Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 18, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 60 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #8.60 (Sun, Aug 18, 1996) File 1--Suit filed to enjoin crypto provisions of the ITAR File 2--ACLU Gives Princeton "F" for Barring Pol Speech on its Network File 3--Full Text of ACLU Letter to Princeton re: Computer Use Policy File 4--EYENET: Ontario Tories Get "Make-Over" On The Web File 5--BoS: Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet (fwd) File 6--UK ISPs Restrict cyberporn; AOL (again) (news from noah) File 7--Scientology begins PGP crack attempt (fwd) File 8--An Apology to Edupage File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:21:24 -0400 From: "Peter D. Junger" Subject: File 1--Suit filed to enjoin crypto provisions of the ITAR [I have cross-posted this press release by my lawyers to several mailing-lists. I am subscribed to all of them and I believe that this information is relevant to all of them, but I apologize because you may receive several copies.] -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu ------------------------Press Release--------------------------------- Law Professor Sues Federal Government Over Computer Privacy Issues Federal Civil Rights Action Seeks Injunction Against State Department And National Security Agency Cleveland Scholar Attacks Prohibition On Discussing Cryptographic Software With Foreign Students And Colleagues For Immediate Release Cleveland, Wednesday, August 7, 1996 For More Information Contact: Raymond Vasvari (216) 522-1925 Gino Scarselli (216) 291-8601 More Information Will Be Available at: URL: //http:/samsara.law.cwru.edu A Case Western Reserve University law professor filed suit today in federal court, challenging government regulations which restrict his ability to teach a course in computer law. Peter Junger, a twenty-five year veteran of the law school faculty, will file a federal civil rights action this afternoon in the United States District Court in Cleveland. The suit names the Department of State and the secretive National Security Agency, which administer federal regulations limiting Professor Junger's ability to teach. The case involves the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, federal regulations which restrict the export of military technology. Under the ITAR, cryptographic computer software, which encodes text to preserve the privacy of messages on the Internet, is considered a "munition" and subject to strict export control. The regulations raise significant First Amendment questions by defining "export" to include discussing technical information about non-classified software with foreign nationals, such as students registered for Professor Junger's course. In recent months, the State Department has sent a series of letters threatening possible criminal action to a Florida man who posted a simple cryptographic algorithm to the "sci.crypt" Usenet Newsgroup, an Internet site popular with cryptography enthusiasts. These and similar incidents have caused Professor Junger to limit his discussions of cryptographic material with foreign colleagues, for fear of violating the ITAR. Penalties for unlicenced disclosure of cryptographic information are severe: federal law provides ten year prison terms and One Million Dollar fines for those convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act, the legislation under which the ITAR was promulgated. Professor Junger, whose class at Case Western Reserve focuses on the legal aspects of computer use and software development, plans to turn away any foreign students who register for the course this fall, largely because the law is uncertain as to what he may teach, and to whom. The restrictions at issue are administered by the Department of State, in cooperation with the ultra-secret National Security Agency, the organization charged with eavesdropping on foreign governments. Under the ITAR, Junger may not teach foreign students about even simple software capable of encoding messages. Such software is vital to maintaining the privacy of communications and financial transactions on the Internet, and Junger believes that lawyers need to understand how it works in order to prepare to practice in an increasingly technological world. The information that Junger wishes to disclose is widely available on the Internet and elsewhere. "It's not as though we are talking about classified information," explained Gino Scarselli, one of three lawyers representing Junger in the case. "The material at issue in this case can be found in any university library, but the regulations make no exceptions for even the most basic software," Scarselli noted. The lawsuit does not challenge the government's right to restrict access to classified information. Junger is also represented by Raymond Vasvari and Kevin Francis O'Neill, two Cleveland attorneys with considerable experience in First Amendment issues. As Vasvari explained, the suit presents important First Amendment questions about the government's ability to regulate academic life. "These regulations allow the government to dictate what a professor may and may not teach, even though the material involved poses no threat to national security," Vasvari explained. The suit charges that by requiring Junger to apply for a federal license to discuss cryptography with foreigners, the government is violating a well-established First Amendment rule which prohibits the government from imposing prior restraints on expression without clear, narrowly drawn standards distinguishing prohibited expression from permissible speech. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that such prior restraints face a heavy burden in court, and that standardless licencing schemes allowing officials broad discretion in restriction speech are unconstitutional. Because computer cryptography is expected to play an important role in the economic development of the Internet, the case is being closely watched. Scarselli has worked closely with attorneys affiliated with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Foundation in preparing the suit, and Junger and his lawyers have been in frequent contact with John Gilmore, formerly of Sun Microsystems, who has offered his assistance as a technical advisor in the case. At issue is not only Junger's right to discuss cryptography with foreigners, but also his and other's right to publish and distribute such information both in traditional forms and on the internet. Professor Junger's suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting the government from interfering with his, or any other person's, discussing non-classified cryptographic information with foreign persons or from publishing that information. Lawyers for Junger have moved the court for a preliminary injunction. Junger's course begins in the fall semester, later this month. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:14:12 GMT From: Ann Beeson Subject: File 2--ACLU Gives Princeton "F" for Barring Pol Speech on its Network AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS News Release August 15, 1996 ---------------------------------------------------- Free Speech 101: ACLU Gives Princeton University an "F" for Barring Political Speech on its Network FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 15, 1996 Contact: Ann Beeson, ACLU National (212) 944-9800, x788 David Rocah, ACLU of New Jersey (201) 642-2084 NEW YORK--In a letter sent today to Princeton University officials, the American Civil Liberties Union urged them to reconsider a policy barring students and staff from using the computer network for "political purposes." The letter was sparked by complaints the ACLU national office received over a recent memo from Princeton officials advising faculty, staff and students, "especially in this year of a presidential election," that the school's not-for-profit status barred it from allowing use of the computer network "for political purposes." The ACLU called this conclusion mistaken, pointing out in its letter that the Internal Revenue Code specifies that only the University itself is barred from political activity -- not faculty, staff, or students acting independently. In fact, the ACLU said, the IRS has previously held that statements in support of political candidates appearing on the editorial page of a student newspaper would not be considered violations of a university's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. "Because there exists no legitimate reason for Princeton's blanket prohibition of political speech over the computer network," the ACLU letter stated, "it is an unjustified content-based restriction on the free expression rights of students, faculty and staff. Therefore, the policy is not only unworthy of a great university like Princeton, it is in violation of the New Jersey State Constitution." The letter was signed by ACLU national staff attorney Ann Beeson and David Rocah, staff attorney of the ACLU of New Jersey. "We understand the university's concerns regarding it's tax-exempt status," Rocah said. "But this is free speech 101. Sadly, Princeton is not making the grade." Rocah said the ACLU would consider legal action if the university refuses to drop its censorship policy. "Traditionally, college campuses are the center of political discussion and debate," said Beeson. "The fact that the debate is taking place on the Internet does not mean that the speech is any less deserving of protection." Beeson added that the policy could bar students and staff from a wide range of protected expression, including downloading position papers from the Dole or Clinton website; sending e-mail to their parents urging them to vote for Ralph Nader; and organizing online discussion groups for student chapters of politically active groups such as Greenpeace. In short, Rocah said, "Everything that would be acceptable, even welcome, off-line, becomes off-limits on the Internet." In its letter, the ACLU called on the school to take a leadership role in the academic community: "As a school with a well-deserved reputation as a leader in American higher education, Princeton should be the first to promote and defend academic freedom and freedom of expression within its community, to the very limits of the law," the letter said. Beeson added that the ACLU is working to develop model guidelines for colleges and universities to help sort out the confusion in academia regarding free expression on the Internet. Many schools have already put in place "Appropriate Use Policies" to police student and faculty computer use, some of which violate rights of free expression, Beeson said. [The full text of the ACLU letter and Princeton memo are also available through the ACLU's website and America Online site (keyword: ACLU).] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:29:11 GMT From: Ann Beeson To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, rountable@cni.org Subject: File 3--Full Text of ACLU Letter to Princeton re: Computer Use Policy AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NATIONAL LEGAL DEPARTMENT 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 ------------------------------ August 15, 1996 Mr. Harold Shapiro President BY FACSIMILE, E-MAIL, & REGULAR MAIL 1 Nassau Hall Princeton University Princeton NJ 85044 RE: Computer Use Policy Dear President Shapiro: In response to complaints we have received from members of the Princeton University community, we write on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) to urge you to reconsider the policy prohibiting members of the University from using the Princeton's computer network for "political purposes." We believe that the policy is based on a misunderstanding of the law regarding the University's tax-exempt status, and restricts free speech and academic freedom rights guaranteed by Art. I, par. 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. Princeton University's decision to offer its faculty, staff and students widespread access to the University's computer network and the Internet greatly expanded the resources available for academic research. It also provided a new and exciting forum for the free communication of ideas. In contrast, Princeton's decision to prohibit the use of the network for "political purposes" unjustifiably interferes with the right of the University community to exchange ideas freely, regardless of their content. Princeton's current computer use policy holds that "the Computing and network resources of the University may not be used by members of the University community for commercial or political purposes or for financial gain . . . ." Trustees of Princeton University, Rights, Rules, Responsibilities 11 (1993) (emphasis added) (hereinafter "Rights," attached as Appendix A). On July 19, 1996, the Office of the General Counsel sent an e-mail to members of the University community warning them that any use of the Internet or computer network for "any participation in, or intervention in, (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office" would result in disciplinary action. See Office of the General Counsel, "Internet use and Politics," E-mail of July 19, 1996, attached as Appendix B. We understand that the rationale behind the computer use policy is a concern that the University will lose its tax-exempt status, under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), if it allows members of the University community to use the computer network for political purposes. We believe that this concern is misplaced, based on the policies and rulings of the Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) provides that an educational organization will be tax-exempt as long as it "does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The Internal Revenue Service has clarified that in order to constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign, the political activity must be that of the University itself and not the individual activity of its faculty, staff, or students. See Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organizations Technical Institution Program for 1993 426-27 (1993), attached as Appendix C. Thus, any personal communication by University members over the computer network cannot threaten Princeton's tax-exempt status. The fact that Princeton provides the computing facilities over which the communication takes place does not change this conclusion. The Internal Revenue Service has stated that a principal factor in determining whether the provision of university facilities to a group engaged in political activities will constitute participation in a political campaign by the university under Internal Revenue Code . 501(c)(3), is whether the facilities are provided on an equal basis to groups using them for non-political reasons. Id. at 427. Princeton provides fair and equal access to the computer network, including e-mail and World Wide Web access, to all University members, and allows use of the network for a variety of non-political purposes. See Rights at 11. Thus, political speech over the network will not jeopardize Princeton's tax-exempt status. Even use of the computer network for political purposes in connection with a particular course would not jeopardize Princeton's 501(c)(3) status. The Internal Revenue Service has previously held that a university that required its students in a certain political science course to participate in a political campaign of the student's choice for 60 to 80 hours during the semester was not participating in political campaigns within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). See Revenue Ruling 75-512, 1972-2 C.B. 246, attached as Appendix D. In addition, student organizations are able to publish political views on the computer network without threatening Princeton's tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service has held that a university was not participating in a political campaign within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), when statements made in support of political candidates appeared on the editorial page of a student newspaper. This was true despite the university's provision of financial support and facilities to the newspaper, as long as the views expressed in the newspaper were clearly those of the students and not of the university itself. See Revenue Ruling 75-513, 1972-2 C.B. 246, attached as Appendix E. Accordingly, Princeton University does not risk its tax-exempt status by allowing University members to use its computer network for political purposes. We recognize that Princeton has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the individual views of its members not be mistaken for official positions of the University. At most, the only permissible regulation that Princeton might desire is one requiring a member of the University community, who uses Princeton's name in a way that could lead a reasonable person to interpret the author's statement as an official position of the University, to include a disclaimer clarifying that the opinions expressed over the computer network are those of the author alone. Compare Rights, "Guidelines Relating to the Tax-Exempt Status of the University and Political Activities," at Section 3. Because there exists no legitimate reason for Princeton's blanket prohibition of political speech over the computer network, it is an unjustified, content-based restriction on the free expression rights of students, faculty and staff. Therefore, the policy is not only unworthy of a great University like Princeton, it is in violation of Art. I, par. 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. Although Princeton University is not a state university, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held the Princeton University campus to have been sufficiently devoted to expressive uses so as to require the University to honor the State constitutional guarantee of free expression. See State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 564-65 (1980); see also New Jersey Coalition Against the War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326 (1994) (holding that regional shopping malls were sufficiently open to expressive use so as to extend state constitutional right to leaflet). Princeton's computer facilities are as much a part of the Princeton "campus" as are the lawns and buildings. Princeton may not constitutionally restrict its students, faculty, and staff from engaging in political speech over the Internet any more than it could prohibit them from engaging in such speech in the dorm rooms, classrooms, halls, lawns, and offices of the campus. Political expression has always received the highest degree of constitutional protection. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976). The Constitution was written with the intention to protect from censorship those who wish to express their political beliefs and their support for political candidates. Indeed, "where political speech is involved, our tradition insists that government `allow the widest room for discussion, the narrowest range for restriction.'" State v. Miller, 83 N.J. 402, 412 (1980). As a school with a well-deserved reputation as a leader in American higher education, Princeton should be the first to promote and defend academic freedom and freedom of expression within its community, to the very limits of the law. The computer use policy, read literally, also infringes upon the free speech rights of Princeton faculty, staff, and students to receive information. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965) (right to receive information precludes government from labeling certain publications "propaganda") (Brennan, J., concurring); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479-482-83 (1965) ("right of freedom of speech . . . includes not only the right to utter or print, but the right to . . . receive, the right to read . . . and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach . . . . Without these peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure."); Kreimer v. Bur. of Police for Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1350-55 (3d Cir. 1992) (listing cases). This is because the University's computer facilities, although located on the Princeton campus, are a gateway to a virtual, worldwide community. See ACLU v. Reno, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7919 (E.D. Pa., June 11, 1996). They provide a unique means for students, faculty, and staff to access information on virtually any topic, including politics. Finally, the computer use policy is in conflict with other University policies and practices. Princeton recognizes that "the central purposes of a University are the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the teaching and general development of students, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to society at large. Free inquiry and free expression within the academic community are indispensable to the achievement of these goals. The freedom to teach and to learn depends upon the creation of appropriate conditions and opportunities on the campus as a whole as well as in classrooms and lecture halls." Rights, Introduction to "Principles of General Conduct and Regulations." With respect to political speech, the University also recognizes that it has a fundamental responsibility to ensure "the opportunity for all members of the University community to exercise their prerogatives as citizens. . . . Encouragement of an interest in public affairs and the furthering of a sense of social responsibility have long been considered important elements of a liberal education. The University continues to consider self-chosen participation in political and social action by individuals and groups to be a valuable part of the educational experience it seeks to encourage. Such activities on the part of individuals or groups do not, and should not be taken to, imply commitment of the University to any partisan political position or point of view." Rights, Introduction to "Guidelines Relating to Tax Exempt Status." For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to repeal the existing ban on use of the computer network for political purposes, and we look forward to your early reply. Sincerely, Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Department 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 (212) 944-9800 x788 David Rocah, Staff Attorney American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey 2 Washington Place Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 642-2086 cc: Office of General Counsel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 20:59:11 -0400 From: eye WEEKLY Subject: File 4--EYENET: Ontario Tories Get "Make-Over" On The Web ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY July 18, 1996 Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EYENET EYENET ONTARIO TORIES GET "MAKE-OVER" ON THE WEB by K.K . CAMPBELL 6 am. I ascended the stairs to the eyrie in which my computer was perched. The little mail program flag was up. Personal mailbox. Navigating a steaming (and grungy) coffee cup to lips, my other hand rifled through the usual collection of crap from the night. Nothing special... wait, here was something. From "Anonymous." I opened it and scanned the headers for which remailer -- the Netherlands. The anonymous author(s) wrote me: "The Ontario Progressive Conservative Web Site has been hacked by absolut(0) & Essex. It has been given a new look that we @ fix feel is a more suitable reflection of their policies and ideology." I was politely asked to visit the Tory web site at http://www.ontariopc.on.ca. "What the hell," I muttered and moused to the URL, expecting nothing. The page came up: a picture of a Mike Harris sign burning. Now, _that_ woke me up. Putting coffee aside, I went back to the email, scanning the headers much more closely this time. The missive was dated July 11, 5:08 am (Dutch time). Assuming our anonymous friends were actually in Ontario, that meant the letter was sent around 11 pm the night before (Wednesday, July 10). Back to the web site. I realized why the picture of Harris was so familiar. It was from the Embarrass Harris web site (http://www.eye.net/Misc/Harris). I had scanned it myself. (Actually, I scanned a much larger picture, "absolut(0) & Essex" were using a cropped detail from it.) The "new-look" Tory site featured a quote from the US intellectual and pinup boy Noam Chomsky: "And apart from the most cynical, [the corporate and government] planners must convince themselves of the justice of the actions, often monstrous, that they plan and implement. There are only two pretexts: self-defence and benevelonce. It need not be assumed that use of the tools is mere deception or careerism, though sometimes it is. Nothing is easier than to convince oneself of the merits of actions and politics that serve self-interest." (Actually, the quote might be from John Snobelen's "Summer of 95" video pep talk.) Only other text was a quote from Jim Hightower: "Let's keep our factories and jobs here and move our corporate headquarters to Mexico, Korea, or wherever else we can get some reasonably priced chief executives." "Anonymous" concluded the email to me: "We are happy that we could help out. We imagine the 'new look' will last 24-72 hrs so see it while you can." The new-look Tory page was gone faster than that. News of it spread like wildfire. Toronto's Golan Klinger even put it up on a big screen at the Metro Convention Centre COMDEX show. Finally a Tory was dragged off the golf course and cellphoned net provider Magic to replace the hack. Having no other material at hand, Magic put up an ad for themselves. FOR OUR FINGER-PRINTIN' FRIENDS In December 1994, someone did an anonymous newsgroup spoof of then- Ontario premier Bob Rae (an impersonation, not a real forgery). At the time, the Tories told eyeNET that if anyone did that to them, they would track down the vile criminals. (To his credit, Rae took the spoof in stride in a real follow-up post to the net.) When the Tories won the election, they killed the premier account Rae had established. They didn't want anything to do with the net. Being loyal Ontarians, we at eyeNET want to help our finger-printin' friends at Queen's Park track down these vile hackers. Here are two helpful URLs: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service at http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, and the Ontario Provincial Police -- http://www.gov.on.ca/OPP. Get to works, boys! Hmm. You Tory chaps are probably scratching your heads, wondering if this Noam Chomsky guy is some superhacker in the computer underground. Here's another helpful URL: http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/index.html. New World Media and ZNet host the net's largest collection of Chomsky writing (almost eight megs of text). And for that strange conceptual stuff about CEOs being economic parasites... you can read more about it at http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- which web page is a previous winner of an eyeSITE Web Award. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright http://www.eye.net Mailing list available eyeNET archive -----------------------> http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet eye@eye.net "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:38:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Noah Subject: File 5--BoS: Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet (fwd) From -Noah ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:41:55 -0400 (EDT) From--Safetynet, Inc. Subject--BoS--Hare Virus Removal - VirusNet Safetynet Virus Alert --------------------- Virus: Hare.7610, Hare.7750, Hare.7786 Type: Resident Stealth OSBR MBR EXE COM Frequency: Common As you probably already know, the Hare virus (PC platform) is set to trigger on August 22 and September 22. Computers infected with this virus may have their hard drive information erased. Safetynet has included detection and removal for the three known variants of the Hare virus in its VirusNet v2.24 scanner update. All registered users should download this update and scan their computers daily through the end of September. A total of 8,300 virus are detected by v2.24. Evaluation versions of VirusNet with full virus detection and removal are also available for download. Visit the Safetynet WWW site at http://www.safe.net/safety/ and select the Free Stuff link. For Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 3.x and DOS users, download VirusNet 95. For network administrators who wish to scan an entire network, download VirusNet LAN. Questions about this and other virus related issues should be sent to support@safe.net. ------------------ Virus Support Team Safetynet, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:18:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Noah Subject: File 6--UK ISPs Restrict cyberporn; AOL (again) (news from noah) U.K. INTERNET PROVIDERS PLAN TO RESTRICT CYBERPORN Reacting to pressure from Scotland Yard, the Internet Service Providers Association, representing 60 of an estimated 140 providers in the United Kingdom, will be asking its members to voluntarily block access to sites and services featuring hard-core pornography. An executive of Demon Internet, which has the largest subscriber base in the U.K., dismisses the proposed action as ineffective: "This is not a solution, it is just hiding the problem." (Financial Times 10 Aug 96) AOL SEES ITS IMPORTANCE "MORE CLEARLY THAN EVER" Following last Wednesday's 19-hour blackout of America Online on August 9th because of system problems that developed during routine maintenance, AOL chief executive Steve Case concluded that "the disruption caused by the temporary unavailability of AOL illustrates more clearly than ever before how important AOL has become in the daily lives of our members." Case said: "We still have a long way to go to make AOL as reliable as must-have utilities such as electricity and the telephone. But that's what we intend to do." Members will get credit for the lost service, which, for individuals who subscribe to AOL's standard billing plan, will amount to about a 30-cent credit. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 9 Aug 96 D2) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:31:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 7--Scientology begins PGP crack attempt (fwd) Newsgroups--alt.religion.scientology,alt.security.pgp From--grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) Subject--Criminal cult begins PGP crack attempt The Special Master has informed me that Madame Kobrin has asked her to retain a PC expert to attempt to "crack" a series of pgp-encrypted multi-megabyte files that were seized along with more than a compressed gigabyte of other material from my safety deposit box. Ironically, they phoned to ask for assistance in supplying them with a prototype "crack" program that they could use in iterating and permuting possibilities. I did supply them a good core pgpcrack source that can search several tens of thousands of possible key phrases a seconds; I also suggested that they should at least be using a P6-200 workstation or better to make the search more efficient. The undercurrent is that this fresh hysterical attempt to "get" something on me coupled with the daily settlement pleas reflects the hopelessness of the litigation position of the criminal cult. It looks like the criminal cult has cast the die to ensure that the RTC vs Ward case is fought out to the bitter end. Which I modestly predict will be a devastating, humiliating defeat for them from a pauper pro per. I have given them a final settlement offer that they can leave or take. Actually they have a window of opportunity now to drop the suit since my counterclaims have been dismissed (although Jusge Whyte invited me to re-file a new counterclaim motion on more legally sufficiant basis). I think Keith and I have found a successful counter-strategy to the cult's system of litigation harassment. Meanwhile, I could use some help from veteran a.r.s'ers. I need any copy you have of the Cease and Desist letter that you may have received last year from Eliot Abelson quondam criminal cult attorney and Eugene Martin Ingram spokespiece. Physical mail: Grady Ward 3449 Martha Ct. Arcata, CA 95521-4884 JP's BMPs or fax-images to: grady@northcoast.com Thanks. Grady Ward Ps. I really do need all of your help and good wishes after all. Thanks for all of you keeping the net a safe place to insult kook kults. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1996 19:22:32 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--An Apology to Edupage CuD periodically receives news clippings or other items that helpful readers forward to us for publication. We stress that either permission should first be received for reprinting, or that the items should be edited for fair use. We also emphasize that the original source *MUST* be attributed. Because we have neither the time nor resources to check on forwarded posts, we rely heavily on submitters to assume responsibility for copyright compliance. Most recently, we inadvertantly reprinted excerpts from EDUPAGE without attribution. We apologize for the error, and thank the reader who recognized the source and let us know. We appreciate the forwarded material that readers send, and we equally appreciate being informed of possible goofs. Keep them both coming. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996) 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 (815-753-0303), 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) 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 RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) 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/ 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 #8.60 ************************************