NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8063

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-26 | 8.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!engr.uark.edu!mbox.ualr.edu!grapevine!roland.h..pesch
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: 20 years of progress in S
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Roland H. Pesch)
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roland H. Pesch)
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** [phone]
Lines: 150

information on choosing a secure password, see Athena's On-Line
Help Service.

Alert others

In addition please inform the system manager of any machines -
including Athena workstations in faculty offices - to which you may
have connected, since it is possible that the intruder may have used your
account to compromise those machines as well.

The individual who compromised our system used a pattern of attack
identical to one used by an individual operating from outside the
MIT community to attack a number of systems across the country during
the past year.  In all likelihood, if you are among those whose accounts
were compromised, you will probably not find any damage to your
files.

This individual's mode of operation is believed to be limited to
breaking into accounts for the sole purpose of discovering any
userids and passwords stored there to enable him to break into additional
systems.

We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this causes our user
community. We have taken immediate steps to eliminate this
particular security threat and we are reviewing and modifying our operational
procedures to limit our vulnerability to this and other types of
attacks in the future.

If you have any questions or comments, please send electronic mail
to <[e-mail]> or contact your Athena cluster manager.

                     -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

                       BBS Legislative Watch
             Legislation from Last Congress that May Affect
                   Your Online Communications
                 by Shari Steele (EFF attorney)


For those of us communicating electronically, it is often hard to see
how involvement in the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., could have
any positive impact on our lives online.  But laws that can have great
effect on our online rights are constantly introduced and modified in
the United States Congress and local legislatures, and last year was
no exception.  While the 102nd Congress is now history, here is a sample
of the legislation introduced over the past year that will likely affect
those of us building communities on the electronic frontier.

Threats to Privacy

FBI's Wiretapping Proposal Thwarted

In a move that worried privacy experts, software manufacturers and
telephone companies, the FBI proposed legislation to amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to make it easier for the Bureau to
perform electronic wiretapping.  The proposed legislation, entitled "Digital
Telephony," would have required communications service providers
and hardware manufacturers to make their systems "tappable" by
providing "back doors" through which law enforcement officers could intercept
communications.  Furthermore, this capability would have to be
provided undetectably, while the communication was in progress, exclusive of
any communications between other parties, regardless of the mobility of
the target of the FBI's investigation, and without degradation of service.

The security risks are obvious; if law enforcement officers can "tap"
into a conversation, so can others with harmful intent.  The privacy
implications are also frightening.  Today, all sorts of information
about who we are and what we do, such as medical records, credit reports
and employment data, are held on electronic databases.  If these
databases have government-mandated "tappability," this private
information could potentially be accessed by anyone tapping in.  To add
insult to injury, the FBI proposal suggests that the cost of providing
this wiretapping "service" to the Bureau would have to be bourne by
the service provider itself, which ultimately means you and I will be
paying higher user fees.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation organized a broad coalition of
public interest and industry groups, from Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) and the ACLU to AT&T and Sun MicroSystems,
to oppose the legislation.  A white paper produced by EFF and ratified
by the coalition, entitled, "An Analysis of the FBI Digital Telephony
Proposal," was widely distributed throughout the Congress.  Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Representative Don Edwards (D-
California), chairs of two key committees, referred to the EFF paper as they
delayed introduction of the FBI's proposal.  As Leahy stated before the
Senate, "Our goal is to assist law enforcement," but "without jeopardizing
privacy rights or frustrating the development of new communications
technologies."  The Justice Department lobbied hard in the final days
to get Congress to take up the bill before Congress adjourned, but the
bill never even found a Congressional sponsor (and was therefore never
officially introduced).  The FBI will almost certainly reintroduce
"Digital Telephony" when the 103rd Congress convenes in January.

Cellular Scanners Prohibited

The wrong solution won out as Congress attempted to protect the
privacy of users of cellular telephones.  Congress chose to ban scanners as it
amended the Communications Act of 1934 with the FCC Authorization Act of
1991.  The Authorization Act, among other things, prohibits the U.S.
manufacture and importation of scanning receivers capable of:
receiving cellular transmissions, being easily altered to receive cellular
transmissions, or being equipped with decoders to convert digital
cellular transmissions to analog voice audio.  While privacy
protection is always important, EFF opposed the bill, arguing that technical
solutions, such as encryption, are the only way to protect private
communications carried over the airwaves.

Unable to stop the scanner ban, EFF worked with Representative
Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) and Senator Ernest Hollings (D-South
Carolina) to add an amendment to the legislation requiring the FCC to study
the impact of this law on privacy.  Sometime in 1993, the FCC must also
conduct a public inquiry and issue a report on alternative means for
protecting cellular telephone conversations with a focus on
encryption.


Threats to Free Speech

Federal Agency to Study Hate Crimes on BBSs

Recognizing that electronic media have been used more and more
often to spread messages of hate and bigotry, Congress mandated the
National Telecommunications and Information Adminstration (NTIA) to
conduct a study on "the role of telecommunications in crimes of hate and
violent acts against ethnic, religious, and racial minorities."  Computer
bulletin boards are specifically mentioned as one of the targeted
media to be studied under the Telecommunications Authorization Act of
1992. Representative Markey, while supporting the Act in the House,
cautioned NTIA to be sensitive to privacy concerns while conducting the study.
A report on the results of the study will be presented to the Senate
before the end of June, 1993.

Congress Regulates Video Transmissions

Much has been written about the passage of the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, more commonly known as
the "Cable Act."  While specifically designed to regulate rates, establish
customer service requirements and prevent unfair competition for
cable television providers, the Cable Act may have broader implications for
those of us communicating online.  The communications networks of
the future will include video and data transmission, as well as the voice
transmission we are now used to using over the telephone lines.  The
Cable Act is Congress's first attempt to regulate the wire/cable
transmissions that will make up our networks of the future.  EFF is

RBBS-UTI v3.0.:
---
 * The Royal Flush BBS - 703-361-4872 - Manassas, VA
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  FLUSH (#988) : RelayNet(tm)