Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 33 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 Wed Apr 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 33 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Copy Desecrator: Emo Shrdlu CONTENTS, #7.33 (Wed, Apr 26, 1995) File 1--EPIC On Gov't Guidelines File 2--Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report File 3--DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON INTERNET (fwd) File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:32:35 -0400 From: "Marc Rotenberg" Subject: FIle 1--EPIC On Gov't Guidelines Electronic Privacy Information Center 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 (202) 544-9240 info@epic.org * P R E S S R E L E A S E * April 27, 1995 EPIC URGES SPECTER TO PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY WASHINGTON -- In a letter sent today to Senator Arlen Specter, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a leading civil liberties organization, urged the Congress to proceed cautiously in the wake of the tragic bombing incident in Oklahoma. EPIC said that "any expansion of federal authority to investigate political activity could have a profound impact upon communication networks and the future of electronic democracy." Senator Specter is holding hearings tomorrow on counter-terrorism proposals. The EPIC letter focused on the history of the Attorney General guidelines which permit the government to conduct investigations of domestic organizations. The original guidelines were issued in 1976 by Attorney General Edward Levi. The "Levi Guidelines," as they came to be known, recognized the FBI's legitimate investigative needs while seeking to protect the First Amendment rights of dissident politic organizations. The Guidelines were promulgated in the wake of Watergate and the revelations of the Senate's Church Committee investigation. According to EPIC, the Levi Guidelines reflected the post- Watergate consensus that the investigation of controversial or unpopular political groups had at times been overzealous and had violated fundamental constitutional rights. In 1983 President Reagan's Attorney General, William French Smith, issued a new set of guidelines that replaced the Levi Guidelines. The "Smith Guidelines" were far less restrictive than the Levi Guidelines. As President Reagan's FBI Director William Webster said, the Smith Guidelines "should eliminate any perceptions that actual or imminent commission of a violent crime is a prerequisite to investigation." The critical section of the Smith Guidelines cited in the EPIC letter provides that "[a] domestic security/terrorism investigation may be initiated when facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for the purpose of furthering political or social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the United States." EPIC said that "the current guidelines provide the FBI with ample authority to initiate investigations of organizations and individuals similar to those alleged to have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing." EPIC noted that public information concerning paramilitary right-wing organizations in general -- and the Michigan Militia in particular -- has been readily available to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for some time. EPIC also noted that former Attorney General Griffin Bell and former Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing have recently expressed the view that the FBI possessed sufficient authority under the Smith Guidelines to investigate and monitor the activities of this organization and affiliated individuals. Finally, EPIC urged Senator Specter to give similar careful consideration to any proposals for the modification of the wiretap statute or privacy statutes that would diminish the freedoms that all American currently enjoy. Earlier this year, EPIC recommended that Congress not appropriate $500 million for a national wiretap program developed by the FBI. EPIC said that the program would increase the vulnerability of the nation's communications infrastructure. EPIC said today that it will continue to oppose funding of the program. -30- ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER WASHINGTON, DC INFO@EPIC.ORG April 26, 1995 Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Intelligence and Gov't Information United States Senate 161 Dirksen Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Specter: We write on behalf of the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC"), a non-profit research organization concerned with the protection of privacy and civil liberties. We are particularly interested in the preservation of Constitutional freedoms in the evolving communications infrastructure. Increasingly, the Internet and other digital systems facilitate the expression of political opinions and have, in effect, become the electronic town squares of our information society. For this reason, EPIC believes that any expansion of federal authority to investigate political activity and/or expression could have a profound impact upon those networks and the future of electronic democracy. As the Committee begins its examination of the tragic events in Oklahoma City, we urge careful and deliberate consideration of any proposal that would alter current guidelines governing the investigation and monitoring of domestic political activity or the collection and use of personal information. The Congress must be careful not to compromise fundamental constitutional values as it seeks to address the obvious security concerns in the wake of recent events. As Justice Powell observed in the Keith case: History abundantly documents the tendency of Government -- however benevolent and benign its motives -- to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. [Constitutional] protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 314 (1972). In order to assess whether it is necessary to make changes in the current policies concerning the investigation of domestic organizations, we believe it is necessary to look closely at the history of federal investigative authority. As you know, the evolution of the current requirements governing the FBI's conduct of domestic security investigations dates back to 1976. In that year, President Ford's Attorney General, Edward Levi, issued "Guidelines on Domestic Security Investigation," which came to be known as the "Levi Guidelines." This directive, which recognized the FBI's legitimate investigative needs while seeking to protect the First Amendment rights of dissident politic organizations, was promulgated in the wake of Watergate and the revelations of the Senate's Church Committee investigation./1/ The Levi Guidelines reflected the post-Watergate consensus that the investigation of controversial or unpopular political groups had at times been overzealous and had violated fundamental constitutional rights./2/ Seven years later, in 1983, the Levi Guidelines were superseded by the "Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations," issued by Attorney General William French Smith (the "Smith Guidelines"). The revised guidelines were generally considered to be far less restrictive than the Levi Guidelines. As FBI Director William Webster noted at the time of their issuance, the Smith Guidelines "should eliminate any perceptions that actual or imminent commission of a violent crime is a prerequisite to investigation."/3/ The guidelines provide, in pertinent part, that [a] domestic security/terrorism investigation may be initiated when facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for the purpose of furthering political or social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the United States. Smith Guidelines (reprinted in 32 Crim. L. Rep. (BNA) 3087 (1983)), Section III (B)(1). The standard of "reasonable indication" is substantially lower than probable cause. In determining whether there is reasonable indication of a federal criminal violation, a Special Agent may take into account any facts or circumstances that a prudent investigator would consider. However, the standard does require specific facts indicating a past, current, or impending violation. There must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient. Id., Section II (C)(1). Given the constitutional command that the government may not suppress or punish statements advocating criminal activity unless they pose an immediate and substantial danger to public safety, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Smith Guidelines afford the FBI considerable leeway in pursuing investigations of potential violent crime. In a 1984 en banc opinion interpreting the Smith Guidelines, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the directive strikes an appropriate balance between First Amendment rights and legitimate law enforcement. As Judge Posner wrote for the court, [the FBI] may not investigate a group solely because the group advocates [an unpopular cause]; but it may investigate any group that advocates the commission, even if not immediately, of terrorist acts in violation of federal law. It need not wait until the bombs begin to go off, or even until the bomb factory is found. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007, 1015 (7th Cir. 1984). Thus, the current guidelines provide the FBI with ample authority to initiate investigations of organizations and individuals similar to those alleged to have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. In reaching this conclusion, we note that a good deal of public source material concerning paramilitary right-wing organizations in general -- and the Michigan Militia in particular -- has been readily available to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for some time. For instance, a front page article about the Michigan Militia in the Detroit Free Press last fall reported: Their goal is to keep the U.S. government in check, through threat of armed rebellion if need be. Gun control advocates, federal firearms agents and the United Nations are among the perceived threats. ... Federal officials are aware of these groups, but "we are not monitoring their growth," said Stanley Zimmerman, head of the Detroit office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "It would be our preference that the militia groups would use the power of the vote rather than the threat of armed violent confrontation to accomplish their goals." "They Cite their Disgust with Government," Detroit Free Press, October 13, 1994, at 1A. Indeed, the Justice Department was specifically alerted to the activities of the Michigan Militia. Morris Dees, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, disclosed in a recent interview that: We warned Attorney General Reno in a letter last October concerning this Militia of Michigan, the one that's involved in this case, and pointed out that they should be checking on them. ... [T]hese people, like Mark Koernke, are out actually advocating the overthrow of the United States government with individuals who are practicing and training with explosives, with assault weapons. ABC News, "This Week with David Brinkley," April 23, 1995. In recent comments concerning the adequacy of the Smith Guidelines, former Attorney General Griffin Bell and former Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing have expressed the view that the FBI possessed sufficient authority to investigate and monitor the activities of this organization and affiliated individuals. This conclusion is consistent with the observation of former FBI Director Webster, noted above, that the current guidelines "should eliminate any perceptions that actual or imminent commission of a violent crime is a prerequisite to investigation." As you commence your review into this matter, we strongly urge you to consider the views of many experts who share the opinion of these former officials. We urge you also to give similar careful consideration to any proposals for the modification of the wiretap statute or privacy statutes that would diminish the freedoms that all Americans currently enjoy. Any such proposal must be carefully drafted to address specific and identifiable harms. We urge you also to proceed cautiously in the area of electronic communications. Our country is in the process of developing the communication tools that will take us into the next century. While we share the President's belief that irresponsible speech should be opposed by responsible speech, we do not believe that enhanced surveillance of lawful activity by American citizens will serve the country well. Political and associational rights form the foundation of our democratic society. As the Committee and Congress examine the nation's contemporary security needs, the temptation to find expedient quick fixes must be resisted. Issues as fundamental as the ones you propose to address deserve and demand a thorough and open national debate. We look forward to working with you and the Committee as you consider these difficult questions. Sincerely, Marc Rotenberg, Director David L. Sobel, Legal Counsel cc: Sen. Fred Thompson Sen. Spencer Abraham Sen. Strom Thurmond Sen. Herbert Kohl Sen. Patrick Leahy Sen. Dianne Feinstein ================================================================== Notes /1/ See, generally, Final Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. 755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). /2/ Although some critics maintained that the guidelines were unduly restrictive, Attorney General Levi explained that they authorized the initiation of an investigation on the basis of a relatively benign statement such as "The rulers have set the time for the party; let us bring the fireworks," delivered by a group with no known propensity for violence. Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007, 1012 (7th Cir. 1984) (quoting Congressional testimony of Attorney General Levi). /3/ Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F. Supp. 575, 578 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (quoting internal FBI memorandum). ==================== Marc Rotenberg (Rotenberg@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 01:22:02 -0500 From: jim thomas Subject: FIle 2-- Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1995 by Lorrie Faith Cranor. Permission to distribute this report electronically is granted, provided you do not distribute it for direct commercial advantage. This report is a description of CFP95 as I experienced it. The unattributed opinions liberally sprinkled throughout are, of course, my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I attended the Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy (http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html) March 28 through 31 at the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel. Having thoroughly enjoyed the previous two CFP conferences, I had been looking forward to CFP95 for quite some time -- and I was not disappointed. The conference began on March 28 with a full day of tutorial programs. I arrived too late to attend the tutorials, but in time to enjoy an evening ice cream reception and meet some of the other attendees. The informal discussions I began that evening and which I continued between sessions throughout the conference proved to be as valuable as the formal sessions. The main part of the CFP95 program got off to a slow start on March 29 with keynote speaker John Morgridge, chairman of the board of Cisco systems. Morgridge described the current status of computer networks as "the era of use," in which we will have to address more difficult issues than we faced while we were just concentrating on "the plumbing." But he failed to shed much light on what these issues are or how we might face them. The next session, "Student Databases: For Education and For Life," proved more enlightening and quite controversial. Barbara Clements, Council of Chief State School Officers, outlined the advantages of electronic student records databases over the traditional paper filing systems. She argued that electronic systems are more accurate, take up less space, and are more secure. In addition, if these systems follow standard conventions they can make it much easier for information to be transfered between schools. But panelist Anita Hoge, was quite critical of standardized student information databases, especially those that contain information obtained through standardized tests. She described an exam given to her son in a Pennsylvania public school. Hoge said this "Educational Quality Assessment" was designed to measure predispositions of students towards certain types of behaviors. For example, the exam described a hypothetical situation in which the student's friends were planning an outing to spray paint graffiti around town. The student is asked whether he or she would go along. A negative response is interpreted as a predisposition towards anti-social behavior. According to Hoge, the results of this exam can be used to identify students with mental and behavioral disorders, classify them as special education students, send this information to the government, and make the students eligible for Medicaid. While most of the audience probably agreed with Hoge that such exams are inappropriate, many people were not convinced by Hoge's conclusion that the use of standardized exams and standardized student information databases was the first step in the government's effort to sneak socialized health care through the back door. Stanford Law Professor Margaret Jane Radin gave an interesting lunch time presentation that inspired fish jokes throughout the rest of the conference. Radin described two property rights paradigms and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of applying them in cyberspace. Traditionally, intellectual property has been considered a form of economic property that could be bought and sold in a free market. However, land (especially the land on which the family home is built) has been considered a form of property that has personal value beyond the monetary value that can be obtained by selling it. She also speculated that as more people flock to cyberspace, the Internet may evolve into something similar to what broadcast TV has become. She described the TV audience as "potential customers delivered to advertisers for a fee." Thus, she explained, the TV broadcast industry is a giant commercial fishing industry. "It would be good if cyberspace doesn't turn us into fish," she concluded. A panel discussion on Intelligent Transportation Systems raised some important privacy considerations, but was not nearly as provocative as the next two sessions of the day: "Transaction Records In Interactive Services" and "A Case Against Computers." The transaction records panelists debated a variety of issues including who owns personal information records (the person who provides them or the organization that collects them), the merits of "opt-in" and "opt-out" privacy protection systems, and where the responsibility for privacy violations should rest. The Case Against Computers session, dubbed the "luddite session," featured four panelists critical of computer technology. Jerry Mander began by reminding everyone that people used to get along just fine without computers. He suggested that contrary to what electronic activists claim, computers help people feel more powerful, but are not actual instruments of empowerment. Rather, he argued, computers enforce centralized power structures that take power out of the hands of individuals. In addition he was critical of the fact that computer professionals do not receive training on how to critique computers. Finally, he expressed dismay at the way computers and other new technologies have been accepted by the public without debate or consideration of their downsides. Panelist Ted Roszak then discussed the fact that most computer users are not computer experts -- and don't wish to be. He urged computer experts to remember that when designing computer systems. Panelist Chet Bowers gave a very academic presentation that was probably lost on most of the audience. The point of his presentation seemed to be that we were not properly considering the cultural impact of computers. Richard Sclove, the only panelist with an email address (or at least the only one who mentioned it), reminded us that information technology effects everyone, even people who don't use computers. Although the panelists raised some excellent points, I don't think this panel did a very good job of addressing their audience. The panelists came across as a bunch of middle-aged (or older) academic luddites, a characterization that won them little respect or credibility with the techies in the audience. In fact, during the Q & A period one audience member (who seemed to have missed the point of the presentation entirely) asked the panel, "Are you guys not getting it? What are you missing?" The day's panel discussions were followed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) Pioneer Awards presentation, an EFF-sponsored reception, and dinner. At dinner each table was given a question to discuss and answer, with prizes being awarded for the best answers. Some tables took this quite seriously while others resented being told what to talk about and submitted answers more humorous than insightful (my own table taking the latter approach). The next day of conference sessions began with a panel titled "Defining Access Paradigms: Libraries, Rural Areas, and International Aspects." While not particularly controversial, the panel addressed some interesting problems. Karen Coyle of the University of California described the free lending library as a product of the print world. She explained that libraries generally purchase books but lease electronic materials -- sometimes on a per-use basis. If libraries had to pay per-use fees on all their materials, they would likely have to pass some of these fees onto their patrons. In addition libraries face problems in distributing electronic information to patrons who want to take the information with them. Panelist Christine Borgman's warning against causing a situation in which only the elite have access to knowledge, led one audience member to question whether technology really widens the knowledge gap. He cited as evidence the fact that he as access to as much information as a millionaire has. Apparently it didn't occur to this gentleman (probably a member of the middle class) that he is a member of the information elite, not the information poor. The next session, "A Net for All: Where Are the Minorities?", featured an interesting discussion of efforts to bring the Net to minority and underprivledged populations. Art McGee of the Institute for Global Communications described the famous New Yorker cartoon featuring one dog introducing another dog to the Internet. The cartoon caption reads, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." This led McGee to comment that the second dog should have asked, "What's wrong with being a dog?". He added that technology gives people the power to express themselves in their own voices, without having their messages spun by the media. But he reminded the audience that there are still a lot of illiterate people and "all the computers in the world won't help them if they can't read." Panelist Barbara Simons added that the computer revolution has had a negative impact on uneducated people because there are now fewer unskilled jobs. An afternoon of discussion on "Freedom and Responsibility of Electronic Speech" followed lunch, an address by Esther Dyson, and a panel discussion on online activism. The electronic speech discussion began with presentations from three individuals who have been involved in freedom of electronic speech disputes. Brock Meeks, who was sued for defamation because of something he posted as part of an online newsletter (http://cyberwerks.com:70/1/cyberwire), discussed his case. Because the case was settled out of court, it sets no legal precedent, but Meeks proposed that people who enter into a discussion on the Internet should be considered "public figures" who cannot be easily libeled. He suggested the public figure characterization is appropriate because Internet discussion participants have easy access to the same public forum as those who might try to defame them. Jean Camp (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/jeanc/www/home.html), a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University discussed CMU's censorship of sexually explicit Usenet newsgroups (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/kcf/www/censor/index.html). Roger Karraker, a journalism professor who maintained an electronic conferencing system at Santa Rosa Junior College, described a case in which a female student filed a sex discrimination complaint against him after hearing that derogatory remarks had been made against her on a men-only discussion group. Karraker said one of the mistakes he made with the conferencing system was in describing it as an extension of the student newspaper, because newspaper publishers are responsible for their content. Karraker said individuals should be responsible for their own speech in electronic discussion groups. The second half of the electronic speech discussion took the form of a "Socratic forum" (somewhat like a TV talk show) led by Stanford Law Professor Kim Taylor-Thompson. Taylor-Thompson described hypothetical situations and posed questions to the nine panelists. The discussion was animated and brought out some interesting ideas. However, too much of the debate was between the lawyers on the panel. CMU student Donna Riley -- whose introduction as the founder of the feminist Clittoral Hoods (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/kcf/www/censor/misc/clitoral-hoods-announ ce.html) organization brought a startled reaction from the audience -- and Ira Kaufman of the Anti-Defamation League could hardly get a word in. The second day of the conference concluded with a dinner speech by Roger Wilkins and an evening of Birds of a Feather sessions. Probably the most well-attended BOF was the public forum on cryptography policy. Members of the National Research Council cryptography committee listened and took notes as conference attendees expressed their concerns. The final day of CFP95 began too early in the morning with an 8 am talk by Willis Ware. The audience was sparse and sleepy from two nights of BOFs which ran until midnight (followed by informal discussions which ended early in the morning). Most of the conference attendees had dragged themselves out of bed in time for the next session: Can We Talk Long Distance? Removing Impediments to Secure International Communications. This panel was of particular interest to many of the audience members. While most of the discussion centered around issues which have been brought up repeatedly over the past few years, Cypherpunk Tim May summed things up nicely by characterizing the encryption controversy as a debate between those who feel that their communication is "none of your damn business" versus those who ask, "What have you got to hide?". A session on copyright and the Net included an interesting discussion about how copyright should be enforced in cyberspace. In response to often-repeated claims that it is not possible to enforce copyright laws on the Net, Attorney Lance Rose pointed out that intelligent software agents that can be programmed to search the Net for certain types of news can also be programmed to search the Net for copyright infringements. Michael Kepplinger of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Law Professor Pamela Samuelson debated the "Green Paper" produced by the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. Samuelson criticized the Green Paper authors for assuming that there will not be any useful content on the Internet until Congress passes strict intellectual property laws. However, she said that people are already finding useful information on the Internet. She was also critical of the Green Paper for suggesting that online service providers should be held strictly liable for copyright infringement. Kepplinger denied that the Green Paper included strict liability language. Brad Templeton of ClariNet Communications Corp. followed up by asserting that most people respect copyright, regardless of whether or not it is enforced. Templeton, whose company provides Associated Press and other news feeds over the Internet, said that ClariNet has been profitable under the current copyright laws. Lenny Foner (http://foner.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/), a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab and the winner of the CFP95 Student Paper Competition, presented his research on agents during lunch. Foner described a "matchmaker" system he is developing that is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of a large scale distributed system in which it is essential to build in privacy. Lenny's research is interesting for its technological goals as well as its political goals. By the afternoon of the last day of the conference, a large portion of conference attendees had migrated from their chairs to the floor in the back of the conference hall. Students, journalists, long-haired hackers, and libertarians camped out with backpacks and laptops on the audio platform and the surrounding floor space. One gentleman fell asleep, but was woken by a journalist when he started to snore. At one point Conference Chair Carey Heckman pointed out that there were plenty of empty seats towards the front, but nobody in the back moved forward. A session titled "It Oughta Be a Crime" kicked off an afternoon filled with some of the most interesting sessions of the conference. Scott Charney of the Justice Department opened his remarks by reminding the audience that "there is always a percentage of the population up to no good." Although only a small percentage of those up to no good are currently computer literate, 30 years from now everyone is likely to be computer literate, he said. He added that there are some types of behavior -- such as extortion and wire fraud -- that is clearly criminal conduct, however, there are other types of behavior that fall into grey areas. For example, some people don't think breaking into a computer system to look at files should be considered criminal if the intruder does not change or remove any of the files. However, Charney pointed out that companies that discover break-ins end up spending a lot of time checking all their files to make sure none have been changed or removed. This can be both inconvenient and quite expensive. Santa Clara District Attorney Ken Rosenblatt discussed statements by some people (including writer Bruce Sterling) that police have no business on the Net because electronic conflicts are more a "cultural war" than criminal behavior. However, Rosenblatt said that all laws are an expansion of cultural norms. Panelist Mark Traphagan of the Software Publishers Association concluded the session with a discussion of copyright infringement. He claimed that China has a 99 percent piracy rate making it "virtually a one-copy country." This session brought much disagreement from the audience members, some of whom interrupted the speakers. This prompted CFP founder Jim Warren to remind the audience that all sides need to be heard. Many conference attendees anticipated that the session titled "Who Owns the Law? The Debate Over Legal Citation Form and What It Means" would only be interesting to lawyers. However this session proved to be the most animated of the entire conference. After the four panelists gave their opening statements, Glenn Tenney of Fantasia Systems Inc. gave each of them five minutes in which to question the other panelists. This format provoked a lively debate about the U.S. legal citation system. Jamie Love of the Taxpayers Assets Project complained that West Publishing's page numbers must be used when citing most court opinions. Because one cannot determine the West pagination from the official court documents, one must visit a law library or pay online charges to West to find the complete citations. With an increasing amount of legal research being conducted online, this can get very expensive. However, West argues that they spend a lot of time verifying the accuracy of the opinions they publish and should be compensated for their work. Besides, they say, it is not their fault that the courts do not provide accurate copies of their opinions that can be cited in legal proceedings. The final CFP95 session featured several presentations about anonymity, pseudonyms, and the technologies that make such things possible. To illustrate the use of pseudonyms, some of the panelists replaced the names on their name badges and exchanged name cards. Leading moderator Roger Clarke to introduce panelists Gary Marx and Kent Walker as "Kent and or Gary." David Chaum described the electronic cash products being developed by his company, DigiCash. Writer Steven Levy then gave an excellent presentation on anonymous remailers. Science Fiction Writer David Brin wrapped things up with some thoughts on the conference as a whole. After this session, the chairs of all five CFP conferences commented on the past and future of CFP. Plans are already underway for CFP96 (http://web.mit.edu/cfp96) to be held March 27-30, 1996 in Boston. -- Lorrie Faith Cranor (lorracks@cs.wustl.edu) April 3, 1995 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Lorrie Faith Cranor Engineering and Policy, Computer Science Washington University http://dworkin.wustl.edu/~lorracks/ 1 Brookings Dr Box 1045 St. Louis, MO 63130 "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, lorracks@cs.wustl.edu nothing is going to get better. It's not." -Dr.Seuss Look for the Crossroads special issue on computers and society, available May 1 from http://info.acm.org/crossroads/ Students: Are you doing interdisciplinary research related to computers and society? Are you interested in joining an online discussion group to exchange ideas with other students? Send me email for more information. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:10:14 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: FIle 3--DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON INTERNET (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON THE INTERNET Illinois death row inmate Girvies Davis, who is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on May 17, 1995, has become the first death row prisoner in the United States to take his case directly to the people on the Internet. Girvies' home page went online April 24, 1995. For the first time since Illinois re-enacted the death penalty in 1977, the State is faced with the very real likelihood of executing a man for a crime he did not commit. Internet users can learn more about the facts surrounding Girvies' conviction and death sentencing by accessing his home page at: http://www.mcs.net/~bkmurph/girvies.htm Girvies was convicted and sentenced to death in 1980 for a crime in which -- in all probability -- he had no involvement at all. Girvies' home page contains links to his clemency petition to the Governor, articles written about his plight, "evidence" that Internet users can examine for themselves, pictures and audio of Girvies, and the e-mail address of Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, who holds Girvies' fate in his hands. For more information, contact Mr. Davis' attorneys via electronic mail at bkmurph@mcs.net or contact Brian Murphy or David Schwartz at (312) 222-9350. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: FIle 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) 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@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. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) 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: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/ 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 #7.33 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank