Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 25, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 17 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Ji
Computer underground Digest Sun Feb 25, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 17
Editor: Jim Thomas (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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, #8.17 (Sun, Feb 25, 1996)
File 1--UPDATE: ACLU Lawsuit Status
File 2--CDA ALERT: Stipulation Being Discussed
File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #8.16
File 4--re: Myths : sticks and stones, or words? (easy choice)
File 5--Re: Cu Digest, #8.16 - File 6
File 6--Re: "Myths <1?>" in CUD 08.15
File 7--RE: Myths in CUD...
File 8--Internet newspaper censorship in Zambia
File 9--Senator McCain's voting record on S.652.
File 10--$5000 SPIDER OR FLY? writing contest
File 11--AFA Wants to Extend CDA
File 12--UPDATE: ACLU Deal with DoJ
File 13--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 23 Feb, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:15:26 -0800 (PST)
From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject: File 1--UPDATE: ACLU Lawsuit Status
Here is an update on the current status of the ACLU lawsuit to overturn the
Communications Decency Act.
I've also received confirmation that another group of plaintiffs --
including several *major* players from the online services, software, and
publishing industries -- plans to file a separate anti-CDA suit within the
next few days. I'll fill you in on the details as soon as possible.
From: "Craig A. Johnson"
To: "Multiple recipients of list email@example.com"
Subject: File 2--CDA ALERT: Stipulation Being Discussed
On Tuesday, the ACLU met "in chambers" with the government and the
three-judge panel that will determine the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. No firm conclusions or plans were reached.
However, the ACLU is working to obtain a written stipulation from
the government that they will not initiate investigations or begin
prosecutions under Section 223(d) (the "patently offensive"
provision) while the three-judge panel considers and decides the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (The ACLU previously obtained a
Temporary Restraining Order as to Section 223(a) (the "indecency"
provision), so the government cannot begin prosecutions under that
If the ACLU can reach an agreeable stipulation with the government, the
court has tentatively scheduled the trial for the following dates: 3/21,
3/22, 4/1, 4/11, and 4/12.
All three judges will hear the testimony and evidence at the preliminary
injunction hearing. (The judges are Judge Sloviter, Chief Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Judge Dalzell, District Court
Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Judge Buckwalter,
District Court Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.)
Subject: File 3--Re: Cu Digest, #8.16
From: shadow@KRYPTON.RAIN.COM(Leonard Erickson)
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 04:53:06 PST
Klaus Brunnstein Writes:
> Concerning your role in the Zundel case, I just wish to ask you what
> justification you have to enforce your US-constitutional rights upon
> citizen from countries with different constitution and values?
It may just be that English isn't your native language, but it would
appear that you have a *major* misconeption here.
It is not *possible* to "enforce [our] ... rights upon citizen[s]".
Rights are either *inherent* or they are *granted*. Either way, there
is no "forcing" involved.
> Though some
> Germans may not care for Nazi propaganda flowing into Germany, broad
> agreement here (based on our historical experiences) is that we do NOT
> wish such inflow; did you observe how non-German media react when another
> house with people seeking asylum is burning, whether ignited by Nazi racists
> or as consequence of an incident (as recently)? Could you please instruct
> me how our society may cope with racist material if not by making import
> of such material a criminal offense (as in our Penal code)?
If you wish to do so, that is fine. The uproar is because rather than
applying the law to those people IN GERMANY who are violating it, you
instead cut off access of all Germans to not only the "illegal"
materials, but a lot of other things as well.
Consider what kind of outcry there would be if the German authorities
decided that because particular publisher pushlished a book that was
illegal in Germany, therefore NO ONE in Germany was to be allowed to
contact that publisher.
Now consider the case were it isn't a *publisher*, but merely a
*distributor*. That is, a company that accepts orders for books printed
by *many* publishers and mails the books the people ordering them. What
do you think would happen if contact with a *distributor* was banned
because one book by one publisher was illegal?
*This* is what the German government has done. Rather than try to find
a way to intercept requests for the illegal material, or intercept the
material on the way in, they've decided to block access to the site
that it happens to be on. Even though everything else there is legal.
> I agree with you
> that such flow may hardly be technically controlled, but law formulates (at
> least in this case) a general consensus and is their of educational help.
> Generally: would you understand that enforcing your US-constitutional rights
> upon non-US citizen may be understood as an act of agression, more clearly
> "network imperialism"? Dont you regard non-US citizen as "network Indians"
> whom you must baptize at your prize?
Again, nobody is *forcing* anybody to read Zundel's trash. What you
fail to realize is that *we* consider the blocking of an entire site
simply to because one "page" on it is objectionable is a case of *your*
government trying to tell *us* how to live.
As I noted above, you apparently have a *major* misconception regarding
what a "right" is and how rights work.
It is *not* the US being aggressive here. It is *Germany* trying to
force the rest of the world to live by German standards. If there's any
"network imperialism" going on, it's not the US doing it, it is the
Your government is in effect saying "if you use the same site as
someone we disagree with, then you don't have the right to let Germans
read your materials *regardless of whether or not we agree with them".
They are *forcing* people who want their material available to Germans
to *move* to another site! And what will happen if Zundel moves to that
site? Or someone else on it puts up something objectionable?
This censorship of *innocent* people is what the flap is about. And
that's why folks copied the "illegal" material to university sites (and
will likely continue putting on other popular/vital sites). To force
your government to realize that its current "solution" is not
acceptable to the rest of the world.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be that either the
German government finds a way to be more selective in their censorship,
or they will drop *all* outside connections. And that's what the
protestors are trying to get across. If Germany is going to connect to
the rest of the world, then it is going to have to enforce its laws
with a lot more precision than has been seen in the last few months.
> Btw: do not misunderstand me. I am in favour of as free information flows
> as possible, but within given constraints which derive from culture, history
> and other elements of national consensus.
And the protests are that the current methods used by Germany are *not*
"as free ... as possible". They are censoring material that is
perfectly *legal* simply because it is more *convenient* to do so.
Again, the protestors are *not* trying to get Germany to accept illegal
materials over the net. They are trying to force Germany to *only*
block materials that are illegal under German law. And if that requires
putting "illegal" materials on every non-German site, they may well do
Blocking entire sites because of one user is neither a viable nor an
acceptable solution. Whether or not Germany should allow importation of
"Nazi" material is *at best* a secondary issue. I get the impression
that in Germany the "Nazi" issue is being trumpeted, and the censorship
of the innocent downplayed or ignored.
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:15:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: File 4--re: Myths : sticks and stones, or words? (easy choice)
Let's not argue the U.S. constitution. I believe in free speech, whether or not
it is state approved.
Let's not argue history. I wasn't there. (but that will not stop anyone else)
Let's not discuss certain groups beliefs. (no matter how stupid)
Let's talk about speech and suppression.
Speech is a fine way to express feelings that otherwise may grow into
Speech is a fine way to gauge under currents in a society.
Speech is a fine way to hear problems.
Speech is (as the saying goes) as speech does.
Suppression is a fine way to drive people underground.
Suppression is a fine way to to tell people how fearful they must be
(perhaps indicating that the Suppressors think these people are right)
Suppression is a fine way to sweep a problem under the rug.
(for a while)
Suppression is a fine way to make a "catch all" clause in the laws.
When the people make claims that have no validity, it is a sign that something
is missing in their lives. Stopping their ability to express themselves
sends a message that they are also not significant. Now more is missing
from lives. Human feelings do not react well to being ignored. Feelings
will rise up and demand expression. If one door is locked another will
be FORCEd open. By use of force, these people leave society in general.
Now, more is missing in their lives. How long before breath is missing?
Is it preferable to have someone hate you and tell you so;
to have that person say nothing,
hate leads to rage,
rage leads to violence.
"Stupid is as Stupid does."
Those who speak show themselves. When was the last time You hear Mother Goose
and confused it for Mathematics? The Internet is not for the timid, or
for children, to walk alone. What highway would You let Your child walk
without supervision? It can be a place of wonders,
"Your mileage may vary".
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 23:51 MET
From: Patrick Goltzsch
Subject: File 5--Re: Cu Digest, #8.16 - File 6
In re: Subject--File 6--Re "Myths (?1)" in CUD 08.15
> Concerning your role in the Zundel case, I just wish to ask
> you what justification you have to enforce your
> US-constitutional rights upon citizen from countries with
> different constitution and values?
These words seem inappropriate: no one has been forced to accept to
US-law in Germany. People still have the opportunity to read the
Zuendel pages if _they_ want to. It is a personal decision to
evade German law.
> Though some Germans may
> not care for Nazi propaganda flowing into Germany, broad
> agreement here (based on our historical experiences) is
> that we do NOT wish such inflow; did you observe how
> non-German media react when another house with people
> seeking asylum is burning, whether ignited by Nazi racists
> or as consequence of an incident (as recently)?
Even if there was such a broad consensus (don't count on me) it
does not justify censorship. Apart from that the Zuendel pages
don't flow into Germany, they are actively imported.
> Could you
> please instruct me how our society may cope with racist
> material if not by making import of such material a
> criminal offense (as in our Penal code)?
Of course: information, argumentation, enlightenment. The trouble
with these paragraphs is that they tend to suppress a much needed
process called "Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung" (coming to terms with
the past). The law makes it comfortable to deal with these lies
by simply placing a taboo on the whole complex. There is no need
to argue with the nazis, you just have to call the police.
For the time being the Zuendel pages are not a criminal offence.
There is only the suspicion of the prosecutors in Mannheim that
the pages might be an offence to German law but no judge has
confirmed their view.
> I agree with you
> that such flow may hardly be technically controlled, but
> law formulates (at least in this case) a general consensus
> and is their of educational help.
Law as general consensus?
> Generally: would you understand that enforcing your
> US-constitutional rights upon non-US citizen may be
> understood as an act of agression, more clearly "network
> imperialism"? Dont you regard non-US citizen as "network
> Indians" whom you must baptize at your prize?
The CDA has passed the US-Congress last week. Am I a "network
imperialist" if I choose to use four letter words in a posting to
a newsgroup, say alt.culture.internet? And this time the words
will _flow_ into the US. Will I have to clean my web-page because
according to US-standards it might be indecent? I would rather
term the imposition of a national laws - whether CDA or German
penal code - on citizens of other countries in such a way.
> Btw: do not misunderstand me. I am in favour of as free
> information flows as possible, but within given constraints
> which derive from culture, history and other elements of
> national consensus.
Obviously culture and national consensus are phenomena which are
put into question with the possibility of an international
exchange of information. The point you make here would lead to a
halt of the flow of information. You couldn't even post a cooking
recipe for "Wiener Schnitzel" because you might offend people who
abhor pork. And worse: there are about 140 countries: how do you
know, when you break the law in one of these?
The only answer to the question can be to discuss the "national
consensus". If this process leads to a result a government can
try to make it a global consensus. If this fails, then the
country has to either accept it or act like the Chinese.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 17:31 EDT
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH"
Subject: File 6--Re: "Myths <1?>" in CUD 08.15
While I do not know for certain the motivations behind the various
anti-censorship efforts, I will inform you what I believe the general
motive to have been. Since Mr. Brunnstein and others do not appear to
understand the motivations behind anti-censorship efforts, I will
explain. We do not believe in the rights of freedom of speech and
freedom of the press because they are in the US Constitution's Bill of
Rights. We believe in them because we regard them as good. We are
ethically obliged to do what we can to oppose what is evil. Limits
on rights, whether such are in the United States or outside it, are
evil. Whether there is a "national consensus" on such does not
matter; a majority wishing something that is evil does not make it
good. This truth holds no matter where one is, whether in the United
States, in Germany, or in any other country.
That the US Constitution contains these rights is fortunate, and is a
past success of those who believed like us. Due to this success and the
nature of the Internet, we can carry out actions against censorship in
other countries with relative ease and safety; Germany's anti-free-speech
and anti-free-press laws do not extend to the United States, and cannot
be enforced here.
However, we are also attempting to counter such abrogations of rights
(censorship) within the United States. Some examples of such include our
efforts to counter the CDA. Since we are inside the United States, our
means for such opposition are different; our ends are the same. In the
United States, we find it more efficient to challenge such laws in court;
we are also promoting (and committing) civil disobedience against such
laws. We encourage those outside the United States to make such laws more
difficult to enforce, although Mr. Brunnstein would seemingly call such
"net imperialism." He cites "constraints which derive from culture,
history and other elements of national consensus." We regard such as
having no more validity than the anti-pornography Religious Right
propaganda that helped pass the CDA.
The way to cope with racist material is to have free speech. The United
States and many other countries have had extreme racism in their past,
and have dealt with it without abrogation of basic human rights. Other
countries should learn from this example, just as the founders of the
United States learned from theirs.
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:30:45 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson
Subject: File 7--RE: Myths in CUD...
Klaus Brunnstein (February 16,1996) writes:
"Generally: would you understand that enforcing your US-constitutional
rights upon non-US citizen may be understood as an act of agression,
more clearly "network imperialism"? Dont you regard non-US citizen as
"network Indians" whom you must baptize at your prize?
Btw: do not misunderstand me. I am in favour of as free information
flows as possible, but within given constraints which derive from
culture, history and other elements of national consensus."
What frightening doublespeak...Mr. Brunnstein regards avoiding
censorship as 'imperialism'?
Mr. Brunnstein, the only people 'enforcing' anything is TDI-Online.
You are equating, as have many here in the US, availability with
forced viewing (witness the CDA and cyber-porn hysteria). No one is
being forced to read this trash.
"Could you please instruct me how our society may cope with racist
material if not by making import of such material a criminal offense
(as in our Penal code)?"
You can never cope with racism and bigotry by muzzling it; that
merely drives it underground and allows it to fester. The only true
way to combat unwanted speech in a truly free society is to drown it
out with good. Teach your children the truth, and trust them to make
judgements in the light of the values you raised them with. You cannot
erase the Nazis from history, and demonizing them is little better: if
all Nazis are such inhuman monsters, how is it that so many decidely
human people take up their views?
Never forget that the Nazis and their doctrines came to power in a
society 'which derive from culture, history and other elements of
national consensus', and look how repressive they were. Freedom of
speech can never only include freedom of popular speech; popular
speech is well protected by it's popularity. Only unpoular speech
needs the kinds of protections you regard as 'imperialism'.
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 21:07:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh
Subject: File 8--Internet newspaper censorship in Zambia
Attached is disturbing information about state censorship of the physical
and online editions of The Post newspaper in Zambia.
If anyone reading this emails me the complete text of the banned February
5 edition of the newspaper, I'll put it on my web site. Or, send me email
for an address of an anonymous FTP site where you can upload it. I promise
to keep your identity confidential.
(I'm already hosting a book banned by the French government:
Please redistribute this message as appropriate.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
>ACTION ALERT UP-DATE - ZAMBIA
>FEBRUARY 16, 1996
>INTERNET EDITION OF THE POST ALSO BANNED
>The Internet edition of The Post newspaper of February 5 - banned by
>President Frederick Chiluba in terms of Section 53 of the Penal Code - has
>been removed from the paper's World Wide Web (WWW) site.
>Mark Bennet of Zamnet Communications, the privately-owned Internet service
>provider which hosts The Post's WWW site, says Zamnet was left with little
>choice but to make the February 5 edition of The Post inaccessible on the
>Bennet says Zamnet kept the banned version of The Post on the WWW for two
>days after it was published, but was then warned by a "someone senior in
>the police" that the company was liable to be raided and charged with
>possession of a prohibited publication. The President's ban of edition 401
>of The Post covered "all forms" of the paper, says Bennet.
>Visit The Post's WWW site (http://www.zamnet.zm) and you will find the
>February 5 edition listed in the paper's archive of back editions, but
>click on the edition and the file will not open. However, following
>editions of the paper - containing stories about the banning, the police
>raid on The Post's offices, and subsequent arrest and charging of
>Editor-in-Chief Fred M'membe, Managing Editor Bright Mwape and Special
>Projects Editor Matsautso Phiri with contravening the State Security Act -
>can be read. The State Security Act charges relate to a report published in
>the February 5 edition of The Post revealing the government's plans to hold
>a referendum on the adoption of a new constitution.
>A recent addition to the Zamnet WWW site is "Zambia Today" - stories from
>the state-run news agency ZANA, which are up-dated every couple of hours.
>"State House was very keen that the world didn't see The Post newspaper
>alone," said Bennet. "We kept telling them that we were going to keep The
>Post, but that we were happy to put up a State House page, or a page for
>ZANA. We are trying to actively encourage them to be positive."
>Bennet stresses Zamnet was an independent company and would not succumb to
>self-censorship as a result of political pressure. Zamnet is housed at the
>University of Zambia, which has a 52 per cent share holding in the company.
>Although funded by the government, the University enjoys academic autonomy,
>says Bennet, "so there is no possibility of pressure (being exerted on
>Zamnet) through the University".
>M'membe, Mwape and Phiri are due to appear in the High Court today to hear
>whether or not their bail - granted last week Wednesday (February 7) after
>initially being turned down by a magistrate - can be reviewed. If the court
>decides their bail can be reviewed, the three stand a chance of returning
>to jail to await trail on the charges of contravening Section 4 of the
>State Security Act, which prohibits the publication of classified
>information. If convicted, the journalists could be jailed for up to 25
>However, speaking on Namibian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) news this
>morning (February 16), Mwape said he was not deterred by the prospect of a
>lengthy term in jail if convicted. "It is about time such a challenge was
>made," said Mwape. "The freedom we are talking about will only come if we
>are prepared to make sacrifices for it."
>Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
>Private Bag 13386
>Tel. +264 61 232975, Fax. 248016
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:53:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Spencer Hunter
Subject: File 9--Senator McCain's voting record on S.652.
In Volume 8 Issue 15 of the Cu Digest, Stanton McCandlish writes:
"The entire Congress passed this bill (some Members knowing it was
unconstititonal, and some on the other extreme not even knowing the CDA
existed), with the exception of the following legislators who voted
against the whole Telecom Bill:
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Paul Simon (D-IL),
Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and John McCain (R-AZ).
(Plus a handful that did not vote.) In all, only a singe Republican, out
of both Houses of Congress, voted to preserve American freedom of
If you will check Senator McCain's voting record at
you will see that his support of the "American freedom of expression" is
very much a matter of ambiguity. The local press here in Arizona reported
that both Senators McCain and Kyl voted to *pass* the controversial Exon
Amendment substitution in S.652.
Given Senator McCain's past positions on flag burning and Internet
"indecency," I'd be very suprized if he voted against the CDA for the sole
purpose of protecting our first amendment rights.
In general, the Party of Lincoln and champion of individual rights has
been at the forefront of getting government into our computers and our
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 21:15:15 EST
From: stevet@ORA.COM(Steve Talbott)
Subject: File 10--$5000 SPIDER OR FLY? writing contest
O'Reilly & Associates and the NETFUTURE newsletter announce a $5000
SPIDER OR FLY?
Are we masters of the Web or trapped in it?
Catching the dew and sunlight, and serving as an efficient means of
livelihood, a spider's web is one of the glories of creation.
Depending on your perspective, a spider's web is also a prison -- the
most delicate, flexible, and refined instrument imaginable for
As you and I settle into the World Wide Web, are we in the role of the
spider or the fly?
The SPIDER OR FLY? contest invites you to illuminate the deep nexus
between computerized networking technologies and the human being.
Where, amid all the dizzying technical advances, do we carry
responsibility for their social consequences? How can we exercise
that responsibility? Have we been embracing it or shirking it? In
other words: does the Web own us, or do we own it?
The contest does *not* aim at identifying what you like or don't like
about the Net and the World Wide Web -- not, at least, unless you can
relate these likes and dislikes to the most fundamental levels at which
our personal choices in front of the computer screen are shaping the
future for good or ill.
Scholars now debate whether certain technologies determine us more
than we determine them, and whether the determination in either case
is healthy or unhealthy. The SPIDER OR FLY? contest is not premised
upon any particular answer to such questions. While the questions
signal our passage into new spheres of responsibility in relation
to evolving technology, the terms of this responsibility haven't yet
become clear. The contest seeks to stimulate a highly personalized
exploration of the issues.
The best of the entries will be published by O'Reilly & Associates.
Steve Talbott (http://www.ora.com/staff/stevet/)
First prize: $2500. Four second prizes: $500 each. Five third
prizes: $100 each.
If any prize is not awarded due to lack of meritorious entries, the
associated prize money will be donated to the Wilderness Awareness School,
The contest's themes are those of the NETFUTURE newsletter. To subscribe
to this free newsletter, send the following email message:
subscribe netfuture yourfirstname yourlastname
NETFUTURE can also be found on the Web:
The themes of the contest can be summarized as follows:
* What, within you and me, drives the success and progress of the Net?
* How does technology determine us and how do we determine technology?
That is, where are we most free, where are we most unfree, and where is
the greatest promise of extending our freedom? As technology changes
the face of society, are we masters of the change, or are we being
taken for a ride by forces we can no longer control?
* Does it matter how we form all those little habits that shape our
interaction with computers -- from the way we scan the words of another
human being, to the way we hammer out our own words, to the way we bow
with our attention before the unfolding pattern of screen events, to the
way we submit our senses and bodies to be trained by electronic
* Does it matter when we support, through our purchases and use, new
technological capabilities that exist solely because the massive
machinery of research has made them possible -- that is, when we add
our own share to the impetus of a largely self-driven technological
evolution? What are the human implications of such an evolution?
* How are we being affected by computerized technology in our self-image,
our personal relationships, our attitudes toward community? Is the talk
about the Net as an intimate or democratizing or prejudice-free medium
* Is the computer affecting education as advertised, or is it redefining
what it means to learn and teach--and in ways we have not yet fully
Make your entry relevant to the themes, persuasive, original in thought,
and effective in expression.
Everyone is eligible for the contest except for employees of O'Reilly &
Associates, the judges, and their immediate families.
Length and form of entries
We prefer entries to be submitted by email. However, hard-copy entries
submitted by regular mail will be accepted. All entries must be written
Entries must be between 2000 and 5000 words. You may submit up to three
entries. Do not include your name or clear identifying information in
the main body of your entry. (Your failure to observe this restriction
will disqualify your entry.) Supply your name, mail address and email
address separately, at the head of your entry. This information will be
removed before the entry is submitted to the judges.
Dale Dougherty, President, Songline Studios
Leonard Muellner, Professor of Classics, Brandeis University, and
Supervisor of Production Tools, O'Reilly & Associates
Tim O'Reilly, President, O'Reilly & Associates
Frank Willison, Managing Editor, O'Reilly & Associates
Submission and deadline
Send email entries to firstname.lastname@example.org. They must be received by midnight,
Eastern Standard Time, April 30, 1996. Or, send hard-copy entries to:
SPIDER OR FLY?
O'Reilly & Associates
90 Sherman Street
Cambridge MA 02140
Hard-copy entries must be postmarked no later than April 30, 1996.
No entry will be considered official until a signed, hard copy of the
Permission Form (see below) is received at the above address.
Announcement of awards
Target date for announcing awards is May 31, 1996.
Permission Form (must be submitted as hard copy, signed)
Name of contestant:
Title of entry:
I hereby grant O'Reilly & Associates nonexclusive rights to print,
distribute, and sell copies of the above-named essay, and works derived
from the essay, in printed form and in electronic media such as CD-ROM,
and to license others to do so, for the duration of the copyright in the
essay, in all languages, throughout the world. I understand that my name
will appear as author of the essay.
(Your signature) (Date)
Sign, date, and mail this form to:
SPIDER OR FLY?
O'Reilly & Associates
90 Sherman Street
Cambridge MA 02140
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 09:24:29 -0600
From: Stephen Smith
Subject: File 11--AFA Wants to Extend CDA
Another view of the CDA. FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY LAW NOT WORKING, SAYS AFA
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- American Family Association issued the
following: "Less than one week after the Communications Decency Act was
signed into law by President Clinton, it is obvious that the law, designed
to curb computer pornography, is not working and never will work," said
Patrick Trueman, director of American Family Association governmental
affairs. This fact was made clear by the action this week of CompuServe,
a major access provider to the Internet, to restore access to pornographic
Internet sites it had recently blocked under pressure from German
Access providers to the Internet have a financial incentive to provide
access to pornography and they will not block such sites until they are
under a legal obligation to do so, Trueman said. The Communications
Decency Act included specific provisions protecting access providers from
criminal liability and until those provisions are repealed, CDA will be
nearly useless, he added.
Trueman wrote to leaders of pro-family groups today urging them to unite
behind a tough anti-pornography measure like that sponsored by Congressman
Henry Hyde. The Hyde measure, which would have made anyone liable who
knowingly and intentionally provides pornography to children or obscene
pornography to anyone, was defeated in committee by supporters of CDA.
"The reality is CDA does not work and it will never work. For its
enforcement it relies on a massive number of prosecutions by the Justice
Department of individuals who put illegal pornography on the Internet
while the major distributors and money makers from the distribution of
pornography -- the access providers -- are given a free ride," Trueman
said in his letter to pro-family leaders.
Trueman urged pro-family leaders to act now to change the law. "There is
no point in waiting months or years. CompuServe has made that clear in
its recent actions which demonstrate that the law has little, if any,
deterrent effect," Trueman said in his letter.
CONTACT: Patrick A. Trueman of the American Family Association: 202-544-0061
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:05:49 -0800
From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject: File 12--UPDATE: ACLU Deal with DoJ
Here's the latest news from the ACLU, outlining their new agreement with
the Department of Justice to hold off on Internet "indecency" prosecutions.
Spread the word!
ACLU v Reno: Update
Government Agrees Not to Investigate or Prosecute Internet "Indecency"
Until Three-Judge Court Rules on Case
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, February 23, 1996
Phil Gutis/(202) 675-2312
Emily Whitfield/(212) 944-9800, x426
* Government will refrain from pursuing Internet prosecution
* Abortion speech restrictions, already acknowledged unconstitutional,
* ACLU hearing dates set for March 21 and 22 in Philadelphia
1. In a deal brokered with the U.S. Department of Justice, the ACLU
announced that the government agreed not to initiate investigations or
prosecute under the "indecency" or "patently offensive" censorship
provisions of the Telecommunications Act while the three-judge panel
considers the case. ACLU attorney Chris Hansen, who is leading the
litigation, explained that the agreement represented a victory because
it expands protections for Internet users beyond the temporary
restraining order on the indecency provisions granted by Judge
Buckwalter last Thursday. Under this agreement, which protects all
Internet users, no one will be either investigated or prosecuted for
"patently offensive" speech. If the law is upheld, the government has
reserved the right to prosecute later for such speech dating from the
passage of the law.
2. Citing the government's earlier concession that the legislation's
restriction on abortion speech is unconstitutional, Catherine Weiss,
litigation director for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said
that the agreement did not need to address the abortion speech
restriction. The Clinton Justice Department has already said that it
will not prosecute for abortion-related speech on the Internet under
3. At a scheduling conference on Tuesday, the three-judge court set
five dates for the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion in
The ACLU's hearing dates are March 21 and 22, with April 1 reserved.
The government's dates are April 11 and 12, 1996. The total trial is
scheduled to last five days.
Complete information on the lawsuit is available via ACLU's
new "Freedom Network" World Wide Web page, <>,
and via the ACLU's Constitution Hall forum on America Online (keyword:
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 13--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: email@example.com
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:firstname.lastname@example.org
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (22.214.171.124) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (126.96.36.199) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (188.8.131.52) 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 #8.17
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank