Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 3, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 19 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 3, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 19 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas ( News Editor: Gordon Meyer ( Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: CONTENTS, #8.19 (Sun, Mar 3, 1996) File 1--CDA UPDATE - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 3/1/96 File 2--FCC web page on telecom act implementation File 3--Clinton and the "V" Chip (fwd) File 4--Teller Responds to CDA - (ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update) File 5--Some thoughts on the Telecom Bill File 6--Re: Cu Digest, #8.17 File 7--More info on CIEC lawsuit File 8--Call for Papers File 9--Cyberlaw: Call for Chapter Submissions. File 10--Pentagon says U.S. military should monitor Net (more...) File 11--Local Coverage of CDA in Florida File 12--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 13:31:17 -0500 From: beeson@PIPELINE.COM(Ann Beeson) Subject: File 1--CDA UPDATE - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 3/1/96 The ACLU's battle for a quick overturn by the courts of the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act is in full force. Thanks to all who continue to inspire and support us during this critical case for free speech in cyberspace! Significant developments and dates in the _ACLU v. Reno_ case are summarized below: 2/8 Clinton signs Telecommunications Bill; ACLU immediately files suit in federal court in Philadelphia on behalf of twenty plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the "indecency" and "patently offensive" provisions of the CDA. Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation are co-counsel and plaintiffs in the case. The other plaintiffs include a broad coalition of individuals, organizations, and membership associations who represent hundreds of thousands of online users. They include the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Journalism Education Association, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, National Writers Union, ClariNet Communications, Institute for Global Communication, Stop Prisoner Rape, AIDS Education Global Information Service, BiblioBytes, Queer Resources Directory, Critical Path AIDS Project, Wildcat Press, Declan McCullagh dba Justice on Campus, Brock Meeks dba CyberWire Dispatch, John Troyer dba The Safer Sex Web Page, Jonathan Wallace dba The Ethical Spectacle, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 2/15 Judge Buckwalter, a federal judge in Philadelphia, issues a Temporary Restraining Order against enforcement of the "indecency" provisions of the CDA. He denies a TRO against the "patently offensive" and the abortion speech provisions of the CDA. 2/25 ACLU and Department of Justice (DOJ) file a written stipulation with the Court in which DOJ agrees not to prosecute under either the "patently offensive" or the "indecency" provisions until the Court hears and determines the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction. The agreement protects _all_ online users (not just the plaintiffs in the case). 2/25 A second lawsuit is filed in Philadelphia to challenge the CDA. The lawsuit (_American Library Assoc. v. DOJ_) includes an impressive list of plaintiffs, including the American Library Association, American Booksellers Association, America Online, Microsoft, Apple Computer, and Prodigy. Lead counsel in the case is Bruce Ennis, of Jenner and Block in Washington, DC, and formerly Legal Director of the ACLU. 2/27 _ALA v. DOJ_ is formally consolidated with _ACLU v. Reno_. 3/21-3/22 An evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motions will be held before a three-judge court in Philadelphia consisting of Judge Dolores Sloviter (Chief Judge, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals), Judge Stewart Dalzell (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA), and Judge Ronald Buckwalter (Federal District Court, Eastern District of PA). The Court has reserved the following days, if necessary, for conclusion of the hearing: 4/1, 4/11, and 4/12. **The Court's decision on the preliminary injunction motion can be directly appealed by either side to the Supreme Court.** For complete details on _ACLU v. Reno_, including legal documents, press releases, and information and links for all the plaintiffs, visit the ACLU web page at ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:16:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: File 2--FCC web page on telecom act implementation This web page has the draft FCC implementation schedule for the CDA, but it's difficult to understand it from the layout. If I can find my hardcopy, I may type it in. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From--Kevin Werbach Subject-- FCC Telecom Act page The FCC has created a Web page to provide information on implementation of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. The page includes general information, links to FCC releases implementing provisions of the Act, and links to other sites with additional materials and analysis. We encourage people to submit ideas for additional resources to add to the page. The FCC Telecom Act page is located at: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:54:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 3--Clinton and the "V" Chip (fwd) ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The original "from" line for this post was deleted. The President's comment was a top news story on CNN Thursday, and the poster below has it right: Clinton reports that the V-chip restores control of viewing content to the parents)). I only heard part of this on the radio while driving in this morning (NPR news). They were talking to a Clinton White House official (no name given) about the "V" chip. He called it a "silent monitor", able to keep kids from watching bad things on TV when the parents weren't around. He acknowledged that "today's computer - literate kids" would probably be able to re-program the chip and watch whatever they wanted to, but "parental rules will control that". Eh? I thought we "needed" this stupid thing for parents who can't figure out how to control their kids in front of computers and TVs, yet these same parents (who are also too stupid to know how to use a computer, but will be able to program the TV...) are supposed to be able to make rules that will keep the same kids from bypassing the block. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 13:31:17 -0500 From: beeson@PIPELINE.COM(Ann Beeson) Subject: File 4--Teller Responds to CDA - (ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update) * Magician "Teller" Reaches Janet Reno on the Phone, Tells Her Not to Enforce the CDA! In the 2/9/96 issue of the Cyber-Liberties Update, the ACLU urged netizens to call or fax Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, and tell her not to prosecute under the newly passed CDA. The alert was also posted on the ACLU web page, which provided a form for instant fax -- activists used the form to fax thousands of letters to Reno, and countless others placed calls to Reno. At least one online activist received an extra special award for participating in democracy -- JANET RENO ANSWERED THE PHONE WHEN HE CALLED! The netizen was none other than Teller, of the famous Penn and Teller magic act. On Valentine's Day, spurred by the ACLU action alert, Teller picked up the phone to call Reno's office. After giving an earnest plea against online censorship to an unidentified person on the other end of the line at the Department of Justice, he asked to whom he was speaking. "Janet Reno," came the reply. Surprised and somewhat speechless, Teller said he was sorry, that he didn't know the number was some sort of "inside line." "No need to apologize," said Janet kindly. Teller sent a follow-up letter to Reno, which is reprinted below. Like all the other wonderful letters against the CDA sent by citizens to government officials over the past year, it is a moving testament for free speech. We only hope that if enough folks actually "get through" to Janet, she'll begin to understand why she should never use this draconian law against the online world. ------------ TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO FROM: TELLER Dear Attorney General Reno, I spoke with you this afternoon briefly and not very articulately. It was quite startling to find you in and I'm not great at thinking on my feet. Please, please, I urge you not to stand behind the "decency" provisions of the telecom act. They limit our freedom of speech. That freedom protects us from tyranny. That freedom is a lot more important than keeping kids from visiting Adults Only web sites. Internet providers are now starting to offer services that suit families who wish to limit the kids' browsing. Sure, some kids will still sneak into areas they shouldn't. But I'd much rather have your expertise and energy directed against the guys who rape, kill, and steal; not waste it on mischievous kids reading and writing and looking at pictures. Jefferson would not be pleased to hear you ask our nation to limit our communications to topics suitable for children. He would understand that the Internet is a huge library created by adults for their use. Children have found their way in. If we prefer kids not to see grownup books, let us engineer ways to keep them out. But let us not burn down the library or make it a criminal act to stock anything stronger than Dr. Seuss. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1759. Even if censoring the Internet would actually reduce crime (and you are experienced enough to know in your heart it wouldn't), to do so would betray the men and women who have died for our freedom. Please think about it. You are important. Don't let us down. Respectfully, TELLER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 12:28:33 -0600 (CST) From: Charles Stanford Subject: File 5--Some thoughts on the Telecom Bill When I saw the Telecom Bill going through what we so scardonically refer to as the "legislative process," I thought, "God no, here we go again. Spring training is starting, I've got things to do." Things were going so well, St. Louis took the Rams from Los Angeles and, even more important, Gretzky. Pat Buchanan was showing the country what real Republicans were made of and Lyndon Larouche was out campaigning as a Democrat. The Contract on Amerrcia seems a dead issue. Things are fun. So, do I really want to write this? Do you even want to read it? I haven't written anything for CuD for six years and now it's gotten respectable. Yesterday someone called me respectable and I was too bored to kick the crap out of him. Getting old, I guess. In addition, I just don't seem to have the same insatiable sexual curiosity as does the religious right. Anyway, the recent flap over the lack of decency and obvious obscenity on the network comes as no surprise to those who have been following this for awhile. Ever since Windows came out and made it possible even for technological morons to get on the internet -- previously social morons were in abundance but they at least knew what a stop bit was -- even local television stations in small towns have been doing their own reports on the subject. Of course, they can't really talk about the internet as the topic is arcane to them, sort of like the reporters at Three Mile Island asking about meltdown rather than half-lives because their knowledge of Nuclear Physics was limited to a Jack Lemon movie, but they can talk about parts of it. Some Sam Donaldson wannabe journalism student trying to do a report for class, desperate to find something to talk about that will get on the air, finally finds the topic. Well, the internet is big, yeah, but he needs a "hook." Sex, what better? Everyone thinks they understand sex, better yet, everyone wants to talk and hear about it and feel clean and moral at the same time. SEX ON THE INTERNET -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR KID IS DOING? I envision thousands of housewives and elks club members, finishing off a six-pack watching the news: Mom says "I hope junior isn't doing that. He has a modem, doesn't he? How come we don't get any phone calls during the evening anymore?" *BURP* But the issue really isn't about sex, despite the publicity over greasy middle aged queers on the prowl for thirteen year old boys, luring them into a life of sodomy over the net. Nope, it never really was. The only reason that sex is an issue, especially non-missionary position sex, is that it is something a politician can be against without problems. "I am trying to protect the moral fiber of our great country," they spout and Newt leads the amens. Pass a bill. Stop all this midnight ejaculation. This is only the latest phase of it, however. The issue of freedom of information and the computer goes all the way back to the Truman era, even before. Initially, there were great hopes for the computer -- everyone was for them. Feynmann, the guy who exposed the "O" rings on the shuttle disaster, that classic example of corporate greed mixed with political paranoia, was in charge of the computer used to help build the A-Bomb. At the time, most people liked the A-Bomb, too. After all, it was only used on Japs. Just like this bill is only going to be used on pedophiles, right? Soon, there was the fear that computers would be used to control our lives. Nonsense, assured the government and the corporations that had high hopes for exactly this outcome. Any protest about anything was met with the reply "the computer doesn't make mistakes." Things are only paranoid if they are not true, right? Then came an unexpected development. Jobs and Wozniak built the Apple in their garage, a computer we could buy. Someone, I wish I could remember his name, put into the common domain a CP/M terminal emulator and people could access those giant mainframes at the blinding speed of 300 baud. Hacking was born. People were fighting back, or so it appeared to those with the investment in maintaining control over the information. They had nightmares about evil fiends hacking away into the night. Out of cold-war paranoia, the internet was developed. It was designed to survive an all-out nuclear attack which was surely planned by the Soviet union, or China, or Cuba, or some evil communist sinners. And it was designed too well. No central control over it. But readers of this who know more about the amorphous nature of the net than I, probably, I hope, are shaking their heads and smiling as Germany trys the same thing our bill seem modeled on. But how to police the thing now? Especially now when all sorts of information is getting through over groups like alt.activism? It wasn't so bad before when people had to be reasonably literate to access it, but now anyone can. People who used to get their news from television now get it over the internet. Gotta be a way to stop this. The image of the thirteen year old hacker is replaced by the thirteen year old wanker. I get ahead of the story. CuD started with the 911 story, more or less. Someone downloaded a file and Craig distributed it. The media frenzy was overwhelming. HACKERS STORM 911!!! Images of little old ladies in wheelchairs tumbling down stairs and dying in a pool of blood with no rescue because the 911 files were stolen! Prosecute!! When it turned out that the same file was on sale at bookstores for less than the cost of an oil change, the case fell apart, but not before the government cost the guy over $100,000 in legal fees. RICO came along to crush the big drug dealers and was used, it seems, mainly to confiscate computer equipment. But who is going to be FOR big drug dealers? That's like being for pedophilia. So now, here we are. Another round of the same thing. The ACLU and others are fighting the "decency" aspect but the "obscenity" part seems to have been dropped. The bill, in the name of defending children, sheep, and cows from sleazy horney priapists, seeks to gain control over what is and is not sent over the internet. They assure us they only want to protect our children and sheep from buggery, but what they want to retain is the right to continue buggering the minds of the American populace by controling the information it gets. The "V chip" is in the bill too. There were two earlier government fiats concerning hardware. One was to require that all radio receivers be able to receive both AM and FM signals and another to require that television sets be able to receive both VHF and UHF frrequencies. That's right, and the industry howled about it with the same vehemance that automobile manufacturers evidenced when seatbelts were required in the cars. In this case, however, the fiats were intended to increase the amount in information that gets through. The "V chip" is designed to do the opposite. Clinton smiled and took credit for the morality of the thing, smiling, beaming, as he talked about the protection of our children. I want to believe that he hopes the net provisions are knocked out by someone who has less at stake, a federal judge, the Supreme Court with lifetime tenure, but am a bit amused at the idea of Clarance Thomas deciding on the issue. Would it be constitutional to prosecute someone who makes available "Long Dong Silver"? Mr. Justice Clarance Thomas, what do you think? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 16:35:33 -0700 (MST) From: Matthew Skala Subject: File 6--Re: Cu Digest, #8.17 People seem to be up in arms over that comment about "you shouldn't enforce your right to free speech on us." I don't agree. I think that was an extremely interesting, thought-provoking, and, at the root, *correct* comment. Democracy, free speech, and the other things that North Americans hold dear are local decisions. Maybe "we hold these truths to be self-evident", but that doesn't mean everyone does. If the legitimate government (where legitimate = biggest guns, that's the definition of legitimate government) somewhere else in the world doesn't support them, we may object, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the government there and as legitimate as government ever is. If we try to support "rights" in places where they don't currently exist, then that is trying to undermine the local government, and is ultimately an act of war. Now, maybe we *should* be at war with those governments that don't support free speech for their citizens - but we shouldn't delude ourselves by saying it's something nobler than war. The US in particular is very quick to support "pro-democracy movements" in places like China or Cuba, whether many people in those countries actually support such movements or not. Is it any of their business? I don't know the answer, but I think it's a very worthwhile question. Someone suggested that by blocking the access of Germans to sites operated by non-Germans, the German government was violating the rights of the *non-Germans* to have their views heard. I don't agree. My right to free speech as a Canadian is guarenteed by the Canadian constitution, which is part of the law here. That means the Canadian government is theoretically obliged to support my free speech with military force. The German government is under no such obligation. There's no reason they have to recognize my free speech unless the Canadian military forces them to - fat chance. Whether that's "fair" or not is completely irrelevent, because international relations work entirely on the principle of "might makes right". Set aside the flowery morality for a moment: in practical terms I don't have a right to free speech in Germany, so it's pointless to discuss whether that right might or might not be violated. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:50:50 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 7--More info on CIEC lawsuit The CDT press release in the latest issue (8.18) doesn't mention that individual users of the Internet can join as members of the lawsuit. Full details are at I am Internet user plaintiff number 1,239. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:17:24 -0500 (EST) From: lazooli@GROVE.UFL.EDU Subject: File 8--Call for Papers Journal of Technology Law & Policy University of Florida College of Law ****************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS ***************************** Spring 1996 The Journal of Technology Law & Policy is devoted to exploring the legal and policy issues raised by emerging technology. We invite contributions of original works for our Spring, 1996 issue. Student contributions are encouraged. To promote access to the Journal, the Journal will be published on the World Wide Web. Submissions to the Journal are encouraged to take full advantage of this medium. Relevant graphics, sound, and video may be utilized. There are no length limitations for submissions. Submissions must include a copy in electronic form. All citations should be in Bluebook and endnote form. Please include the URL of any cited information available online. Please direct all questions, and submissions to _____________________________ Fax number: (352)-377-7655 Mailing Address: Journal of Technology Law & Policy University of Florida College of Law P.O. 117640 Gainesville, FL 32611-7640 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 23:20:16 -0600 From: Stephen Smith Subject: File 9--Cyberlaw: Call for Chapter Submissions. A CALL FOR CHAPTER SUBMISSIONS: CYBERLAW: COMMUNICATION REGULATION AND CYBERSPACE Each new medium challenges the existing regulatory structure. Legislators, service providers, consumers, and courts are grappling with the liability and free expression implications of technological developments. Through the process of litigation and legislation the principles of "cyberlaw" are emerging. The technology of communication challenges developments in applicable laws governing rights of privacy, free expression, liability, in such areas as libel, hate speech, copyright and intellectual property and obscenity as well as sexual harassment, and jurisdictional issues. The proposed edited volume will address existing law and explore the issues which will require legislative and judicial attention in the near future as the law develops and focuses upon communicative rights and liabilities in the mediated realm of cyberspace. Susan Drucker and Gary Gumpert are the editors of this volume which will be published by Hampton Press. Manuscripts addressing topics from a broad range of perspectives and methodologies are appropriate and should conform to current APA guidelines and be of approximately 25 pages in length. Abstracts or inquiries should be submitted to: Susan Drucker, Hofstra University, School of Communication, Dempster Hall, Hempstead, New York, 11550, tel: (516) 463-5304 or fax: (516) 466-1782, SPHSJD@HOFSTRA. EDU. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:00:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: File 10--Pentagon says U.S. military should monitor Net (more...) [More on the "Internet threatens national security" uber-meme... -Declan] --- MILITARY IS URGED TO MONITOR INTERNET (Feb 28, 1996 00:15 a.m. EST) The U.S. military should consider monitoring the Internet to watch for signs of attacks by terrorists and disinformation campaigns by hostile governments, a Pentagon analyst says. Nations and terrorists may use global computer networks to wage psychological warfare, send secret messages or undermine foes by disabling their computers and military equipment, according to the unclassified internal report by Pentagon analyst Charles Swett. Swett's suggestion that the military monitor Internet traffic troubles some political activists, who fear the Pentagon might use the Internet to spy on Americans as well as foreigners. The activists haven't forgotten how Pentagon agents spied on anti-Vietnam War groups in the 1960s and '70s. A San Francisco-based political group is especially angry because Swett's report describes the group's political activities in detail. The contents of Swett's 35-page report -- "Strategic Assessment: The Internet" -- became known recently after a Washington-based group, the Federation of American Scientists, downloaded it to the World Wide Web. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 12--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: Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: 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 news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/ In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/ ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #8.19 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank