|
CyberAngels - more info from Colin ( Gabriel ) Hat
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 Mar 2, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 14
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.14 (Sun, Mar 2, 1997)
File 1--CyberAngels - more info from Colin ("Gabriel") Hatcher
File 2--CYBERANGELS FACE PROJECT
File 3--Netpics Interviewed after FW Arrests - Tx Telecom Jrnl (fwd)
File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:23:27 -0500
From: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--CyberAngels - more info from Colin ("Gabriel") Hatcher
Editors :
Following is the text of correspondence between myself and
Gabriel Hatcher of FACES.
Udhay
To: [email protected]
From: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
Subject--File 1 of Cu Digest, #9.09, Sun 16 Jan 97
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
Please refer the abovementioned Cu Digest. I agree with the views expressed
by David Smith
in that post and I think your picture database will further traumatise the
victims of child
pornography. Maybe if you make it available through some kind of auth.
process ?
USN
=
Date--Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:09:03 -0800
To: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
From--"CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher"
<[email protected]>
Subject--Re: File 1 of Cu Digest, #9.09, Sun 16 Jan 97
>Dear Mr. Hatcher,
>
>Please refer the abovementioned Cu Digest. I agree with the views expressed
>by David Smith in that post and I think your picture database will further
>traumatise the victims of child pornography. Maybe if you make it available
>through some kind of auth. process ?
>
Dear USN
Thankyou for your views. I do not however agree with you. Our FACE
project has been carefully researched for the past 6 months and we are
proceeding slowly and with high regard for the victims. I find it strange
that you believe that a child who is being raped for the pleasure of adults
would prefer the rape to continue rather than be "embarrassed" by having
themselves identified and rescued. Our project is all about rescuing the
victims of crime, and I believe we are giving due regard to their concerns.
Since the choice may be between being publicly identified and rescued, or
the abuse continuing, I believe identification and rescue is the better
option.
In some cases it may even be true that a child would prefer the torture to
continue rather than have their father get into trouble - but in cases like
these I would suggest that there is a compelling interest greater than the
child's wish - the need to stop the crime continuing and bring a pedophile
to justice.
The average pedophile sexually abuses 80 separate victims before being
arrested. It is important to identify them and stop them before many more
children are hurt. A child victim's face may lead Police to an abuser -
either an abductor or indeed a family who are abusing their own child.
This project is being developed in consultation with other expert
organizations in the area of child abuse, with Federal Law Enforcement
authorities and with our own experts in child psychology. Our research and
development continues. Be advised that we are extremely thoughtful about
what we are doing. We have no plans to break any laws, and this project
proceeds at all times with expert legal advice.
regards
Gabriel
*********************************************************************
Colin Gabriel Hatcher
CYBERANGELS Internet Safety Organization
[email protected]
http://www.cyberangels.org
Information about PGP, and our PGP
public Key is available from our WWW site.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
(after Edmund Burke)
CYBERANGELS (TM) is a Division of the
Guardian Angels International Alliance,
which is a 501c3 non-profit organization.
501©(3) #11-2592739.
*********************************************************************
To: "CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher" <[email protected]>
From--Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
Subject--Re: File 1 of Cu Digest, #9.09, Sun 16 Jan 97
At 01:09 PM 2/25/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Thankyou for your views. I do not however agree with you. Our FACE
>project has been carefully researched for the past 6 months and we are
>proceeding slowly and with high regard for the victims. I find it strange
>that you believe that a child who is being raped for the pleasure of adults
>would prefer the rape to continue rather than be "embarrassed" by having
>themselves identified and rescued.
Are you following the debate this has initiated on the Cu Digest mailing
list ? There are,
I believe, some important concerns / objections to your project which have
been enunciated
there, such as the various possibilities for abuse of such a system. What
are the safeguards
you are building into the process ? The question is academic to me (living
as I do in India)
but it could be vital for the others who have voiced their feelings. I do
not think anybody
is against your stated objective, but there seem to be plenty of grey areas
here. Some idea
of what your failsafes are would be helpful.
Regards,
Udhay
PS: I would like your permission to forward this discussion to the CuD
mailing list and my own
BBS if appropriate.
PPS: Just curious - what exactly did you mean by the quote marks surrounding
the word
"embarrassed" in your post, reproduced above ? Either you meant to imply
that it was lifted
from my email to you, or you were being satirical. Both are, I would think,
inappropriate here.
=
Date--Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:30:48 -0800
To: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
From--"CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher"
<[email protected]>
Subject--Re: File 1 of Cu Digest, #9.09, Sun 16 Jan 97
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>Are you following the debate this has initiated on the Cu Digest mailing
>list ? There are, I believe, some important concerns / objections to your
>project which have been enunciated there, such as the various possibilities
>for abuse of such a system. What are the safeguards you are building into
>the process ? The question is academic to me (living as I do in India) but
>it could be vital for the others who have voiced their feelings. I do not
>think anybody is against your stated objective, but there seem to be plenty
>of grey areas here. Some idea of what your failsafes are would be helpful.
The concerns voiced about the FACE project are concerns that
>PS: I would like your permission to forward this discussion to the CuD
>mailing list and my own BBS if appropriate.
Thankyou for asking - most people do not. I have no problem with you
posting this discussion to CUD.
>PPS: Just curious - what exactly did you mean by the quote marks surrounding
>the word "embarrassed" in your post, reproduced above ? Either you meant to
>imply that it was lifted from my email to you, or you were being satirical.
>Both are, I would think, inappropriate here.
The use of quotation marks was neither a quote nor satirical, just a figure
of speech. It refers to the fact that some people would use the term
"embarrassed" to describe the experience, but I would not.
regards
Gabriel
*********************************************************************
Colin Gabriel Hatcher
CYBERANGELS Internet Safety Organization
[email protected]
http://www.cyberangels.org
Information about PGP, and our PGP
public Key is available from our WWW site.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
(after Edmund Burke)
CYBERANGELS (TM) is a Division of the
Guardian Angels International Alliance,
which is a 501c3 non-profit organization.
501©(3) #11-2592739.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:47:51 -0800
From: "CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher"
Subject: File 2--CYBERANGELS FACE PROJECT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
CYBERANGELS FACE PROJECT
The concerns voiced about the CyberAngels FACE project are valid concerns
and deserve an answer. The insulting tone of some of the posts to date
however is sad to see. Disagreement is often expressed in CuD by abusing
and demonizing the opponent. In other words the critic cannot conceive
that another person could be intelligent and yet disagree with them. Thus
our project is dismissed as "dim-witted" or ill thought out, when what the
writer perhaps means is that they disagree with it. I disagree with a
number of the contributors to CuD but I would not claim for a moment that
they were stupid people based on the fact that I didn't agree with their
opinion. I consider it a weakness to be so quick to judge and condemn when
in fact the details of the project are not even known by those criticising
it.
The main areas of concern about our FACE project appear to be:
A) CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN WHO WILL BE "VICTIMIZED" BY THE PROJECT
Some critics have written that we are contributing to
"double-victimization", while one from England wrote that we were lucky we
didn't live in the UK as we would go to jail there for such a project. In
other words this criticism equates us with the original abusers of the
children, and suggests that while we may well be well meaning "do-gooders"
we are in fact hurting the children and exploiting them for our own ends.
The term "do-gooders" is invariably used as a term of abuse as you can see
from the post in CuD - a "do-gooder" is by definition ignorant and
unskilled in the area they work.
It is my belief that a child who is being raped by adults for their
pleasure would like the torture to stop. It is the FACE project's intent
to assist in stopping the abuse. Our FACE project has been carefully
researched for the past 6 months and we are proceeding slowly and with high
regard for the victims. I find it strange that people believe that a child
who is being sexually abused would prefer the rape to continue rather than
face the "embarrassment" of having themselves identified and rescued.
It is certainly true that some children who are being raped by their
fathers are worried about getting him into trouble, and it is certainly
true that many children being abused inside families do not inform teachers
either because of shame and humiliation or in some cases because they are
threatened with terrible consequences if they ever tell. Nevertheless it
is in the best interests of all victims of child abuse, and for our society
as a whole, that child predators are stopped, and part of stopping child
abuse is by identifying child abuse victims.
The average pedophile predator abuses 80 children before they are finally
brought to justice. This being the case, it is in our interests to act
fast when we discover them. Identifying the victim of child abuse gives
Law Enforcement in many cases a direct lead to abusers.
B) CONCERN THAT CYBERANGELS FACE UNIT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY OF
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
It has been said that CyberAngels does not understand that child
pornography can be forged, and that any child's face can be pasted onto any
pornographic scene etc... Exactly what evidence does the critic have of
our lack of understanding in these matters? I would suggest no evidence at
all, for certainly none is offered. In fact we are perfectly well aware
that modern computer programs are very capable of such things. I own and
use Photoshop myself and am fully versed in what it can do with photographs.
The laws on child pornography are very clear here in the USA:
==================================================
"Child pornography" is defined as speech that:
1) visually depicts
2) sexual conduct - which might include sex, masturbation, and "lewd
exhibition of genitals" --
3) by actual children under the age of 18,
It is constitutionally UNPROTECTED. You can go to jail for distributing it
*or* for possessing it.
The rationale behind this exception is that child pornography necessarily
involves the use of children in sexual contexts; and that to suppress such
use, the law can ban distribution and possession of child pornography as
well as its production. The category is therefore limited to *actual*
depictions of children; it almost certainly excludes, say, paintings (or
computer-generated images) of fictional children, or verbal descriptions of
sexual conduct involving children.
[From "Cyberspace Law for Non-Lawyers" by Larry Lessig, David Post, Eugene
Volokh
http://www.ssrn.com/cyberlaw ]
==================================================
So what are our criteria for selecting images from which to crop? FACE
members must make decisions about the following:
1) The original photo should have been taken in the last few years.
a) Consider hair styles and clothing: are they something you would see
people wearing today?
b) Does the photo have a yellow or brown tint to it, If so it may be too old.
c) Consider decor in the room like pictures, beds, wallpaper. Could you
buy something like that today? If not the photo may be too old.
2.The child must appear to be under 15 years old.
a) Consider the hands and eyes of the victim.
b) Try to determine if the photo has been changed in any way to make it
look like child porn. (If your viewer can magnify the size of the image,
you may be able to determine if there have or have not been any
alterations.) The most obvious retouch methods used when fabricating child
pornography is the masking of pubic hair, the reduction of breast size in
the case of women, and the placing of a child's head on top of a adults's
body.
In the case of highly skilled graphic designers the changed image will
appear "seamless". In the case of a seamless image, CyberAngels are
advised to treat it as a piece of genuine child pornography.
3) If the child is just standing, sitting, or laying we can NOT use it
unless it meets one of the below requirements:
a) The child is being sexually abused by someone else in the photo.
b) The child is doing something sexual (eg. masturbation, pulling her dress
up to expose him or herself, or posing in an overtly sexual nature).
One thing to be very careful of, is to try and determine if the image comes
from a nudist camp. If it does, and it is just child nudity rather than
sexual abuse, then we CANNOT use the image as these are legal images. What
the images are used for by pedophiles is sickening and sad, but the images
in and of themselves are legal under US law.
4) The image CANNOT be used if the child's face is showing pain or
distress or if the child is peforming oral sex and therefore the face
cannot be cropped. If FACE searcher can find one unuseable image of a
child involved in oral sex and another simple nude picture of the same
child that would normally not be useable as it is legal, then we can couple
the two images and use the nudist face, as we have evidence that sexual
abuse occurred.
Images to be included in the FACE database must be approved by 5 separate
people. For an image to be included all 5 persons of the selection
committee must agree unanimously.
The logic of our critic appears to be that since child pornography can be
spoofed it is therefore not possible to ever decide whether something is
child pornography or not. Presumably the same critic would then favor the
abolition of the laws against child pornography on the same grounds?
In fact what we are doing is searching for "probable cause" for deeper
investigation by Law Enforcement. It is not for CyberAngels to make a
judicial ruling about whether something is an illegal image or not. That
decision is made by a court, and in some cases by a jury, following expert
witnesses and examination of the images by experts in the field (compare
for example OJ Simpson's Magli shoes, where a jury had to decide whether
the image was genuine after hearing expert testimony). CyberAngels FACE
Unit is selecting possible examples of child abuse, asking for public
assistance in identifying the faces used in the images and presenting the
evidence to Law Enforcement.
And what if the face used in the child pornography belongs to a child who
has _never_ been abused? Wouldn't the parents wish to know that someone
was using their child's face to create such an image for the sexual
gratification of pedophiles worldwide? I certainly would like to know that
if one of my kids was being exploited in such a way.
C) CONCERN THAT WE ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY GATHERING EVIDENCE
Our critics continue to paint us as ignorant newbies who know nothing about
law, law enforcement, obscenity, pornography, child pornography, child
abuse, psychology or internet technology. Notice that the accusation is
always that we are "dim-witted" and rarely stops at "I disagree".
In fact CyberAngels core membership are experts in a wide range of the
above mentioned fields. I am a post graduate researcher and lecturer
(History, International Relations) with 17 years teaching experience,
including work at the University of London, England, and am also an expert
in security (20 years). Other members of CyberAngels core team are
professional Law Enforcement members, child psychologists and mental health
counsellors, internet system administrators, network managers, usenet
admins, webmasters and technicians, numerous lawyers from both criminal and
civil fields, and numerous representatives of child abuse/support
organizations. Our FACE project is being developed in consultation with as
much expertise as we can find.
We are following guidelines for gathering evidence given to us after
discussion with the FBI "Innocent Images" project running out of Baltimore.
Our Usenet Director discussed how we could help the FBI in their
investigations with agent Doris Heppler who is one of those in charge of
the project.
The advice we received from the FBI is the advice we follow:
1) Images are downloaded to floppy disks for viewing purposes.
2) If the image is suspected to be illegal, the headers are recorded.
3) The floppy disk is reformatted to erase all trace of the suspected
illegal image.
4) The headers are passed up the chain of command to the next level for
verification.
5) No suspected illegal images are EVER stored on computer, nor sent by
email or snail mail.
6) Following verification either i) The headers are passed on to FBI agents.
or ii) The encoded binary is downloaded to floppy disk (not decoded) and
the disk is then carried physically to the local FBI office.
7) All members involved in such activity should make contact with local or
regional FBI offices and ask for assistance and guidance.
All FACE project members are advised to make direct contact and meet with
both their local FBI agents AND with their ISP admins to discuss their
involvement in this project. It is not the case that CyberAngels are
operating alone and in secret and could therefore be confused with
pedophiles. The same is true in other countries - members are advised to
contact their local or federal law enforcement and ask for guidelines as to
how they can assist in the gathering of evidence and the stopping of the
online trade in child pornography and the real life activities of
pedophiles and child predators.
D) CONCERN THAT PEDOPHILES WILL JOIN CYBERANGELS AS A COVER FOR GETTING
THEIR HANDS ON CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Some critics are concerned that pedophiles will join CyberAngels as a cover
for getting their hands on child pornography and being immune from
prosecution. What evidence do these critics have of this? I have never
seen any.
Why would a pedophile join CyberAngels in order to look at child
pornography? In case anyone didn't know the binaries newsgroups are full
of such illegal images that can be downloaded and viewed in minutes.
Pedophiles can also use the Fserves from the IRC nets and gain access to
thousands of child pornography images in that way. Providing no images are
ever stored to the Hard Drive, no pedophile can ever be convicted of
possession of child pornography, as there will be no evidence. The only
times pedophiles are convicted of possession of child pornography is when
either a) Their computers are seized and found to contain large archives of
child pornography, or b) They send illegal images by email to someone else.
In other words it is completely unnecessary for a pedophile to join
CyberAngels in order to view child pornography with impunity. This is
probably why we do not have members who are pedophiles. How many
pedophiles do you know who would be happy to register their names and
addresses with the FBI and risk background investigations, when they can
obtain child pornography freely and safely without needing to do that?
Any CyberAngel member who stores illegal images on a Hard drive is as
guilty as anyone else of possession of child pornography. Storing of
images is not permitted by law except for by Law Enforcement or their
agents, and, while we seek ultimately to act as official agents for the FBI
we are at present involved only at an informal level with them as private
citizens. What this means is that all CyberAngels members are bound by the
same laws as anyone else. Abuse it, you lose it.
Well, no doubt there will be more questions, but I hope I have answered
some of CuD reader's concerns. I would certainly appreciate it if critics
confined themselves to stating their disagreements and reasons, rather than
abusing me personally or insulting my intelligence or expertise. There is
nothing "dim-witted" about what we are doing - in fact it is very carefully
planned and thought out. And by the way, if anyone is wondering why they
cannot find our FACE database yet, it is because 6 months after the project
began we are still researching and studying the legal, practical and moral
aspects. It seems to me that it is our critics who are running around
half-cocked, not CyberAngels.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMxSvUrrnmi5CcKeBAQE3iwQAh3fHaDJm6U/GZIGkl29VSBkeTfyhKuLS
71uAIgmq4QaweKuuqQU2yUstCA8gldUwUGN3MVDwH15jTe9EG2s+nMJ/fxu3UIJ2
JoBqezt5MFS1rcXhakKyRGDLCIxYhDK4poED+PuJDBYxEA18gTep2RChWXG6W1dC
PnyRoTU1iDw=
=iaEf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*********************************************************************
Colin Gabriel Hatcher
CYBERANGELS Internet Safety Organization
[email protected]
http://www.cyberangels.org
Information about PGP, and our PGP
public Key is available from our WWW site.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is
that good people remain silent and do nothing"
(after Edmund Burke)
CYBERANGELS (TM) is a Division of the
Guardian Angels International Alliance,
which is a 501c3 non-profit organization.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:45:37 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Netpics Interviewed after FW Arrests - Tx Telecom Jrnl (fwd)
Date--Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:55:05 -0600 (CST)
From--Gene Crick <[email protected]>
TTJ is a digest of news/analysis for telecommunications professionals
Re-posting is allowed where appropriate, if full attribution included
ALL COPYRIGHTS (1995-97) RETAINED BY TEXAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS JOURNAL
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Texas Telecommunications Journal volume 2, number 10
For the First Time: Netpics Responds to Charges
EXCLUSIVE TTJ INTERVIEW OFFERS NEW VIEWS IN CONTROVERSIAL WEB ARRESTS
In a case that promises to set Constitutional precedent for the
Internet, Fort Worth vice officers recently arrested owners of
"Netpics" website on charges of possessing child pornography and
promoting obscene material via the Internet. Fort Worth PD,
assisted by Dallas officers, confiscated 17 computers and data in
Azle and Dallas, bringing charges against 3 people.
Since the arrest, media have reported police charges that Netpics
offered subscribers sexually-oriented graphics images, including
illegal obscenity
and child pornography.
The people at Netpics have declined any public comment during
this storm. Now however they have decided to speak, offering
their response to charges.
This special issue of the Texas Telecommunications Journal is
dedicated to an exclusive copyrighted interview with spokesmen
for WebbWorld, including its president, Ben Ives, supported by
chief attorneys, led by Larry Brown. (WebbWorld Corporation owns
and operated the Netpics web site presence.)
TTJ Editor Gene Crick explores the defendants' side of the story.
And what Netpics has to say presents a different picture from
what we have been told by others. At least one thing is certain:
these Texas website arrests may well prove to be the Internet's
first clear case of pornography prosecution for content on a
Usenet server. That legal concept has vast implications.
[Information from this TTJ interview is also being published
online in the New York Times CyberTimes section:
www.nytimes.com ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, NETPICS REPLIES... an Exclusive Interview with TTJ editor
Gene Crick
GC: You have been arrested by Fort Worth police as owners of
WebbWorld, the corporation that operated Netpics. The Netpics
business was described very critically in one national
publication as being "a subscription-based service that allowed
users to download pornographic pictures of children."
And one of the country's leading publications describes you as
"trolling" the Internet, collecting sexual images which you then
resold to clients who paid $11.95 a month to view and download
graphic files on your website.
Are these statements correct? Did you knowingly maintain and
distribute child pornography on the Netpics site?
NP: Absolutely not. We offered only the same Usenet lists and
contents available on thousands of Internet servers around the
world. And while we featured adult-oriented newsgroups, we
took exhaustive measures to eliminate any content we felt might
even resemble child pornography.
GC: Police say they downloaded five images of underage girls from
Netpics. Do you now believe there was child pornography
available on Netpics' site?
NP: If there was, it was despite our best efforts. During the
8 months vice police say they were investigating us,
approximately 1,400,000 files passed through our servers. We
believe the few objectionable images they found prove Netpics
was successful in eliminating these kinds of images.
GC: Didn't you promote and advertise the Netpics web site as
having "adult images?" How about Child pornography?
NP: Netpics was designed for adult access to the Internet,
that's the market we went into this business to serve. But we
offered no child pornography and in fact posted clear notice
that we would not provide nor permit those images on Netpics.
GC: Are there other businesses like this currently operating?
NP: Yes, several. Ironically, it seems likely that another
adult site operator, from California, may have been the source
of this complaint. He had threatened to create problems for us
with the authorities.
GC: So could a competitor have been behind images police found
on Netpics?
NP: Interesting question. We hope police will use file header
details to track down the people actually responsible for
putting this on the web.
GC: Did you take any actions to prevent or remove any child
pornography on your website?
NP: Extensively. We continually worked to identify newsgroups
likely to carry those images. Not only did we block those
notorious groups, but we kept continual track of filenames
posted on them. We then filtered all our groups for those
files, to thwart people spamming unacceptable images to other
Usenet groups we did carry.
In addition to this, from the first day to the last we spent 3
to 4 hours screening as many of the incoming images as we
could, to delete this kind of pornography. Of course with up
to 14,000 images coming from Usenet daily, we could only watch
the most likely sources of unacceptable posts.
For the record, those efforts weren't because we felt legally
required to do so. We have children ourselves, and felt a
moral obligation.
Where did you obtain the images you offered your subscribers?
Off the Internet Usenet, and nowhere else. We at Netpics never
created, scanned or posted a single image of any kind.
Did you review or select the images before or after they were
offered by Netpics?
We couldn't check every picture in every news group, but we
reviewed new postings to "high risk" groups before they were
offered to the public. These were the groups where problems
had been observed in the past.
Were all Usenet newsgroups offered by WebbWorld? or just those
with graphic sexual content?
We offered approximately 188 Usenet newsgroups, mainly
featuring adult topics. But these are available everywhere;
our main market appeal was convenience and easy to use software
for viewing graphics on the web.
How many images did you have on Netpics?
We never retained any images ourselves, we merely archived
about three days of Usenet traffic. So typically we might have
40,000 images on our system at any given time. Recently it's
been a bit less because graphic file sizes are growing and we
were running out of disk space.
How many of these images did the police charge were obscene or
contained child pornography?
We've heard they have five files alleged as child pornography.
Those images were apparently shown to a doctor who estimates
the ages of people shown. Reportedly, four might be underage
teenagers; and the other maybe eleven years old. We don't know
for sure, we've never seen the pictures.
How much equipment and how many files did the police seize?
They took it all: Ben (Ives)'s computer at home and 16 sytems
at our server site in Dallas, plus router, monitors, software,
data records and everything. Desk, chair... they even took
the pencils from Ben's house!
Can you operate without what they took?
You mean stay in business? Not a chance! We can't even file
our personal tax returns until we get some of those files back.
Have the authorities said when it will be returned?
There has been no talk of returning anything.
Prior to the current arrest, WebbWorld has been sued by Playboy
Enterprises for copyright infringement. What is the status of
that legal action?
We are seeking a stay in that suit, pending outcome of these
charges, should hear from the judge on that ruling Monday
afternoon. (3/3/97)
In both cases, we're being charged for what appears worldwide
on Usenet, content we have not created nor even knew about.
Apparently in this case some people may have scanned Playboy
pages and illegally posted them to newsgroups hosted
everywhere, including Netpics.
And in both cases, our small startup company has become the
legal target for the same content carried by MCI, Sprint and
many thousands of other net hosts. We feel Netpics is being
made an example for political goals.
Could you give a little background on the WebbWorld stockholders
arrested for operating Netpics? Are you in any other business
besides WebbWorld?
This is our first business venture together <rueful laugh>...
and it's probably our last.
Brian Ellis is a computer consultant who worked fulltime with
WebbWorld. James Gurkin owns and operates a Fort Worth
security guard company. Ben Ives is a manager with the Postal
Service, or was: they've placed him on administrative leave and
he expects to be fired soon.
How has this affected the WebbWorld people personally?
What do you think? It's devastating. Ben has been hit worst
so far: publicly arrested and humiliated; losing his job;
having to move and give up his phone; denied access to his
children; and having his name unjustly associated with child
pornography. Pretty tough on a man who spends his spare time
teaching classes in Positive Parenting. That's over now, too.
The Fort Worth vice police estimate you have been making at least
$500,000 a month from Netpics. That's more than 40,000 monthly
subscribers. Is this accurate? If this is not true, how much
did the operation earn?
That is simply ridiculous! The police now possess all our
accounting information, which clearly shows our total gross
revenue for 1996 was around $550,000. WebbWorld didn't even
start breaking even until maybe July. I can't guess where they
got such grossly overstated figures.
How many people subscribed to Netpics?
We had been growing slowly but steadily. At the time we were
shut down Netpics had around 13,000 subscribers.
Will those customers be pursued by law enforcement?
Doesn't look like it. Local officials have been quoted as
recognizing that subscribing is not illegal; only the actual
possession of illegal materials. Besides, we did not keep any
records of who downloaded files.
In Texas, transmitting child pornography is a felony with a
maximum ten years sentence and $10,000 fine. And the promotion
of obscenity is a misdemeanor that can bring two years and
another $10,000 fine. So conviction on counts of these charges
could mean long jail sentences and huge fines. How are you
paying the costs of your defense?
We don't know; this is obviously going to be a long and costly
litigation and we're completely out of business. Plus we've
just had to post more than $150,000 in court bonds for the
arrests.
About the only bright spot has been the offers of help from
concerned operators and users of the Internet. They have been
coming in to our information/assistance website at
www.netpics.com.
And finally, how have representatives of the media treated you?
They've been pretty ruthless; lots of pressure and not much
presumption of innocence. Some stories more or less just said
we are guilty.
But to be fair, I guess that's partly understandable. Until
now, they've only heard one side of this story, a very
distorted one. From now on, people can check with Larry
(Brown): [email protected] 817/332-4150
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line from TTJ: Hearing Netpics' version of facts suggests
this case is more complicated, and perhaps more important, than
originally apparent. As with the police version, there are
differing views and conflicting statements that will be resolved
in a court. But whether this ends in conviction or acquittal
fundamental precedents will be set for Usenet and content
liability on the Internet.
28 February, 1997
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Note: TTJ is a journal of information, opinion and telecom advocacy.
We cannot guarantee accuracy of these early, informal reports;
please check with official sources to confirm critical results.
Subscribers may request details or forward specific questions.
Subscription info: Gene Crick [email protected] 512/303-1021 fx 321-3163
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 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: [email protected]
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 [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) (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)
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/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 #9.14
************************************
|
|
