Computer underground Digest Tue Dec 12, 1996 Volume 7 : Issue 96 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Tue Dec 12, 1996 Volume 7 : Issue 96 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: CONTENTS, #7.96 (Tue, Dec 12, 1996) File 1--Re: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship. (fwd) File 2--NYT: Steele Op-Ed on Scientology and Internet Censorship File 3--Muzzling the Internet (TIME/Julian Dibbell) File 4--E-mail addresses of U.S. Senators File 5--Child Pornography and Beastiality File 6--French email directory soonly available File 7--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: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 18:33:43 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Godwin Subject: File 1--Re: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship. (fwd) Speech at San Francisco Rally By Mike Godwin Listen. Take a moment now and listen. (Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what the United States Congress has been doing to the Constitution in the last few months, all in the name of protecting our children. But do they really care about our children? I doubt it. What they really care about is getting votes, getting good publicity, getting called "pro-family". And since the religious right has seized much of the high ground of pro-children-and-family rhetoric, guess who they're afraid of. The religious-right folks hope to use family-and-children rhetoric to scare Congress into making sexual content on the Net more difficult for *everybody* to create, to send, or to find -- not just children. When the highest lawmaking body in the land meets to consider new legislation, we require them to inform themselves and to act in accordance with the Constitution. We elect people to Congress because we hope that they will be able to act rationally and intelligently. But were their votes on this so-called "indecency" legislation grounded in an intelligent appraisal of the technology and functions of the Net? Were they based on knowledge and reflection? The short answer to these questions is "No." The votes of our Senators and Representatives were driven, for the most part, by fear and ignorance. Although I first became a lawyer in Texas, last Thursday I was sworn in as a member of the state bar of California. Like all the other new admittees, I echoed the words of the attorney at the front of the auditorium. In unison, we all swore to dedicate ourselves to upholding the United States Constitution. This oath is not terribly different in wording or philosophy from that taken by each member of the United States House of Representatives, or each member of the United States Senate, or the Governor of any state, or the President of the United States. We have all sworn to uphold the Constitution. Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. And whenever you think about the First Amendment, the first thing you should remember is that it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to protect offensive speech and offensive speakers. After all, no one ever tries to ban Mister Rogers. And this was what I was thinking about as I stood in that auditorium and took my oath -- that I was once again swearing to uphold the First Amendment and the Constitution of which it is a part. But where are all the Representatives and Senators who have sworn to uphold the First Amendment, I asked myself? Now that we face the greatest attack on the freedom of speech of the common man that this nation has ever seen, where are the other defenders of the Constitution? Are they educating themselves about the new medium of the Net? Have they read a word of Howard Rheingold's book on virtual communities? Have they logged in themselves? Have they surfed the Web? Have made a friend on the Net? Or are they satisfied with doing something that doesn't require any online time at all -- passing bad laws? One senator from my state, Dianne Feinstein, is ready to ban information from the Net that is legal in every library -- perhaps because she's under the impression that her measure will convince voters that she's helped prevent another Oklahoma City bombing without costing her anything. But it cost *us* something -- it costs us the freedom that our forefathers shed their blood to bequeath to us. Here's the sound of what Senator Feinstein is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) And what about Senator Jim Exon from Nebraska? Is it any surprise that Senator Exon gets all nervous and antsy when interviewers ask him -- the man who authored sweeping anti-net, pro-censorship legislation -- whether he personally has logged on? Is it any surprise that, for Senator Exon, the Net is just another place to make an obscene phone call? Here's the sound of what Senator Exon is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) And the issue of shutting down free speech on the Net is hardly one that divides liberals and conservatives. Here's the sound of what Rep. Pat Schroeder, a liberal Democrat, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, have already voted to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) We may also hear, of course, the occasional voice of someone to whom the Constitution still has meaning. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have gone on record as opposing any broad ban of "indecency" on the Net. Which goes to show you: the cause of freedom of speech is not a partisan issue either. For the most part, the issue is one of ignorance of the Constitution and what it protects. The First Amendment, so the courts tell us, does not protect "obscenity" -- and the word "obscenity" has a special legal meaning. It doesn't mean profane language. It doesn't mean Playboy magazine. According to the Supreme Court, it has something to with community standards, with "prurient interest," and with a lack of any "serious" literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. What is the sound of obscenity? I'm not sure, but I'm told that if you dial up a certain 900 number you just might hear some of it. But Congress isn't even trying to outlaw "obscenity" on the Net -- they're banning something called "indecency," which is a far broader, far vaguer concept. Unlike "obscenity," indecency is protected by the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court. But that same Court has never defined the term, and Congress hasn't done so either. Still, we have some notion of what the sounds of indecency are. Thanks to George Carlin and a Supreme Court case involving Pacifica Radio, we know that sometimes indecency sounds like the "seven dirty words." Now, this isn't the politest language in the world -- on that point I agree with the Christian Coalition. But I must say, as the father of a little girl, that I lose no sleep over the prospect that Ariel will encounter any of these words on the Net -- she is certain to encounter them in the real world, no matter how or where she is raised. What causes me to wake up in the middle of the night, white-knuckled in fear, is the prospect that, thanks to Senator Exon and the Christian Coalition, my little girl will never be able to speak freely on the Net, for fear that some bureaucrat somewhere won't think her language is polite enough -- that it's "patently offensive" or "indecent." And I'm equally afraid that the very text of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation -- a Supreme Court opinion in which those seven "dirty" words appear -- will be banned from the Net, barring my child from even understanding what this debate is all about. What is the sound of the indecent speech? Thanks to my friend Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer in Boston, we know part of the answer. Harvey wrote the following last week: 'As a result of the FCC's ban on "broadcast indecency", Pacifica Radio has ceased its broadcasts each year, on the anniversary of the publication of Allen's Ginsberg's classic poem, "Howl", of a reading of Ginsberg's poem by the poet. Pacifica and Ginsberg and others have sued the FCC, and while they won a small modicum of relief in the Court of Appeals, they have petitioned the U S Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court should act within the month. Meanwhile, high school kids read "Howl" in their English poetry anthologies, but it cannot be read on the radio!' What is it that the FCC thought was indecent? Try the sound of these words: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, /dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix/angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night." Should we be thanking Senator Exon for sparing our children from this? And if they found Allen Ginsberg indecent, is there any doubt they'd come to the same opinion about James Joyce's ULYSSES, whose character Molly Bloom closes one of the most sexually charged monologues in the English language with this passage? "... and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then asked would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." That's the sound of indecency for you. And it's a measure of the climate of fear created by Congress that America Online might have banned that very language from my user profile if I'd included it there. You see, a couple of weeks ago AOL felt impelled to delete all user profiles that include the word "breast" in them -- much to the dismay of countless breast-cancer survivors. Now I ask you, don't be mad at America Online, whose management has already apologized for this gaffe -- be angry at Congress, whose crazy actions have created a world in which the word "breast" is something to be afraid of. Now at this point the proponents of this legislation will cavil -- they'll say "Look, we're not trying to ban artists or literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. We're just trying to protect our children." To which I have two answers: First, if you really want to protect our children, find a better way to do it than to force all of us who engage in public speech and expression to speak at the level of children. There are laws already on the books that prevent the exposure to children of obscene speech, and that prohibit child abuse -- before you start passing new laws, make sure you understand what the old laws do. It may be that no new legislation is required at all. Second, remember that freedom of expression isn't just for artists or literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. It's for all of us -- it provides a space for each citizen to find his own artistry, his own genius, his own comedy, and to share it with others. It also provides a space in which we can choose -- and sometimes must choose -- to say things that others might find "patently offensive." And the First Amendment protects that space most. Don't pass laws that undercut the very foundation of a free society -- the ability to speak freely, even when others are offended by what we have to say. I'm speaking now to you, Congress. If you pass a telecommunications bill with this "indecency" language in it, we will remember. And we will organize against you and vote you out. This isn't single-issue politics -- it's politics about the framework in which *all* issues are discussed, and in which even offensive thoughts are expressed. And you, Congress, are threatening to destroy the framework of freedom of speech on the Net, the first medium in the history of mankind that holds the promise of mass communications out to each individual citizen. At this point, Congress, I'm not afraid of sexual speech on the Net. And I'm not afraid that my little girl will encounter sexual speech on the Net. What scares me is what you will do to the First Amendment on the Net if we don't stop you. That's more of a perversion than any citizen of the United States should have to witness. And I'm telling you now, Representatives and Senators, we stand ready to stop you. Listen to us now, or soon you will be listening to this sound: (Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what we will do to your political future if you forget the oaths you swore. Long live the First Amendment and the Constitution. And long live freedom of speech on the Net. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 20:01:35 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 2--NYT: Steele Op-Ed on Scientology and Internet Censorship The New York Times December 9, 1995 Op-Ed Congress vs. the Internet The courts have upheld free speech. Why won't legislators? By Shari Steele (EFF staff counsel) San Francisco. While the courts continue to uphold the freedom of speech on the Internet, the First Amendment is under attack on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, House members of a House-Senate conference committee said they would support a stringent new measure that would not only bar words and ideas on the worldwide computer network that one might hear on TV or read in this newspaper, but would make criminals out of anyone transmitting these materials electronically, including on-line servces. This measure goes against the spirit of three sensible court decisions on copyright law handed down in recent weeks, all involving the Church of Scientology. The first decision, issued by a Federal judge in California last month, held that Internet service providers, the gatekeepers to the information highway, cannot be held liable for copyright infringement when they have no knowledge of the content of their users' messages. This decision is important, because, like the telephone company, the system's providers merely offer a conduit for communications. If they can be held liable for the content of messages, they are more likely to monitor those messages and censor any that include language that might get them in trouble. Just as we don't want the phone company censoring our telephone calls, we should be very troubled by any copyright law interpretation that would assign liability to those who provide Internet service. The second and third decisions were issued last week by a Federal judge in northern Virginia. In those cases, the judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, admonished the Church of Scientology for using lawsuits to silence its on-line critics. After two of its former members posted electronic criticism of Church of Scientology writings, the church brought charges against them, their Internet service providers and The Washington Post for including two sentences from church documents in an article on the case. Judge Brinkema dismissed The Washington Post and two of its reporters from the suit and held the Church of Scientology and its affiliate responsible for the newspaper's legal fees. "Although the Religious Technology Center brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed -- the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents," the judge wrote. The judge called this motivation "reprehensible." While the results of these preliminary decisions are encouraging, they provide little solace to the larger threat of on-line censorship. Court decisions in the copyright realm, as these are, do not address the damage Congress is doing to the First Amendment h the name of protecting children from obscenity, which remains ill-defind. These early court victories are important, and the on-line world breathed a collective sigh of relief over the wise judgments. But not all battles can be won in court. If Congress presses forward with its attempt to criminalize constitutionally protected speech, I fear that the First Amendment will be left behind as more and more of what we say is in the form of on-line communications. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:54:43 -0500 From: ped@WELL.COM(Philip Elmer-DeWitt) Subject: File 3--Muzzling the Internet (TIME/Julian Dibbell) [The following is copyright material from the 12/18/95 issue of TIME Magazine, posted with permission. For permission to repost, e-mail] technology MUZZLING THE INTERNET Can this Congress find a way to preserve civil liberties while curbing cyberporn? So far, no BY JULIAN DIBBELL Pornography in cyberspace? Sure, it's out there, although there is not as much of the hard-core stuff as most people seem to think. But what you can find if you look for it is enough to give thoughtful parents pause before letting their children roam freely on the Internet. It's also enough, evidently, to ensure congressional passage of a bill that would impose fines as high as $100,000 and prison sentences of up to two years on anyone who knowingly exposes minors to "indecency" online. It may even be enough to make the proposed legislation seem, at first glance, like a fair and reasonable approach. But a closer look at the measure--all but approved last week by a conference committee in the rush to pass the giant telecommunications-reform bill before Christmas--suggests it may be a bigger problem than the one it aims to solve. For one thing, it does little about the kind of sexual material that has stirred up the strongest public anxieties (images of bestiality, pedophilia and the like). Such material is already flatly banned by federal statutes on obscenity and child pornography. The Justice Department has made it clear that it has all the laws it needs to police the Net for child molesters. What is new in the bill is the idea of criminalizing the online transmission of words and images that may fall short of the Supreme Court tests of obscenity (lacking literary merit, violating community standards, etc.), but that someone, somewhere in cyberspace might find offensive. The key word is indecency. Free speech, even indecent speech, is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The right of Americans to say and write what they please, in whatever way they please, has been affirmed by a long series of judicial decisions. The courts have also ruled, however, that in broadcast media like radio and TV, some forms of expression (George Carlin's famous seven dirty words, for example) may be unsuitable for part or all of the broadcast day. The courts have not yet ruled on whether the Internet is a print medium like a newspaper, protected from government censorship, or a broadcast medium like TV, whose content is closely regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Thoughtful members of Congress, led by Washington Republican Rick White, had sought to clarify the matter. A compromise proposed by White would have ruled out FCC oversight of the Internet; it also would have replaced the problematic word indecency with the phrase harmful to minors, a more narrowly defined standard that keeps magazines like Penthouse shrink-wrapped in convenience stores. Early last week, it looked as if White's sensible alternative would prevail. But conservative groups, led by the Christian Coalition, lobbied hard for a tougher measure. And on Wednesday, in a 40-minute closed-door session, the conferees voted 17 to 16 to reinstate indecency. That vote may yet come to naught. President Clinton has already threatened to veto the bill for other reasons. The American Civil Liberties Union has promised to mount vigorous challenges should the bill become law, and many experts believe the Supreme Court would find such a law unconstitutional. The Congressmen who took a public stand against online indecency may have known that it would not survive a court test. But they had a chance last week to show that they understood how to apply civil rights to new media, and they failed. With reporting by John F. Dickerson/Washington Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved. --------------------------------------------------------- Philip Elmer-DeWitt TIME Magazine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 4--E-mail addresses of U.S. Senators ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following was obtained from: Senators with Constituent E-Mail Addresses Below you will find a listing of those U.S. Senate offices which have published Internet addresses on the Senate's Internet server. If you wish to inquire about any other Senate office's use of electronic mail, you MUST place your inquiry directly with the office in question. You can direct correspondence to your Senator or to other U.S. Senate offices at the following address: For Member inquiries: Office of Senator (Name) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 For Committee inquiries: (Name of Committee) United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Alternatively, you may phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you wish to speak with. NOTE: If your browser is unable to view the electronic mail addresses listed below, try the text version. [IMAGE] Senators with Published E-Mail Addresses on the Senate Internet Server State Senator's Name Senator's E-Mail Address ______ ______________ ________________________ AR Bumpers, Dale AZ Kyl, Jon AZ McCain, John CA Boxer, Barbara CA Feinstein, Dianne CO Brown, Hank CT Dodd, Christopher J. CT Lieberman, Joseph I. DE Biden, Jr., Joseph R. FL Graham, Bob GA Coverdell, Paul IA Grassley, Chuck IA Harkin, Tom ID Craig, Larry E. ID Kempthorne, Dirk IL Moseley-Braun, Carol IL Simon, Paul KY Ford, Wendell H. KY McConnell, Mitch LA Breaux, John B. LA Johnston, J. Bennett MA Kennedy, Edward M. MA Kerry, John F. MD Mikulski, Barbara A. MD Sarbanes, Paul S. ME Cohen, William S. MI Abraham, Spencer MI Levin, Carl MN Grams, Rod MN Wellstone, Paul MO Ashcroft, John MS Cochran, Thad MT Baucus, Max MT Burns, Conrad NC Faircloth, Lauch ND Dorgan, Byron L. NE Kerrey, J. Robert NH Gregg, Judd NH Smith, Bob NJ Bradley, Bill NM Bingaman, Jeff NM Domenici, Pete V. NV Reid, Harry NY Moynihan, Daniel Patrick OH DeWine, Mike PA Santorum, Rick PA Specter, Arlen RI Chafee, John H. SC Hollings, Ernest F. SD Daschle, Thomas A. SD Pressler, Larry TN Frist, Bill TN Thompson, Fred TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey VA Robb, Charles S. VA Warner, John W. VT Jeffords, James M. VT Leahy, Patrick J. WA Gorton, Slade WA Murray, Patty WI Feingold, Russell D. WI Kohl, Herb WV Rockefeller IV, John D. WY Simpson, Alan K. OTHER SENATE E-MAIL ADDRESSES LISTED ON THE SENATE INTERNET SERVER __________________________________________________________________ Democratic Policy Committee automated information server Subject = "Help" comments and questions Republican Policy Committee Special Committee on Aging [IMAGE] Return to the United States Senate Home Page Send comments to Last modified November 21, 1995 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:29:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@LCS.MIT.EDU(Patrick A. Townson) Subject: File 5--Child Pornography and Beastiality Howard Gobioff wrote in File 4--Re: Cu Digest, #7.93: > From--Dave++ Ljung > Subject--File 7--Re--Cyberangels >> One of the items I pointed out to Gabriel was that I didn't see how his >> list of 'crimes to be monitored' would include child pornography but not >> bestiality, but he pointed out that this was an oversight. > I just wanted to point out that while "child pornography" is illegal > that bestiality is not. Under federal obscenity law, child pornography > is obscene and therefore illegal. However, bestiality is not immediately > deemed obscene and must be subject to the Miller test. Due to this > distinction, I am doubtful that the Cyberangel, despite good intentions, > should be seeking out bestiality on the network. They are not the courts > and it is not their decision if something is obscene or illegal. First of all, any citizen who witnesses an act of questionable legality is not making a 'decision if something is obscene or illegal'. They are simply reporting something to the authorities on which they feel the authorities *should make that decision*. Carrying your comment to its logical conclusion, no one should ever call the police to report an event we witnessed which we *think* is a crime since we are not lawyers and cannot precisely show in the statutes where it is listed and because we do not know for sure if the court is going to find the person guilty or not. Therefore we should not be on the look-out for actions in our neighborhood which might be crimes since there is no telling at that point how it will all wind up later on. Police should not really be watching for events either (i.e. a proactive response in the community rather than a purely reactive one) since after all, they are not lawyers or judges either. It was very thoughtful and nice of you to try and lighten the very heavy burden the cyberangels would be under by making these reports, but that really isn't what you meant was it? Your second error comes in your comment on beastiality, which *is* illegal in every state. Something being illegal does not of necessity make the same thing obscene as you point out. In every state, beastiality is illegal via that state's various laws pertaining to cruelty to animals and/or the required humane treatment of animals. Rape or sexual assault of an animal (I doubt it gave its consent) would be considered cruel and inhumane to the animal. There are also federal laws pertaining to animal welfare which would transcend individual state boundary lines. It is true that animals never do 'give consent' to sex; unlike humans, the only animals I am aware of who use sex both for pleasure and procreation, other animals simply respond according to their natural instincts to preserve their species. They do it when it is time to do it. They have no control over the matter or erotic desire or interest in what they are doing. By your placing the animal in (what for it) is an unnatural environment and situation, you are being cruel to it. You may be causing it physical harm as well. In those places where it is also considered obscene, then perhaps a double offense has occured. Please note that there are exceptions to laws pertaining to 'animal cruelty and welfare': If we sacrifice an animal as a means to our own survival (that is, the animal becomes our food or the animal becomes a protective covering for our bodies as our coat, shoes, etc; OR if the animal is a danger to the community; i.e. a wild bear has come into the village and has harmed or killed a human) there is no violation. Even then, laws address the question of humane treatment of the animal during its lifetime, and slaughtering it in a humane way when our needs require it to be done. Our sexual desire is not included in the list. You can kill an animal as needed, you may not torture/abuse it. Although beastiality is, as you point out 'not immediatly deemed obscene and is subject to the Miller test', my belief is that would usually be a moot point since we would, after all, be dealing with a human being in a state of sexual excitement, and it is pretty hard to get any of that past Miller, although not impossible I guess. I suppose an ACLU lawyer somewhere could do it. So to summarize, the *act* of beastialty is illegal everywhere, via cruelty to animals laws although some state forbid it on its face as well, as a forbidden act of human behavior without specific regard to the treatment of the animals involved. The *photographic depiction* of beastiality is illegal in places where it is ajudicated obscene. There are no laws (or enforceable laws, let's say) against discussing it in writing, via articles, fictional accounts of it happening, drawings and/or non-photographic illustrations, etc. All that comes under Freedom of Speech although I prefer the term License of Speech as a more realistic way of describing it. I guess this shows my bias in the matter, or my blind spots. The solution to the problem of child pornography available for public display on computer networks will come when a sufficient number of system administrators refuse to display it. Email is a different matter entirely and admins should not tamper with it. Where 'news' groups and public displays are concerned, all an admin has to do is refuse to allow that sort of posting to originate at his site, and refuse to accept known feeds of that nature from other sites. In other words the admin says to his users, "We don't have (for example) the newsgroup '' and '' at this site. Your posting to that newsgroup does not get propogated from here." Lacking any propogation, the newsgroup in essence does not exist. And before you try to tell me that sites which carry news have to carry all newsgroups, stop and think what the informal rules and gentlemen's agreements on the net actually say: If it is a Usenet group and you carry Usenet, then you carry the group. If it is altnet, then whether you carry it or not is your choice. That is the way it has always been arranged since years ago when certain people began 'alt' in protest to the existing structure of Usenet. The trouble is, that was long ago relative to the age of computer networks, and a lot of people have forgotten the second part of the agreement above, if they ever knew it existed. No sysadmin is required to carry any alt group not of his (or his employer's) liking. No explanation required, it simply does not appear on his news spool. Some sites don't carry ANY alt groups period. Some sites have even violated the (long-ago) gentlemen's agreement of Usenet that for widest possible propogation, each site carry all groups, i.e. as a courtesy I display messages from your users and in return you display messages from my users. So if the sysadmin at your site carries on his spool, it is because he *wants* to carry it there. It might be a business decision (lots of subscribers paying good money to have this available to read) or a personal decision (he wants to read it himself). Don't believe him if he rationalizes it by claiming 'we have to carry all newsgroups'. He can make the needed changes in the system .newsrc file, and that, as they say, will be that. It is doubtful these days he has to carry all of the Usenet groups and he never was required to carry alt groups. If you do NOT want to have such a newsgroup, then you tell your syadmin about it. You tell him in your opinion it cheapens and harms the reputation of his site by having those groups available. You ask him to remove them (or not make them available for public reading) and perhaps you offer to take your business elsewhere to a site you feel is better operated, or with higher quality. If the sysadmin gets enough comments on a newsgroup, he will take action on that group. After all, there are people who read {The New York Times} specifically because they do not fill up their pages with the likes of columnists like Ann Slanders or her sister Scabby Van Buren, and I believe sites which carry only a limited subset of the news, picking the groups which meet their taste requirements have a place also. Just because 'child porn may be legal in some countries in Europe' (I hear that one a lot) and just because the {New York Times} is sold and distributed regularly in Europe and a lot of the readers are European there still is no requirement that the {New York Times} print child porn under some vaugely thought out line of reasoning which says 'well it came here on our newsfeed from someplace in Europe where it is legal so how can the authorities here punish us for printing it?' ... Very easily ... that is what editors are for. If you carry Usenet/altnet/*net news on your site, then the sysadmin becomes an editor by default. Remember, a 'news' group without any news spools to sit on really doesn't exist. Self-censorship is the best censorship of all ... it works, is far more effective than anything the government tries to legislate, and even the ACLU has not yet been able to figure out how to force people to like it who in reality are totally opposed to the actual/perceived or encouraged abuse of children/animals in this way. So sysadmins, start acting more like responsible publishers/editors. If you want that garbage at your site, hey -- just say so and carry it. If you don't, then get rid of it and block it out of your accepted newsfeed. Patrick A. Townson (the only person I know whose three initials of their full name wind up spelling their first name. i.e. PAT). ------------------------------ From: JeanBernard_Condat@EMAIL.FRANCENET.FR(JeanBernard Condat) Subject: File 6--French email directory soonly available Date: 21 Nov 1995 08:49:06 GMT French email directory soonly available Decembre 8th, France Telecom test a new service. The possibility for all phone owner to have the mention of the private email address available freely on the videotex phone directory (and in the print edition, too). Normally the only mention with the address will be the "telefax," "Numeris" (for ISDN access) or "Minicom" (an old Minitel specific email application not linked with Internet nor X.400 and available through the 3612 Minitel access for a low cost). The first person that have the chance to be cite WITH the own electronic address is Pierre GRENET, a France Telecom ingenieur. When you look at Pierre GRENET in Champigny/Marne (94500), you found the right phone number (1) 48 81 35 05... and an uncredible 31-digit email address on five lines: This ingenieur work on the new applications of France Telecom electronic book, the first in the world. how to link the cited email address for a direct sending by Minitel of an email... it's a new forthcoming service! Some problems will occur with companies sending fax to all owner indicated in the "11" (electronic repertory). In some months, it will be possible to do some electronic mailing directly from the "11". The sending of the fax number is availbale by 3614 MARKETIS, a new France Telecom service. Perhaps, the email address will permit the control of all the Internet Service Providers in France by the French secret services, like the DST, and hurge email mailings... But I have five email address... and don't known the first that I can give to the "11"... the long one, or the short? The "12", phone answer for having a phone number canot understand the @... that can be read as an "(a)" or an "(at)" on the Minitel screen. France Telecom must learn to all "Mademoiselle" on the phone answering service what is Internet and an Internet email address :->) Bon courage... -- Jean-Bernard Condat Computer Security and Phone Fraud Expert JeanBernard_Condat@eMail.FarnceNet.FR (Paris, France) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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: 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 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: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 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) 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 #7.96 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank