Computer underground Digest Wed Mar 6, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 20 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 Wed Mar 6, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 20 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, #8.20 (Wed, Mar 6, 1996) File 1--Mike Godwin: "The Backlash Against Free Speech on the Net" File 2--The Need For a Netizens Association File 3--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA File 4--In Defense of Newt Gingrich File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 6 March, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:22:50 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--Mike Godwin: "The Backlash Against Free Speech on the Net" [Feel free to redistribute. -Declan] Speech by Mike Godwin, Online Counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation "Fear of Freedom: The Backlash Against Free Speech on the 'Net" This is the luncheon speech given by Mike Godwin at a technology conference, "New Media Technology: True Innovations or Electric Fork?," jointly sponsored by the Freedom Forum Pacific Coast Center and The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center. The conference was held in the Pacific Coast Center, Jack London Square, Oakland, California, Feb. 13, 1996. The luncheon was held next door at Scott's Seafood Restaurant. Mr. Godwin was introduced by Adam Clayton Powell III, director of technology studies and programs at the Media Studies Center. Mr. Powell concluded his introduction by mentioning Mr. Godwin's unusual e-mail address. MIKE GODWIN I'm often asked why I chose the username "mnemonic." I use it on almost every system on which I have an account. I chose it long ago because of a William Gibson short story, "Johnny Mnemonic," a science-fiction short story from 1981.I've used it for many years and I didn't anticipate when I picked it more than a decade ago that suddenly cyberspace would be making national headlines. William Gibson is the science fiction novelist who invented the term "cyberspace" more than a decade ago. He probably never anticipated quite the set of controversies that we're facing today. Most of them don't involve high tech computer hackers or huge multinational corporations with monster databases in cyberspace. Instead they involve something that's very fundamental and personal to Americans. They involve freedom of speech and privacy. To give you an idea about the backlash against freedom of speech on the Net, let me tell you a little about what happened when I set up my first home page on the Worldwide Web. When you get a home page, you're never quite sure what to put on it. I had some pictures of myself that I didn't like much. But I also have lots of baby pictures and I liked those a lot. And I thought everybody in the world ought to be able to see them. So I scanned them in and I put them up on my home page, and then I got e-mail from someone who said, "Aren't you afraid that by putting a picture of your child on the Internet you're going to invite child molesters to target your child as a potential victim?" This is how far we have come. The Internet which the press and public has seen as a threat, as a cornucopia of pornography, was once upon a time seen as a boon to the nation and to the world. But now there is a dismaying backlash against freedom of speech on the Net. I'd like to take you back to the dim dawn of time: 1993. Remember when there was so much hype about the information superhighway, that it made the cover of Time magazine? We were told that 500 channels of all sorts of content would somehow make its way into our home. Every library, school, hospital, and home would have a connection to the Internet. And everyone, literally everyone, could potentially be a publisher. Three measly years later the Internet is widely perceived as a threat. Why? Because everyone is a publisher! Because there are way more than 500 channels of this stuff! And because it will be connected to every library, school, hospital and home! Many of the people publishing on the Internet will not have been to journalism school! Many of them will say things that offend other people! Many of them will publish their own opinions without any notion of what is fair play, or nice, or middle-of-the-road politically correct. This is frightening people. It's even more frightening to see how these fears of the Net have played out in the media and in the United States Congress. The original hype about the Internet was justified. There is something very different from other kinds of communications media about the medium of the Net. Previously, we used the telephone, which is a one-to-one medium. Telephone conversations are intimate. They're two-way, there's lots of information going back and forth. But you don't reach a mass audience on a telephone. Telephones work best as one-to-one media. And there's no greater proof of this than to try to participate in a conference call. Conference calls are attempts to use telephones as many-to-many media and they're always exasperating. For even longer, we've had one-to-many media, from one central source to large audiences. These include the newspaper, a couple of centuries-old technology. Movies. Broadcasting. These media have a certain power to reach large audiences, but what they gain in power they lose in intimacy and feedback. You may see all sorts of things on TV, but it's very hard to get your opinions back to the broadcaster or back to the editor of the newspaper. Even the narrow channels that we're allowed, whether op ed pages or letters to the editor or the nanosecond of time to answer a televised editorial, are wholly inadequate. You never really get anything like equal time, no matter what the FCC has said. The Net and computer technology has changed all this. It is the first many-to-many medium. It is the first medium that combines all the powers to reach a large audience that you see in broadcasting and newspapers with all the intimacy and multi-directional flow of information that you see in telephone calls. It is both intimate and powerful. Another way this medium is different is pure cost. It takes many millions of dollars to start up a daily newspaper. If you were to succeed -- this is not the best year to do this, by the way -- you will find that it's an expensive process. You have to be highly capitalized to reach audiences of hundreds of thousands, or if you're lucky, millions. But now everybody can afford a PC and a modem. And the minimal cost of connecting to the Net can reach audiences far larger than the ones reached by any city's Times-Herald Picayune, or even the New York Times or Time magazine. We're talking global. This is a shift in power. It grants to individual citizens the full promise of the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press. The national information infrastructure or the information superhighway or the Net or whatever you're in the mood to call it makes it possible to reach your audience no matter who your audience is and no matter where they are. There's no editor standing between you and your readers -- changing what you want to say, changing your content, shortening it or lengthening it or altering it to make it "acceptable." I often think of poets. It's been a long time since a volume of poetry has regularly stood up on the best seller list. People who are poets, and we have a lot of good poets around these days, don't often succeed commercially, or sell. even a few thousand copies of a volume of poetry. But if that poet puts his material on the Internet, he can reach literally every single person who would ever understand his masterpiece. And that is a fundamental shift. So why the backlash? Why the fear? I think part of it is that people get on line and discover that it makes some things easier and more accessible. Itis possible for some people to find pornography on the Internet. It is also possible to get so called "dangerous information." And it's probable for people to say bad things about each other. So people think there ought to be some new kind of control, either legal or social. I remember the immense national headlines surrounding the prosecution of a Milpitas, California couple who operated a micro-computer bulletin board system. They were prosecuted in Memphis, Tennessee. It was quite a good story, because prosecutors in Memphis had reached all the way across the country to get a gentleman who was selling adult material out of his house on a computer. But I noticed that the stories were expanded into a perception of a general problem. The problem of pornography or obscenity on the Net. This change in perception is widespread. Someone recently asked me how many hours a day I spend on line. I said, I spend six or eight hours, some days even more, I work on line. And he actually said, "It must be bad with all that pornography. " I never see pornography on the Internet," I said. "You're kidding," he said. "No, I guess there's some out there, but I never go looking for it, I have work to do." He thought that when you turned on your computer and connected it to the Internet, pornographic images simply flooded over the computer monitor into your face. What's worse, he thought that maybe they flooded over the computer monitor into your child's face. To judge from the question I had about putting my child's picture on the Web, some people think that child molesters can reach through the computer screen and grab your child out of your living room. How did we get this amount of fear, and how does it reflect itself in other ways?. I can think of one other example. It involves Howard Kurtz, the esteemed media critic of the Washington Post. Mr. Kurtz, who is widely regarded, and rightfully so, as an astute critic of the traditional media, wrote two stories in the course of about a year about the Net. The first story involved a Los Angeles Times article by a fellow named Adam Bauman that somehow conflated hackers, pornography, spies and cryptography in one story. It was kind of amazing to see all that stuff in one story. It was as if Mr. Bauman had had a check list of hot button issues on the Internet. The story was widely criticized for not being logical, not being coherent, not justifying his assertions, and people said bad things about Mr. Bauman on the Net. Howard Kurtz, the media critic, looked at the story and did he think how terrible that the L.A. Times to run this terrible story? No. He was horrified that people on the Internet would say bad things about reporters. Sometimes they use impolite language. Now how many of us have never wished we could use impolite language to a reporter? The Internet enables us to do that. The second Howard Kurtz column involved Time magazine's cover story from last summer which featured the height of what turned out to be a patently fraudulent study of so called cyberporn from a con artist at Carnegie Mellon University. The person has since been exposed, and part of the reason he was exposed was that there were a lot of reporters, a lot of amateur reporters on the Net who looked into his research, who read his study and criticized it and who looked into the past of the person who wrote the study, and they discovered he'd done similar cons before. There was a lot of criticism of Time magazine and of the author of that story for buying into the hype about so called cyberporn. When Mr. Kurtz wrote about this controversy, did he criticize Time magazine or the reporter who wrote that story? No. In fact, he criticized the Internet for being so nasty to that poor fellow at Time for hyping the fake crisis of cyberporn. I was thinking about Mr. Kurtz' columns and I found that they dovetail very nicely with a very common complaint that one hears about speech on the Internet. People say you know, we think the First Amendment is a great thing, but we never thought there'd be all these people using it so irresponsibly. Don't you think there ought to be a law. There are other matters that have used to press our hot buttons about the Internet, to make us fear on-line communication. They involve things like cryptography, the ability of every citizen to make his or her communications or data truly private, truly secret, truly protected from prying eyes. And they involve things like copyright. For those of you who have been following the discussion of copyright on the Net, you know that Bruce Lehman of the Patent and Trade Office has authored a report that would turn practically everything anyone does with any intellectual property on line into a copyright infringement. If you browse it without a license, that's an infringement. If you download it, that's an infringement. If you look at it on your screen, that's an infringement. Three strikes and you're out and you go to federal copyright prison! There's also the sense that there's dangerous information on the Net. People are very troubled by the fact that you can log in and hunt around and find out how to build a bomb, even a bomb of the sort that was used to blow up a building in Oklahoma City. The Washington Post, interestingly enough, faced the issue of whether to publish the instructions on how to make a fertilizer bomb of the sort that was used in Oklahoma City. When they published in the story how the bomb was built, many people wrote into the Washington Post and said, "You shouldn't have published that stuff, people will get ideas! They will use that information to build bombs!" The Washington Post editors, I think quite rightly, concluded that the people reading the Washington Post were not the people who were building bombs. That the people who were building bombs already knew how to do it. But there's the sense that if this information is available on the Internet, it's vastly more destructive to society than if it's available in a library. After all, *children don't go to libraries*. I remember that after the Oklahoma City bombing, I started getting a lot of calls in my office at the Electronic Frontier Foundation from reporters who said, "Tell me more about bomb-making information on the Internet -- we're doing a follow-up on the Oklahoma City bombing." Now, if you actually followed that story one of the things you know for sure is that there seems to be *no connection* between computer technology and the suspects in the Oklahoma City bombing. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that any information from the Net was ever used in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing. So why were people calling asking me about dangerous information on the Net? I have a theory. I think it goes something like this. They knew that the chief suspect was a fellow named Tim McVeigh. And they knew that Tim McVeigh might be associated with militia groups. And they knew that some militia groups used bulletin board systems to communicate. And they knew that bulletin board systems were "kind of like the Internet." And they knew that there was information on the Internet, therefore there was a connection between bomb making information on the Internet and the Oklahoma City bombing. It was very interesting to see how these little assumptions about the connection between the Net and bomb-making information propagated throughout the media. (So far as we know, by the way, there is no connection between Tim McVeigh and computer technology except that at one point he is said to have believed that he had a computer chip implanted in a very delicate place during the Gulf War.) Let me tell you a little bit about how the Net is misrepresented both to the media and to the general public, and also to Congress. We hear about the mythical child that finds pornography on line within 30 seconds of logging on. You know, *I* can't even find pornography on line in 30 seconds of logging on. In fact, I can't find *anything* within 30 seconds of logging on. The second myth is that the Net is very much like broadcasting, therefore deserves the kind of regulation that the Federal Communications Commission administers to the broadcasting entities around the country. My own feeling is this: "Why shouldn't anything that's legal in a Barnes and Noble Bookstore or in the New York Public Library be legal on line?" I ask this question again and again, and I had a debate one Sunday on a Seattle radio station with a fellow from Morality in Media, Bob Peters. I raised this question and Bob Peters responded: "But, Mike, computers come into our home!" And I said "Well, you know, Bob, *books* come into my home! And yet you wouldn't be able to limit the content of books the way you want to limit the content of computer networks. We would think it was totally a violation of the First Amendment to impose the kinds of restrictions that you would impose on the Net on the publishers of books." Why should the rules be any different? And yet you hear again and again there ought to be new laws required to regulate the Net. That the Net is currently unregulated in some way. That cases like the Milpitas couple who were prosecuted in Memphis illustrate the need for new laws. Never mind the fact that they were successfully prosecuted under old laws. How can one equate the Net and broadcasting? I mean up to now, the nicest thing that you could say about the broadcasting medium and the legal regime that governs it was this: Those limits don't apply to any other medium. The FCC doesn't control newspapers or books, and isn't that great? The justification constitutionally for special regulation of content of broadcasting has essentially been twofold. The notion that broadcasting frequencies are scarce so therefore require the government to step in, and not only allocate them, but govern their use for the public good. And secondly, the notion that broadcasting is pervasive in some way. That it creeps into the home in a special way that makes it uniquely different from other media. Regardless of whether you accept these justifications for content control over the air waves, the fact is the Internet is nothing like broadcasting in either way. Internet communication is not scarce. Every time you add a computer to the Internet you've expanded the size of the Internet. It is not pervasive because you don't have people pushing content into your home, you have people logging on and pulling content from all over the world. It is not the case that you log on and have stuff pushed at you that you don't want to see. It is a fundamentally choice-driven medium, a choice-driven form for communication very much like a bookstore, a newsstand or a library, and therefore deserving of the same strong First Amendment protections. For those of you who weren't paying attention this year, the United States Congress passed an omnibus telecommunications reform act. I think most of the provisions there won a lot of popular support. The telecommunications regulatory regime was very old and needed to be updated. There are debates about how the balances ultimately ought to be struck, but there was a wide consensus on the need to deregulate the traditional telecommunications industries. Compare the fact that in one small section of the bill, the "Communications Decency Amendment," we find the federal government, whose competence to regulate all the other media has been indeed questioned, imposing new regulations on content on the Net and with little, if any, constitutional justification. You see, this isn't about pornography. This isn't about obscene materials. This is about something called "indecency," a far broader category that you might think involves pornography, but in fact, it encompasses quite a bit more. For example, a George Carlin comedy routine has been restricted under the name of indecency. The Allen Ginsburg classic poem, "Howl," has been restricted from radio because it was deemed by one court to be indecent. Various other kinds of material from the high to the low, from Allen Ginsburg to Jackie Collins' novels, cannot be spoken or uttered on the radio. Now why is that? The FCC has special power and the government and the congress has special power to control content in the broadcasting arena. But where's the justification for the expansion of that federal authority to this new medium that holds the power of granting freedom of the press to every citizen. Where does the Constitution say the government can do that? Where does the First Amendment say the government can do that? Everybody more or less knows something about what qualifies as obscene. You know it has something to do with "community standards," right? And with appealing to the "prurient interest." A work has to be a patently offensive depiction of materials banned by state statute and appeal to the prurient interest to be obscene and it also has to meet one other requirement. It also has to lack serious literary, artistic, social, political or scientific value. That's how something is classified as "obscene." The reason that religious fundamentalist lobbying groups want to expand the notion of indecency to the Net is that they are very troubled by the test for obscenity. They regard the serious literary, artistic, social and political clause of the test for what is obscene to be a sort of an escape clause for pornographers. What they would really like to be able to do is to prosecute anyone who distributes content in any way other than by printing ink on dead trees under a far broader censorship law that has no provision for artistic value or social importance. That is something I find very, very frightening. This is not about protecting children. We've heard it again and again, we're trying to protect our children from bad content on the Net. But this is not about protecting children. This is not about pornography. (I wish it were about pornography. That's easy to talk about.) But it's about a far broader class of speech. So the Communications Decency Amendment is not really about protecting children, it's about silencing adults. We were sold the Internet, we were sold the information superhighway as this great global library of resources. Now you have people in Congress and people on the religious right who want to reduce the public spaces of the Net to the children's room of the library. I think we can do better than that, and I think American citizens can be trusted with more than that. It should be remembered whenever we look at how to apply the First Amendment to any medium--be it the Net or anything else--that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is offensive, troubling, or disturbing because nobody ever tries to ban the bland, pleasant, untroubling speech. This new law, the Communications Decency Amendment, creates immense problems for anyone who's a provider, for anyone who's a user. In fact, the interests of the industry and the interests of the consumers are essentially the same. And the media have a special responsibility not only to make these issues clear but also not to play to our fears anymore. Because the fact is, Americans are nervous about sex, we're nervous about our children, and we're nervous about computers. So if you combine all of those into a newspaper story, you could pretty much drive anyone into a frenzy of anxiety. And the impulse to regulate is always there. But you'd better think twice before calling for new regulation because these are the rules that we are all going to play under in the 21st century. It is important to understand that this is the first time in history the power of a mass medium lies in the hands of potentially everybody. For the first time the promise of freedom of the press will be kept for everyone. A. J. Liebling famously commented that freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Well, we all own one now. The Net is an immense opportunity for an experiment in freedom of speech and democracy. The largest scale experiment this world has ever seen. It's up to you and it's up to me and it's up to all of us to explore that opportunity, and it's up to all of us not to lose it. I'm a parent myself, as you know. And I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 or 20 years from now she will come to me and say, "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?" And I want to be able to say I was there -- and I helped stop that from happening. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 01:50:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@MASSIS.LCS.MIT.EDU(Patrick A. Townson) Subject: File 2--The Need For a Netizens Association ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following is in from Pat Townson, moderator of Telecom Digest, always a source of top-quality discussion and the best source of telecom information around)). An interesting message reached me today that I thought several of you might be interested in. If you do wish to continue the discussion, please send your comments direct to the author as shown below and not to the Digest itself. Perhaps at some future point the author will be so kind as to summarize responses for the Digest and submit them to me for publication. PAT ========================= (Michael Hauben) Newsgroups--comp.dcom.telecom Subject--The need for a Netizens Association Date--4 Mar 1996 03:57:45 GMT Organization--Columbia University The recent passing of the telecommunications bill in the USA demonstrates the lack of understanding by Congress and the government about the value of the Net and what it really is. In light of this, there seems a need for people to organize and form a Netizens Association. The following summary of a trip I made to Japan in November 1995 describes the genesis for this idea. Please e-mail me or respond publicly if you have suggestions or can help. Towards a Netizens Association, /Michael Hauben A little under one year ago, I received a letter sent through the Internet, via electronic mail. The letter was sent by a professor from Japan, and concerned studies we were both interested in. This communication between people concerned common interests despite differences in age, language, and culture. While Professor Shumpei Kumon knew English and was studying global communication, there were still real barriers of distance and time. I hope to show how the new technologies are helping to alleviate these barriers and help bring us into a new age of communications where the old rules and ways are no longer the guiding rules and ways. What brought Professor Kumon and me together was our shared interest in the globalization of culture and society through the emerging communications technologies. The specific concern was about the emergence of Netizens, or people who use computer networks who consider themselves to be part of a global identity. The Netizen is part of a developing global cooperative community. I first used the term "Netizen" in 1993 after researching people's uses for the Internet and Usenet. Professor Kumon's first communication to me follows: Date--Tue, 28 Feb 1995 12:30:23 +0900 (Shumpei Kumon) Subject--Netizen Hi, I am a social scientist in Japan writing on information revolution and information-oriented civilization. Since I came across the tern "netizen" about a year ago. I have been fascinated by this idea. It seems that the age of not only technological-industrial but also political-social revolution is coming, comparable to the "citizen's revolution" in the past. I would very much like to do a book on that theme. Yesterday, I was delighted to find your Netizen's Cyberstop. You are doing a great job. shumpei kumon ------------------- Professor Kumon also asked if I was the first to use the term Netizen. Part of his studies are socio-linguistics, so he is interested in the development and use of language over time. Netizen had come to replace the term netter or networker in Japan to describe people who use computer networks. In response to my return message, Professor Kumon offered his understanding of Netizen as "people who abide in networks and are engaged in collaborative propagation of information and knowledge just as citizens abide in cities and are engaged in commerce and industry." He continued, "In this sense we can perhaps find the origin of netizens in Europe of 13-15th centuries, just as first citizens in modern civilization appeared in Europe of 12th century as commerce revived there." Professor Kumon concluded the message by asking if I was interested in visiting Japan. He said he could make this possible. At the time I did not know where this would lead, but I responded that I would be very much interested in visiting. Japan was an unfamiliar country for me. Previously in my education I did do some research into the secondary education system, and found it to be a very stressful environment. Otherwise I had some general interest in the culture. However, I was unfamiliar with Professor Kumon, and the institutions he was connected to, the Global Communications Institute (GLOCOM) of which he was the director and the Internation- al University of Japan. However, this contact with him, and soon with his colleagues brought me to Japan. One of the planning directors of GLOCOM, Izumi Aizu, wrote me shortly after Professor Kumon, and mentioned a conference in November to which they might invite me. Before the real invitation actually arrived, several other events took place. Izumi Aizu arrived in New York City in late April, and we spoke of many things. Most interesting was how he saw the Internet being a direct challenge to traditional Japanese culture. While people normally go by their last names in Japan, the Usenet and Internet culture encourages first-name familiarity. Professor Kumon's e-mail address was made up of his first name, not his last. The style of writing in e-mail is usually informal. The ease of use encourages people to use the medium as if it were in between writing a letter and making a phone call. E-mail, Usenet and the world wide web (WWW) encourage people to share their original thoughts and creations with the world. I have been told that Japanese culture encourages people to represent the larger grouping they are part of. The concept and history of Netizen strikes a good mid-point between being individualistic or having a group identity. Netizens represent themselves, but as part of the larger group. The many-to-many technology gives people the chance to represent themselves, but in the context of contributing to the whole on-line community. During Izumi's visit, we also briefly spoke of some of the barriers to the spread of the Internet in Japan and the United States. A big concern of Izumi's was who could or should pay to spread the Internet in Japan. There are other social and technical hurdles to overcome in order to spread the Internet throughout Japan. Izumi described more of the work of the HyperNetwork Society which was connected to a network community in Oita Prefecture and described some about the conference I was being invited to speak at in November. He also asked if I was willing to be interviewed for a television special that would be created for Japanese TV introducing Netizens and describing the Internet. Two days after my graduation from Columbia College in May, the two film-makers arrived to conduct their interview and to film me and Columbia. They explained that their film would be aired on TV Tokyo, a NHK television channel on an educational TV show in July, 1995. The airing of the TV program about the Internet, communications and multimedia was very important to my later trip to Japan. My connection to Japan would broaden out from the initial contact by the members of GLOCOM. After July 2, I received several e-mail messages from other people in Japan. A student in his final year of undergraduate study at Saitama University wrote on the very day the TV show was on in Japan. In his e-mail, Hiroyuki Takahashi explained that "I discovered your idea -- Netizen ... I feel attracted to your concept. I would like to talk with you about netizen and so on. I want to spread netizen among networker in JAPAN." (email of July 2). He asked if he could copy to his public computer server in Japan the documents about Netizens that I have publicly available through my Columbia University web pages. I responded yes, and wrote, " I am glad to hear you are trying to spread Internet access to the public. We thus have a common goal. :-)" (email 7/2/95) Hiroyuki wrote back "Yes we can collaborate on that purpose." He had apologized saying that his English was not very good. I responded that "unfortunately, I speak no Japanese, but appreciate that we can communicate." Hiro wrote back saying "Nationality has no longer senses on the network. Everybody stands on same starting points :-)" He wrote that there were many problems in trying to spread the Internet in Japan as computer networking had grown a lot in the past two years. He explained: "[In the] Last 2 years [the] computer network environment in Japan grew up marvelously so most of japanese included mass media, market and ordinary men cannot catch up with the growth and they are expecting too much." Hiroyuki explained "So now I am seeking how to spread network environments." (e-mail July 4, 1995) The connection to GLOCOM similarly flourished, and I was asked to contribute a chapter to Professor Kumon's planned book about Netizens tentatively titled "The Netizen Revolution." In addition, I submitted a paper for inclusion in a newspaper special supplement whose theme was "The Media Revolution." More people sent me e-mail, and I posted publicly to public newsgroups like soc.culture.japan and This connection with people from across the globe whose native language was different was occurring because the computer and communications technology had developed to 1) break down the geographic and time barriers, and 2) break down the social barriers which exist in all cultures, but which are traditionally strong in Japanese culture. These changes are helping all cultures and societies to become more global, in both making their contribution to the larger world and to receive back from the world. I heard from Izumi several times after July concerning the conference, and the final invitation arrived in August. Izumi invited me to make a presentation on "Netizen concept and issues." Izumi also mentioned that there would be two other Internet conferences in Kobe that it might be possible to attend. In November, plans for my visit to Japan were worked out. I was asked to prepare a 20 minute talk and to submit a description of my talk for the conference program. I wrote Hiro telling him I would be visiting Japan and asked if it would be possible to meet him. I also posted on some Japanese Usenet newsgroups asking if there were suggestions about my visit. Hiro wrote back that he would be very happy to meet me. He said that "We can discuss or talk about many things; netizen, internet, computing and so on. I am very happy to see you :-)" (email Nov 16) When I was in Japan, we met and had dinner. We spoke of many things including the lack of professors at his University who understand the computer technology. I learned that he and other students managed the campus computers and networks. Hiro also worked towards introducing the Internet and spreading its use in Japan. When I asked how I could help, he mentioned that he wanted help to translate some of the netizens writings into Japanese. I said I would be helpful if he had any questions. Then I left Tokyo and went to the HyperNetwork conference in Oita. Similar to what took place in Tokyo, I received an extremely warm and friendly welcoming from many of the People from COARA and the BBC '95 conference. My presentation in Beppu concentrated on describing the emergence of Netizens and analyzing the development of the public communications medium know as the Net. Following is a definition of Netizens presented in the speech, "Netizens are the people who actively contribute on-line towards the development of the Net. These people understand the value of collective work and the communal aspects of public communications. These are the people who actively discuss and debate topics in a constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people and provide help to new-comers, who maintain FAQ files and other public information repositories, who maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people who discuss the nature and role of this new communications medium. However, these are not all people. Netizens are not just anyone who comes on-line, and they are especially not people who come on-line for isolated gain or profit. They are not people who come to the Net thinking it is a service. Rather they are people who understand it takes effort and action on each and everyone's part to make the Net a regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this new part of our world, a better place." When I got back to Tokyo, Hiro came to visit again, and he brought several members of his computer club with him. The computer club was the Advanced Computer and Communication Engineering Studying Society (aka ACCESS). I had also received email from Mieko Nagano in November before my visit to Japan who said she was housewife active in the community network COARA which sponsored the Hyper network conference. Her e-mail was an invitation to the conference from someone outside of GLOCOM. In a later email she wrote that she was moved by my concept of Netizen which she shared in my understanding would "help further the growth of the Net by connecting a diversity of people who have various opinions, specialties and interests. This worldwide connection of people and other information resources of different sorts will help the world move forward in solving different societal problems." (email Oct. 29, 1995) She wrote that she was not able to "comprehend high-class discussions in the past conferences." "I only enjoy," she continued, "as a ordinary housewife, communication with good-willed and good-sensed people through COARA and/or E-mail on real name basis." "What is great for me," she noted, "is that I can talk to the people all over the world instantaneously and look around various sites full of information including images and sounds." (Oct. 29) When I arrived at the hypernetwork conference, there were stickers and hats declaring "Netizen in COARA." After the conference, Mieko explained: "Naming after NETIZEN, as Mr. Hauben advocated, COARA members prepared in advance 'Netizen sticker' appealing to be COARA constituent by attaching the logo on their chests of clothes and welcomed our guests."(email Dec 12, 1995) After our visit, I wrote Hiro that I was very happy to have met him and his friends from their computer club at his University. In his email when I returned home he asked if there was a Netizens Association. He wrote in a P.S. in an email of Dec. 6 "Netizen association is available? If not in Japan, I want to make it." I told him I did not know of any and asked him what he had in mind for a Netizens association to do. He responded: "I think [a] Netizen Association is a guide into tomorrow's Internet world. Internet and other network[s] have a flood of electrical informations. So people cannot swim very good in Internet. So Netizen Association tell or advise how to swin or get selected information. The association act as guide. Oh, and we have to spread information about concept of netizen. But making association process has many difficult points, I think. So we have to give careful consideration to the matter." "Please let me know your idea," he added. (email Dec 12, 1995) Hiro also wrote that he and his classmates had a "translation team" that was "now reading carefully" through the Netizens article. "And next Thursday and Friday," he wrote, "our club has big presentation about Internet in my university, so we are very hard [at work] this week." (from Dec. 9, 1995 email) Others wrote to explain their interest in the concept of Netizen. The response was important because as I found out while in Japan, the word 'netizen' meaning 'network citizen' would have a different meaning in the Japanese culture. The term or concept of citizen differs from the American meaning as the individual finds meaning in the group organizational setting and not separately. This means the meaning of the concept rather than the surface of the term was understood. While in Japan, I met many people interested in spreading the Internet. Those involved, young or old, found it important to try and connect people to the Internet as a way forward into the future. Young people were happy to have a new tool to challenge the old conventions of society. I was more surprised to find others of older generations still interested in this new technological medium which was challenging the traditional Japanese social customs. More importantly, however, was the global connections and broadening of people the Internet brings. Mieko, Izumi, Professor Kumon and Hiro were all working towards making it possible for the Japanese people, from any part of Japan, to be able to communicate with others around the world. Michael Hauben Teachers College Dept. of Communication Netizens Netbook WWW Music Index [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for a very fine presentation to the Digest readers today. I quite agree that a Netizen's Association would be a marvelous idea. I wonder what other Digest readers think of this proposal? I believe we should at this time unanimously appoint Mr. Hauben as Chairperson or President of the Netizens Association in the United States and encourage him to work with not only his counterparts in Japan but to aid in beginning Netizen Association chapters or groups all over the world. And Michael, you can count me in as a member from the very beginning. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:54:11 -0800 (PST) From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 3--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA Witness the dread "chilling effect." This letter from Stanley Chodorow, Provost at the University of Pennsylvania, demonstrates the tough position that many university administrators now find themselves in as a result of the Communications Decency Act. Almost reluctantly, Provost Chodrow points out, "Members of the Penn community should be aware that although enforcement of the 'indecency' provision is temporarily barred, the bill's other provisions are and will remain in effect unless overturned or repealed. Those provisions subject violators to substantial criminal penalties. Individuals or institutions that make information or materials available on electronic networks have an obligation to comply with the statute." The full text of Chodorow's letter follows below. --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine =============================================== To the Penn community: Recent federal legislation has significant implications for all members of the Penn community who use telecommunications or electronic networks. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 , signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, includes provisions, known as the Communications Decency Act, that prohibit dissemination of certain materials to persons under the age of 18. One provision prohibits using a telecommunications device to make and transmit any "obscene or indecent" communication to anyone known to be under 18. Another prohibits using any "interactive computer service" to display, in a manner available to anyone under 18, any communication that, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." While the terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" are not defined in the law and their meaning is unclear, the terms may be construed to include materials with literary, scientific, artistic, or educational value. The constitutionality of these provisions has been challenged in Federal court on the grounds that they prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment and are impermissibly vague and overbroad. The court has entered an order that temporarily bars enforcement of the prohibition against "indecent" communications, but the order does not bar enforcement of the Act's other provisions. Penn believes the constitutional challenges are important and should be resolved quickly, because we believe the Act may chill the free exchange of ideas and information that is central to the University's mission. It may also significantly restrict the development and usefulness of new forms of electronic communication. Members of the Penn community should be aware, however, that although enforcement of the "indecency" provision is temporarily barred, the bill's other provisions are and will remain in effect unless overturned or repealed. Those provisions subject violators to substantial criminal penalties. Individuals or institutions that make information or materials available on electronic networks have an obligation to comply with the statute. Individuals who distribute information through the University's computing resources are responsible for the content they provide and may wish to evaluate the material they make available in light of the Act's requirements. The University is unable to prevent information that is posted to publicly accessible resources, such as newsgroups and homepages, from becoming available to persons under the age of 18. We regret the uncertainty and disruption caused by this legislation and will try to keep you informed (via Almanac and the University's home page on the WorldWideWeb) of significant developments as they occur. Stanley Chodorow Provost ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 02:38:40 -0500 (EST) From: Mitchell L. Silverman Subject: File 4--In Defense of Newt Gingrich Dear Moderators: I feel as if I must come to Newt Gingrich's defense after Charles Stanford's rather mealy-mouthed attack on him in CuD 8.19. Mr. Stanford wrote: > 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. A cursory Yahoo search (well, a Boolean Yahoo search, anyway) on "Gingrich and CDA" produced, a transcript of an interview David Frost conducted with Gingrich on PBS on 5/31/95. > Frost: Right. What do you think about Senator Exon's ideas for federal > law to ban obscene material from the Internet? Is that practical? > > Gingrich: It's probably illegal under our Constitution is my guess. We > have a very strong freedom of speech provision. On the other hand, I've > been advocating quite openly that major advertisers ought to announce > that they will not advertise on radio stations that broadcast songs > encouraging the raping and the torture and the physical violence against > women. I mean, freedom of speech doesn't mean subsidized speech. And we > have every right as a culture, not as a government but as a culture; we > have every right for wise leadership to say we won't support that. We > won't tolerate that. > > Gingrich: Now, first of all ... computers. There is a problem, nowadays > .. I was quite surprised when I was told this by an expert. There is a > problem nowadays, pedophiles - using computer networking to try to > pursue children. It's truly amazing. I think there you have a perfect > right on a non-censorship basis to intervene decisively against somebody > who would prey upon children. And that I would support very intensely. > It's very different than trying to censor willing adults. According to the EFF's own chronology, Gingrich announced his opposition to the CDA on June 21, 1995 -- which makes him, too, an early adopter. I'm no CDA supporter -- I've volunteered to lead the Committee 451 anti-CDA student protest here at FSU Law School on March 14th, and just signed up as CIEC plaintiff number 7,187. Since two essays on my homepage are stories I wrote about volunteering as an escort at an abortion clinic -- one that involves getting bitten by a pro-lifer ( -- I feel especially strongly about the CDA as enacted. Neither, should I point out, am I Newt's biggest fan. But to paint Newt Gingrich as James Exon or Henry Hyde (or, IMHO, Bill Clinton, who did, after all, sign the CDA-laden Telecomm Reform bill into law) ignores the real issue -- that censorship is unconstitutional, and, more importantly, *wrong* -- and does no one any good. As well, Mr. Stanford's article obscures the fact that while Gingrich did vote in favor of the Telecomm Reform Act, he also probably supports repeal of the CDA provisions -- which, instead of judicial interpretation or limitation (and barring approval of the Tribe Amendment to the Constitution) is really the best result those of us who oppose censorship can hope for. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 6 March, 1996) 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) (860)-585-9638. 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 #8.20 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank