Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 19, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 14 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 Sun Feb 19, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 14 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Copy Ediotr: Ettie-Ann Shrdlu CONTENTS, #7.14 (Sun, Feb 19, 1995) File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol (fwd) File 2--Unauthorized Access (Cu Documentary) File 3--(fwd) PETITION to Congress to Stop Senate Bill S.314 File 4--OREGON HOUSE BILL 2319 - File 5--CuD's WWW Homepage - File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 18 Feb, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:41:12 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (The Anonymous Administrator) Organization--Anonymous contact service Date--Sat, 18 Feb 1995 12:03:58 UTC compromised! I am pretty shocked! Based on a request from Interpol, the Finnish police have gotten a search&seizure warrant on my home and the server, and gotten the real mail address of a user that has allegedly posted material stolen from the Church of Scientology. Fortunately I managed to prevent them from getting more than this one, single address. There is going to be a very high-level public debate on how it is possible that a country that prides itself on honoring human rights and privacy very strongly has allowed this to happen. Maybe we can use the publicity to stop this from happening again. But in this situation, I find it pretty understandable that some of you might want all traces of your ID removed. I have now added the alias "" to my server. If you want to be removed, just send a (possibly empty) message to that address. But I am hoping it won't be empty. I am hoping that you do outline *why* you have needed the server, and what you think about the actions of the Finnish authorities. The messages will be anonymized using the normal procedure, and used to support the demand for a re-interpretation of the privacy laws in Finland. If you *don't* want to be removed, but still want to send a comment, you can use the addresses (if you are *for* keeping the server) and (if you are *against* the server). If you want to be anonymous, use and Julf ( ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:26:27 +0000 From: A. Savage Subject: File 2--Unauthorized Access (Cu Documentary) (MODERATORS' COMMENT: A hearty congrats to "A. Torq.") UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS "Unauthorized Access [is] a documentary that tells the story of the computer underground from our side, it captures the hacker world from Hamburg to Los Angeles and virtually everywhere in between." 2600 - The Hacker Quarterly Computers are becoming an integral part of our everyday existence. They are used to store and send a multitude of information, from credit reports and bank withdrawals, to personal letters and highly sensitive military documents. So how secure are our computer systems? The computer hacker is an expert at infiltrating secured systems, such as those at AT&T, TRW, NASA or the DMV. Most computer systems that have a telephone connection have been under siege at one time or another, many without their owner's knowledge. The really good hackers can reroute the telephone systems, obtain highly sensitive corporate and government documents, download individual's credit reports, make free phone calls globally, read private electronic mail and corporate bulletins and get away without ever leaving a trace. So who are these hackers? Just exactly WHAT do they do and WHY do they do it? Are they really a threat? What do they DO with the information that they obtain? What are the consequences of their actions? Are hackers simply playing an intellectual game of chess or are hackers using technology to fight back and take control of a bureaucratic system that has previously appeared indestructible? Unauthorized Access is a documentary that demistifies the hype and propaganda surrounding the computer hacker. Shot in 15 cities and 4 countries, the film hopes to expose the truths of this subculture focusing on the hackers themselves. Unauthorized Access is a view from inside the global underground. For a copy send a money order for 15 UK Pounds (PAL/European Standard) or 25$ US Dollars (NTSC/American Standard) to: Savage Productions Suite One 281 City Road London EC1V 1LA England or contact ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 13:51:50 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 3--(fwd) PETITION to Congress to Stop Senate Bill S.314 Attached is a net.petition opposing Senate Bill S.314. Personally, rather than requesting that Congress simply stop all debate and action on S.314 (as this petition asks), I support the solution advocated by Lance Rose in the latest issue of Computer Underground Digest -- which is a tuck, modification, and alteration of the bill to make it more amenable to online interests. Lance suggests such things as removing the "and otherwise make available" phrases that has spooked the Net; defining jurisdiction as the location of the BBS or system; and a couple of other ideas. I hope that this is the course taken by national groups like the Center for Democratic Technology, Electronic Private Iniative Center, and Electronic Frontier Foundation. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (Jon Noring) Subject--PETITION to Congress to Stop Senate Bill S.314 Summary--S. 314 Poses a real danger to freedom of expression on all E-Networks [Please distribute this Petition far and wide, and upload it everywhere (where appropriate, of course).] *** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE *** This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and information. For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix attached at the end of this document. The text to S. 314 is also included in this Appendix. This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary to give you sufficient information to make an informed decision. Time is of the essence, we are going to turn this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995. Even if you read this petition after the due date, please submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future and the more signatures we get, the more influence the petition will have on discussion. And even if Congress rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do submit your signature anyway for the same reason. Please do upload this petition statement as soon as possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area. If you have access to one of the major national on-line services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000 signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this petition to electronic freedom of expression. Here is a brief table of contents: (1) Introduction (this section) (2) The Petition Statement (3) Instructions for signing this petition (4) Credits (Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent) ******(2) The Petition Statement In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the "Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons: S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any provider of telecommunications service from carrying such traffic, under threat of stiff penalty. Even aside from the implications for free speech, this would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the various telecommunications services. In a time when the citizenry and their lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded mandates" laws to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that Congress might seek to impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the framework for the information age. An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility of requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate. The financial burden in and of itself - in either manpower or technology to handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out of business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail their services. The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in the telecommunications service community, not only restricting the types of speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet embody as nothing has before. By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each individual user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and there is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry that content. Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader, viewer, or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information environment. All without impacting or restricting what any other user wishes to access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by this S. 314 simply unnecessary. In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or the flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services would have serious negative economic effects. The sort of regulation proposed by this bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving the business community reason to doubt the medium's commercial appeal. We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill. We ask that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas across all of our telecommunications services. ******(3) Instructions for signing the petition ====================================== Instructions for Signing This Petition ====================================== It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests made in the petition. If you do not agree with everything in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign it. In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to Congress, the President of the United States, and the news media. Including your full name is optional, but *very highly encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers. Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately. Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these directions EXACTLY: 1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement: SIGNED You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED' should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen, please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES', and if you are not, a 'NO'. All signatures will be tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen **************************************************** Example: My e-mail signature would be: SIGNED Dave C. Hayes YES **************************************************** 2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the special petition e-mail signature address. 3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me: =========================== =========================== 4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may also contact you again in the future should we need more information, such as who your House Representative and Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear whether such information is needed. Thank you for signing this petition! ******(4) Credits The petition statement was written by slowdog , The rest of this document mostly collated from the net by Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter. Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and who made a few suggestions and will be tallying the signatures. Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of the bill. (p.s., send your signature to ******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 [This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit public interest organization. CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance Constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .] CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95 SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION A. OVERVIEW Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content carried over all forms of electronic communications networks. If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability on telecommunications service providers (including telephone networks, commercial online services, the Internet, and independent BBS's) if their network is used in the transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or harassing messages. The legislation is identical to a proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S. 1822, 103rd Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text the proposed statute, with proposed amendment, is appended at the end of this document. The bill would compel service providers to chose between severely restricting the activities of their subscribers or completely shutting down their email, Internet access, and conferencing services under the threat of criminal liability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to closely monitor every private communication, electronic mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive carried by or available on their network, a proposition which poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech and privacy rights of all American citizens. S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the path to a free and open National Information Infrastructure. The bill raises fundamental questions about the ability of government to control content on communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content carried in these new communications media. To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of public interest organizations including the ACLU, People For the American Way, and Media Access Project, along with representatives from the telecommunications, online services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the free flow of information and freedom of speech in the online world. CDT believes that technological alternatives which allow individual subscribers to control the content they receive represent a more appropriate approach to this issue. B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314 S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks. The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines. This section, commonly known as the Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms), has been the subject of extended Constitutional litigation in recent years. * CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR NETWORKS S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including telephone companies, commercial online services, the Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or other content carried on its network -- including the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting individuals. Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication" which is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a "telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)). In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other content before transmitting it to the intended recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals and accessing content available on other networks. Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries. Instead, users of one service can easily communicate with and access content available on other networks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content generated by subscribers of other services. This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow of information throughout the online world and the free speech and privacy rights of individual users. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also violate current legal protections. * CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the age of 18 to cover similar content carried by telecommunications services (such as America Online and the Internet). (Sec (a)(4)). As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under the age of 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison. This would force carries to act as private censors of all content available in public forums or file archives on their networks. Moreover, because there is no clear definition of indecency, carriers would have to restrict access to any content that could be possibly construed as indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives, and content available for commercial purposes would have to be meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid potential liability for the carrier. Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content available on online networks, and limit the editorial freedom of independent forum operators. ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS * AMENDMENT TO ECPA Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital communications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term "digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511 currently prevents unauthorized interception and disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes electronic mail and other forms of communications in digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear importance. * CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMMING Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or leased access programming which contains "obscenity, indecency, or nudity". C. ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA Government regulation of content in the mass media has always been considered essential to protect children from access to sexually-explicit material, and to prevent unwitting listeners/views from being exposed to material that might be considered extremely distasteful. The choice to protect children has historically been made at the expense of the First Amendment ban on government censorship. As Congress moves to regulate new interactive media, it is essential that it understand that interactive media is different than mass media. The power and flexibility of interactive media offers a unique opportunity to enable parents to control what content their kids have access to, and leave the flow of information free for those adults who want it. Government control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the desired purpose. Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and the software used to access online services such as America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability to limit access to certain types of services and selected information. Moreover, the electronic program guides being developed for interactive cable TV networks also provide users the capability to screen out certain channels or ever certain types of programming. Moreover, in the online world, most content (with the exception of private communications initiated by consenting individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words, users must seek out the content they receive, whether it is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive. By its nature, this technology provides ample control at the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online services, Internet service providers) in most cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated by individual subscribers. CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving parents and other users the tools to select which information they (and their children) should have access to. In the case of criminal content the originator of the content, not the carriers, should be responsible for their crimes. And, users (especially parents) should be empowered to determine what information they and their children have access to. If all carriers of electronic communications are forced restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness of digital media for communications and information dissemination would be drastically limited. D. NEXT STEPS The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate Commerce Committee, although no Committee action has been scheduled. Last year, a similar proposal by Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S. 1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT will be working with a wide range of other interest groups to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow of information in interactive media. TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314 **NOTE: [] = deleted ALL CAPS = additions 47 USC 223 (1992) Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS" (a) Whoever-- (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-- (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST, SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;] "(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY, ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] (D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION, (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO YEARS, or both. (b)(1) Whoever knowingly-- (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (2) Whoever knowingly-- (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone], makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than $[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO YEARS, or both. (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation. (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000] 100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000] 100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either-- (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings. (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) from the telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such communication. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on account of-- (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) any access permitted-- (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation by a provider of communications that communications provided by that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to restrict access to communications described in subsection (b). (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider of communications services to which subscribers are denied access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such action shall be limited to the question of whether the communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the category of communications to which the carrier will provide access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access. ********************************************* NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as it would be changed. For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable text such as: [...] (1) in subsection (a)(1)-- (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device'; (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication'; (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a [...] See:, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill ************** End of Petition Statement ************************ ------------------------------ From: (Terry Liberty-Parker) Date: 09 Feb 95 08:26:51 Subject: File 4--OREGON HOUSE BILL 2319 - Forwarded (from: LIBALERT) by Terry Liberty-Parker using timEd. Originally from ERIC GRAY (76:48/200.0) to ALL. Original dated: Feb 05 '95, 03:42 This message was from LES LEMKE to ALL, and was forwarded to you by ERIC GRAY. ------------------------- ( HB 2319 Page 1 ) 68th OREGON LEGISIATIVE ASSEMBLY - 1995 Regular Session HOUSE BILL 2319 Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5), Presession filed (at the request of Representative Kevin Mannix) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly, It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Directs operators of computer networks to keep records of identity of users of network and of personal information about individuals that is disclosed to users. Requires disclosure to individual when information about individual is accessed by user of network. Sets rules for disclosures. Allows injunction or maximum civil penalty of $100,000, or both, for violation. A BILL FOR AN ACT Relating to computer information systems. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 3 of this Act: (1) To "access" means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system or computer network. (2) "Computed' means, but is not limited to, an electronic device that performs logical, arithmetic or memory functions by the manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical signals or impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, software or communication facilities that are connected or related to such a device in a system or network. (3) "Computer network" means, but is not limited to, the interconnection of communi cationlines, including microwave or other means of electronic communication, with a computer through remote terminals or a complex consisting of two or more interconnected computers. (4) "Computer program" means, but is not limited to, a series of instructions or statements, in a form acceptable to a computer, that permits the functioning of a computer system in a manner designed to provide appropriate products from or usage of such computer system. (5) "Computer software" means, but is not limited to, computer programs, procedures and associated documentation concerned with the operation of a computer system. (6) "Computer system" means, but is not limited to, a set of related, connected or un connected, computer equipment, devices and software. (7) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, computer software, computer programs or instructions. "Data" may be in any form, in storage media, or as stored in the memory of the computer, or in transit, or presented on a display device. "Data" includes, but is not limited to, computer or human readable forms of numbers, text, stored voice, graphics and images. SECTION 2. (1) An owner or operator of a computer network or computer system shall establish procedures requiring each person who accesses the network or system to disclose NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 984 [1] --- * Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) * OLX 2.2 TD * The oldest question known to man: "Where are my keys?!" ___ GOMail v2.0t Beta [94-0145] - Origin: The Desert Reef * LIB * Tuc.Az * V.34 * 602 624 6386 (76:48/200) --- timEd 1.00 * Origin: LibertyBBS Austin,Tx [512]462-1776 (1:382/804) ------------------------------ Date: Sun 19 May 19943 22:51:01 EDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--CuD's WWW Homepage - CuD now has it's own WWW site. It currently includes back issues of CuDs, and links to other related Web sites. URL: ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 18 Feb, 1995) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: 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 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: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: /mirror/ The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: 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. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #7.14 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank