EFFECTOR ONLINE vol 1 #6

 ########## |   Volume I                               Number 6   |

########## |                                                     |

###        |                   EFFECTOR ONLINE                   |

#######    |                                                     |

#######    |                    In this issue:                   |

###        |              NetNews: The EFF Wants You!            |

########## |            Computers and Academic Freedom           |

########## | All I Really Need to Know I Learned from my Computer|

           |         The Prodigy Saga Marches On...and On        |

########## |                 S.266: What You Can Do              |

########## |              -==--==--==-<:>-==--==--==-            |

###        |                        Editors:                     |

#######    |            Gerard Van der Leun (van@eff.org)        |

#######    |             Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org)          |

###        |             Mitchell Kapor (mkapor@eff.org)         |

###        |                    Managing Editors:                |

###        |Chris Davis (ckd@eff.org), Helen Rose (hrose@eff.org)|

           |                                                     |

########## |       Reproduction of Effector Online via all       |

########## |            electronic media is encouraged..         |

###        |      To reproduce signed articles individually      |

#######    |    please contact the authors for their express     |

#######    |                     permission..                    |

###        |                                                     |

###        |             Published Fortnightly by                |

###        |    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org)     |

                                                                  

effector n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a desired change.

                        -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                                FAST BREAKS:

                    Net News from the Electronic Frontier

THE EFF WANTS YOU

    After many months, the EFF has received its 501(c)3 Federal tax

exemption.  This means that membership in, and donations to,

the EFF are fully tax-deductible.

    For over a year, we have been funding the work of this 

organization through the generosity of a few individuals who

believe in our mission and our goals.  Now we are able to open

the EFF to people from all our various constituencies throughout

the world.

   As a result, we would like to ask all of you who support us

to become members.

   To sustain our current goals and programs, and expand our

efforts will take the commitment of time and money on the part

of many people and institutions from all areas of our society.

    We will be raising funds in the near future from a variety

of sources, but without the concrete support of individuals

like you, we cannot pursue and achieve our goals of assuring that

Constitutional protections are extended to online media.  Without your

support we can't effectively advocate policy changes on the federal

and state level.  Without you, we can't continue to effectively pursue

the education of the general public as to the benefits of online media

and the potential of the National Public Network of the future.

Nor can we continue to effectively defend the rights of those wrongly

accused.

    Pioneer membership rates are $20.00 per year for students 

and low-income supporters, $40.00 per year for regular members.

We are currently working on an institutional membership program.

    The way this works is simple. We are going to be assembling all

the detritus of joining an organization: tidy forms, lots of 

check-boxes, payment via Visa or Mastercard, and all the fancy stuff

you've learned to expect from well-meaning organizations over the 

years.  But you can cut to the chase right now and just mail a check. 

    And, yes, we are going to be handing out numbers. This means low

numbers will have a certain cachet with those who value such

things.  And if you don't care, you'll still have the knowledge

that you've helped us move forward this year and in the future.

    Member Privacy Policy: The EFF will never sell any names or

information about its members. We will, from time to time, share

consenting members names with other non-profit organizations which

we are certain will advance the shared causes and goals of the EFF.

But, even then, we will only share your name if you consent to it.

This means you have to state that you grant us the privilege of

sharing your name. You can revoke this at any time. If you do not

actively grant us this permission, we will assume that you wish

your membership to be absolutely confidential.

    You can send your membership fees and/or your additional 

donation to The Electronic Frontier Foundation, 155 Second Street,

Cambridge, MA 02141. Please include your name, postal address, and

electronic mail address.

THE EFF AND SENATE BILL 266

    At the EFF we continue to oppose the spirit and the letter of

those provisions of Senate Bill 266 that would require mandatory

cooperation of telecommunications providers with law enforcement.

    We believe that those individuals and organizations that support

this initiative fail to understand the implications of compromising 

encryption methods in this time of emergent online technologies.

    In order to play an active role in shaping this legislation

the EFF expects to meet with the bill's sponsors in Washington 

and express our fundamental opposition to any move on the part 

of the Federal government that would prohibit or have a chilling

effect on the individual's right to use cryptography.

THE CPSR ANNOUNCES A WASHINGTON WORKSHOP 

ON PRIVACY, ENCRYPTION, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY

     Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the

Electronic Frontier Foundation, RSA are sponsoring a one-day 

workshop in Washington, D.C. on June 10.

     This workshop will bring together a broad coalition of

professionals in the computer and telecommunications fields,

as well as experts in cutting-edge cryptography, privacy 

advocates, and civil liberties protectors.  It will feature

a congressional briefing on current federal policy initiatives

including S.266 and export restrictions.

     The workshop will be followed at 2:00 by a press conference

and the National Press Club (14th & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.). All

interested parties are invited to attend the press conference.

                -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

EFF DOCUMENT FILES NOW AVAILABLE

    THE DOCUMENT CASE -- a collection of briefs, judgements

white papers, rulings, and references of moment to the issues 

of law and order on The Electronic Frontier--is now available via

FTP at eff.org. This represents our current and expanding collection

of legal papers of interest to attorneys and the net at large. It

was created and maintained by Staff Counsel Mike Godwin 

(mnemonic@eff.org).  For details on how to access this archive

please contact ftphelp@eff.org.

   To add to the archive, send mail to Michael Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org).

 

               -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

COMPUTERS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM GROUPS NOW AT EFF.ORG

    CAF discusses such questions as : How should general principles

of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read,

due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and

networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the

principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be

defended?

    The EFF has given the discussion a home on the eff.org machine.

As of April 23, less than two week after its creation, the list has

230 members in four countries.

    There are three versions of the mailing list:

comp-academic-freedom-talk

        - you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day.

comp-academic-freedom-batch

        - about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes.

comp-academic-freedom-news

        - about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best

          notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one).

    To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. 

Include the line "add <name-of-version>". (Other commands are "delete

<name-of-version>" and "help").

    In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the 

LIST BY addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org.

    These mailing lists are also available as the USENET alt groups

'alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk' and 'alt.comp.acad-freedom.news'.

              -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                  the sand remembers

           once there was beach and sunshine

                   but chip is warm too

               -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

    The Need for a Discussion of Computers and Academic Freedom

              by Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org)

   When my grandmother attended the University of Illinois fifty-five

years ago, academic freedom meant the right to speak up in class, to

created student organizations, to listen to controversial speakers, to

read "dangerous" books in the library, and to be protected from random

searches of your dorm room.

   Today these rights are guaranteed by most universities. These days,

however, my academic life very different from my grandmother's. Her

academic life was centered on the classroom and the student union.

Mine centers on the computer and the computer network. In the new

academia, my academic freedom is much less secure.

   The suppression of academic freedom on computers is common. At least

once a month, someone posts on plea on Usenet for help. The most

common complaint is that a newsgroup has been banned because of its

content (usually alt.sex). In January, a sysadmin at the University of

Wisconsin didn't ban any newsgroups directly. Instead, he reduced the

newsgroup expiration time so that reading groups such as alt.sex is

almost impossible. Last month, a sysadmin at Case Western killed

a note that a student had posted to a local newsgroup.  The sysadmin

said the information in the note could be misused. In other cases,

university employees may be reading e-mail or looking through user

files. This may happen with or without some prior notice that e-mail

and files are fair game.

   In many of these cases the legality of the suppression is unclear. It

may depend on user expectation, prior announcements, and whether the

university is public or private.

   The legality is, however, irrelevant. The duty of the University is

not to suppress everything it legally can; rather it is to support the

free and open investigation and expression of ideas. This is the ideal

of academic freedom. In this role, the University acts a model of how

the wider world should be. (In the world of computers, universities are

perhaps the most important model of how things should be).

   If you are interested in discussing this issues, or if you have

first-hand experience with academic suppression on computers or

networks, please join the mailing list.

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

               one with nintendo

               halcyon symbiosis

             hand thinks for itself

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

        All I Really Need to Know I Learned from My Computer

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I

learned right here in the CAEN labs. Illumination was not at the top of the

graduate school mountain, but right there in front of the computer

monitors. These are the things I learned. Everything you need to know is

here somewhere:

        1.      Share all your executables.

        2.      Pay for your shareware.

        3.      Don't hit the computer.

        4.      Back up files after you have found them.

        5.      Clean up your own messy desktop.

        6.      Don't copy software that is not yours.

        7.      Make a smiley when you send someone a nasty message.

        8.      Wash your hands before you type.

        9.      Flush your buffers.

        10.     M&Ms and a cold can of Coke are good for you.

        11.     Live a student's life--learn some and think some and

                MacDraw and IPaint and Readnews and play Tetris and hack

                every day some.

        12.     Take a break every two hours from staring at the terminal.

        13.     When you go out in the world, watch out for network traffic,

                hold connections and stick together.

        14.     Be aware of wonder. Remember the little bytes in the chip:

                The code goes in and the graphics come out and nobody

                really knows how or why, but computers are all like that.

        15.     Pets and Lisas and DN350s and even the little bytes in the

                chip all die. So do we.

        16.     And then remember the Computer Reference Manuals and the

                first command you learned--the biggest command of all--Quit.

                                by Ann Gordon (anng@caen.engin.umich.edu)

                 -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                       samurai fighter

               keyboard and mouse are his sword

                       digital battles

                 -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

              THE PRODIGY SAGA CONTINUED....REDUX....ENCORE....

[Prodigy continued to be a main subject of conversation on the net over

the past two weeks.  Here is a selection of one exchange of views on

comp.org.eff.talk.]

--

From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)

In article <14193.281F5781@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> 

Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) writes:

>It's easy to support free-speech issues on "safe" subjects 

>-- the real test is when it is an unpopular one, or even one

>you don't agree with.

I agree with this 100%.  It's one of the strongest parts of my personal

philosophy.

But this is not a free-speech issue, so it is not relevant.

People do not understand that freedom of the press (and Prodigy is press)

has two very important components:

     a) Nobody can tell you what not to print (freedom from censorship)

     b) Nobody can tell you what *to* print.  (editorial control)

Both are important.   To insist that Prodigy allow gay/lesbian discussion

against their will is not much different from forbidding them from having

gay/lesbian discussion if they want it.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.   That's no

law in *either* direction.

--

From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)

In-Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 4 May 91 

Well sorry, Brad, but it's not clear to many of us that a service like

Prodigy is self-evidently "press", as you seem to claim.  In the part

of the service which presents (publishes) advertisements (mostly!) and

Prodigy-initiated or Prodigy-contracted informative articles (rarely),

they would seem to deserve the same protections offered to the print

and broadcast media.

But in their provision of email service they would seem to be merely a

by-subscription carrier, and their unpleasant lack of interfaces to

other carriers does not disguise that fact.  I don't see why the same

protections offered to mail and telephone subscribers shouldn't apply.

And I don't see why bulletin boards to which subscribers are welcome to

contribute shouldn't be considered either (1) simply useful extensions

of email, or (2) publishing ventures, but ones in which the subscribers

are the publishers and Prodigy remains the carrier.

Isn't some scheme like this simple and fair enough to be worth

codifying as law, and the added marketability of email and bulletin

boards sufficient to encourage commercial services to provide them

even if they aren't allowed to control the contents?

(By the way, I think the trashy, ad-oriented nature of Prodigy has

encouraged many of us to criticize them for practices that would

raise few complaints on GEnie, CIS, etc.  They may be doing us a

real service.)

--

From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)

I have seen no proof of Prodigy doing anything but charge for their E-mail.

They are not press, but an E-mail provider, when it comes to E-mail.

But in all the public areas of the system, they are indeed press, and

have explicitly said and acted in such a fashion at all times as far as I

can tell.   I am not sure how other people have gotten any other impression.

Prodigy screens everything posted in the public areas.  It's 100% edited.

How can you consider them anything but press?

-- 

[The discussion continues in comp.org.eff.talk.]

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                   DAT arrives

            frequency notch treachery

             people are not fooled

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

               S.266: WHAT YOU CAN DO

From: metzger@watson.ibm.com (Perry E. Metzger)

 [Editor's Note:After sending a letter to Biden's office protesting 

the language of S.266, Mr. Metzger received, as did many others, 

a form letter reply.In comp.org.eff.talk, this is what he did next.]

I actually bothered to follow up on my (identical) form letter from

Sen. Biden's office.

I spoke to John Bentivoglio, who is on the Senator's Judiciary

committee staff (not his personal staff), who claims to have been the

person who drafted the letter that went out on Joe Biden's signature.

He's more or less unmovable, though he is friendly.

He has already heard from lots and lots of people from the net about

this. His claim is more or less this: the stated section of the law is

intended more to get communications providers to help with the tapping

of things like Cellular Phones and the like, which he claims is now

difficult. (All of us on the net, of course, know you can tap a

cellular phone with a radio scanner and some patience, but never mind

that). He also claims that they understand that there are technical

reasons making the provisioning of back doors into cryptosystems

difficult, and that is the reason for the "sense of congress" thing.

He also claims that this is not the proverbial crack in the dike, and

that the Senator has no intention of following through with additional

legislation to enforce a ban on secure cryptosystems.

Personally, I have no idea whether to believe him. My gut says, never

trust a politico, and that he is trying to sell me a bridge. That's not

the part that matters, though. The part that matters is whether or not

we can still do something to stop this clause from getting through.

My suggestion is that we, the UseNetters, organize an attempt to get

S.266 Section 2201, and S.618 Section 545, discussed in a

congressional hearing.

My suggestion: Call up as many of the following Senators as you can.

(Maybe you can leave out Biden, he's probably useless at this point.)

Ask to speak to an actual human on their staff for a few minutes;

don't just register a complaint with a random bill. Say something like

"I'd like to speak to a member of the senators staff about a bill

coming before the Judiciary committee that I am very concerned about."

When you get someone, calmly and quietly tell them why you oppose

S.266 section 2201 and S.618 section 545. (the wording in both is

identical, and be sure to mention that the two sections are

identical). Explain to them that there are lots of other people who

think the same way and tell them you would like to see hearings held

where people who are members of prominent organizations like the

Electronic Freedom Foundation, the ACLU, and other similar groups

would be given a chance to oppose the section. Be nice; these men are

the ones who we have to count on to rescue us. (Gawd help us all!)

Here, again, is the text of what we are opposing, which is identical

in both S.266 sec. 2201 and S.618 sec. 545:

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

COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications

services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment

shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain 

the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when

appropriately authorized by law.

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

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be acting on

these bills, are:

Chair: Joseph R. Biden, Delaware

Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts

Howard M. Metzenbaum, Ohio  

Dennis DeConcini, Arizona

Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont

Howell Heflin, Alabama

Paul Simon, Illinois

Herbert Kohl, Wisconsin

Strom Thurmond, South Carolina

Orrin G. Hatch, Utah

Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming

Charles E. Grassley, Iowa

Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania

Hank Brown, Colorado

The phone number of the U.S. Senate Switchboard, which will get you

any of these men's staff's, is...

(202)-224-3121

Their specific numbers and addresses are...

DEMOCRATS:

Senator Joseph Biden (Del)

Suite 221

Russell Building

U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510 <-- for all of them

(202) 224-5042

Senator Edward Kennedy

Suite 315

Russell Building

(202) 224-4543

Senator Howard Metzenbaum (Ohio)

Suite 140

Russell

(202) 224-2315

Senator Dennis DeConcini (Arizona)

Suite 328

Russell

(202) 224-4521

Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont)

Suite 433

Russell

(202) 224-4242

Senator Howell Heflin (Alabama)

Suite 728

Russell

(202) 224-4124

Senator Paul Simon (Illinois)

Suite 462

Dirksen Building

(202) 224-2152

Senator Herbert Kohl (Wisconsin)

Suite 702

Russell

(202) 224-5653

REPUBLICANS:

Senator Strom Thurmond (South Carolina)

Suite 218

Russell

(202) 224-5972

Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah)

Suite 135

Russell

(202) 224-5251

Senator Alan Simpson (Wyo)

Suite 261

Dirksen Bldg

(202) 224-3424

Senator Charles Grassley (Louisiana)

Suite 135

Hart Bldg

(202) 224-3744

Senator Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)

Suite 303

Hart Bldg

(202) 224-4254

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                oh no godzilla

        guns and planes cannot stop him

            tokyo is ablaze

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

COMPUTING & VALUES CONFERENCE, AUG 12-16

The National Conference on Computing and Values will convene August

12-16, 1991, in New Haven, CT.  N C C V / 91 is a project of the

National Science Foundation and the Research Center on Computing and

Society.  Specific themes (tracks) include

      -  Computer Privacy & Confidentiality

      -  Computer Security & Crime

      -  Ownership of Software & Intellectual Property

      -  Equity & Access to Computing Resources

      -  Teaching Computing & Values

      -  Policy Issues in the Campus Computing Environment

The workshop structure of the conference limits participation to

approximately 400 registrants, but space *IS* still available at this

time (mid-May).

Confirmed speakers include Ronald E. Anderson, Daniel Appleman, John

Perry Barlow, Tora Bikson, Della Bonnette, Leslie Burkholder, Terrell

Ward Bynum, David Carey, Jacques N.  Catudal, Gary Chapman, Marvin

Croy, Charles E. M.  Dunlop, Batya Friedman, Donald Gotterbarn,

Barbara Heinisch, Deborah Johnson, Mitch Kapor, John Ladd, Marianne

LaFrance, Ann-Marie Lancaster, Doris Lidtke, Walter Maner, Diane

Martin, Keith Miller, James H. Moor, William Hugh Murray, Peter

Neumann, George Nicholson, Helen Nissenbaum, Judith Perolle, Amy

Rubin, Sanford Sherizen, John Snapper, Richard Stallman, T. C. Ting,

Willis Ware, Terry Winograd, and Richard A. Wright.

The registration fee is low ($175) and deeply discounted air fares are

available into New Haven.

To request a registration packet, please send your name, your email AND

paper mail addresses to ...

   BITNet      MANER@BGSUOPIE.BITNET

   InterNet    maner@andy.bgsu.edu (129.1.1.2)

 

or, by fax ...

   (419) 372-8061

 

or, by phone ...

  (419) 372-8719  (answering machine)

  (419) 372-2337  (secretary)

 

or, by regular mail ...

   Professor Walter Maner

   Dept. of Computer Science

   Bowling Green State University

   Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA

USENIX EFF BOF UPDATE: TIME CHANGE

At the Summer 1991 USENIX Conference, being held in Nashville, TN, from

10-14 June 1991, a Birds Of a Feather (BOF) session on the Electronic

Frontier Foundation (EFF) will be held.  The EFF BOF will be held from

7-9pm on Tuesday, 11 June 1991.  Note the time change!  It will be

located in the Jefferson A room (the same room as the GNU BOF).  The

EFF BOF will now be held *before* (instead of after) the GNU BOF.

We will give an update of recent EFF activities, an overview of cases

the EFF has been involved with and their outcomes, the EFF's missions,

current and future projects, etc.  John Gilmore, a member of the EFF's

Board of Directors, will co-chair the BOF and will talk about some of

the work EFF has been doing on privacy technology, also known as

encryption, and the threats and promise we see in it.  There will be a

general question and answer session at the end of the BOF.

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

FEEDBACK

[Here are a few of the comments received on Effector Online 1.05:]

From tachyon@ucscb.UCSC.EDU Sun May 26 07:59:28 1991

Just two quick, unpolished comments, so I'm mailing them rather than

posting them.

I'm surprised at the amount of ridicule Jim Warren aimed at people

who might not want their names on CPSR (or other) mailing lists, when

it would be a simple enough matter for CPSR to include something like

"We periodically send out announcements and other mailings to people

on our mailing list.  Check here if you would prefer NOT to receive

these unsolicited mailings."

Mitch Kapor is being a little too quick in telling a Prodigy person

that the Well's conflict resolution methods do not involve

throwing people off the system, because I know that at least one

person HAS been thrown off the Well.  However, as a sysop myself,

I know that these systems can be sitting ducks for people who, for

whatever reason, have decided to spend as much time as possible

insulting and harassing other users.  I have thrown one user off

my own BBS for that reason.

----------

Subject: Cryptography, Mythology, and S. 266

In an article in Effector Online, Denise Caruso joins the crowd of people

all over the networks attacking a provision placed by Senator Biden into two

Senate bills (S. 266 and S. 618), which make it the "sense of the Senate" that

providers of encryption technology and communication services ensure that they

can provide, in response to proper court order, a clear-text version of any

material transmitted using their systems.

Caruso, and many others, have argued that such a law would require the use of

a "trap door", or in generally weakened cryptographic algorithms.  THIS IS

COMPLETELY FALSE.  What it mainly requires is record keeping.

The technical details get very complex, but in fact choosing a good crypto-

graphic algorithm is only the beginning of designing a usable cryptosystem.

Key distribution is as big a headache.  In most proposed systems, one uses a

unique "session key" for each communication session.  This key is provided to

the two participants by a central server.  A server that recorded the keys it

assigned would have no problem with the provisions of these bills.  Compromise

of the server is deadly to the entire system, whether it keeps records or not,

so this need imply no significant weakening of the system.  It certainly does

not require the insertion of any trap door or other weakness into the under-

lying cryptographic algorithms.

The public-key-based systems that Caruso refers to, as far as I know, do NOT

use public key cryptography to encrypt most user data.  Rather, they use it

to make the communication with the session-key server simpler.  Today, and

for at least the near-term future, known public-key algorithms are too ex-

pensive and slow to use for bulk data.  They can, however, be used in such

combined public/private key systems to get good performance with most of the

advantages of private key systems.

Why should anyone care about this technical detail?  (By now I'm sure I've

lost the real flamers, who know nothing but how to repeat catch phrases like

"trap door".)  Because basing an attack on S. 266 and such measures on some-

thing that is verifiably false is a good way to lose arguments.  Badly.

Suppose someone introduced a bill requiring the registration of all computer

equipment.  Would you argue against it on the grounds that only MS/DOS systems

could meet the registration requirement?

The problems with S. 266 and similar measures are NOT technical.  If you want

to object to them, do so on the basis of rights to privacy, protection of free

speech, or whatever.  Don't let the argument get onto the ground of what is

technically feasible, or you'll lose.

                                   -- Jerry

From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@LRW.COM>

            -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

ENDNOTES

    Effector Online would like to thank Damon A. Koronakos and Brian Roberts

at stanford.edu for the Hi-Tech Haikus that grace this issue.

    We also would like to extend our thanks to Leila Gallagher, a great 

volunteer and true pioneer of the Electronic Frontier. Without her constant

and generous efforts here at the office, the EFF would have floundered during

our first year.

    We are always interested in news, pointers, tall tales, quotes

jokes and brilliant strokes related to life on the Electronic

Frontier.

    Write to us with comments and criticism, or write for us if you

prefer.  Any letters or stories can be posted to comp.org.eff.talk,

or sent directly to the editor of Effector Online: van@eff.org.

    We'll be back in a fortnight with another edition.

         In the meantime, you are still on the Electronic Frontier.

                           Be careful out there.

                        -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-