The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud722.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 45.5 KB | 1,002 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Mar 19, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 22
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Semi-retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
       Correspondent Extra-ordinaire:  David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Monster Editor:    Loch Nesshrdlu

CONTENTS, #7.22 (Sun, Mar 19, 1995)

File 1--CuD Listserv at UIUC having some problems
File 2--Cliff Stoll can't say that: "Silicon Snake Oil" reviewed
File 3--RE: File 4--S. 314, Realism, Unanswered Questions (fwd)
File 4--J. Baker/U of Mich Speech Case -- Chic Trib Excerpt)
File 5--Campaign to Defeat Comm. Decency Act (Mar 17 Update)
File 6--Reprint of Textof SB 314
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 1995)

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1995 15:24:43 (CST)
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--CuD Listserv at UIUC having some problems

The UIUC Listserv continues having some problems. People subscribing to
CuD with standard internet addresses should be relatively
unaffected. Those with BITNET addresses will likely not
receive CuD this (or next) issue.

This means that folks unsubbing, whether through us or through the
listserv, may not get unsubbed for a few more days. Those adding
directly through the listserv should wait a few days, and then
re-submit the request.

Jim

Sorry for the inconvenience.......



Jim and Gordon

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

Date: 19 Mar 95 14:42:00 EST
From: George C. Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Cliff Stoll can't say that: "Silicon Snake Oil" reviewed

   "CLIFF STOLL CAN'T SAY THAT, CAN HE?" or NOTHIN' BUT GOOD TIMES
                     AHEAD IN "SILICON SNAKE OIL"

I don't know if Cliff Stoll ever met historian Christopher Lasch, but
if he did they certainly would have had a lot to talk about. Just
before his death, Lasch closed his last book, "The Revolt of the
Elites" with a biting assessment of the current mania with technology:

"Those wonderful machines that science has enabled us to construct
have not eliminated drudgery, as . . . other false prophets so
confidently predicted, but they have made it possible to imagine
ourselves as masters of our fate.  In an age that fancies itself as
disillusioned, this is the one illusion - the illusion of mastery that
remains as tenacious as ever."

Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information
Highway" (Doubleday) is steel-plated with the same underlying idea,
that much of what is said blindly exTOLLing <heh-heh, couldn't resist>
networks, interconnectivity and computing is illusory - at best
exaggerated, at worst, completely fabricated.  Of course, there have
been other books which hoe the same row.  Lauren Ruth Wiener's
"Digital Woes" and Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information," both
excellent, come to mind.  But neither deliver the same engaging
personal style Stoll effortlessly inserts into "SSO" which is a
greater read for it.

The book deals directly with the mysterious mental disease that is now
infecting large numbers of seemingly rational and very vocal people:
That computers are the new philosopher stones of American society,
capable of transforming the lead of inequality, crumbling public
education; unresponsive, corrupt political processes; stagnant career
opportunity; or the moribund sex life into different varieties of
revitalized techno-alchemical gold. And it means for the greater part
of the making of "Silicon Snake Oil," Stoll must have been sleeping
with his bullshit detector plugged in.  However, he's more gracious,
calling it his "bogometer."

To wit:

"In physics, you measure the brightness of light with a photometer and
voltages with a voltmeter.  Bogosity -- the degree to which something
is bogus - is measured with a bogometer," Stoll writes.

"Alan November, a consultant for the Glenbrook high schools in
Illinois, believes that today's students are in the test preparation
business.  In the May/June 1994 issue of _Electronic Learning_, he
says that pupils will soon build information products that can be used
by clients around the world.  Teachers, in turn, will become brokers
'connecting our students to others across the nets who will help them
create and add to their knowledge.' That one pegged my bogometer."

Mine too.

Passages like these are a delight to the closet curmudgeon. A mere
thirty pages earlier, Stoll notes "I've also noticed that the computer
cognoscenti hang on to their jobs by creating systems where they are
at the chokepoints of the organizations.  Workers who don't know
computers get trampled, discounted or pushed to the side."

As for information being free?  Bah, Stoll indicates.  "I hear this
from those who duplicate software or break into computers.  It's
techno-Marxism -- abolish private property and we'll all be happy."
The Free Software Foundation, writes Stoll, claims "that copyrights
harm society by preventing the free flow of information."  You can
tell he doesn't believe much of it.  Slogans and cyber-aphorisms of
this nature are conveniences in 1995, usually used to rationalize the
process of someone else, but never the individual spouting said
cliches, being ripped off.

I would suspect little, if any, of this will endear Stoll to the
disciples of the church of Toffler now encamped within the gilded
walls of the mainstream media. That's good.  He also has doubtless
alienated the cypherpunks movement by essentially stating that while
their technical accomplishments are neat, the problem they're trying
to solve - the preservation of information privacy through the employ
of cumbersome, almost unusable anonymous remailers and cumbersome,
almost unusable encryption technology - looms trivial in the global
picture.  In fact, "Silicon Snake Oil" gores so many sacred cows in
cyberspace it's guaranteed the author will be regarded like a
dysenteric hog loose in the streets of Mecca on some parts of the net.

That would be a shame because "Silicon Snake Oil" has genuine heart.
There's not a mean bone in it; neither will you find the sour breath
of the corrosive cynic. Paradoxically, Stoll confounds the reader's
expectations by appearing to be a hopeless romantic in everyday life,
and, by contrast, the nets, where he is up to his neck in connections
and still very obviously in love with the pulse of the cursor.  In the
end, "Silicon Snake Oil" is saying the future could be a pretty dim,
brutish place if we trade the critical and analytical capacity, stuff
that ain't broke, a real voice on the end of the telephone line or the
tough teacher for the newest software, indigestible floods of
valueless, curiosity-numbing information or glib futurology that is
simply faster and louder than real life.  That's a great message from
a killer of a book.

[George Smith is the author of "The Virus Creation Labs"
(American Eagle).]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 00:35:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer Underground Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--RE: File 4--S. 314, Realism, Unanswered Questions (fwd)

Bruce Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote:

Tim King 'sez

>>Brad Hicks wrote:

>> If you want it to be legal for people to use [the Internet for
>>
>> would be illegal over a phone line under the existing law]...
>> well, then say so!

>>To which Rhys Weatherley replied:

>> Very few free speech supporters, myself included, want that
>> kind of crap distributed on the Internet or anywhere...

>Um... Er...  This does seem to be the point.  The question is not
>whether anyone _wants_ it to happen.  I'm sure that no one _wants_ it
>to happen.  The question is whether or not "you want it to be legal."

        This is classic sensitive waffling on free speech...everyone is in
favor of it, but they'd really rather that it be restricted to speech
they're comfortable with.  If no one_wants_it to happen, then why are
the alt.binaries and alt.sex groups consistently in the highest
traffic and usage groups on the net?  The whole point of the
exepmtion of common carriers from obscenity laws to date is to allow
them to operate, period; as any efforts at censorship will run them
afoul of the various Electronic Privacy acts, such as the Wiretap
Act.  S.314 requires operators of BBS's and Net services to
excersise just suchcensorship, to protect themselves from liability.
Yet they are, in all senses of the word, common carriers...you do not
have to be a giant monopolistic corporate entity to be one.  They are
providing a connection service, not a content service; there is no
legal reason on earth that they should have to be responsible for the
content of what they are conveying, any more that the phone company
is.  Drug deals, insider trading, and even murder conspiracies are
conducted by phone every day, yet the phone company is not held as a
co-conspirator, nor are they held on liability charges for the
millions of sex-line calls made using their networks each day.
However, this is precisely what this proposed law is setting out to
do for computer networks.  This bill is a chilling attack on out
first amendment rights using a convenient scapegoat (remember no one
really _wants_ people to be passing around pornography) in a new, and
largely legally uncharted communications medium.  Were I to go in for
conspiracy theory, I'd almost suspect that the large telcos were
behind this bill...it removes a heck of a lot of competition, and
when they finally bring networking to the unwashed masses, they'll
have their historical protections as common carriers and phalanxes of
lawyers, congress-critters and pr flacks to throw against it.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:28:56 -0600
From: [e-mail](CuD Moderators)
Subject: File 4--J. Baker/U of Mich Speech Case -- Chic Trib Excerpt)

Source:  The Chicago Tribune, 12 March, 1995 (Perspective Section, p. 1)
By:  Joan H. Lowenstein

                      HOW FREE IS SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE?

   While other University of Michigan students worked on their tans
over spring break, one sophomore sat in a federal prison cell
typically occupied by extortionists and drug dealers.

   The U.S. attorney in Detroit argued that 20-year-old Jake Baker was
a time bomb-so likely to commit a serious crime like rape or murder
that he shouldn't be allowed out of jail.

   Baker, who was finally released on bail Friday, says he's a
political prisoner, a 1st Amendment hero who is being punished for
testing the limits of free speech in cyberspace. His lawyers say he
spent a month in jail for a crime that may consist of nothing more
than exceptionally bad manners.

   They may be right.

((The story summarizes the case -- see CuD # for details))

   Sex on the information superhighway is no different from sex on the
old information dirt roads like books and magazines. But the risk of
the unknown can be scary, and people typically react to new
communication technologies by trying to rein them in.

   The advent of the printing press so stunned the medieval Catholic
Church that it had to create an imprimatur to control the output of
all texts. When radio became popular, Congress passed laws that made
sure the government could control the airwaves in case of war. And
more recently, the proliferation of cable television has sparked
legislation-so far unsuccessful-that attempts to regulate sex and
violence.

((The reporter provides an accurate summary of SB 314 - the "Decency"
Bill))

   Ironically, had the University of Michigan acted quietly to
determine whether anyone was really in danger, alt.sex.stories readers
might never have known that the victim in Baker's story was a real
person. But instead, university President James Duderstadt summarily
suspended Baker from school, bringing on considerable media attention
and revealing the woman.

((The story provides additional information on the background -- see
CuD #)).

   A Detroit federal grand jury has since indicted Baker for violating
Section 875(c) of the U.S. Criminal Code: "Whoever transmits in
interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat
to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another
shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both."

   Citing his "gut feeling" that he wouldn't want his daughter out on
the streets if Baker were set free, a federal magistrate in Detroit at
first denied bond.

   The case has attracted attention because it's the first time the
federal government has made an Internet posting the subject of the
anti-threat law.  But the medium is not as important as the message in
determining the merit of Baker's primary defense-that he was
exercising his 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.

((The story summarizes and excerpts parts of the story from the
indictment))

   It's not the first time a person charged under the threat statute
has claimed exaggerated or offensive language shouldn't be punished.
In November 1974, when PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was scheduled to
address the United Nations in New York, Jewish Defense League member
Russell Kelner called a news conference and, in response to a question
from a television reporter, said, "We are planning to assassinate Mr.
Arafat, just the way any other murderer is treated."

((The story summarizes the case, noting that the US Supreme Court drew
on a 1969 decision upholding a statute prohibiting threatening the
President of the US)).

   Jake Baker's conduct doesn't begin to reach the severity of true
threats punished under this rarely used statute.

   In one case prosecuted under the law, the threatening language was,
"I am going to blow your brains out." In another, a woman's
ex-boyfriend left a message on her answering machine that said, "Your
husband's health will take a turn for the worse and you will be
widowed."

   Although the woman he named in the fictional story could bring a
civil suit against him for invasion of privacy or infliction of
emotional distress, it seems unlikely that prosecutors will be able to
show that Jake Baker made the kind of unequivocal and immediate threat
the courts have required for conviction on the criminal charge.

((A brief discussion of internet participation deleted)

   Baker's case has been assigned to Detroit Federal Judge Avern Cohn,
a jurist who has often shown his sensitivity to the 1st Amendment.

   Five years ago, Cohn severely chastised the University of Michigan
for enacting a speech code that violated the free speech rights of its
students.

   Although it can foist some of the blame on the FBI, the university
soon may have to extend its wrist before the judge once again.

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

Date:         Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:08:03 -0600
From:         Stephen Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Campaign to Defeat Comm. Decency Act (Mar 17 Update)

         CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE US COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (S. 314/H.R. 1004)
               (Note this is not the electronic "defeat S314" petition)

           Update: - Telecomm Reform bill scheduled for markup Thu 3/23/95
                   - Sen. Leahy (D-VT) expresses "serious concerns", seeks
                     alternatives that protect free speech
                   - Coalition Internet campaign has an impact

      PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
                     DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER MAY 1, 1995
             DO NOT REPRODUCE THIS ALERT IN NON-POLITICAL FORUMS
                                Mar. 17, 1995

      Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch ([e-mail])
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[3/17/95:
 Yet even more organizations have joined us.  Welcome aboard!

 Next week (Mar 23, 1995) the telecomm reform bill will be marked up in
 the Commerce committee.  If the Communications Decency Act is added to
 the reform bill as an amendment, it will be *very difficult to stop*.
 The result of this bill becoming a law will be to change the nature of
 the Internet as we know it.  The volume of information we take for
 granted will slow to a trickle.

 Win this battle, and we've won the fight for this year and stopped the
 bill.   Lose it and we'll be on the ropes in the Senate for the rest
 of the session.

 Only you can make the difference, and it will only take two minutes.

 -Shabbir]

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

In order to use the net more effectively, the following organizations
have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act, S. 314 (in alphabetical order):

        the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
        the American Communication Association (ACA),
        the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT),
        the Center for Public Representation (CPR),
        the Computer Communicators Association (CCA),
        the Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR),
        the CyberQueer Lounge, an online resource for the gay community,
        the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
        (Note the above DC-based EFF has no local chapters)
        the Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin (EFF-Austin),
        the Electronic Frontiers Australia, (EFA)
        the Electronic Frontiers Houston, (EFH)
        the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC),
        the Florida Coalition Against Censorship (FCAC),
        the Hands Off! the Net petition drive,
        the National Coalition Against Censorship, (NCAC)
        the National Libertarian Party, (NLP),
        the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN),
        the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981 AFL-CIO), (NWU)
        the People for the American Way (PFAW),
        the Society for Electronic Access (SEA), and
        the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW)

These organizations are using the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW)
as a conduit for legislative feedback.  When you contact Congress about the
Communications Decency Act and send your feedback to [e-mail], that
information is being fed back to all participating organizations.

If your organization would like to sign on to this campaign and receive
legislative feedback, contact [e-mail].  (Note the Fidonet and FTN
mailing directions below)

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

CONTENTS
        What you can do
        Introduction
        Background
        Current status of S. 314/H.R. 1004
        Where can I learn more about the bill? (URL & Fidonet/FTN included)
        Where will I learn about updates to this alert?
        Current list of participating organizations

---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOU CAN DO (IN ONLY TWO MINUTES)

1. Contact Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD, Commerce Committee Chairman),
   Sen. J.J. Exon (D-NE, sponsor of the bill), and Sen. Bob Packwood (ROR,
   Chairman, Communications Subcommittee).

   Note: although contacting your own Senators is important, these
   members hold the keys at this point in time.  If you want to contact
   your own Senators, that's great, but between now and Thursday Pressler,
   Exon and Packwood are the ones to focus on.

   Time is of the essence: *Phone calls* are best, faxes only partially
   effective, email has the least impact.

      P ST Name and Address           Phone           Fax
      = == ========================   ==============  ==============
      R SD Pressler, Larry            1-202-224-5842  1-202-224-1259*
            243 RSOB                    [e-mail]
            Washington, D.C. 20510
            *Note this is the Senate Commercommittee's fax machine

      D NE Exon, J. J.                1-202-224-4224  1-202-224-5213
            528 HSOB
            Washington, D.C. 20510

      R OR Packwood, Robert           1-202-224-5244  1-202-228-3576
            259 RSOB
            Washington, D.C. 20510

   Urge them to keep S.314 from being incorporated into
   telecommunications reform legislation and to support Senator Leahy's
   efforts to explore alternatives to the Exon bill.  Follow the communique
   at the bottom if you need to.


2. Feel free to use the following communique:

   SAMPLE COMMUNIQUE

        I'm a resident of _______.  Please support Senator Leahy's
        efforts to explore alternatives to S. 314.  Please keep S. 314
        out of the telecommunications reform bill, and remove S. 314
        from the fast track.

        Thanks.



   See below for a brief description of Leahy's initiative. His letter
   to CDT is in the VTW gopher.

   Concern over S.314 is not limited to the U.S. Among many international
   expressions of support, two have stood out in the first two weeks.
   EF-Australia is a member of the growing coalition, and IndiaNet has
   circulated our alert widely. If you are not a citizen of the United States
   you can still express your concern. A sample message to Senator Pressler
   follows:

        Dear Senator Pressler:

        The Exon bill will cripple the U.S. portion of the Internet
        and thereby devastate the growing global information community.
        Internation commerce and social and political cooperation will
        suffer greatly. I urge you to refrain from incorporating S.314
        into any telecommunications reform legislation and to support
        Senator's Leahy initiatives to explore alternatives to S314.

   Both US citizens and non-US citizens should remember to be polite
   when speaking to legislators, even their own.

3. DON'T FORGET TO DROP A NOTE TO [e-mail] to tell us who you contacted.
   (See below for FTN -> Internet emailing instructions.)
   We'll tally the results and feed them back to all participating
   organizations.  It's crucial we have this feedback, even if you just
   got a form letter, or a "thank you" to your phone call.

   Please, when you report back, tell us what state you are in!  This
   will help us track constituent calls, which are the most effective.

4. Feel good about yourself.  You've just participated in democracy
   without leaving your seat.

5. (Extra bonus activism)  Pass this alert to your friends, especially if
   they're in South Dakota, Nebraska, or Oregon.  These states need to
   have as much constituent contact with their Senators as possible.

   Also, you might send a thank-you note to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for
   his continuing efforts on behalf of free speech and the free flow of
   information in cyberspace.  He can be reached at:

      P ST Name and Address           Phone           Fax
      = == ========================   ==============  ==============
      D VT Leahy, Patrick J.          1-202-224-4242  1-202-224-3595
            433 RSOB                    [e-mail]
            Washington, D.C. 20510

   Don't forget to Cc: [e-mail] on your mail to him, so we can tally
   the response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION

Dear Net Citizens:

Legislation has been introduced before the Senate which would severely
restrict your freedom of speech, halt the free flow of information on
the net, and require all telecommunications carriers to censor your
public and private communications.

The "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314), introduced in early
February by Senators Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA), would place
substantial criminal liability on telecommunications carriers (including
traditional telephone networks, Internet service providers, commercial
online services such as America Online and Compuserve, and independent
BBS's) whenever their networks are used to transmit any material
which is deemed indecent or harassing.  In order to avoid these penalties,
carriers would be forced to restrict the activities of their subscribers
and censor all public and private communications.

We must act quickly to stop the progress of S. 314.  The bill may soon
be incorporated into Senate telecommunications reform legislation, which
is currently being drafted by the Senate Commerce Committee.  The
telecommunications reform bill may be introduced as early as mid March,
and is expected to be considered on a fast track.  If S. 314 is included
in this bill, it will be extremely difficult to change or remove and
could pass quickly.

We are asking you to join us in urging key members of the Senate to
prevent S. 314 from being included in Senate telecommunications reform
measures and to hold open, public hearings on the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT STATUS OF S. 314/H.R. 1004

The bill was introduced on February 1, 1995 by Senators Exon (D-NE) and
Gorton (R-WA).  It is currently pending before the Senate Commerce
Committee (chaired by Senator Pressler (R-SD)).

No committee action has been scheduled as of March 9, 1995.

The telecommunications reform bill is scheduled for hearing starting
March 21, 1995.  It is possible that S. 314 will be folded into the
bill during markup next week.

H.R. 1004 (worded the same as S. 314) was introduced on February 21,
1995 in the House by Representative Johnson (SD) and has been referred
to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees.

No committee actions in the House have been scheduled as of March 17, 1995.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND

S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on
telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand
criminal liability to all content carried by all forms of
telecommunications networks.  The bill would amend Section 223 of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take
steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and
criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines.

If enacted, S. 314 would compel service providers to severely restrict
your online activities.  Your access to email, discussion lists, usenet,
the world wide web, gopher, and ftp archives would be substantially
reduced or cut off entirely. The bill would also force providers to
closely monitor and pre-screen your electronic mail, and refuse to
transmit any message or other content which may be considered to be
indecent.

This bill poses a significant threat to freedom of speech and the free
flow of information in cyberspace. The bill also raises fundamental
questions about the right of government to control content on
communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content
carried in these new communications media.

Recently, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has requested the Center for
Democracy and Technology's Public Interest/Industry working group IWG
(Interactive Working Group) to explore other solutions to the problems
that S. 314 attempts to solve.  The working group must be allowed to
examine current legislation and explore technical alternatives that are
consistent with the First Amendment and the free flow of information.

We've received over 400 messages in two weeks, with our log showing
over 700 letters, faxes, phone calls, and email messages (many people
contacted more than one Senator. At least two respondents wrote all 19
members of the committee!)  Of course many more people have probably
contacted Congress without sending that note to VTW.

Almost 200 messages went to Pressler, who may be getting the point.
His staff told one caller, "Why are you calling us? It's Exon's bill!"
(This is why phone calls to Pressler are so important.)

One citizen wrote to Senator Gorton, a co-sponsor:
        "I, frankly, am amazed at the audacity of your proposed
         bill. We are not children sir, nor do we need your
         misplaced guidance in raising our children!"

Along the same lines, another wrote to his own Senator:
        "While I am pleased, being an enthusiastic supporter of
         anti-harassment legislation, with many of the provisions of
         this bill, I am frankly astounded and appalled with others."

Someone came up with metaphor that frankly we aren't clever enough to
have thought of:
        "A few years ago, a tanker laden with a crude, noxious substance
         ran aground in the virginal territories of the Alaskan coastline.
         It poisoned the land and sea for many miles around.... We are now
         faced with another 'Exon Valdez'...  a vehicle filled with crude
         legislation, currently at risk of running ashore on our pristine
         rights."

Finally, someone writing to Pressler spoke for all of us to all of us:
        "At a time when communications between ordinary citizens has
         been all but drowned out by the barrage of mass media, online
         communication has become the last bastion of real citizen
         deliberation and has become the "public square" so to speak,
         of the nation.  This bill would destroy this great experiment
         in the rejuvenation of grassroots democracy.  Please do all
         you can to prevent its passage."

We are encouraged by the success so far of the campaign, and hope that
you take the time to participate at this crucial time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BILL? (URL INCLUDED)

The Voters Telecommunications Watch has set up a gopher page where
you can get a copy of the bill (including analyses by the American
Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the
Electronic Messaging Association, and others).  Here's the URL:

        WWW URL: gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon
        Gopher command : gopher -p 1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com

If you have difficulty getting to this gopher page, or if you don't
have access to Mosaic/gopher, drop a note to:

        [e-mail]

BBS Network Users:

You can FREQ the files from the EFF BBS, 1:109/1108, 1-202-861-1224.
The "magicword" for a list of relevant files is S314.  You do NOT have to be
nodelisted to get the files, or in any particular network.  Just create a
dummy nodelist entry with our phone number if you need to do so.
Those in QWK nets or otherwise not able to File REQuest can download the
files manually from the BBS, in the ALERTS file area.  Feel free to login
as ANONYMOUS, password GUEST to bypass newuser questionnaires.

To send mail to [e-mail] from FidoNet or other FTN systems, create a
netmail message to your local UUCP host.  Search the nodelist for the
GUUCP flag, and use the address of that system:

To: UUCP, [GUUCP system's address here.  "To:" name MUST be set to UUCP]
From: [you]
Subject--S.314
---------------------------------------------------------------
To: [e-mail]

[Message starts here on 3rd line.  The second "To:" line with the internet
email address MUST be the first line of the message body, and the blank
line following that is REQUIRED.  Mail will not be delivered by the gateways
without it.]

To email one of the Senators in the list above, just put the Senator's email
address in place of "[e-mail]" in the above example.

If you are unsure whether your FTN has an Internet gateway, or suspect it
may use something other than a GUUCP nodelist flag, ask your network
coordinators.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE WILL I LEARN ABOUT UPDATES TO THIS ALERT?

We will post updates to this alert in three places:

        -On the account [e-mail] (finger [e-mail])
        -On Usenet (comp.org.eff.talk, comp.org.cpsr.talk, and alt.privacy)
        -Through our announcements mailing list, [e-mail].

        To subscribe, simply send a message to [e-mail] with the
        following in the message body:

                subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname

---------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

At this time, the following organizations have signed onto this
campaign and are receiving the legislative feedback that VTW is compiling:

 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), [e-mail]
 American Communication Association  (ACA), [e-mail]
 Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), [e-mail]
 Center for Public Representation (CPR), [e-mail]
 Computer Communicators Association (CCA), [e-mail]
 Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), [e-mail]
 CyberQueer Lounge, [e-mail]
 (Note that the DC-based EFF has no local chapters)
 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), [e-mail]
 Electronic Frontier Foundation-Austin (EFF-Austin), [e-mail]
 Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), [e-mail]
 Electronic Frontiers Houston (EFH), [e-mail]
 Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), [e-mail]
 Florida Coalition Against Censorship (FCAC), [e-mail]
 Hands Off! the Net petition drive, [e-mail]
 National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), [e-mail]
 National Libertarian Party (NLP), [e-mail]
 National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), [e-mail]
 National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981 AFL-CIO), [e-mail]
 People for the American Way (PFAW), [e-mail]
 Society for Electronic Access (SEA), [e-mail]
 Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW), [e-mail]

Note that the Voters Telecommunications Watch does not speak for these
organizations.  Any opinions contained herein are those of the author,
and not necessarily endorsed by participating organizations.

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

Date: Sun 19 Mar 1995  19:19:22 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Reprint of Textof SB 314

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here, from ftp.eff.org's site, is the text of
the original statute and the changes that are proposed.

For more information, also check out slowdog's homepage at:
   http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog

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

47 USC 223 (1992)

Sec. 223.  [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]

OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS"

   (a) Whoever--

   (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE--

   (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

   [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]


"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS
ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,
ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO
RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;


   (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
called number; or

   [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]

(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,

   (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned  not more than [six months] TWO
YEARS, or both.

   (b)(1) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the
call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or

  (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.

   (2) Whoever knowingly--

   (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or


   (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
TWO YEARS, or both.


   (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
Commission may prescribe by regulation.

   (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

   (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--

   (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
Commission for such purposes, or

   (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
proceedings.

   (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
communication specified in subsection (b) from the
telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
provider of such communication.

   (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
account of--

   (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection; or

   (B) any access permitted--

   (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
by a provider of communications that communications provided by
that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or

   (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).

   (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
action shall be limited to the question of whether the
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
access only to subscribers who have previously requested such
access.

*********************************************

NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
it would be changed.  For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
text such as:

[...]
             (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
                    (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
                  subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
                    (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
                  suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
                  `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
                  comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
                  communication';
                    (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
                  following:
                    `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
[...]

See:

ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill

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

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Mar, 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  [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.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB <your name>
Send it to  [e-mail]
(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 [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
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~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 #7.22
************************************