 1993)
File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry
File 2--PC Security books reprints material from AIS (Review)
File 3--Apple Computers bitten by Conservatives
File 4--GAO Report on Computers and Privacy
File 5--New Docs Reveal NSA Role in FBI Digital Tele Proposal
File 6--REMINDER: CFP '94 SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE APPROACHING
File 7--DIAC-94 Call for Participation

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from [email-masked]. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), 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 DL1 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 Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE:   from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
          In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
  AUSTRALIA:      ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
  EUROPE:         ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
  UNITED STATES:
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
                  etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18)  in /pub/CuD/cud
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
                  halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
  KOREA:          ftp: cair.kaist.ac.kr in /doc/eff/cud

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.

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

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 04:36:10 -0700
From: "L. Detweiler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry

Mr. Leichter raises some extremely pivotal issues in CUD #5.90 related
to the `anarchy' of the Internet. B.Sterling is the author of one of
the most brilliantly colorful characterizations and metaphors of the
Internet as `anarchic', comparing its evolution and development to that
of the English language:

  > The Internet's `anarchy' may seem strange or even unnatural,  but
  > it makes a certain deep and basic sense.  It's rather like the
  > `anarchy' of the English language.  Nobody rents English, and
  > nobody owns English.  As an English-speaking person, it's up
  > to you to learn how to speak English properly and make whatever
  > use you please of it (though the government provides certain
  > subsidies to help you learn to read and write a bit).
  > Otherwise, everybody just sort of pitches in, and somehow the
  > thing evolves on its own, and somehow turns out workable.  And
  > interesting.  Fascinating, even.  Though a lot of people earn
  > their living from using and exploiting and teaching  English,
  > `English' as an institution is public property, a public good.
  > Much the same goes for the Internet.  Would English  be improved
  > if the `The English Language, Inc.' had a board of directors
  > and a chief executive officer, or a President and a Congress?
  > There'd probably be a lot fewer new words in English, and a lot
  > fewer new ideas.

Unfortunately, though, having attended a lecture by Mr. Sterling and
having read `The Hacker Crackdown', I think he has a tendency to
overdramatize and glorify quasi-criminal behavior and rebellious,
subversive, revolutionary aspects of social structures, including those
of the Internet. In my view, to the contrary the Internet is largely
held together with the glue of social cohesion and human civility, and
ingredients that are destructive to that order are likewise toxic to
Cyberspace, and that, conversely, virtually all of the excruciating
poison in the bloodstream today can be traced to violations and
perversions of that trust. (Unfortunately, the English language is
itself subject to unpleasant, corrupt, or toxic uses such as for
profanity, disinformation, and lies, which are prevented or at least
minimized through rejections by honest people.) I agree with Mr.
Leichter in the belief (to paraphrase Twain) that `reports of the
anarchy on the Internet are greatly exaggerated'.

Leichter:
>The Internet has been
>described as an anarchy, but in fact only relatively small parts of
>the Internet are actually anarchic.

I would like to go further than this and suggest that the Internet has
been over-promoted as `anarchic' by certain subversive, quasi-criminal
segments that have found a tenacious hold there, namely extremist
libertarians and `Cryptoanarchists'. The Cryptoanarchist cause is
closely associated with the Cypherpunk founders E.Hughes and T.C.May
(characterized particularly by the latter's infamous signature), who in
my view appear to promote not merely `privacy for the masses' and `the
cryptographic revolution', but at least condone or tolerate the use of
collections of imaginary identities to manipulate and deceive others,
and even to evade legitimate government actions such as criminal
prosecutions. My most strident requests for their position, personal
knowledge, and potential involvement in this practice have gone
unanswered, evaded, and repressed over many weeks, but I have many
statements from followers that might be regarded as `cult fanatics'
about the Liberating Effects of `pseudoanonymity', which they exalt as
True Anonymity.

In my opinion, in this regard of the ease of creating fake identities,
the `anarchic' vulnerability of the Internet reaches its peak in
undesirable and socially poisonous consequences, which people are
bloodily battling daily on many diverse mailing lists and Usenet
groups. In my experience, the Internet inhabitants I have found who
most fanatically worship the Internet `anarchy' seem to be closely
associated with criminally subversive aims of pornography distribution,
tax evasion, black marketeering, and overthrow of governments, goals
which are all masked in much of the eloquent Cryptoanarchist dogma and
rhetoric. While some of us have glimpsed various hideous corners of
Cyberspatial Hell, those who subscribe to the Liberating Religion of
Anarchy are in their Paradise on the Internet As We Know It. I call
their Utopia a Ticking Time Bomb and a Recipe for an Apocalypse.

I have come to these (admittedly melodramatic) conclusions after ~10
months and ~3500 messages of generally unpleasant and at times
excruciatingly troubling and painful reading and participation on the
Cypherpunks list and many personal communications with the Cypherpunk
leaders including E.Hughes, T.C.May, and J.Gilmore. In fact, in my
opinion the `Psychopunk Manifesto' parody in CUD #5.89, which longtime
cypherpunk list subscriber P.Ferguson describes in 5.90 as having `made
its rounds in the cyberspatial world', actually in many ways comes
closer to delineating the actual cypherpunk agenda than the one
authored by founder E.Hughes on soda.berkeley.edu:
/pub/cypherpunks/rants/A_Cypherpunk's_Manifesto.  The satire is
actually a reformulated version of the original Manifesto, and the
former's amazing meme-virus penetration of the  into the cyberspatial
psyche that P.Ferguson alludes to is indicative of its resonance over the
 latter.

I gave the Cypherpunks the most extraordinary benefit of the doubt for
months, far beyond that of a reasonable cyberspatial inhabitant. But
now I must warn everyone who can hear me that if they assign the
`cypherpunks' as an organization the same credibility as a group like
EFF or CPSR they are dangerously, perhaps disastrously, misguided. They
appear to me to the contrary to be the cultivators of a flourishing
conspiracy and essentially the first Cyberspatial guerilla and
terrorist group! The Psychopunk satirization of the Cryptoanarchists is
representative of this Internet Anarchy Gone Awry.

More information on the CryptoAnarchist & Cypherpunk agenda can be
found in RISKS 15.25, 15.27, and 15.28x (FTP crvax.sri.com, directory
RISKS:). I also have an essay `Joy of Pseudospoofing', regarding the
dangerous consequences and poisonous effects of the manipulations of
fake cyberspatial identities such as on the Internet by
Cryptoanarchists, available to anyone who requests it from me by email
at <[email-masked]>.

* * *

I think that many people have mistaken the word `anarchic,' implying no
overseeing authority or order (which the Internet is less) with the
word `decentralized' (which the Internet is more). Again, the
Internet has many regulatory and self-governing systems and orders.
For example, connecting sites are required to implement a certain
minimum set of software standards and prevent or even root out
corruptions in their local sites and software. We have centralized
databases that require the registration of domains for fees. A complex
network of agreements and policies governs interconnectivity and
communication, and a complicated interplay of elements affects basic
content such as `commercial vs. academic.' Lack of some of these
regulations and protocols would be disastrous.

Leichter:
>Most of the Internet, in fact, is
>better described as self-governing.  There are a variety of social
>norms concerning network use and interactions.  One doesn't post
>messages to unrelated groups.  One doesn't evade moderation
>restrictions.  One maintains a certain (rather limited, it must be
>admitted) degree of restraint in how one describes other network
>participants.  There are few effective mechanisms for enforcing these
>norms, and they are certainly broken on an all-too-regular basis; but
>the network continues to function because social pressure *can* be
>applied to those who become too annoying; and in the most outrageous
>cases, it's possible to remove the offenders' access to the net.

I advocate that we build new formal mechanisms to enforce this order!
We have for too long pretended that a central element of the Internet
is not integral to it, namely that of the `degree of restraint over
network participants' exerted through `social pressure'. Let us codify
and formalize these `norms concerning network use and interactions' and
develop systems that enforce them! I believe such systems can be
developed that do not stray from the sacred Internet tradition of
decentralization of control and freedom from censorship. Why should we
continue to subject ourselves to the torture of `few effective
mechanisms for enforcing these norms broken on an all-too-regular basis'?

One of my most enduring Cyberspatial hallucinations is that of a
Ratings server. A Ratings server would be a massive distributed network
for the propagation of information similar to Usenet, and could
conceivably be built upon it. But the Ratings server is not
Information, as Usenet is, it is Information about Information. Anyone
can post an arbitrary message to the Ratings server that refers to
Information somewhere else in Cyberspace. It is in a sense a Rating of
that Information. The Information could be *anything* -- a mailing
list, a person, a particular Usenet posting, an FTP site. But postings
on the Ratings server can be perused by anyone, and anyone can
contribute Ratings to the server or indicate their own opinion on the
existing Ratings. Different mechanisms exist such that some Ratings are
`local' and some are updated globally.

The fantastic possibilities of this system are evident upon some
reflection and consideration. We could establish arbitrary new groups
that have *formal* requirements that are matched by Ratings servers.
For example, we could require that new sites that enter the Internet be
`trusted' by an existing site. We could require that membership in
certain groups requires a certain amount of collateral peer approval,
with automatic suspension or expulsion as the consequences for
violating it! We could have *meaningful* polls on arbitrary issues. We
could have news servers that automatically sort and archive articles
according to their passing certain Ratings thresholds. We could
restrict the influence of troublemakers! These are all examples of
strengthening and formalizing the informal social orders that are, in
my opinion, today just barely holding the Internet together. With a
Ratings system, I think the civility of the Internet would increase to
a fantastic degree. In short, we could have our *own* cyberspatial government!

Note that there is no centralized authority or unfair influence in this
system, unless people corrupt their servers. When everyone who has
joined a group *individually* decides to screen their postings of
messages that fail to meet a certain `quality' or posters who have a
certain `reputation', that is not Orwellian Censorship but the
beautiful Internet freedom and right of Bozo Filtering. When everyone
who joins a group *agrees* to a charter that may bar troublemakers
based on Ratings, no one can claim they are being unfairly oppressed.

Other extremely interesting implementation issues in the use of the
Ratings servers can be addressed in detail. For example, the use of
cryptographic protocols to ensure the integrity of voting or privacy of
certain entries will certainly prove invaluable and even critical to
their development. The optimal protocols for the localization or
distribution of votes will surely be subject to extremely fascinating
and fruitful research. In my view the concept of a Ratings server is
wide open territory and holds some immensely promising potential in
finally, valiantly slaying the dreaded, ugly, vicious Signal to Noise
Monsters harassing, terrorizing, and torturing us everywhere on the
Internet, to be replaced with Shining Castles.

I urge anyone interested in developing `civilized systems for
cyberspace' to subscribe to a new group I have helped start with
J.Helgingius (owner of the popular and revolutionary anon.penet.fi
anonymous server) called the Cypherwonks, dedicated to openness,
honesty, and cooperation on the Internet, and building sophisticated
new systems to promote social harmony in Future Cyberspace. We are
particularly fascinated with the possibilities of `Electronic
Democracy'. (Send a message to [email-masked]' with the body
the commands `info' or `subscribe cypherwonks'.)

I fervently hope that the glorifications and manipulations of Internet
Anarchy by mouth-frothing libertarian extremists, Cryptoanarchists,
and sympathizers can be adequately controlled and minimized in the
future, and some harmonious systems and effective countermeasures
along the lines of the Rating server can be established by visionaries
and tinkerers, but in any case, for the sake of humanity's integrity,
sanity, and well-being, I pray that Future Cyberspace is far less
Anarchic than the Current Internet.

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

Date: 24 Nov 93 15:32:40 EST
From: Urnst Kouch - Crypt Newsletter <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 2--PC Security books reprints material from AIS (Review)

"NETWORK SECURITY SECRETS" BENEFITS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS INFORMATION ON
THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY'S 'UNDERGROUND' SECURITY BULLETIN BOARD
SYSTEM

"Network Security Secrets," by David Stang, Ph.D., and Sylvia Moon,
(IDG Books, $49.95) is the first mainstream publication which benefits
directly from the accumulated data on Kim Clancy's Dept. of Treasury
bulletin board system (AIS), gagged earlier this year.

board supervised by the Department of Treasury contained unadulterated
hacker files which were given to callers interested in the material.
Other computer security workers and anti-virus developers mounted a
smear campaign which landed in the pages of The Washington Post,
causing the system to withdraw the information.  The original argument
had been that it was information which would most benefit security
managers unable to find the material elsewhere.  The publication of
"Network Security Secrets," proves the argument a valid one, although
it tries hard to deny it.

In keeping with the political correctness of the times (read
_hypocrisy_), the book fails to directly cite the material gathered
from the Dept. of Treasury system while reprinting portions of it
essentially verbatim.

Of course, this makes "Network Security Secrets" a very interesting
read.

One of Stang's central points in "Security Secrets" is that good
security stems from bringing necessary information to the workers
employed where the rubber meets the road.  This practice, he writes,
is often opposed to management interested only in imposing a rigid
heirarchical structure on the workplace.  The workers who will have to
deal with security problems such as intrusion from desk-top dial-ups,
password and access control plus the occasional virus aren't thought
to be trustworthy enough to be brought into the information loop.

"Network Security Secrets" says this is bad and it's correct.

Consequently, where does quality information come from; where is it
gathered?

In the chapter "Bulletin Boards and Security" under "Looking at the
Dark Side," Stang published a screen display taken from the Department
of Treasury, of which he says, "We doubt the agency was aware of this
part of its board," which presumes quite a bit, incorrectly, I might
add.

In any case, "This part of the board" lists the hacking files culled
from  PHRACK and other underground journals and BBS's. The data
addresses viruses, telephonic and network security concerns. "Manly
Hacking" is one such entry.  Written by "Shit-Kicking Jim," it was
only found on Clancy's system prior to publication in a later issue of
PHRACK.

"Network Security Secrets" also reprints an underground document
gained from AIS called "Hacking Novell Local Area Networks" and marks
it with one of those happy little icons computer books are seeded with
to satisfy readers whose reading comprehension is deemed not much
beyond "First Grade Coloring Book Exercises."

The icon is a treasure chest marked "Secret:  This icon points to
information which gives some special insight into network security."

The book also republishes material on network hacking programs
NETCRACK and GETIT, a resident password and keystroke leech, all
gained from AIS.

So that answers the question: Yes, information written by the computer
underground is valuable, worthy of exposure in a $50 mainstream
computer volume.

By the same token, Stang writes, "This is a sensitive subject, and
some may argue the information may land into the wrong hands. We'll
argue that it's already in the wrong hands and the 'good guys' need to
know what they're up against."  And that's the same argument Treasury
used to defend AIS, a system Stang labels from "the Dark Side." What a
poor sport!

Stang and Moon wrestle on and off with the idea of information access
throughout the book, coming down more in favor of those who weirdly
think that by publishing such information, you somehow endorse it.

They mention book publishers who specialize in so-called fringe
subjects as lock-picking and personal revenge.  "No, we won't give you
their address!" they write.

In the same paragraph "Network Security" mentions "Make 'Em Pay," one
paperback devoted to practical jokes and payback techniques.
Published by Lyle Stuart, I found "Make 'Em Pay" in the humor section
of Crown Books, the largest generic bookstore chain in California. So
much for the stone reality of access control, a reality which
corporate management appears to work hard to ignore.

Despite these major idiosyncracies, "Network Security Secrets" is
still a better than average book on the subject.  Stang works hard to
avoid jargon, failing only when he hands off to someone else in a
chapter on encryption: ". . . the DES was promulgated by NIST to
provide a system that protects the confidentiality and integrity of
the federal government's sensitive unclassified computer information.
FIPS PUB 46 is based on work at IBM and has been approved as the
American National Standard X3.92-1981/R1987." Sadly, it appears there
will never be a shortage of computer writers who specialize in
jargo-hackese.

"Network Security Secrets" also sports a slight, dry sense of humor.
On bulletin boards, Stang writes "Does the software include the use of
a SYSOP-editable trashcan file of caller names that are immediately
ejected ('hacker,' 'crap,' 'John Dvorak," and so on)?"  I had to laugh
at that one.

At $50, even with two diskettes, "Network Security" isn't cheap.  But
it does give you your money's worth as a reasonably detailed overview
of PC network security.

[Addendum: Stang, who represents Norman Data Defense Systems, was the
man the Secret Service called when its networks were contaminated with
the Satan Bug virus.]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 09:47:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Charles Stanford <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 3--Apple Computers bitten by Conservatives

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following was also reported on PBS' All
Things Considered)).

+--------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Wed, 1 Dec 1993 08:06:04 -0600
From--"G. D. Mitchell" <[email-masked]>

As a side note, Apple was originally considering building a plant in
Texas, just north of Austin (the state capital). However, the county
in which the plant was to be built decided not to extend the usual tax
break to Apple because of their policy of extending benefits to
non-married partners of Apple employees, both hetero- and homosexual.

I heard county officials stating that the communities involved were
less concerned about the possible jobs they would lose, and more
concerned with "family values". I think this is taking place in
Williamson County, fyi.  There's so many damn counties in Texas that I
probably don't know more than a fourth of them :) so I may be wrong.

I was a little pissed about this when I heard the news yesterday.
Apple was going to bring 700 jobs to Texas, but these rednecks were
too afraid that having a few gay couples in the neighborhood might
make little Johnny queer. It's stupid socially and economically. And
to think, there are times when I can almost forget that Texas IS a
backwards state.

Anyone ready to start that Nation of Freaks I was raving about a year
ago?  :)

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

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 17:09:20 -0600
From: Jerry Whelan <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 4--GAO Report on Computers and Privacy

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Thanks to Jerry Whelan for forwarding over teh GAO
report on "Communications Privacy." Here, we reprint the introduction.
The entire document can be retrieved from the CuD ftp sites or the ftp
sites listed below)).

[email-masked]
Acknowledge-To--   [email-masked]

GAO recently issued a report "Communications Privacy:  Federal Policy
and Actions", GAO/OSI-94-2, dated November 4, 1993, that may be of
interest to members of your group.  The report focused on the
following issues:

    --The need for information privacy in computer and communications
      systems--through such means as encryption, or conversion of
      clear text to an unreadable form--to mitigate the threat of
      economic espionage to U.S. industry;

    --federal agency authority to develop cryptographic standards for
      the protection of sensitive, unclassified information and the
      actions and policies of the National Security Agency (NSA),
      Department of Defense, and of the National Institute of
      Standards and Technology (NI ST), Department of Commerce,
      regarding the selection of  federal cryptographic standards;

    --roles, actions, and policies of NSA and the Department of State
      related to export controls for products with encryption
      capabilities and industry rationale for requesting
      liberalization of such controls; and

    --the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) legislative proposal
      regarding telephone systems that use digital communications
      technology.

I have placed an electronic version of the report named OSI-94-2.TXT
in the GAO-REPORTS anonymous FTP directory at NIH (ftp.cu.nih.gov).

Joe Sokalski, GAO--Los Angeles
              [email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 14:54:51 EST
From: Dave Banisar <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 5--New Docs Reveal NSA Role in FBI Digital Tele Proposal

    New Docs Reveal NSA Involvement in Digital Telephony Proposal
               From the CPSR Alert 2.06 (Dec. 1, 1993)

A series of memoranda received by CPSR from the Department of Commerce
last week indicate that the National Security Agency was actively
involved in the 1992 FBI Digital Telephony Proposal. Two weeks ago,
documents received by CPSR indicated that the FBI proposal, code named
"Operation Root Canal," was pushed forward even after reports from the
field found no cases where electronic surveillance was hampered by new
technologies. The documents also revealed that the Digital Signature
Standard was viewed by the FBI as "[t]he first step in our plan to
deal with the encryption issue."

The earliest memo is dated July 5, 1991, just a few weeks after the
Senate withdrew a Sense of Congress provision from S-266, the Omnibus
Crime Bill of 1991, that encouraged service and equipment providers to
ensure that their equipment would "permit the government to obtain the
plain text contents of voice, data and other communications...." The
documents consist of a series of fax transmittal sheets and memos from
the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Commerce to the
National Security Agency. Many attachments and drafts, including more
detailed descriptions of the  NSA's proposals, were withheld or
released with substantial deletions.

Also included in the documents is a previously released public
statement by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration entitled "Technological Competitiveness and Policy
Concerns."  The document was requested by Rep. Jack Brooks and states
that the proposal could obstruct or distort telecommunications
technology development by limiting fiber optic transmission, ISDN,
digital cellular services and other technologies until they are
modified, ... could impair the security of business communications ...
that could facilitate not only lawful government interception, but
unlawful interception by others, [and] could impose industries ability
to offer new services and technologies.

CPSR is planning to appeal the Commerce Department's decision to
withhold many of the documents.

To subscribe to the Alert, send the message:

"subscribe cpsr <your name>" (without quotes or brackets) to
[email-masked].  Back issues of the Alert are available at the
CPSR Internet Library FTP/WAIS/Gopher cpsr.org /cpsr/alert

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a national,
non-partisan, public-interest organization dedicated to understanding
and directing the impact of computers on society. Founded in 1981,
CPSR has 2000 members from all over the world and 22 chapters across
the country. Our National Advisory Board includes a Nobel laureate and
three winners of the Turing Award, the highest honor in computer
science. Membership is open to everyone.

For more information, please contact: [email-masked] or visit the CPSR
discussion conferences on The Well (well.sf.ca.us) or Mindvox
(phantom.com).

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

Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 18:32:54 CST
From: Jim Thomas <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 6--REMINDER: CFP '94 SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE APPROACHING

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The DEADLINE for applications for scholarships to
the Computer Freedom and Privacy '94 Conference at the Palmer House in
Chicago is 31 December.  DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE.  We are
reprinting the earlier announcement for those who may have missed it
last month.

For applicants who do not ultimately receive scholarships, the
conference organizers are attempting to find inexpensive lodging
within walking distance to the Palmer House, which is located in the
center of The Loop)).

The Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP'94) is
pleased to announce that it will once again provide a number of
full tuition scholarships for attendance at the conference. The
conference will be held in Chicago, IL from March 23rd through
March 26th, 1994 and will be hosted by the John Marshall Law
School under the chairmanship of George Trubow.

The conference traditionally attracts an extremely diverse group
of persons concerned with issues relating to the rapid
development of the "information society"; civil libertarians,
information providers, law enforcement personnel, privacy
advocates, "hackers", sociologists, educators and students,
computer professionals, cryptography advocates, government policy
makers and other interested parties have all played major roles
in the three previous conference.

Speakers at previous conferences have included Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-founders John Perry Barlow and Mitch
Kapor, FBI Deputy Director William A. "Al" Bayse, writer Bruce
Sterling, privacy advocate Simon Davies, Harvard University law
professor Lawrence Tribe, hacker "Phiber Optik", Georgetown
University's Dorothy Denning, "Cuckoo's Egg" author Clifford
Stoll, Prodigy counsel George Perry, USA Today founder Al
Neuwith, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson, Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)'s Marc Rotenberg,
Arizona prosecutor Gail Thackeray, and Bay Area Women in
Computing's Judi Clark.

The scholarships are intended to provide access to the conference
to those that would like to attend the conference but are unable
to afford the tuition. They are available to undergraduate and
graduate students in any discipline (previous student attendees
have come from computer science, law, sociology, liberal arts,
journalism, and womens' studies backgrounds), law enforcement
personnel, hackers, social scientists, and others interested in
the future of the information society.

Persons interested in a scholarship should send the following
information (e-mail greatly preferred) to:

John F. McMullen
CFP'94 Scholarship Chair
Perry Street
Jefferson Valley, NY 10535

[email-masked]
(914) 245-2734 (voice)
(914) 245-8464 (fax)

1. Personal Information -- Name, Addresses (including e-mail),
Phone Numbers, School and/or Business Affiliation

2. Short Statement explaining what the applicant helps to get
from CFP'94 and what impact that attendance may have in the
applicant's community or future work.

3. Stipulation that the applicant understands that he/she is
responsible for transportation and lodging expenses related to
the conference. The scholarship includes tuition and those meals
included with the conference.

4. Stipulation that the applicant would not be able to attend the
conference if a scholarship is not granted.

5. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will
attend the conference.

6. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will
provide a written critique of the conference to the scholarship
committee by April 30, 1994.

Applications will be accepted until December 31, 1993 and
scholarship winners will be notified by approximately February 1,
1994.

Please contact John McMullen at the above e-mail address or phone
numbers with any questions.

John F. McMullen           [email-masked]    Consultant,
[email-masked]        [email-masked]            Writer,

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

Date:         Thu, 2 Dec 1993 17:49:50 EDT
From:         Paul Hyland <[email-masked]>
Subject: File 7--DIAC-94 Call for Participation

Please post and distribute to interested colleagues.

                         Call for Workshop Proposals

       Developing an Effective and Equitable Information Infrastructure

    Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC-94) Symposium
                           Cambridge, MA, USA
                           April 23 - 24, 1994

The National Information Infrastructure (NII) is being proposed as the
next-generation "information superhighway" for the 90's and beyond.
Academia, libraries, government agencies, as well as media and
telecommunication companies are involved in the current development.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) and other
organizations believe that critical issues regarding the use of the
NII deserve increased public visibility and participation and is using
the DIAC Symposium to help address this concern.

The DIAC-94 symposium is a two-day symposium and will consist of
presentations on the first day and workshops on the second day.  The
DIAC Symposia are held biannually and DIAC-94 will be CPSR's fifth
such conference.  We encourage your participation both through
attending and through conducting a workshop. We are currently
soliciting workshop proposals. We suggest proposals on the following
themes but any topic relating to the symposium theme is welcome.

 Systems and Services              Policy
   + Community networks              + Funding
   + Information services            + Role of government
   + Delivery of social services     + Economic modelling of networks
   + Privacy (including medical)     + Commercialization of the NII
   + Educational support             + Universal access
   + Meeting diverse needs           + Freedom of expression and
                                        community standards

 Electronic Democracy              Directions and Implications
   + Access to information           + Ubiquitous computing
   + Electronic town meetings        + Global hypertext and multimedia
   + Threats to democracy            + Computing in the workplace
   + Economic and class disparities  + Computing and the environment

 International Issues              Traditional and Virtual Communities
   + Language differences            + MUDs
   + Cultural diversity              + Communication ethics, values, and styles
   + National and international      + Gender relations in cyberspace
       priorities
   + Cooperative projects            + Networking for indigenous peoples

Workshops will be an hour and half in length.  The proposal should
include title, presenter, purpose of workshop, references, and plan.
Workshops should substantially involve the audience and proposals in
which some group product or action plan is created are preferred.  As
the proposals may be collected into a book, workshop proposals should
be clear and informative to people who don't participate in the
workshop.  Proposals are due February 15, 1994 and acceptance and
rejection notices will be sent by March 15, 1994.  To discuss
workshops or to submit proposals for workshops contact the program
chair, Doug Schuler, [email-masked].  Electronic submissions
are encouraged but paper versions are also acceptable (send them to
CPSR/Seattle - - - - DIAC '94 Workshop Submission, P.O. Box 85481,
Seattle, WA 98145-1481).

        Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsbility

Potential co-sponsors are being sought.  Please contact us if your
organization would like to help with this event.  For more information
on co-sponsorship or on general issues, contact conference chair,
Coralee Whitcomb, [email-masked].

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.91
************************************