Computer Underground Digest Volume 1, Issue #1.13 (June 12, 1990)

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 1, Issue #1.13 (June 12, 1990) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. -------------------------------------------------------------------- In This Issue: File 1: Moderators' Editorial: The Chilling Effect Hits Home File 2: A Hacker's Perspective (by Johnny Yonderboy) File 3: Len Rose Information and Commentary File 4: Response to Telecom Digest's Views (by Emmanuel Goldstein) File 5: Reprinted Editorial on Steve Jackson Games -------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.11 / File 1 of 5 *** *************************************************************** *** THE CHILLING EFFECT HITS CuD *** Craig Niedorf was arraigned for a second time on June 12. CuD 1.14 will have a detailed article on the arraignment on Friday, but our preliminary analysis of Tuesday's events suggests that the witch hunt continues in full force. Several of the charges were dropped, but new ones were added based on articles Craig allegedly wrote. It appears that the definition of "forbidden information" grows wider as the Secret Service and zealous federal prosecutors show their commitment to law and order by trampling the First Amendment. If Craig is convicted, the implications are serious. All persons who currently, or have in the past, written, distributed, or received "forbidden knowledge"--knowledge which is defined as illegal only after the fact--may be vulnerable to prosecution. More serious is the possibility that those who agents feel may possess such information may have their equipment confiscated in the sweep for evidence. We have found that in attempting to acquire information about the current indictments, much of the information is "closed," whether officially or because of the attempt to control information flow by prosecutors. For example, in the federal district court in Chicago, staff either cannot or will not release *any* information, and all queries are referred to Bill Cook. If Mr. Cook is not available or choses not to return calls, obtaining accurate information becomes nearly impossible. In fifteenth century England, the Star Chamber was a powerful tribunal feared for its often capricious way of dispensing justice, often in secrecy, and for the political overtones it acquired in suppressing "enemies of the state." The current handling of federal investigation into the CU in many ways resembles the dread Star Chamber. Information is tightly guarded, secrecy is maintained, it seems to function as much as a device to inspire fear (judging from comments by agents) as to dispense justice, because those whose equipment has been confiscated without a subsequent indictment or without reasonable opportunity for successful appeal have no open trial, and the charges, while seemingly precise on paper, do not seem to match the facts as presented by the tribunal. In short, in Operation Sun Devil, the judicial system seems to have broken down. In 1985, then-U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese was asked the following by an interviewer: "You criticize the Miranda Ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection? Meese replied: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. The power to name the world provides a non-coercive, yet effective, means of imposing preferred doctrines and corresponding behaviors on others. Hyper-active law enforcement agents seem to have learned from Meese and are first defining--after the fact--"crimes" of information acquisition, control, and dissemination as "illegal," and innocence or guilt do not seem to matter. Granted, courts may ultimately vindicate one who has been indicted, but not after considerable financial and emotional hardship. Those who merely possess evidence may not be indicted, but may nonetheless suffer, as have Steve Jackson and others, the loss of equipment vital to their work. There is also a chilling effect that occurs with a system of justice in which "crimes" are so loosely defined. Should sysops and others self-censor themselves out of fear of possible government reprisals? We at CuD provide CU archives for several reasons. First, as a teaching aid, it provides information for students wishing to write term papers on the CU. Without this information, they could not learn. CU documents also provide helpful handouts for lectures, speeches, and other public presentations. The chilling effect of suppression of first amendment rights and not knowing in advance what is considered lawful and what is not--even when nothing appears illegal on its surface--stifles academic freedom. Second, we offer the archives for research purposes. As professional scholars, we find that to limit access to what is the *only* source of material of this kind inhibits inquiry in a way way that is simply unacceptable in a democratic society. Much of our own information has come from the variety of publications put out by various CU groups. To criminalize publishing this material or making it available to other like-minded scholars subverts the very principles of scholarship. If we cite the infamous E911 file, innocuous as it may be, we, as scholars, are required to have read it and to either produce it or indicate a source where it can be found. That is the nature of science. We find the current witch hunt mentality to have a serious repercussions for social science. Should we adopt the "CYA" syndrome and change research directions? Or should we pursue our inquiry and risk possible repercussions? Finally, we make archives available for the layperson who simply wishes to more fully understand what the fuss is about. An informed public is an enlightened public, but it seems that the government has decided for us what the public can and cannot learn. We have both directly and indirectly invited members of law enforcement to respond, to participate in dialogue, to give us a reasoned response to the current "crackdown." None have. We have no wish to attack those who, in good faith, may believe they are protecting society. But, neither do we desire to become victims of the current purge. Within the past two weeks, there seems to be a backlash--not by hackers--but by established business persons, computer hobbyists, academics, politicians, and others, who recognize the danger of the current sweeps to civil liberties. We hope that others will also understand that, when freedom of speech and freedom to share information is threatened, a serious threat does indeed exist. THIS THREAT DOES NOT COME FROM THE CU! =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ END C-u-D, #1.13 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 2 of 5 *** *************************************************************** * * * A Hacker's Perspective * * * ...insights into Operation Sun Devil... ...from the OTHER side... by Johnny Yonderboy A long time ago, in a land far, far away, hacking and phreaking were safe, relatively painless hobbies to get into. People did not have major law enforcement agencies hunting them down...huge bureaus weren't devoted to the eradication of this crime. When caught, the usual punishment was to simply be billed for the act that you perpetrated. Even myself, when I was busted for illegally using AT&T credit cards, only received a stiff bill. When they did prosecute further, the sentencing was designed to punish you for your deviance, but also commended you on your cleverness. That was a long time ago, and I came in on the tail end of the Golden Age of Phreaking/Hacking. Phreaking was easy, and hacking was young. Those who could hack in those days were also those who got the better jobs. Those who couldn't, phreaked. And those who didn't fool around with that "illegal nonsense" wrote bulletin board software. Life was simple, and social divisions were even moreso. Today, however, things are quite different. An average bulletin board today can expect to be visited by a major law enforcement agency (the FBI, the SS) about once a year. Most of the time, you won't even know who is intruding upon your sacred privacy. These visits are standard practice to be expected on the elite boards - a status symbol, if you will. But to a normal user, this is terrifying. And among non-computer users, this type of practice is totally unheard of. You might scoff, but consider this - say you were a member of the NRA, and you had weekly meetings (if indeed the NRA has weekly meetings). Suppose a federal agent started sitting in at your meetings, looking for illegal activity. Not participating, not speaking, but just watching. Would the NRA stand for it? Not just no, but HELL NO! But as members (even legitimate ones) of the computer-using community, we are supposed to accept this, as blindly and complacently as we accept income tax. Sure, there is a law being broken on certain boards, but what about those boards that are legitimate? Or, what about the times on elite boards that the conversation is centered around something besides illegal matters? Are we to always accept these KGB-like raids upon our homes as well? Or how about the seizure of our personal property? Which, notably, there is no guarantee of it's return if you are proven innocent. If we accept these things, (i.e. surveillance, raids, seizures, etc.) how much farther will we let them go before we have to put them in check? Indeed, it is easy to state that what hackers are doing mandates this type of personal infringement. But by all definitions of "personal rights", the actions taken by the involved law enforcement agencies in Operation Sun Devil go beyond what is democratic and free, and begins to step into the formation of a police state. The distribution of information is heavily controlled in Communist Russia. As they take steps towards democracy with Glasnost, are we also to take steps towards totalitarianism? The media used to play us up to be high-tech folk heroes. With this new computer-phobia on the rise, we are the electronic mafia. We, the Computer Underground, have no say over this - it has happened. But what are we, really? Are we pranksters, attacking in the middle of the night to scrawl obscenities in email? Sure, this has happened, and a lot of damage has been done both to victim computers as well as to the reputation of the Computer Underground as a whole. Are we high-tech hooligans burglarizing systems for their valuable data, to sell to the highest bidder? The infamous E911 document which was stolen is proof of that. Did the involved parties sell that material? Indeed not. They were going to distribute that information to the general public. Are we political subversives trying to overthrow the government? Indeed not. While some of us may have radical political ideas, none of us get tied up in outside government for any reason beyond what effects us here (sorry for the broad generalization...some of us ARE political subversives...). So, what exactly are we trying to do? To go further. To stay online longer. To do more. Not to be able to destroy more, but to simply be able to do more on the national networks. The end goal of all this hacking, cracking and phreaking is to be able to exchange information with people all over the world. This is not always economically feasible, so illegal methods have to be employed. How many of YOU can say that you would go to any limits to achieve something that you wanted? Is this "ambition" a bad thing? Indeed not. Laying judgements down on us doesn't solve a thing. Saying that you don't agree with what we do, but you don't like what is being done to us is supportive, but you have to make your own judgements in the long run anyhow. If you have never done it, then you will never be able to understand why we do this. This should about wrap up what I have to say. If you have any comments or such, then please mail them to the editors here at CuD. -=* Keep the flames burning, AND DON'T LET PHREAKING/HACKING DIE!!! *=- ... Johnny Yonderboy ... =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 3 of 5 *** *************************************************************** ----------------- {The contributor of the following requested anonymity} ------------------ Here is a interesting message I found posted in the Telecom newsgroup on USENET today ([* are my comments *]: ******************************************************************** Subject: "Legion of Doom" Indictment Date: 30 May 90 16:42:21 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Computer Consultant Could get 32 Years If Convicted of Source-Code Theft Baltimore - A Middletown, Md., man faces as many as 32 years in prison and nearly $1 million in fines if convicted of being involved in the "Legion of Doom" nationwide group of Unix computer buffs now facing the wrath of federal investigators. [* I thought the LOD was a group interested in all types of computer operating systems....I guess now they are Unix gurus *] The U.S. Attorney's Office here on May 15 announced the indictment of Leonard Rose, 31, a computer consultant also known as "Terminus," on charges that he stole Unix source code from AT&T and distributed two "Trojan Horse" programs designed to allow for unauthorized access to computer systems. Incidents occurred between May, 1988 and January, 1990, according to the indictment. The five-count indictment, handed down by a federal grand jury, charges Rose with violations of interstate transportation laws and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Rose faces as many as 32 years in prison, plus a maximum fine of $950,000. He is the third person to be indicted who was accused of being connected with the so-called Legion of Doom. Robert J. Riggs, a 21-year-old DeVry Institute student from Decatur, Ga., and Craig M. Neidorf, 19, a University of Missouri student from Columbia, Mo., also have been indicted. [* This is getting pretty ridiculous about Craig Neidorf being in the LOD, he was the editor of Phrack magazine. I guess since security and commercial types subscribed to Phrack, he is also part of there organizations. Geeshh...I wonder how many groups the editors of CUD belong to also based on who their readers are...*] Rose's indictment stemmed from a federal investigation that began in Chicago and led investigators to Missouri and Maryland, assistant U.S. Attorney David King said. While executing a search warrant in Missouri, investigators uncovered evidence Rose was transporting stolen Unix 3.2 source code, King said. Investigators then obtained a warrant to search Rose's computer system and found the stolen source code, King added. He said the Trojan Horse programs were substitutes for a legitimate sign-in or log-in program, with a separate shell for collecting user log-ins or passwords. [* The question is was he caught using those programs to acquire pass-words? Or is this an assumption by the government??? I guess writing or having specific public domain programs is against the law.*] "Whoever substituted [the Trojan Horse program] could get passwords to use the system any way he or she wanted to," King said. The indictment was a result of a long-term investigation by the U.S. Secret Service, and was issued one week after federal authorities raided computer systems at 27 sites across the United States. Investigators seized 23,000 computer disks from suspects accused of being responsible for more than $50 million in thefts and damages. The Secret Service at that time announced that five people have been arrested in February in connection with the investigation. King said he was unaware if Rose indictment was related to the raids made earlier this month. "We don't just go out and investigate people because we want to throw them in jail. We investigate them because they commit an offense. The grand jury was satisfied," King said. [* I wonder how many copies (non-site licensed) of software exist in the State Office building (ie. Word Perfect, Lotus, etc.) or in the homes of the employees. That would be considered illegal. *] The U.S. Attorney's Office said the investigation revealed individuals had accessed computers belonging to federal research centers, schools and private businesses. King would not name any of the victims involved. Rose was associated with the Legion of Doom and operated his own computer system known as Netsys, according to the indictment. His electronic mailing address was Netsys!len, the document said. The Legion, according to the indictment, gained fraudulent, unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing software; stole proprietary source code and other information; disseminated information about gaining illegal access, and made telephone calls at the expense of other people. Well that is the latest in the Summer '90 busts. I just hope that everyone arrested by the government receives as fair a deal that Robert Morris received for his little prank. Because I doubt Mr. Morris was given special treatment because his dad works for the NSA... =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 4 of 5 *** *************************************************************** *** CRITIQUE OF TELECOM DIGEST'S POSITON ON THE CURRENT BUSTS *** (By Emmanuel Goldstein) ===================== It's real disturbing to read the comments that have been posted recently on Telecom Digest concerning Operation Sun Devil and Mitch Kapor's involvement. While I think the moderator has been chastised sufficiently, there are still a few remarks I want to make. First of all, I understand the point he was trying to get across. But I think he shot from the hip without rationalizing his point first, thereby leaving many of us in a kind of stunned silence. If I understand it correctly, the argument is: Kapor says he wants to help people that the moderator believes are thieves. Therefore, using that logic, it's okay to steal from Kapor. Well, I don't agree. Obviously, Kapor DOESN'T believe these people are criminals. Even if one or two of them ARE criminals, he is concerned with all of the innocent bystanders that are being victimized here. And make no mistake about that - there are many innocent bystanders here. I've spoken to quite a few of them. Steve Jackson, Craig Neidorf, the friends and families of people who've had armed agents of the federal government storm into their homes and offices. It's a very frightening scenario - one that I've been through myself. And when it happens there are permanent scars and a fear that never quite leaves. For drug dealers, murderers, hardened criminals, it's an acceptable price in my view. But a 14 year old kid who doesn't know when to stop exploring a computer system? Let's get real. Do we really want to mess up someone's life just to send a message? I've been a hacker for a good part of my life. Years ago, I was what you would call an "active" hacker, that is, I wandered about on computer systems and explored. Throughout it all, I knew it would be wrong to mess up data or do something that would cause harm to a system. I was taught to respect tangible objects; extending that to encompass intangible objects was not very hard to do. And most, if not all, of the people I explored with felt the same way. Nobody sold their knowledge. The only profit we got was an education that far surpassed any computer class or manual. Eventually, though, I was caught. But fortunately for me, the witch-hunt mentality hadn't caught on yet. I cooperated with the authorities, explained how the systems I used were flawed, and proved that there was no harm done. I had to pay for the computer time I used and if I stayed out of trouble, I would have no criminal record. They didn't crush my spirit. And the computers I used became more secure. Except for the fear and intimidation that occurred during my series of raids, I think I was dealt with fairly. Now I publish a hacker magazine. And in a way, it's an extension of that experience. The hackers are able to learn all about many different computer and phone systems. And those running the systems, IF THEY ARE SMART, listen to what is being said and learn valuable lessons before it's too late. Because sooner or later, someone will figure out a way to get in. And you'd better hope it's a hacker who can help you figure out ways to improve the system and not an ex-employee with a monumental grudge. In all fairness, I've been hacked myself. Someone figured out a way to break the code for my answering machine once. Sure, I was angry. At the company. They had no conception of what security was. I bought a new machine from a different company, but not before letting a lot of people know EXACTLY what happened. And I've had people figure out my calling card numbers. This gave me firsthand knowledge of the ineptitude of the phone companies. And I used to think they understood their own field! My point is: you're only a victim if you refuse to learn. If I do something stupid like empty my china cabinet on the front lawn and leave it there for three weeks, I don't think many people will feel sympathetic if it doesn't quite work out. And I don't think we should be sympathetic towards companies and organizations that obviously don't know the first thing about security and very often are entrusted with important data. The oldest hacker analogy is the walking-in-through-the-front-door-and- rummaging-through-my-personal-belongings one. I believe the moderator recently asked a critic if he would leave his door unlocked so he could drop in and rummage. The one fact that always seems to be missed with this analogy is that an individual's belongings are just not interesting to someone who simply wants to learn. But they ARE interesting to someone who wants to steal. A big corporation's computer system is not interesting to someone who wants to steal, UNLESS they have very specific knowledge as to how to do this (which eliminates the hacker aspect). But that system is a treasure trove for those interested in LEARNING. To those that insist on using this old analogy, I say at least be consistent. You wouldn't threaten somebody with 30 years in jail for taking something from a house. What's especially ironic is that your personal belongings are probably much more secure than the data in the nation's largest computer systems! When you refer to hacking as "burglary and theft", as the moderator frequently does, it becomes easy to think of these people as hardened criminals. But it's just not the case. I don't know any burglars or thieves, yet I hang out with an awful lot of hackers. It serves a definite purpose to blur the distinction, just as pro-democracy demonstrators are referred to as rioters by nervous leaders. Those who have staked a claim in the industry fear that the hackers will reveal vulnerabilities in their systems that they would just as soon forget about. It would have been very easy for Mitch Kapor to join the bandwagon on this. The fact that he didn't tells me something about his character. And he's not the only one. Since we published what was, to the best of my knowledge, the first pro-hacker article on all of these raids, we've been startled by the intensity of the feedback we've gotten. A lot of people are angry, upset, and frightened by what the Secret Service is doing. They're speaking out and communicating their outrage to other people who we could never have reached. And they've apparently had these feelings for some time. Is this the anti-government bias our moderator accused another writer of harboring? Hardly. This is America at its finest. Emmanuel Goldstein Editor, 2600 Magazine - The Hacker Quarterly emmanuel@well.sf.ca.us po box 752, middle island, ny 11953 =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= *************************************************************** *** Computer Underground Digest Issue #1.13 / File 5 of 5 *** *************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 90 03:50:07 EDT (Sun) From: aha@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Brian Sherwood) Subject: Steve Jackson Games & A.B. 3280 > Computer Gaming World (Golden Empire Publications) > June, 1990, Number 72, Page 8 > Editorial by Johnny L. Wilson It CAN Happen Here Although Nobel Prize-winning novelist Sinclair Lewis is probably best known for 'Main Street', 'Babbitt', 'Elmer Gantry', and 'Arrowsmith', my personal favorites are 'It Can't Happen Here' and 'Kingsblood Royal'. The latter is an ironic narrative in which who suffers from racial prejudice toward the black population discovers, through genealogical research, that he himself has black ancestors. The protagonist experienced a life-challenging discovery that enabled Lewis to preach a gospel of civil rights to his readership. The former is, perhaps, Lewis' most lengthy novel and it tells how a radio evangelist was able to use the issues of morality and national security to form a national mandate and create a fascist dictatorship in the United States. As Lewis showed how patriotic symbolism could be distorted by power-hungry elite and religious fervor channeled into a political movement, I was personally shaken. As a highschool student, reading this novel, for the first time, I suddenly realized what lewis intended for his readers to realize. "It" (a dictatorship) really CAN happen here, There is an infinitesimally fine line between protecting the interests of society and encumbering the freedoms of the self-same society in the name of protection. Now it appears that the civil liberties of game designers and gamers themselves are to be assaulted in the name of protecting society. In recent months two unrelated events have taken place which must make us pause: the raiding of Steve Jackson Games' offices by the United States Secret Service, and the introduction of A.B. 3280 into the California State Assembly by Assemblyperson Tanner. On March 1, 1990, Steve Jackson Games (a small pen and paper game company) was raided by agents of the United States Secret Service. The raid was allegedly part of an investigation into data piracy and was, apparently, related to the latest supplement from SJG entitled, GURPS Cyberpunk (GURPS stands for Generic Universal Role-Playing System). GURPS Cyberpunk features rules for a game universe analogous to the dark futures of George Alec Effinger ('When Gravity Fails'), William Gibson ('Neuromancer'), Norman Spinrad ('Little Heroes'), Bruce Sterling ('Islands in the Net'), and Walter Jon Williams ('Hardwired'). GURPS Cyberpunk features character related to breaking into networks and phreaking (abusing the telephone system).Hence, certain federal agents are reported to have made several disparaging remarks about the game rules being a "handbook for computer crime". In the course of the raid (reported to have been conducted under the authority of an unsigned photocopy of a warrant; at least, such was the only warrant showed to the employees at SJG) significant destruction allegedly occurred. A footlocker, as well as exterior storage units and cartons, were deliberately forced open even though an employee with appropriate keys was present and available to lend assistance. In addition, the materials confiscated included: two computers, an HP Laserjet II printer, a variety of computer cards and parts, and an assortment of commercial software. In all, SJG estimates that approximately $10,000 worth of computer hardware and software was confiscated. The amorphous nature of the raid is what is most frightening to me. Does this raid indicate that those who operate bulletin board systems as individuals are at risk for similar raids if someone posts "hacking" information on their computer? Or does it indicate that games which involve "hacking" are subject to searches and seizures by the federal government? Does it indicate that writing about "hacking" exposes one to the risk of a raid? It seems that this raid goes over the line of protecting society and has, instead, violated the freedom of its citizenry. Further facts may indicate that this is not the case, but the first impression strongly indicates an abuse of freedom. Then there is the case of California's A.B 3280 which would forbid the depiction of any alcohol or tobacco package or container in any video game intended primarily for use by minors. The bill makes no distinction between positive or negative depiction of alcohol or tobacco, does not specify what "primarily designed for" means, and defines 'video game' in such a way that coin-ops, dedicated game machines, and computer games can all fit within the category. Now the law is, admittedly, intended to help curb the use and abuse of alcohol and tobacco among minors. Yet the broad stroke of the brush with which it is written limits the dramatic license which can be used to make even desirable points in computer games. For example, Chris Crawford's 'Balance of the Planet' depicts a liquor bottle on a trash heap as part of a screen talking about the garbage problem. Does this encourage alcohol abuse? In 'Wasteland', one of the encounters involves two winos in an alley. Does their use of homemade white lightening commend it to any minors that might be playing the game? One of the problems with legislating art is that art is designed to both reflect and cast new light and new perspectives on life. As such, depiction of any aspect of life may be appropriate, in context. Unfortunately for those who want to use the law as a means of enforcing morality, laws cannot be written to cover every context. We urge our California readers to oppose A.B. 3280 and help defend our basic freedoms. We urge all of our readers to be on the alert for any governmental intervention that threatens our freedom of expression. "It" not only CAN happen here, but "it" is very likely to if we are not careful. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank