|
Changes on the CuD Mailing List coming soon, Breas
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer underground Digest Sun Dec 3, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 93
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected]
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, #7.93 (Sun, Dec 3, 1995)
File 1--Changes on the CuD Mailing List coming soon
File 2--Breasts, "Boobs," and America Online (Chic Trib Excerpt)
File 3--Response to AOL.COM banning "breasts"
File 4--Magna Carta (Response)
File 5--Rep. Ron Wyden & VTW Technology Pledge (VTW reprint)
File 6--More you can do to stop the Religious Right/net shutdown (reprint)
File 7--Re: Cyberangels
File 8--Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:26:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--Changes on the CuD Mailing List coming soon
Many of you received a copy of the UIUC notice indicating that they
will be changing systems and will not have the facilities to run
non-UIUC lists, especially large ones. UIUC has allowed CuD to use
their server to distribute the mailing list for the past few years.
Because of UIUC's move, and because of the size of the CuD mailing
list (over 6,000), we will be changing servers after the first of the
year.
We appeciate the service that UIUC has provided for us, and thanks to
their staff who supported us with good nature and patience. UIUC also
found an alternative distribution site for us, which further reduced
our labor. So, Thanks to Bruce, Charlie, and the rest, for their class
and generosity over the past few years.
HOW THIS WILL AFFECT CuD READERS
The problems of maintaining such a large list (bounces, unsubs,
delays, and similar stuff) finally hit critical mass, and has become
impossible to do. CuD is just a small part of my "real life"
activities, but the mundane busy-work tasks eat up a significant
portion of the day. Those on the mailing list received a "RFS"
(request for suggestions), and the response was overwhelming. Thanks
to all of you who responded. The feedback was invaluable. The
overwhelming number of people suggested that we initiate a re-sub
mechanism and encourage those who can get CuD from a web/ftp site or
of Usenet (comp.society.cu-digest) to do so.
So, that's what we'll do.
The CuD move will not affected those currently reading from Usenet or
the CuD ftp/www sites. They will notice nothing.
Those on the mailing list will be minimally affected, but they will have
to do this:
In the next week or so, we will provide the new server address.
Readers will have a month or so to sub on the new list, while CuD
continues to be sent from UIUC. Re-sub reminders will be sent out in
each issue. Then, at the appropriate time, we will switch to the new
server, using the new mailing list with resubbed addresses.
With luck, the shift will be invisible to those who resubbed. Those
who did not resub will simply not receive CuDs after the move.
To those worried about whether the move means an end to CuD, NO,
absolutely not. The issue has never been whether to continue CuD, but
to what to do about the mailing list, because the list comprises
proportionately few readers. So, not to worry....the mailing list will
be maintained.
Thanks again for the mass support. Thanks especially to Bruce Jones at
USC and to Pat Townson, who--busy as he is with his own Telecom Digest
list--unselfishly helps others.
Those wishing to unsub now and retrieve CuD elsewhere can send
this message:
unsub cudigest
to: [email protected]
The CuD homepage is: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 03:26:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jim Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Breasts, "Boobs," and America Online (Chic Trib Excerpt)
((MODERATORS' NOTE: From the people who brought us "hot-chat" rooms,
anonymous login IDs, the "kiddie-porn" busts, and Grabber, perhaps
the best graphic-snatching software for downloading XXX files, we
now have the "breast brouhaha." Maybe aol.com is overly sensitive
because, when descriping some of its policies, the term "boob" often
springs to mind)).
EXTRACTED FROM: The Chicago Tribune, Friday, Dec 1, 1995
`BREAST' DELETED FROM AOL VULGAR WORDS LIST
America Online banned the word "breast" from its computer
communication service, then quickly reversed itself after complaints
from breast-cancer patients who use the service to share information
and support.
America Online, the country's largest online service, said it was
trying to clean up cyberlanguage when it banned use of the word last
week, The Boston Globe reported Friday.
This angered subscribers who use America's Online breast-cancer
bulletin board, which is sponsored by the American Cancer Society.
The ban was discovered when a breast-cancer patient, who uses the
name MiaBella, discovered that America Online had deleted her
personal profile. Service users can create profiles to identify
their interests so they can be contacted by others.
..........................
Extracted from: The Chicago Tribune, December 2
AMERICA ONLINE ADMITS `ERROR' IN BANNING WORD `BREAST'
REVERSAL FOLLOWS OUTCRY FROM CANCER PATIENTS
..........................
Several AOL customers noted that this is the second time in six
months that the on-line service has disrupted communication among
breast cancer survivors by banning the word "breast." Last summer,
the offending word was prohibited as an identifier of a so-called
"chat room," a feature that permits groups of users to exchange views
in "real time."
At that time a flurry of protests directed at AOL chief executive
Steve Case caused the company to permit "breast" as a chat room
identifier. The company's repetition of the proscription led one
exasperated customer to write: "Honestly, AOL, we have better things
to do with our time, like helping and encouraging each other."
Another disturbing implication is the thinking behind AOL's
decision to declare "breast" a vulgar term, said Barbara LeStage, a
Massachusetts woman who is on the executive committee of the American
Cancer Society.
"I don't have any problem with AOL trying to keep dirty words off
their service," she said. "But I don't consider `breast' to be a
dirty word. If you have people who see it as dirty, for whatever
reason, rather than as an everyday term, then this is going to
continue to happen."
((The Chicago Tribune is available from America Online's
Newstand item on the main menu. For information about the
Chicago Tribune's online service, contact:
[email protected]))
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 17:56:54 EST
From: [email protected]( JON HEIFETZ)
Subject: File 3--Response to AOL.COM banning "breasts"
Please post this "fine literature" in the next issue of CUDigest.
-----------------------------------------------------------
(This article was reprinted from the Tusker Times, the student newspaper of
a small highschool in a small town that nobody's ever heard of)
Byte This
By Jon Heifetz
One of the biggest issues in today's world is censorship. Books
and movies are already restricted, but computers are not.
If you have a computer and a modem, you could easily find
pornography or chat in a sexual way. The online services all have chat
rooms that are often uncensored. There are people, known as chat hosts,
who are paid by the online service to spend their days "cleaning" the chat
rooms. Often, however, there are members posing as chat hosts, so you
never really know if one is around. The World Wide Web (WWW), which is a
network of many online services, businesses, and schools, has easy access
to "adult material". If you go to http://www.playboy.com on the WWW, you
will be amazed at what you see. If you go to the Kids and Teens area in
Prodigy Chat and look at the member-created rooms, or page Josh 81 in chat,
you will be even more amazed. Not only are teens there, but there are
thirty-something men looking for boys and girls to have cybersex with.
Cybersex is simulated sexual intercourse over the computer. Many local
computer services (BBSes), which are often free, have no restrictions. You
can not only download pornography and have cybersex, you can also get
pirated software. Many of these BBSes do require you to prove your age to
gain access to adult download areas, but that doesn't stop anything.
Now the question is, what should we do? My answer is, nothing.
There is nothing wrong with the human body. When Michaelangelo made David,
a pornographic statue, everybody considered it great. When Playboy takes
pictures of naked women and posts them to the WWW, it's considered
horrifying. It's time for the people who police the internet to grow up.
AOL, which is the biggest online service, blocks people out of any WWW site
that some guy making $100,000 a year deems inappropriate. If you have
e-mail and agree with me, then bombard [email protected] (the AOL President)
with messages telling him to back off. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As you could tell, this created quite a controversy (g).
-Living Hell
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 17:25:12 -0500
From: Terry McIntyre <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--Magna Carta (Response)
[email protected] (Richard K. Moore), in a lengthy
ramble, purports that the PPF's "Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age"
is less about individual freedom than about freedom of corporations.
The report surely has its flaws, but the cure is not to axe the concept
of freedom altogether, nor to hand government the role of developing
the new fronteir. We already know that governments are no lovers of
freedom of expression. I do not know how other governments have responded
to the bureoning power of speech on the internet, but here in the United
States, Senator Exon and Ralph Reed have moved swiftly to prevent the
spectre of free speech from hampering their political aims.
The cure to a lack of freedom is not to shackle another, but to strike
the shackles altogether. The internet is growing at a rate of 100%
per year; hundreds of providers are competing to give inexpensive
access to homes everywhere. All of this has happened in one of the
least regulated industries in the world. Rather than forge new
chains, let us remove any remaining obstacles. Let us campaign
vigorously against know-nothings who would restrict our freedom of
speech; let us tell Ralph Reed and all of his cohorts that they may
speak on the same terms as everyone else - freely, to those who
wish to listen.
The PPF and Newt surely have their failings, but not everything they
say is false. Where they speak for freedom, I would not decry them,
but urge that they be less stingy with a commodity which (alone among
those offered by governments) breaks no bones and picks no pockets -
liberty.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:38:48 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Rep. Ron Wyden & VTW Technology Pledge (VTW reprint)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 00:34:15 -0500
From: Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW <[email protected]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 29, 1995
Contact: Steven Cherry
[email protected]
Shabbir Safdar
[email protected]
(718) 596-2851
New York, NY
Voter's Telecommunications Watch (VTW) announced today that Rep. Ronald
Wyden (D-OR) has answered the Technology Pledge Questionnaire. He is
the first candidate to do so in Oregon's much-watched special election
to fill the Senate seat vacated by retiring Senator Packwood.
The Technology Pledge Questionnaire was created by Internet activists
to allow citizens to assess how candidates in the 1996 elections stand
on critical issues where technology policy affects civil liberties and
democracy in the on-line world.
The Pledge Questionnaire covers free speech, public access to government
information, electronic commerce, and the right to private conversation
(cryptography).
In particular, the four questions of the Pledge ask candidates whether
they support
. parental responsibility versus government regulation of free speech,
. the online availability to public government documents,
. regulation of still-emerging electronic markets,
. governmental encouragement of the development of a secure networks
specifically through liberalizing government regulation restricting the
availability of cryptography.
With respect to the first issue, Congressman Wyden not only supports
parental responsibility in principle but introduced and co-sponsored the
Internet Freedom and Family Act to stress technology and parental control
rather than old-style Federal government content regulation. The
Cox/Wyden amendment passed the House as part of the Telecommunications
Reform Act of 1995 (421-4) on August 4, 1995
The special Oregon election is the first where candidates have been
asked to answer the Pledge Questionnaire. The leading five candidates
have have been faxed the four-part Pledge Questionnaire and background
briefing papers. Thus far, two of the five candidates in the primary
have responded. On November 21st, Jack Roberts refused to answer the
questionnaire. On November 28th, Rep. Wyden's office answered all four
questions in the affirmative. Significantly, his campaign office chose
to do so via electronic mail from his own Internet account at the
Oregon Internet provider, Teleport.
Oregonians are excited to see Wyden take the Pledge Questionnaire.
For example, Mark Nasstrom is an elected precinct member and chair of an
on-line activist committee in Oregon's 5th Congressional District.
"We're grateful Wyden has responded so positively." Nasstrom said. "Here
at the precinct and district levels, where American politics really takes
place, we see a lot of people concerned with telecommunications issues as
much as anything else. Businesses are beginning to depend on the Internet
and politics can really benefit from it if we don't clamp down on it."
Oregon's largest Internet Service Provider was similarly enthusiastic.
Jim Deibele, president of Teleport Internet Services said "I'm glad to
see Wyden in favor of these points and disappointed that Roberts hasn't
gone on record in favor of them. I hope the other candidates just haven't
gotten around to it yet." Deibele went on to mention one important
concern he continually finds among his 13,000 customers. "We see where
people really want access to public information, everything from building
records to camping permits.... We don't lead 9-5 lives anymore if we ever
did."
To learn more about the VTW Technology Pledge, see our World Wide Web
page at URL:http://www.vtw.org/pledge/
_________________________________________________________________
Appendix 1: Technology Pledge Questionnaire
1. Laws regulating indecency are inappropriate for the global online
world, where users have a tremendous amount of control over what they
see.
Question 1: Do you support parental control, as opposed to laws
regulating "indecent speech" as a method of controlling childrens access
to the Internet? yes/no
2. The electronic dissemination of government information, such as
through the THOMAS system, has been an overwhelming success. It allows
greater access to government information that ever possible before.
Question 2: Do you support the online dissemination of government
information? yes/no
3. The world of electronic commerce has the potential to be an explosive
growth force in our economy if it is regulated consistently throughout
the US.
Question 3: Do you support a consistent national policy for online
commerce? yes/no
4. Cryptography is a necessary piece for securing the Global Information
Infrastructure. To date, the Clinton Administration has failed to allow
the industry to develop, sell, and export competitive products with
market-driven cryptography standards. Instead they have proposed schemes
such as the Clipper Chip that are driven purely by law enforcement
interests, and not by privacy or consumer demands.
Question 4: Do you support the industry in its quest to develop, sell,
and export products with market-driven cryptography standards? yes/no
_________________________________________________________________
To contact Rep. Wyden's campaign office:
Wyden for Senate Campaign
Phone:(503) 230-1246
Email:[email protected]
URL:http://www.teleport.com/~wyden/
Jim Deibele and Teleport can be contacted:
Jim Deibele, President
Teleport Inc.
319 SW Washington, Suite 604
Portland, OR 97204
+1-503-223-4245
http://www.teleport.com/
[email protected]
Mark Nasstrom and Lumberyard BBS can be contacted:
Mark C. Nasstrom, System Administrator
Lumberyard BBS Community Network
P.O. Box 479
Yachats, OR 97498-0479
[email protected]
+1-541-547-3016
Voters Telecommunications Watch is a volunteer organization, concentrating
on legislation as it relates to telecommunications and civil liberties.
VTW publishes a weekly BillWatch that tracks relevant legislation as it
progresses through Congress. It publishes periodic Alerts to inform the
about immediate action it can take to protect its on-line civil liberties
and privacy.
More information about VTW can be found on-line at
gopher -p 1/vtw gopher.panix.com
www: http://www.vtw.org
or by writing to [email protected]. The press can call (718) 596-2851 or
contact:
Shabbir Safdar Steven Cherry
[email protected] [email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 01:12:43 -0500
From: [email protected](Shabbir J. Safdar, VTW)
Subject: File 6--More you can do to stop the Religious Right/net shutdown (repri
nt)
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS
(INCLUDING THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AND THE MGRS AMDT)
Short Update: Calls are coming in, but not enough!
What You Can Do Now: Call Congress, directions below!
SYSOPS AND ISPS: Please place a short version of this alert
in your welcome message! (directions below)
WEBMASTERS: Please place a link to this alert in your page!
(directions below)
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Nov 8, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 1, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
_______________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
_______________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
The Religious Right is attempting to push legislation the Telecommunications
Deregulation Conference Committee that would shut down most forms of
speech online.
Their proposal would:
-Make internet providers, online services, and libraries criminally liable
for expression online.
-Create a standard for criminalizing "indecency" online, dumbing down
every Web page, newsgroups, discussion forum, and chat system.
-Give the FCC jurisdiction over speech in cyberspace and software that
might be used to filter children's access to the net.
For a full analysis of the Religious Right's proposal, and a copy of their
proposed legislation and their letter to the Conference Committee, see
the alert at URL:http://www.vtw.org/.
Earlier this week the coalition started a phone campaign to let Dole and
Gingrich know how important this is to us. Calls have been coming in
strong, but not enough have come in to sway their opinion.
Please call now.
_______________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
1. If you run any sort of system that allows a welcome message for all
users, please add the following:
The Religious Right is attempting to shutdown the net by passing
legislation that would make services like this one liable
for what you say and read on the Internet. Please call Congress
now; for more info URL:http://www.vtw.org/ or send mail to
[email protected] with "send alert" in the subject line. (11/8/95)
If you have a Web page that gets a lot of traffic, please add the
following link:
<a href="http://www.vtw.org/">
Stop the Religious Right from shutting down online free
speech! (11/8/95)</a>
2. The proposals from the Religious Right will literally destroy online
speech as we know it. The odds of stopping this are not certain.
There is a very real chance that this legislation will pass, and
we will experience a period of uncertainty and chilling of speech
while an appropriate test case attempts to reach the Supreme Court
(should it even get there!)
The Religious Right has a strong grass-roots network. We need to
counter their energy and ensure cyberspace is not lost due to them.
IMMEDIATELY CALL House Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) and Senate Leader
Dole (R-KS) and urge them to oppose the Christian Coalition's
proposal. (fax numbers have been corrected)
Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax
======================== ============== ==============
R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245
If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following:
Please oppose the recent proposal from the Religious Right to
censor the Internet. The only effective way to address children's
access to the Internet is through parental control tools outlined
by the Cox/White/Wyden approach.
or
As a religious person and a parent, I oppose the Religious Right's
attempts to censor the Internet. I am the best person to monitor
my child's access to the Internet using parental control tools
as outlined in the Cox/White/Wyden approach.
3. Join the online fight by becoming a volunteer for your district!
Check to see if you're legislator is in the list below. If they are
not, consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip Codes to
Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at:
URL:http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html
The conference committee legislators are:
House: Barr (R-GA), Barton (R-TX), Berman (R-CA), Bliley (R-VA),
Boucher (D-VA), Brown (D-OH), Bryant (D-TX), Buyer (R-IN),
Conyers (D-MI), Dingell (D-MI), Eshoo (D-CA), Fields (R-TX),
Flanagan (R-IL), Frisa (R-NY), Gallegly (R-CA), Goodlatte (R-VA),
Gordon (D-TN), Hastert (R-IL), Hoke (R-OH), Hyde (R-IL),
Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Klug (R-WI), Lincoln (D-AR), Markey (D-MA),
Moorhead (R-CA), Oxley (R-OH), Paxon (R-NY), Rush (D-IL),
Schaefer (R-CO), Schroeder (D-CO), Scott (D-VA), Stearns (R-FL),
White (R-WA)
Senate: Burns (R-MT), Exon (D-NE), Ford (D-KY), Gorton (R-WA),
Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ),
Pressler (R-SD), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stevens (R-AK)
If your legislator is on the conference committee, you have a chance
to influence their vote on this issue with your power as a constituent.
Volunteer to help educate your legislator by sending mail to
[email protected]. A coalition volunteer will be in touch with you.
You can starting working to help spread the word in your district by
sending this letter to five friends. Ask them to call Dole and Gingrich
as well.
4. The People for the American Way (PFAW) and the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) are organizing a letter from ORGANIZATIONS to the Conference
Committee to oppose the censorship provisions.
If you are a representative of an organization that would like to
signon to this letter, you should contact [email protected] IMMEDIATELY.
5. We can't suggest relaxing at this point. The stakes are too high, and
the risk is too great. Everything now hangs in the balance.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 14:47:48 MST
From: Dave++ Ljung <[email protected]>
Subject: File 7--Re: Cyberangels
Sorry this took so long, and I know some of this has been beaten to the
ground, but I think some of this needs to be said.
I started having a conversation with Gabriel of the CyberAngels and
I realised that I should pull it back to CUD so that we could get some
input and ideas from some of the other readers.
--
One of the items I pointed out to Gabriel was that I didn't see how his
list of 'crimes to be monitored' would include child pornography but not
bestiality, but he pointed out that this was an oversight.
--
Secondly, I disagree with his attack on anonymous remailers.
Gabriel says:
|What is the difference between [email protected] and
|[email protected]? We do not see the need for a second level of
|anonymity for users. Users are already anonymous and already can only be
|traced by reporting to sysadmins.
I don't want my sysadmin to decide whether or not someone else should get
my real name. Secondly, some systems will base your login on your name,
when I was at my University, my login was ljung@cae.wisc.edu. It would have
been incredibly easy to find out that login belonged to David Ljung in
Madison Wisconsin. Secondly, even if I have control over my login, why
should I be forced to make it hard to find out information about me if
I want to be anonymous in some situations? What if I want people to be
able to trace [email protected] to my real name, my website, my home address,
my phone number, my favorite color, etc? Then why shouldn't I have some
method of also posting anonymously? Perhaps you are right, maybe this
method should be outside the law, but I don't see what you could do about
it since most anonymous remailers are outside the states.
Besides, even if you close that off, how will you stop me from forging my mail?
Besides, even if you close that off, why do you give all the power to the
sysadmin. Hell, I am the sysadmin of my system. If it wasn't for the
fact that it advertises my presence at 'fc.hp.com' I'd be set, wouldn't I?
I could create whatever user accounts I wanted and post from those...
Gabriel says:
| There is no way anyone can trace for
|example a prodigy account holder to their real name, address, telephone etc.
| So we feel that kids are already protected as far as ID is concerned.
Not everyone uses Prodigy or AOL. Most of us consider this a good thing.
I don't need to use examples of breaking unjust laws as a need for
anonymous remailers. Here are some more:
1) A woman who wants to post to a battered womens newsgroup without
fearing being 'found out' by their assailant
2) Women who want to post to a rape support newsgroup without fear of
coworkers knowing about her past
3) Someone who wants to post extreme political views without being afraid
of being targeted by violent radical groups or the government.
4) Someone who wants to post to a sexually explicit newsgroup without
friends finding out their personal preferences or desires.
How's that?
|>3) A Cyberangel uses anonymity to avoid risk in his job.
|
|CyberAngels are not permitted to operate via anonymous remailers. We are
|proud of what we do. In any case I think I answered this point earlier.
| User ID is *already* anonymous.
Not in all cases. By this ruling I cannot be a Cyberangel, since I can't
make my user ID entirely anonymous, and I can't go linking Hewlett-Packard
to some extreme views I may have on the net. No offense, but a community
of cyber-cops composed of AOL and Prodigy users is a frightening thought.
--
Third of all, I think that some of the items on his list of crimes go
against his statement:
"Activities between consenting adults (providing they are within the
law) are not our concern."
I had mentioned that *discussions* of viruses, terrorism, etc... were
protected (though barely these days) by the first ammendment.
His reply:
|Your point is taken. We are not trying to *stop* discussions about
|terrorism, or viruses, but we are *monitoring* such postings/websites because
|if actions do occur we may be in a position to help.
I think you need to make that clearer in your postings to CUD, since it
wasn't immediately obvious. There is a huge distinction between talking
about illegal activities and doing them. First amendment rights support
our rights to talk about illegal activities. The Gov't has lately been
trying to make both illegal.
|Viruses to me are a form of Internet
|graffiti - a way of leaving your tag on other peoples property.
Only if they are released to the computer community.
This is the same as bombs, weapons trading, terrorism, etc...
Here is an opinion:
Change your mission statement to only go after crimes that are on the net
that are not being caught. Not first amendment crimes... One of the problems
I think we currently have with 1st amendment rights is that we are trying
to protect criminals under our umbrella. For example, when Exon tries to
stop pornography we yell 1st amendment and tell him to leave our net alone.
Instead I think we should say, yes - bestiality and child pornography is
illegal. Feel free to try to catch and punish anyone who is *creating* such
works, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Any thoughts, guys?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:35:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--Civil Lib Groups Will Accept Cyberporn Compromise
NEW YORK (Reuter) - A group of commercial online services and civil
liberties groups have agreed to accept restrictions on sexual material
being sent on the Internet, the New York Times reported in Saturday
editions.
The compromise, drafted by Washington state Republican Rick White,
would create provisions for a Senate bill that would impose fines and
prison sentences on people who transmit pornography, the newspaper
said.
It said the compromise, circulating as a draft on Capitol Hill, made
no distinction between commercial and nonprofit service providers. It
said the restrictions would presumably apply to all, including
Internet access nodes run by academic institutions.
The Times said the agreement was being made known days before a joint
Senate-House committee is expected to debate a measure that would
impose fines of up to $100,000 and jail terms on people who knowingly
transmit pornography or material deemed ``filthy'', ``lewd'' or
``indecent''.
The compromise would weaken the Senate bill's prohibitions against
making indecent material available to children by changing the
prohibition to material that is considered ''harmful to children'',
the Times reported.
The compromise would also offer added protection to online services
or information providers who make a good faith effort to keep sex
material away from children, the newspaper said.
---
NEW YORK (AP) -- There reportedly is agreement on legislation limiting
pornography on the Internet. The New York Times reported Saturday
that a coalition of commercial on-line providers and some civil
liberties groups have reversed course and signed on to a compromise
drafted by Rep. Rick White, R-Wash.
The move comes just a few days before a House-Senate conference
committee takes up a measure that would impose prison sentences and
fines on people who knowingly transmit pornography or material deemed
``filthy'' or ``lewd.''
But White's proposal would offer added protection to on-line services
that make good-faith efforts to keep pornography away from children.
The Times report says the coalition has agreed to the compromise as
the lesser evil of other more restrictive proposals.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 3 Dec, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to [email protected]
NOTE: THIS MAILING ADDRESS WILL CHANGE (TBA) AFTER JAN 1, '96
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 CUDIGEST
Send it to [email protected]
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/[email protected]
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.93
************************************
|
|
