Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
Computer underground Digest Sun Sept 24, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 76
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #7.76 (Sun, Sept 24, 1995)
File 1--**Biased Journalism** #3 /Lerma Hearing (fwd)
File 2--Computer Law - New Series
File 3--Banned Books Online
File 4--Online Novel Announcement
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:02:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 1--**Biased Journalism** #3 /Lerma Hearing (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
**Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
the shortcomings of the professional news media.
Copyright 1995 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <sthomson@netcom.com>.
Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
net immediately.
**Biased Journalism** Volume I, issue 3 September 18, 1995
Contents: Slam Dunk for Arnie Lerma; I-NET Clams Up; Plaintiffs Defy The
Court; Hackers up the ante; Picketing the Church; The California 3-Strikes
T-Shirt.
Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**!
SLAM DUNK FOR ARNIE LERMA
On Friday, September 15 Judge Leonie Brinkema threw out the
temporary restraining order against Arnaldo Lerma, vacated the writ of
seizure and ordered his computer, disks and documents returned to him.
The Judge will rule later in the week and may throw out the entire case.
jostp, a net citizen occasionally seen on alt.religion.scientology, was
present. He gave us an interview to supplement his report. Jost's
observations (reproduced with permission) and our comments follow; our
remarks will be set off with brackets, like [-this-].
----------------
Report on the September 15, 1995 hearing in the case of RTC v. Lerma;
US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, VA
by Patrick Jost (jostp@netcom.com)
This is based on notes I took; there may be some inaccuracies in the
spellings of names etc.; if you want to know what "really" happened, get
the official transcript, this is the best I can do!
Background: I arrived at the courthouse at about 10:00 as I thought there
was a preliminary hearing. There wasn't, so I sat in the foyer and read.
At about 11:30, I entered the courtroom, and heard the final portion of a
sentencing hearing in a tax evasion case. I was very impressed with the
way that Judge Brinkema handled the sentencing.
[-Judge Brinkema is an older woman with long gray hair done up in a bun.
The Judge wears glasses. She has a stern, authoritative manner of
speaking.-]
Court was recessed, and I left to get a drink of water. I went back into the
courtroom, and sat in the back (so I would not distract others with my
note taking). A woman approached me, and introduced herself as Arnie
Lerma's mother; she had come out from Georgetown to attend the hearing,
and Arnie told her I would be there.
[-About 11:15 two female Scientologists arrived. They were witnesses who
intended to discuss the harm caused by public disclosure of the sacred
texts, but were not permitted to testify. In response to our query, Jost
said that the women were well but strangely dressed; it struck Jost as
unsuitable for the courtroom. Pressed for details, he remarked on
ribbons and 'funny hairstyles' and 'funny colors.' Too colorful, too
frilly. It would probably be ok in L.A., he said innocently. [Flames
to jostp@netcom.com] -]
[-The courtroom is in the former Post Office, an elegant Georgian
building. The courtroom is lined with wooden pews. Jost and Mrs. Lerma
sat down together in a pew at the rear, behind the Post lawyers.-] Jost
continued:
The Scientology "team" was seated at the front: I recognized Warren
McShane and Earle Cooley.
I am going to try to "report" this as accurately as possible, so I am using
the following abbreviations for participants:
JB: Judge Brinkema
EC: Earle Cooley (Scientology lawyer)
WC: William Cook (Scientology lawyer)
HK: Helena Kobrin (Scientology lawyer)
MG: Michael Groh (DGS lawyer)
RH: R. A. Hager (DGS lawyer)
JH: Jack Hawkins (Washington Post lawyer)
CS: Carl Symmes (Washington Post lawyer)
LL: Lee Levine (Lerma lawyer)
MS: Michael Sullivan (Lerma lawyer)
MH: Merrill Hirsh (Lerma lawyer)
When I have to add explanatory remarks, they will be between [square
brackets.]
Court was called to order at about 1200: JB summarized the contents of
the hearing:
1) Plaintiff's motion for TRO against the Post;
2) Plaintiff's preliminary motion for injunctive relief;
3) Defendant's motion to vacate the seizure
JB stated that she didn't want to spend time revisiting the TRO, would
allow some time for argument; she also mentioned that there was a lot of
overlap between the motion for the TRO and motion for preliminary
injunction, and that there was a lot of redundancy in the paperwork.
EC stated that he was reading today's New York Times, there was a story
about a case in the US District (Ohio), a decision by Judge Fakins. The case
is Proctor and Gamble v. Bankers trust. Apparently sealed financial
information about the sale of derivatives was leaked to Business Week,
Judge Fakins enjoined publication.
EC said "all I know is what is in the NYT" and noted that the Washington
Post did not report the story.
EC said that they [Scientology lawyers?] missed a case...Urantia
Foundation v. Kristin Mahera, dated June 27, 1995 in the US District of
Arizona. In this case, the Urantia Foundation asserted that neither free
speech or fair use allowed trademark infringement.
[EC talked about other points that needed to be addressed
because of the Lerma/Post response]
JB said she did not want to hear Mr. Cooley's feelings on Scientology. She
said she has already ruled, and was not happy that EC had shifted
gears/changed focus in his argument.
EC said he had brought witnesses.
JB said she did not want to hear them, but that some limited use might be
permitted.
EC disagreed, spoke about how the Scientology materials were the
writings of L. Ron Hubbard and that they had to be used/read/studied on a
scale of spiritual awareness, that this is an article of faith for
Scientologists. He said he had affidavits from his witnesses on this.
EC spoke of the offensive nature of comments made about Scientology,
that they were spiteful. He said "past things" [maybe this is Snow White?]
were history, that if things were not clean that the Church of Scientology
would not have been given 501(c) [tax exempt] status.
JB told Mr. Cooley to "tone it down".
EC said that he would not be allowed to see the materials in question, that
that is how strong the belief is in the need to restrict access.
JB said that she wondered how the actual documents could be compared to
Mr. Lerma's postings; she also said that if he would not look at them, she
would not either. She asked him how he could pursue something he had
not investigated himself.
EC responded by discussing the Fishman case/documents.
JB said she had heard enough, asked to hear from the Washington Post.
CS said that EC had shown nothing new, that the Washington Post had
not intended to insult [etc.] the Church of Scientology. He said that the
Post's case could be distinguished from the case discussed in the NYT as
those documents were sealed.
EC said he wanted the Scientologists [witnesses] to discuss the harm that
had been done to them. He said he wanted to discuss the contents of Arnie
Lerma's affidavit. He said the OT8 materials [referring to Jesus Christ as
a pedophile] are phony, but that the rest are real. He said that what the
Washington Post had done was repugnant to the Constitution.
LB stated that the notion of free comment was important.
EC disagreed, he mentioned complaints about him to Boston University,
where he has been on the board for 20 years, he mentioned an insulting
nickname given to Helena Kobrin on the Internet.
[-We wanted to know this nickname and asked Jost; apparently Cooley did
not actually mention it. The likely prospect is "the 'ho of babble-on,"
invented by Grady Ward and widely used on the net.-]
JB said her mind is not changed, she is not convinced, she denied their
request for a TRO.
EC says he wants to appeal to the 4th circuit, and asked for a stay.
JB said she is leaving her ruling in place, no stay.
[topic is now injunction against Arnie Lerma]
EC said he had Mr. Rinder, the head of OSA here to testify, that he wants
to call the "public Scientologists" to testify.
LL objected to the witnesses, wants time for discovery. He said EC had
sent him a letter saying that he [EC] did not know which witnesses would
be called.
[the two witnesses that were discussed were Warren McShane, head of
the RTC and Jim Settle of I-NET]
JB said she would not referee attacks.
EC said Mr. Rinder would testify as to what the attacks and exposure
mean to Scientology. He said that the OSA and Guardian Office are not
the same thing.
JB told him not to talk about criticism [of Scientology] that criticism is
part of the doctrine of fair use.
EC said that Arnie Lerma acted as an agent of FACTNET and that the
documents came from Larry Wollersheim.
JB said an individual gets protection but that verbatim quotation is beyond
fair use.
LL said that wholesale copying had not taken place, that this could be
shown by counting the number of pages. He said there were actually very
few matches between documents seized and allegedly copyrighted
materials. He said that there is no question that copying [an entire
document] can be fair use, as is shown in the Sony case.
He cited the Bellmore case, in which an entire letter was quoted and the
Rothbard case, where the transcript of an entire lecture was used.
He talked about authenticity and reflection of beliefs, and referred to the
OT8 documents, he said Arnie Lerma posted them to foster discussion.
He said the Supreme Court says accurate quotation is important, referred
to the case Campbell v. Acock-Rose. He said amount taken is but one of
four fair use tests, and it is not the exclusive test, but admitted that his
[Lerma's] situation is not as strong as the Washington Post's.
JB asked about the materials in Colorado [Wollersheim] case.
LL said that they are identical.
LL asked for the same type of order as the Washington Post and Colorado,
that Arnie Lerma can do fair use quotation and that he wants the
materials seized from Arnie Lerma to be returned.
EC said that Arnie Lerma is not entitled to this, that he did not engage in
fair use.
EC said that Arnie Lerma says that the materials [Fishman affidavit and
attachments] came from Larry Wollersheim, Wollersheim says they did
not, he thinks conflicted testimony is a big issue.
EC says [he thinks] Larry Wollersheim wanted the materials posted under
the cover of Arnie Lerma's name. He said various things about
alt.religion.scientology and fair use, and that he wanted Warren McShane
to testify.
LL says that Arnie Lerma claims that the materials were sent to him in
the US mail by an unknown source, and that Larry Wollersheim claims they
came from the FACTNET archive.
LL said that there is no such thing as "fair use of a trade secret" in
Virginia and that the case CBS v. Davis denies exactly what the plaintiffs
want, a preliminary injunction on a trade secret matter.
He objected to McShane's testimony, said he [McShane] had already
submitted a declaration and had been deposed for 1.5 days. He said that
they had received McShane's materials [some sort of charts?] at 10:00 in
the morning, had not had time to go through them.
EC said everything was provided in a timely manner.
JB says she wanted to look at the materials [a thick black binder].
EC says it needs to be sealed because it contains the writings of L. Ron
Hubbard.
JB said she saw copies of handwriting on one side, typing on another, the
typing is supposedly from Arnie Lerma's computer.
LL/EC argued about who had asked for and seen what [issue is that Arnie
Lerma's lawyers claim to have asked for details on infringement, they
claim what Scientology's lawyers provided was inadequate; Scientology's
lawyers claim the opposite].
JB called for a recess to examine the documents, and asked LL and EC to
show what had been requested and provided.
[during the recess, Helena Kobrin arrived] [-wearing a bright blue suit-]
[-Lots of things happened during the recess. Jost got up to take a
break. On the way back he noticed two Scientologists applying the
OT Death Stare to himself and Mrs. Lerma. "They were trying to bogart
us but it didn't work," he explained. (Bogart is a term used in law
enforcement.) A brief bogart contest ensued, which Jost won without
difficulty. Although he does not believe in entheta, the idea that
someone might be deliberately trying to beam it at him made Jost very
annoyed. He scowled at the Scientologist, who dropped his eyes.
Then Jost noticed that the other Scientologist, a woman, was still
Staring. "I made a silly face." She quickly looked away.-]
[-Mrs. Lerma never noticed the Death Stare. "That doesn't work on me,"
she said. She noticed some Scientologists in the audience, including
some familiar faces from the September 9 demonstration. Like Jost,
she said the Scientologists stood out by their expressions and body
language. Beyond the various lawyers and a few Scientologists, the
hearing was attended by a group of students from Georgetown Law
School.-]
After the recess--
JB asked what answer was received.
LL said they received some printouts with no explanatory information,
that they wrote a letter asking for an explanation. They did not get one,
they wrote another letter [deadline was approaching]. As their materials
were going out the door, they got an answer that they felt was inadequate.
They said that they got another document at 10:00 today [probably the
same thing JB went to look at] and that it is contradictory.
JB wanted to know what was wrong with it.
LL says it is deceptive as it does not really show how many documents
were involved, they can't tell what is going on.
He said that some things previously represented as non-infringing were
included.
EC says the initial submission was sufficient. He said everything had been
returned to Arnie Lerma except the infringing materials, and that I-NET
had been replaced.
MH said that only the "C" hard drive had been returned, and that they are
keeping more than they say, that they have his [Lerma's] "D" drive as well.
JB says it looks like most of OT3 is quoted but is confused by the lack of
context, says that Arnie Lerma's situation is not the same as the
Washington Post's.
LL says that the Fishman exhibits are extracts from Scientology
documents, but that some of the Scientology documents are very long.
Some of them [he mentioned OT2 and OT3] are 200-300 pages long, and
that Arnie Lerma did not post the entire documents.
LL discussed the four factors in fair use, one of them is public debate,
said that the Internet is a forum for public debate.
LL says injunctive relief is not the way to go, that the 9th circuit has
ruled that OT1-3 are widely available. He also talked about Scientology's
misuse of court orders and says that Arnie Lerma is willing to accept a
decision like that in the Colorado/Washington Post cases.
EC says the only issue is infringement, he does not like the Internet issue
and that he wants Warren McShane to talk.
JB asked why "only" the copyrighted stuff couldn't be copied?
EC says it is sanitizing, that it could be done.
JB says she has to balance things:
She is concerned about the scope of the seizure, that the
only materials at issue are copyrighted documents, not
names, addresses, business correspondence, etc.
She is concerned about the volume of verbatim duplication
in Arnie Lerma's postings.
JB says she'll take it under advisement for a week, will look through
Cooley's presentation.
[topic is now motion to vacate writ of seizure]
MS says they were asked [in a previous hearing?] to review search, see if
it was successive. He talked about how "broad" a search was that used
"Hubbard" as a search term. He said a very broad search was conducted by
Jim Settle, that 2/3 more stuff was reviewed than copied.
MS said that Warren McShane would "scroll through" messages when a
hit was found, and that they [Lerma defense team] will never know what
exactly was done. They say that Cooley called in Moxon, a Scientology
lawyer qualified/permitted to look at the materials. He mentioned that
McShane identified OT8 as an infringement in his deposition.
MS says Moxon says he doesn't know which documents are which.
MS says they are shooting at a moving target.
MS says many of the disks retained do not contain any of the search terms.
[search terms were THETAN-OT COURSE-HUBBARD]
[MS says] JB told them not to continue searching on August 25th, she said
the search and seizure was dirty, that they conducted an exploratory
search, possibly violating Arnie Lerma's 4th amendment rights.
WC is going to talk about the searches...
JB asked what other words were searched for.
WC talked about the "3 word" search as done by I-NET and McShane, but
that additional searches were done, but not after they were told not to do
any more.
JB says she only remembers authorizing a search for the three words.
WC talked about doing "directory searches" [not sure what this means].
JB said a "search for evidence" was not authorized.
WC said they tried to comply.
JB said it was her understanding in ex parte discussions of how the search
was to be done that I-NET was to be the reviewing authority.
[a clerk of the court read from a document-maybe from another hearing-
about the terms of this search]
JB said that the search that had been done was not clean.
WC talked about having Moxon look at stuff, said that Settle was not
allowed to explain what searches were done and how they were done.
EC said it was no one's intent to use any other material. He said Settle
mentioned the [additional?] search but not the search terms. He talked
about the lack of sufficiency of the initial search terms.
JB [gives ruling] is concerned about how the seizure was conducted. She
talked about 4th amendment rights. She says ex parte arrangements must
be done in good faith, that the search should have been narrow. She says it
was not conduced in the spirit intended.
[-"I feel deceived," the Judge said.-]
JB said things got out of control, she is concerned about the Church of
Scientology's "lack of clean hands" in the matter.
JB does not give the preliminary injunction, vacates the seizure, says that
Arnie Lerma may only quote for "fair use" (as in W. Post/Colorado).
EC asked for a stay.
JB said no, that the 4th circuit is still open.
HK said she was concerned about representations of things not done in
good faith, that things were done in good faith.
JB said she had ruled, that Helena Kobrin's remarks had been recorded.
[court adjourns]
LL says that the request was made in two places, in the declaration of
Merill Hirsh, August 30 1995, asking for a parallel analysis. [-This
line is a mystery to us. Perhaps it should go earlier in the notes.-]
epilog:
[-The day was still young. Jost decided to bullbait Jim Settle,
former FBI agent and Director of Information Security for I-NET.]
PJ: Patrick Jost (author of this document)
WM: Warren McShane (RTC)
JS: Jim Settle (I-NET)
GL: Gora Lerma (Arnie Lerma's mother)
PJ said [to McShane, as he exited the courtroom] that he [McShane] should
get another computer guru.
PJ said he could have done a much better job than I-NET did on the disk
search.
[I said this because it was obvious that they were having trouble doing a
simple keyword search]
WM asked Patrick Jost who he was, and if he really thought he could have
done a better job.
PJ replied I'm me [this is basically what one of the Scientologists present
at the raid on Arnie Lerma's house said].
WM asked why Patrick Jost would not identify himself.
PJ replied "I'm Patrick Jost...jostp@netcom.com".
WM indicated that he knew who that was. [-tried to be intimidating-]
PJ said he knew who Warren McShane was. [-not having any-]
JS interjected saying something like "I did the search, talk to
me". [-woof!-]
PJ said you did a bad job on the search, and you should not have taken the
job anyway, you have a moral responsibility...
JS interrupted saying that they [I-NET] had raised issues, but that he
[Settle] had not been allowed to speak.
PJ asked what would Ken Bajaj [I-NET management] think about this?
JS replied if all you know is what's on the Internet, you don't know it all.
PJ said "you don't know what I know".
WC [Scientology lawyer] tried to get Jim Settle to leave...
GL [partial, to Helena Kobrin] You were at my son's house...
[there was dialogue between GL and HK but I did not hear it]
HK said I'm not going to talk [after this, Helena Kobrin left very quickly]
WC told Jim Settle they had to go [they left]
[end of Jost report]
[-We wanted to know what Mrs. Lerma had said to Helena Kobrin. "She was
mad as hell, and disappointed," Mrs. Lerma related. "I told her that the
Scientology church was finished." "Eight million members and we're
finished?" Kobrin retorted. GL: "What, the people you send literature to?
Do you know what they do with that literature? They throw it away."
Giving up on the argument, Kobrin stalked off.-]
[-Jost and Mrs. Lerma agreed that things had gone badly for the
Church from the start. "Every time Cooley opened his mouth he put his
foot in it," Mrs. Lerma said. She was amazed that he told the Judge he
didn't know what the material was. "Cooley did badly from the beginning,"
Jost declared. Jost and Mrs. Lerma watched in fascination as the Judge
laid into the Church lawyers for conducting a dirty search, exceeding the
scope of the order, and negotiating in bad faith. These remarks (precise
wording available from the transcript) are strong language for a judge.
There is no doubt that this was a Very Bad Day for the Church lawyers.-]
Then everyone went home--
[-We asked Jost whether anyone was followed. He said he doubted it. When
he went to retrieve his car he noticed Jim Settle there getting in his
(Settle's) car, but there aren't very many places to park around the
courthouse, Jost explained. It was probably a coincidence.-]
Judge Brinkema is expected to issue more rulings this week. We will
report them.
I-NET REFUSES INTERVIEW
**Biased Journalism** approached I-NET in early September for an
interview. For new readers, I-NET is the computer company hired by the
Religious TechnoloIgy Corporation (RTC) on behalf of the Church of
Scientology to search Arnie Lerma's computer and copy and delete files
from his hard drives. I-NET personnel were present at the raid on
the Lerma residence.
We telephoned the company and asked for the president, Ken Bajaj.
We were connected with his secretary, a friendly and helpful woman, and
explained our purpose. She was taken aback by the concept of a news
magazine published solely on the Internet. She suggested that we call
back in a few minutes to talk to Mr. Bajaj, and we did. We were not
allowed to talk with him, however; instead we were asked to send
some written material.
We assumed she meant prior issues of **Biased Journalism**,
and wanted to send them via email, but were told that I-NET has no
email address. We quickly dispatched a snail package.
A week later we called again. *The vibe had changed.* The
secretary, now sounding distinctly frightened, said that the interview had
been refused but declined to say anything further. She offered to connect
us with the legal department. We agreed, hoping at least to find out why
they did not want to talk to us, but were first disconnected and then told
that everyone was in a conference. We left our number, but no one called
us back.
I-NET has clammed up.
Bereft of news, we suborned a mouse in the I-NET conference
room. The mouse alleged as follows: our contact was promptly reported
to the I-NET department handling c of s matters. The client's lawyers
were asked whether they minded if I-NET gave an interview. The lawyers
responded that they certainly did mind; and furthermore, additional
legal actions were under consideration which could involve **Biased
Journalism**.
We were nonplussed. Could this mouse be telling the truth?
We could not imagine a genuine basis for legal action; on the other
hand, events have happened in the last few months that surpassed our
fantasies. We wondered whether I-Net expects a lot of future
business from the Church. (The mouse averred that this was so.)
Shall I-NET someday be searching **our** computer? We experienced a
premonitory chill.
Important questions remain unanswered. Why was I-NET selected
to interrogate Lerma's computer? How did the Church learn of the company
and why did they decide that I-NET could be trusted? Was there, for
instance, a Bajaj family tie to the Church?
What, precisely, did I-NET do to Lerma's computer? Did I-NET
play a role in the other raids conducted by the Church? Was I-NET
involved in the attempt to break Lawrence Wollersheim's pgp-encrypted
files? Does I-NET expect <cough> a lot of future business from the
Church?
[We were surprised as well as disappointed to be refused an
interview. To our knowlege **Biased Journalism** is the only net.zine
to have made a specialty of covering the c of s confrontation with the
internet. We anticipated that Mr. Bajaj would want the opportunity
to explain his company's actions to the citizens of cyberspace and
quash some of the rumors current on the net. His silence invites
speculation, which is Not Our Fault.]
To be continued--
PLAINTIFFS DEFY THE COURT, OR, WHERE IS ARNIE LERMA'S COMPUTER?
As most readers know, the Church of Scientology [represented by Religious
Technology Corp.] and I-NET Corporation have had possession of Arnaldo
Lerma's computer since it was seized on August 12. Judge Brinkema ordered
the computer returned to Lerma. On September 7 he was finally invited to
pick it up. He went to the offices of his attorneys.
Here is what he found...
He was given a large box of floppy disks. He fished in the box and
discovered that they represented only 1/2 to 1/3 of his disks, mostly
commercial material. A 540 meg hard drive which had been part of his
business inventory was returned, together with a very old scsi drive
which I-NET had been unable to read. He had expected to find his own
computer, pursuant to Judge Brinkema's order. It was not there.
Instead he was offered a 386 with an I-NET sticker on the back and a hard
drive labeled "duplicate Lerma C Drive 8/21." Lerma refused to accept the
386, but removed the hard drive and took it with him.
Lerma left his 20" monitor at Ross Dixon because Plaintiffs did not return
its cable with the BNC ends. He also left his scanner because the scsi
interface was missing. Were these omissions accidental? [Lerma declined
to speculate. He was not pleased, our informant said with meaningful
understatement.]
Arnie Lerma's 486 computer, two hard drives and the missing cables and
interface remain in the hands of third parties and under the control of
the Plaintiffs.
The next move belongs to the Judge.
HACKERS UP THE ANTE
Sunday August 20: irc talk (vertabim as told to us)
"...tonight some drunk and pissed off hackers apparently
ping'd Cof$'s Theta.com node into oblivion, that is
set up multiple ping bots to shutdown the server.
<deleted> Hey all I see you're point...but honestly the
hackers have VOTED..
+the process is out, themachine is running, it isOUT of my hands. We met,
+we talked, we discussed, we exchanged, we thought, we asked, we tasked,
+and we did. The site went down.
God bless the Internet"
ANNOUNCING: THE CALIFORNIA 3-STRIKES T-SHIRT
Inspired by the success of the international arms dealer t-shirt,
of which more than 500 have been sold, **Biased Journalism** proposes
the California 3 Strikes T-Shirt. On this shirt will be depicted:
(1) the piece of RSA code that qualifies the wearer as an international
arms dealer and terrorist; (2) the FIJA handout, from the Fully Informed
Jury Association, that informs the reader of the real rights and powers of
juries in our legal system. This FIJA information was deemed so dangerous
that persons distributing FIJA leaflets have been prosecuted for "jury
tampering!" And finally, (3) the shirt will display the famous six lines
of text referring to visiting the zoo that qualify the wearer as
a member of the worldwide conspiracy to steal and distribute copyrighted
and trade secret information on the Internet.
Can you go to prison for life simply for wearing a t-shirt? In
the State of California, the answer is yes. Buy one and find out if they
really mean it. For best results, wear in a major city near the courthouse.
Try to stand in front of Scientology orgs and/or restaurants frequented by
foreign nationals.
$25+postage. Vendor inquiries invited.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:27:44 -0400
From: Galkin@AOL.COM
Subject: File 2--Computer Law - New Series
*************************************************
THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT ANNOUNCES NEW SERIES
*************************************************
The Computer Law Report - the FREE monthly e-mail report for
nonlawyers - is beginning an important series on the recently released
Clinton Administration White Paper. The White Paper analyzes how
intellectual property law applies to cyberspace and makes legislative
recommendations to Congress for revising laws for the digital age.
The Computer Law Report is prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq.,
adjunct professor of computer law Univ of Maryland Law School.
To be put on distribution list send e-mail to: galkin@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 01:18:13 CDT
Date: 10 Sep 1995 12:35:10 GMT
From: okeefe@OLYMPUS.NET(Steve O'Keefe)
Subject: File 3--Banned Books Online
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Book Stacks Unleashes Banned Books Exhibit
Book Stacks Unlimited, the most popular bookstore on the Internet, today
unveiled plans for an unsettling exhibit dealing with book censorship. The
exhibit, located at http://www.banned.books.com, debuts September 23 as
part of the American Booksellers Association Banned Books Week.
"The Internet is under attack by people who want to suppress your freedom
of speech," says Book Stacks' founder and president, Charles Stack. "This
exhibit demonstrates how dangerous the threat is. You'd be amazed at what
some people want to keep you from reading."
The exhibit features several digital audio clips: Salman Rushdie reading
from his book, *East, West*; U.S. Senate debate over the Exon Amendment;
and a rant from author and public radio & TV commentator Andrei Codrescu
commissioned by Book Stacks for the exhibit.
Other displays include a list of banned books, a quiz, a civil liberties
bookshelf, a directory of links to anti-censorship resources, frightening
and courageous quotations, a forum on book banning, and much more. One
section is devoted to the Canter & Siegel affair. After the notorious
"Green Card Lawyers" abused the net, several people called for a ban on
their book.
Book Stacks Unlimited (books.com) has been selling books online since 1992.
They offer more than 330,000 titles for sale and gigabytes of
entertainment. They are frequently included in Internet "top ten" lists and
are the only bookstore in the Internet Hall of Fame. Book Stacks is a
member of the American Booksellers Association.
The Banned Books exhibit will not be open to the public until September 23.
For a sneak preview, please contact Camille Tillman at (216) 861-0467 or
via e-mail at <cheritag@books.com>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 14:20:56 -0700
From: Pilgrim@EWORLD.COM
Subject: File 4--Online Novel Announcement
Dear Editor,
Pilgrim Press is happy to announce the publication of its first online
serial, IN SOME UNRELATED LAND, a novel with art on the World Wide Web.
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/~mang/title.html
While IN SOME UNRELATED LAND may not be the first novel published on the Web,
we believe it stands out for its literary quality. First and foremost, this
is a good read. The novel takes advantage of the medium by using graphic
images and hyperlinks, but they are secondary to the prose.
We hope you will read IN SOME UNRELATED LAND, tell your friends about it,
include it on your "hot links pages," and review it.
Attached is our press release. If you would like more information or sample
pages, please contact Mona Mang at pilgrim@eworld.com.
Yours,
Mona Mang
____________________________________________
NEWS from Pilgrim Press
For Immediate Release
September 4, 1995
Pilgrim Press announces the publication of its first online serial, IN SOME
UNRELATED LAND, a novel with art on the World Wide Web written by Martha
Conway.
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/~mang/title.html
IN SOME UNRELATED LAND is Berkeley, California, where twenty two year old
Jane Brandt moves after her parents die in an accident. With few friends and
no money, Jane tries to set up a new life: she gets a trial job working for a
new-age publisher in his basement, moves into a communal house, and divides
her wages among rent, beer, and drugs. IN SOME UNRELATED LAND chronicles one
summer in Jane's life, a time of unusual liaisons and hand-to-mouth living --
it is the freefall of someone waiting for "real" life to begin.
The novel will be published in nine parts on the World Wide Web. Each part
is divided into 7-10 short linked files, with art incorporated into the text.
IN SOME UNRELATED LAND is complete, and will be published over the next
twelve weeks.
PUBLISHING SCHEDULE:
Sept. 4 I get a job
Sept. 15 Drugs
Sept. 29 I learn more about many things
Oct. 6 Day rides and night rides
Oct. 13 The cat dies
Oct. 20 And I escape to New York
Oct. 27 Lucy and Henry
Nov. 3 After the Met
Nov. 10 Home
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Martha Conway is a published writer and book reviewer living in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Her work has appeared in The Quarterly, The Carolina
Quarterly, Puerto del Sol, Folio, Enterzone, Mississippi Review Web, and
other publications. She is currently working on her next novel.
This novel is being published on the shareware model, but if you are
interested in a free review copy, please contact Mona Mang at
pilgrim@eworld.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.76
************************************