Computer underground Digest Tue Apr 12, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 32 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Tue Apr 12, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 32 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe (He's Baaaack) Acting Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Suspercollater: Shrdlu Nooseman CONTENTS, #6.32 (Apr 12, 1994) File 1--An Issues Primer for the Lamacchia Case File 2-- MIT Butt-Covering? File 3--New Edition of E-Zine-List available File 4--Ratings Bandwidth File 5--"I Have Seen the Future" (Satire) File 6--Badgering LambdaMOO File 7--Edwards to Lopez File 8--Gilmore Files Clipper FOIA File 9--Arrests of Juvenils in New Zealand for Bomb-making llegal File 10--PRODIGY Forges Ahead With New Features File 11--NY bill to make govt. info available online - act NOW! Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893; In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 FTP: UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) nic.funet.fi ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 22:48:00 -0500 From: Silverglate & Good Subject: File 1--An Issues Primer for the Lamacchia Case An Issues Primer in the Criminal Prosecution of _United States of America vs. David LaMacchia_ (U. S. District Court, Boston, MA) There has been a lot of mis-information and mis-understanding floating around the electronic and print media concerning the issues in the prosecution of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate David LaMacchia, who was indicted on April 7, 1994 in the federal District of Massachusetts. This issues primer is meant to clarify what the case is and is not about, and to place into some perspective the legal issues raised. The purpose of this memo is not, at this stage, to discuss any contested evidence in the case, since that will be played out at a later stage. Some of the case's legal implications are, however, clear from the start. * * * >>> The charge in the indictment: The indictment charges that David LaMacchia, by operating a computer bulletin board system, or "BBS", at M.I.T. during a period of some six weeks, thereby permitted and facilitated the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted software by other unknown persons (presumably, the many computer users who logged onto the BBS). It is further alleged that LaMacchia knew that others were using his system for such a purpose, although it is *not* alleged that the BBS was not used for other, lawful communication purposes as well. There is *no* allegation that LaMacchia himself uploaded, downloaded, sold, profited from, used, or actually transmitted any such software. The government does not allege that LaMacchia violated the federal copyright or computer fraud statutes. Rather, the prosecution has charged him with engaging in a criminal conspiracy to violate the federal wire fraud statute, which was enacted in 1952 to prevent the use of the telephone wires in interstate fraud schemes. * * * >>> What this case is *not* about: This is *not* a case about whether *"software piracy"* is illegal under federal law. Both sides in the case are proceeding, and will proceed, on the assumption that it is *not* lawful to make and distribute copies of copyrighted computer software without paying a licensing or royalty fee to the copyright owner. There is likely to be agreement as well that if copyrighted software above a certain value is willfully copied and sold, a criminal copyright violation has occurred. David LaMacchia is *not* alleged in the indictment to have _uploaded_ or _downloaded_, _transmitted to anyone_ or even _used personally_, any copyrighted software on the computer bulletin board system ("BBS"), or "node", that he created and operated from an M.I.T. computer. LaMacchia is *not* alleged to have _sold_ any copyrighted software, _nor profited_ one penny from the copying or distribution of any such software. It is *not* alleged that the computer BBS was used *exclusively* to transfer copyrighted software. Indeed, the indictment alleges that "part" of the conspiracy was to transmit "files and messages" on the system, part was "to create a library of software", and that "part" of the scheme was to allow some users to "unlawfully download copyrighted software." * * * >>> What this case *is* about: This case raises the following significant issues in the overall larger question of whether, and how, the principles underlying freedom of speech and of the press (the First Amendment) will be applied to the world of computer communications ("cyberspace"): 1. Under current criminal statutes, may a systems operator ("SYSOP") of a computer BBS be held criminally responsible for what *users* of the system do while logged onto the network, including the exchange of copyrighted software or indeed, the publication of other copyrighted materials? 2. If current criminal statutes, including the "wire fraud" statute that LaMacchia is alleged to have "conspired" to violate, are interpreted to reach the SYSOP who does not himself upload, download, copy, use, or sell copyrighted software, do those statutes, as so interpreted, violate the First Amendment, and are they therefore unconstitutional? 3. In light of the uncertainty over whether and how current statutes, including the federal "wire fraud" statute, apply to the activities of a SYSOP of a computer BBS, does the government violate the "Due Process of Law" provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits criminal prosecution unless Congress has given citizens clear notice of what conduct is prohibited, by seeking to impose *criminal* liability on a SYSOP like LaMacchia, where any reasonable person (even a legal expert, but much less a 20-year-old undergraduate) would not have known that his conduct even arguably was a crime? In short, was LaMacchia given adequate *notice* that the wire fraud statute would be stretched to cover his activity? Is it fair, or constitutional, to prosecute such a person before the law is *clarified*? * * * >>> Discussion: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has long conferred special protection on those engaged in the activity of maintaining communications media. Part of this protection has involved protecting such persons from being held *criminally* responsible for the criminal misuses of their systems and media by other people. Thus, for example: It is well-known that certain classified advertisements for "_dating services_" found commonly in some newspapers are really covers for high-class *prostitution* rings. Yet only the people who actually run the prostitution services are prosecuted for those violations of law. Editors and publishers of the newspapers are *not* prosecuted on some legal theory that their classified sections -- and therefore they themselves -- somehow "aided" or "conspired with" the prostitution rings in the criminal prostitution enterprise, even if the editors and publishers were well aware of the fact that their newspapers were being mis-used for an illegal purpose. It is well-known that gambling "numbers" syndicates utilize newspaper reports of scores of the outcomes of certain athletic events, as the basis for illegal sports-betting operations. Only the bookies are criminally prosecuted for such gambling activity. The newspapers -- their editors, publishers, and reporters included -- are never criminally prosecuted for the illegal activities of those who thus use the published sports reports. In nearly every lending library in the country, there are one or more photocopying machines sitting in the midst of large number of books, many of which are copyrighted. Librarians surely understand that a certain number of people who make photocopies on those machines are copying *copyrighted* material, perhaps in violation of the copyright laws. There does not appear to be a criminal prosecution of any such librarians for "aiding" or "facilitating" breaches of the copyright laws. The owner or manager of a bookstore may not be criminally prosecuted for the distribution of obscene material if, in a bookstore carrying a wide variety of printed materials, a certain quantity of those materials contain obscene portions. It does not even matter whether the bookstore owner or manager suspects that some of the material in the store may contain obscene matter. It is not his or her legal responsibility to monitor and censor such materials, according to the United States Supreme Court. (_Smith v. California_, 361 U.S. 147 (1959)) The reason why the editor, publisher, reporter, librarian, and bookstore-owner and manager are all protected against criminal prosecution, is because the First Amendment protects them from being held criminally responsible for the acts of those who use, or mis-use, their media or their facilities. In short, because of the First Amendment, we do not assign to such people the role of being *censors* or "media cops." In the case of a SYSOP (like David LaMacchia) of a computer BBS, the First Amendment would appear to protect him from criminal liability for the arguably illegal actions of other people using (or mis-using) his system to upload, download, transfer, copy, and use copyrighted software. Just as with the owner or manager of a bookstore or the librarian, it would be impossible for a SYSOP to monitor everything being uploaded to or downloaded from his computer BBS. Were such liability imposed, nobody would risk being a SYSOP, and virtually every computer BBS in the country would shut down. This is what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. The question in the _LaMacchia_ case is whether the First Amendment protections that have long applied to those in the print medium, should apply fully to those in the computer communications medium. Because the law has been slow in adjusting to the age of digital communications, there have been relatively few legal tests of the scope of First Amendment protections in cyberspace. Civil libertarians have assumed that there surely should be no less constitutional protection for free speech and free press in cyberspace than elsewhere. Those few courts tests that have happened indicate that the First Amendment is indeed alive and well in cyberspace. Now, in the case of _United States v. David LaMacchia_, we will learn whether the Department of Justice will be permitted to bend and stretch the old federal criminal "wire fraud" statute to cover the activities of a SYSOP who himself violates no copyright law, does not profit from the activities of others, and who merely runs the system perhaps even suspecting or knowing that it is being used for a wide variety of purposes -- some legal and some arguably illegal, or whether Congress, if it wishes to criminalize such activity, will have to pass a statute *clearly* making it a crime for a SYSOP to operate in this fashion. If and when such a statute is enacted, the question of whether the First Amendment allows a SYSOP to be treated differently than a publisher, an editor, or a bookstore owner or manager, would have to be decided of course. But surely no SYSOP should be criminally prosecuted in the *absence* of such a statute, with no warning at all that he could face prison because it did not (and reasonably could not) occur to him that someone would claim under *current* law that he was committing a crime. Harvey A. Silverglate Sharon L. Beckman Silverglate & Good 89 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel (617) 542-6663 Fax (617) 451-6971 has@world.std.com David Duncan Zalkind, Rodrigues, Lunt & Duncan 65a Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02110 Tel (617) 742-6020 Fax (617) 742-3269 Legal Counsel for David LaMacchia Dated: April 11, 1994. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 18:33:15 +0000 From: gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal) Subject: File 2-- MIT Butt-Covering? In the MIT tech newspaper: "We became aware sometime in December that a computer was being used to distribute software," said Kenneth D. Campbell, director of the news office. "That information was turned over to Campus Police and the FBI. MIT personnel cooperated with the FBI in the investigation." The incident was discovered when an Athena-user in the Student Center cluster noticed that an unattended workstation next to him was behaving abnormally, making frequent disk accesses, according to James D. Bruce ScD '60, vice president for Information Systems. The user apparently reported the abnormal behavior to members of the Student Information Processing Board, who then proceeded to investigate the matter, according to a source familiar with the investigation. The SIPB members saw the status of the workstation and reported the incident to the Information Systems staff, the source said. Most places I know of, if something like an FSP site was found, the Dean or equivalent would take the student to one side and give him a good verbal rap on the knuckles - maybe suspend his account for a time - and put him back on the straight and narrow with the fear of god in him. It's pretty depressing that schools are now so litigation-scared that they feel they have to cover their backs and get the police involved. This is the effect SPA et al are having. I can't see it being for the greater good myself. It ups the stakes and means that any other sys admin in charge of a University site will now be obliged to call LE in, or risk being charged as conspirators themselves. (At least, I *presume* it was fear that led to the law enforcement agencies because MIT wasn't to make sure their hands were clean. ...... Also, I'd like to know *who* drew up the indictment against David - who it was that thought using pgp and anonymous remailers was something worth mentioning. This *isn't* the sort of stuff I'd expect the Boston DA to know about. Either someone at MIT is deliberately shit-stirring or the DA got help from ... my personal suspicion is that that little gem came from MIT and young David is caught up in something larger than his FSP warez server problems... Does anyone have a way of finding out who was responsible for that part? Is it FOIA-able? Or can David's lawyer's expect to be told as part of his defence? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 01:10:18 -0700 From: John Labovitz Subject: File 3--New Edition of E-Zine-List available This is to announce a New Edition of my E-Zine-List, a guide to zines on the net. The newest edition of the list can be obtained in the following ways: anonymous FTP: ftp.netcom.com: /pub/johnl/zines/e-zine-list (ASCII text version) e-zine-list.html (HTML version) World Wide Web: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/johnl/zines/e-zine-list.html FTP-mail send the message "help" to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com for more information email: johnl@ora.com A few notes: * I'm changing my email contact address from johnl@netcom.com to johnl@ora.com. Any further correspondence should be addressed to me here. I will eventually be changing the FTP site (and hopefully getting it on a real WWW sever); I'll let you know when that happens. * At one point I had started a list of people who wanted to receive the full version of an edition of the list when it came out. I've realized that this is simply too timeconsuming for me to implement. If you are one of those people who'd like the list by email, I'd recommend using the above FTP-mail server to get the list. At last resort, I'll send out copies manually, but I'd rather not do it too much. * And lastly, sorry for the delay between editions. I've been trying to issue a New Edition every month, but it hasn't been working out quite that often. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 02:22:11 -0500 (EDT) From: "Ofer Inbar" Subject: File 4--Ratings Bandwidth I'm a little behind on my CuDs, and I just got through reading some of the articles from several months ago about a Usenet ratings system. A few people mentioned bandwidth as a possible concern, so I looked up the most recent NSFnet per-port usage stats. Here are the top ten services, ordered by packet count: NSFNET Backbone Traffic Distribution by Service February 1994 Packet Total: 59,978,894,650 Byte Total: 11,415,444,417,600 Service Name Port Packet Count % Pkts Byte Count % Byts ============ ==== ============ ====== ============= ====== ftp-data 20 12374824000 20.632 4482332174350 39.266 (other_tcp/udp_ports) -999 11411443650 19.026 1436332023900 12.582 telnet 23 8808333200 14.686 647239528300 5.670 nntp 119 5071822850 8.456 1113129303700 9.751 smtp 25 4826063100 8.046 766131455150 6.711 domain 53 3521902850 5.872 327470529450 2.869 icmp -1 2366466900 3.945 204080814350 1.788 ip -4 2079238450 3.467 635027078800 5.563 irc 6667 1539952250 2.567 165244146650 1.448 gopher 70 1472386850 2.455 396066059800 3.470 We can see that NNTP, the protocol used for transporting Usenet news over the Internet, is high on the list, accounting for about 10% of the data traversing the NSFnet. We can also see that about four times as much bandwidth is being used to transport files by ftp. This is assuming that NSFnet statistics are a good barometer for the rest of the Internet, but I don't think that's such a bad assumption. It seems to me the real growth is in ftp and similar services, such as gopher and web/mosaic. NNTP is a very efficient way to distribute information, where everything is locally cached. (Efficient for the network, that is, not for your disks!). The popularity of graphics files, for instance, increases ftp traffic much more than news traffic. And when full motion video and audio become more common, as will undoubtedly happen not too long from now, this will be even more pronounced. People speculating about Usenet ratings have suggested that there may be as many rating messages floating about as there are "real" postings. However, even if NNTP traffic doubled, that's still half as much as ftp. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if rating information became more common than "real" information, since it's actually more useful, or makes the "real" information more useful, depending on how you look at it. But even if NNTP traffic were to triple due to ratings, it would be worth it. One poster mentioned 128-byte PGP signatures as a potential problem. But in the days of video delivered by net, PGP signatures will be among the least of our worries. OK, so now for the real question: The ratings idea is one that has been floating about the net in various forms for a while now, and it's clearly a great idea. But, is anyone actually working on programming it? BTW, one potential of ratings that I don't remember seeing mentioned here yet is its commercial potential. A good "editor" or similar business could make money selling subscriptions to their private ratings service. This is a good model for letting information continue to flow freely, while still allowing for people to make money off the information economy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 01:05:57 -0400 (EDT) From: ktark%src4src@IMAGEEK.YORK.CUNY.EDU(Karl Tarhk) Subject: File 5--"I Have Seen the Future" (Satire) I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE Satire by ktark@src4src.linet.org (Sing along with your favorite blues song) I want to be a rebel I want to fit in in the new-tech revolution in the new scheme of things I will read Mondo-2000 and Wired magazines, I will join a hacker group and be into that scene CHORUS: I have seen the future It is computers and french fries, CD-ROMS, 3DO and cryptography with a little mustard on the side Crypto-hacker, Compu-rebel Cyberpunk, yes, those are my names! I am so bad.. I just can't believe myself I am such a rebel I write an electronic magazine.. I'll become so famous and quoted, you're not gonna believe CHORUS: I have seen the future It is computers and french fries, Virtual Reality, 500 channels with a little ketchup on the fly I am so self assured, well read and full of grace that I have the need to wave my degrees in your face! I am such an anarchist the government is after me.. for opposing Clipper and drinking Chinese tea CHORUS: I have seen the future It is Computers and french fries, MUDS, Raves and Cyber-Sex with a little KY-jelly on the side A philantropist, a writer, glorified and interviewed worship me now, before Uncle Sam gets you fooled And when I retire I'll start a consulting firm In a month I'll make more bucks than you'll ever earn! CHORUS: I have seen the future It is Computers and french fries, Interactive TV and desktop video with a some mayo on the fly ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 23:16 WET DST From: jwtlai@IO.ORG(GrimJim) Subject: File 6--Badgering LambdaMOO In response to "Mr. Badger" (CuD #6.29): >To attempt to impart special significance to fantasies on-line does nothing >but debase the truth concerning actual acts of aggression. Agreed. The degree of aggression here is more on the order of a prank phone call. Maybe harassment at the most. Of course, merely being an ass isn't illegal. >Do I think [t]he MUDers took things too seriously? Of course! >Boot the offender off the system and have done with it. If >push comes to shove, grab your marbles and go play elsewhere. >Heck, for all I care, argue about it on-line until your phone >line melts. Just don't try and draw shoddy parallels to real >life that only serve to weaken judgment in both realms. Interesting that I was mentioned in the subject line yet my arguments were at most only vaguely referred to at the end of Mr. Badger's response, if not downright ignored. Just what was "shoddy" about my analogy between Usenet article forgery and MUD character fakery save for the scale of the impact? If my parallels are indeed "weak", please do point any flaws out, but spare me any rhetorical handwaving. My basic proposition is simple: by playing on MUDs, the players engaged the expression of intellectual property via the computerized medium of interactive text. The financial repercussions were negligible in this case, but it's human nature to be protective of something in which one has invested time and effort. My proposition does not conflate fantasy and reality. For instance, a character, being an expression of intellectual property and not an actual person, cannot be libeled or defamed. Confusion may occur when people slip between reality (sometimes referred to as OOC, or "out of context") and fantasy mode (IC, or "in context"). An attack made IC, or on the character, may be misinterpreted as being OOC, or on the person. This is miscommunication, however. This potential for miscommunication is interesting, though it hardly justifies wild philosophical ramblings of the type in the cited Village Voice article. Since most people on Usenet post as themselves (OOC), there is usually no fantasy (IC) to confuse the matter. On Usenet, attacks on others are attacks, plain and simple. But there is nothing innately different between the media of MUD, IRC, and Usenet in their ability to distinguish between IC and OOC behavior; it is merely a matter of social convention (or rules, or etiquette). Thus, my parallel between Usenet message forgery and MUD character fakery. It appears to me that there is a lack of a uniform social convention on MUDs; as a result, miscommunication is all too common. People arguably take things too seriously in the "real" world, judging from the number of spurious lawsuits and torts. I can only hope that my proposition would provide a down-to-earth framework, allowing "virtual" situations to be dealt with rationally, level-headedly, and in a consistent manner. GrimJim (Jim W. Lai in reality) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 11:51:34 EDT From: shadow@VORTEX.ITHACA.NY.US(bruce edwards) Subject: File 7--Edwards to Lopez I'd like to address one point Andy Lopez -- Mr.Badger -- makes in his response to my critique of his review of Dibbell's Voice article. (Whew!) [Cu Digest, #6.21;6.26;6.29] I had written: [...] I have seen an RL event unfold much like the one Mr. Bungle reportedly perpetrated on LamdaMOO. The perpetrator's actions there (child abuse) were not verbal, but physical. This real life Bungle, too, had reasons why the community ought not "toad" him, though the toading would have been of the banishing, not the annihilating sort (the legal processes were already complete). The community involved agonized in much the same way the members of LamdaMOO did. In the end, there was no Wizard to act, and there was little resolution, but there was experience to be archived. Had these people the previous experience of the players on the MOO at adjudicating communal threat, I believe that they would have been able to relate with greater precision to their real life dilemma. This is the value of simulation, is it not? Lopez responds: [...] I also find it ridiculous that Edwards believes experience in role playing would help a jury decide on whether or not a child molester ought to be punished or not. Any weakening of the fundamental difference between fantasy/reality or words/actions is exactly what leads to the vagaries of the modern justice system. A person can fantasize about whatever they wish, but those who commit rape and child abuse deserve to be punished. To attempt to impart special significance to fantasies on-line does nothing but debase the truth concerning actual acts of aggression. True, the use of words can be potent. Witness libel. But Edwards should realize that libel has also been difficult to prosecute, precisely because the claimant must prove actual damages. I was perhaps not clear enough above when I parenthesized that, "the legal processes were already complete." This molester had been tried, convicted, and sentenced (not to jail, though). The problem was whether -- and if so, how -- to re-context him within his (sub)community following the crime, or to banish him. Like the quandary on LamdaMOO, the folks meeting (and meeting, and meeting) here found no general agreement. The only accord reached was that he be watched around children (no kidding). It was to a peripheral member, absurd. Abuse of children (in particular) is right out. I won't go into their deliberations, besides noting the sentiments and dynamics were *very* much those of the MOOers. I believe that some of this mush could have been avoided if those involved had only the experience of the MOOers. The situation on the MOO may have been virtual, but the principles were heartfelt and needed genuine (not virtual) involvement to resolve. My argument (here) was that VR experience can prepare one to handle RL situations. It was not about a fundamental difference between fantasy/reality or words/actions. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1994 13:42:26 -0500 From: abacard@well.sf.ca.us (Andre Bacard) Subject: File 8--Gilmore Files Clipper FOIA ************************************************************ The following news item appeared in the March 1994 issue of the CPSR/Portland Newsletter with Editor Erik Nilsson & Copy Editor Andrea Rodakowski at . ************************************************************ GILMORE FILES FOIA FOR CLIPPER KEY DATABASE Prominent Cypherpunk and CPSR member John Gilmore has filed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Clipper key "escrow agents" for the database of Clipper key components. Releasing the information would effectively give anyone the ability to decrypt Clipper-encrypted communications. The escrow agents are the Treasury Department and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. While the escrow agents will be highly motivated to deny Mr. Gilmore's request, Mr. Gilmore believes that they will have meager grounds to do so, stating on the Cypherpunks mailing list that, There appears to be no FOIA exemption that would justify withholding the key escrow databases which Treasury and NIST are building. (The keys are not tied to any individual, so individual privacy isn't a valid exemption. The database isn't classified. Etc.) If the escrow agents claim that the keys are classified, "... they can't give them out to cops," Gilmore stated. Possibly, the escrow agents will claim that the keys are proprietary commercial information of the holder of the Clipper device. Or, they might claim that the keys are classified, but law enforcement agents are able to use the keys in a way that doesn't give them access to classified information. However, Mr. Gilmore has doubtless given Clipper proponents a puzzler. Thanks to SurfPunk for some of this info. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 17:53:28 GMT From: Pat Cain Subject: File 9--Arrests of Juvenils in New Zealand for Bomb-making llegal Here's an interesting article from last Sunday's paper about some kids who made bombs from the old `how to make a bomb' files. One MP is about to introduce a bill to make possession of these files (which would cover historically significant documents such as Phrack) illegal. This group of (15-17yo) boys ran a bulletin board that was closed down last year after the police raided them. I gather that after that the boys created another BBS, but it was a private one. They started experimenting with making bombs. I think this article, like many other media articles on bulletin boards, preys on the mainstream fear of technology -- ``the information could be accessed through school computers''. So what? I can ring a drug dealer or prostitute with a school telephone. Obviously the modem at school is not managed very well. Making possession illegal isn't going to help, it's just going to make such files more of a novelty. More kids will know about them, more will want to have them. And it will still be just as easy to obtain them through the Internet, or by calling systems overseas. I can only see it forcing local systems underground. =========================== Headline: Computers give pupils access to bomb recipes Writer: Claire Guyan YOUNGSTERS are using school computers to get access to lethal bombmaking recipes. The revelation follows the court apearance last week of two Wellington teenagers who built a bomb using information from computer bulletin boards and imported books. Police said the pair constructed the bomb using a fire estinguisher case and when it explded, fragments scattered 150m, damaging a school and church. No one was hurt in the early morning explosion, but police said the bomb had the capacity to do a great deal of damage. The pair have been granted interim name suppression and were recommended for diversion [community service w/o receiving a criminal record] when they appeared in the Wellington District Court on Friday. It was understood they stumbled on the detailed recipes while flicking through bulletin board information on their home computers. The boards can be accessed simply by using a personal computer with a modem, technology available to most schools. Thousands of bulletin boards operated in New Zealand and police said it was difficult to monitor what information was put on them. Much of the offensive material, including DIY bomb instructions and pornography, came from overseas. Howick MP Trevor Rogers has a private member's bill before the House which he hoped would stamp out this kind of problem. ``Some of this stuff is unbelievable garbage, how to make bombs, atomic bombs, how to trash your school ... it's mind-boggling stuff.'' Mr Rogers said the information could be accessed through school computers. ``Yes, it's happening.'' He was confident his Technology and Crimes Reform Bill would halt the flow of obscene material by making it an offence to possess it. It would allow bulletin boards carrying the information to be disconnected. He expected the bill to have a first reading in May. Christchurch Papanui High School teacher Craig Seagar said he was sure students were accessing offensive material through school computers. ``I've heard some of the boys talking. That's wat their interested in. It's the challenge of getting it from the computer. You can guarantee pupils will try to get into these bulletin boards.'' Reprinted from Sunday Star-Times, 27-Mar-1994, w/o permission. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 94 20:37:22 GMT From: dbatterson@ATTMAIL.COM(David Batterson) Subject: File 10--PRODIGY Forges Ahead With New Features PRODIGY Forges Ahead With New Features by David Batterson I've tried PRODIGY off and on since it began, and recently got a comp account so I could take a look at the latest incarnation--the Windows software version. The interface looks better than ever, and PRODIGY staffers are now working on a newer Win version. One feature I like about the Win version is the ability to view news photos online. These become available quickly online; for example, users could view photos of the Los Angeles earthquake, and the Winter Olympics. The Win version offers sound capability too. I'm an American Online (AOL) user, and occasionally there are problems with network access to AOL. PRODIGY uses a different approach--a national distributed network--so it never has any problems with overloading, even though it has almost three times the number of users as AOL. PRODIGY's network can be expanded to serve tens of millions of members, according to the company. Now underway is a test program for cable delivery of PRODIGY, to permit faster information flow and a new array of enhancements such as video images. There were no chat boards on PRODIGY when I was on, but this is in the works from what I heard. There is a larger range of bulletin boards than ever, though, including travel, food, computer, careers, pets, seniors, medical, money talk, foreign languages, arts, music and TV. Upcoming on PRODIGY this year is an Online Yellow Pages section, from NYNEX. This will incorporate advertising into NYNEX's online database of 1.7 million listings in New York and New England. More daily newspapers are coming on board too, including The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsday, and The Tampa Tribune. Other PRODIGY features include online greeting cards, headline news, QUOTE TRACK investment information, Mobil Travel Guides, Zagat Guide for restaurants, visits by celebrities (such as Jerry Seinfeld, Patrick Stewart, Mayim Bialik and Jay Leno), and Internet e-mail access. I was a bit disappointed with the way you have to send/receive e-mail via Internet. On AOL, you just click on Compose Mail and type in an address [such as dbatterson@attmail.com]. With PRODIGY, you have to have a second software application called Mail Manager [$4.95]. Mail Manager works fine, but having it built into the regular PRODIGY system woudl make more sense to me. A useful utility program for PRODIGY users is PRO-UTIL 6.0 from Royston Development. This is a communications manager, similar to those used for CompuServe, DELPHI, and so forth. It's easy to use, and well worth having if you become a regular PRODIGY user. PRODIGY was launched nationally in September 1990. Since that time it has attracted 2,000,000+ users [vs. about 750,000 on AOL]. The company is still a joint venture of IBM and Sears. You can try out the PRODIGY service with a free membership kit and one month's usage ($4.95 shipping & handling fee) by calling 1-800-PRODIGY. Or for more information, write Prodigy Services Company, 445 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 15:55:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 11--NY bill to make govt. info available online - act NOW! Just rec'd this, figured it should go out far and wide. This is time-sensitive folks! If anyone can get us the full text of this bill, please do so, and send it to SEA, TAP, CPSR and other organizations as well. Don't just talk, DO SOMETHING. I'm aware of at least 2 civil-liberties- favoring state bills that have failed just recently, in both cases due to lack of public input. Activism got a bill very similar to this one passed in CA last year, and it can work in NY too. See ftp.eff.org: /pub/EFF/Issues/ Activism/* for more info on this type of thing. If the legislation is available to us, it will be archived at ftp.eff.org: /pub/EFF/Legislation/ Foreign_and_local/NY/, so check periodically. Those in the NY area, please spread the work on ny.* newsgroups, local BBSs, apropos mailing lists, etc. Forwarded message: From: Reg Neale Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 13:50:24 EDT At the suggestion of another activist netter, I am writing to you to alert you to new developments in our effort to get New York State's public legislative information online. The NY legislature does collect, organize and maintain computerized legislative information, including text of bills, member's voting records etc. However, this information is not freely available to the public. Instead, it is provided to a captive commercial firm which sells it to special-interest groups, at prices ordinary citizens cannot afford. A bill was just introduced in the NY Assembly to make public information freely and timely available, via "the most-accessible and least-cost public network" i.e., the Internet. Bill A10035 was referred to the Assembly's Governmental Operations Committee, where it is certain to die unless there is a massive input from concerned citizens. Any New Yorkers reading this should call or write their assemblyperson to urge immediate action on this bill. It could also be helpful to contact these two individuals: Assemblyman Samuel Colman, Chairman Governmental Operations Committee Room 731 Legislative Office Building Albany NY 12248 518-455-5118 voice 518-455-5119 fax David W. Keiper, Commissioner Legislative Bill Drafting Commission Room 301 Capitol Building Albany NY 12247 518-455-7500 CIS 71075,2006 [Internet: 71075.2006@compuserve.com] Voice your support for public access to legislative information. If you know of anyone who should be involved in this effort, or if you know of another appropriate place to post this message, please contact me. Reginald Neale, Sec'y Citizens for Open Access to Legislation (C.O.A.L.) 716-263-7864 day 716-924-7481 eve ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #6.32 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank