Computer underground Digest Fri Feb 2, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 11 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Ji

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Fri Feb 2, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 11 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, #8.11 (Fri, Feb 2, 1996) File 1--ACLU Denounces Passage of Telecom Bill File 2--EFF Response to Telecommunications Bill File 3--Telecomm Bill may criminalize some Abortion Discussion File 4--Abortion Research FOLLOW-UP File 5--Comments on CDA Analysis File 6--Mike Godwin: Letter to President Clinton File 7--New grassroots campaign - please adopt File 8--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, 1 Feb 1996 20:31:27 -0500 From: beeson@PIPELINE.COM(Ann Beeson) Subject: File 1--ACLU Denounces Passage of Telecom Bill AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ________________________________________________________________ News from the ACLU National Washington Office ACLU Denounces Passage of Telecom Bill and Prepares to Challenge Online Censorship Provisions FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, February 1, 1996 WASHINGTON -- Citing grave free speech and privacy concerns, the American Civil Liberties Union today denounced the passage of the Telecommunications Deregulation law, and announced immediate plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs challenging the online censorship provisions of the bill unless President Clinton vetoes the measure. The ACLU also criticized the swiftness with which Congress acted. Both houses had less than 24 hours to consider the bill, leaving little time for debate or measured reflection on a massive and complex bill that would implicate one-eighth of the national economy. The margin in the House was 414 to 16; the Senate voted 91 to 5. "This law restructures the entire telecommunications industry and places the free speech and privacy rights of all internet users in permanent jeopardy," said Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the ACLU. "It will criminalize otherwise protected speech in cyberspace, impose new censorship controls on television, and destroy the diversity of media ownership. For a Congress that says it wants to get big government out of people's lives this law represents the most extreme hypocrisy." In a January 29th letter sent to members of Congress, the ACLU summarized three major provisions of the bill that cause concern and urged its rejection on free speech and privacy grounds: -- it would establish a big government censorship regime for criminalizing speech on the Internet, effectively restricting expression to that appropriate only for children and subjecting all Americans to the standards of the most socially conservative communities. -- its V-Chip requirement would give the government, rather than parents, the power to decide which programs are appropriate for family viewing. -- it would allow the concentration of the media in fewer hands, thwarting access by smaller companies and frustrating diversity and competition. (A copy of the letter is available upon request.) After its passage today, ACLU Legislative Counsel Donald Haines said, "Congress has abandoned its commitment to free speech, privacy and a marketplace free from communications monopolies. By rushing headlong to pass this bill, Congress is leaving us no choice but to turn to the courts." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 22:33:19 -0600 From: jthomas@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas) Subject: File 2--EFF Response to Telecommunications Bill ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following is the EFF's response to the Telecomm Bill)) YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY EFF Statement on 1996 Telecommunications Regulation Bill Feb. 1, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Lori Fena, Exec. Dir. 415/436-9333 * lori@eff.org Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel 510/548-3290 * mnemonic@eff.org Shari Steele, Staff Counsel 301/375-8856 * ssteele@eff.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), decries the forfeiture of free speech prescribed by the sweeping censorship provisions of the telecommunications "reform" legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate Feb. 1, 1996, almost immediately after being reported out of committee, before the public was able to read, much less comment upon this bill. Congress demonstrates once more their willingness to abandon their most sacred responsibilities - the protection of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights - in order to expedite legislation that sacrifices individual, family and community rights in its rush to win the support of telecom industry giants as well as the religious right, during an election year. The consolation offered by our elected officials to those concerned about abridging free speech, is that there is a high probability that the censorship provisions in this bill would not stand up to court challenges based on constitutional grounds. Consider this a wake-up call. Our elected officials have spoken, and with the passage of the most sweeping US telecommunications legislation in over 60 years, our Constitutional rights in the new medium of computer networking have been usurped. As the 21st century draws near, our elected representatives have chosen to take us back to the close of the 19th. EFF is dismayed by the process and substance of this legislation, as well as by the immediate and far-reaching negative impact it will have on individuals, society and commerce. Impact ------ This latest version of the "Communication Decency Act", originally proposed by Sen. James Exon (D-NB), contains a deadly combination of a vague and overly broad definition of what speech is unacceptable online, criminal prosecution, and large monetary fines, which will set off a tidal wave of censorship to avoid real and perceived liability. Although the bill provides for some protection for service providers, this shelter only exists if the provider takes an active roll in censoring public and private messages. We have already felt the industry foreshocks when AOL and CompuServe responded to recent government censorship requests. The censorship wave will begin with the largest online services, and flow rapidly through the whole U.S. community of service and content providers. The result will be a crippling of free society and commerce in the U.S., and damage to the global Internet. Individual participants in this medium stand to lose the freedom that has characterized the Internet since its beginning. Providers of online content, such as authors of World Wide Web documents, or hosts of AOL forums, will find themselves forced to "dumb down" all information and entertainment that they provide into little more than a cleansed, thin collection of "G-rated" material suitable for children. If the Internet is one vast, global library of information, this legislation will have reduced the public spaces of the Net to the "children's room" of that library. System operators and access providers will divert resources to censorship mechanisms and programs to avoid exposure to felony-level criminal liability for the actions and posts of users over whom they can exercise no control. New multi-billion dollar industries currently based in the U.S., such as Internet service, online publishing, and digital commerce, face economic uncertainty just as they begin to hit their stride, as investors, stockholders, and customers evaluate the negative impact of censorship on the value of their product and their company. The telecom bill unwisely encourages states to follow suit, defining and legislating online censorship and liability their own ways. These aftershocks, already working their way through state legislatures all over the country, will subject individuals and companies to legal mayhem as they run into contradictory local regulations enforced from afar against providers and users in other jurisdictions. The long-term effects could reach other media as well. As traditional content providers such as publishers, newspapers, television shows and talk radio, increasingly merge with online communications, it will become prohibitively expensive to produce two versions of the content, one for the Net, and one for everywhere else - a single, censored, version for all formats would be produced, chilling expression in print and other currently freer media. Process ------- A quick review of the political process which produced this bill demonstrates how bad legislation occurs when the content of a bill is kept from public scrutiny, allowing only staffers and lobbyists to participate. * There have been no public hearings on this legislation. Neither the CDA, nor the larger Telecom Bill have been presented openly to the public. As a result, Congress has neither heard expert testimony about the medium and industry, nor allowed constituents to review and comment on what their "representatives" are doing. * No conference committee report or final bill text was made available for review, except to committee staffers and innermost lobbyists until after passage. Despite repeated promises from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Congress has failed to provide online public access to committee reports and "live" bills. * Congresspersons voted for passage of this regulation without even having time to read, much less consider the impact of, the bill - less than one day after it is voted out of conference. * The sponsors of the bill and its fundamentalist supporters have, with no public participation or oversight, thrown away more rational proposals, including the Cox/Wyden bill, which would have actually helped parents and teachers control the online access of their children and students. EFF, along with Taxpayer Assets Project and several other public interest organizations, have repeatedly asked that current Congressional information be immediately provided to the public, not just to lobbyists, and that that the Telecom Bill be put on hold, pending full public participation in this debate. Voters may wish to express to Congress how they feel about being denied the right to read or have a say in legislation that threatens their freedom of expression. Substance --------- A brief summary of the problems inherent in the Telecom Bill's censorship provisions illuminates the magnitude of the issues. The CDA would: * subject all online content to the interpretation of ill-defined "indecency" law; * irrationally equate Internet communications with radio and TV broadcasting, and unconstitutionally impose on computer networks indecency restrictions that are more severe than those applied to any other medium; * actively hinder the on-going development and refinement of real solutions to problems such as online harassment and parents' needs to supervise their own children's online access; * in all probability will establish broad FCC regulation of the Internet, with all of the attendant problems that will entail; * create a new "access crime", equating the posting of material on a web site, or even the provision of basic Internet access, with willful transmission of indecent material directly to minors - harming the online service industry, and retarding the development of the electronic press; * afford no effective legal protection for system operators, creating a speech-chilling liability no more sensible than holding librarians and postmasters responsible for the content on bookshelves and in parcels. * weaken the privacy of all Internet users by turning system operators into snoops and censors. * would criminalize even classic works of literature and art, or medical and educational materials on breast cancer or sexually transmitted disease. Obscenity law, not the indencency law used in the Telecom Bill, considers literary, artistic or scientific value. Indecency law makes no such exceptions. Many reasonable adults might be surprised to find that the Telecom Bill's indecency restrictions could ban: * the online distribution of the King James Bible, which quite prominently features the word "piss" (in II Kings) - a word already specifically defined by the Supreme Court to be indecent; * the text (or video, for that matter) of a PG movie that any child may attend without parental supervision, not to mention the R-rated content available on any of a number of cable TV stations; * a _Schindler's_List_ WWW site, which could earn an Internet service provider prison time; * anything featuring nudity, in any context, including breast cancer information or photos of Michelangelo's Cistine Chapel paintings, which could result in the poster have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, if the material happened to seem "patently offensive" to an excitable prosecutor. This is the grim reality of censorship through indecency regulation: It makes no allowances for artistic merit, social value, or medical necessity. It is without reason, and without conscience. Court Challenge --------------- Fortunately, there is a very good chance that the courts will refuse outright to uphold the Communications Decency provisions of the Telecom Bill. EFF, along with other civil-liberties groups, will be mounting a legal challenge to the bill's censorship provisions, on First Amendment and other Constitutional grounds. Among the bases for challenging the act: * Unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. It is inappropriate for the Federal Communications Commission or any other federal agency to dictate standards for content in a medium where there is no independent Constitutional justification for federal regulation, as there has been in the broadcast arena and in certain narrow areas of basic telephone service. Like newspapers and bookstores, the Internet is fully protected by the First Amendment. * Vagueness and overbreadth. The terms the act relies on -- "indecency" and "patently offensive" -- have never been positively defined by the courts or the Congress, and so create uncertainty as to the scope of the restriction, necessarily resulting in a "chilling effect" on protected speech. Moreover, these terms criminalize broad classes of speech that are understood to be protected by the First Amendment, including material that has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. * Failure to use the "least restrictive means" to regulate speech. The First Amendment requires that speech regulation laws must pass the "least restrictive means" test. That is, if government censorship is not the least restrictive possible means of ensuring the goal (protecting an unwitting or under-age audience from unsolicited indecency), then the restriction is unconstitutional. In the case of the Internet, government control is demonstrably not the least restrictive means, as filtration, ratings, and labeling technology and services are already available and operational - from software tools to help parents shield their children from inappropriate material, to special filtered Usenet service for entire schools, in which all information has been checked for indecent content. An indecency restriction must pass all of these tests to be constitutional. The Communications Decency Amendment fails every one of them. EFF, together with a wide range of civil-liberties groups and organizations that would be affected by the legislation, has already joined preparations for a massive legal challenge to the CDA should it pass - an effort that should enjoin enforcement of this legislation, and, we hope, prevent the darker scenarios outlined above. The entire process will be very costly in time, human resources and money, but is necessary to protect what remains of our rights to free speech, press, and association. Launching of the Blue Ribbon Campaign ------------------------------------- A blue ribbon is chosen as the symbol for the preservation of basic civil rights in the electronic world. EFF asks that a blue ribbon be worn or displayed to show support for the essential human right of free speech. This fundamental building block of free society, affirmed by the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791, and by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has been sacrificed in the 1996 Telecom Bill. The blue ribbon will be a way to raise awareness of these issues, and for the quiet voice of reason to be heard. The voice of reason knows that free speech doesn't equate to abuse of women and children, or the breeding of hatred or intolerance. ************** For more information on the Blue Ribbon Campaign, including blue ribbon graphics we encourage Net users to prominently display on their WWW pages with links to the URL below, please see: http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html gopher.eff.org, 1/Activism/BlueRibbon ftp.eff.org, /pub/Activism/BlueRibbon/ For more information on the Communications Decency legislation and other Internet censorship bills, see: http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ gopher.eff.org, 1/Alerts ftp.eff.org, /pub/Alerts/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 15:16:51 -0800 (PST) From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 3--Telecomm Bill may criminalize some Abortion Discussion Here's what I've found out about the limitations on the dissemination of abortion materials contained within the telecom reform bill: (The amended text of the Telecom Bill follows below, along with U.S.C. 18, Section 1462.) Basically we're talking about a provision that extends a section of the US Code (The Comstock Act) prohibiting certain kinds of "obscene" speech to include "interactive computer services." Schroeder's office (202-225-4431) faxed me their position... they say that the changes "will criminalize a wide array of public health information relating to abortion, including discussion of RU-486 on the Internet." Perhaps, but... Sam Stratman from Rep. Hyde's office (202-225-4561) insists subsection (c) of Section 1462 has already been invalidated by the courts (although it remains on the books), so the extension of 1462 to include "interactive computer services" would have no bearing on abortion-related materials. According to the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy (212-514-5534), the last time ANY court has ruled on subsection (c) was in 1919... long before Roe v. Wade. They say the statute remains on the books, although it has long gone unenforced. Steven Lieberman from the NY State Bar clarified things even further. Lieberman says that the prohibitions in subsection (c) against the dissemination of information about abortion were invalidated by the Supreme Court in Bigelow v. Virginia in 1975. (This was a case concerning the availablity of out-of-state abortion materials in the state of Virginia.) As for the prohibitions against any "drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion"... these were invalidated by Roe v. Wade. So, as Lieberman summarized the situation, "A prosecution under subsection (c) of Section 1462 would be doomed from the outset." Nevertheless, from a strictly formal standpoint, it appears that the prohibitions on abortion information are indeed in place... even if they are toothless. --Todd Lappin--> WIRED Magazine ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 507 of the Telecom Bill Ammends Section 1462 of title 18 of the U.S. Code (Chapter 71), in ways which may make sending the following over the Internet illegal: o any text, graphic, or sound that is lewd, lascivious, or filthy o any information telling about how to obtain or make abortions and drugs, or obtaining or making anything that is for indecent or immoral use Here is Section 1462 as Ammended: (Telecom bill chnages in "<" and ">"): Section 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier , for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce - (a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or (b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or Whoever knowingly takes , from such express company or other common carrier any matter or thing the carriage of which is herein made unlawful - Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter. ----------- Here is the text which addes the interactive computer service part in the Telecom Bill: 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(e)(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(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)'' after ``common carrier''; and (C) by inserting ``or importation'' after ``carriage''. ----------- Media Notes: USAToday 02/01/96 - 07:37 PM ET http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncs16.htm Telecommunications deregulation breaks down electronic walls "At one point, the debate veered off on abortion. Seeing a ''high-tech gag rule,'' Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., joined by Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., and several other women lawmakers, asserted the anti-pornography provisions would outlaw discussions about abortion over the Internet, the global computer network. Rep Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a leading abortion foe, assured members that nothing in the bill suggested any restrictions on discussions about abortion." Well, Henry Hyde was right - nothing in the bill suggests restrictions on abortion discussion - the restrictions are in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which now includes computer networks. ----------- Thanks to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/) and the Alliance for Competitive Communications (http://www.bell.com/) for source text. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:18:26 -0800 (PST) From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 4--Abortion Research FOLLOW-UP A follow-up to my earlier post: I just got off the phone with Simon Heller, Staff Attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy (212-514-5534). Heller provided some further detail about subsection (c) of the Comstock Act, U.S.C. 18, Section 1462. Heller went to great lengths to point out that subsection (c) has NEVER been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. court. In addition, he said that because both the House and the Senate amended the bill as part of the telecommunications reform bill, from a legal standpoint this suggests to the court that the Comstock provisions have gained "renewed currency" - depite the fact that they date back to 1909. "Until a court specifically says a law is unconstitutional, it remains in effect," Heller said. "The constitionality of the limitations on speech about abortion contained within Section 1462 have never been adjudicted. For 25 years people have assumed that the law is unconstitutional. But that idea remains untested." One final note to make things even more confusing... This from an article by RORY J. O'CONNOR in today's San Jose Mercury News: Shortly after House members discovered the telco bill included language that would have made it a crime to even discuss abortion on the Internet, the Merc reports that, "the sponsor of the language, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and pro-choice Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., took the floor in a scripted exchange to clarify that Hyde didn't intend the language to impose such a ban." There's a special name for these kinds of "scripted exchanges," but it escapes me for the moment. Nevertheless, legally, such exchanges serve to provide the courts with some insight into legislators' intent at the time when legislation is adopted. In this case, the exhange was meant to indicate that the revisions to the Comstock Act are *NOT* intended to serve as a prohibition against discussion of abortion online. It goes without saying that significan uncertainty and ambiguity surrounds the last-minute changes to the Comstock Act that were inserted into the telco reform bill. It also seems safe to say that the possiblity exists for some individual or organization to be prosectuted under the revised law. Such a prosecution probably would not pass constitutional muster (in light of Bigelow v. Virginia and Roe v. Wade), but regardless; until the courts rendered a final decision, the measure -- or any attempt to prosecute under it's provisions -- would have the effect of (further) chilling free speech on the Net. Ugh. Next stop... President Clinton's desk. --Todd Lappin--> WIRED Magazine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:39:08 -0500 From: Tim King Subject: File 5--Comments on CDA Analysis Groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have been a great source of information regarding the Communications Decency Act (CDA), recently passed by congress. As a critic of this act, I'd like to make some comments regarding the CDT's analysis of the latest CDA, which can be found at . Related materials can be found at . The CDT's analysis is similar to others put forth by the EFF and ACLU. I would be very interested to hear from one of the EFF staff lawyers concerning the comments I make here. Please note that I am not a lawyer. Even if I were, the opinions expressed herein might be wrong. I am merely a concerned citizen who is intently interested in how the law applies to him and to his family. ---------------------------------------------------------- According to the CDT, the CDA "relies on the vague and blatantly unconstitutional 'indecency' standard" This has been repeat ad nauseum, and was at one time true. But it does not appear to be true anymore. The amended 47 U.S.C. 223(a), which uses the word "indecent," does not appear to apply to the Internet. It applies, rather, to telephones and "telecommunications devices." A telecommunications device "does not include the use of an interactive computer service." [223(h)(1)(B)] ISPs are interactive computer services: "The term 'interactive computer service' means an information service, system, or access software provider... including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet..." [230(f)(2), see sec 509 of the act] Since Internet communication can only occur through an ISP, I should think that the use of the Internet is not covered by this provision. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Meanwhile, "the indecency standard" is currently applied by the law to telephone communications in general. Currently 223(a)(1)(A), which the CDA amends, applies to anyone who "makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or INDECENT." [emphasis mine] To extend this law to include fax machines and direct modem-to-modem communication does not in itself seem unconstitutional. -------------------------------------------------------------- Allegedly, the CDA "contains weaker protections [than the Cox/Wyden bill] for content providers who label content and enable others to block it..." 230(c) contains the good-Samaritan provision, which seems to be, word-for-word, as it appears in the Cox/Wyden bill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA "would allow states to impose additional restrictions on non-commercial activities such as freenets, BBS's, and non-profit content providers." I fail to understand how 223(g)(2) gives any power to the states that they didn't otherwise have. It appears to say only that states can make laws regarding INTRAstate commerce, so long as these laws don't conflict with federal law. This is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it not? -------------------------------------------------------------- They say that the CDA "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)." In this case, our beloved commentators have evidently failed to actually read the bill. Section 223(d) applies to "whoever... knowingly uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or... to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any... communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs..." Now, there are problems with this, but "the indecency standard" is not one of them. A "patently offensive" standard may be one of them, but this is indeed something different. I do have concerns, however. Firstly, it's difficult to tell to exactly which works this paragraph applies. And I don't know precisely which works are excluded. Furthermore, I don't know whose "community standards" are to be used to make the judgement. (The publisher's? The ISP's? The reader's?) Is pornography alone restricted? Or does the provision also apply to adult-oriented literature and sexual discussions and advice? Moreover, I am unclear on exactly what I must do in order to abide by this law, if I should want to publish content that falls under it. There are two ways for a web publisher, for example, to protect himself. He can use an account-based service with credit-card authorization. Or he can take "in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances..., which may involve any appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications, including any method which is feasible under available technology." [223(e)(5)(A)] So, do I have to verify the age of each potential user and issue them an account on my web page? This would necessitate not only a potentially large administrative overhead but also that my service provider would have to provide me with the ability to implement this. As an individual, with limited hours and dollars, this would seem quite an imposition, to say the least. What if I merely issue a warning, requiring the user to take some affirmative step, such as following a link, to access the questionable content? This is what many people do currently, as a matter of courtesy. But is this "effective" enough to comply with the CDA? If not, isn't the provision, then, an infringement on free speech? I would simply choose not to publish rather than be criminally liable. And how does this apply to USEnet news? It's technologically impossible for a poster to a newsgroup to limit access to only certain individuals. Can he simply assume that there are no minors floating around alt.sex.wizards? Or will he have to post anonymously? In either case, the law will have done little for minors, as will have only stopped articles from those who wish to, rightfully so, take credit for their own work. And if a minor happens to read a post someone submitted to alt.sex.wizards, it would appear that the poster is legally responsible. The ISP isn't responsible, as per 223(e)(1). The minor himself isn't responsible, right? And does the originating ISP, under (d)(2) and (e)(2)-(3), have a responsibility to cancel the offending article? Frankly, I don't see how the courts could, in good conscience, support this provision without limiting its apparent scope substantially. But, then again, I can't imagine how this bill could possibly pass. That's what I've said from the start: It's just gonna die. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "CDT believes that this proposal threatens the very existence of the Internet as a means for free expression, education, and political discourse." Frankly, I think this warning is overblown. Of all the speech on the Internet, only a relatively small portion could possibly become criminal. That's not to say that the legislation is okay. Rather, it is to say that freedom on the Internet will survive enough for us to discuss the invalidity of the CDA, for example. In my estimation, for the most part, this bill will have little effect, good or bad, on the Internet as applied to children. Enough people will post pornography anonymously and enough questionable material will be available from foreign sites to make the act's affect moot. I fear that ISPs, if sufficiently alarmed, may get spooked into taking censorial or intrusional action. But I pray that they resist the urge. It will only be bad for business. The objectionable provisions of this bill will hopefully be appropriately scrutinized by the courts. And I support the ACLU and other organizations in their effort to bring this act to court. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 17:20:11 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 6--Mike Godwin: Letter to President Clinton Feb. 2, 1996 A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT: VETO THE TELECOM BILL By Mike Godwin Staff Counsel Electronic Frontier Foundation Phone numbers: 510-548-2976 or 510-548-3290 Dear Mr. President, I know you've been awfully busy for the last four years. But if you'd had time, and the inclination to surf the Internet, you might have come across some of the things I've written about you there. You see, I've been one of your boosters and defenders on the Net ever since I watched your campaign from close up, back in 1992 when I lived in Nashua, New Hampshire. I even attended the rally in a high school gym where you spoke, powerfully, of your commitment to lead the United States into the next century. I shook your hand there. And when I got back home, I wrote to my friends on the Internet and on the WELL about how I thought you were the candidate who had the most to say about the future. I certainly hoped it was true, because even then I spent a large part of every day worrying about one special part of the future --the Internet. On the Net, you see, the First Amendment's promise of freedom of the press is not limited to Time Warner or Gannett or the New York Times. Suddenly, every American citizen is potentially a publisher who can reach a large audience and take full part in the public and private colloquies of American life. Which is why I work for an organization dedicated to ensuring that the First Amendment protections apply as strongly to digital discourse as they do to words printed in ink on the pulp of dead trees. The Internet levels the First Amendment playing field -- it makes Justice Holmes's "marketplace of ideas" something more than a metaphor. I'm excited about the Internet, because it could mean a Golden Age of American democracy. But not everyone is as excited as I am. Lobbyists for some religious-right groups have managed to persuade the Congress, and a significant segment of the American public, that the Internet is rife with pornography, not to mention other "dangers." They see in the Internet a future in which it will be a lot harder to impose a fundamentalist cultural agenda because when everyone is a publisher you need a lot more thought police. So they want to nip freedom of speech on the Net in the bud. And their tactic has been to add language to the Telecommunications Reform Act, now passed by both houses of Congress, that would restrict "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech on the Net. They like to say this is about pornography, Mr. President, but it's not. As you know, it's already illegal under state and federal law to distribute obscene materials either on the Net or off. And there are already laws protecting children from exposure to obscene materials or other materials deemed "harmful to minors." Their real agenda is not to protect children -- it's to silence adults. Their goal is to take the great library of the Internet and restrict us all to the children's room of that library. They've forgotten that the First Amendment was crafted precisely to protect disturbing, controversial, "offensive" speech -- after all, no one ever tries to ban any other kind. And tactically they have been very effective -- they got their restriction on "indecency" (a term the Supreme Court has never defined, despite what they say about FCC v. Pacifica) added to the very telecommunications bill that you and Vice President Gore were so eager to pass. The bill passed the House and the Senate by huge majorities on Thursday. Which is why I think you must veto it, Mr. President, on the grounds that its "indecency" restrictions violate the First Amendment. You were a professor of Constitutional Law once -- you know that "indecency" can't be constitutionally banned from any medium, and that there's no constitutional authority for Congress to have this degree of control over the content on the Internet. If you take this stand on principle, you won't have killed the telecommunications bill -- it's clear that Congress truly wants to pass it, and they'll surely pass some version of it shortly. And you won't win the support of the anti-"indecency" crowd -- they hate you and they're already working toward your defeat in November. But here's what you will do. First, you'll give Congress a chance to reconsider whether it truly wants to cripple freedom of speech on the Internet with ill-crafted, ill-considered, ill-justified restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. Second, and more important to me personally, you'll have proved that I was right to talk you up on the Internet in 1992. And you'll have proved to millions of Internet users that you're worth voting for again. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 15:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 7--New grassroots campaign - please adopt EFF's launched a Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Free Expression. See http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html The goal is to have an identifiable symbol of resistance, and to raise awareness among the general populace. Wear a blue ribbon, and put blue ribbon graphics on your homepages and such, please. I hope you'll all participate. It's also been proposed to turn (Netscape) WWW pages to a black background. No reason not to do both I guess. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 8--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 #8.11 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank