Computer underground Digest Tue May 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 41 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 May 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 41 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Goddess of Judyism Editor: J. Tenuta CONTENTS, #7.41 (Tue, May 23, 1995) File 1--Cyber-Liberty Alert #4: State Bills to Regulate Online Content File 2--Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet (fwd) File 3--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online File 4--O'Reilly Releases WebSite Server File 5--More Additions to the CuD archives File 6--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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ACLU Information Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:43:28 -0400 Subject: File 1--Cyber-Liberty Alert #4: State Bills to Regulate Online Content **ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT** STOP STATE LEGISLATORS FROM CENSORING ONLINE CONTENT! As more and more people sign on to the Internet and commercial online networks, there is a growing panic that online networks are being infiltrated by pedophiles and peddlers of obscenity and child pornography. Legislators are proposing severe criminal laws in an effort to purge online networks of these influences. Many of you were first made aware of this threat to your civil liberties by the pending federal legislation - the so-called "Communications Decency Act of 1995", proposed by Senator Exon (D-NE) and recently approved by the Senate Commerce Committee as an amendment to the massive telecommunications reform act now pending in Congress. But while online civil libertarians were distracted by their laudable rally against the Exon Bill, state legislators were busy crafting similar bills at home. **These state bills, like the federal Exon Bill, raise serious First Amendment and privacy concerns.** Legislators are attempting to extend to the online context criminal laws that restrict the following categories of sexually expressive material and behavior: -the distribution of "obscene" materials to adults -the distribution of materials deemed "harmful to minors" -the solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct -the possession and distribution of visual materials produced through the sexual exploitation of children Through a lack of understanding about how new interactive technologies work, legislators have managed to craft these laws to prohibit a wide range of constitutionally protected material. If enacted into law, these vague and overly broad bills could have the following draconian effects: * Prohibit communications with sexual content through private e-mail between consenting adults, and inhibit people from making comments that might or might not be prohibited. * Require service providers to act as private censors to avoid criminal liability for prohibited material produced by subscribers on their networks. * Prevent health care providers from posting sex education materials to online networks. To date, the ACLU has located and continues to monitor bills proposed this year in twelve states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. The Oklahoma and Virginia bills were both voted into law in recent weeks. Bills in Washington, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania are moving rapidly through state legislatures. ACT NOW: * Contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose the state bill. * Urge legislators to hold full public hearings to identify the problems and to explore technological alternatives to censorship. * Generate online discussion about the threats to civil liberties posed by the state bill. * Organize an online "grass roots" effort to stop the bill. * Ask your online service provider to publicly oppose the state bill. * Write a letter to the editor of your local paper in opposition to the state bill. Discuss the liberating potential of online technology and provide examples. ---------------------------- For more information on the pending state bills, visit our gopher site, the ACLU Free Reading Room: gopher://aclu.org:6601/1/issues/cyberspace/state This subdirectory contains the full text of some bills, in addition to ACLU legal analyses of, and letters written to oppose, particular bills. ============================================================= ACLU Free Reading Room | A publications and information resource of the gopher://aclu.org:6601 | American Civil Liberties Union National Office ftp://ftp.pipeline.com /aclu mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org | "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 22:41:42 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 2--Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet By Eric J. Eden r3eje@dax.cc.uakron.edu Deciding whether or not pornographic material should be censored on the Internet is a hot topic these days. By glancing through the number of messages on different Usenet newsgroups, it's obvious that alt.sex.stories and alt.sex are two of the most popular discussion groups on the Internet. The World Wide Web pages of Playboy and Penthouse are always overloaded with users. Plus, you can get nude images on just about all of the major commercial service providers -- America Online, Compuserve etc. For users who have been online for several years, this is nothing new. There have probably been more Playboy centerfolds seen on the Internet than in print. Since the Department of Defense created the Internet in the 1970s, college students have been storing thousands of nude images on mainframes. Last summer, hundreds of users went into mourning when the Digital Picture Archive at the University of Delft in the Netherlands was closed down. (Sandberg, 1995) Furthermore, adult oriented bulletin board systems have been distributing sexual stories and nude images since the first 300 baud modems were sold more than 10 years ago. "In the online crowd, stories about stockpiles of pornographic GIF (Graphic Image Format) files are unlikely to inspire more than a yawn." (Godwin, a, 1994) When you look at the big picture, none of this that surprising when you consider that Adult Video News, a trade magazine for video retailers, reported Americans bought two and a-half billion dollars worth of X-Rated videos last year. (AP, b, 1995) "As a new forum for public discussion, computer information services will inevitably encounter many of the problems faced by older communications channels, such as abusive language, libel, and pornography." (Sergent, 703) There is evidence that computer users do want access to sexual material. For example, three of the top ten newsgroups on Usenet are related to sexual topics. (Sanchez, 1995) "Many more of these newsgroups would be on the Most Popular list if they were allowed to exist at more sites." (Pointers to Sex Info on the Net, 1995) But parents, law makers and other concerned citizens have launched a campaign to stop the distribution of obscene, pornographic, erotic and indecent material on the Internet. Decisions made over the next year or two will probably shape the future of free expression on the Internet. Some people say regulating the distribution of sexual materials over the Internet is censorship. But others say that the government needs to step in to protect children from accessing nude images, erotic conversations and discussions about bestiality. (Espinoza, 1995) However, there are some difficult questions to answer before the Internet can be regulated by law. Who will be responsible for controlling the content of millions of messages? How will the law be enforced? Will new laws regulating the content of messages take away citizens rights to free speech and privacy? And since the Internet is an international forum, what standards should users use to decide what material is obscene? The issue of censoring obscene or indecent pornographic material is complex and controversial in many cases. Add to that the fact that technical aspects of computer networks make the controversy even more difficult to understand, and traditional law more difficult to apply. (Sergent, 1995) Perhaps an analysis of obscenity law will provide some insight on how the law could be applied to the Internet in the near future. What is Obscene? "It has long been held that obscenity is not protected by the first Amendment, but what qualifies as 'obscenity' has not always been clear. After Miller v. California there has been no national standard as to what is obscene." (Godwin, b, 1994). In Miller v. California, Justice Warren Burger stated the three guidelines that are used to determine whether a work can be declared legally obscene. If all of the following are true, the work may be considered legally obscene in the United States: 1. If the average person, applying local community standards, would find that the work appeals to indecency, is unlawful or is sexually suggestive -- or in legal terms, applies to prurient interests. 2. If the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct that is against state law. 3. If the work, as a whole, lacks serious artistic, literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (Overbeck, 1994) These guidelines were established by the Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). That case established the precedent that a state can regulate the sale and distribution of obscene materials. (Overbeck, 1994) Although people may have their own moral code as to what's obscene and what is not, the above is the test the U.S. Supreme Court uses. As Judge Richard Posner comments in the October 18, 1993 issue of the New Republic "Most hard-core pornography -- the pornographic depiction of actual sex acts or of an erect penis is illegal -- even if it's widely available." (Godwin, a) It's obvious that hard core pornography is obscene under the Miller v. California guidelines, but a lot of graphic images on the Internet fall into a gray area. Although some people might consider the images on the Playboy or Penthouse WWW pages offensive, they are not legally obscene as far as U.S. law is concerned. Since they are not legally obscene, the Supreme Court can't, in most instances, stop citizens from viewing the images. "Thus the crucial issue in defining obscenity. If a work is legally obscene, it may be censored and the producer may be punished. If not, it is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be censored." (Overbeck, 328) However, in interest of protecting privacy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v. Georgia during 1969 that it is legal to possess obscene material in you home, but this decision did not give citizens the constitutional right to distribute or sell obscene materials. (Sergent, 1994) This is one reason why legal questions arise when users send obscene material over the Internet. If users transfer obscene files from their home to other users homes, they are not just in possession of obscene material, they are distributing obscene material. So if an Internet user in New York City starts distributing nude images -- that are not obscene in New York -- to a small, conservative city in Iowa, he or she could be breaking the law in Iowa because the images might be declared obscene by a court applying local community standards in Iowa. The test defined in Miller v. California was developed so that people who live in Las Vegas wouldn't have to live under the same moral community standards as the people who live in Tallmadge, Ohio. But since Internet users live in all parts of the world, the trick question is which local community standards should Internet users abide by? The standards of a red light district in L.A. or the standards of a small farm town in Ohio? (Godwin, a, b, 1995) Even the average user can see there are some problems with applying the Miller v. California definition of obscenity to the Internet. "Its weakness is obvious when viewed from the perspective of a large information service provider attempting to determine what community standards it should use. A large information service will operate in every community in the U.S. and perhaps eventually around the world." (Sergent, 703) If obscenity law in the U.S. is applied to the Internet it's possible that users could be prosecuted for transmitting obscene material to remote locations over the Net. Robert and Carleen Thomas were convicted on 11 counts of obscenity for distributing sexual images over a computer bulletin board system to a virtual community of users. (AP, b, 1994) Even though the Thomases lived in California, they were convicted of violating obscenity law in Tennessee. (Godwin, a, b, 1994) The case shows that, under current laws, users can be held accountable for breaking laws in other states. "It seems clear that by exploiting both the ambiguities of the current obscenity law and the media's hunger for any crime stories related to sexual materials, these social conservatives hope to both chill the spread of sexual materials on the Net and to establish a broad national scope for prosecutions of that material." (Godwin, a, 1994) So far the courts have refused to abandon the traditional model of judging a work obscene by geographic community standards. When, in fact, the community standards of the online service where users meet and communicate with other users around the world should be taken into consideration when deciding if a graphic image or language is obscene. Since current law will not allow for that, change in the U.S. obscenity law is needed. (Byassee, 1995) (Godwin, a, b, 1994) Global Standards Yet another problem is that the Internet is an international medium and what might be considered legally obscene in the U.S. might not be considered obscene in France. The problems start when different countries have conflicting laws. For example, pictures of nude children on the beach in France could be sent over the Internet to the United States. Then, anyone in the U.S. who has possession of one of the pictures could be arrested because in Osborne v. Ohio the court ruled that a person may be prosecuted for having sexually oriented pictures of under age children. (Overbeck, 318) (Warren, 1995) This, of course, doesn't mean that citizens in other countries have to obey U.S. laws. So it is not possible for one U.S. law to ban all child pornography on the Internet. Which means users in other countries may be able to freely distribute child pornography or other obscene materials on the Net. "If we agree to clamp down in America, does the U.S. have troops to send to Finland or Kazakhstan, to prevent people from putting pornography on their local tributary of the Internet?" (Rheingold, 1995) Since there is no international obscenity law, trying to get all the nations who are connected to the Internet to agree on what's obscene may be impossible. When the RAND Corporation decided to create the Internet for the Department of Defense with no central control center, the Net could theoretically continue in its anarchial state for a long time. (Rheingold, 1995) Indecent Laws? On the Usenet news group misc.legal New Zealand Judge David Harvey suggested that government regulation could stifle the growth of the Internet in some countries. "There is currently before the New Zealand Parliment a bill entitled the Technology and Crimes Bill. One of its purposes is to prohibit telecommunications with foreign telecommunications services whose programmes contain objectionable images or sounds. It has been suggested that if it becomes law, the main gateway to the Internet at the University of Waikato will be closed, thus taking New Zealand off the Net." Harvey also points out that Singapore has announced that the Singapore Broadcast Authority (SBA) will start "policing" the Internet for "Cybersleaze." Although the FCC regulates indecent programs on TV and radio in the U.S., Reed Hundt, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said in the October 1994 issue of the Internet Letter that the FCC would not attempt to regulate indecent material on the Net. "Unlike TV, a user must take affirmative steps to access a pornographic site. 'There are a series of affirmative steps taken to get to the content,' Hundt said. 'For one thing, you have to subscribe to a service to get access to the network, then you have to take your chances on what might be on the bulletin board. When you're talking TV, you're talking about a free medium'." (Shepard, 1994) But the U.S. Congress is jumping on the bandwagon to regulate the distribution of sexual materials on the Net. In February 1995, Senator Jim Exon (D-NE) introduced the Telecommunications Decency Act. The bill says that anyone who "by means of telecommunications device makes, transmits or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, purposal, image or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent ... or knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under their control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 2 years." (Warren, 14) This bill has caused mass concern on the Internet. The Center for Democracy & Technology, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, The ACLU, The Electronic Messaging Association and many other groups circulated petitions against the bill and announcements about the bill on the Net. "It is questionable whether the prohibition of on obscene or indecent communications, even if limited to non- consensual communications, can be accomplished in electronic communications without chilling the First Amendment." (Rosenblum, 1995). Interactive Age reported in their April 10, 1995 issue that during an interview with David Frost on PBS, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA.) said, "that provisions to ban obscene material from the Internet is 'probably illegal under our constitution'. When Frost asked Gingrich about Sen. James Exon's (D-Neb.) communications decency provisions included in the Senate's communications bill, Gingrich said that Americans as a culture, not as a government, can refuse to tolerate obscenity." (Interactive Age, 5) In the March 15, 1995 edition of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Michael Kangior, Exon's legislative aid, defended the bill by answering concerns of Internet access providers by saying that they would not be held responsible for the actions of their users. "Pornography among consenting adults is perfectly legal -- it's protected by the constitution," he told the Bay Guardian. "This (the legislation) should not apply to the carriers (online service providers) but to the person who hits the send button." (Espinoza, 19) The passionate debate on how to regulate cyberspace will probably continue for the next several years. In many ways, technology is advancing but the laws that govern it are not. "Evolution of the law is the result of the grinding process of competing interests, each working to ensure that law is appropriately adapted from the perspective of that particular interest group." (Byassee, 220) Real Law in the Virtual World Although it is clear that the reform of traditional obscenity law is needed, and new legislation is being purposed in many countries, current laws are being applied to penalize some offenders. For example: -- The Detroit News reported that a Canadian man was charged by a U.S. grand Jury for helping a University of Michigan student plan the sexual assault of a young woman. If the Canadian Authorities find the man who uses the alias Arthur Gonda, they will extradite him to the U.S. for prosecution. (Ilka, 1995) -- The Boston Globe reported that America Online, Inc., an online service in the U.S. with over 1.5 million users, cancelled several users accounts and reported them to the FBI for exchanging child pornography over the online service. (Zitner, 1995) These examples, in addition to the Thomases case mentioned earlier, illustrate the point that even though new obscenity law is being considered, Internet users still have to act responsibly because they can be prosecuted for disobeying current obscenity laws. Conclusion During the next several years, the Internet will probably become more regulated because those opposed to the distribution of sexual materials will demand that government authorities regulate the online world. "some people who wish to regulate sexually- related speech will be dissatisfied with any solution to this problem which accommodates individual expression." (Sergent, 704) However, the best way to protect children from exposure to adult material and allow adult users the right of free expression is probably not through legislation or government involvement. Perhaps a way to accommodate everyone would be for access providers to set up adult areas and keep all sexually related material confined to those areas. (Sergent, 1994) This would also prevent governments from having to make regulations and define obscenity. It also allows non-consenting adults to avoid the indecent material. Although some children may find a way to access the adult areas, this is a better solution than banning all sexual material on the Internet. Furthermore, censoring obscene material on the Internet is different than censoring obscene material in other forums like radio or TV. As FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, pointed out, the user must take specific steps to access pornographic material on the Internet. (Shepard, 1995) You must sign on the Internet and seek out the sexually oriented newsgroups and nude images. They are rarely forced on a reader or accidentally accessed, Unfortunately for advocates of free speech, the Internet will probably become more regulated as it grows in popularity. Most politicians are unwilling to face the PR nightmare of opposing legislation that bans offensive material. And since it is also unlikely that all the countries connected to the Internet will regulate indecent or obscene materials the same way, users will have to think twice before sending sexual stories or pictures over the Net. Those who participate in online activities need to learn what is legally obscene in the their country and use good judgement when dealing with obscene material. It would also be wise for users to remember that planning or committing crimes with the help of the Internet can lead to prosecution. As pointed out earlier, it is possible to be prosecuted and held accountable for your actions in the virtual world just as you would be held accountable in the real world. Works Cited Byassee, William S., Wake Forest Law Review V. 30, Spring 1995, "Jurisdiction of Cyberspace: Applying Real World Precedent to the Virtual Community" p. 197-220. Associated Press, (a) "Jury Convicts Couple in Computer Porn Trial" July 28, 1994. Associated Press, (b) "The Porno Business is Booming", March 16, 1995. Espinoza, Martin, "The Cybercensors", San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 15-21, 1995, p. 19 Godwin, Mike, (a) "Virtual Community Standards", Reason, November 1994, Downloaded from the Electronic Newsstand on the World Wide Web. Godwin, Mike, (b) "The Long Arm of the Law", Internet World, 1994. Ilka, Douglas, "U-M Student's Canadian E-mail Pal Charged in Internet Kidnap Plot", Detroit News, March 16, 1995. "More on Online Obscenity." Interactive Age April 10, 1995: Page 5 Overbeck, Wayne, Major Principles of Media Law Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1995 "Pointer to Sex Info on the Net." Distributed anonymously to alt.sex on the Internet April 15, 1995. Rosenblum, Shari, "EMA ANALYSIS: Censorship Act S314", Feb. 1995. Downloaded from the Chicago-Kent College of Law mail list Lawsch-l. Rheingold, Howard, "Why Censoring Cyberspace is Dangerous & Futile", Tommorow, 1994, Commentary downloaded from the Gate. Sandberg, Jared, "Electronic Erotica: Too Muich Traffic", Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1995. Sanchez, Robert, "Usenet Culture", Internet World, Nov./Dec. 1994, p. 38-41 Scheller, John C., The John Marshall Law Review V. 27, Summer 1994, "PC Peep Show: Computers, Privacy and Child Pornography", p. 989- 1016. Sergent, Randolph Stuart, The Journal of Law & Politics V. 10, 1994, "Sex, Candor and Computers: Obscenity and Indecency on the Electronic Frontier" p. 703-738 Shepard, Robert, "FCC to Keep Hands-Off Policy: Hundt Sees No Plan to Regulate Internet", The Internet Letter, October 1994. Warren, Jim, "The Brave New Online World", San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 15-21, 1995, P. 13-14 Zitner, Aaron, "AOL Red Over Porn Images", Boston Globe, Jan. 10, 1995 This work is Copyright 1995 By Eric Eden. All rights reserved. For reprint permission, contact the author at r3eje@dax.cc.uakron.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 20:12:10 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 3--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online CHRISTIAN AMERICAN MAY/JUNE 1995 TECHNO-PREDATORS Computer Porn Invades Homes Editor's note: Pornography victimizes women and entices young people. This article contains graphic information about the growing availability of pornographic pictures via computer bulletin boards and the Internet. Christian American hopes this information will be useful to parents and others who wish to safeguard their computers from this growing threat. By Jeffrey M. Peyton Youth pastor Tim McNabb used to love browsing through the Internet, a world-wide computer network, in search of electronic "pen pals." "I've had some of the most stimulating theological discussions ever with some people on the net," he said. "But more and more, I was having to wade through so much garbage to find someone who really wanted to talk." One day McNabb was having a theological conversation with a young woman who kept trying to turn the conversation in a sexually-suggestive direction. McNabb, who is married with children, was shocked. "It turns out she was only 16," he said. "I couldn't believe it." McNabb experienced a mild form of what some Internet veterans know as cybersex, the electronic equivalent to talking dirty on the telephone. Today McNabb, one of an estimated 30 million people dialing in from his home computer, accesses Internet only when he has to, and his communications software at home is password-protected. Unfortunately, the experience that shocked McNabb is tame compared to some material available on commercial dial-in bulletin boards and, worse, free and easily through the Internet. Today, all anyone needs to access hard-core pornographic photos is a computer, a modem and a phone jack. The technology revolution has led to a sudden explosion in illegal, obscene pornography distribution - all right under the noses of law enforcement and, in some cases, parents who unknowingly have given their children the ability to access such information. "Right now, people are operating in 'ignorant' mode," said Donna Rice Hughes of Enough is Enough, a national organization dedicated to stopping pornography. "They have no idea what's happening." Increasingly, porn purveyors are re-distributing photographs through "home pages" on Internet's world-wide web. This material is free for anyone who knows where to look. (Internet's public network is called a web because Internet forms an electronic "web" connecting computers in cities around the world. If one computer on the web is unavailable, information is re-routed though another computer via the web. The home page, literally a computer's address on the web, is the graphic equivalent to turning the page of an electronic magazine.) Some porno pages on the web deal mostly with pin-ups, along the lines of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, but most offer images far more disturbing. These photographs can be copied to computer disks or printed on paper and permanently kept by the user or shared with friends. "Children can dial into the system and download anything," Hughes said. "It's all available, subdivided into specific sections." Illegal pornographic images are available to anyone with the right computer equipment. Of particular concern to parents is the rampant availability of legal pornography, since the law distinguishes between pornography, which may be legal, and obscenity, which is illegal. And, Special Agent Ken Lanning of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit told the Associated Press, "as computers become less expensive, more sophisticated and easier to operate, the potential for abuse increases." In order to test how easily accessible porn is to computer users, a Christian American reporter accessed several menu selections arranged by subject. Topics included bestiality (sex with animals), torture/mutilation, snuff (killing a victim after sexually assaulting her) and child pornography. Categories are sub-organized for convenience - images under bestiality, for instance, are subdivided by type of animal. Not all topics included photographs. "This stuff would make a Hustler subscriber squirm," Hughes said. "There are hundreds of options. They're all easy to get, and they're all free for the taking." No Control Many parents feel better knowing their children are working on the computer rather than watching television, but at least TV offers control devices that can block objectionable channels. Now, with Internet and other computer bulletin board systems, the same child who is prohibited from watching MTV can see graphic sexual pictures on his or her personal computer. "You can see anything and talk to anybody," McNabb said. Legal Briefs Recent cybersmut incidents demonstrate that more law enforcement patrols are needed on the information speedway. The University of Michigan expelled a sophomore who posted email messages - which he claims were pure fiction - that described the rape, torture and murder of a classmate. The student, 20-year-old Jake Baker, spent 29 days in jail after authorities charged him with interstate transmission of a threat. "Torture is foreplay," Baker wrote in the introduction to one of his pieces. "Rape is romance, snuff is climax." In Fresno, Calif., in 1993, Mark Forston was convicted of sodomizing a 16-year-old boy he had met and lured to his home via a computer network. In Sacramento, William Steen was convicted on charges stemming from sending pornographic computer files to two 14-year-olds. National lawmakers are becoming aware of the growing need to regulate computer porn and are struggling for realistic ways to do it. Senators Jim Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) are sponsoring a bill that would curtail transmission of obscene, indecent or harassing telecommunications. Exon says the Baker case strengthens his belief that a crackdown on a growing Internet "red-light district" is needed. "When I see my 8-year-old granddaughter sitting at the computer back in Nebraska, and I know stuff like what this student wrote is available, I get upset. (Some Internet users) are trying to say anything goes, and I think that is wrong." No Boundaries Because no one "owns" the Internet - its very nature defies boundaries - many users feel there should be no limitations on what is available through the system. Their protests raise difficult questions about how Internet can be effectively policed. What community standard should apply to a forum that transcends state, even national, boundaries? Do laws apply based on the location of the server (usually a mainframe computer that provides Internet access to hundreds of users) or the location of the individual downloading information? For instance, in June 1994, Robert and Carleen Thomas, operators of an "adult bulletin board service" in California, were convicted in U.S. court in Memphis, Tenn., on obscenity charges because of images downloaded in Tennessee. Tens of thousands of Internet users have emailed petitions denouncing the Exon bill to Capitol Hill and the White House, claiming that any attempt to regulate the information super highway would be paramount to regulating free speech. Robert Knight, cultural studies director for the Family Research Council, told the Washington Times that such doomsday wailing misses the point. "Obscene materials are not protected, no matter what the method of transmission," Knight said. "The point is not to go after the Internet, but to begin enforcing laws against obscene materials. "If child pornography pictures are transmitted by Internet or by U.S. mail, it shouldn't make any difference in terms of enforcement." To encourage your senators to support the Exon-Gorton measure to curb computer porn, write to them at the U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. 20510. Or call the Capitol switchboard and ask for your senator: (202) 224-3121. For more information on computer pornography and what you can do to safeguard your home, write to Enough is Enough! at P.O. Box 888, Fairfax, Va. 22030, or call (703) 278-8343. _________________________________________________________________ [IMAGE] _________________________________________________________________ Copyright =A91995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all contents. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 17:08:37 -0700 From: Ellen Elias Subject: File 4--O'Reilly Releases WebSite Server FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 11, 1995 PRESS CONTACT ONLY: Ellen Elias 707/829-0515 elias@ora.com SALES/PRODUCT INFORMATION 800/998-9938 order@ora.com http://website.ora.com/ O'REILLY RELEASES WEBSITE (TM) WEB SERVER FOR WINDOWS NT Feature-Rich Publishing Software Available at $499 SEBASTOPOL, CA--O'Reilly & Associates announced that it will ship its new Web server WebSite on the target release date of May 15. The 32-bit Web server runs on both Windows NT 3.5 and the current beta version of Windows 95. WebSite is created in cooperation with Bob Denny and Enterprise Integration Technologies, Inc. (EIT). WebSite offers a completely graphical interface, from setup through administration and Web building. The server is written by Bob Denny, author of Windows HTTPD, a 16-bit shareware server for Windows 3.1 that has been tested on over 20,000 sites. WebSite enhances its server with a rich array of user-friendly features including WebView (TM), which provides a tree-like graphical display of the servers documents and links; icons that identify file type and broken links; logging statistics; a graphical editor for enhancing images in Web documents; wizards that automatically create common Web documents; and search and indexing tools. O'Reilly is using a variety of digital media to let customers preview and purchase the product. A fully functioning, time-limited demo version of WebSite will be available on WUGNET's Third Party CD Sampler for Windows 95, which will be offered to the 400,000+ recipients of the Windows 95 Preview Guide. A free online demo version will be available from WebSite Central (http://website.ora.com/) in late May. Customers can also order WebSite online through WebSite Central. WebSite's advanced capabilities include support for Windows CGI, DOS CGI, and Standard CGI/1.1. With Windows CGI, which is currently not available on other NT servers, you can serve data from Windows programs such as Excel, Foxpro, and Microsoft Access. WebSite offers security through authentication and access control. Access to areas within a Web can be restricted based on user name, group, or IP address. The program allows a single server to support multiple domains with completely separate or overlapping webs--each with its own set of users and groups. The package includes Enhanced Mosaic 2.0 and a 350-page book that provides complete documentation. O'Reilly is offering 90-day free tech support for registered users. This Fall, O'Reilly will offer an attractive upgrade path to WebSite Version 1.1, an update with full cryptographic security (S-HTTP and SSL). "We are very pleased to be shipping WebSite on time--it's a cutting edge product, and our customers are anxious to get the software so they can start making their own information available on the World Wide Web," said Product Manager Gina Blaber. "O'Reilly is committed to producing high quality, affordable tools that make the Internet accessible to everyone. At a list price of $499, WebSite makes Web publishing possible for a wide range of businesses, organizations, and individuals." About O'Reilly & Associates O'Reilly & Associates is recognized worldwide for its definitive books on the Internet and UNIX. Working closely with developers of new technologies, O'Reillys editors are computer people who use the software they write about. The companys planning and review process links together authors, computer vendors, and technical experts throughout the industry in a creative collaboration that mirrors the strengths of the open systems philosophy itself. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--More Additions to the CuD archives _Alive_, a computer virus research e-pub, reviewed in the last CuD, has been added to the CuD archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/CuD/Alive/ ftp.eff.org, /pub/Publications/CuD/Alive/ gopher.eff.org, 1/Publications/CuD/Alive/ Please use one of the many mirror sites if possible. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 6--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 #7.41 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank