Computer underground Digest Wed Jan 10, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 03 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 Wed Jan 10, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 03 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, #8.03 (Wed, Jan 10, 1996) File 1--CDT: Telecom Bill Overview and Proposal Text (FINALLY!) File 2--From TIME: John Perry Barlow essay on censorship File 3--Ron Wyden's statement on Net censorship File 4--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: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--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, 12/6/95). 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 (e)(5). * 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 508). 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 conference committee. 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 URL:http://www.vtw.org/ Or send email to vtw@vtw.org 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 Telecommunications Facilities 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 communication; "(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass a person at the called number; or "(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 carriers. "(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 this section. "(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 section. "(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 section 230(f)(2) "(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 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. "(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 PROGRAMMING. (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 PROGRAMMING. "(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 nudity". (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 carrier"; and (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 amended - (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 it appears; (3) by striking ", or knowingly travels in" and all that follows through "obscene material in inter state or foreign commerce," and inserting "of". (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. 680 (1950). 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 MATERIAL "(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 government regulation. "(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. "(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 computer services; "(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 material; and "(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 MATERIAL.- "(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 provider. "(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 criminal statute. "(2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. "(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 section. "(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 data networks. "(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: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 06:08:12 -0500 From: ped@PANIX.COM(Philip Elmer-DeWitt) Subject: File 2--From TIME: John Perry Barlow essay on censorship This is copyright material from the 1/15/96 issue of TIME, reposted by permission. ESSAY By John Perry Barlow THINKING LOCALLY, ACTING GLOBALLY An ex-cowboy and rock lyricist turned Internet activist takes on the censors of cyberspace Two weeks ago, a prosecutor in Munich managed, almost casually, to strike a global blow against freedom of expression. Though he is a person of such obscurity that most of the accounts I've read of this incident didn't even mention his name, he has been able to constrict the information flow for some 4 million people in 140 countries. He did this merely by telling CompuServe, the world's second largest online-service provider, that it was breaking Bavarian law by giving Germans access to Usenet discussion groups believed to include explicit sexuality. A strangely terrified CompuServe responded by removing any newsgroups whose title contained the word sex, gay or erotic, thus blocking access to all subscribers, not just those in Germany. Given the centralized nature of its operations-and the decentralized nature of Usenet-this was, according to CompuServe, the only way it could comply. Thus were CompuServe subscribers prevented from further discourse on whatever they talk about in alt.sex.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape (which may exceed even my high squeamishness threshold). At the same time, however, they were also barred from alt.religion.sexuality (a pretty chaste topic), clari.news.sex (which redistributes wire-service stories) and alt.sex.marsha-clark (the mind reels =8A). Once again, the jackboots of the Industrial Era can be heard stomping cluelessly around the Infobahn. In fact, the Germans did almost nothing to stanch the flow of sexual materials. The newsgroups that CompuServe removed are still active on millions of computers worldwide. CompuServe subscribers in Bavaria or anywhere else can simply switch to a less timid online service and re-enter the discussion. As Internet pioneer John Gilmore once said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Such assaults are most likely to injure the large service providers, sober institutions more culturally attuned to their governmental attackers than the info-guerrillas of cyberspace. CompuServe, for its cowardice in folding without a fight, probably deserves the calumny heaped on it by angry users. The company says it hopes to reopen access to all but its German subscribers as soon as it can figure out how. But the issue at stake here is larger than whether the good people of Munich can prevent others half a world away from looking at pictures of sexually misused hamsters. These apparently trivial struggles may in fact be the opening fissures of a historical discontinuity. The real issue is control. The Internet is too widespread to be easily dominated by any single government. By creating a seamless global-economic zone, borderless and unregulatable, the Internet calls into question the very idea of a nation-state. No wonder nation-states are rushing to get their levers of control into cyberspace while less than 1% of the world's population is online. What the Net offers is the promise of a new social space, global and antisovereign, within which anybody, anywhere can express to the rest of humanity whatever he or she believes without fear. There is in these new media a foreshadowing of the intellectual and economic liberty that might undo all the authoritarian powers on earth. That's why Germany, the People's Republic of China and the U.S. are girding to fight the Net, using the popular distaste for prurience as their longest lever. After all, who is willing to defend depictions of sexual intercourse with children and animals? Moving through the U.S. Congress right now is a telecommunications-reform bill that would impose fines of as much as $100,000 for "indecency" in cyberspace. Indecent (as opposed to obscene) material is clearly protected in print by the First Amendment, and a large percentage of the printed material currently available to Americans, whether it be James Joyce's Ulysses or much of what's in Cosmopolitan magazine, could be called indecent. As would my saying, right here, right now, that this bill is full of shit. Somehow Americans lost such protections in broadcast media, where coarse language is strictly regulated. The bill would hold expression on the Net to the same standards of purity, using far harsher criminal sanctions-including jail terms-to enforce them. Moreover, it would attempt to impose those standards on every human who communicates electronically, whether in Memphis or Mongolia. Sounds crazy, but it's true. If the U.S. succeeds in censoring the Net, it will be in a position to achieve far more than smut reduction. Any system of control that can stop us from writing dirty words online is a system that can control our collective conversation in other, more important ways. If the nation-states perfect such methods, they may own enough of the mind of mankind to perpetuate themselves far beyond their usefulness. If that sounds overstated to you, consider the millions of people one prosecutor in Germany was able to mute with little more than an implied threat. -- John Perry Barlow, a former Grateful Dead lyricist, cofounded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends civil rights in cyberspace. He lives in Wyoming and New York and at barlow@eff.org. Copyright 1996 Time Inc. Philip Elmer-DeWitt ped@well.com TIME Magazine philiped@aol= .com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 21:45:04 EST From: WFEN20A@PRODIGY.COM(MR DAVID W BATTERSON) Subject: File 3--Ron Wyden's statement on Net censorship Wyden Backs Freedom of Access on the Internet; Believes Parents, not Bureaucrats Can Best Protect Children Against Cyberporn Statement by Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) There are many differences between my opponent Gordon Smith and me in the U.S. Senate race in Oregon. One of the clearest is on the subject of censorship of the Internet. When Gordon was asked at our recent debate at the City Club in Portland if the federal government should censor the Internet, he replied, "Yes, I do." As the father of two computer-literate children, I join the millions of American parents who want to keep smut and pornography away from our kids using the Internet. But I believe parents and families, not government bureaucrats, are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace and protect our kids. Gordon Smith believes otherwise. His support for federal censorship of the Internet echoes the heavy-handed regulatory approach proposed by Senator Exxon that is now part of the telecommunications legislation. If Congress adopts this method, it will lead to countless constitutional challenges and unprotected families. I support a different approach. Last summer I introduced legislation with Congressman Chris Cox (R-California) to clean up the Internet while preserving the efficiency and open access of the world-wide computer network. Entitled the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act," the bill sought to encourage and protect private sector initiatives that improve user control over computer information services. In the meantime, parents do not have to wait for Congress to act to protect their children against cyberporn. Reasonably priced software that blocks pornography on the Internet is available now at neighborhood computer stores. The proper role of government in protecting our children against cyberporn is to support efforts by the marketplace to create such software and other filtering technologies. What the Internet does not need is what Gordon Smith wants: big government telling you what you can and cannot read and see. Wyden For Senate http://www.teleport.com/~wyden PO Box 3498 Portland, OR 97208 Phone: 503 248-9567 Fax: 503 248-9890 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 4--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: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.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 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 2:291/759@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 #8.03 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank