Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 6, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 94 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 Wed Dec 6, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 94 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 Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #7.94 (Wed, Dec 6, 1995) File 1-- ALERT: House is lost; we must call the Senate File 2--USATODAY: Indecency Zapped, Bill Inches Along File 3--ACLU Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisons File 4--Cyber Angels Reply to Query File 5--AOL Censors Gay Video Titles - "Buns" ok, "Studs" not! File 6--A Day Without Graphics File 7--New Internet-censorship Discussion list File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:49:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" Subject: File 1-- ALERT: House is lost; we must call the Senate ======================================================================== CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS (INCLUDING THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AND THE HYDE AMDT) Short Update: The House Conference Committee voted for a terrible bill. What You Can Do Now: Call the Senate conferees and tell them to oppose the infringements on free speech. CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION Dec 6, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 20, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now List of Participating Organizations (changed) ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Today the House Conference committee voted to criminalize "indecent material" on electronic networks. The Christian Coalition, which has pushed for such restrictions throughout the year, now smells blood and is closing in for the kill. If we lose the Senate Conference Committee vote, we will have lost a tremendous amount of our First Amendment rights. All content on the Internet will be dumbed down to the level of Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, educators, libraries and individuals who post anything on the Internet that someone, somewhere considers indecent will be subject to jail time and fines. Traditional fiction and many great works of art will fall prey to this law. Even if the Federal government does not prosecute every violation of this law, the chilling effect on speech throughout the United States will be severe. Intimidation is a tremendous persuader. Please call now and tell the Senate conferees to oppose the unconstitutional indecency restrictions in the Telecomm. For a more detailed analysis of the language that passed, check the WWW or Gopher sites of the ACLU, CDT, EFF, and EPIC. Three more alerts, after this one, are expected: the full House floor vote on the Telecomm bill, the full Senate floor vote on the Telecomm bill, and then the unlikely Presidential veto. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. All of the proposals available to the conference committee will fundamentally restrict your speech on the Internet and other public networks. Look at the list below and call the Senators in your state and ask them to oppose them. If none of the members are in your state, call Sen. Dole. If we cannot convince the conference committee to make the right choices at this juncture, we will have positioned the Internet community as vulnerable to widespread arrests throughout the next few years. If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following: Please oppose the unconstitutional Internet indecency restrictions, such as those passed by the House conference committee Telecomm bill and those proposed by Sen. J.J. Exon. They will criminalize many forms of expression, including much art, music, and literature which should be protected by the First Amendment. or As a religious person and a parent, I oppose all the unconstitutional indecency restrictions currently proposed in the Telecomm bill. I, the parent, am the best person to monitor my child's access to the Internet. or Although there is information on the Internet that I wouldn't allow my children to see, I don't agree with all the proposals in the Telecomm bill that would censor indecent material on the Internet. I have parental control tools that are far more effective at controlling my children's access to the Internet than the legislation being proposed. Senate members of the Conference Committee P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 n.a. D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702 R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245 2. Send mail to vtw@vtw.org and let us know how it went. $ Mail vtw@vtw.org Subject--phoned Senator XXX They thanked me for my opinion and said they had received many calls speaking out against net censorship. ^D Mail sent! 3. If you run any sort of system that allows a welcome message for all users, please add the following: The Christian Coalition and others are lobbying for broad infringements on free speech net by passing legislation that "dumb down" Internet content to that which is acceptable to children. In addition, services like this one might become liable for what their users say and read on the Internet. Please call Congress now; for more info URL:http://www.vtw.org/ or send mail to files@vtw.org with "send alert" in the subject line. (12/6/95) If you have a Web page that gets a lot of traffic, please add the following link: Stop the Christian Coalition and others from restricting your online speech! (12/6/95) 4. This is a very tense week. All indications are that a very very bad bill will get passed. ________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act. American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch (Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities, not EFF chapters or divisions.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:06:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: File 2--USATODAY: Indecency Zapped, Bill Inches Along Note: "Few believe the president will veto the bill." Also, on the front page of USA Today: "ACLU will challenge in court..." -Declan --- TELECOM REFORM BILL INCHES FORWARD (Excerpts) Page 5B By David Lynch USA Today House and Senate negotiators made limited progress Wednesday on legislation that would reform the telecommunications industry. But key lawmakers insist they will finish their work this year. "There's a 75% chance or better of it getting through this year," says Bell Atlantic Chairman and CEO Ray Smith. Members of the congressional conference committee on the bill met Wednesday, ratifying aides' agreements on 33 issues... Earlier in the week, conferees agreed to keep federal price limits on all but the smallest cable systems until 1999. The decision was viewed as a concession to President Clinton, who threatened to veto the bill in part because of fears of higher cable rates. But Greg Simon, an aide to Vice President Gore, says the Whit House still objects to provisions in the bill that would raise limits on the number of TV and radio statios a company could own and govern how quickly phone companies could compete. Still, outside the long-distance industry, which opposes the measure in its current form, few believe the president will veto the bill. --- HOUSE PANEL VOTES TO ZAP 'INDECENCY' IN CYBERSPACE (Excerpts) Page 1A By Leslie Miller USA TODAY A House panel Wednesday voted to protect kids from online pornography by prohibiting "indecency" in cyberspace. The cyberspace action virtually ensures the telecommunications bill will include sweeping provisions that some, including Sen. James Exon, D-Neb, say will clean up "filth" on the Internet. The Amercian Civil Liberties Union says it plans to challenge in court any of the proposals being considered. The original House bill encouraged software solutions; now the bill is more like Exon's Communications Decency Act. "The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is unconstitutional... It really does ban the seven dirty words and would make Catcher in the Rye questionable." ------------------------------ From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:20:40 -0500 Subject: File 3--ACLU Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisons From--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 12/6/95 ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ---------------------------------------------------------------- * ACLU Announces Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisions in Court;Says That House Conference Vote Leaves No Other Options FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Phil Gutis 202-675-2312 WASHINGTON -- Saying that it could not depend on Congress to protect free speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today that it would challenge in court any of the online censorship proposals now being considered by a House-Senate conference committee. In a vote today, the House members of the Congressional conference committee on the telecommunications bill betrayed their chamber's earlier vote to reject censorship on the Internet. "All of Congress's proposals violate the First Amendment and privacy rights of adults to communicate freely in the online environment," said Barry Steinhardt, ACLU Associate Director. "Congress is making it ever more clear that we will have to turn to the courts to uphold free speech in the promising new medium of cyberspace." The ACLU rejected as unconstitutional the proposals offered by Senator J. James Exon, D-Nebraska, Senator Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, and Representative Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, as well as the one offered by Representative Rick White, R-Washington. The House conferees voted today on how to respond to the Senate's provisions on Internet censorship. Although they first adopted the White censorship proposal -- which the media widely and inaccurately portrayed as a compromise -- they then amended it to include the Senate's standard for censorship. Last August, the House won widespread praise from the online community when it adopted an amendment to encourage Internet providers to better develop screening technologies for parents to use in controlling what their children see in cyberspace. House Speaker Newt Gingrich went as far as to call the Senate version of the legislation a clear "violation of free speech" and a "violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other." Unfortunately," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Donald Haines, "the House members graciously accepted their applause for opposing censorship and then, in a legislative slight of hand, turned right around and came up with their own scheme to censor what people say and see on the Internet." The ACLU said that it would continue to work in Congress to keep the Internet free. "Regardless of how the bill turns out," said Haines, "both the House and Senate need to continue to hear that their censorship is simply not acceptable." The House conferee's vote today removes the best chance that a telecommunications bill will emerge without an Internet censorship provision, the ACLU said. "If Congress adopts either the White or Exon censorship schemes -- which appears increasingly likely -- they will force us to turn to the Courts and we will sue," Steinhardt said. More than 25 civil liberties groups, regional Internet service providers, and commercial producers of entertainment, information, and journalism joined an ACLU letter, delivered earlier today, that urged the conferees to reject all proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace and online communications. The ACLU said that, interestingly enough, the groups and individuals who are eager to challenge the censorship provisions should they become law have communicated with the ACLU via the Internet. Online political columnists, distributors of gay and lesbian resources, human rights groups, academic researchers of human sexuality, AIDS education groups, prisoners' rights groups, and student groups with controversial web pages have all already approached the ACLU about being plaintiffs in a court challenge. The groups said that they fear prosecution because they use online services to post, exchange, or distribute material that could be deemed "indecent" under the proposed law. ------------------------- For a copy of the coalition letter sent to the conferees, send a message to infoaclu@aclu.org with "letter opposing White and Hyde" in the subject line. The following organizations signed the letter: American Civil Liberties Union American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Communication Association Art and Technology Society Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression Coalition for Academic Freedom of Expression, Carnegie Mellon University Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Datalytics, Inc. Electronic Privacy Information Center Feminists for Free Expression Filz and Associates, Inc. HotWired Magazine Human Rights Watch Justice on Campus Project Internet Users Consortium LitNet (The Literary Network) Lumberyard BBS Community Network MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression Media Democracy in Action Consortium (MeDIA Consortium) National Campaign for Freedom of Expression National Coalition Against Censorship National Writers Union NorthWest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative Pacific Online Access Public Access Networks Corp. (Panix) The Society for Human Sexuality, University of Washington Wired Magazine ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:40:24 -0500 (EST) From: Charles J Anthe Subject: File 4--Cyber Angels Reply to Query After reading the original post here on the mission of the CyberAngels, I sent a message to Colin Hatcher, their cooridinator. The following is his reply to my letter, in which he was very good about quoting my original message, so both my point and his should be clear. I thought others might want to see how he responds to at least my personal concerns about their mission... Date--Thu, 30 Nov 1995 01:42:19 -0800 To--Charles J Anthe From--angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels--Colin Gabriel Hatcher/Patrik "Harlequin " Olterman) Subject--Re: Concerns Hi Charles and thanks for writing. > As a freshman in college at Carnegie Mellon University, I have some >very serious concerns about the material from your group that has been >posted on Computer Underground Digest. (CuD) > One of the most disturbing things I noticed was an update you had on >one of your successful "inquiries". This involved a 16-year-old girl who >had posted supposedly obscene materials. (Supposedly because I myself >have never seen them and therefore cannot be one to judge.) You reported >this to the sysadmin, and this was later discovered to be an older, male >teacher. > I am apalled by your behavior in this matter for several reasons: > 1.) By reporting this to the sysadmin, you started a witchhunt >within the school for a perfectly legal posting on the Internet. > 2.) This was *not* child pornography. No children were used or >harmed in the posting. (I am assuming it was a text file.) > 3.) If it had been a 16-year old girl who had posted the message, >what business was it of yours? Teenagers are developing their sexuality >at that age (I know I was), and some do it in different ways. I fail to >see how this message fell under your guidelines as something that needed >protecting or investigting. > 4.) You have probably destroyed a man's career at that school. While >you or I may find what he does, says, or posts *personally* distasteful, >it is no excuse to start sending investigations and allegations his way, >ruining his *professional* life. You know I hadn't thought about it that way. Perhaps you are right about that. Although as it turned out it was an older man masquerading, we had no idea when we reported the matter originally. His post was inviting other young girls to share sexual/masturbation fantasies and was itself very graphic, but you are right. It could have been a 16 year old girl, and I agree with you, the fact that it was extremely graphic is not relevant to the matter in hand. > As you or may or may not be aware, Carnegie Mellon has received >considerable national media attention for its decision to censor certain >newsgroups on campus. I am personally involved in trying to get that >decision overturnedm, and I keep an eye out for other activities that >seem similar. While I am no proponent of child pornography, I see no >reason to censor text stories that are fictional that involve children >and sex. (Will you attempt to ban _The Bluest Eye_ or _Beloved_ next? >These are literary masterpieces that have won considerable awards that I >read in high school.) I was not aware of that at Carnegie Mellon and we fully support your campaign. We don't believe that censoring newsgroups is a good move at all. > Above all, I am a firm believer in the US Constitution. I find >myself in numerous debates about the Constitution, and one of my >personal favorite rights is the right to free speech. This is not speech >that you and I agree on, but *all* speech, including hate speech and >sexually explicit speech. True and we agree with you. Our major concern is with the trade in child pornography on the Internet. CyberAngels on patrol make a clear distinction between material that they themselves may disagree with (which is nevertheless legal and has a right to be there), and material that is possibly criminal in nature. We are not concerned to prevent free discussions, no matter what the subject matter. We support freedom of speech, thought and expression globally. We are standing up for the rights of all the unconsenting victims of crimes being committed on the net. And particularly for those abused children who may never enjoy the many and extraordinary benefits of the Internet, but who's images are being traded like some evil card game being played out globally across the electronic airwaves. Bear in mind that when images are traded between two willing persons, there are people involved whose consent was not given - that is the kids whose bodies were used to provide visual sexual stimulation to others. We don't see that as a First Amendment issue at all. > I implore you to move forward cautiously. As long as you take >careful thoughts in between each step and do not trample on the rights >of people, I will be the first to praise you. But the minute you begin >to believe that your beliefs should take precedence and that vigilante >justice on the Internet is the only way for you to gain control, I will >be the first to try and dismantle and remove you from the Net. Thankyou for your concern and for expressing it so courteously. I don't believe that we will fall into the trap of denying others the right to speak while speaking very very loudly ourselves. Nevertheless, judge us by all means by our actions. Colin Gabriel Hatcher CyberAngels Chief Coordinator [original message ends] ------------------------------ From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:20:40 -0500 Subject: File 5--AOL Censors Gay Video Titles - "Buns" ok, "Studs" not! From--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 12/6/95 * AOL Censors Gay Video Titles, Finds "Buns" Acceptable but "Studs" Too Sleazy AOL customers won't be surprised to hear that the AOL censors are at it again. AOL has long had a policy of screening certain "dirty words" from its public bulletin boards and chat groups. Last week, The Boston Globe reported that AOL had banned the word "breast." The company agreed to reverse the policy after "several days of on-line protests by irate breast cancer patients." Richard A. Knox, "Women Go Online To Decry Ban On Breast,'" The Boston Globe, 12/1/95. Another example of AOL's attempt to use censorship to create a "family-friendly" service was recently brought to the ACLU's attention. Jeff Satkin is owner and operator of ATKOL Gay Videos, a mail-order gay video store headquartered in Plainfield, NJ. Last August, Jeff responded to AOL's bid for new business by signing up as an advertiser on "Downtown AOL" (DT AOL). AOL describes the site as "a virtual small business community where potential customers will come to browse and shop for products and services of all types." Jeff paid the advertising fee and sent AOL an electronic copy of his extensive mail-order video catalog for posting on the DT AOL site. Under the contract, AOL agreed to run the ad for a term of one year. According to Jeff, AOL posted the catalog in full for four weeks with no complaints. Then, in September, AOL sent Jeff a letter requesting that a huge percentage of titles in the ATKOL Video mail-order catalog be removed from the online version of the catalog that appeared on Downtown AOL. An AOL employee had gone through a printed version of the list and highlighted the offending titles that would need to be removed. The result is a hilarious but frightening example of arbitrary censorship. At the ACLU's suggestion, Jeff wrote to AOL and asked them to explain the guidelines they used for censoring his catalog. After considerable delay, AOL wrote back the following: "DT AOL does not have any written standards for its advertisements. As the manager of the area I determine whether an advertisement has the look and feel that best fits our environment. I edited the file you sent and removed any titles which I felt didn't reflect the image we would like to project. I may have missed a few as you pointed out, so feel free to remove those as well if you would like." Here are just a few examples of AOL's arbitrary rating system as applied to the ATKOL Video catalog. (And remember, these are **titles only**!! -- no pictures, no cover art, no narrative -- just titles.) AOL Says AOL Says "Thumbs Down" -- "Thumbs Up" -- These titles were censored as These titles were not censored -- too sleazy for AOL!: they must have had "the look and feel that best fits the AOL environment": A Brother's Desire A Family Affair Advanced Disrobics Lockerroom Fever All About Sex ABC's of Sex All the Right Stuff All Men Do It! As the Bed Turns Bed Tales Bare Bones Bareback Bedroom Eyes Bedroom Lies Bi N Large Bi-Conflict The Big Nasty The Big Drill Bigger Than Huge Bigger Than Life Black Magic Magic Choices Black Dudes Blond Lovers The Boy Next Door Boys from New Jersey Brotherly Love Brother Trouble Buns N Hoses Bung Hole Buddies Dirty Pictures Dirty Picture Show Elements of Passion Passion By Fire Everybody Does It Every Which Way Filth Dirty Laundry Gayracula Gay Tarzan Hot Lunch Hot Stuff Latin on the Loose Latin Lust Leather Angel Leather Report Man in Motion The Man Inside Men in Shorts Men with Tools Night Maneuvers Nights in Black Leather Power Grip Power Trip Rican Christmas Latino Nights The Rites of Spring The Rites of Summer Skin Deep Skin Tight Spring Semester Spring Break Sunday Brunch Summer Heat Tough and Tender Tough Iron White Trash White on White Wild Dreams Wild Thing You Are Not Alone Alone and Private Titles with any of the following words, regardless of the full title, were also censored: "pleasure," "black," "hard," "boys," "jock," "Rican," "sex," "stud," "straight," "young." A few more interesting facts about the case should be noted. First, while AOL has never publicized the list of "vulgar" words that it routinely screens from its public sites, most of the screened words are classic profanity and "dirty words." None of the titles that AOL censored from ATKOL Video's list contain those "dirty" words. Second, it is clear that AOL's action was an overreaction to the recent federal law enforcement raids on alleged child pornographers using AOL -- Jeff received the letter shortly after the raids made the headlines. But *none* of Jeff's videos contain child porn. And again -- the info in the catalog was *titles only* and contained no substantive material at all. Third, it appears that AOL's arbitrary standards may be a little homophobic. While "Wet and Wild" was an unacceptable title in a gay video catalog, AOL ran an ad in Downtown AOL for Affinity Teleproductions, Inc. that read: "Now you can join exotic Anna Nicole Smith on her sensuous Edenquest adventure in her exclusive photo portfolio. . . . Anna Nicole Smith "The Collectors Set" features ten eye opening Edenquest photographs in vivid color . . . . It's all Anna Nicole Smith wet and wild drenched in sun and powder sugar sand. "With Love, Anna Nicole" is your personal trip to paradise with the world's most exciting woman in her most provocative photos ever." The troubles experienced by ATKOL Video when it legitimately tried to do business with AOL just proves once again that censorship rules are by nature arbitrary and unfair -- whether imposed by the government or by private industry. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 03:04:08 GMT From: davidbat@MEGAWEB.COM(David Batterson) Subject: File 6--A Day Without Graphics Visit the DAY WITHOUT GRAPHICS homepage at: http://www.cyberzine.org/html/WAD/index.html [PLEASE distribute this message far and wide.] A DAY WITHOUT GRAPHICS SEATTLE--AIDS and HIV-disease awareness will extend to the World Wide Web of the Internet for World AIDS Day, December 1, when A Day Without Graphics will take place. Participating Internet sites will disable inline graphics, darken their text screens or link to a special page on the Web to demonstrate AIDS awareness. The idea for A Day Without Graphics came from other World AIDS Day activities taking place. A Day Without Art is a project where museums remove or drape works of art and A Day Without Light is a project where city lights are lowered for candlelight marches. Both projects are held in cities all over the world. Likewise, A Day Without Graphics will take place at Internet sites worldwide. "We want to encourage every Internet site to get involved in AIDS awareness in a creative way," said Rex Rivers, manager of The Land of Awes Information Services. "The potential of the medium is enormous and a lot of people can be reached by it. Hopefully, everyone who uses the Internet will come to understand the worldwide AIDS pandemic a little better through this project." There are a number of ways that Internet Web sites can demonstrate solidarity in AIDS awareness. The first is by re-designing their homepages for white text on a black background with an explanation of why it was done that day. Technical assistance will be made available for those sites who would like to do this. The second method will be disabling graphics. Organizers suggest linking existing inline graphics to a message describing the Day Without Graphics project instead. The third method suggested is to add a prominent link to the Day Without Graphics homepage. "We welcome additional input from the online community," said Tom Hicks of CyberZine. "There are a lot of creative people out on the Internet and I feel that we should all work together to raise awareness of AIDS issues." Those Internet web sites who will be participating in A Day Without Graphics are requested to send electronic mail to wad@cyberzine.org providing their homepage URL for inclusion in the list of links. Individuals are encouraged to visit the Day Without Graphics site at http://www.cyberzine.org/html/WAD/wadpage.html on World AIDS Day, December 1st. For media information contact: Rex Rivers The Land of Awes Information Services Post Office Box 16782 Wichita, KS 67216-0782 Voice:316-269-0913 or 316-264-4646 Fax: 316-269-4208 Modem: 316-269-3172 Email: awes@fn.net AWES http://www.fn.net/~awes/egcm.htm Thank you very much. Tom Hicks wad@cyberzine.org The CyberQueer Lounge http://www.cyberzine.org/html/GLAIDS/glaidshomepage.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:00:08 -0500 From: chuckufarley@TOP.MONAD.NET Subject: File 7--New Internet-censorship Discussion list I have started a discussion mailing list that has to do with censorship on the internet. I thought CuD readers would be interested. Thanks for your consideration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet Censorship and Privacy: Concerns, Legislation and Alternate Solutions FAQs Keep this FAQ, it may come in handy at some point. Please distibute freely. Who started this list? It was a joint venture between ALL the NEWS NOT FIT to PRINT(ANNFP) and the Internet Users Consortium. We can be reached at: http://top.monad.net/~chuckufarley/net.htm & http://www.indirect.com/www/molsen/ repectively. How do I get on the list? send email to "listserv@monad.net" and put the line "subscribe internet_censorship" as the body of the message. How do I get off this crazy thing? send email to "listserv@monad.net" and put the line "unsubscribe internet_censorship" as the body of the message. How do I send messages to everyone on the list? send the message you want distributed to "internet_censorship@monad.net". Why did we start this discussion list? Discussing censorship allows the Internet users the luxury of gaining insights they may not have had if they were forced to form all their opinions from media sources compliant with the censors or exclusively on their own. For this same reason, the government wishes to implement censorship and regulation in the first place. We need to develop our ideas and mature them in order to effectively speak with all the Internet users of the world. The Internet needs to continue to have a decentralized construct. If we dont communicate and discuss ideas and strategies as those who support censorship do, we will have lost an incredible advantage to a group who will attempt to centralize control of the Internet. We need to discuss and define thoughts that will provide alternative solutions to the very real concerns we have on the Internet. People who dont even enjoy the wonders of the Internet should not be the ones regulating it. What is the purpose of this discussion list? To provide a forum for people to discuss topics involving government regulation of the Internet. Issues applicable to this discussion list are related to free speech threats, impending legislation and discussions about their future implications. Also, individuals can ask others where to find government resources and activism sites or newsgroups throughout the Internet. Who can make posts on this list? Anyone who is subscribing to this list and has a comment, idea or question that applies to Civil Rights Issues on the Internet. All members are encouraged to respond to any given post on this list. Grassroots organizations are welcome to use this forum to distribute condensed newsletters or alerts that are directly applicable to this discussion lists subject matter. Lengthy newsletters will cause some very unhappy subscribers and moderators alike so please be respectful and be concise. It is recommended that if it is too long to include the contents or a section of the newsletter and interested subscribers may request the intact version directly. Can the information from this list be shared with others? Unless expressly requested by the sender, all posts are considered to be reproducible in any other forum so long as the original sender is given the credit as they wish to have it appear. If a subscriber wishes something to not be forwarded they should make mention of it. If a subscriber wishes a post to appear with a given citation alongside the post they should mention this or include this in the footer. If you just want to get comments and alerts by being a subscriber, you are welcome to do so. We have no comment quota. What is the Ultimate Goal of this list? To communicate thoughts about censorship and Civil Right threats on the Internet with activists, grass roots organizations and individuals alike. Together, we can come up with alternate strategies than outright censorship and contact legislators in an attempt that they will implement our ideas. We need to discuss and define thoughts that will provide alternative solutions to the very real concerns we have on the Internet. People who dont even enjoy the wonders of the Internet should not be the ones regulating it. Any other questions about the list, write to: chuckufarley@top.monad.net list owner ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 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 DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. 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: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 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/ 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) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~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 #7.94 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank