Computer underground Digest Thu Jun 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 52 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 Thu Jun 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 52 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 la Triviata: Which wine goes best with Unix? CONTENTS, #7.52 (Thu, Jun 22, 1995) File 1--COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT -- FULL TEXT File 2--EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate File 3--Dole and Exon Bills File 4--(fwd) Cinti computer connection confiscated (fwd) File 5--Baker "Rape Story" Case thrown out by Judge (excerpt) File 6--Zine Net...The Place for Zines File 7--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: 17 Jun 1995 00:06:28 -0400 From: Subject: File 1--COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT -- FULL TEXT THE U.S. SENATE ON JUNE 14, 1995 The text of the Communications Decency Amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska). This language was passed by the US Senate on June 14th. ------------------------------------------------------- This strikes all of Title IV of S. 652 and replaces it with the following: Sec.___ OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended -- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof: ``(a) Whoever-- ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly-- ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections: ``(d) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any obscene communication in any form including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communications; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subsection (d)(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity; shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(e) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image to any person under 18 years of age regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(f) Defenses to the subsections (a), (d), and (e), restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for persons providing information services and access to information services-- (1) No person shall be held to have violated subsections (a), (d), or (e) solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility, system, or network over which that person has no control, including related capabilities which are incidental to providing access or connection. This subsection shall not be applicatable to an individual controlled by, or a conspirator with, an entity actively involved in the creation, editing or knowing distribution of communications which violate this section. (2) No employer shall be held liable under this section for the actions of an employee or agent unless the employee's or agent's conduct is within the scope of his employment or agency and the employer has knowledge of, authorizes, or ratifies the employee's or agent's conduct. (3) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a), (d)(2), or (e) that a person has taken reasonable, effective and appropriate actions in good faith to restrict or prevent the transmission of or access to a communication specified in such subsections, or complied with procedures as the Commission may prescribe in furtherance of this section. Until such regulations become effective, it is a defense to prosecution that the person has complied with the procedures prescribed by regulation pursuant to subsection (b)(3). Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat enhanced information services as common carriage. (4) No cause of action may be brought in any court or any administrative agency against any person on account of any action which in not in violation of any law punishable by criminal penalty, which activity the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section. (g) no state or local government may impose any liability for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities in connection with an activity or action which constitutes a violation described in subsection (a)(2), (d)(2), or (e)(2) that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section provided, however, that nothin herein shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements so long as such systems, procedures, and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct not covered by this section. (h) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the defenses to prosecution under (a), (d), or (e) shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law. (i) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act. (j) Within two years from the date of enactment and every two years thereafter, the Commission shall report on the effectiveness of this section. Sec. ____ OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION. Section 639 (47 U.S.C> 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and inserting "$100,000" Sec. ___ BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO. Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out "$10,00" and inserting "$100,000". Sec. ___ SEPARABILITY "(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this Title or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Title and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby." ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:06:28 -0400 From: Subject: File 2--EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT: A LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION INTRODUCTION On June 14, 1995, the United States Senate approved by a vote of 84-16 an amendment to the Senate's omnibus telecommunications-deregulation bill that raises grave Constitutional questions and poses great risks for the future of freedom of speech on the nation's computer-communications forums. Sponsored by Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska), the amendment originated as an independent bill titled Communications Decency Act of 1995 (CDA), and is intended, according to its sponsor, both to prohibit "the [computer] equivalent of obscene telephone calls" and to prohibit the distribution to children of materials with sexual content. As drafted, however, the legislation not only fails to solve the problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content restrictions on computer communications that would chill First-Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in the public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only such content as is suitable for children. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CDA The Communications Decency Act would change the language of Title 47, United States Code, Section 223, a section that primarily does two things: 1) it prohibits "obscene or harassing" phone calls and other, similar, abusive uses of the telephone, and 2) it imposes regulation (promulgated and administered by the Federal Communications Commission) on telephone services that provide so-called "indecent" content and prohibits those services from providing legally obscene content. The amending language drafted by Sen. Exon and passed by the Senate substantially restructures and alters the provisions of this section in an effort to bring computer communications under the statute. If the Senate-approved language becomes law, provisions in the amended statute will: (a) Expand the scope of the statute from telephones to "telecommunications devices" (such as computers, modems, and the data servers and conferencing systems used by Internet sites and by commercial providers like America Online and CompuServe); (b) Define as a criminal offense any communication that is legally obscene or indecent if that communication is sent over a telecommunications device "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person"; (c) Penalize any person or entity who, by use of a telecommunication device, "knowingly ... makes or makes available" any content or material that is legally obscene; and (d) Penalize any person or entity who "knowingly ... makes or makes available" to a person under the age of 18 any content or material that is "indecent." The CDA outlines affirmative defenses for persons or entities who might otherwise be liable under the statute's criminal provisions. In spite of the efforts of Sen. Exon to address in this revision of his legislation those criticisms and constitutional issues raised by earlier drafts of it, the language of the CDA as passed by the Senate is riddled with flaws that threaten the First Amendment rights both of online service providers and of individual citizens. THE CDA WOULD CRIMINALIZE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH. None of the CDA's prohibitions of "obscene" communications raise any constitutional issues; it is well-settled law that obscene content is not protected under the Constitution. In contrast, CDA's restrictions on "indecent" speech are deeply problematic. What is "indecent" speech and what is its significance? In general, "indecent" speech is nonobscene material that deals explicitly with sex or that uses profane language. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that such "indecency" is Constitutionally protected. Further, the Court has stated that indecent speech cannot be banned altogether -- not even in broadcasting, the single communications medium in which the federal government traditionally has held broad powers of content control. The section of the CDA dealing with "obscene or harassing" communications penalizes not only the sending of "obscene" communications, but also those that are "indecent." This prohibition of indecent content, even though limited somewhat in application by the section's intent requirement, is unconstitutional on its face. In Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), a case involving dial-in phone-sex services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, even though a ban on *obscenity* in "dial-a-porn" services is constitutional, a ban on *indecency* is not. Citing earlier holdings, the Court said that "[t]he government may not reduce the adult population to only what is fit for children." What are some examples of "indecent" content? The most famous example probably is the George Carlin comedy monologue that was the basis of the Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). In that monologue, Carlin discusses the "Seven Dirty Words" that cannot be uttered in broadcast media. Other examples of "indecency" could include passages from John Updike or Erica Jong novels, certain rock lyrics, and Dr. Ruth Westheimer's sexual-advice column. Under the CDA, it would be criminal to "knowingly" publish such material on the Internet unless children were affirmatively denied access to it. It's as if the manager of a Barnes & Noble outlet could be sent to jail simply because children could wander the bookstore's aisles and search for the racy passages in a Judith Krantz or Harold Robbins novel. The Supreme Court has consistently held, both before and after its landmark obscenity decision in Miller v. California (1973), that while sexual material and profane language can be regulated in some specifically defined contexts (e.g., the FCC can require that "indecent" content in broadcasting be limited to certain hours of the broadcasting schedule when children are less likely to be exposed), in general indecency is fully protected by the First Amendment. The Court has even recognized that profane language may be essential to political speech, since the emotional power of particular words may be as important as their intellectual content. As Justice Harlan commented in Cohen v. California (1971), "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric." It's important to note that not every application of this part of the CDA would be unconstitutional. If the "obscene or harassing" offense language been limited to instances in which the speaker intends to "threaten," it would have raised no constitutional problems. (A threat of blackmail or physical violence, for example, is not protected speech.) But the CDA goes beyond threats -- it criminalizes the use of "indecent" language even when the speaker merely intends for his content to be "annoying," and this prohibition treads squarely on speakers' First Amendment rights. After all, the First Amendment was drafted to protect offensive, annoying, and disturbing speech -- there is little need for protection of pleasant and uncontroversial speech, since few people feel impelled to ban it. As Justice Douglas observed in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), free speech "may best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." For example, a citizen offended by the passage of the CDA who shouts an indecent comment at his U.S. Senator may very well intend to annoy the Senator -- nevertheless, such expression is protected under the First Amendment. It is constitutionally absurd that speech that would be protected if shouted on the street would turn the speaker into a felon if sent by e-mail. BY GRANTING THE FCC REGULATORY CONTROL OVER THE CONTENT AND AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, THE CDA VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Is it constitutional for Congress to declare that computer communications are a medium like broadcasting, where it is allowable for the FCC to impose content-related regulations? Clearly not. Prior to Sen. Exon's proposed changes to Section 223, the FCC has had content control over only two specific types of communications media: (1) broadcasting media like TV and radio (and broadcasting-related technologies, such as cable TV), and (2) the narrow class of telephone-based commercial services that requires the assistance and support of government-regulated common carriers. In no other communications medium does the government have the constitutional authority to impose broad regulation of indecent content. The justification for the federal government's special role in regulation of broadcasting is twofold. The first rationale for such a broad regulatory role was the "scarcity of frequencies" argument, which appears the Supreme Court's decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969). In that case, the Court held that there is a finite number of workable broadcasting frequencies, and that the scarcity of this important public resource entails that the airwaves be allocated and supervised by the federal government in order to best serve the public interest. The second rationale for a special government role in broadcasting appears in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (the "Seven Dirty Words" case discussed above). In this case the Court argued that broadcasting is an especially "pervasive" medium that intrudes into the privacy of the home, creating a constant risk that adults will be exposed to offensive material, and children to indecent material, without warning. The justification for regulation of the telephone-based services is grounded in the government's special role in supervising common carriers. Since the telephone systems of this country, many of which amount to monopolies, are common carriers, they are appropriately under the jurisdiction of the FCC. It makes sense for phone-sex services, which rely on the cooperation of common carriers, to fall under FCC jurisdiction as well. *Neither the broadcasting rationales nor the common-carrier rationale support government content control over computer communications.* First of all, the new medium of computer-based communications -- which may take place over everything from large-scale Internet access providers and commercial conferencing systems to the PC-based bulletin-board system running in a hobbyist's basement -- isn't afflicted with "scarcity." Computing hardware itself is increasingly inexpensive, for example, and one of the basic facts of modern computer communication is that whenever you add a computer to the Internet, you *increase* the Internet's size and capabilities. Secondly, computer-based communications aren't "pervasive" as that term is used in the Pacifica case. In the world of broadcasting, content is "pushed" at audiences by TV and radio stations and broadcasting networks -- audiences are primarily passive recipients of programming. In computer communications, in contrast, content is *pulled* by users from various locations and resources around the globe through the Internet or from the huge data servers maintained by services like Prodigy and American Online. Exposure to content is primary *driven by user choice*. For users with even minimal experience, there is little risk of unwitting exposure to offensive or indecent material. Finally, online service providers aren't common carriers and don't want to be -- it is the nature of this kind of service that providers must reserve the right to make certain basic choices about content. In contrast, a common carrier like AT&T or BellSouth has to "take all comers." (If online service providers were treated as common carriers, we might imagine a day when the FCC requires that an NAACP-sponsored BBS carry hateful messages from members of the Ku Klux Klan.) In sum, the narrow constitutional justifications for content regulation of two specific types of media do not extend to the traditional print media, films or oral conversations. Clearly, there is no Constitutional rationale for extending intrusive content-regulatory control to online communications. This means that the CDA's "shoehorning" of online communications into the jurisdiction of the FCC is itself unconstitutional. It is clear that Congress could not constitutionally grant the FCC the power to tell The New Yorker not to print profane language -- even though *children* might come across a copy of The New Yorker. Surely it is equally clear that Congress cannot grant the FCC the authority to dictate how providers like Netcom and CompuServe handle content that contains such language. COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS POSE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND REQUIRE DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS FROM THOSE OF OTHER MEDIA. Even if the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate indecency in computer communications, it would be required by the First Amendment to employ only the "least restrictive means" in doing so. In the Sable case, Court noted that there are less restrictive means than a total ban for protecting children from indecent content on phone-sex services. These include such measures as requiring various procedures to verify customers' ages and to deny services to minors. The Exon language creates an affirmative defense for online service providers who implement the same types of procedures that the FCC now requires of phone-sex services. But what works for phone-sex services clearly would not work for computer-communications services. In this fundamentally different medium, those FCC-enforced procedures are not a "least restrictive means" -- in fact, they are potentially among the most restrictive. The language that penalizes anyone who "makes or makes available" indecent content to a minor would require an access provider like Netcom to cease carrying the entire* hierarchy, the great majority of which is First-Amendment-protected speech. Suppose Netcom tried to avail itself of legal immunity for transmitting indecency by, say, limiting subscriber access to the "indecent" Usenet newsgroups to Netcom subscribers age 18 or over. Since Netcom, like all Internet access providers, is also a Usenet distribution node, *the company would still be liable*, since, by passing "indecent" Usenet traffic through, it would "make available" that indecent content to minors elsewhere on the Net who aren't Netcom customers. Note: this analysis is not meant to imply that *no* government regulation of computer communications would meet the "least restrictive means." As a practical matter, this medium is *uniquely suited* to measures that simultaneously protect sensitive users and children from offensive content and allow the full range of constitutionally protected speech on the Net. Since both the computers that users employ to read the Net and those that providers use to administer the Net are highly intelligent and programmable devices, it is relatively easy to design tools that individuals can use to filter offensive content and that parents can use to screen content for their children. The government's promotion of the development and implementation of such tools, if done in a way consistent with First Amendment guarantees, would likely qualify as a "least restrictive means." Furthermore, there are constitutional reasons for favoring policies that empower individuals and families to make their own content choices. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the right of parents to determine what is appropriate for their children is constitutionally protected. Filtering tools could be the fundamental means of preserving family values while exploring global computer networks. ADULTS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ONLY WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN. The effect of the CDA's provisions regarding indecent content and minors would be both dramatic and disastrous. If enacted, the CDA would effectively turn all the public areas of the Net -- and all of the distributed global conferencing system known as Usenet -- into the equivalent of the Children's Room at the public library. Traditionally, every large public library has a Children's Room -- a confined area of the library with content deemed safe for children. Outside of the Children's Room, the rest of the library is geared toward, and available to, adults. The Exon language would turn the Net as a whole into the *inverse* of the public library -- the public spaces, including Usenet, would be regulated as safe for children, while adults would have to talk about adult content (detailed discussions of sexual content in the work of James Joyce, explanations of Shakespeare's bawdy puns, or descriptions of proper techniques for safe sex, to name some examples) in confined, nonpublic (and probably non-global) subforums or "rooms." There would be no more wide-ranging debates with the full set of potential international participants about the merits of THE SATANIC VERSES -- after all, that book has indecent content. We'd have to be content with the narrower range of participants we could lure to an "adult" room on CompuServe or AOL -- a small group of paying subscribers rather than a large population of discussants from commercial and noncommercial systems alike. The CDA would diminish and perhaps destroy the intellectual diversity and vibrancy of the Net. CONCLUSION The CDA represents the kind of "top-down," government-centered attempt to regulate the content that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of this new medium. Legislation like the CDA -- particular when based on regulatory approaches for wholly different media -- are certain to create more practical and constitutional problems than they solve. It is especially ironic that the Exon amendment, which would chill the development of online services and communities and "dumb down" the content of the Net's public spaces to a grade-school level, has been attached to a bill deregulating communications infrastructure. This deregulation has been presented as a boost to the pace of development of the very technology to support these services and communities. EFF believes that parents, not Congress or the FCC, have the primary right and responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their children to see. Furthermore, it is clearly wrong for Congress to attempt to make outlaws out of adults for engaging in public speech that may not be suitable for minors. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter ruled in Butler v. Michigan (1957): "The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote the general welfare. Surely this is to burn the house to roast the pig. The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children." And a legislative approach that was bad for the adult population of Michigan nearly 40 years ago is surely just as bad for the adult population of the Net today. For More Information Contact: Electronic Frontier Foundation Mike Godwin Shari Steele (voice) +1.202.861.7700 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 10:38 EST From: "AMERICAN EAGLE PUBLICATION INC." <0005847161@MCIMAIL.COM> Subject: File 3--Dole and Exon Bills I've been reading CuD about the Dole/Grassey bill and the Exon bill to limit pornography on the net, and for the most part I just haven't cared too much about it. I don't mess with that stuff at all, personally, so I really don't give a lick about whether its there or not. I am not real hot to outlaw it simply because my view of the first amendment is fairly generous. On the other hand, I have no use for it, and if every computer that had it on were fried tomorrow, it wouldn;t bother me one bit. So when I've seen these pleas to "contact your representatives" I've just yawned and gone on with life. This morning, however, I woke up and something clicked. I remembered that the NSA had a three-step plan to outlaw cryptography. Clipper was step one. Could THIS be step two? At first it sounds crazy, but maybe not. If I were a strategist for the NSA I'd guess it wouldn't be too hard to ram such a bill through congress, given a little bit of the right press and publicity (which just seems to be happening at the right time). I'd also realize that such laws would be totally unenforceable as long as good crypto was available to the general public. So by passing an electronic porno law, I'd be able to precipitate a law-enforcement crisis which would necessitate an anti- crypto law. And it would be one that a multitude of Americans would support out of fear for their children's safety. Could it be? Whether it is or not, though, I hope my point is clear: here in America, we're flushing our freedoms down the toilet as fast as we can grab for security and safety. That's foolish beyond measure! Like myself, you may not care anything for pornography, but realize that one thing leads to another. Today, pornography, tommorow, cryptography, and the day after that your front door gets slammed in at 2 a.m. by jack-booted police. Until we're willing to defend even what is distateful to us IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM--because we love freedom and value it more than our own personal peace--then we'll be divided and conquored. I went to Argentina last fall for a conference on computer hacking and I saw a lot of people who really did love freedom more than we do here. Hackers, virus writers and computer security professionals sat in the same room and talked. Not because they agreed--they argued--but there was a good spirit to it. Here in America, most of the security types seem to want to shut the hackers and virus writers up, and pass laws. The argentines have had dictators enough to value their freedom to the point that they'll even put up with something distatesful. They'll sit and listen to Zarathustra, a virus writer who says he's out to destroy your data, and seek a solution with technology, believing they can beat him, rather than trying to put him behind bars. We need to learn from that. These bills are a good place to start. Please fight them because you love freedom, even if you'd rather not see porn on the net. And if you have children (as I do) and you're concerned for them growing up in a wild and crazy world (as I am) consider this: If you merely seek to outlaw everything that is bad or distasteful, then you're teaching them that the law is the sum of all morality. Whatever is illegal is bad and whatever is legal is ok. However, if you put your ideals first, and defend them while recognizing that you have a responsibility to govern yourself and choose what is good and shun what is bad, then you'll teach your children to live by their ideals regardless of what other men do, instead of being undisciplined idiots who must be hemmed in by a multitude of laws. Your actions speak a thousand times louder than your words. --Mark Ludwig ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 08:56:49 -0500 (CDT) From: David Smith Subject: File 4--(fwd) Cinti computer connection confiscated (fwd) (chris dossman) The Hamilton County Sheriffs office has confiscated $100,000.00 worth of computer equiptment from the Cincinnati Computer Connection, a BBS whose focus is on E-Mail and computer files. Simon Leis, Hamilton County Sheriff, who has made a polical career from driving pornography out of the cinti. limits organized a "Computer Task Force" whose primary purpose was to limit fraud via electronic communications. Simon Leis has decided that there are no community standards. The media depicts the situation as a case of child pornography, as with the Exon bill with the Internet. Of 80,000 files on CCC's drives, 40 contained nudity.(no child pornography.) We in Cincinnati need support to stop this attrocity. We have organized a group of 5000 on a local level, but feel that this situation needs national attention. The problem as we see it is that the media is attempting to bring public attention to the fact that this is a matter of pornography and anyone who opposes the Exon bill must advocate child pornography. While Im sure the majority does not advocate child pornography, we all must advocate the first ammendment. Please help any way you can. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 June, 1995 21:23:45 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Baker "Rape Story" Case thrown out by Judge (excerpt) COMPUTER `RAPE' CASE THROWN OUT BY JUDGE A judge threw out charges Wednesday against a University of Michigan student who wrote fantasies on the Internet about raping and killing a classmate. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said Jake Baker expressed no intent of actually carrying out such acts. He said the tale was "only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction." ((The story summarizes the case, in which Jake Baker wrote a snuff-rape fantasy posted to "The government's enthusiastic beginning petered out to a salvage effort once it recognized that the communication which so much alarmed the University of Michigan officials was only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction," Cohn wrote. Cohn said Baker's story about a fellow student would have been better handled as a disciplinary matter by the university. ((The story indicated that the prosecution might appeal)). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:46:50 -0701 tlg4@PO.CWRU.EDU, tline@IGLOU.COM, trevor@FREENET.SCRI.FSU.EDU From: roy@ZINE.NET(Zine Net) Subject: File 6--Zine Net...The Place for Zines Zine.Net - Your guide to the chaotic world of self-publishing I am proud to announce ZINE.NET, the new and exciting way for zine publishers to get the most out of the World Wide Web. You can find us at What is Zine.Net? Zine.Net is THE resource on the Internet for information on the vast assortment of independent, self-published zines. It serves as a centralized starting point for both zines created on our server as well as pointers to existing zine sites. Our goal is unique in that we want to generate sales for printed (hard copy) zines. We sincerely believe the most effective method for doing this is by allowing a reader to SAMPLE BEFORE THEY BUY. This will be in the form of choosing a couple of selections from a zine, converting them to HTML, and then making them available for reading from our web site, Additionally, our research has indicated the following... #1. Potential zine buyers are MUCH more likely to read Web based articles than plain text, since the Web version can include formatted text and graphics (making it considerably more attractive). #2. Most zine publishers don't have the time and/or resources to produce Web versions of their printed zines. #3. Zine publishers cannot afford an overpriced computer consultant to design their Web site. That's where Zine.Net comes in. We will produce a web sampler version of your zine for the low price of $20.00. This will include the following... - A Scan of your zine's cover - ASCII to HTML conversion of any two articles (you choose the ones you want to feature) - Scanning of artwork to accompany your articles, up to 6 images total - First month's inclusion on our server and in the Zine.Net directory How can we offer this at such a low price? Simply put, we are only trying to break even with limited revenue from participating zine publishers. We plan to solicit advertisers to sponsor or co-sponsor different areas of the site for a nominal fee. As we grow, so will the exposure for potential advertisers AND the individual zine. >From the users perspective, Zine.Net will provide an easy and well- organized way to search and read from the current wave of published zines. By reading sample articles, instead of relying solely on reviews, they will be able to make up their own mind about the quality of each. Supplemental information on how to purchase the printed version will be linked directly from the articles. We will include links to existing sites for free, plus offer reasonable storage fees for zine publishers with existing Web versions of their publications. Our goal is to offer exposure for printed zines--by creating original web sites--as well as to aid existing zine sites in expanding their readership. Pricing is as follows.... ---------------------------- $20.00 - Initial setup, includes HTML/Graphic conversion of two articles from your zine (with up to 6 graphics total), scan of the cover plus the first month on the Zine.Net server. $20.00 - Additional 6 months of your zine available on our site (extension of above) after your initial month. $30.00 - Both of the above - You save $10.00 and get both your zines initial setup plus 7 months on our site. Within the first 3 months we expect to sign up a minimum of 20 original zines and have links to over 200 zine related sites. We will also be actively advertising Zine Net, both on the web and in national publications, to ensure a steady influx of new visitors. This means a greater audience for our site and your zine. To get your zine on Zine Net, we require the following.... * Plain ASCII text versions of the two articles you would like to feature. These can be FTP'd to and put in the /incoming directory. If you can't FTP files, you can send us a diskette in either Mac or PC format. Once again, be sure the files are in plain text format. * Hard copy of your printed zine mailed to us. This will allow us to scan the graphics and cover. Also, it will help us to make the Web version resemble your printed copy as closely as possible. * Short synopsis of your zines' theme, index of articles in the issue, pricing/ordering information plus your email address. * Check for either $20 for one month or $30 for 7 months. Includes all setup fees. Checks should be made payable to "Zine Net". Credit card orders can be processed by special arrangement. That's all there is to it. You get the benefit of having your zine showcased on a site that SPECIALIZES in web samplers of printed zines. We solicit outside advertisers to help us attain our financial goals. As traffic to Zine Net increases, we both win! Please visit our site and feel free to drop me a note if you have any additional questions. Roy Batchelor ( Zine Net Suite 108 1211 Park Avenue San Jose, CA. 95126-2900 Roy Batchelor ( Zine Net Suite 108 1211 Park Avenue San Jose, CA. 95126-2900 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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: 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 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/ In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #7.52 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank