Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 7, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 02 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji
Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 7, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 02
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
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.02 (Sun, Jan 7, 1996)
File 1--FINAL REMINDER - Last issue of CuD from the UIUC SERVER
File 2--Compuserve: "The whole story"
File 3--Court Rules in Pentagon Cit
File 4--CDT: Telecom Bill Overview and Proposal Text (FINALLY!)
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 16:19:32 CST
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 1--FINAL REMINDER - Last issue of CuD from the UIUC SERVER
** CuD IS CHANGING SERVERS **
THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE *FINAL* time we use the UIUC server. The
next issue of CuD will be sent from the weber.ucsd.edu site.
On Wednesday, Cu Digest will be moving to a new server at
weber.ucsd.edu. to continue to receive CuD, you must
Re-subbing is easy. Just send a message with this in the
send it to:
If you prefer to access CuD from Usenet, use
If you prefer archives, you can use the ftp/www site at
ftp.eff.org (or www.eff.org) or the CuD archives at:
We also hope to have a mail archive set up soon as well.
You can still contact the moderators at:
Please *DO NOT* send inquiries to the server at UIUC.
Jim and Gordon
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 09:47:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh"
Subject: File 2--Compuserve: "The whole story"
Note the extent of the damage caused by CMU, Marty Rimm, and TIME's
"Last summer, a kind of hysteria about Internet
pornography broke out in German media."
Thanks, Michael, for posting this.
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
Fromfirstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Kunze)
Subject--CIS censorship--The whole story
Date--Sat, 06 Jan 1996 09:33:39 GMT
Some few fivehundred postings ago, I promised you let you have more
details about the CompuServe censorship case investigated by the
editorial staff of SPIEGEL online. It is not a story of evil but of
people acting overambitious and ignorant. And it is not quite as
simple as DrG might be wishing!
To keep it short, here are the facts:
In 1994, a Task Force called "AG EDV" was set up by the Bavarian
Minister of Interior at the Police Headquarters in Munich. Initially,
the Task Force was formed to search persons dealing with pornographic
material via BTX the former online service of German Telekom and its
work was limited to one year.
For the moment, investigations of this Task Force ran successfully due
to the assistance of Telekom. But simultaneously, people being
suspected changed their ways of distributing either to closed BBS
systems or chose more secret methods. So the Task Force was compelled
to enhance their efforts and they raided Munich BBS systems.
Furthermore, they studied computer magazines to find ads for
pornographic CD-ROMs. During this operation they found what they were
looking for, and "PC Direkt", a Ziff Davis publication, and some other
magazine were forced to pulp some issues.
All activities of the Task Force could not have happened, if they were
not supported by a whole bunch of local prosecutors and judges.
Sticking together, chatting, doing favours forms a part of the social
life in Munich - in malicious words - the 'Munich swamp'.
The prevailing opinion of the Task Force and of some prosecutors is
that carriers of digital information could held responsible for the
content of what they are spreading. This meaning matches exactly the
content of the CDA. But this is only one point of view. Up to now,
there doesn't exist any law or direction in Germany concerning
responsibilities of ISPs or online services regarding contents they
only do deliver. And so, judges decide from case to case. The German
department of justice thinks that carriers could be held responsible
if they deliver illegal content "deliberately". But then, could one
call them "carriers"?
Last summer, a kind of hysteria about Internet pornography broke out
in German media. A few journalist had made their first steps in the
Internet and discovered nasty postings in the
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica Usenet hierarchy. A student of Erlangen
University was seized because of spreading child porn via Usenet.
Then, the "Time" article about Internet porn was published and quoted
by nearly every German newspaper.
I think at that time the Task Force planned to investigate the Usenet.
Due to the facts that CIS had become a big ISP and their German office
is located in Munich, CIS seemed to be a worthwhile target. Somehow
the Task Force managed to get a search warrant to investigate the
Munich CIS office on November, 22nd. However, the search was more or
less like a visit. Let me quote the public prosecutor: CompuServe "was
quite cooperative". "We sat together talking about chances to kick
pornographic contents out of CompuServe's information system." The
police officers just collected a copy of the CompuServe association
contract and the address of the CEO.
Two days later, CompuServe's German managers published that they "will
do anything to support the work of German authorities fighting against
pornography in Cyberspace". On December, 8th, CIS was handled a list
of more than 200 newsgroups by the Task Force. In my opinion,
interpreting the prosecutor and the CIS spokeswoman, this list was
presented to CIS as containing "suspicious newsgroups". In the
attached letter from the prosecutor it is said: "... it is left to
CompuServe to take the necessary steps to avoid possible liabilities
So, if CompuServe should have ever had threats, it could have been
only very small ones. But there is no reason to their German
management to risk anything. CompuServe's approach is not to guarantee
for "freedom of speech and information" but to make "money".
When i interviewed the prosecutor, it soon became quite clear that his
department had tried to bring CIS to court to get its legal position
checked by some judges. Because of CIS servile tactics they had to
give up their goal.
The ominous list itself shows, how ignorant the members of the Task
Force are about the Usenet. In my opinion, they just sampled all
newsgroups containing words like "sex", "erotic", "gay" and so on and
put the result onto the list.
We have two in depth articles on the whole affair on our web server.
One is an extended version of what i've posted here, the other deals
with the CDA and the actual political and legal situation concerning
the Internet. Unfortunately for US readers, these articles are in
German because we didn't found the time to translate them. But i hope
will can manage this until Monday 8th, 8:00 AM, EST. Then, you should
point your browser to
or have a look at our complete online services at
By the way, SPIEGEL online is the online department of the reputable
German news magazin DER SPIEGEL.
Michael Kunze Tel.:+49(0)40-3007-0
Redaktion/editorial staff Fax :+49(0)40-3007-2986
20457 Hamburg / Germany
std. disclaimer: diese Meinung meins, exclusiv und immerdar
Date: 5 Jan 1996 13:40:25 -0500
From: "David Sobel"
Subject: File 3--Court Rules in Pentagon Cit
In a case litigated by EPIC staff, the federal appeals court in
Washington, DC, has ordered the U.S. Secret Service to release
information concerning a controversial "hacker" investigation.
The January 2 ruling partially rejected the agency's three-year
attempt to withhold documents concerning the 1992 "Pentagon City
Mall Raid." In November of that year, a group of young people
affiliated with the computer magazine "2600" were confronted by
mall security personnel, local police officers and several
unidentified individuals in the Virginia shopping mall. The group
members were ordered to identify themselves and to submit to
searches of their personal property. Their names were recorded
and some of their property was confiscated.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) filed suit
in federal court in early 1993 seeking the release of relevant
Secret Service records under the Freedom of Information Act. The
litigation of the case has been handled by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC). In July 1994, U.S. District Judge
Louis Oberdorfer ordered the Secret Service to release the vast
majority of documents it maintains on the incident. The
government appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, which partially affirmed the
lower court decision in the recent ruling.
The appeals court rejected the agency's attempt to invoke a
blanket claim of "source confidentiality" for all information
involving investigations of computer crime, noting that "the
Service offered no evidence that a fear of retaliation by hackers
is sufficiently widespread to justify an inference that sources of
information relating to computer crimes expect their identities
and the information they provide to be kept confidential." The
court did, however, uphold the agency's claim that information
identifying particular individuals should be withheld from
Additional information, including the text of the appellate
decision, is available at:
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:39:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh
Subject: File 4--CDT: Telecom Bill Overview and Proposal Text (FINALLY!)
From: CDT POLICY POST Number 33 January 4, 1996
(1) TEXT OF LATEST VERSION OF THE CDA -- STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The House/Senate telecommunications reform conference committee has
released a preliminary draft of the final telecommunications reform bill,
which includes provisions which would impose broad government regulations
on constitutionally protected speech online. The text of these provisions
is attached below.
The attached version of the CDA contains the changes approved at the
December 6, 1995 conference committee meeting, where members voted to adopt
Rep. Rick White's proposal but with significant changes, including a return
to the unconstitutional "indecency" standard (See CDT Policy Post No. 32,
The conferees have made several important changes to the legislation, none
of them are particularly favorable to cyberspace-rights advocates. Among
other things, the latest draft:
* Relies on the vague and blatantly unconstitutional "indecency"
standard (Sec 502 (a) - (c))
* Prohibits sending "indecent" material directly to a minor or making
indecent material available for display in a manner available to a
minor (including world wide web pages, ftp sites, or usenet
newsgroups) (Sec 502 (d)).
* No longer contains the provision of the Cox/Wyden/White bill
prohibiting the FCC from imposing content or other regulations on the
Internet or other interactive media.
* Contains weaker protections for content providers who label content
and enable others to block it (e.g., PICS) have been weakened (Sec 502
* Would allow states to impose additional restrictions on non-commercial
activities such as free-nets, BBS's, and non-profit content providers
(Sec 502 (h)).
* Creates a new crime for the solicitation of minors using a computer,
the US mail, or any other means of interstate or foreign commerce (Sec
The full text of the new proposal is attached below.
CDT believes that this proposal threatens the very existence of the
Internet as a means for free expression, education, and political
discourse. The proposal is an unwarranted, unconstitutional intrusion by
the Federal government into the private lives of all Americans.
NEXT STEPS: FINAL AGREEMENT NOT YET REACHED, VOTE COULD OCCUR SOON
As you know, the CDA is part of the massive telecommunications reform
legislation, which is currently being considered by a House/Senate
The conference committee has not reached agreement on several key issues,
including whether the FCC should be permitted to regulate the Internet,
broadcast ownership rules, and other issues. Reps. Rick White, Chris Cox,
and others are currently fighting to retain the provisions baring the FCC
from regulating online content. A final vote by the conferees to send the
bill to the full congress will not occur until an agreement is reached on
this and other outstanding issues.
As of Thursday January 4, 1996, the conferees have NOT yet voted to send a
version of the legislation to the Full House and Senate for a final vote.
No vote has been scheduled, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich has stated that
no vote will occur until Congress finishes work on the Budget.
CDT will continue to fight these provisions, and will work to remove them
from the final telecommunications bill. We are also preparing to fight this
issue in court, if necessary.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP
The Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) has organized an online coalition
(of which CDT is a member) against the net-censorship bill. To find out
what you can do to fight this bill, visit VTW's web page
Or send email to email@example.com with 'send alert' in the subject line.
(2) TEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
TITLE V - BROADCAST OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE
Subtitle A - Obscene, Harassing, and Wrongful Utilization of
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995".
SEC. 502. 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 interstate or foreign communications-
"(A) by means of a 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 an other person;
"(B) by means of a 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
or indecent knowing that the recipient of the communication is under
18 years of age regard less of whether the maker of such communication
placed the call or initiated the communication;
"(C) 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
"(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass a person at the called
"(E) 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;
"(2) knowingly permits a 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 under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both."; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub sections:
"(d) Whoever ==
"(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly-
"(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific
person or persons under 18 years of age, or
"(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner
available to a person under 18 years of age,
any comment, request suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such
service 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 under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more
than two years, or both.
"(e) In addition to any other defenses available by
"(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsection (a) or (d)
solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility,
system, or network not under that person's control, including
transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or
other related capabilities that are incidental to providing such
access or connection that does not include the creation of the
content of the communication.
"(2) The defenses provided by paragraph (1) of this subsection shall
not be applicable to a person who is a conspirator with an entity
actively involved in the creation or knowing distribution of
communications that violate this section, or who knowingly
advertises the availability of such communications.
"(3) The defenses provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall
not be applicable to a person who provides access or connection to a
facility, system, or network engaged in the violation of this
section that is owned or controlled by such person.
"(4) 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 (A) having knowledge of such conduct, authorizes or
ratifies such conduct, or (B) recklessly disregards such conduct.
"(5) It is a defense to a prosecution under sub section (a) or (d)
that a person-
"(A) has taken in good faith, reasonable, effective, and
appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent
access by minors to a communication specified in such subsections,
which may involve any appropriate measures to restrict minors from
such communications, including any method which is feasible under
available technology; or
"(B) has restricted access to such communication by requiring use
of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or
adult personal identification number.
"(6) The Commission may describe measures which are reasonable,
effective, and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited
communications under subsection (d). Nothing in this section
authorizes the Commission to enforce, or is intended to provide the
Commission with the authority to approve, sanction, or permit, the
use of such measures. The Commission has no enforcement authority
over the failure to utilize such measures. The Commission shall not
endorse specific products relating to such measures. The use of such
measures shall be admitted as evidence of good faith efforts for
purposes of this paragraph in any action arising under subsection
(d). Nothing in this section shall be construed to treat interactive
computer services as comm. on carriers or telecommunications
"(f)(1) No cause of action may be brought in any court or
administrative agency against any person on account of any activity
that is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil
penalty, and that 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
"(2) No State or local government may impose ant liability for
commercial activities or actions by commercial entities, nonprofit
libraries, or institutions of higher education in connection with an
activity or action described in subsection (a)(2) or (d) that is
inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under
this section: Provided, however, That nothing 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
"(g) nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the defenses to
prosecution under (a) or (d) shall be construed to affect or limit the
application or enforcement of any other Federal law.
"(h) For purposes of this section-
"(1) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section-
"(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station
licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency
provisions elsewhere in this .Act; and
"(B) does not include the use of an inter active computer service.
"(2) The term 'interactive computer service' has the meaning provided in
"(3) The term 'access software' means software (including client or
server software) or enabling tools that do not create or provide the
content of the communication but that allow a user to do any one or more of
"(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
"(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
"(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset,
organize, reorganize, or translate content.
"(4) The term 'institution of higher education' has the meaning provided
in section 1201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141).
"(5) The term 'library means a library eligible for participation in
State-based plans for funds under title III of the Library Services and
Construction Act (20 U.S.C. 355e et seq.).".
SEC. 503. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION,
Section 639 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking "not more than
$10,000" and inserting "under title 18, United States Code,".
SEC. 504. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
Part IV of title VI (47 U.S.C. 551 et se-q.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
"SEC. 640. SCRAMBLING OF, CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
"(a) SUBSCRIBER REQUEST.-Upon request by a cable service subscriber, a
cable operator shall, without charge, fully- scramble or otherwise fully
block the audio and video portion of each channel carrying such programming
so that one not a subscriber does not receive it.
"(b) DEFINITION.-As used in this section, the term 'scramble' means. to
rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so that the program
cannot be viewed or heard in an understandable manner.".
SEC. 505. SCRAMBLING OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ADULT VIDEO SERVICE
(a) REQUIREMENT.-Part IV of title I (47 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), as amended
by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
"SEC. 641. SCRAMBLING OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ADULT VIDEO SERVICE
"(a) REQUIREMENT.-In providing sexually explicit adult programming or
other programming that is indecent on any channel of its service primarily
dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, a multichannel video
programming distributor shall fully scramble or otherwise fully block the
video and audio portion of such channel so that one not a subscriber to
such channel or programming does not receive it.
"(b) IMPLEMENTATION.-Until a multichannel video programming distributor
complies with the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the distributor
shall limit the access of children to the programming referred to in that
subsection by not providing such program during the hours of the day (as
determined by the Commission) when a significant number of children are
likely to view it.
"(c) DEFINITION.-As used in this section, the term 'scramble' means to
rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so that the
programming cannot be viewed or heard in an understandable manner.".
"(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made b-y subsection (a) shall take
effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 606. CABLE OPERATOR REFUSAL TO CARRY CERTAIN PROGRAMS.
(a) PUBLIC, EDUCATION, AND GOVERNMENTAL CHANNELS.-Section 611(e) (47
U.S.C. 531(e)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: ",
except a cable operator may refuse to transmit any public access program or
portion of a public access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or
(b) CABLE CHANNELS FOR COMMERCIAL USE. Section 612(c)(2) (47 U.S.C.
532(c)(2)) is amended by striking "an operator" and inserting "a cable
operator may refuse to transmit any leased access program or portion of a
leased access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity and".
SEC. 507. CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT LAWS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OF
OBSCENE MATERIALS THROUGH THE USE OF COMPUTERS.
(a) IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION.-Section 1462 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended-
(1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by inserting "or
interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(f)(2) of
the Communications Act of 1934)" after "carrier"; and
(2) in the second undesignated paragraph-
(A) by inserting "or receives," after "takes";
(B) by inserting "or interactive computer service (as defined in
section 230(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)" after "common
(C) by inserting "or importation" after "carriage".
(b) TRANSPORTATION FOR PURPOSES OF SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.-The first
undesignated paragraph of section 1465 of title 18, United States Code, is
(1) by striking "transports in" and inserting "transports or
travels in, or uses a facility or means of,";
(2) by inserting "or an interactive computer service (as defined in
section '230(f)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934) in or
affecting such commerce" after "foreign commerce" the first place
(3) by striking ", or knowingly travels in" and all that follows
through "obscene material in inter state or foreign commerce," and
(c) INTERPRETATION.-The amendments made by this section are clarifying and
shall not be interpreted to limit or repeal any prohibition contained in
sections 1462 and 1465 of title 18, United States Code, before such
amendment, under the rule established in United States v. Alpers, 338 U.S.
SEC. 508. COERCION AND ENTICEMENT OF MINORS.
Section 2422 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) by inserting "(a)" before "Whoever knowingly"; and
(2) by adding at. the end the following
"(b) Whoever, using any facility or means of inter state or foreign
commerce, including the mail, or within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly persuades,
induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of
18 years to engage in prostitution or any sexual act for which person
may be criminally prosecuted, or attempts to do so shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.".
SEC. 509. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
"SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE
"(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds the following:
"(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive
computer services available to individual Americans represent an
extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and
informational resources to our citizens.
"(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the
information that they receive, as well as the potential for even
greater control in the future as technology develops.
"(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a
forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities
for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
"(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have
flourished, to the benefit of all Americans. with a minimum of
"(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a
variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment
"(b) POLICY.- It is the policy of the United States-
"(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other
interactive computer services and other interactive media;
"(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
"(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize
user control over what in formation is received by individuals,
families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive
"(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of
blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict
their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online
"(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to
deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by-
means of computer.
"(c) PROTECTION FOR 'GOOD SAMARITAN BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE
"(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER.-No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
"(2) CIVIL LIABILITY.-No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be held liable on account of-
"(A) any- action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
access to or availability of material that the provider or user
considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not
such material is constitutionally protected; or
"(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information
content providers or others the technical means to restrict access
to material described in paragraph (1).
"(d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.-
"(1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL. LAW.-Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter
71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to exploitation of
children) of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal
"(2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW.-Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to
"(3) STATE LAW.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with
this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be
imposed under any State or local law that is in consistent with this
"(4) NO EFFECT ON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY LAW.-Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by
such Act, or any similar State law.
"(f) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section:
"(1) INTERNET.-The term 'Internet' means the international computer
network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched
"(2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.-The term 'interactive computer
service' means an information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to
a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services
offered by libraries or educational institutions.
"(3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER.-The term 'information content
provider' means any per son or entity that is responsible, in whole or
in part, for the creation or development of information provided
through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
"(4) ACCESS SOFTWARE PROVIDER.-The term 'access software provider'
means a provider of software (including client or server software), or
enabling tools that do any one or more of the following
"(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
"(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
"(C) transmit, receive, display, forward cache, search, subset,
organize, reorganize, or translate content.".
[Footer info deleted for brevity]
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 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 post with this in the "Subject:: line:
Send the message to: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.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:email@example.com
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (188.8.131.52) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (184.108.40.206) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (220.127.116.11) 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:
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 #8.02
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank