The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud6105.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 35.4 KB | 814 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Dec 14, 1994   Volume 6 : Issue 105
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Copy Reader:       Laslo Toth

CONTENTS, #6.105 (Wed, Dec 14, 1994)

File 1--A Hoax In Time (CyberWire Dispatch)
File 2--UNABOM - $1,000,000.00 Reward - Series of 14 Unsolved Bombings
File 3--DigitaLiberty
File 4--Preliminary Info on the Pensacola BBS Busts
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 14:56:36 -0800
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--A Hoax In Time (CyberWire Dispatch)

CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1994 //

Jacking in from the "Back From the Dead" Port:

Washington, DC -- Nothing chills -- or inflames -- the Net faster than
when word of the dreaded "FCC Modem Tax" begins ooze through
Cyberspace.

Well... it's back.  Sort of.

Ruth Milkman, legal advisor to Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Reed Hundt, said during a recent question and answer session
that the agency might again take up the issue of the so-called modem
tax.

"Some years down the road I can see acceess fees [for enhanced service
providers] being considered by the FCC," Milkman said during a phone
interview. "But only under the scenario when access charges are
reformed."

These access charges are a kind of trip wire phrase which online
activists have dubbed a "modem tax" when applied to enhanced service
providers, which is another catch phrase meaning services like America
Online and CompuServe.

Milkman said the FCC would only consider an access charge under a very
narrow scenario which would play out only  if "enhanced service
providers felt that by paying the access charges they weren't
contributing to a subsidy scheme set up for (long distance phone
companies)," Milkman said.

So, what the hell is an "access charge"?  Take a deep breath. Here
goes:

Access charges are paid by long distance companies to local telephone
companies. Every time a company such as AT&T connects a caller in Des
Moines with Uncle Bert in New York, it has to pay Nynex, the local
telephone company, a fee for the privilege of carrying that long
distance call over their facilities, commonly known as the "local
loop."

Long distance companies pay up to 40% of their entire revenues to
local telephone companies.  That's billions and billions of dollars
each year that flow into the hands of the Baby Bells, just for
completing the calls.

The access fees are set at artificially high rates because they
contain a mind numbing set of complex subsidies, the most obvious one
is that which underwrites the public policy known as "Universal
Service."

Back in the days when the FCC only had rotary dial phones (circa 1987)
someone came up with the brilliant idea that because modem use was
increasing at such a rapid pace, that maybe services such as
Sprintlink (then known as telenet) and CompuServe should have to pay
these access charges, too.

After all, the FCC wonks postured, they carry long distance (modem)
traffic over the phone lines?  It would only be fair to have these
"enhanced service providers" as they are known in FCC-speak, also help
out the impoverished long distance phone companies underwrite
Universal Service.

Bingo.  The hue and cry that went up from the online community (it
wasn't yet called "the Net") was enormous.  The major players --
Telenet and CompuServe -- quickly branded the plan as a "tax" and thus
the phrase "modem tax" was born.

Dire warnings went out:  If the FCC succeeded in making enhanced
service providers chip in for access fees, it would increase the cost
of each hour of online time by at least $6 per hour.

And remember, this was in the days when a 2,400-bps modem was the
hottest thing going.  Six bucks an hour would have demolished the
struggling online industry.

The fallout among the nascent online community was astounding. For the
first time in history, the "net" community rose up with a single voice
and FLOODED the FCC with protests.

FCC official "filing kits" made the rounds, teaching people how to
file official comments of protest.

The ground swell of opposition worked.  The FCC was buried in
responses.  At the time, the FCC said it was the hottest item in its
history, garnering more response than any issue in history.

The FCC eventually backed off.  The reason:  It was persuaded that
enhanced service providers were still entrepreneurial companies and
couldn't afford the burden of access fees.

The proposal was officially dropped.  It was the first major victory
for the Net.  And it was empowering.  The online community became
educated and enlightened almost over night to the ways of an arcane
governmental agency.  And this community was drunk with a heady kind
of power:  It could sufficiently affect the outcome of governmental
regulation.

Small catch:  The damn "modem tax" issue wouldn't die.

Someone with the brains of a trout began to circulate the now infamous
"modem tax" file.  The file claims that Jim Eason, a San Franciso
radio talk show host had aired a segment in which he claimed to have
inside information that the FCC was about to relaunch its "modem tax"
proposal.

The message was and is a HOAX.

But it also has never died.  It's the Net's first "urban myth" and
like Freddie, it refuses to die, even to this day.

Milkman, who was on-board at the FCC during the 1987 modem tax
firefight, sighed when explaining the complex issue:  "Part of the
problem is that nobody is exactly sure what all the subsidies are.
Most people agree that there are subsidies in the access charges, but
you can't break out those subsidies exactly."

Another factor in play:  Sometimes enhanced service providers are
really just reselling long distance transport after having bought
large blocks of time from a major carrier like AT&T.  Thus, to have
these enhanced service providers also pay an access fee amounts to a
kind of double-dipping, Milkman said.

As it turns out, Congress might have as much to say about a future
"modem tax" as the FCC.  This twisted scenario turns on the tenuous
grasp that everyone from the Vice President to Commerce Department to
the FCC has on exactly what constitutes "Universal Service," in the
era of the Information Superhighway.

Revamping the 60 year old Communications Act of 1934 will be up to
Congress this year.  And they will likely do it.  But how universal
service is defined remains a big mystery.  And who ends up paying for
and maintaining that public policy (which isn't about to be abolished)
also remains a mystery.

Don't be surprised if, when the legislative smoke clears, not only do
enhanced service providers -- America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy,
et al -- have to pay access fees, but also your Internet provider and
your cable company.

And who do you think will end up catching those cost increases??
Right.  Your wallet.

But for now?  Rest easy, Milkman says:  "I want to make this very
clear:  There is NO docket [open] in which the Commission is proposing
making enhanced service providers pay access charges.  And I don't
anticipate it coming up."

Meeks out...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 22:40:00 -0600
From: Sociology Department Gopher Manager <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--UNABOM - $1,000,000.00 Reward - Series of 14 Unsolved Bombings

F.B.I. GOPHER Information Server

Dear Netters:

The information presented on the Internet about the UNABOM
investigation has been made available publicly before. Recent
electronic media presentations include: CBS's "Eye to Eye" with Connie
Chung (12/16/93), and Fox's "America's Most Wanted" (11/23/93). Print
media stories about the UNABOM investigation have also appeared:
Washington Post (11/27/93), New York Times (10/7/93), etc.

The purpose for submitting the information on the Internet is
two-fold. First, the Internet is another medium that enables us to
reach as wide an audience as possible; to "spread the word." Second,
Internet users are precisely the type ofindividuals that to date have
been recipients of explosive devices attributed toUNABOM; scholars
and researchers.

You are not being asked to place yourself in harm's way. You are
encouraged to come forward if you have information that might help
identify, arrest, and convict the person(s) responsible for these
bombings. Contact the UNABOM Task Force at 1-800-701-2662.

This information has been made available on the Internet in three
ways:

Anonymous FTP: ftp://naic.nasa.gov/

Gopher: gopher://naic.nasa.gov/11/government-resources/fbi

World Wide Web: http://naic.nasa.gov/fbi

Thank you, William L. Tafoya, Ph.D.
Special Agent, FBI
UNABOM Task Force
San Francisco, CA

[e-mail]

1-800-701-2662
FAX: [phone]
415-553-7400

          =================================================

                             UNABOM
                       $1,000,000 Reward
                 SERIES OF 14 UNSOLVED BOMBINGS


   Beginning in May, 1978, a series of 14 bombing incidents have
occurred across the United States for which there is no apparent
explanation or motive.  No person or group has been identified as
the perpetrator(s) of these incidents.  The explosions have taken
place in seven states from Connecticut to California.  As a result
of these bombings, one person has been killed and 23 others
injured, some grievously.  There had been no incidents identified
with this series of bombings since 1987. However that changed in
late June, 1993, when a well known geneticist residing in Tiburon,
California, and a renown computer scientist from Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut, opened packages which had been mailed to
them and both were severely injured when these packages exploded.

   In the past, targets of the bomber have been associated with
the computer industry, the aircraft and airline industry and
universities.  Seven of these devices have been mailed to specific
individuals and the other seven have been placed in locations
which suggest there was no specific intended victim. All but two
of the explosive devices functioned as designed and exploded.  All
14 crimes, dubbed "UNABOM", have had common effects:  all have
caused terror, grief, and fear.  On September 11, 1985, Hugh
Scrutton, the owner of the Rentech Computer Company, in
Sacramento, California, was killed by one of these diabolic
devices.  The two most recent victims narrowly escaped death.

   In response to the June, 1993, events, the Attorney General
directed that a task force of federal law enforcement agencies be
reestablished to urgently investigate and solve these crimes. The
UNABOM Task Force, consisting of investigators from the FBI, ATF,
and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, has been operational in
San Francisco and Sacramento, California, since July 12, 1993, and
is dedicated exclusively to the investigation of these crimes.

   Among the clues in the case are the following words in what
appears to be a note possibly written by the bomber as a reminder
to make a telephone call:  "call Nathan R--Wed 7PM."  The UNABOM
Task Force believes that "Nathan R" may be associated, perhaps
innocently, with the bomber and that "Nathan R" may have received
a telephone call from the bomber on a Wednesday prior to the June,
1993 bombings.

   The two most recent tragic bombings illustrate the senseless
and tragic consequences of these crimes and demonstrate the urgent
necessity of solving this case.  This serial bomber will strike
again.  We do not know who the next victim will be.  We do believe
that there is someone out there who can provide the identity of
the person or persons responsible for these crimes. This person
may be a friend, a neighbor, or even a relative of the bomber(s).

        UNABOM's chronology is as follows:

1)  Northwestern University
    Evanston, Illinois
    May 25, 1978

   A package was found in the Engineering Department parking lot
at the Chicago Circle Campus of the University of Illinois. The
package was addressed to an Engineering Professor at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York.  The package had a return
address of a Professor at Northwestern's Technological Institute.
The package was returned to the addressor who turned it over to
the Northwestern University Police Department because he had not
sent the package.  On May 26, 1978 the parcel was opened by a
police officer who suffered minor injuries when the bomb
detonated.

2)  Northwestern University
    Evanston, Illinois
    May 9, 1979

   A disguised explosive device which had been left in a common
area in the University's Technological Institute, slightly injured
a graduate student on May 9, 1979, when he attempted to open the
box and it exploded.

3)  Chicago, Illinois
    November 15, 1979

   An explosive device disguised as a parcel was mailed from
Chicago for delivery to an unknown location.  The bomb detonated
in the cargo compartment of an airplane, forcing it to make an
emergency landing at Dulles Airport.  Twelve individuals were
treated for smoke inhalation.  The explosion destroyed the
wrapping to such an extent that the addressee could not be
determined.

4)  Chicago, Illinois
    June 10, 1980

   A bomb disguised as a parcel postmarked June 8, 1980 was
mailed to an airline executive at his home in Lake Forest,
Illinois.  The airline executive was injured in the explosion.

5)  University of Utah
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    October 8, 1981

   An explosive device was found in the hall of a classroom
building and rendered safe by bomb squad personnel.

6)  Vanderbilt University
    Nashville, Tennessee
    May 5, 1982

   A wooden box containing a pipe bomb detonated on May 5, 1982,
when opened by a secretary in the Computer Science Department.
The secretary suffered minor injuries.  The package was initially
mailed from Provo, Utah on April 23, 1982, to Pennsylvania State
University and then forwarded to Vanderbilt.

7)  University of California
    Berkeley, California
    July 2, 1982

   A small metal pipe bomb was placed in a coffee break room of
Cory Hall at the University's Berkeley Campus.  A Professor of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science was injured when he
picked up the device.

8)  Auburn, Washington
    May 8, 1985

   A parcel bomb was mailed on May 8, 1985, to the Boeing
Company, Fabrication Division.  On June 13, 1985, the explosive
device was discovered when employees opened it.  The device was
rendered safe by bomb squad personnel without injury.

9)  University of California
    Berkeley, California
    May 15, 1985

   A bomb detonated in a computer room at Cory Hall on the
Berkeley Campus.  A graduate student in Electrical Engineering
lost partial vision in his left eye and four fingers from his
right hand.  The device was believed to have been placed in the
room several days prior to detonation.

10)  Ann Arbor, Michigan
     November 15, 1985

   A textbook size package was mailed to the home of a
University of Michigan Professor in Ann Arbor, Michigan from Salt
Lake City.  On November 15, 1985, a Research Assistant suffered
injuries when he opened the package.  The Professor was a few feet
away but was not injured.


11)  Sacramento, California
     December 11, 1985

   Mr. Hugh Scrutton was killed outside his computer rental
store when he picked up a device disguised as a road hazard left
near the rear entrance to the building.  Metal shrapnel from the
blast ripped through Scrutton's chest and penetrated his heart.

12)  Salt Lake City, Utah
     February 20, 1987

   On February 20, 1987, an explosive device disguised as a road
hazard was left at the rear entrance to CAAMs, Inc. (computer
store).  The bomb exploded and injured the owner when he attempted
to pick up the device.

13)  Tiburon, California
     June 22, 1993

   On June 22, 1993, a well known geneticist received a parcel
postmarked June 18, 1993, at his residence.  The doctor attempted
to open the package at which time it exploded severely injuring
him.  It has been determined that this parcel was mailed from
Sacramento, California.

14)  Yale University
        New Haven, Connecticut
        June 24, 1993

   On June 24, 1993, a Professor/Computer Scientist at Yale
University attempted to open a parcel which he had received at his
office.  This parcel exploded severely injuring him.  It has been
determined that this parcel was mailed from Sacramento, California
on June 18, 1993.

   At this time, the UNABOM Task Force would appeal to the
public for assistance.  For this purpose, a one million dollar
reward is being offered for information which results in the
identification, arrest and conviction of the person(s)
responsible.  Contact the UNABOM Task Force at 1-(800) 701-
2662.



William L. Tafoya, Ph.D.
Special Agent, FBI
UNABOM Task Force
San Francisco, CA
[e-mail]


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 18:38:13 -0800
From: email list server <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--DigitaLiberty

Friends of Liberty,

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the arrival of cyberspace is
destined to engender a fundamental discontinuity in the course of human
relations.  This is a source of great optimism and opportunity for those of
us who believe in freedom.

Many of you who participate in the lively debates that take place in these
forums have seen a number of activist organizations spring up claiming  to
represent the cause of freedom.  And if you are like me you have cheered
these groups on only to watch them get bogged down in a quagmire of
realpolitics.

It is a sad fact that the beast in Washington has evolved into a
self-perpetuating engine expert at co-opting the principles of even the most
ardent reformers.  Slowly but surely all those who engage the system are
ultimately absorbed into the mainstream miasma of majoritarianism.  For
example, what can be more discouraging than watching an organization that
started out as a cyber-civil liberties group shift its focus to creating new
forms of government entitlements while endorsing intrusive wiretap
legislation because they didn't want to jeopardize their influence and
prestige amongst the Washington power elite?

Some of us believe we can seek ultimate redress at the polls.  Many pundits
have declared our recent national elections a watershed in politics, a
turning point that represents the high water mark of big government.
 Nonsense.  The names have changed, the chairs have been rearranged, but the
game remains the same.  The so-called "choices" we are presented with are
false, hardly better than the mock one-party elections held by failed
totalitarian regimes.  There must be a better way.

I would like to announce the formation of a new group - DigitaLiberty - that
has chosen a different path.  We intend to bypass the existing political
process.  We reject consensus building based on the calculus of compromise.
 Instead we plan to leave the past behind, much as our pioneering
forefathers did when they set out to settle new lands.  It is our mission
to create the basis for a different kind of society.  If you would like to
join us I invite you to read the information below.

Yours in freedom,

Bill Frezza
Co-founder, DigitaLiberty
December 6, 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

***  What is DigitaLiberty?

DigitaLiberty is an advocacy group dedicated to the principled defense of
freedom in cyberspace.  We intend to conduct this defense not by engaging in
traditional power politics but by setting an active, persuasive example -
creating tangible opportunities for others to join us as we construct new
global communities.

We believe deeply in free markets and free minds and are convinced that we
can construct a domain in which the uncoerced choices of individuals supplant
the social compact politics of the tyranny of the majority.

***  Is DigitaLiberty a political party or a lobbying group?

Neither.

DigitaLiberty does not seek to educate or influence politicians in the hope
of obtaining legislation favorable to our constituents.  We plan to make
politicians and legislators irrelevant to the future of network based
commerce, education, leisure, and social intercourse.

DigitaLiberty does not seek to persuade a majority of the electorate to adopt
views which can then be forced upon the minority.  We hope to make
majoritarianism irrelevant.  We invite only like minded individuals to help
us build the future according to our uncompromised shared values.

*** What do you hope to accomplish?

DigitaLiberty is not hopeful that widespread freedom will come to the
physical world, at least not in our lifetime.  Too many constituencies depend
upon the largess and redistributive power of national governments and
therefore oppose freedom and the individual responsibility it entails.  But
we do believe that liberty can and will prevail in the virtual domains we are
building on the net and that national governments will be powerless to stop
us.  We believe that cyberspace will transcend national borders, national
cultures, and national economies.  We believe that no one will hold
sovereignty over this new realm because coercive force is impotent in
cyberspace.

In keeping with the self-organizing nature of on-line societies we believe
we will chose to invent new institutions to serve our varied economic and
social purposes.  DigitaLiberty intends to be in the forefront of the
discovery and construction of these institutions.

***  But what about the construction of the "Information Superhighway"?

The fabric of cyberspace is rapidly being built by all manner of entities
espousing the full range of political and economic philosophies.   While
political activity can certainly accelerate or retard the growth of the net
in various places and times it cannot stop it nor can it effectively control
how the net will be used.

Our focus is not on the institutions that can and will impact the building
of the physical "information highway" but on those that will shape life on
the net as an ever increasing portion of our productive activities move
there.

***  What makes you think cyberspace will be so different?

The United States of America was the only country in history ever to be built
upon an idea.  Unfortunately, this idea was lost as we slowly traded away our
liberties in exchange for the false promise of security.

DigitaLiberty believes that technology can set us free.  The economies of the
developed world are now making a major transition from an industrial base to
an information base.  As they do, the science of cryptology will finally and
forever guarantee the unbreachable right of privacy, protecting individuals,
groups, and corporations from the prying eyes and grasping hands of
sovereigns.  We will all be free to conduct our lives, and most importantly
our economic relations, as we each see fit.

Cyberspace is also infinitely extensible.   There will be no brutal
competition for lebensraum.  Multiple virtual communities can exist side by
side and without destructive conflict, each organized according to the
principles of their members.  We seek only to build one such community, a
community based on individual liberty.  Others are free to build communities
based on other principles, even diametrically opposed principles.  But they
must do so without our coerced assistance.

Effective communities will thrive and grow.  Dysfunctional communities will
wither and die.  And for the first time in human history, rapacious societies
will no longer have the power to make war on their neighbors nor can bankrupt
communities take their neighbors down with them.

***  What does this have to do with my real life?  I can't eat data.  I don't
live in a computer.

Yes, but imagine the ultimate impact of mankind's transition from an
agrarian economy to an industrial economy to an information economy.  Our
founding fathers would have consider anyone insane who predicted that a
nation of 250 million could feed itself with fewer than 3% of its citizens
involved in agriculture.  Similarly, economist and politicians trapped in
the policies of the past lament our move from a manufacturing economy to a
knowledge worker and service based economy.  We see this as a cause to
rejoice.

The day will come when fewer than 5% of the citizens of a nation of 1 billion
will be involved in manufacturing - if we still bother calling geographically
defined entities "nations".  What will the rest of us be doing?  We will be
providing each other with an exploding array of services and we will be
creating, consuming, and exchanging information.  Most of this will occur
entirely within or be mediated at least in part by our activities in
cyberspace.

Many of us will earn a very good living on the net.  Our race, our religion,
our gender, our age, our physical appearance and limitations will all be
irrelevant and undetectable.  Hard working individuals from underdeveloped
nations who in the past might have been forced to emigrate in search of
economic freedom and opportunity can now build productive lives in
cyberspace.  And much if not all of the wealth we create that we do not
transform into visible physical assets will be ours to keep and use, beyond
the grasp of sovereigns.

*** What is the purpose of this forum?

The DigitaLiberty Forum is a place where like minded individuals can share
their views, observations, and strategies related to the development of
virtual communities based on freedom.  It is a place where people can
exchange information and advice about how they have developed
extra-territorial business and social relationships  - away from the
influence and outside the jurisdiction of governments.  It is a forum for the
posting of essays, questions, and ideas on the topic of liberty.  It is a
place where we can meet and debate the forms that our  new institutions might
take and discuss the practical problems and responsibilities that freedom
entail.

In time as our technology matures some of us will move on to more ambitious
projects, launch other programs, and begin our virtual migration from the
swamp of coerced collectivism.  Best of all, there will be no need to
physically move to 'Galt's Gulch' or escape to a floating 'Freedonia'.  We
can all participate in this exodus without hastily quitting our jobs or
disrupting our lives.  And as a larger and larger portion of our economic and
social activities move onto the net we will create a new society, open to all
with the will to enter.  This new world will be interleaved with the physical
world in which we now live and yet will be separate.  And free.

Join us as we begin the journey.

*** Who can join DigitaLiberty?

The DigitaLiberty Forum is open to anyone that can honestly answer yes to the
following two questions:

1)  I renounce the use of coercive force as a tool of social or economic
policy.

2)  I do not derive the majority of my income from funds taken from
taxpayers.

*** How do I join DigitaLiberty?

If you qualify, send a message to [e-mail] with the
words "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line and the message body as follows

SUBSCRIBE DigitaLiberty <your name>

And welcome to the future.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 22:40:00 CST
From: Various <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Preliminary Info on the Pensacola BBS Busts

((MODERATORS' NOTE: There have been rumors flying fast and furious
about some "busts" in Pensacola, Florida, in the first week of
December. One net post indicated that as many as 10 BBSes were raided,
but there seemed to be few details on the incident(s).  It seems that
there were only two or three boards raided, but it's still not clear.

CuD called around the Florida area in an attempt to obtain some
information, but without much success. The Pensacola police indicated
that they were not involved. An FBI spokesperson indicated that the
FBI was not involved, and that we should call the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement, a state law enforcement agency. We did, and talked
to Larry Smith (904-444-8570) who could not provide many details,
because it was an "ongoing investigation." He did tell us, however,
that the description of the raids as posted on the Net was inaccurate.
He confirmed that the FBI was not involved, and told us that "several"
warrants had been served by his department and the U.S. Secret
Service.  He was unwilling to specify the alleged charges, but
according to some observers (and suggested by the article below),
pornography may have been an issue. Whether it was the original motive
of the raids remains unclear. If it is true that this was a USSS case,
it would raise the question of why the USSS is involved in a
"pornography" raid.

The facts remain murky, but the case is not invisible. The following
(fwd) suggests that the mainstream media may also be concerned about
some of the unanswered questions.))

==============================

(Originally posted by [e-mail])

                 High-tech crimes lack high-tech law
                (Source: Pensacola News, Dec 10, 1994)

    When state and Federal agents pulled the plug--literally--on two
Pensacola electronic bulletin boards, some serious questions were
raised: What laws were broken, and what about protection against
unfair search and seizure?

    Remember, property was taken, but no charges placed.

    Officers involved with the shutdowns--of Titan Software Solutions
and Electric Blue--say they believed pornography was being transmitted
over the bulletin boards. Board operators, or Sysops (system
operators), say their boards do provide some nude photos, "Swimsuits,
lingerie, a little T-and-A," but that's all.

    If true, what laws were violated?

    A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that community
standards could be applied to determine "obscenity." But who is to
interpret those standards? Police? Ministers? Who?

    And what of he question of community? Pensacola is a community and
has somewhat understandable standards. But doesn't a computer network,
comprised of people proven to be of age and engaged in a legal medium,
also constitute a community?

    Should Pensacola's standards, or Hoboken's or Atlanta's, be
applied to that electronic community?

    A problem here is that while technology has surged ahead, law has
lagged behind. There are few laws that can be legitimately be applied
in this case.  And as for "pornographic material being sent over the
computer," has anyone noticed what's available on television (NYPD
Blue), on cable (HBO, Cinemax, The Movie Channel), or pay-per-view?

    There's the Playboy channel, Spice, etc. What's the difference
between a computer, which requires passwords and access, and
television which requires only a decoder and a telephone call to
activate a channel?

    We're not condoning presentation or transmission of pornography.
We're simply trying to understand what laws were broken, and how
future infractions will play out. How will they be monitored? How
enforced?

    We hope it's done better than the snatch-and-grab method we saw in
this case where equipment was seized but no charges placed. That seems
an overstep by law enforcement.

    If "obscene" material was being sent across electronic lines, a
few visits to the bulletin board would have confirmed it and
established a case. But the state seems to have acted first and
thought later.

    That's a frightening prospect given the virtual explosion of
information available via the computer, and the absolute lack of
applicable law.

[ That was the entire text of the editorial in the Pensacola News
Journal, on Saturday, December 10 1994.]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)

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 [e-mail] or [e-mail]
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

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 [phone] (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) [phone].
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  [phone] (ringdown)
         In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS:  [phone]
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  [phone]

  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/
                  uceng.uc.edu in /pub/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)

  JAPAN:          ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
                  ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU
Sociology gopher at:
  URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci

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 #6.105
************************************