home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Cream of the Crop 20
/
Cream of the Crop 20 (Terry Blount) (1996).iso
/
faq
/
cud841.zip
/
CUD841.TXT
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-06-02
|
38KB
|
834 lines
Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 2, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 41
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, #8.41 (Sun, Jun 2, 1996)
File 1--Response to Lance Rose (in re CuD 8.39)
File 2--It's watermelon season on the Internet, cops alarmed! (fwd)
File 3--Request: DC-ISOC Meeting Location
File 4--Update on CDA, copyright, crypto (5/29/96)
File 5--(Fwd) The Usenet/etc Stonewall over rec.music.white-power vote
File 6--FW: American Reporter v. Reno
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1996 02:35:14 GMT
From: skg@SADR.COM(Keith Graham)
Subject: File 1--Response to Lance Rose (in re CuD 8.39)
Cu Digest <TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU> writes:
>Lance Rose <72230.2044@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>How deeply are CDA opponents getting lost in the hype? Check this
>out: One of their arguments against the CDA is that it wrongly
>seeks to impose the "indecency" standard from television -- a
>"pervasive" medium -- on the supposedly non-"pervasive" Internet.
>[....] Whoa --
>let's circle back to the top now. Isn't an indecency standard of
>some sort very much in place for television today? And isn't
>television a hugely popular mass medium, at the very center of U.S.
>and other societies?
Cable TV channels, such as HBO, not to mention the various "Adult"
channels, do not adhere to this standard. TV is "pervasive" because it is
broadcast and there are TV's in most homes. BROADCAST TV is also
a scarce resource (in that only so many TV channels can operate
in a given area), so the government has an interest in keeping it
of the highest possible quality. (Please no comments on their
success or lack thereof. :-)
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. TV is scarce and pervasive;
cable eliminates the scarcity, and is so not restricted. The
Internet eliminates the scarcity and possible the pervasiveness,
and therefore argueably should not be restricted.
On Encryption:
>[....] It is used to hide
>a message right in someone else's face. [cops and robbers
>"scenario" deleted]
The problem is, discounting the subject of Key Escrow, encryption
is used to keep the operator of the chat system I might want to
use from listening in when I talk to my wife when I'm travelling
on business. There are lots of people with network sniffers that
have access to my messages; why should I not prevent them from
doing so if it might be even vaguely important? (For example, the
fact that I'm on the road might be useful if someone wanted to
assault my wife.) Encryption is, usually, not about cops and robbers.
As to Key Escrow, why should I cripple my encryption system to
allow the government to access my historical communications? It
is a fact of life that some tools in the law enforcement regime
become outdated due to advances in technology. Wire taps, in their
pure form, will probably be one of these outdated technologies. In
exchange, they gain access to lists of sites you connect to;
electronic financial records; online police databases; and secure
police communications between officers and command and control
facilities not to mention DNA analysis and the rest of the advantages
of modern technology. Overall, the police's capabilities will be
greatly expanding in the near term future; why give them yet another
weapon in the arsonal when it will potentially greatly compromise
American corporate security and citizen's privacy?
>[Copyright]
I'll leave this for a future discussion, but since we're all
going to be coypright holders and publishers, I think the critically
important thing will be for the laws to be reasonable, understandable,
able to be followed, and fair. (Whatever all of those mean.) Right
now, copyright law is so out of touch with how the Web (or Usenet
news) works, that we are all probably breaking the law. I think we
need to make sure that whatever changes are added to the law are
in everyone's best interest; and some of the changes I've seen aren't.
For example, if I "copy" a program to my hard disk, and then run it
by copying it into RAM 50 times, how many copies have I made? 1?
50? If the program cost $1000, and the answer is 50, then I am liable
for huge civil fines and possibly jail time under criminal "mass copyright
violation/piracy" laws. But if the answer is 1, then I'm subject to much
smaller fines and no jail time. Which is, IMO, the intent
of the copyright law. And what if I copy a program to my hard
disk, but don't ever run it. Is that a violation of the law?
In the meantime, some big media interests are also trying to increase
the copyright term on existing works by 20 years. Unless you hold
stock in one of these companies, that just means that it will be
20 more years before you can, say, get free copies of newspaper
articles about WWI online. (Or use music, photos, art, and stories
from the 1920's as backgrounds and accents to your Web page.) We
won't mention the cost to church choirs, etc. that aren't in any
way associated with the 'net. This looks like bad law.
Keith Graham
skg@sadr.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 20:27:18 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 2--It's watermelon season on the Internet, cops alarmed! (fwd)
From--eye5@interlog.com (eye WEEKLY)
Newsgroups--eye.news,alt.culture.internet,alt.journalism
Date--22 May 1996 21:09:52 -0400
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye WEEKLY May 23, 1996
Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EYENET EYENET
BE AFRAID! IT'S WATERMELON SEASON!
by
K.K. "Fish License" CAMPBELL
Over 20 years ago Monty Python's John Cleese warned citizens about
violent criminals using fresh fruit as weapons. People only sneered.
Today, Cleese has been vindicated with Edmonton's "Fruitabomber."
Someone is blowing up the watermelons of Edmonton.
And the Internet is to blame.
Here's the lead from The Edmonton Sun story of May 17: "The culprit
who blew apart a bus shelter with an explosives-packed watermelon
detonated a second fruit bomb just moments later, city police revealed
yesterday.
"The so-called Fruitabomber has cops fearing a rash of citywide melon-
bombings, and police are asking markets to keep an eye peeled for
young men buying large pieces of fruit."
Sun reporter Steve Tilley says the police warn this could just be the
"beginning of a reign of exploding fruit terror."
The Edmonton cops are "convinced" the Fruitabomber learned his Molotov
Melon craft from the net. They don't reveal how they figured that out,
unfortunately. They must read alt.bombs.watermelons.
Then comes the standard crime sheet quote: "We certainly are very
concerned about certain types of information available on the
Internet, because it is so easily accessible to people who have a
computer and that interest level."
And easy access to watermelons, too. Don't forget that.
On May 10, The Calgary Herald reported some 14-year-old moron living
in a shithole Cowtown burb blew off the tip of his left thumb while
fooling around with some explosives. The cops also immediately knew he
got the r