Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 31, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 26 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Ji

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

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 31, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 26 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #8.26 (Sun, Mar 31, 1996) File 1--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (From telecom.digest) File 2--CONGRESS: Interview with Anna Eshoo File 3--Georgia Computer Regulation (fwd) File 4--German Censorship comment (Re: Cu Digest, #8.17) File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Mar, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:32:27 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@MASSIS.LCS.MIT.EDU(Patrick A. Townson) Subject: File 1--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (From telecom.digest ) This is a special bulletin received Friday morning regards the squabble between the telephone companies and the I-Phone people; the ones who use the software which allows voice communication via the Internet. The war has started! It appears the carriers are serious about getting rid of this Internet feature. A formal complaint has been filed with the Federal Communications Commission. PAT Subject--LD Co.'s File Complaint Against Internet Phone Authors From--drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date--Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:12:59 EST Organization--Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 Retrieved this from ftp.fcc.gov last night. No official word yet on the Commission's response (no docket no. yet). Also, no word yet on precisely which "non-dominant telecommunications companies" are actually represented in this petition: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (RM No. 8775) BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of THE PROVISION OF INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE VIA THE "INTERNET" BY NON-TARIFFED, UNCERTIFIED ENTITIES AMERICA'S CARRIERS TELECOMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION ("ACTA"), Petitioner PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, SPECIAL RELIEF, AND INSTITUTION OF RULEMAKING AGAINST: VocalTec, Inc.; Internet Telephone Company; Third Planet Publishing Inc.; Camelot Corporation; Quarterdeck Corporation; and Other Providers of Non-tariiffed, and Uncertified Interexchange Telecommunications Services, Respondents. To the Commission: SUMMARY OF FILING America's Carriers Telecommunication Association ("ACTA"), a trade association of interexchange telecommunications companies, submits this Petition for Declaratory Ruling, for Special Relief, and for Institution of Rulemaking Proceedings. This petition concerns a new technology: a computer software product that enables a computer with Internet access to be used as a long distance telephone, carrying voice transmissions, at virtually no charge for the call. ACTA submits that the providers of this software are tele- communications carriers and, as such, should be subject to FCC regulation like all telecommunications carriers. ACTA also submits that the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet. ACTA submits that it is not in the public interest to permit long distance service to be given away, depriving those who must maintain the telecommunications infrastructure of the revenue to do so, and nor is it in the public interest for these select telecommunications carriers to operate outside the regulatory requirements applicable to all other carriers. ACTA asks the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling confirming its authority over interstate and international telecommunications services using the Internet. ACTA asks the Commission, as special relief. to order the Respondents to immediately stop their unauthorized provisioning of telecommunications services pending their compliance with 47 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 214. and in order to give the Commission time for appropriate rulemaking. ACTA asks the Commission to institute rulemaking to govern the use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING, SPECIAL RELIEF, AND INSTITUTION OF RULEMAKING America's Carriers Telecommunication Association ("ACTA"). by its attorneys, submits this Petition for Declaratory Ruling, for Special Relief, and for Institution of Rulemaking Proceedings. In support of this petition, the following is shown. STANDING ACTA is a national trade association of competitive interexchange, non-dominant telecommunications companies. Its members provide interexchange telecommunications services on an intrastate, interstate and international basis to the public at large. Some of its members also act as underlying (or wholesale) carriers providing network facilities, equipment and service to other member carriers which permits telecommunications services to be resold to the public. Other ACTA members supply facilities and equipment to member and non-member wholesale and resale carriers. ACTA's carrier members must be certificated and tariffed before the FCC and most state regulatory commissions in order to render their telecommunications service to the public. In addition, ACTA carrier members are subject to the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and various state laws and regulations which prohibit engaging in unreasonable practices and/or unduly discriminatory conduct. ACTA carrier members are required to pay, directly, or indirectly, various fees and charges in order to render their services to the public. Filing fees and annual fees are levied by the FCC and most states. In addition, the FCC and most states require interexchange carriers to assess and collect from the using public specific charges to support various regulatory policies and programs used to sustain and advance national and state goals for telecommunications. Entities, like those which are described hereinafter, which do not comply with or operate subject to the same statutory and regulatory requirements as ACTA's carrier members, distort the economic and public interest environment in which ACTA carrier members and nonmembers must operate. Continuing to allow such entities to operate without complying with or being subject to the same legal and regulatory requirements as ACTA carrier members threatens the continued viability of ACTA's members and their ability to serve the public and acquit their public interest obligations under federal and state laws. As the appointed representative of its members charged with advancing their economic interests and assisting in achieving and maintaining their legal and regulatory compliance, ACTA has standing to file and prosecute these petitions. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BACKGROUND A growing number of companies are selling software for the specific purpose of allowing users of the Internet to make free or next to free local, interexchange (intraLATA, interLATA) and international telephone calls using the user's computer (Attach ment 1). One of the Respondents, VocalTec, Inc., advertises the ability of its software called "Internet Phone," to connect any user of "Internet Phone" with any other user of "Internet Phone" anywhere in the world. The software enables users to audibly talk with one another in real-time. Respondents make a one-time charge for the software, but users incur no other charges for making local or long distance telephone calls to any other "Internet Phone" user in the world (except for whatever the user already pays monthly to whomever provides them Internet access). ASSERTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JURISDICTION ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and international telecommunications services. As a first step, ACTA submits that the Commission may deem it appropriate to issue a declaratory ruling officially establishing its interest in and authority over interstate and international telecommunications services using the Internet. Secondly, ACTA submits that the Commission has an obliga tion, heightened by the recent enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to address on a focused basis the on-going, unregulated and unauthorized provisioning of telecommunications services. The Commission should, as special relief, issue an order to the Respondents to immediately stop arranging for, implementing, and marketing non-tariffed, uncertified telecommunications services without complying with applicable provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 203 and 214, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 214. Further, ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the Commis- sion to examine and adopt rules, policies and regulations govern ing the uses of the Internet for the provisioning of telecommuni- cations services. The use of the Internet to provide telecommu- nications services has an impact on the traditional means, methods, systems, providers, and users of telecommunications services. The unfair competition created by the current unregulated bypass of the traditional means by which long distance services are sold could, if left unchecked, eventually create serious economic hardship on all existing participants in the long distance marketplace and the public which is served by those participants. Ignored, such unregulated operations will rapidly grow and create a far more significant and difficult to control "private" operational enclave of telecommu nications providers and users. Such development will clearly be detrimental to the health of the nation's telecommunications industry and the maintenance of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. ARGUMENT Commission's Authority to Regulate the Internet. ACTA submits that the Commission has the authority to regulate the Internet under the provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 151, which created the Commission: [for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make avail able, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense. for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property, through the use of wire and radio communication. . . . The Internet is a unique form of wire communication. It is a resource whose benefits are still being explored and whose value is not fully realized. Its capacity is not, however, infinite. The misuse of the Internet as a way to bypass the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to handle the customary types of Internet traffic. The Commission has historically protected the public interest by allocating finite communications resources/frequencies and organizing communications traffic. ACTA submits that here also it would be in the public interest for the Commission to define the type of permissible communications which may be effected over the Internet. Commission's Authority to Regulate Respondents as Interstate Telecommunications Carriers. ACTA submits that by both estab- lished precedents defining "common carriage" or public utility" type of operations for purposes of regulatory jurisdiction, and by statutory enactment, the Respondents, as purveyors of Internet long distance services, are interstate telecommunications carri- ers, subject to federal regulation. Section 3 of the new "Telecommunications Act of 1996," Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), to be codified at 47 U.S.C. Section 153, includes the following definitions: (48) Telecommunications. -- The term "telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of informa tion of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. (49) Telecommunications Carrier. -- The term "telecommunications carrier" means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage. (51) Telecommunications Service. -- The term "telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. It would appear that Respondents are currently operating without having complied with the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, applicable to providing interstate and international telecommunications services. e.g., Sections 203 and 213, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 214. Case law also supports the Commission's authority to regulate the Respondents. In 1968, the Supreme Court was presented the issue of the Commission's authority to regulate the cable television industry, or CATV, then still in its infancy but growing quickly. In United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Federal Communications Commission 1) had the authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to regulate CATV systems, a new technology and therefore not specifically discussed in the Act, and 2) if the Commission had such authority, whether it also had the authority to issue the particular prohibitory order that it had: one designed generally to preserve the status quo pending further investigation and proceedings, and not issued pursuant to the cease and desist rules of Section 312 of the Act (47 U.S.C. Section 312). The Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative. The Supreme Court stated that "the [Federal Communications] Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV [was] imperative if it [was] to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its other responsibil ities." Id. at 173. At that time, cable television characteristically neither produced its own programming nor paid producers or broadcasters for use of the programming which CATV redistributed. Id. at 162. The Court noted the Commission's concern that competition by CATV might destroy or degrade the service offered by local broadcasters and exacerbate the financial difficulties of UHF and educational television broadcasters. Commission's Authority to Grant Special Relief to Maintain the Status Quo. With regard to the procedural issue, the Court in Southwestern Cable upheld the authority of the Commission to issue an order maintain the status quo. The argument was made that the Commission could only issue prohibitory orders under the Act's Section 312 cease and desist provisions which, the Court assumed without finding, were only proper after a hearing or the waiver of the right to a hearing. The Court rejected that argument stating: The Commission's order was thus not, in form or function, a cease-and- desist order that must issue under Sections 312(b), (c). The Commission has acknowledged that, in this area of rapid and significant change, there may be situations in which its generalized regulations are inadequate, and special or additional forms of relief are imperative. It has found that the present case may prove to be such a situation, and that the public interest demands "interim relief limiting further expansion," pending hearings to determine appropriate Commission action. Such orders do not exceed the Commission's authority. This Court has recognized that "the administrative process [must] possess sufficient flexibility to adjust itself' to the "dynamic aspects of radio transmission," F. C. C. v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., supra, at 138, and that it was precisely for that reason that Congress declined to "stereotype the powers of the Commission to specific details......... National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, supra, at 219. The Commission should take the same action in 1996 with regard to the new technology of long distance calling via Internet as it did thirty years ago in 1966 with regard to the then-new technology of cable television: grant special relief to maintain the status quo so that it might carefully consider what rules are required to best protect the public interest and to carry out Its statutory duties. Other Issues Necessitating the Commission's Regulation of Long Distance via the Internet. The Commission has a duty to oversee and effect the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as its long-standing duties under 47 U.S.C. Section 151. The Commission should take action in order to preserve fair competition and the health of the Nation's telecommunications industry. Absent a healthy industry, with users paying telecommunications companies a fair price for telecommunica tions services, the Commission's duty to effectively promote universal service cannot be achieved. Absent action by the Commission, the new technology could be used to circumvent restrictions traditionally found in tariffs con cerning unlawful uses, such as gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drug traffic, and other illegal acts. INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONDENTS ACTA does not possess a listing of all the companies providing free long distance calls via computer software. However, Attachment I contains some information regarding the following Internet telephone software companies and products: a. Company: VocalTec, Inc. 157 Veterans Drive Northvale, NJ 07647 Telephone: (201) 768-9400 Product: Internet Phone Distributors: VocalTec, Inc.; and Ventana Communications Group Research Triangle Park, NC b. Company: Internet Telephone Company Boca Raton, FL Telephone (407) 989-8503 Product: WebPhone c. Company: Third Planet Publishing Inc. a division of Camelot Corporation Product: Digiphone d. Company: Quarterdeck Corporation 13160 Mindanao Way, 3rd Floor Marina Del Ray, CA 90292 Telephone (310) 309-3700 Product: WebTalk e. Company: Unknown Product: CyberPhone CONCLUSION Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the public interest. Therefore, ACTA urges the Federal Communications Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter and: issue a declaratory ruling establishing its authority over interstate and international telecommuni- cations services using the Internet; grant special relief to maintain the status quo by immediately stop the sale of this software; and institute rulemaking proceedings defining permissible communications over the Internet. Respectfully submitted, AMERICA'S CARRIERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION Charles H. Helein General Counsel Of Counsel: Helein & Associates, P.C. 8180 Greensboro Drive Suite 700 McLean, Virginia 22102 (703) 714-1300 (Telephone) (703) 714-1330 (Facsimile) Dated: March 4, 1995 Footnotes: 1 47 U.S.C. 201 et seq. 2 The user must hook up a microphone to his computer and either a headset or speakers. 3 ACTA asserts that Respondents are also intrastate telecommunications carriers, subject to regulation by state public utility commissions. 4 The Commission had ordered that respondents, a cable company, generally restrict their carriage of Los Angeles signals to areas served by them on February 14, 1966, pending hearings to determine whether the carriage of such signals into San Diego contravened the public interest. The order did not prohibit the addition of new subscribers within areas served by respon dents on February 15, 1966; it did not prevent service to other sub scribers who began receiving service or who submitted an ac- cepted subscription request" between February 15, 1966, and the date of the Commission's order; and it did not preclude the carriage of San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, signals to subscribers in new areas of service. United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 180 (1968). 5 Id. at 180. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 06:08:06 -0800 From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 2--CONGRESS: Interview with Anna Eshoo Salutations! Whew! On Tuesday I made the big transcontinental puddle-jump from San Francisco to Boston, where I'm now attending the Sixth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. We're all hunkered down here at the Cambridge Hyatt Regency, amid lots of amazing people, a lot of cool ideas, and (surprise!) a lot of talk and concern about the Communications Decency Act. I'll try to tell you more about the conference later this week. But in the meantime... I invite you to take a journey into the mind of Rep. Anna Eshoo. Rep. Eshoo, you will recall, is the California Congresswoman who recently introduced the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 -- legislation that could function as an alternative to the Communications Decency Act. In this interview with Rep. Eshoo, we learn more about how the Communications Decency Act became law, the sinister plottings of the Christian Coalition, and the magnitude of Congress's ignorance about what the Internet is really all about. As Rep. Eshoo puts it, "My sense is, that most members of Congress have little appreciation or understanding that the Internet is not a federal interstate freeway -- it's not a public highway. This is a private network." Many thanks to Gary Brickman, Managing Editor of Interactive Age Digital, for passing this interview along. Work the network! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ============================================================= Reforming the Communications Decency Act: An interview with Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Interactive Age Digital, on the Wed at http://techweb.cmp.com/ia) On March 21, a federal court began judging the fate of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) -- the restrictive legislation barring online dissemination of material judged "indecent" As the legal challenges progress through the courts, Congress is considering legislation designed to narrow the scope of the indecency ban. One of those bills, the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 was introduced last week. Authored by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, a Democrat representing most of Silicon Valley in California, the bill seeks to bar only material that is considered "harmful to minors, using a criteria based on widely accepted standards now in place across the nation. Eshoo, first elected in 1992, serves on the House Commerce Committee, and on the Telecommunications Subcommittee, where the Telecommunications bill and Decency act were shaped. Interactive Age Digital's Gary Brickman recently spoke with Representative. Eshoo about censoring the censorship laws. IAD: How did the Communications Decency Act become law? REP. ESHOO: This indecency proposal that became part of the overall bill did not go either through the committee, nor was it amended on the floor of the House. This was slipped in when we were in the conference committee. So, my experience there -- and it was a very close vote on this indecency proposal - really took me back. It said that First Amendment rights, in my view, would be violated. Right alongside of that, the government -- not moms and dads -- would be the decider on what is harmful to minors. I'd been working with various individuals and organizations to shape legislation that would correct this, and that's what the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 represents. IAD: How did the right wing of the Republican Party get the strength to pass the CDA? REP. ESHOO: Certainly the language that was jammed into the bill at the last minute I don't think withstands the scrutiny of the public. Of course Rick White [Republican - Washington], one of my colleagues in the House, tried to have language that would not be as restrictive as the language ended up. Certainly there were many members that quoted Ralph Reed who heads up the Christian Coalition. But it lost on a very close vote [17-16]. IAD: So you think the Christian Coalition was the major force in this country behind the CDA? REP. ESHOO: I think very much so. But I also think there were organizations that certainly lobbied on the Senate side -- because it was Senator Exon (Democrat-Nebraska) that first introduced language that resembled this, the decency clause. There were many family and parental groups that stressed their concerns about what children can and are, most frankly, submitted too. And so that became a very real concern of members of Congress. The irony in the Telecommunications bill is that Congress understood television better than the Internet. Because the V-Chip did become part of the legislative language when it comes to TV. My sense is, that most members of Congress have little appreciation or understanding that the Internet is not a federal interstate freeway -- it's not a public highway. This is a private network. IAD: To go back to the analogy of television versus the Internet in terms of government regulation -- isn't the Internet funded in part by federal dollars that go to educational institutions or research facilities that receive grants for work they do on the Internet? REP. ESHOO: They certainly have the Internet, and they certainly make use of it. But the Internet in and of itself is not a government-funded network. IAD: But neither is ABC or CBS... REP. ESHOO: I'm sure going back over the years the government, through research dollars helped develop it. But for the most part, these are private networks. Cyberspace is something that is relatively new. IAD: Should government regulate the Internet in any way? What form would that take? REP. ESHOO: We're not talking about regulation per se, we're talking about censorship, which goes right to the heart of our First Amendment Rights. The way the language is constructed in the law is that the indecency standard is so vague and so broad that it leads to the criminal penalties that are contained in the bill. In my view, that is harmful in and of itself. I'm a mother, I'm a parent. My children are grown now, but I'm certainly sensitive to the legitimate concerns that parents would have. IAD: Is it realistic to expect that in an election year, with Republicans in charge of Congress that your bill will pass? REP. ESHOO: I think that we have a very good opportunity to gather bipartisan support. I plan to demonstrate the technologies that are available now [to block sites from minors], so members will be not only be introduced to the legislation, but also understand the tools that will provide what parents legitimately need to have. IAD: The President was fairly silent on the Communications Decency Act as it was worded when it passed... REP. ESHOO: It was not an area of the bill that was highlighted. This small part of the bill, as much of an impact as it had to online users, was not something that was debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.. IAD: Do you expect the White House will support your bill? REP. ESHOO: We will certainly meet with the White House and make them very much aware of what this legislation contains. IAD: There are some concerns in the online community that judging material based on "community standards," a criteria supported in your bill, is impossible to apply to the Internet... REP. ESHOO: Just a moment. My bill adds two new defenses. One, the use of labeling or segregating systems to restrict access to online materials, using the standards defined by PICS, the platform for Internet content selection project, and two, it protects information content providers who use these technologies from civil or criminal liability. IAD: What will the impact on the growth of the Internet industry if the law stands as it is now written? REP. ESHOO: This is more than a growing industry in the country. We're the leaders in the world on this. Obviously we're dealing with a law that applies to the United States, but we have to keep in mind that this is a world wide activity. I think it can and will have a chilling effect on both the part of users, and on the part of those who manufacture technology. IAD:Why not let the courts deal with this? REP. ESHOO: Well, the court is not going to rewrite the law. The case is designed to knock out this section [the indecency standard] of the law. If in fact it does -- and my guess is, the court will -- what's left in place? I really do believe that we can and should legislatively speak to the concerns that parents have. I think that's a very important thing. But the way we do it, and honor the Constitution, has to be primary. -- Gary Brickman Managing Editor, Interactive Age Digital +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- This transmission was brought to you by.... THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK The CDA Information Network is a moderated mailing list providing up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, send email to with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. ------------------------------ From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 3--Georgia Computer Regulation (fwd) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:18:44 -0800 (PST) ================ Date--Tue, 19 Mar 96 16:34:37 -0800 From--"rep. mitchell kaye" ALERT!!! This bill has just passed the Georgia Legislature and is awaiting Governor Zell Miller's signature. It will restrict non specific e-mail addresses as well as links that are on pages without permission. It will also send a bad message from Georgia to the world about our welcoming technology. Please write the Gov ASAP. Write to Mr. Steve Wrigley, Executive Secretary to Governor Zell Miller State Capitol Atlanta, GA 30334 urging the Governor to veto House Bill 1630. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Thank you! Please spread the word!!! Rep. Mitchell Kaye ============= H. B. No. 1630 (FLOOR SUBSTITUTE)(AM) By: Representative Parsons of the 40th A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT To amend Article 6 of Chapter 9 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, known as the "Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act," so as to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person or organization knowingly to transmit certain misleading data through a computer or telephone network for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank; to provide for a penalty; to provide that civil actions are allowed; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: SECTION 1. Article 6 of Chapter 9 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, known as the "Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act," is amended by adding, following Code Section 16-9-93, a new Code Section 16-9-93.1 to read as follows: "16-9-93.1. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization, or any representative of any organization knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network or over the transmission facilities or through the network facilities of a local telephone network for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol to falsely identify the person, organization, or representative transmitting such data or which would falsely state or imply that such person, organization, or representative has permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted symbol for such purpose when such permission or authorization has not been obtained; provided, however, that no telecommunications company or Internet access provider shall violate this Code section solely as a result of carrying or transmitting such data for its customers. (b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit an aggrieved party's right to pursue a civil action for equitable or monetary relief, or both, for actions which violate this Code section." SECTION 2. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a member of the General Assembly from using the state seal or the Georgia flag which contains the state seal on a home page that is clearly identified with the name of the member as the home page of that member. SECTION 3. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:28 EDT From: E. ALLEN SMITH Subject: File 4--German Censorship comment (Re: Cu Digest, #8.17) I would like to discuss several statements by those opposed to efforts to remove German censorship by those not in Germany. I have earlier commented on why such efforts are not due to "local decisions" in the United States of America. They are not justified by the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights; the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights is justified by the ethical system also justifying these actions. First, some have argued that the German government's actions are legitimate under the philosophy of "might is right." I do not hold this philosophy to be ethically valid. Furthermore, since those not in Germany have the "might" to enforce a lack of censorship upon Germany, this philosophy would hold that such actions are by definition "right." In other words, "might is right" would hold that a government's actions are only legitimate as far as it can enforce such actions; the German government has shown that it cannot enforce the actions in question. Second, acts by private citizens, without the direct support and authorization of their government, cannot be acts of war. Under war's primary definition, wars are only conflicts between countries or between factions within a country (civil war). Third, even if these acts were acts of war, wars may be perfectly legitimate and right by most ethical standards. For instance, the war against Nazi Germany is considered to have been ethically right by all except a few groups such as neo-Nazis and pacifists. The "war" currently in question involves no actual harm to others; therefore, those opposed to other wars on pacifistic grounds could not oppose this "war" on those grounds. Fourth, one may argue against outside assistance to "pro-democracy" movements in areas in which the people would not vote for a democratic government; however, this is only a valid argument against pro-_democracy_ movements. It is not a valid argument against backing of civil liberties, since civil liberties do not depend on the support of a majority for legitimacy. (Civil liberties are essentially limitations on the power of a government (and of others) - including of a democratic government.) Sincerely Yours, ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Mar, 1996) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (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 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #8.26 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank