Clips September 8, 2003

[Lillie Coney <lillie.coney@xxxxxxx>]

Clips September 8,
2003

Databases--the next copyright battle? 
Museums Launch Database to Find Nazi Stolen Art 
Fierce Fight Over Secrecy, Scope of Law [Patriot Act]
Arrest warrant issued for 'N.Y. Times' hacker
Wireless carriers draft a rights code for customers
PayAgent Aims to Curtail Identity Theft Online 
Lawmakers grill top cyber official at Homeland Security 
With Politeness, Easing the Pain of E-Mail Mishaps

*******************************
Reuters
Databases--the next copyright battle? 
By Reuters 
September 5, 2003, 2:50 PM PT

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives are circulating a proposed
bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives
and other databases that do not enjoy copyright protection. 
The proposed bill would provide a legal umbrella for publishers of
factual information such as courtroom decisions and professional
directories. The measures would be similar to the copyright laws that
protect music, novels and other creative works. 

The bill has not yet been introduced, but the Judiciary Committee and the
Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a joint hearing on the bill in
the coming weeks, a Commerce Committee spokesman said. 


Backers of the measure say it would allow database providers to protect
themselves against those who simply cut and paste databases to resell
them or to make them available for free online. 

Violators could be shut down and forced to pay triple the damages
incurred. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and consumer advocates said they plan to
write letters of protest soon, arguing that the bill could dramatically
limit the public's access to information. Database providers can protect
themselves through terms-of-service agreements with their customers, said
Joe Rubin, director of congressional and public affairs at the chamber.

"We think this is already dealt with under license and contract law,
and there's no reason to extend beyond that," Rubin said. 

Sometimes user agreements do not provide enough protection, said Keith
Kupferschmid, a policy expert with the Software and Information Industry
Association, which supports the bill. 

In one instance, a Minnesota magazine publisher had no legal recourse
when its entire directory of local schools was copied and redistributed.
In other cases, operators of pornographic Web sites have copied real
estate listings and lawyers' directories to lure in unwitting visitors,
he said. 

The law could help those who make information available for free online,
Kupferschmid said. Reuters America, a unit of Reuters Group, is a member
of the trade group. 

"If database producers know they have some law to fall back on, when
someone steals their database, they'll be much more willing to get that
information out there for free," he said. "Without that law,
there's really nothing to protect them." 

Mike Godwin, senior technology counsel at the nonprofit group Public
Knowledge, said the bill would likely make information less freely
available. 

"Information, when not copyrighted, is something that can be shared.
Once you start putting fences around information...there's no freedom of
inquiry," said Godwin. 

"That doesn't make us smarter, it makes us dumber," he said.
*******************************
Washington Post
Museums Launch Database to Find Nazi Stolen Art 
By Jacqueline Trescott
Monday, September 8, 2003; Page C05 

The true ownership of artwork stolen by the Nazis during World War II is
one of the lingering mysteries of the Holocaust. For the survivors and
relatives, the quest to reclaim lost art has been painful. For the
museums where some of the world-class art turned up, it has been an
embarrassment.

To help both sides, the American Association of Museums has organized an
Internet registry of holdings in U.S. art museums that could have been
appropriated by the Nazis. This centralized database, debuting today, is
meant to give all parties access to the information, which a presidential
commission asked the museums to organize.

"Our goal is to assure our many publics that American museums are
committed to only having in their collections objects to which they have
clear legal title, untainted by controversy or illegal, unjust
appropriation," said Edward H. Able Jr., the president of the
association. 

The Web site, formally called the Nazi-Era Provenance Internet Portal,
contains the research of 66 museums. Able estimated that there are 150 to
160 museums in the United States whose sizable budgets would make them
likely homes for the works of Degas, Picasso, Monet and other famous
artists favored by the Nazis. In 2001, the museums were asked by the
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets to look at work that
changed hands in Europe between 1932 and 1945. 

Able said the voluntary effort had worked well. "The museums weren't
aware that some of this material had made it into their
collections," he said. "The directors are totally committed and
sensitive to this. They don't want to have anything in the collections
that is stolen." Many of the country's largest museums complied,
including the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
the Museum of Modern Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Walters Art
Museum, the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, the
Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Detroit
Institute of Arts and the Guggenheim.

Since the spotlight fell on the whereabouts of Nazi stolen art in the
1990s, American museums have identified or returned almost a score of
works. About six other cases are pending. Once ownership was established,
not everything was returned. "In some cases the object went back to
the claimant; in some cases it was sold to the institution; some gave
part of it to the institution and others gave it outright," Able
said.

The material submitted by the museums for the registry is
straightforward. It includes the artist, the artist's nationality, the
country of origin and the artwork's title. Once a piece is identified,
the researcher is directed to additional material provided by the museum
on its provenance (the history of its ownership). A gap may or may not
mean the work had been stolen, said Able. 

Just getting that far in a search is noteworthy, said Gideon Taylor,
executive director of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against
Germany. "Information has been disorganized and sporadic. This
organizes it. Often with restitution the lack of access to information
can be a blockage. A lot of people don't get to the start of their
journey because they don't know what to pursue," said Taylor. The
conference gave $75,000 to the project, which has a budget of $750,000
over the next five years.
*******************************
Washington Post
Fierce Fight Over Secrecy, Scope of Law 
Amid Rights Debate, Law Cloaks Data on Its Impact 
By Amy Goldstein
Monday, September 8, 2003; Page A01 


In Seattle, the public library printed 3,000 bookmarks to alert patrons
that the FBI could, in the name of national security, seek permission
from a secret federal court to inspect their reading and computer records
-- and prohibit librarians from revealing that a search had taken
place.

In suburban Boston, a state legislator was stunned to discover last
spring that her bank had blocked a $300 wire transfer because she is
married to a naturalized U.S. citizen named Nasir Khan.

And in Hillsboro, Ore., Police Chief Ron Louie has ordered his officers
to refuse to assist any federal terrorism investigations that his
department believes violate state law or constitutional rights.

As the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approaches, the
Bush administration's war on terror has produced a secondary battle:
fierce struggles in Congress, the courts and communities such as these
over how the war on terror should be carried out. At the heart of this
debate is the USA Patriot Act, the law signed by President Bush 45 days
after the terror strikes that enhanced the executive branch's powers to
conduct surveillance, search for money-laundering, share intelligence
with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with
crimes.

Yet the paradox of this debate is that it is playing out in a near-total
information vacuum: By its very terms, the Patriot Act hides information
about how its most contentious aspects are used, allowing investigations
to be authorized and conducted under greater secrecy.

As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties
Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating
people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances
of abuse.

"The problem is, we don't know how [the law] has been used,"
said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who has
represented terror suspects in cases in which the government has employed
secret evidence. "They set it up in such a way . . . [that] it's
very hard to judge."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other supporters of the law assert
that the act is crucial to allowing the government to fulfill its
anti-terror responsibilities, but they say little about how it
accomplishes those tasks.

Justice officials praise their newfound ability to share information from
foreign intelligence operations with criminal investigators, allowing
them to more swiftly disrupt potential terrorist acts before they occur.

Ashcroft also insists that the law has not gone far enough, while an
unlikely alliance on the ideological left and the right insists that it
has trampled civil liberties and must be curtailed.

This summer, two major lawsuits were filed challenging the Patriot Act's
central provisions. The Republican-led House startled the administration
in July by voting to halt funding for a part of the law that allows more
delays in notifying people about searches of their records or belongings.
And the GOP chairmen of the two congressional committees that oversee the
Justice Department have warned Ashcroft that they will resist any effort,
for now, to strengthen the law.

Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general who drafted much of the
law, said the debate over its merits is constructive. He said the
government is gravitating now from "the sprint stage" to the
"marathon phase" of confronting terrorism

"Somewhere in this marketplace of ideas, of truths and half-truths,
of fact and spin, we get a . . . picture of what the [Justice] Department
should be doing," Dinh said. "The debate is healthy to
establish the rules of this continuing path toward 
safety."

Information vs. Security 


Exasperated with how little they knew about the ways the Patriot Act was
being applied, the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a
Washington-based public interest group, went to court last October with a
freedom of information complaint against the Justice Department. Before a
judge dismissed the case in May, Justice officials released a few hundred
pages that said little about their activities. One document was a
six-page list of instances in which "national security letters"
had been issued to authorize searches -- with every line blacked
out.

Last year, the House and Senate Judiciary committees -- charged with
overseeing the Justice Department -- began to send the agency written
requests for statistics summarizing how often Patriot Act provisions had
been used. The first replies largely made clear that the information
sought by lawmakers was classified.

In such a climate of official secrecy, there are nevertheless small clues
to the extent the law is helping authorities' anti-terror work.

In May, the Justice Department told Congress that it had asked courts for
permission to delay notifying people of 47 searches and 15 seizures of
their belongings. The document said the courts had consented every time
but one, but it did not detail why the delays were needed.

The next month, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee,
Ashcroft said he personally authorized 170 emergency orders to conduct
surveillance, allowing investigators 72 hours before they must seek
permission from an obscure, secret court whose role has been expanded
under the law.

Created a quarter-century ago under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA), the special court requires a lower burden of proof than
criminal courts do when authorizing wiretaps and other forms of
surveillance. Before Sept. 11, 2001, its primary focus was foreign
intelligence cases. 

Under the Patriot Act, investigators can go before the court in cases
that are primarily criminal as long as they have some foreign
intelligence aspect. Ashcroft told the committee that those 170 emergency
FISA orders represented three times as many as had ever been authorized
before Sept. 11, 2001 -- but he did not disclose how many of them had
involved terrorism cases.

Nor has the department said how often it has used FISA court orders to
search libraries, the realm that has provoked perhaps the strongest
negative reaction. The Justice Department's interest in libraries
revolves around their public computers, over which potential terrorists
could communicate without detection. One source familiar with the
department's activity said that FBI agents had contacted libraries about
50 times in the past two years, but usually at the request of librarians
and as part of ordinary criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
As for how many times the government has used the law's powers to enter a
library, a senior Justice official said, "Whether it is one or 100
or zero, it is classified."

As their main examples of the law's usefulness, Justice officials cite a
few high-profile cases, some involving suspected terrorism. Perhaps
foremost among these cases, agency officials say, is that of a former
computer engineering professor in Florida, Sami Al-Arian, who was charged
in February in a 50-count indictment with conspiring to commit murder by
helping Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Ashcroft has said the
indictment was possible only because the Patriot Act allows information
gathered in classified national security investigations to be shared with
criminal prosecutors.

Actions taken under the Patriot Act do not include designating
individuals as enemy combatants, which is a constitutional power granted
to the president during wartime. 

Massachusetts state Rep. Kay Khan (D) learned about the use of the
Patriot Act in her case after repeatedly asking why a $300 wire transfer
had not reached her brother. She discovered that her husband's name was
on a special list at their bank because it may have been used by someone
else as an alias. "So we are on some list, which is scary," she
said. "I just feel that it's intrusive."

Critics of the law complain that cases such as Khan's are of greater
concern than investigations, such as Al-Arian's, that lead to
prosecutions. "We are more concerned about the information that is
collected and maintained on potentially thousands of law-abiding citizens
who are never going to be charged," said David Sobel, general
counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Conservatives' Fears 


Robert L. Barr Jr., a conservative Republican former House member who now
works on privacy issues with the American Conservative Union, is one of
many conservatives who argue that expanded surveillance powers and a
broadened definition of who may be labeled a possible terrorist
ultimately could be used against groups on the right, such as militia
members or antiabortion activists.

They contend that the department's reluctance to disclose more about the
law's use is unacceptable. "To make this blanket claim of national
security that disclosure of the general information regarding the number
of times government powers have been exercised and in what matter . . .
is absolutely nonsense," Barr said. 

The FISA court itself ruled 16 months ago that it is improper for federal
authorities to mingle intelligence information with criminal cases, as
the law allows. But the Justice Department appealed that decision, and it
was overturned by a secret appeals court. Because there was no opposing
party in the appeal, the law's critics had no way to challenge that
decision. 

As the law and the controversy around it near their second anniversary,
it remains uncertain whether Congress will change the law -- or how
strenuously Ashcroft will insist that it be strengthened.

"There are no plans at this time to introduce legislation,"
said Barbara Comstock, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

Seeking More Powers 


Yet the source familiar with the department's work said Ashcroft's aides
have been drafting three proposed expansions of Justice Department
authority. They would like to make it easier to charge someone with
material support for terrorism, to issue subpoenas without court approval
and to hold people charged with terrorism prior to trial.

In the same vein, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been working on a
bill, largely devoted to fighting drug trafficking, that in some drafts
contains a few extra powers that Justice wants. Committee aides said they
are unsure whether the chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), will
introduce the bill or what it will contain.

There are signs that lawmakers may not be in a mood to expand federal law
enforcement powers. Last spring, Hatch tried and failed to make permanent
several parts of the Patriot Act concerning surveillance that are set to
expire in two years.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)
said, "The burden is on the Justice Department to show they are
using their authorities in a lawful, constitutional and prudent
manner."

Sensenbrenner said he and Hatch deterred an effort by Ashcroft last
winter to circulate a sequel to the law, known as Patriot II.
Sensenbrenner said that Justice officials had begun scheduling meetings
with the committees' staffs to discuss such a possibility. "Both
Senator Hatch and I told the attorney general in no uncertain terms that
would be extremely counterproductive," Sensenbrenner said. "It
would still be counterproductive."

In recent months, most legislative efforts have focused mainly on
attempts to restrict the law's scope. Bills in both chambers would, for
example, exempt libraries from searches.

The most stern rebuke to the administration came in July, when the House
voted to cut off money for searches in which the notification is delayed.
The sponsor was conservative Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho),
and his amendment was supported by 111 fellow Republicans who had voted
for the original law in 2001. The Senate is unlikely to follow suit.

Justice officials disagree with those who say the original law was passed
in anxiety and haste immediately after the nation's worst terrorist
attacks. "It's a myth . . . that everyone was rushing in and all had
bad hair days and didn't know what they were doing," said Comstock,
the Justice spokeswoman. Approval of the delayed notification provision
had been bipartisan, she noted.

Still, there are signs the department is worried about preserving its
ground. Three days after Otter's amendment passed, an assistant attorney
general sent the House an eight-page broadside protesting the vote and an
addendum that derided it as a "terrorist tip-off amendment."
Ashcroft last month launched a cross-country tour to campaign for the
law.

But Otter is drafting other changes. One would repeal the expanded
surveillance powers next July, a year before they are to expire; another
would place decisions to issue warrants to investigate religious and
political groups more firmly into the hands of criminal courts.

"What we are going to have to do is, brick by brick, take the most
egregious parts out of the Patriot Act," he said.
*******************************
USA Today
Arrest warrant issued for 'N.Y. Times' hacker
Posted 9/5/2003 8:08 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters)  Federal law enforcement officials have
obtained an arrest warrant for a hacker who makes a habit of breaking
into corporate computers and then publicly exposing the security holes, a
spokeswoman for a federal public defender's office confirmed 
Friday.
The complaint against Adrian Lamo is sealed so the details were not
released, said a spokeswoman in the Federal Public Defender's office in
Sacramento, California, where Lamo's family lives.

The spokeswoman said her office was contacted by either Lamo or his
family to help with his representation given the pending 
arrest.

Lamo could not immediately be reached for comment.

In an interview with SecurityFocus.com published on the Web site Friday,
Lamo said he believed the warrant was related to his hacking into The New
York Times' computer system early last year. He also said he did not plan
to turn himself in.

Lamo exploited weaknesses in the newspaper's password policies and gained
access to social security numbers and home numbers for thousands of
people, including former president Jimmy Carter, former secretary of
state James Baker and actors Robert Redford and Warren Beatty,
SecurityFocus.com reported.

A spokeswoman for The New York Times did not immediately return a call
seeking comment late Friday. The U.S. Attorney's office for the southern
district of New York declined to comment on the case.
*******************************
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Saturday, September 6, 2003
Wireless carriers draft a rights code for customers
By SCOTT LANMAN
BLOOMBERG NEWS

U.S. wireless-telephone companies including Verizon Wireless Services
Inc. and Cingular Wireless LLC said yesterday that they will announce
voluntary customer-rights standards for the industry in advance of plans
by regulators to impose such rules.

The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, an industry
trade group that represents the wireless companies, will unveil its
guidelines in Washington on Tuesday. Carriers that adopt the 10 rules
will have to include more disclosure in advertising and allow customers a
14-day trial period to cancel new service, said Kimberly Kuo, a
spokeswoman for the group.

The association's move will come a week before a scheduled vote by the
California Public Utilities Commission on more extensive customer-rights
regulations for the telecommunications industry.

The number of U.S. wireless-phone users has more than doubled since 1998
to about 150 million as more consumers abandon land-based lines.
Complaints about wireless carriers to federal regulators rose 38 percent
to 4,119 in the first quarter from the prior year. The complaints, and
widespread service outages during the August Northeast blackout, have led
to calls for increased regulation of wireless carriers.

"The most generous thing I can say is that it's OK," Carl Wood,
a member of the California PUC, said of the trade group's standards in an
interview. The guidelines "are at best a statement of good
intentions, and there is no enforcement behind it. This is not comparable
to regulations."

The association will let carriers who comply with the voluntary
guidelines use a "quality seal" in their advertising, Kuo said.
"This is a way to increase customer information and customer service
without the costs and hassles that are tied to a lot of the state
regulatory proposals."
*******************************
Washington Post
PayAgent Aims to Curtail Identity Theft Online 
By Ellen McCarthy
Monday, September 8, 2003; Page E05 

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission said that identity theft struck
almost 10 million people last year, costing victims $5 billion and
businesses about $48 billion. And despite a growing awareness of the
problem, few expect the statistics to decline any time soon. 

Anari Belpre had been working for almost two years on a system that would
allow low wage earners to decide which day to get paid when he started
hearing more and more about identity theft. 

"It's clear and obvious that identity theft is a major problem and
it's constantly growing as the Internet becomes a greater part of our
lives," said Belpre, founder and chief executive of PayAgent
Corp.

Belpre put the payroll product on hold and buckled down with his Web
developer to create a system that would help protect consumers from
online identity theft. PayAgent's service won't stop criminals from
obtaining personal information, but it is designed to prevent thieves
from buying goods through the Internet with another person's credit card
information. 

Under PayAgent's system, consumers can register their names and personal
information with the company and then choose a user name and password.
Whenever an online transaction is being made through a Web site that also
contracts with PayAgent, the system searches for matching names in
PayAgent's files. If there is a match, the buyer will be asked to enter
his or her user name and password. 

The company charges consumers $24.95 a year for the service and
e-commerce companies would pay $200 to $375 in set-up costs, plus a
monthly fee of $30, Belpre said. The company is just beginning to sell
its service, but has some major hurdles ahead because a critical mass of
consumers and businesses will have to sign up to make the service
effective.
*******************************
Government Executive
September 4, 2003 
Lawmakers grill top cyber official at Homeland Security 
By Greta Wodele, National Journal's Technology Daily 

House lawmakers on Thursday fired questions at the new chief of
infrastructure protection at the Homeland Security Department, asking
about the division's fiscal 2004 budget request, upcoming deadlines and
the amount of information it shares with Congress. 


Kentucky Republican Harold Rogers, chairman of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a hearing on the information
analysis and infrastructure protection directorate that the unit's budget
request did not "provide nearly enough detailed" information
and characterized the requests for funding as "simply not
adequate." Rogers and subcommittee ranking Democrat Martin Olav Sabo
of Minnesota said obtaining the budget information for the agency, and
the department overall, was onerous, cumbersome and time-consuming.


"I wonder if we're better off spending the $800 million
elsewhere," Sabo said of the $829 million requested by the Bush
administration for the directorate, which is in charge of assessing
threats to the nation's cyber and physical infrastructures. 


Frank Libutti, who became the division's undersecretary two months ago,
pledged to provide a more detailed budget in the future. Responding to
questions from Sabo about lawmakers not receiving classified or
unclassified information from the department, Libutti vowed to address
the panel's concerns at "any time." 


Rogers also asked Libutti if the division would meet a Dec. 15 deadline
established in the spending bill for Homeland Security to define the
scope, cost and schedule for programs to assess security threats. Libutti
said while his division would meet the deadlines, assessing threats is an
"ongoing, day-to-day operation." 


Lawmakers did not ask Libutti about a deadline his division missed last
month for a report on the current number of intelligence and
cyber-security analysts under the directorate. The full Appropriations
Committee requested the report by Aug. 30, saying in a report on the
measure that the panel "does not believe that [the directorate] is
hiring enough intelligence analysts responsible for terrorist assessment,
cyber-security threat analysis and biowarfare threat assessment."


A committee aide said the panel is hoping to receive the report before
the House and Senate conference committee meets to finalize the Homeland
Security appropriations bill, H.R. 2555. 


When National Journal's Technology Daily asked about the missed deadline
during a break, Libutti said he would take it "under
advisement." The secretary reiterated from his testimony that his
unit employs about 60 analysts, which includes cyber-security analysts,
and that Homeland Security as a whole has more than 850 on board.


New York Democrat Jose Serrano peppered Libutti with questions about the
threat of computer viruses on the nation's infrastructure. Libutti
responded that the "cybersecurity piece" at the division is
"critical and paramount to protecting infrastructure." It
requires a "partnership" with state and local governments, as
well as the private sector, he said.


The lawmakers ended the hearing by asking Libutti to return to Capitol
Hill for a classified briefing on its various programs, including an
update on cyber-security initiatives, the national security-alert system,
and information sharing with state and local governments.
*******************************
New York Times
September 8, 2003
COMPRESSED DATA 
With Politeness, Easing the Pain of E-Mail Mishaps
By ALAN KRAUSS

One side effect of the recent torrent of e-mail messages unleashed by
worms and viruses like Blaster and SoBig.F, which raid people's e-mail
address books and automatically send out messages, is the increase in
electronic "return to sender" notes showing up in users' In
Boxes. 

In the bounce messages, as they are known, strings of letters and numbers
are followed by a phrase saying that a message could not be delivered. It
is typically rendered in dry automatonese, as in: "The IronMail
encountered problems while parsing the attached message. The message has
a malformed mime. The message has not passed through any of the queues in
IronMail." But one e-mail server program, Qmail, sends a bounce
message that is personable and even a bit apologetic.

"Hi," said one such message from an e-mail server computer
running Qmail. "This is the qmail-send program at email.seznam.cz.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work
out."

Qmail, available free from the Web site Qmail.org, was written by Daniel
J. Bernstein, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He
created it as an alternative to Sendmail, the most widely used e-mail
server program. Developed in the early days of the Internet, Sendmail has
been plagued by flaws  most relating to security  as it has
been adapted for wider use. 

Mr. Bernstein could not be reached for comment. But Russell Nelson, a
software consultant in Potsdam, N.Y., who runs the nonprofit Qmail.org,
affectionately described Mr. Bernstein as a gentle iconoclast. 

Mr. Nelson noted some of the other human touches in Qmail. If something
goes wrong internally, Qmail sounds a note of alarm: "Alert: Oh no!
Lost Qmail connection. Dying . . ." And if it receives a request to
verify an e-mail address, the response come from any ambitious young
shipping clerk: "Send some mail. I'll try my best."

Recipients of the Qmail messages routinely assume the sender is a
sentient being, Mr. Nelson said. "Users see that and think that a
person actually typed it in and that they should respond. People actually
do reply." 
*******************************