Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge/Hackers Underworld 2: Forbidden Knowledge.iso/UNDERGRD/VOL_3/CUD303B.TXT

Text File | 1994-11-01 | 26KB | 515 lines

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

From: Various
Subject: From the Mailbag
Date: 22 January, 1991

********************************************************************
***  CuD #3.03: File 2 of 4: From the Mailbag                    ***
********************************************************************

From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      tap news
Date:         Sun, 06 Jan 91 23:45:04 EST

In a recent issue of CuD, the moderators wrote:

>TAP is alive and well. In addition to a newsletter, they also have a BBS for
>exchange of information and news. TAP is available for the price of a
>postage stamp for each issue by writing:
>
>   TAP
>   PO Box 20264
>   Louisville,  KY  40250

Greetings!

I wanted to help clear up any misconceptions some people might have regarding
TAP Magazine.  The first point is that I am no longer editor.  After Craig
Neidorf got molested, I decided do let go of TAP and concentrate on more
important things.  Therefore, I handed editorship to Predat0r.  Since then, I
have had NOTHING to do with TAP Magazine.  The second point is the details of
the subscription.  I am not totally sure of this but it is what I hear.  TAP
is not free anymore (I don't know why. I put it out for free), it is now $2
for a SAMPLE issue.  The yearly rates are $10 for ten issues.  If anyone has
any questions regarding TAP, don't mail me.  Mail them to Predat0r at the
above address.

If anyone wants to correspond with ME, you can mail me at
[e-mail].  OR [e-mail].

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [e-mail](Eric Schnoebelen)
Subject: Re: CU Digest #3.00
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 14:44:05 CST

In a recent issue of CuD, works![e-mail] writes:

- How can it be legal to make BBS' operators shell out extra money for a
- hobby, answering machines aren't something people have to pay extra for,
- and in some cases thats what BBS's are used for. If its a public BBS, it is
- receiving no true income from its users, unless they pay a standard,
- billable time, (ie. A commercial BBS) What gives them the right to charge
- us now?
- Do they have a right to charge us? are they providing any type of special
- service because we have a modem on the line, instead of an answering
- machine, FAX, phone, or other? we are private citizens, it should be up to
- us how we use the phones. TelCo's still a monopoly

The "monopolies" have only the powers to charge for the services that are
tariffed by the local and state public utilities commissions for intrastate
services, and the Federal Communication Commission on the interstate
services.

The charges for local service come under the jurisdiction of the PUC's, and
not the FCC.  If the operating company can convince the local PUC that a
BBS is business, then they will be able to "legally" charge business rates
for connections that are used for BBS's.

Keep in mind that telephone service is not a guaranteed right.  The low
residential service rates are due to a state and federal government policy
dating from early in the century, which was aimed at providing universal
telephone service, much in the same way that the government have provided
roads to encourage the mobility of the automobile.

A case could easily be made that more than one line to a
residence/household is a luxury, and all additional lines should be billed
at a higher rate.  Fortunately, generally the telephone companies have not
tried for this, but instead have limited the attempts to charge business
rates to BBS's solely to BBS's that could be viewed as businesses, such as
ones that charge for access.

Businesses are charged more for their service because they are expected to
make more use of the telephone system, and thus cause greater wear on the
system.  BBS's, like teenagers, blow that equation all out of the water.

- There are a lot of rumours about this type of thing, only I've never seen
- it actually put into action.

Southwestern Bell, in Houston, Tx, attempted to define all BBS's with more
than one phone line as businesses, for the purposes of billing, whether
they charged a fee for not.  As part of this, they also claimed that BBS's
that had a mandatory upload's for access were also businesses, since the
user was required to provide something in order to gain access.  [I may not
have all of the above 100% correct, but that seems to be the gist of it]

I have also heard that GTE in Indiana has tariffed that all BBS's that
charge for access get business rates.  At least GTE went through the PUC in
getting that one through, unlike SWBT.

And in response, at least in the case of the SWBT action, a group of BBS
operators in Texas (and Oklahoma) fought the action.  For the most part, I
gather that they have succeeded, but not completely.

I doubt that I have made anyone happy by reading the above, but hopefully,
I have made people more informed.

***********************
In CuD 3.00, file 4, Liz E. Borden Writes:

- Why, you ask, do I think the CU is sexist?

I will agree that there is a very strong male bias in the entire computing
industry, and probably even more so in the underground.  Why?  I have no
real idea, although a guess that pops to mind is (Gross Generalizations
here!) many women would rather do things more secure and "safe" than play
on the edges in the underground.  How true that is, I don't know.  I would
say that is a stereotypical perception that is not well held up by the
women I know.

- Second, BBSs, especially those catering to adolescents and college
- students, are frightening in their mysogeny. I have commonly seen in
- general posts on large boards on college towns discussion of women in the
- basest of terms (but never comparable discussions of men), use of such
- terms as broads, bitches, cunts, and others as synonymous with the term
- "woman" in general conversation, and generalized hostile and angry
- responses against women as a class.

This, unfortunately, does exist, even in what are supposed to be some of our
most enlightened environments, the university campus.  But keep in mind, this is
also how they were taught by the outside society before entering the
enlightening halls of the university, and they should be exposed to ideals
that indicate that their actions and beliefs may be flawed, or even incorrect.
It does nothing to complain about these people, they need to be exposed to a
greater, less biased world than the one from which they came.

Some will reject it, because it will suddenly devalue their self worth, or the
views/beliefs they held upon entering are to strong, but after time (perhaps
generations) they will be in the definite minority, and perhaps even extinct.

- Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage, gifs,
- what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that degrades women. No,
- I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe we can raise the gender
- implications of these news groups just as we would if a controversial
- speaker came to a campus.  Most posts that refer to a generic category tend
- to use male specific pronouns that presume masculinity (the generic "he")
- or terms such as "policeman" or "chairman" instead of "chair" or "police
- officer."

It is my belief that many people consider "chairman" and "policeman" to be
generic terms for "chair" and "police officer" I have heard my youngest
sister refer to herself as a "policeman" on several occasions, although she
does tend to use "police officer" a bit more often.

As to rampant sexism on the "nets", I cannot say.  I only frequent USENET
and internet mailing lists for my net based reading.  What it is like on
the Fido echo's etc, I do not know.  In general, most of the postings I see
on USENET are of very open, somewhat liberal, attitude.  I suppose that the
alt.sex hierarchy could be considered degrading, but I am unsure how.  What
I see in those groups that I read there are generally open, fairly well
reasoned discussions of items of a sexual nature, as well as some
discussions