Computer underground Digest Tue Jun 8, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 47 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji

---
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 Jun 8, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 47 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 Triviata: How many bytes in a nibble? CONTENTS, #7.47 (Thu, Jun 8, 1995) File 1--Thebes File 2--A Seduction In Cyberspace (Update from CuD 7.46) File 3--Letter to AOL in response to "Damien Starr" incident File 4--adult only File 5--Can Parents prevent Web page viewing? (Re: CuD 7.46) File 6--THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT - June '95 (fwd) File 7--CDT POLICY POST #16 -- SEN. DOLE TO INTRODUCE SWEEPING INTERNET File 8--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: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 06:12:51 -0700 (MST) From: Waiting for the summer to hit hard Subject: File 1--Thebes ((MODERATORS' NOTE: Joel Snyder, a Latin undergrad, came the closest. The (politically) correct answer was: THE WORKERS!)) Amphion and Zethus built the walls around Cadmus' city. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Jun 95 21:06:54 EDT To: cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu Subject: File 2--A Seduction In Cyberspace (Update from CuD 7.46) On May 18, 1995, Daniel Montgomery -- a 15-year-old teenager living in a Seattle area community known as Maple Valley -- left home using a bus ticket provided by someone else. Early in June, Montgomery's disappearance became a hot item for the local press. Details were not clear, and changed radically with each passing day. Through a period of less than one week since the news media picked up the story, this case may have come to some form of final resolution. Here is where things stand. Montgomery, who was 15 at the time but turned 16 on 6-4-95, met someone calling himself "Damien Starr" in a gay & lesbian chat room on America Online. Starr suggested that Montgomery join him in San Francisco. Starr eventually sent Montgomery a bus ticket. Upon receiving the bus ticket by mail, Montgomery left Seattle. Thus, Bill and Ruth Montgomery -- Daniel Montgomery's parents -- notified authorities and began a search for their son. By the time news media coverage had transformed the situation into a major Seattle news story, Montgomery's parents were asserting that Daniel had probably been seduced to run away by someone Daniel met on America Online. Bill and Ruth Montgomery only knew that Daniel had been communicating with "Damien Starr" online and offline prior to leaving Seattle, and that both Starr and Daniel had contacted the Montgomerys a short time after Daniel arrived in San Francisco. A user profile for Starr had indicated he was 18 and gay. This apparently, in part, led the Montgomerys to believe their son was the potential future victim of some gay sex group. Between 5-18-95 and 6-2-95, Daniel Montgomery had contacted his parents via E-Mail twice, and Starr had called to assure Daniel's parents that Daniel was ok no less than four times. It was also on 6-2-95 that the Montgomery run-away story became so prominent that Seattle area TV stations were interviewing Bill Montgomery. With little doubt, Bill Montgomery voiced his fears as to a theory that Daniel was being "groomed" for sex. However, only two days later, Daniel was found in a San Francisco airport. His parents flew down to San Francisco to meet Daniel. At that time, Daniel returned to Seattle. Approximately two days later, the news media of Settle was reporting that America Online had released information concerning Starr to the FBI. Upon investigating Starr, the FBI found that Starr is 16, not 18. They also learned that "Damien Starr" was NOT an alias. With these discoveries, all thought of possibly charging Starr for violation of the Mann Act evaporated. In a Previous posting to CuD (See CuD 7.46, File 1), I reported that this case was not finished. I now believe it may indeed be closed as of today, 6-7-95. But, of course, a new specter seems to have taken its place in the form of another run-away case involving a 13-year-old Louisville, Kentucky girl -- Tara Noble. And so, it seems the Merry-go-round has not stopped; it has only taken new riders. Perhaps someone in Louisville can tell us what's going on there. ------------------------------ Date: 09 Jun 1995 01:00:06 -0000 From: moseman@PWRLINE.PO.MY(Larry Moser) Subject: File 3--Letter to AOL in response to "Damien Starr" incident To: sales@aol.com (I hope this address works.) Found in a recent listserv posting: >In the past two days, some news media organizations have >statedAOL was under some pressure to reveal information on a >subscriberusing the alias "Damien Starr." However, other news >mediaorganizations were stating that AOL was resolute in its >policy n ot toreveal information about subscribers. Even so, >today, [6-6-95] severalbroadcast organizations (KING-TV, KIRO-TV, >KIRO radio, and KOMO radio)now report that AOL has terminated the >person who used the DamienStarr alias. KOMO radio broadcast the >foll owing in a news program thismorning. America Online says >it's complying with a subpoena and giving investigators >information about the account of Damien Starr. That's the name >used by a man suspected of luring a teenaged boy to San >Francisco. The computer service has also terminated the man's >account. I'm not gay and I don't proposition anyone on the net, but if it's true that you were so easily intimitdated by The Law and the media hype concerning the above, I will recommend to everyone I meet NOT to subscribe to your service. Sent via FirstClass (R) UUCP Gateway of Persatuan Komputer Brunei Darussalam (Brunei Computer Society). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 00:10:46 -0400 From: christij@UNIX.ASB.COM(Joseph Christie) Subject: File 4--adult only In CUD 7.46 comp-academic-freedom-talk@EFF.ORG is quoted In the next version of the Web navigators, just introduce a new HTML tag . If a WWW browser encounters this tag enclosed inside the part of a HTML document, then the browser will simply refuse to load or render the document. The author of a Web page should put that tag in all of his pages containing materials that he does not want to be seen by young children. This makes it incumbent on everyone who maintains a page to not only police their own page. What if I'm not sure about the standards for which I am being held liable. Not necessarily pornography but adult discussions of current events which may include occasional referrences to things many parents would not want their children exposed to like the sexual escapades of sports or movie idole or rock musicians. I think it makes more sense to have "children OK" sites rather than "adult only" sites. This way you are not individually excluding specific sites with a large group of sites being included for access by accident, ignorance or laziness. If you forgot to label it "adult only" it might be an honest mistake, but if you specifically label it "kids OK" and it's contains offensive material you can't plead accidental oversight. It just seems that "kids OK" is more enforceable and easier to implement and manage than "adults only" This brings to mind a second question. What if I link to Happy Harry's cartoon page because he has great Disney images. So I label it as a great site for the kiddies. Next week Harry decides to put up a Fritz the Cat section. Am I liable for pointing the kiddies to an X rated site if Harry doesn't protect his site or is it strictly his problem? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 16:03:12 -0500 From: Gerald Anderson Subject: File 5--Can Parents prevent Web page viewing? (Re: CuD 7.46) I would like to respond to the text in issue 7.46 re: Can the parents prevent their children from viewing unwanted Web pages? I think that the idea put forth is quite a good example of how we should all be facing this problem. It is well known that if we, the net.community, don't fix our own problems, the government(s) will fix them for us. This, to me anyway, is terrifying. Therefore we must be putting every effort in to reasonably solving these problems before it is too late. The solution this person (Author is unknown :-( ) presented, is a spirit of cooperation between providers of 'controversial materials' and the publishers of Web browsing software. He/She (Will use He in the future, no offense.) suggested that the producers of Web browsers institute (in HTML 3.0?) a a standard header tag that tells the Web client that this document is adult in nature. (The tag he suggested was ) When a family member installs the Web client on their home machine it would ask for a password and this password would be required to access any pages with the above tag. This is a pretty good idea, a good place to start at least. In his text he stated (truly) that we can't guarantee %100 effectiveness of any procedure as there are kids out there who will find ways to get what they want, we DO indeed have to focus on the one we CAN control. (Note: Even government legislation is not going to control the kids that want it. There will always be someone to provide, and someone to receive if they are both interested enough) I, at one time was one of these kids. If I would have been in a situation where my parents password protected a program I would have gotten out debug and found out what it was. I think a few EASY steps can be made to insure better security and greater flexibility. 1) Upon install have option of protecting or not. 2) Upon deciding to protect when installing, the password will be automatically sent to the server of the Client publisher to be stored with the hostname. (This may present problems with dynamic slip though) An easy CGI program could handle this. I don't think this would be much more of an issue than we are already discussing. 3) When accessing a protected document, go to the old 3 strikes your out password scheme. At the third failure the client locks up and needs a secondary password GIVEN to the INSTALLER at install time (A crypto based on the installer provided password?) to unlock the client again. IF this type of security is enabled it could allow for parents to track or audit what their children are seeing (request logs from provider, or whatever). If the installer decides NOT to use this protection his privacy is as thorough as it is today. This is a pretty off the top idea, but at least should give those interested in thinking about it a few ideas. These ideas keep the children away who can be kept away and protects the privacy of those adults who are viewing these sites. If anybody can think of anyway to simplify this or to make it even more secure, feel free to email me. Also, I would consider putting together an open mailing list for the discussion of such techniques for all forms of Internet tools. If you're interested in this type of mailing list or have any comments email: gander@mail.cox.smu.edu. Gerald D. Anderson P.S. Perhaps a Content-Type could also be used. (sorry, I'll stop now ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 13:09:25 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 6--THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT - June '95 (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ********************************************** THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT JUNE, 1995 PREPARED BY WILLIAM S. GALKIN, ESQ. galkin@aol.com ********************************************** ARTICLES CONTAINED IN THIS ISSUE: (1) E-MAIL CONFESSIONS IN COURT (2) LICENSE RESTRICTIONS CAN BACKFIRE (3) RAIDING EMPLOYEES * PLEASE READ *: If you have any questions about the material contained in The Computer Law Report, or would like to discuss issues related to computer or technology law, please contact William S. Galkin, Esq.: e-mail (galkin@aol.com), telephone (410-356-8853), fax (410-356-8804), or mail (10451 Mill Run Circle, Suite 400, Owings Mills, MD 21117). The Computer Law Report is distributed free, and designed for the non-lawyer. To subscribe, please respond via e-mail. All information contained in The Computer Law Report is for the benefit of the recipients, and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice. When necessary, proper professionals should be consulted. ++++++++++++E-MAIL CONFESSIONS IN COURT++++++++++++++ E-mail is the most efficient means of communication available today. However, this efficiency and ease of use can become a huge liability in the future. A case in point involves a recent trade secrets suit by Vermont Microsystems, Inc. (located in Winooski, Vermont) against Autodesk, Inc. (located in Sausalito, California). Microsystems argued that Autodesk had reason to know that trade secrets known by a former Microsystems software engineer were incorporated into an Autodesk software product. In court Microsystems introduced internal e-mail records of Autodesk which evidenced knowledge by Autodesk management of the trade secrets. There was also evidence that computer files had been deleted from the software engineer's computer, suggesting foul play. The judge awarded Microsystems $25 million. The judgment has been appealed. However this case ultimately turns out, it highlights the use (and danger) of e-mail and other records in court actions. Usually, e-mail goes unmonitored in companies. For one thing, employees do not feel comfortable having their communications monitored. Additionally, monitoring e-mail is a complicated and time consuming task. Paper records are usually subject to a much higher level of control. Paper is either filed (which provides a control process), or is destroyed through normal disposal means or shredding. However, e-mail is much easier to maintain, and then be forgotten about. Additionally, the volume of information that e-mail contains is much greater than with paper information because of its ease of use. What's more, e-mail is difficult to permanently destroy, because once deleted, it can still be recovered. We can anticipate that e-mail and other computer records will provide at least some portion of evidence in a majority of business-related litigation from now on. Employment discrimination and sexual harassments suits quickly come to mind as likely candidates. Imagine if all conversations in a company were recorded, and available to be produced in court. To a lesser extent, this is what e-mail records provide - threads of communications on virtually all subjects relating to the inner workings of a company. The problem lies in the fact that companies are not aware of what information is being maintained. What should a company do? First, an information policy should be developed and disseminated to employees, regularly, as to what type of communications are to be communicated over e-mail. Furthermore, the policy should categorize different types of information and require that different categories are subject to deletion after given time periods. Lastly, the company should conduct periodic house-cleaning of the entire system in order to monitor compliance with the information policy, and also to get an idea what type of information is on the system. There is no advice being given in this article to intentionally destroy evidence of wrongdoing. However, the true enemy to be confronted is the uncontrolled accumulation of vast amounts of information, which does not need to be maintained, and which may be used against a company in the future. ++++++++++++LICENSE RESTRICTIONS CAN BACKFIRE+++++++ Licensors of software usually dictate the terms of the license agreement under which they will license their software. For example, the license agreement may require the licensee to only use the software for internal use (i.e., may not act as a service bureau), or to only use the software on a specified computer. In the Fourth Circuit case of Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, Lasercomb developed and licensed a CAD/CAM (computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacture) software program known as Interact, which is used for making steel dies which cut and score paper and cardboard for folding into boxes and cartons. Lasercomb's standard license agreement included the following provision: "Licensee agrees during the term of this Agreement that it will not permit or suffer its directors, officers and employees, directly or indirectly, to write, develop, produce or sell computer-assisted die-making software." The license also prohibited the licensee from assisting others to do any of the prohibited activities. The term of the agreement was 99 years. In clear violation of Lasercomb's copyright, one licensee, Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation, made unauthorized copies of the software and began marketing it. Lasercomb sued Holiday for copyright infringement. The court held that the terms of Lasercomb's license agreement amounted to a misuse of the copyright in the software by Lasercomb and, based on a copyright misuse defense, the court denied Lasercomb's infringement claim -- even though copyright infringement did occur. The court reasoned that Lasercomb attempted to use its copyright to inhibit competition in a manner that exceeded the protection provided under the copyright laws. The license agreement prohibited licensees from developing or selling computer-assisted die-making software during the ninety-nine year term of the license agreement. This extension, beyond the copyright protection, to restrict licensees from all competitive efforts relating to computer-assisted die making was determined to be misuse, because such protection extended into the "idea" of CAD/CAM for making rule dies, and "ideas" are not protectable under the copyright laws. The copyright misuse defense is likely to be followed in other circuits and will certainly be raised by defendants in copyright suits. Therefore, the lesson is clear: examine your current license agreements for any noncompetitive provisions, otherwise you run the risk of not being able to enforce your copyright against infringers. ++++++++++++RAIDING EMPLOYEES+++++++++++++++++ The computer industry, more than other industries, often sees companies luring away key personnel from competitors. This competition for employees stems from the great value to a computer company of the personal skills of its employees. Generally, a company may freely attempt to hire away its competitor's employees. Accordingly, "raiding" other companies' employees is permissible, though it may be viewed as unfair by the victim-company. Although raiding is permissible, restrictions on misappropriation of trade secrets still apply. Encouraging an employee to join a company with the tacit understanding that part of the job will require disclosure of trade secrets is an actionable wrong. It is difficult to prove an intent to lure away employees for the purpose of disclosing trade secrets, because there is a fine line between hiring a competitor's employee because of his or her learned expertise (which is permissible) or for the purpose of making use of and disclosing trade secrets (which is not permissible). While employees may compete with a former employer, during the time that the employee is still working for the employer, the employee may not divert or attempt to solicit any customers to a competitor. Such solicitation, if known by a competitor, might result in the competitor being enjoined from doing business with the solicited customer. There are three important protections that an employer concerned about being raided can put in place. The first is to have key employees sign employment agreements. A company is not permitted to attempt to lure a competitor's employee if leaving would cause the employee to be in breach of the employment agreement. However, an employment agreement will also limit the ability of the employer to fire the employee. The second protection is having the employee enter into a confidentiality agreement. Such an agreement may be incorporated into an employment agreement and sets forth the type of information that the employer considers confidential. Such an agreement is an invaluable piece of evidence when claiming a former employee is revealing trade secrets. The third and most powerful protection is a noncompetition agreement, which also can be incorporated into an employment agreement. Such an agreement restricts an employee from competing with the employer for a specified term (e.g., two or three years) and within a specified area (e.g., Maryland). Such term and area restrictions must be reasonable in scope, or will not be enforceable. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 1995 17:11:03 -0500 From: jseiger@cdt.org (Jonah Seiger) Subject: File 7--CDT POLICY POST #16 -- SEN. DOLE TO INTRODUCE SWEEPING INTERNET CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY Jun 6, 1995 / #16 --------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online --------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS: (1) Sens. Dole & Grassley to introduce sweeping anti-indecency Internet censorship bill (2) Sen. Lott To offer amendment to strike 'Defenses' section of Exon CDA (3) Legislative Update -- Status of Exon CDA (4) Text of the Grassley/Dole proposal (5) Petition Update -- 20,000 + signaures in the first two weeks (6) About CDT/Contacting Us This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its entirety. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) SENS DOLE (R-KS) & GRASSLEY (R-IA) TO INTRODUCE SWEEPING ANTI-INDECENCY INTERNET CENSORSHIP BILL OVERVIEW -------- Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) is expected to up the ante on Internet censorship tomorrow by co-sponsoring legislation with Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). The proposal to be offered by the Senate Majority leader and Republican Presidental candidate is more sweeping than the Exon Communicatons Decency Act, and comes on the heals of his recent attack on "sex and violence" in the entertainment industry. The Dole/Grassley proposal represents an even greater threat to the First Amendment and the free flow of information in cyberspace than the Exon Communications Decency Act, now pending before the Senate (a vote on the CDA is expected as early as tomorrow, 6/7/95). The Dole proposal will likely be offered as a substitute to the CDA. Senator Dole is expected to announce his support for the bill at a 6/7 lunch hosted by the anti-pornography group Enough Is Enough. The text of the proposal is attached below. The introduction of Dole/Grassley creates an even greater need for support of Senator Leahy's alternative (S. 714). If the Senate rejects Senator Leahy's alternative, it will pass either the Exon bill or the even more draconian Dole/Grassley proposal, and the net as we know it will never be the same again. To find out what you can do to help, contact the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) by sending a message to vtw@vtw.org with a subject "send alert". Please also sign the petition (URL and instructions at the end of this post) SUMMARY OF DOLE/GRASSLEY PROPOSAL --------------------------------- The Dole/Grassley bill would create new penalties in Title 18 for all operators of electronic communications services who knowingly transmit indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age. The bill would also create criminal liability for system operators who willfully permit minors to use an electronic communications service in order to obtain indecent material from another service. The Dole/Grassley bill would impose criminal liability on online service providers, electronic bulletin board operators, as well as any other entity that uses computer storage to deliver information to users, including video dialtone services, cable television video on demand services, etc. The degree of knowledge required to impose liability is unclear, but it appears that an entity could be said to have the requisite knowledge if it is merely informed by a third party that some material on its system is indecent. ----------------------------------------------------------------- (2) SEN. LOTT (R-MISS) TO OFFER AMENDMENT TO STRIKE 'DEFENSES' SECTION OF EXON CDA. Senator Lott is preparing to offer an amendment to strike the service provider defenses from the Exon language already approved by the Senate Commerce committee. Analysis: Holding service providers such as America Online and Internet access providers liable for the content on their system over which they have no control will stifle the free flow of information in cyberspace and create major business risk for the private companies that are building the National Information Infrastructure. Furthermore, placing criminal liability on service providers poses a serious risk to the privacy of individual users by forcing service providers to monitor communications in order to limit their own liability. Status: Lott plans to offer this amendment when the on the Senate floor when the telecommunications bill is being considered. ---------------------------------------------------------------- (3) LEGISLATIVE UPDATE -- STATUS OF EXON CDA With the Senate telecommunications reform bill poised to go to the floor this week, proposals to censor the Internet are proliferating beyond just the Exon language. The most sweeping and threatening proposals come from the Senate leadership and other Republicans. The provisions of the Exon proposal that are already in the telecommunications bill contain restrictions on indecent communications which would apply to all parts of the Internet, commercial online services, and all other interactive media including interactive television, etc. We believe these provisions to be unconstitutional and continue to oppose them. CDT continues to work with members of the Interactive Working Group in urging support for the Leahy study bill as an alternative. The Exon proposal now part of the Senate telecommunications bill still poses serious risks to free speech online. The Exon proposal contains restrictions on "indecent" communications, which could ban all sexually-explicit communications on the Internet, along with all uses of the "seven dirty words." Analysis: CDT continues to argue that the indecency restrictions in the Exon bill are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Status: Senator Leahy plans to offer an amendment to strike the Exon provisions and replace them with his study bill (S.714) as an alternative. CDT continues to work with members of the Interactive Working Group in urging support for the Leahy study as an alternative to the Exon bill, which we still believe to be unconstitutional. For more information, see CDT's Communications Decency Act Archives: http://www.cdt.org ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEECH ------------------------------------------------------------------ (4) TEXT OF THE DOLE/GRASSLEY PROPOSAL 104th Congress: First Session. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ______________________________________ A BILL To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to punish transmission by computer of indecent material to minors. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, SECTION 1: TRANSMISSION BY COMPUTER OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO MINORS. (a) OFFENSES. -- Section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended -- (1) in the heading by striking "Broadcasing obscene language" and inserting "Utterance of indecent or profane language by radio com- munication; transmission to minor of indecent material from remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service"; (2) by striking "Whoever" and inserting "(a) UTTERANCE OF INDECENT OR PROFANE LANGUAGE BY RADIO COMMUNICA- TION. -- A person who"; and (3) by adding at the end the following: "(b) TRANSMISSION TO MINOR OF INDECENT MATERIAL FROM REMOTE COMPUTER FACILITY, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, OR ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE PROVIDER.-- "(1) DEFINITIONS -- As used in this subsection -- "(A) the term 'remote computer facility' means a facility that -- "(i) provides to the public computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic commu nications system; and "(ii) permits a computer user to transfer electronic or digital material from the facility to another computer; "(B) the term 'electroni communications service' means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo optical, or photo-electronic system for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facility or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications, that permits a computer user to transfer electronic or digital material from the service to another computer; and, "(C) the term 'electronic bulletin board service' means a computer system, regardless of whether operated for commercial purposes, that exists primarily to provide remote or on-site users with digital images or that exists primarily to permit remote or on-site users to participatein or create on-line discussion groups or conferences. "(2) TRANSMISSION BY REMOTE COMPUTER FACILITY OPERATOR, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER, OR ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD SERVICE PROVIDER. -- A remote computer facility operator, electronic commu- nications service provider, electronic bulletin board service provider who, with knowledge of the character of the material, knowingly or recklessly -- "(A) transmits from the remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service provider a communication that contains indecent material to a person under 18 years of age; or "(B) causes or allows to be transmitted from the remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board a communication that contains indecent material to a person under 18 years of age, shall be fined in accordance with this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. "(3) PERMITTING ACCESS BY MINOR. -- Any person who willfully permits a person under 18 years of age to use a remote com- puting service, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service to obtain indecent material from another remote computing service, electronic communications service, or electronic board service, shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. "(4) NONAPPLICABILITY TO PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN. -- This subsection shall not apply to a parent or legal guardian who provides indecent material to the child of such parent or legal guardian." ------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) PETITION UPDATE -- 20,000 SIGNATUES IN TWO WEEKS. In the first two weeks of the petition effort, we have gathered over 20,000 signatures in support of Senator Leahy's alternative to the Exon Communications Decency Act. If you have not yet signed the petition, please visit the petition page http://www.cdt.org/petition.html If you do not have access to the Web, send a message to vtw@vtw.org with a suject 'send petition' for instructions on how to sing by email. The petition may be Delivered to Senator Leahy sometime this week, but it will continue to be up to gather signatures until the House of Representatives votes later this summer. Updates and a final singature tally will be posted shortly. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (6) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: To subscribe to CDT's news distribution list (to receive future Policy Posts directly), send email to with a subject of 'subscribe policy posts'. ** NOTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED TO BE ADDED TO CDT's DISTRIBUTION LIST: We are still working to build our listserv -- you will beging receiving Policy Posts on this list very soon. We appreciate your patience! General information on CDT can be obtained by sending mail to CDT has set up the following auto-reply aliases to keep you informed on the Communications Decency Act issue. For information on the bill, including CDT's analysis and the text of Senator Leahy's alternative proposal and information on what you can do to help -- cda-info@cdt.org For the current status of the bill, including scheduled House and Senate action (updated as events warrant) -- cda-stat@cdt.org World-Wide-Web: http://www.cdt.org/ ftp: ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ gopher: CDT's gopher site is still under construction and should be operational soon. snail mail: Center For Democracy and Technology 1001 G Street, NW Suite 700 East Washington, DC 20001 voice: +1.202.637.9800 fax: +1.202.637.9800 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--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 #7.47 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank