From bkh at arilabs.com Tue May 2 16:32:30 2000 From: bkh at arilabs.com (Brian High) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:32:30 -0700 Subject: SCN: Washington state leading the way in e-government Message-ID: <006c01bfb48e$af68cd20$fd00a8c0@arilabs.com> X-No-Archive: Yes ========================================================================= Washington state leading the way in e-government From Time to Time: Nando's in-depth look at the 20th century By CHAR SIMONS, The Christian Science Monitor OLYMPIA, Wash. (May 2, 2000 12:02 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - All Michael Fairley wanted was a show-promoter's license for his Seattle antique business. But to get one from the state, he spent five full hours on the phone one day. Had the form been available online, which it will be soon, his need could have been met with the click of a mouse. Fairley may not think so, but here in the land of Microsoft, e-government is taking hold faster than a speeding e-mail - a pace far speedier than bureaucracies usually move. "If they can do it in Redmond (where Microsoft has its headquarters), we can do it in Olympia," says Steve Kolodney, who heads the department charged with taking the state of Washington from the triplicate age to the electronic age. While Washington has accumulated a trophy-case worth of awards for its efforts (including best state government Web site), concerns are surfacing about how far and how fast to go in pushing electronic access to government. Some residents and consumer advocates worry that the less-educated and the poor, who often don't have access to personal computers, will experience falling levels of service - and greater levels of frustration. The result is a backlash to what some see as an over-reliance on technology. Even Gov. Gary Locke, who backs the government's transition to online services, this spring ordered all state agencies to have real people answering their phones. The governor acted after state lawmakers failed to pass an "answer the phone" bill - widely considered the most popular piece of legislation of the session. While Washington has gone the furthest, Maine recently started monitoring its agencies to determine the effectiveness of telephone communication, and North Carolina passed a law last year requiring state agencies to reduce the number of menus on their phone systems. Oklahoma and Kentucky have also considered answer-the-phone bills. "Ideally, government is supposed to exist to help us all," says Doug Schuler, a faculty member at the Evergreen State College and former chairman of the National Board of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. "If it converts all its energy into serving people electronically, it's doing more catering to people who have multiple phone lines, fast access, and computers at home. So far, computers by and large have only exacerbated differences between rich and poor. If we just push technology, we're just increasing the already gigantic divide." Indeed, Erica Quimby of Olympia is no fan of technology-laden government. She just wanted someone, anyone, from the Department of Social and Health Services to answer her phone call. After repeated attempts, Quimby says she finally got to speak - four days later - with a real person about why food stamps for her family had not arrived. Less than two miles from the monstrous DSHS Capitol 5000 building, where welfare recipients line up, is the sleek chrome-and-glass reception office at the Department of Information Services. In the communication director's office, a white board posts the latest innovations - online hunting and fishing licenses, and a new security system. For the past two years, Washington's government has been named the national leader in dot-com services. Other top-ranking dot-com states include Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Alabama and Montana. "Most states are making progress," says Tom Lenard of the Washington, D.C.-based Progress and Freedom Foundation, which promotes the development of information technology. All states, for example, now provide online postings for state jobs, although some are more complete than others. And 40 states, he says, no longer send checks through the mail, but transfer benefits, such as welfare, into peoples' accounts electronically. The top tier of tech-savvy states also offer electronic tax filing, unclaimed property lists and various licenses. In a harbinger of services to come, Washington is working on offering secured electronic signatures, electronic check and credit-card payment options and online renewal of drivers' licenses and vehicle tabs. "Citizens expect (these services), and we're going to deliver," says Kolodney, who oversees a $110 million annual budget. Public willingness to do business with government over the Internet varies. Dot-com government is favored most by the computer generation and least by the elderly and poor, who tend to have less access to and familiarity with computers. Surveys in Arizona, New Hampshire and Iowa show support for online vehicle registration, updating addresses, and access to birth certificates. A majority, however, opposes voting online, although Lenard and others expect that resistance to fade over time. Still, government may not be able to deliver on its electronic promises. Despite the $20 billion expected to be spent on e-government worldwide during the next five years, more than half of the initiatives are expected to fail because the systems don't meet consumer expectations. Hurdles include recruiting young talent, planning what the new systems should accomplish and setting measurable goals during the transition. Then again, there's that fundamental resistance to change that bureaucracies are famous for. Washington's Kolodney has created an "academy," where workers from a variety of agencies "learn from each other ... away from daily pressures," he says. "Wouldn't it be nice to figure out how to do permits once, and then replicate them six times, so that, for example, ecology and parks permits have the same look?" Meanwhile, a Washington State University study is trying to untangle DSHS's 19,000 phone numbers so that customers like Quimby will no longer have to spend days trying to get a real person on the phone. Every three months for a year, university researchers are calling 400 DSHS numbers at random to see if they can get through to a person, if the voice-mail message has been updated for the week, and if, over time, service improves. Copyright ) 2000 Nando Media * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From robert at iolbv.com Wed May 3 14:07:29 2000 From: robert at iolbv.com (Infrared Communications) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 16:07:29 -0500 Subject: SCN: Infrared Data Link Message-ID: <002001bfb543$bf6ea900$980bb4d0@iolbv.com> Press Release April 19, 2000 Infrared Communications a division of Millennium Executive Solutions, Inc. has high speed products for: Internet Access Private Dedicated Lines Network Connections Backbone Links Announces a marketing agreement with Dominion Communications LLC. Infrared Communications (through MES, Inc.) has entered into a marketing agreement to sell the only patented (domestic and international) infrared point to multi-point and point to point high speed links. Infrared technology at 10 M bps, 100 M bps and 1 G bps is a proven technology and available for deployment. Infrared is not FCC regulated and the equipment is ethernet based, unobtrusive and easy to install. There are no requirements to trench the earth or lay fiber. This is a true wireless broadband product. Call for more information or respond to this email. Robert L. O'Bannon Millennium Executive Solutions, Inc. 979-774-5151 robert at iolbv.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rockybay at scn.org Wed May 3 21:48:52 2000 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 21:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Would you like to save 30% on your phone bills and... (fwd) Message-ID: This is re. > Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 22:29:25 From: jeffallen at spotbuy.com To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: SCN: Would you like to save 30% on your phone bills and... > and > Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 16:07:29 -0500 From: Infrared Communications To: Subject: SCN: Infrared Data Link > (Orig. addressees below were "Returned mail: User unknown".) Malcolm Taran ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 23:52:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Malcolm Taran To: volunteers at scn.org, board at scn.org Subject: Re: SCN: Would you like to save 30% on your phone bills and... Hi there --> Would someone please provide references or a brief on how seemingly bulk mailings like this appear? I thought this list and other lists like it on scn were closed lists. I've also heard about anonomizer mail intermediaries but that they still provide records on court order. --> Does this mean political e-speech acts get suppressed by prosecution and spammers get away? ('cause legal action is necessarily so selective). My curiosity is piqued. Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Thu May 4 09:25:56 2000 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF... Message-ID: If you recieve "I love you" in the subject line, DELETE WITHOUT READING.... The virus will redistribute to your mailing list... so even if you know the person DELETE as of 8 am 90% of corperate computers were hit including BCC was hit. This is the info given by info services.\ Janos This email and any attachment contain information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorized to read, copy or use this email or any attachment. If you have received this email in error, please destroy it and notify the sender by return email. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Thu May 4 18:15:16 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First of all, a stiff reminder to Janos _and everyone else_ that turgid messages to mailing lists about "don't even open your mail" is *NOT* the way to warn others about e-mail viruses, worms, etc. This is because such messages have no authenticity, lead people to accept such lack of authenticity as standard operating procedure, and thereby create a great susceptibility to _hoax_ warnings, such as the infamous "Good Times" hoax. Please note and regard that CERT reports they spend more time debunking hoaxes than fighting real viruses or worms, and that CIAC no longer reports on viruses for the same reason. PLEASE DO NOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM! [Now let me provide a model in telling you about the "Loveletter" e-mail worm. Note the inclusion of: specific information, and reference to an authoritative source for authentication of the information.] --- There are reports today of new e-mail worm call "VBS/Loveletter" that does extensive damage to computers running Windows 98 and Windows 2000, and also Windows NT and Windows 95 if Visual Basic scripting (or WHS) is enabled. Note: there is no threat to systems running Unix, such as SCN. The worm is a Visual Basic attachment named "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs" (but depending on configuration the '.vbs' suffix might not be displayed) in a message with the subject line of "ILOVEYOU". If your mail reader is configured to automatically "open" attachments (which is NOT a good idea!), then--don't read that message! (Better yet, don't let your computer automatically open attachments.) There is variant of this worm which comes with a subject of "Joke", or "Very Funny", and which also propagates via IRC clients. For more information (and additional links) see the authoritative Computer Emergency Response Team website at www.cert.org. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Fri May 5 15:14:56 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:14:56 -0700 Subject: SCN: Censorship Message-ID: <3912E570.10074.1F4260A@localhost> x-no-archive: yes =================== Governments Learn How to Censor the Internet, Report Says by Carl S. Kaplan (NY Times)---Conventional wisdom dictates that governments cannot really control speech on the Internet. Try to stamp out an idea or a conversation, the theory goes, and users of the global network will re-route around the local "damage" and continue talking as before. The theory is wrong. In reality, many governments around the world are doing a pretty good job of censoring or restricting speech online. That is the conclusion of a report on world press freedom released this week by Freedom House, a respected New York-based human rights organization. "The Internet is the new technology, and we're seeing censorship in many kinds of countries now," said Leonard R. Sussman, a senior scholar at Freedom House and author of the report. It includes an essay, "Censor Dot Gov: The Internet and Press Freedom 2000," and a 30-page annual survey of press freedoms in 186 countries. "We're in an early transitional stage" of online censorship, Sussman said. "The clobbering can become so institutionalized in some countries that it can become just as successful as censorship of older media. Or things can open up. I'm optimistic in the long run, but right now some governments are heavy-handed -- just as they were in the old days of the blue pencil," he said. Sussman is a long-time observer of press freedoms; the current report is the 22nd annual survey he has compiled for Freedom House. Like its predecessors, it employs several criteria to measure the degree of freedom for newspapers and radio and television stations in many countries. The report also includes brief anecdote-laden summaries of the state of press freedom in each surveyed country. This year, for the first time, Sussman decided to write an introductory essay on global Internet censorship, based on the evidence that he amassed in his research. The country summaries in the survey are also chock-full of Internet censorship episodes. All in all, the report is an important contribution to the fledgling field of scholarship covering Internet censorship. Why some countries censor information on the Internet is no secret, Sussman said. They do it for the same reasons they censor print and television: certain information is "displeasing" to those in power. Banned information runs the gamut from political dissent to certain forms of expression that are deemed harmful to a country's religious or ethnic values. Countries use a variety of methods to control online speech, Sussman explained in his essay. At the first level, some simply prevent a majority of their citizens from gaining access to the Internet, either passively through a high-cost telecommunications infrastructure that limits participation, or more directly through laws or licensing. At least 20 countries, including Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea and Iraq, thoroughly restrict their citizens' access to the Internet, Sussman wrote. In Myanmar, for example, owners must report computers to the government or face a 15-year prison term. At the next level, some countries that allow widespread Internet access control what citizens may see by employing various filtering and blocking schemes on state-run or state-influenced Internet service providers (ISPs). "In China, for example, many government offices and institutes are wired, but the official ISP limits content, particularly incoming news from abroad," Sussman wrote. Online dissidents there have been imprisoned, and state security operatives inspect Web sites to make sure they include no state secrets. Based on such surveillance, Sussman said, some domestic Web sites have been shut down and e-mail has been censored. Even controversial Web sites on servers overseas have been crippled by denial-of-service attacks from sources based in China, Sussman said. Other countries that routinely block Internet sites considered offensive include Iran and Saudi Arabia, Sussman said. The final level of censorship is a sophisticated form of online surveillance akin to tapping a telephone. A government that uses this method not only controls speech but induces a high degree of self-censorship. In Russia, for example, the successor to the KGB has begun forcing ISPs to install surveillance equipment. Indeed, security services can monitor Internet communications without a court order, and ISPs can lose their licenses for denying security forces access to private online traffic. To be sure, there are many small victories over censorship and control, Sussman said. Newspapers censored in Algeria, Egypt and Jordan, among other places, have placed banned articles online, where they were available to foreigners and emigrants. Even in some of the most censored countries in the world, like Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, cybercafes provide cheap public access to the Internet -- although in most of these, the government-controlled ISPs limit content and can employ surveillance techniques. For his part, Sussman said that what Freedom House and other organizations monitoring press freedom can do is expose instances of Internet censorship and shame the culprits. "Even the most oppressive countries don't like to be seen as oppressive," he said. "The key is to publish this type of information and add to the shame. That's what we did during the cold war. You've got to let certain governments know they are being watched." Kristina Stockwood the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX), a free speech clearinghouse based in Toronto, said she agreed that online press and speech censorship is an increasing problem in many countries. "I think it's getting worse because people have developed more sophisticated methods for controlling information," she said. "In a country like Vietnam, for example, which is a developing country, they can monitor your e-mail," Stockwood said. "Say anything that threatens national security, and you can be in trouble. And 'national security' is a broad phrase that is used to cover just about anything the government disagrees with." David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is a founding member of a worldwide consortium of online free speech groups, said that the Freedom House report was "a good exercise" that he hoped would expand next year to include more data on online censorship. He added that the report points up a hidden danger. Some groups, led by businesses in the United States and Europe, are developing voluntary rating systems for online content. They hope to make voluntary blocking easier and head off government regulation. It sounds good, but "if you create tools for voluntary purposes, that architecture is likely to be mandated by more repressive governments," he said. Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sat May 6 03:02:52 2000 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Point taken... I just passed on the information that I recieved then when I got the update you had already posted the detail. I errored on the side of caution... next time I'll forward the information to Hardware and allow you to figure out the reality of what I recieve from the the other network people. Thanks for your work... to you and all the Hardware/software Folks that have kept us running and (knock on wood) safe. Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From allen at scn.org Sat May 6 03:35:34 2000 From: allen at scn.org (allen) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: thanks Janos. tho JJ may not always admit it...I am quite sure he appreciates that his efforts on behalf of SCN are noticed and appreciated. He does get a bit cantankerous at times...well, it is to be expected with encroaching senility. (BTW...if you are not both laughing by now you really have a problem!!) JJ...I took the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to another list I recently joined for informative purposes. Guess what? some folks took it as offensive....ARRRGhh...see what happens when one tries to educate the general public who has bought into the MS thing. I am totally attempting to avoid the word "idiots".... Well, OK maybe the real idiots are not the trusting fools who got bit by this "virus" but the idiot sys admins who do no have sense enough to eiher advise their users to set up e-mail client to NOT open attachments...or something similar. Hey...IMO. If corporate powers that be lost 2.5 billion bucks...f*** them and the horse they rode in on. My computer is working just fine!!! I am LOL at this. IMO...note...not IMHO... if one is foolish enought to not bother to learn about things like this and trust MS???? I have no sympathy whatsoever. On Sat, 6 May 2000, Janos Szablya wrote: > Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 03:02:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: Janos Szablya > To: J. Johnson > Cc: governance at scn.org, scn at scn.org, hardware at scn.org, SCN help > Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) > > Point taken... > > > I just passed on the information that I recieved then when I got the > update you had already posted the detail. > > I errored on the side of caution... next time I'll forward the information > to Hardware and allow you to figure out the reality of what I recieve from > the the other network people. > > Thanks for your work... to you and all the Hardware/software Folks that > have kept us running and (knock on wood) safe. > > Janos > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Sat May 6 23:07:06 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Better yet, _shoot_ the crippled, spavining horse the idiots rode in on! Or look at it this way: suppose the biggest builder of houses wired the doorbells so that two rings starts a fire. And if the house burns down just blame the mailman. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sat May 6 23:56:03 2000 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Still the worm thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, I think my biggest error was to say don't open your email REALLY KILLS COMUNICATION..... Everything else is just Policy, Politics but mostly just friends talking about the smart way to do it... beats beating around the bush.... with a sharp stick in your eye. I know I just got the stick out... I did the right thing the wrong way it's protocal. I would say it was kinda like shouting "fire" in a theater. It may be the right thing to do but there are better ways to approch the problem than the way I did it. If jj hadn't told me it was bound to happen and there was no offense taken. Only a good lesson to learn. Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Sun May 7 21:59:56 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: Still the worm thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Janos, don't worry about it. You didn't do anything stupid, and even to the extent you acted unwisely it was nonetheless a good opportunity for explaining to a bunch of people why such a such a response is unwise. So we seem to have come out ahead. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Mon May 8 08:26:09 2000 From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: VISTA positions looking for candidates! Message-ID: SCNA's VISTA Position (Technology Education Coordinator) remains open - and we're looking for qualified candidates - if you or anyone you know is interested, give us a call! Details about the position are at: http://www.scn.org/scna/volunteers/vista.html The City of Seattle's Public Access Network (PAN) is also seeking VISTA candidates. Info on that position is at: http://www.cityofseattle.net/tech/vista.htm - Mel -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- Melissa & Steve Guest, Co-Presidents email: guests at scn.org Seattle Community Network Assoc. ph: (425) 653 7353 http://www.scn.org/scna 8am to 11pm PST "Bringing People & Communities Together with Free Internet Services" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From anitra at speakeasy.org Mon May 8 19:00:28 2000 From: anitra at speakeasy.org (Anitra Freeman) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 19:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: EMT: Question on photos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Irene Mogol wrote: > The question on photos is coming from Sid, dont know what system he is > using, so ask him because it is a total mystery to me. Also, when I > finally receive the pix it will be on my Juno Just caught this. One reason you may be having problems: if you have a basic (free) Juno account, you can't receive attachments. No matter what the fella on the other end is doing. Write On! / Anitra L. Freeman / http://www.speakeasy.org/~anitra/ "Never doubt that a small group of imperfect people can improve the world--indeed they are the only ones who ever have." Not Margaret Mead * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Mon May 8 22:44:28 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:44:28 -0700 Subject: SCN: MPAA Message-ID: <3917434C.15824.3802811@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================= MPAA v. 2600: Access to Information is Not a Crime by Ben Berkowitz Online Journalism Review It is a principle well established in this country that the press is free to publish what it likes, with small constraints for libel and issues of national security. Providing access to information is not a crime, and is in fact a cornerstone of American democracy. Which is why the lawsuit by the Motion Picture Association of America against 2600 is frighteningly dangerous. The trouble stems from a small program called DeCSS, which decodes the Content Scramble System used to keep DVDs from being played on unauthorized machines. A group of programmers looking for a way to play DVDs on Linux systems found that they could get around the CSS and copy movies directly to disk. Needlessly to say, the program was, and continues to be, a huge hit. While not as big as Napster, it still found a huge market. The MPAA, guardian of all that is good and right and profitable for themselves, does not like DeCSS. It keeps money out of its pockets and those of its members. Granted, DeCSS is a way to get around copyright protections, which arguably violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In January, federal judge Lewis Kaplan enjoined three sites from posting the program for just that reason. Separately, a California judge issued a similar injunction against the posting of DeCSS, although he explicitly refused to enjoin linking to the program on another site, saying "such an order is overbroad and extremely burdensome." Two of the of Webmasters - Shawn Reimerdes and Roman Kazan - gave in and removed the program from their sites. The third, however, took a stand. Eric Corley, better known by the pseudonym Emmanuel Goldstein, is the editor of 2600, which calls itself "The Hacker Quarterly." Founded years ago as a print publication, the magazine also has a strong Web presence. Corley is well-known as a journalist, not a hacker. He posted the program on 2600 as information for the hacker community, not because he is trying to single-handedly destroy the movie industry. DeCSS is information for information's sake, the theory goes, and was not born or conceived of malice. Since Kaplan said nothing about linking, and Judge Elfving's order in California specifically protected linking, Corley proceeded to do just that to dozens of sites that carry the program, or code for the program, or links to the program. The New York times, in an article on the issue from April 28, linked to 2600's DeCSS links page. Numerous other people have, too. It has become an act of defiance, done for its own sake, much like pages that allow the emailing of cryptography code overseas just to break the government's arms export restrictions. The MPAA has responded by filing suit seeking to block 2600, or anyone for that matter, from linking to sites carrying DeCSS. The people paying Corley's legal bills, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, decided to fight fire with a whole lot of fire and hired Martin Garbus to defend Corley. Garbus is a New York-based First Amendment lawyer who has a 20-0 record before the Supreme Court. In other words, he is the MPAA's worst nightmare. Motions are currently flying back and forth to disqualify Garbus, on the basis of a small conflict of interest that has no bearing on the 2600 case per se. Of course, the lawyers have in a sense been their own worst nightmare; one genius representing the DVD Copy Control Association in the California case included the DeCSS source code as an exhibit to a January filing. The judge eventually ordered the record sealed, but a copy made its way online before then. Someone even decided to be cute and created another program called DeCSS that strips Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) from Web pages. When the MPAA searches the Net looking for copies of DeCSS to bust, they now have to go to the extra effort of figuring out which DeCSS it is. What if I'm a musician and I link to an old college buddy's home page, a buddy who just happens to catalog thousands of pirate MP3s on one of his pages? Am I responsible for dissemination of illegally copied information? What if a Catholic Church site links to an anti-abortion advocacy group that makes the suggestion that abortion doctors be assassinated? Is the Church guilty of being an accessory before the fact? This is not defiance for its own sake. It is nothing less than defending the fundamental right to free access to information. 2600 is doing nothing wrong by merely providing an access list. It is especially acceptable in light of the fact that lawyers for the association most concerned with stopping DeCSS actually made the source code for the software a matter of public record. If Judge Kaplan decides that the links are illegal, he then makes Webmasters responsible for the content of any page to which they link. Such a ruling would chill the free press. 2600 is a respected magazine. It is providing information on where to get a product that has not yet been completely banned as illegal. Banning it from telling people where to get DeCSS is like saying a newspaper can't talk about where to go in Mexico to get laetrile. It is plainly unfair. The Village Voice article on Garbus and Corley indicates that the New York Times may file an amicus curiae brief on 2600's behalf. Such is the obvious problem with the MPAA's suit, that the most respected newspaper in America is willing to file a brief in support of a relatively small hacker magazine. Whether or not the courts ever firmly and permanently ban DeCSS (which they probably will) is irrelevant. The point here is that the MPAA, in its zealous defense of artist rights and financial riches, is threatening basic American freedoms. If Web sites are found liable for the content they link to, it can't be long after before movies are found liable for the content they portray. The MPAA should be careful what it wishes for. Copyright 2000 Online Journalism Review * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Mon May 8 23:52:46 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: MPAA In-Reply-To: <3917434C.15824.3802811@localhost> Message-ID: A cross-connect: the breaking of CSS (and thence the ability to read DVD's, and consequent copyright debacle) was in part due to weak encryption, being limited to 40-bits by government export rules. Kind of ironic. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Tue May 9 09:15:30 2000 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 09:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: micro radio (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Schuler To: local-computer-activists at scn.org, scna at scn.org Subject: micro radio So just after the FCC ruled (unbelievably enough) that microradio was legal, the Senate now (serving the people?!?) is trying to reverse that! See this note by AFCN President Steve Snow. -- Doug ************************************************ * Shaping the Network Society * * An International Symposium * * May 20 - 23, 2000 * * Seattle, Washington US * * http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00 * ************************************************ > Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:53:09 -0700 > From: shsnow at mindspring.com > To: > Subject: FW: [FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: How to Save Low Power Radio > > Folks, > > I think micro radio is an excellent complementary piece to community > networking. Add the web to micro-radio and you have something immensely > powerful for local communities. > > This has been being used by many communities for 5 or so years, unlicensed > and considered illegal or "pirate" radio. The FCC would like to legalize > this activity, whcih provides radio signals ranging from two to four miles. > > The FCC has agreed to open up spectrum, especially for under-served areas, > in the 10-watt and 100-watt ranges. the National Association of Broadcasters > has fought this bitterly and, to some extent, successfully. > > Below is a note seeking some assistance in writing Senators, who begin > hearings soon on micro-radio. > > Please take a minute to read through this information and, if you are > inclined, send a letter to a Senator. there are links to addresses and the > like. > > Thanks, > > Steve Snow, president > Association For Community Networking > shsnow at mindspring.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Art Persyko > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 11:26 PM > Subject: [MRN] FW: [FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: How to Save Low Power Radio > > > > Please post and distribute widely! > > > > ---------- > > From: FAIR-L > > To: FAIR-L at LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > Subject: [FAIR-L] ACTION ALERT: How to Save Low Power Radio > > Date: Mon, May 8, 2000, 2:16 PM > > > > > > FAIR-L > > Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting > > Media analysis, critiques and news reports > > > > > > > > > > ACTION ALERT: How to Save Low Power Radio > > > > May 8, 2000 > > > > In January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a plan to > > license low power (or "micro") radio stations in many areas of the > country, > > largely due to a campaign waged by a diverse coalition of public interest > > groups, churches and labor unions. The FCC planned to begin the licensing > > process for non-commercial radio stations operating at 10 watts and 100 > > watts. > > > > However, an intense lobbying effort by the broadcast industry threatens to > > severely restrict the prospects for low power radio. The effort, which > > included National Public Radio (NPR), culminated in H.R. 3439, the "Radio > > Preservation Act," which passed in the House of Representatives on April > > 13. > > > > If approved by the Senate, this legislation will have a dramatic impact: > it > > will reduce the number of possible low-power stations by about 80 percent, > > delay the FCC's implementation of its plan to license any low power > > stations, and require a new round of technical tests that many public > > interest groups insist are unnecessary. > > (See: http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/lpfm/2pager.html .) > > > > Advocates for low power radio argue that the wave of concentration in the > > radio industry, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, > > underscores the need for local, non-commercial broadcasters that better > > serve the public interest. > > > > The Senate is expected to debate the bill to undermine the FCC's low power > > radio program (S.2068) in the next few weeks. This gives advocates for > > greater diversity on the airwaves a chance to communicate with their > elected > > officials about the FCC's low power radio plan. > > > > ACTION: Contact your senators and ask them to vote against S.2068, the > > broadcast industry's effort to stifle low power radio. Tell them that > > greater access to the airwaves, especially in a time of overwhelming media > > concentration, is an important first step toward a more democratic media > > structure. > > > > To locate your senator's e-mail address, go to: > > http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.cfm > > > > The Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. > > > > As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if > > you maintain a polite tone. Please cc your correspondence to fair at fair.org > > > > For more background on low power radio, go to: > > > > --Media Access Project: > > http://www.mediaaccess.org > > > > --Low Power Radio Coalition > > http://www.lowpowerradio.org > > > > --FCC: "Frequently Asked Questions About Low-Power FM Radio" > > http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm/lpfmfaq.html > > > > ---------- > > > > > > Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to > > everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate > > documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the > > 'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list. > > > > Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any > > responses, to us at: fair at fair.org . > > > > Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences > > where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message > > out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list. > > > > Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L. > > > > You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: > > http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html > > Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" > > command to LISTSERV at AMERICAN.EDU. > > > > The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about > > spammers. > > > > > > You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L" > > command to LISTSERV at AMERICAN.EDU. > > > > Please support FAIR by becoming a member. > > You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA! > > Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to > > 5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information > > on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to: > > > > FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service > > P.O. Box 170 > > Congers, NY 10920-9930 > > > > > > FAIR > > (212) 633-6700 > > http://www.fair.org/ > > E-mail: fair at fair.org > > > > list administrators: FAIR-L-request at american.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ========================================= > > The Microradio Network > > --- > > To unsubscribe send a message to: majordomo at lists.tao.ca > > In the message body, type: unsubscribe microradio > > ========================================= > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe local-computer-activists END * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Wed May 10 12:22:08 2000 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As Bill Radke observed, This is just like our mothers told us, if you believe everyone who says they love you you will just be disappointed, and you'll end up with a virus. On Sat, 6 May 2000, allen wrote: > thanks Janos. tho JJ may not always admit it...I am quite sure he > appreciates that his efforts on behalf of SCN are noticed and appreciated. > [snip] > Well, OK maybe the real idiots are not the trusting fools who got bit by > this "virus" but the idiot sys admins who do no have sense enough to eiher > advise their users to set up e-mail client to NOT open attachments...or > something similar. > > Hey...IMO. If corporate powers that be lost 2.5 billion bucks...f*** > them and the horse they rode in on. My computer is working just fine!!! > I am LOL at this. IMO...note...not IMHO... if one is foolish enought > to not bother to learn about things like this and trust MS???? I have > no sympathy whatsoever. > [snip] Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed May 10 15:17:34 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:17:34 -0700 Subject: SCN: Security Message-ID: <39197D8E.23258.1768B36@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== by James Gleick (excerpts) (Slate)---The ILOVEYOU virus propagated by means of security flaws created by Microsoft software engineers. No one running MacOS or Unix could have spread this virus or any virus like it. Microsoft's public comment has run: "There's always the potential for misuse. More important than the technical side of this is the human side. It's not something technology is ever going to be able to solve." It's a cliche that technology is value-neutral - a cliche employed in the service of a variety of causes. There's always some truth to the idea. But we're allowed to notice when particular technologies are especially dangerous. Some technologies actively invite misuse. So here's what the ILOVEYOU virus did, and here's why it shouldn't have been able to: It looked up some settings in the registry, Windows' core database of system settings, and then it changed those settings. For example, by default, scripts are given only 10 seconds to do whatever they do. So this script began by looking up this "timeout" feature and turning it off. Oops! Scripts shouldn't be allowed to override settings that control those same scripts. Then it changed some more registry settings, with statements like (one) which instructs the system to run a new script every time it starts up. Scripts shouldn't be allowed to alter anything in the registry - not without direct approval from a system administrator and especially not from inside an e-mail message. Microsoft knows this, in principle. But it chose to leave the door open. Then the script changed the start page of the (Microsoft) Web browser. In fact, it pointed the browser not at a Web site but at an executable file. It would be safer to require user intervention before changing the browser's start page. But Microsoft wanted to make it easy for companies like, oh, Microsoft, to change your start page for you. In a subroutine cunningly titled "sub infectfiles," the virus copied itself to files all over the user's hard disk, deleting some files and sneakily renaming others. Now, this is suspicious and dangerous behavior. An operating system has to support the deletion and renaming and alteration of files, but it doesn't have to give this capability to scripts - little programs run from inside e-mail messages or through the Web browser. These powerful abilities came with the Windows Scripting Host, not a part of Windows 95, but added to later systems, including any that got Internet Explorer Version 5. Maybe the ILOVEYOU author read Microsoft TechNet's article on "Leveraging the Power of the Windows Scripting Host." "The script we've demonstrated may be the foundation for a greater task," it concludes cheerfully. "Once you've located a file, you may wish to perform a file copy or an FTP process." Finally, as we all now know, the virus performed a mass mailing of itself to everyone in the user's Outlook address book. Cute, and sometimes Microsoft customers do need to send mass mailings, but they don't need to be able to do it with scripts running from inside e- mail messages. Not ever. Close that door. In recent years, Microsoft's designers have deliberately blurred the distinction between opening some data and running a program. You can run Word indirectly, just by clicking on any Word document ending with .doc. The virus executed the Windows Scripting Host because it ended with the extension .vbs. Which leads to one more lovely detail. Most of us rarely see those file extensions because the operating system hides them by default. The ILOVEYOU virus exploited this by adding an extra fake extension to its name: "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs." We users saw only the innocent-looking "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT." The final hidden .vbs was the trigger. Thus Windows gave us the worst of both worlds: It was smart enough to display and yet disregard the .TXT that would have started a harmless text editor. It was smart enough to conceal and yet execute the .vbs. Microsoft should have been smart enough to take an obvious precaution in the first place: Prevent the creation of file names with double extensions. That kind of file name is a sure tip-off that someone is up to no good. Even after the fact, Microsoft continues to take a "Close the Barn Door" approach to security. It recommends with a straight face that users now delete all e-mail messages with the subject ILOVEYOU. It's important to note that the virus payload cannot run by itself. In order for it to run, the recipient must open the mail, launch the payload by double-clicking on it, and answer "yes" to a dialogue that warns of the dangers of running untrusted programs. Sure enough, the warning is explicit and prophetic. To activate the virus, at least some people had to ignore it. And sure enough, people ignored it all over the world. They ignored it inside Microsoft headquarters - we know this because the company mail servers were shut down intermittently over a two-day period and because some copies of the virus were inadvertently dispatched onward to the outside world. How could people be so stupid? Simple. We've seen these fine-print warnings thousands of times. We've had to learn to click on past them. We've seen them whenever we display e-mailed pictures from our friends. The warning says to "be certain that this file is from a trustworthy source" - none too helpful when our trustworthy sources are being tricked into mailing us the virus. But the wording hardly matters; we no more read these warnings than we read the click- through agreements crafted by company legal departments. The trouble is, Microsoft applies the same warning to the passive display of content and to active scripts allowed to delete files, alter the Windows registry, and send mass e-mail. The ILOVEYOU vandal showed a sophisticated understanding of vertical integration, a fact of life in the Microsoft universe that the Department of Justice, too, has been zeroing in on. Many different pieces of the Microsoft jigsaw puzzle are now platforms for executing programs: the browser, the word processor, the spreadsheet, the e-mail client. They all work together, and they each perform the functions of an operating system. That can be really useful. It's also dangerous. So it's time for Microsoft to make some crucial distinctions. It's one thing to display data passively: present text, play music, show pictures. It's another to grant active access to the file system: delete data, alter program settings. A good, modern e-mail program needs to be able to display all kinds of stuff. But there must be limits. As a matter of cultural style, it's odd that Microsoft has earned notoriety for laxness about computer security. The company is such a control freak, after all, in other domains. It may be in part because Microsoft itself likes to be able to do things to our computers from a distance. If you spend any time at MSN or Microsoft.com—even at Slate—you've noticed that you are often given a chance to "install and run" some ActiveX control or other, and you are invited to check a box that says, "Always trust content from Microsoft Corporation." These ActiveX controls can do anything, where Java, by contrast, was designed not to have unbridled access to the file system. Last year Microsoft got caught placing secret unique identifiers in Office documents and collecting associated hardware indentifiers from across the Internet. Soon all Office users will be required to register their software, in the name of copy protection, and allow Microsoft to check remotely on where the software has been installed. The company has just patented a technique for installing software upgrades over the Internet, after consulting settings in the registry. All this middleware, all this powerful scripting, helps Microsoft check up on its users. Maybe that's why the company doesn't feel any great urgency about having us batten down the hatches. I got my own copy of ILOVEYOU from a trusted friend, an Episcopal priest who often e-mails me pictures of his kids. By then I'd heard the news, so I carefully opened it for viewing. I'd like to say I was smart enough not to run the thing first, but the truth is just that I was lucky enough. Copyright 2000 Microsoft and/or its suppliers * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Thu May 11 00:33:35 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 May 2000, Malcolm Taran wrote: > As Bill Radke observed, > This is just like our mothers told us, > if you believe everyone who says they love you > you will just be disappointed, > and you'll end up with a virus. Between the hard fact that MS-Windows sites were hit heavily and non-MS sites hardly at all, and MS' insistence that there are no security problems with _their_ software, I see an alternate explantion: All those MS users are still desparately looking for love, while us Unix geeks have written it off as a bad deal and are instantly suspicious of any protestations of love. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bn890 at scn.org Thu May 11 08:36:14 2000 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Such disallusionment! On Thu, 11 May 2000, J. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2000, Malcolm Taran wrote: > > > As Bill Radke observed, > > This is just like our mothers told us, > > if you believe everyone who says they love you > > you will just be disappointed, > > and you'll end up with a virus. > > Between the hard fact that MS-Windows sites were hit heavily and non-MS > sites hardly at all, and MS' insistence that there are no security > problems with _their_ software, I see an alternate explantion: All those > MS users are still desparately looking for love, while us Unix geeks have > written it off as a bad deal and are instantly suspicious of any > protestations of love. > > === JJ ================================================================= > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb156 at scn.org Fri May 12 17:55:11 2000 From: bb156 at scn.org (Andrew Higgins) Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: OPS: "Loveletter" e-mail worm (was: READ FIRST!!!BE AWARE OF...) Message-ID: I couldn't resist... ;-) -Andrew 2� 2� problems with _their_ software, I see an alternate explantion: All those 2� MS users are still desparately looking for love, while us Unix geeks have 2� written it off as a bad deal and are instantly suspicious of any 2� protestations of love. 2� 2� === JJ ================================================================= 2� http://pub4.ezboard.com/fiwetheyohpunforum.showMessage?topicID=139.topic ILoveYou bug for Unix/Linux Works in full accordance with Open Source principles! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:10:43 EDT From: Fuat C. Baran To: kcastner at netops.com, dfiore at netops.com Cc: fuat at columbia.edu Subject: ILoveYou for Unix Unix / Linux variant of the ILoveYou worm: ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- This virus works on the honor system: If you're running a variant of unix or linux, please forward this message to everyone you know and delete a bunch of your files at random. ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From Shireen.Deboo at ci.seattle.wa.us Mon May 15 11:54:04 2000 From: Shireen.Deboo at ci.seattle.wa.us (Shireen Deboo) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:54:04 -0700 Subject: SCN: Free Trees on the Street Where You Live Message-ID: This Fall, you can help make the Emerald City even greener: Plant trees in your neighborhood! The Department of Neighborhoods Tree Fund makes free trees available to Seattle neighborhood groups for autumn planting projects on planting strips of residential streets, and in City Parks with approved landscape plans. Gather friends and neighbors to plant trees in your neighborhood. Applications are due August 4, 2000. To request an application or get more information, call Shireen Deboo at 684-0547 or Laurie Ames at 684-0320 or visit the website at cityofseattle.net/don * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Mon May 15 23:32:56 2000 From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Great "Technology & Society" Conference this weekend - please join us! Message-ID: SCNA is very proud to be one of the co-sponsors of this event, put on by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, our parent organization. Loads more details on their web pages: http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/ We have a special SCNA-supporting "mixer" Saturday (5/20) from 5:30pm-? in Rm 108 of HUB - we'd love to see you there! - Mel & Steve, on behalf of SCNA board ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (event) UPDATE - Shaping the Network Society Specific program information is now available for "Shaping The Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace" A Public Symposium, May 20 - May 23, 2000 at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. For people who may not be able to commit to the entire conference, please review the program information to select the workshops you just can't miss! Registration is proceeding briskly - we hope to see you there. CONTACTS: (URL: http://www.scn.org/cpsr.diac-00) Doug Schuler* phone: 206.634.0752; email - douglas at cpsr.org. Honora M. Wade-- phone (H) 206-526-0824; email - honorawade at yahoo.com "Shaping The Network Society" will bring the world's leading Internet and telecommunications developers, researchers, social activists, futurists, educators, artists, technologists, government officials, and journalists. The four-day Symposium is sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). Bill Joy (Chief Scientist, Sun Microsystems) and Howard Rheingold (a pioneer in "virtual communities") are featured guests on a panel Sunday May 21. Veran Matic, former Editor-in-Chief of B92 Radio in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, the only free and independent media in the former Yugoslavia, will present a keynote address Saturday May 20. Mr. Matic is one of the world's leading activists in the areas of human rights, social justice and press freedom. In addition to panelists mentioned above, presenters include Nancy Kranich (president-elect of the American Libary Association), Gary Chapman (21st Century project at University of Texas), Natasha Bulashova, Cees Hamelink (University of Amsterdam School of Communication and visiting scholar, UW), Geert Lovink (the world's most famous 'hactivist' and founder of the nettime list), Jamie McClelland (Paper Tiger TV), Ron Sims (King County Executive) and many other international, national and regional experts. Full program and event information are available at http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/program.html. A mixed-media party on Sunday evening will complement the symposium. Featuring music by Seattle headliners Heather Duby and Circuitry (featuring members of MAKTUB), dancing, high tech fashions, cyberart, interactive art events, and MUCH MORE. The party is at Seattle premier nightclub iSpy, alley entrance, 1921 Fifth Avenue, Sunday May 21 at 8 PM. Cover is $15 at the door for this 21 and over event. This is a great chance to mingle with some of the foremost cyberthinkers of our time and PARTY! PARTY! PARTY!. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Tue May 16 15:55:04 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:55:04 -0700 Subject: SCN: Net taxation Message-ID: <39216F58.21424.2009F99@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================= (Michael Kinsley, WA Post)---As a journalist, I've been cajoled, flattered and importuned (not to mention insulted, ignored, bored and patronized) by politicians. But getting pandered is a whole new experience. The main difference is that political pandering goes beyond ego massage to give you something you really want, usually money. To what do I owe the honor? I work on the Internet. Therefore I am "providing Americans with more freedom" and "creating new jobs and new opportunities for all Americans" and walking on water while turning it into wine and so on. No, no, don't thank me. That's a job for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who last week unveiled his "eContract 2000" - some flattering blather plus 10 bits of hard-core pandering. The eContract is, of course, an hommage to the Contract With America that God gave to Newt Gingrich in 1994. Crude materialists might suppose this is just about campaign fundraising. But it is not. Politicians of both parties sense the spotlight focusing elsewhere and, like old vaudevillians, are trying to sing and dance their way back in. They start by humbly proclaiming their own tiny irrelevance to this huge force transforming our blah blah blah, and then they proceed to rack their brains for legislation that will make them relevant. The denizens of e- world tend to agree about our own importance and the irrelevance of politics and government, but we are not above accepting or even soliciting a pander now and then. Armey's "eContract" naturally promises to ban (for five years) all state and local taxes on Internet transactions. "Big government bureaucrats see [Internet shopping] as another opportunity to levy a tax," the document explains. Since there is no plausible argument why a purchase should be exempt from sales tax just because it is over the Internet, the eContract makes none. Nor does it explain why Republicans - who haven't yet called for the nation's nuclear arsenal to be turned over to the states, but almost - think state sales taxes, of all things, are a matter about which Washington should get to decide. Or why state legislators are "big government bureaucrats" who must be crushed by the feds in this case, but wise Solons who will save us from federal overreaching on every other issue. Or why, if "we assert that freedom is the answer, not government intervention," the government should intervene to give retailers on the Internet an artificial price advantage over retailers with stores you can walk into. Or why, if the Internet is so miraculous and powerful, it should need this kind of unfair advantage. (Or why freedom will stop being the answer in five years.) Here we have a pander of laboratory purity. There is no other reason for it. Its biggest beneficiaries won't even ask for it. At an MSNBC technology summit in February, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Meg Whitman of eBay and Jerry Yang of Yahoo, among other e- commerce heavyweights, all told Tom Brokaw they're prepared to pay sales taxes like everyone else, though some clung to the five- year moratorium fiction. Not every pander is so pure. But most proposals for the government to help the Internet enjoy the same self-contradiction: The Internet is the most powerful social force to come along for a millennium or so, and yet it is so weak and feverish that Dr. Pol is needed to write a few prescriptions and hope the patient will pull through. Rhetorically, Armey's eContract is all about getting the government out of the way. But at least half of his Ten Dotcommandments actually are forms of government activism. That alone doesn't make them unwise. Of all 10, some are wise, some are not, and some are carefully worded to be meaningless. (Dick Armey is against "excessive regulations." You?) Together, these political promises demonstrate the foolishness, if not the dishonesty, of the cheap anti- government rhetoric that accompanies them. "Preventing frivolous lawsuits" means having the federal government crush the traditional freedom of states to make and administer their own tort laws. "Protecting intellectual property rights" means taking away people's freedom to make and sell copies of software or music or ebooks if someone else happens to own the rights. Sensible limits (and national standards) on lawsuits is a good idea, and copyright protection is essential. But both involve the exercise of federal power to limit individual freedom. Not clear what's involved in "modernizing our education system" (another traditional state matter) or "expanding digital opportunities" or "promoting workplace flexibility" or "promoting basic research." No doubt nothing as straightforward as federal spending or regulation. I smell a lot of tax credits. But a tax credit skews private incentives and loses the Treasury money just like direct spending. And "promoting" something may be different from requiring it, but it is still government interference that is supposed to improve the purely private-sector result. But these are all quibbles. Speaking, if I may, for all cyberworkers and cyberbosses, we could always use another tax credit or three, even though we hate government and politicians as much as the next guys (biotech). Internet to Congress: Pander away. Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Wed May 17 23:08:26 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Cover-up mode. Message-ID: The Board seems to be in cover-up mode again. I refer to Rich Littleton's suit against various Board members that was served in December, but the rest of us didn't find out until just before the annual meeting in January. Unfortunately, it did not just go away. There seems to be activity; apparently Rich has filed an amended complaint. (And Rich--that champion of openess and fair-play--has failed to deliver on his promise at the annual meeting to explain what's going on.) Since this suit threatens to bankrupt SCN, and is thereby a matter of which the SCNA membership should be informed, and the Board is failing to to inform the membership of such material facts, some member ought to go to the Court House, get copies of the relevant papers, and post the gist of them. And any expenses incurred ought to be reimbursed as reasonable business expense. Any volunteers? === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Thu May 18 11:20:03 2000 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RL legal suit, was Re: SCN: Cover-up mode. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi JJ, board folks Please provide official filing information: court name and case number(s) (this is best, easiest) date of filing(s) plaintiff name as filed defendants names as filed I am downtown near the courthouse every week or so, next scheduled 23, 25 May. I will get paper copies, ask about availability in digital format. *** I do not have an OCR or a scanner *** I suggest either full information, or any "gist" be quoted from an attorney who can summarize with competence. On Wed, 17 May 2000, J. Johnson wrote: > ... > to inform the membership of such material facts, some member ought to go > to the Court House, get copies of the relevant papers, and post the gist > of them. And any expenses incurred ought to be reimbursed as reasonable > business expense. Any volunteers? > ... --> What is the followup on > ... > (And Rich--that champion of openess and fair-play--has failed to deliver > on his promise at the annual meeting to explain what's going on.) > ... Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Fri May 19 08:25:52 2000 From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: SCNA Legal Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For anyone wanting more information on this matter, please call us at (425) 653 7353 or on our cell phone at (425) 466 7976. - Steve & Melissa -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- Melissa & Steve Guest, Co-Presidents email: guests at scn.org Seattle Community Network Assoc. ph: (425) 653 7353 http://www.scn.org/scna 8am to 11pm PST "Bringing People & Communities Together with Free Internet Services" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Fri May 19 11:16:46 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Shaping the Network Society -- via video streaming Message-ID: <200005191816.LAA26382@scn.org> Although we of course much prefer you to PHYSICALLY attend the symposium you will have a chance to attend VIRTUALLY. If you want to watch some of the symposium (and if the technology works) you can check into http://www.dds.nl/~hksteen this weekend. The symposium (including the Bill Joy et al panel) will be streamed from a Dutch cable tv / internet site. Thanks, -- doug Don't forget our benefit / happening / event / interactive / music tHiNg this Sunday, iSpy 1921 5th. 8:00 PM. ************************************************ * Shaping the Network Society * * An International Symposium * * May 20 - 23, 2000 * * Seattle, Washington US * * http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00 * ************************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Fri May 19 19:04:01 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 19:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Videotaping? Message-ID: <200005200204.TAA19857@scn.org> I hate to admit this (slight) flaw in our symposium plans but it now is becoming obvious (to me at least) that the symposium is going to be under-videotaped. SO -- if you were willing to videotape portions of our symposium (http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/program.html) you'd be rewarded with complementary registration and several heartfelt slaps on the shoulder. Any takers? Please write me back here -- douglas at scn.org -- if you feel like doing some Saturday (5/20) or Sunday videotaping at the HUB "Shaping the Network Society" symposium. Thanks!! --- Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Sat May 20 00:32:25 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: SCNA Legal Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I had a long talk with Madam President tonight, the gist of which is: "trust us". Okay. But they had better get their act together. If anyone is interested in looking up the papers the case number is: 00-2-11353-6. But it's not available at the Courthouse downtown. It's (supposedly) available at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb140 at scn.org Mon May 22 08:35:49 2000 From: bb140 at scn.org (Barb Avonia Weismann) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Please, Senators, Put it on the 'Net (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:06:31 -0400 From: Gary Ruskin To: cong-reform at venice.essential.org Subject: Please, Senators, Put it on the 'Net Congressional Reform Briefings May 19, 2000 -- Ask Senators to put key Congressional information on the Internet. U.S. Senators Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have set up a website to gather ideas from the public about how to use the Internet to improve the Federal government. The web address is . Senators Thompson and Lieberman should start by fixing the problem in their own backyard: the failure of the Congress to place its most useful documents on the Internet, including the most important texts of bills, draft committee and conference reports, a searchable database of Congressional voting records, Congressional Research Service reports, and much more. Please contact Senators Thompson and Lieberman through their new website and urge them to put the core working documents of our Congress on the Internet. BACKGROUND: Following is an op-ed from the November 30, 1999 edition of the Los Angeles Times. Congress Pulls the Shades on Net By Ralph Nader and Gary Ruskin It's almost 2000. We're deep into the Internet Age. And it seems that nearly everything is on the Internet, except Congress. If there's one cause that the information superhighway ought to serve, it's democracy, But, regrettably, for Congress this has become last in line. If you fire up your Web browser looking for even the most important congressional information, chances are you won't find it. Congress has refused for years to place many of its most useful materials on the Internet. This is especially true regarding what our members of Congress really do in Washington. We get mainly what they want us to know, not what we need. While individual members of Congress and congressional committees have Web pages, those pages are packed with self-serving fluff, obfuscation and public-relations claptrap. The Library of Congress maintains the Thomas Web page (http://thomas.loc.gov), which is great for historians. But why not also make available the most useful, up-to-date congressional materials, so that citizens could easily obtain the information they need to help shape legislative efforts and participate in furthering congressional accountability? To ask the question is to answer it. Voting records are central to the democratic process. Access to them is essential to political responsibility. But, remarkably, Congress has yet to place on the Internet a searchable database of congressional votes, indexed by bill name, bill subject, bill title, member name, etc. Such a database would be inexpensive to produce and simple to maintain. Currently, roll call votes are available via the Thomas Web site. That's a start. But they aren't in a searchable database, so it is time-consuming to compile a member's voting record from this site. Citizens ought to be able to type in a member's name and a topic and out would come that member's voting record on that issue. If members of Congress are so proud of what they do in Washington, they ought to make it easy for citizens to obtain their voting records. Congressional Research Service reports are some of the best research that the federal government does and provide much of the background that Congress uses to draft our laws. Yet, in a notable backhand to taxpayers, Congress has arranged for CRS to place about 3,400 of its reports and products on an internal congressional intranet for use by members of Congress and their staffs but not the public. Taxpayers ought to be able to read the research that they pay for. But citizens cannot obtain most CRS reports directly. Instead, they must purchase them from private vendors--at high cost--or engage in the time-consuming process of requesting a congressman to send CRS reports to them. Often, citizens wait for weeks or months before such a request is filled. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and David Price (D-N.C.) have introduced legislation (S393, HR 654) to place CRS reports on the Internet. But these bills are stalled in committee. Obviously, texts of bills are Congress' most important work product. Why should high-priced lobbyists have special access to the most important texts of bills? Congress should require that all texts of bills be placed on the Internet as soon as they are printed or are made available to lobbyists or members of a committee or subcommittee. The most important texts of bills--working versions, discussion drafts, chairmen's marks, managers' marks--are infrequently placed on the Internet. Draft committee and conference reports, too, rarely make the Internet. Many Washington lobbyists get paid large sums of money to insert tiny but important provisions in committee or conference reports. Such provisions affect the way a law is carried out, or how government funding is distributed. Congress should place these draft reports, too, on the Internet promptly. There are lots of arguments about what, if anything, the Internet is good for. But there is no question that the Internet is magnificent for distributing information. Let's demand that Congress harness this technology to inform the voters and strengthen our democracy. <-------op-ed ends here-------> Following is a November 30, 1999 article from Slate Magazine. How Congress Resists the Web By Eve Gerber The simplest way the Internet can enhance democracy is by making buried information easily available to citizens. By putting documents of all kinds online, agencies let in disinfecting sunlight and make themselves accountable to the public. By and large, the federal government has made impressive strides toward making itself Web-accessible. But there's one big exception: the U.S. Congress. Congress is ostensibly fascinated with cyberspace. Fifty Web-related bills and resolutions are pending on Capitol Hill. Over 100 members of Congress participate in an Internet caucus. Yet, when it comes to posting basic information about its inner workings, Congress has been shamefully slow. The result is that it protects the privileged status of corporate lobbyists and insulates back-room deals from public scrutiny while fencing out concerned and engaged citizens. Let's say you want to find out something about the latest draft of a bill. You might try the home pages of the House and Senate, which link to Capitol Hill tourism tips and member home pages. But these sites provide scattershot coverage of legislation revisions. Nor are the pages of the legislation's sponsors likely to help. Most of these are filled with promotional dross. Biographical information, press releases, and lengthy legislative accomplishment lists are complemented by intern solicitations and flag request forms. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., includes his recipe for Chocolate Nut Pie. You may get closer to what you're looking for at GPO Access, a Government Printing Office site where citizens can download legislation and search Congressional Record archives. The clumsy and confusing THOMAS -- a Library of Congress site -- duplicates some of this information. It contains bills, roll-call votes, and links to congressional committee sites. But neither of these sites gives you the up-to-date information that might enable you to understand how a bill is working its way through the legislative process. "There is much more information online about Congress than at any time in history," according to Jason Poblete, a spokesman for the House Administration Committee. That is undoubtedly true, but it's hardly a meaningful statement. There is far less information about Congress online than there should and easily could be. Here is what's missing and why: Working Drafts of Bills and Amendments. Citizens can access bills, but working drafts are rarely posted. That's because under current policy, THOMAS cannot post an update until the text is processed by the Government Printing Office. The delay guarantees that lobbyists have time to get drafts and influence the process before the general public knows what's happening. Adam Thierer, Internet policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, says that "the messy nature of the legislative process makes it difficult to keep a site up to date." But Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project, a Ralph Nader-related organization that watches Congress, asserts that committee chairmen squelch the posting of drafts because, "If citizens figured out what was in some of these bills, there would be public outcry against them." Hearing Transcripts and Statements. To find out about congressional hearings, the curious must locate the appropriate committee site. Some committees post opening remarks and transcripts, but the coverage is scattershot. THOMAS publishes hearing testimony, but it often takes months before the transcripts are "processed." While the public waits, lobbyists purchase uncorrected transcripts from pricey transcription agencies. Poblete counsels patience and claims that all committees will offer video archives of hearings someday. In the meantime, Congress could make all its committees' hearings available with the help of a few $200 scanners. Congressional Research Service Reports. Congress spends over $64 million a year on a research service that analyzes thousands of issues, from abortion to Zambia. The reports, which are often excellent, are public documents that the public can't easily get its hands on. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., posts several hundred CRS reports on his site, and members give them away in response to specific constituent requests. Still, citizens often have to wait weeks for research that a congressional staffer can download in seconds. As a result, commercial services are able to make money selling bootleg copies. Penny Hill Press, for instance, peddles CRS reports for $49 per order. Why not put these guys out of business? Ruskin contends that Congress hoards the reports because "members see CRS as their own fiefdom and they like the ability to give reports as a favor to constituents." A congressional task force is "considering" making all CRS reports public. It is supposed to report its conclusions by the end of the year. Voting Records. To find out how a member voted on a particular bill, citizens must comb through archives of roll-call votes, which are categorized by bill number and searchable by topic. Constituents can't search by representative name, at least at any official government site. Ruskin argues that "easily searchable voting records are essential to democratic accountability." Poblete says Congress is considering how to make voting records easier to access. Lobbyist Disclosure Reports. These reports detail how much lobbyists are paid to work on a particular issue and in theory what, who, and how they lobby. They can make for very interesting reading, but to get them you have to go in person to a little office in the Capitol. Ruskin argues that posting the reports would allow citizens to trace patterns of influence. Citizens are not able to access these reports online, even though they are electronically stored. Poblete claims that the reports will be posted as soon as Congress resolves "technical hurdles." House, Senate, and Personal Financial Disclosure Reports. Members must report how they spend their "representational allowances" and have to file personal financial disclosure reports. The disclosures can be used to ferret out wrongdoing and conflicts of interest. The data are computerized, but for "policy reasons" the reports are not available online. Congress is "reconsidering" whether to post them, according to Poblete. Five years ago, Speaker-elect Newt Gingrich promised to make important information available online "at the same moment that it is available to the highest-paid Washington lobbyist." That did happen, but only once--when Congress instantaneously published the Starr Report. When it comes to its own dirty laundry, there seems to be no such hurry. <-------article ends here---------> Today's Washington Post has an article about the e-Government initiative, "Senators Go Looking for E-Ideas." The Congressional Accountability Project works to reform the U.S. Congress. For more information about how Congress has failed to place its most important information on the Internet, see the Congressional Accountability Project's website at . Congressional Reform Briefings are distributed electronically via the cong-reform mailing list . To subscribe to the cong-reform mailing list, go to or send the word "subscribe" to . PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Ruskin | Congressional Accountability Project 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite #3A | Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 296-2787 | Fax (202) 833-2406 http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html | mailto:gary at essential.org | -------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Cong-reform mailing list Cong-reform at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/cong-reform * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Thu May 25 17:14:55 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 17:14:55 -0700 Subject: SCN: DMCA Message-ID: <392D5F8F.25165.266968E@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Does anybody care about fighting the DMCA? A protest at Stanford against the ultra-restrictive copyright law generates little heat and sparse attendance. by Damien Cave, staff writer, Salon Technology "A scream is better than a thesis," Emerson wrote, his point being, of course, that making a lot of noise gets more attention than a carefully worded argument. But few screams were to be heard at a poorly attended press conference held Thursday at Stanford Law School to protest the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Instead, critics appeared to pin their hopes on a private strategy meeting and a wide-ranging court campaign -- a campaign that, so far, hasn't been working to the advantage of DMCA foes. Technically, the gathering at the school was labeled a "protest" inspired by hearings held in a nearby campus classroom by the U.S. Copyright Office. The hearings are being conducted to allow public comment on how the DMCA might best incorporate exemptions to its strictures forbidding the creation and distribution of tools that circumvent copyright protection. But with only a dozen free software fans passing out flyers to the occasional passerby, the protest and even the hearing were unlikely to make much of an impact on the public debate. Indeed, despite the chance to argue for exemptions that would be put in place at the end of the year and the opportunity to alter the law before it clamps down any further on what the anti-DMCA movement considers its right to free speech, many protesters left the premises just as the hearing started and organizers said they were happy to simply have a few reporters in attendance. The real benefit of the gathering had more to do with legal strategy, said protest organizer Chris DiBona. After the press conference, DiBona, the "Linux evangelist" at VA Linux, a manufacturer of computer hardware pre-installed with Linux- based operating systems, said, "We've got a lot of cases going on both coasts." He was referring to four legal actions involving DeCSS, a utility that allows computers running Linux to play DVDs. Eight movie studios are suing distributors of the program, including the so-called "hacker quarterly" 2600. "It's important to get everyone together for strategy and to clarify the thinking behind where we're going." The focus on legal strategy isn't a bad idea. In recent months, as copyright holders have won a string of courtroom success, the need for some kind of coordinated approach has become painfully obvious. On Jan. 20, for example, a judge enjoined 2600 from even linking to sites that contained information on the DeCSS program -- "limiting their right to free speech in an unprecedented way," says Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia who is assisting the DeCSS defense team. Meanwhile, in the music arena, a New York federal judge ruled against the MP3 access site MP3.com and in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, determining that one of MP3.com's new services was in fact replaying music that it had copied illegally. And in the most high-profile clash between the recording industry and the Internet, Napster, which provides swapping software that makes it easier to find and play MP3s, failed to convince a judge that it qualified for DMCA "safe harbor" protection because no files actually resided on or passed through its servers. But these defeats tell only half the story, say DMCA critics. "Court cases are cropping up like mushrooms because the law is so vague," says Frederick Weingarten, director of the American Library Association's Office for Information Technology Policy, and a member of the press conference panel. "In the courts, that's where the boundaries of the law will really be defined." Indeed, the law's virginal status has already sprouted some interesting pranks. Pushing at the limits of the term "distribution," for example, a crowd of free software fans took to the streets of New York this winter and passed out the code for DeCSS on T-shirts and balloons. And this week, after Metallica asked Napster, the popular music-swapping software company, to ban 300,000 users from its service, Napster used the DMCA's fine print to try to gain a few back. Specifically, the company encouraged users who believed they had been misidentified to let Metallica know. If the band failed to prosecute within 10 days, according to the law, Napster could reinstate them. Such victories appear to be small successes as viewed against the larger setbacks. Big money has big power -- as Martin Garvis, an attorney for 2600 and the other three defendants, notes, "The concerns [of anti-DMCA critics] were not paid attention to in Congress and they won't be paid attention to here because there are very substantial financial interests standing in the way." It's hard not to hear defeat in these words; hard not to wish that the protest actually generated some steam -- or screams. But then again, no matter how important these issues may seem to geeks who just want their MP3s and DVDs, their concerns may be best expressed in courtrooms rather than on college campuses. As Garvis put it, "It's not like Vietnam." Copyright 2000 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jj at scn.org Thu May 25 18:33:59 2000 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: CERT Advisory regarding MS Office and ActiveX. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Normally I forward CERT Advisories only to the 'hardware' list (Ops), and only if they affect SCN. However, CERT (the principal organization for monitoring problems affecting Internet-connected systems) has just issued an Advisory affecting our many of our users. This is regarding serious vulnerabilities in ActiveX, and any applications that use ActiveX, such as the MS Office applications and Internet Explorer. If you use MS Windows (Win95 or later), this probably concerns you. For more information, please go to http://www.cert.org/. === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed May 31 07:03:47 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 07:03:47 -0700 Subject: SCN: Privacy Message-ID: <3934B953.8847.25CBED@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Technology Will Solve Web Privacy Problems by Lawrence Lessig, professor at Harvard Law School and author of "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" (Wall Street Journal)---The privacy showdown has come. After years of waiting for the high-tech industry to voluntarily enforce "fair information practices," the Federal Trade Commission's patience is at an end. While the number of Web sites sporting privacy policies has increased significantly, only 20% even partially implement the fair-information recommendations. The FTC is now insisting that Congress enforce compliance. We are lucky the industry so far has ignored the FTC. And until the agency's privacy recommendations change, Congress should turn a cold shoulder as well. The privacy problem in cyberspace has a very specific source -- how the Internet is designed. The code of cyberspace -- the software and hardware that make up the Internet -- makes privacy a problem. This code makes it extremely easy for data about individuals to be collected and profiled; it makes it extremely difficult for individuals to know that this profiling and tracking is taking place. The solution to this problem with code is better code. Specifically, we need code that helps consumers make more informed choices. But so far the FTC has ignored code. It remains fixated on a standard Washington strategy -- more privacy policies. More words won't advance privacy in cyberspace. Consumers will simply ignore the clutter. The aim of the FTC's "fair information policy" is sensible enough. It requires that sites give notice about information practices and offer consumers a choice about how their information is used. It demands consumer access to information the site has collected and adequate protection of such data. Many sites already comply. Hertz Rental is one example. A privacy policy page on Hertz's Web site dutifully explains how an individual's data will be used by Hertz (in short, to Hertz's maximal commercial benefit); it explains that individuals can limit, to some degree, how their data is used (you can, for example, stop the sale of some data or halt junk mail to you); it explains that visitors have the right to correct mistakes (call the local Hertz office; no number provided); and it describes how data is kept safe (through a "Secure Socket Layer"; don't worry, no one else understands, either). In the FTC's eyes, Hertz is a success. It believes that if everyone followed Hertz's example, privacy policies would flourish, consumers would be informed, choice would be meaningful and confidence would return. But to ordinary users the policies are meaningless. Does anyone really believe that consumers have the time to wade through privacy policies? Are we to build a chart reminding us of how Yahoo's privacy policy differs from Excite's? It's not enough for the government to identify the principles it wants adopted. Rather, the law must be sensitive to how those principles get implemented. The cost of processing words in cyberspace is already too high. Multiplying legalese will increase these costs without doing anything to improve consumer privacy. The answer is better code. There have already been a flood of code- based solutions to the problem of cyberspace privacy. The most promising of these builds upon the work of the World Wide Web Consortium's Platform for Privacy Preferences. P3P establishes a framework for standardized, computer-readable privacy policies. This framework would make it easy for companies to explain their practices in a form that computers could read, and make it easy for consumers to express their preferences in a way that computers would automatically respect. Companies such as PrivacyBot.com, for example, provide a $30 tool that allows companies to make their Web sites P3P compliant. Microsoft is creating similar tools and promises to integrate P3P into its browser. Consumers would then tell the browser the level of privacy they want, and the browser would automatically steer the consumer away from privacy-abusing sites. Rather than consumers reading Hertz's words, browsers would read the Hertz P3P code and warn the consumer if the site fails to match consumer preferences. P3P is neither perfect nor yet complete. Neither is it the only code- based solution to the privacy problem, nor a substitute for strong privacy legislation. But P3P is at least a step toward a world where consumers make their own privacy choices at relatively low cost to business. The FTC, however, has said little about the potential of code-based solutions. Instead, it has simply said the government should remain "technologically neutral." But there is a big difference between being neutral among different technological solutions and being neutral about whether technology is part of a solution. Only technology can lower the cost of expressing and enforcing privacy preferences. Without that cost lowered, the principles the FTC promotes will never effectively be realized. There is a role for Congress in facilitating these code-based solutions to Internet privacy. The invisible hand won't solve this privacy gap any more than it led steel mills to scrub soot from their smokestacks. But if the government created incentives for code- based solutions -- by either subsidizing code or insisting that code is part of any solution -- the market would quickly supply them. Congress should embrace the FTC's principles, but insist on compliance through code. Neither words nor code alone will solve the problem of privacy in cyberspace. But at the moment we need fewer words, and better code. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *