home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- Computer underground Digest Wed Oct 11, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 80
- ISSN 1004-042X
-
- Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.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, #7.80 (Wed, Oct 11, 1995)
-
- File 1--Charges against Lorne Shantz dropped.
- File 2--Am Action BBS (Rob't Thomas) appeal in 6th Circuit
- File 3--Telecommunications Act Re-write list and WWW site
- File 4--Re: Minnesota Law (#1)
- File 5--Re: "Emperor's Virtual Clothes"
- File 6--File 1--Minnesota A.G. Erects Electronic Wall Around State
- File 7--The Computer Law Report #11 (9/29/94) (fwd)
- File 8--New Web site on government censorship
- File 9--New Jersey BBS Sting (excerpts)
- File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
-
- CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
- THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
-
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:17:08 -0500 (CDT)
- From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
- Subject: File 1--Charges against Lorne Shantz dropped.
-
-
- The following article is excerpted from CompuNotes. I've included the
- header information and the article about Lorne Shantz, who is the Arizona
- DPS officer initially indicted for distributing obscene material online.
-
-
- David Smith * Next EFF-Austin appearance : Armadillocon
- bladex@bga.com * Panel discussion : "Crypto-Cyberporn on the
- President, EFF-Austin * Planet Newt" -- October 6, 4:00 to 5:00
- Board of Directors, CTCLU *
-
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- 9/26/95 CompuNotes Issue #21
- Patrick Grote, Publisher and Editor
- CompuNotes is a weekly publication available through an email
- distribution list and many fine on-line networks!
- We feature reviews, interviews and commentary concerning the PC industry.
-
- This Week's Contents:
- =====================
- PATRICK'S VIEWS
- ===============
- -=> Why Buy Windows 95 <=-
- -=> Review Response <=-
- NEWS
- ====
- -=> Microsoft Money for Free <=-
- -=> Taking Classes on the Net? <=-
- REVIEWS
- =======
- -=> CloseUp 6.1 for LANs Reviewed by Patrick Grote <=-
- -=> Alien Logic Reviewed by Doug Reed <=-
- WEB SITE OF THE WEEK
- ====================
- -=> EPUB Web Is Amazing <=-
- FTP FILE OF THE WEEK
- ====================
- -=> Darn! <=-
- INTERVIEW
- =========
- -=> Lorne Shantz Update <=-
-
- To subscribe, send a message to subscribe@supportu.com
- with subscribe in body.
- To unsubscribe, send a message to unsubscribe@supportu.com
- with unsubscribe in body.
- Comments should be sent to feedback@supportu.com.
- Voice: (314) 984-9691
- BBS : (314) 984-8387
- FAX : (314) 984-9981
-
- All old copies available from anonymous FTP at
- ftp.uu.net:/published/compunotes
-
- CD-ROM Online Magazine is another good resource. You can subscribe free
- by sending an email message to CDRMag@nsimultimedia.com with the word
- subscribe in the body of the text!
-
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- [deleted rest of issue]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- INTERVIEW OF THE WEEK | Interesting people you should know about . . .
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Many of you will remember our interview with Lorne when he was going
- through the legal battle after his BBS was shut down. Well, there is
- justice in the world! Read on . . .
-
-
- Wishbook BBS Charges Dropped
-
- Monday, September 18, 1995
-
- This morning all criminal charges against Lorne E. Shantz, Sysop of
- The Wishbook BBS, were ordered dismissed by the court. The dismissal
- was ordered to be "with prejudice," meaning that criminal charges can
- never again be filed against Lorne in this matter. The Court also
- signed orders allowing for the release of information pertaining to
- Grand Jury actions in the case. Because of these orders it is now
- possible to discuss some of the heretofore secret aspects of this case.
- Lorne E. Shantz was the subject of a search warrant in November,
- 1995 during which, his BBS equipment and software were seized by police
- authorities upon an allegation that the BBS was distributing obscene
- material. Although Lorne had maintained a strict, public policy against
- the uploading of material depicting beastiality, excrement, and child
- pornography and had personally screened all uploads to physically
- eliminate this type of material, certain .gifs contained on name-brand
- CD-Roms were alleged to have contained examples. Lorne maintained, from
- the beginning that he bought the CD-Rom disks openly and based upon
- their national advertising in mainstream computer publications and in
- reliance upon their representation as being "BBS-Ready." Because of this
- representation, the wide-spread use of these CD-Rom disks on other BBS
- systems and because of the sheer size and number of images, Lorne did
- not screen every image.
- In January, 1995 Lorne's BBS equipment was returned to him with the
- exception of all of his CD-Rom disks (even those not alleged to contain
- contraband material) and other equipment relating to the CD-Rom system.
- In March, 1995, a Grand Jury considered the filing of criminal
- charges against Shantz. Pursuant to the Criminal Rules, the Prosecutor
- was notified that Lorne would agree to waive his privilege against
- self-incrimination and would testify before the Grand Jury. The
- Prosecutor claimed to have forgotten this formal offer and proceeded to
- obtain an Indictment without notifying the Grand Jury. The Prosecutor
- then offered Lorne the opportunity to address the Grand Jury but did not
- inform Lorne or myself that the Grand Jury had already indicted him.
- Lorne was charged, criminally, with 20 counts of distributing obscene
- material.
- When the Defense learned of these Grand Jury improprieties, it filed
- a Motion challenging the indictment and asking that the matter be
- remanded to another, impartial Grand Jury panel. The Court agreed and
- ordered the matter remanded.
- In July, 1995 Lorne appeared before another Grand Jury panel.
- Because Court rules do not allow a Defense Attorney to address the Grand
- Jury, Lorne was required to solely address that body. Lorne was superb
- at that proceeding, calmly but firmly telling the Grand Jury that he had
- no idea of the existence of the material on his BBS and defending his
- reputation both as a Sysop and Police Officer. At the conclusion of
- those proceedings, this Grand Jury did not vote an Indictment and chose,
- instead to end their inquiry.
- The Prosecution chose not to proceed to alternative methods of
- charging Shantz, but instead offered to dismiss all criminal charges.
- The State requested that Lorne agree to promise that he would not offer
- the .gif images named in the Indictment on his BBS in the future. Since
- Lorne had publicly testified, under oath, that he never intended to
- offer such images, he was perfectly willing to so agree. The agreement
- was accepted by the court this morning and, accordingly, all criminal
- charges were ordered dismissed.
- Still undetermined is the status of Lorne's job as a State Trooper.
- On the date that the Indictment was made public, Lorne was fired from
- the position he held for approximately 14 years and all accrued
- benefits, including his pension, were forfeited. That firing is
- presently under administrative appeal.
- Lorne will still have to repair a broken life and a new marriage
- that, unfortunately, has not yet seen peaceful times.
- My personal feelings of gratification for today's events is exceeded
- only by my profound sense of gratitude for all of the friends who have
- supported Lorne in the Nets and especially on the RIME conferences. In
- the early days, friends were few and very timid, but the folks on RIME
- were among the first supporters and certainly the most enthusiastic!
- Momentum slowly gathered and by July, support had become wide-spread and
- open.
- Lorne's victory today is certainly a victory for all of his loyal
- friends and supporters. I truly hope that each of you will share our
- pride and happiness today.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: hkhenson@CUP.PORTAL.COM
- Subject: File 2--Am Action BBS (Rob't Thomas) appeal in 6th Circuit
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 01:01:46 PDT
-
- Robert Thomas (sysop of AABBS) called me this weekend to report that the
- appeal is on his case is being heard Oct. 11. Robert is hopefull that
- he will be let out of the Federal prison at Springfield pending the
- decision of the Sixth Circuit appeals court. The AABSS case, for those
- who were not here last year, was one where a postal inspector downloaded
- adult .gifs from a BBS near San Jose, California to Memphis, Tennessee.
- He then had the owners indited in Memphis and tried there by a jury--none
- of whom had a computer or knew the slightest thing about cyberspace.
-
- Robert was given 37 months, his wife about six months less.
-
- Keith Henson
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 10:14:18 -0400
- From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <bj496@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU
- Subject: File 3--Telecommunications Act Re-write list and WWW site
-
-
- This is the first news I have seen of this MI Telecom Bill in-state on the
- net. This thing is being kept VERY quiet - usually a bad sign where
- politicians are concerned.
-
- Why a MODERATED list? Is someone afraid the politicos' feelings might be hurt?
-
- =================== Forwarded Message ===================
- Newsgroups-- bit.listserv.new-list
- Date-- Sun, 8 Oct 1995 21:25:21 CDT
- From-- Thom Byxbe <byxbe@DigitalRealm.Com
- Subject-- NEW;mtalist - Michigan Telecommunications Act Re-write List
-
- mtalist on mtalist@digitalrealm.com
-
- MTALIST, a Moderated mailing list, has been started to discuss the
- Michigan Telecommunications Act re-write currently underway in the
- Michigan legislature. This list will act as a tool to communicate
- information about the act and it's ramifications on the citizens of
- Michigan.
-
- This act is being rushed through committee and there is very little
- time to act. Please use this tool to communicate opinions and to
- rally support. It is IMPORTANT that we move VERY quickly to ensure
- that this rewrite is fair to ALL of Michigans citizens.
-
- For more information on the act please visit this WWW site:
-
- http://www.rust.net/~jack/mta.html
-
- TO SUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
- Place the word SUBSCRIBE in the Subject line and *ONLY* your
- E-Mail address in the body of the message
-
- TO UNSUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
- Place the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject line and *ONLY* your
- E-Mail address in the body of the message
-
- TO CONTRIBUTE to the list send mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
-
- Owner: Thom Byxbe <byxbe@DigitalRealm.com
-
-
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:49:59 -0400
- From: trebor@ANIMEIGO.COM(Robert J. Woodhead (AnimEigo))
- Subject: File 4--Re: Minnesota Law (#1)
-
- Michael Gersten <michael@STB.INFO.COM> writes regarding Minnesota laws:
-
- > Minnesota's general criminal jurisdiction statute provides as
- >follows:
-
- Most states have the same laws, btw. Here are the famous examples
- that explain why:
-
- > A person may be convicted and sentenced under the
- > law of this State if the person:
- >
- > (1) Commits an offense in whole or in part within
- > this state; or
-
- I shoot and kill someone in the state of Minnesota.
-
- > (2) Being without the state, causes, aids or abets
- > another to commit a crime within the state; or
-
- I throw a gun over the state line to an accomplice in Minnesota who
- shoots and kills someone.
-
- > (3) Being without the state, intentionally causes a
- > result within the state prohibited by the criminal laws
- > of this state.
-
- I shoot a bullet over the state line and kill someone (don't laugh,
- this has happened!)
-
- > It is not a defense that the defendant's conduct is
- > also a criminal offense under the laws of another state
- > or of the United States or of another country.
-
- >If we go after AT&T and the US P.S., then maybe the Minnesota
- >judges will recognize limits to this law.
-
- Well now, common carriers are strange beasts, because they don't know
- the content (or at least, they aren't supposed to know) of what they
- carry. Thus if person A used AT&T to surf the web and commit some crime,
- AT&T would not be liable. Person A's internet provider probably would
- be in the clear, assuming the provider had no knowledge of A's intent.
-
- >As to the web, if I'm outside of minnesota, and someone inside of
- >minnesota gets my page and reads it, then isn't the crime caused
- >when they pull my page to them?
-
- The question becomes, who committed what crime? In the case of the
- Internet, and high-tech in general, this is an unsettled question, mostly
- because now we have agents (computers) that can do things automatically
- on our behalf.
-
- Eventually the law will evolve some reasonable guidelines; particular juris-
- dictions will have a responsibility for publishing what is and is not
- acceptable, and providers will have a responsibility to attempt to abide
- by these rules (if technical means exist), in return for which they will be
- shielded.
-
- ><SIGH>. Whatever happened to the concept of individual
- >responsibility in the law? Why am I responsible for every one else?
-
- You are responsible for your own actions. The problem is that in today's
- society, your actions (like publishing a web page) can have global
- repercussions. The law is struggling to deal with those issues, and it
- isn't easy. And yes, people are going to get caught in the middle along
- the way.
-
- We are, as the chinese curse goes, living in Interesting Times.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
- From: Ofer Inbar <cos@CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
- Subject: File 5--Re: "Emperor's Virtual Clothes"
-
- In "The Emperor's Virtual Clothes", Alan Janesch <axj12@psu.edu> writes,
-
- > Through his research, Moore found that the Internet, more than
- > anything else, mirrors human existence in all its various forms
- > -- the good as well as the bad and the ugly.
-
- [...]
-
- > That means that while you can indeed find "flames" (insulting
- > language), "cybersex" (basically, talking dirty via real-time
- > electronic mail) and pornography on the Internet, Moore says, you can
- > also find intelligent, thoughtful people who care about ideas and
- > issues and who also care about the people in their Internet communities.
-
- Lumping "cybersex" and "pornography" in with "the bad and the ugly",
- as contrasted with "thoughtful people who care...", is just feeding
- the anti-sex propoganda which is at the heart of Internet censorship
- attempts. There are many people who "care about ideas and issues"
- who talk about sex on the Internet, and indeed some of the earliest
- Internet communities were formed around sexual issues or interests.
- The lack of censorship on the net very early on made it a good place
- for gays, lesbians, people interested in BDSM, polyamory, and so on.
- Many of these are topics that would-be censors consider "inappropriate
- for children", and censorship attempts are aimed directly at these
- Internet communities. Janesch's (Moore's?) defense of "people who
- care about the people in their Internet communities" is quite ironic.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- From: Tim Scanlon <tfs@VAMPIRE.SCIENCE.GMU.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 20:29:22 -0400
- Subject: File 6--File 1--Minnesota A.G. Erects Electronic Wall Around State
-
- My most immidate response to this is that if the State of Minnisota is
- seeking to criminalize the behavior of individuals and service
- providers for activities that take place outside of the state, and are
- not illigal outside of the state, then it would behoove all parties
- concerned with being prosecuted under Minnisota's interpretation of
- justice to avoid sending packets to Minnisota.
-
- Perhaps the easiest way for that to occur would be for organizations
- who are affected by this broad legal brush to minimize their risk
- profile legaly, and stop routing packets to Minnisota. Service
- providers it seems will suffer a double edeged vulnetability under
- these provisions in that they will be open to prosecution from
- Minnisota, and from individuals charged under Minnisota's statutes for
- having transported the packets TO the state. I know that I certainly
- do not want ~my~ packets sent there, and would hold any transportation
- party that operated inside the state liable for doing so.
-
- In short, connectivity is a two edged sword. Perhaps they, and
- everyone else, would be better off without Minnisota having it.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
- From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
- Subject: File 7--The Computer Law Report #11 (9/29/94) (fwd)
-
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
- Date-- Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13--51--39 -0400
- From--Galkin@aol.com
-
- *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
- THE COMPUTER LAW REPORT
- *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
- September 29, 1995 [#11]
-
-
- =====================================
- NEWS FLASH: The Computer Law Report will now be distributed weekly and will
- contain a single article in each distribution. This more frequent
- distribution will assist in keeping current on late-breaking developments.
- =====================================
- GENERAL INFO: The Computer Law Report is distributed weekly for free and is
- prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. The Report is designed specifically for
- the non-lawyer. To subscribe, send e-mail to galkin@aol.com. All information
- contained in The Computer Law Report is for the benefit of the recipients,
- and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice. Copyright 1995 by
- William S. Galkin.
- =====================================
- ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr. Galkin is an attorney in private practice in Owings
- Mills, Maryland (which is a suburb of Baltimore), and he is also an adjunct
- professor of Computer Law at the University of Maryland School of Law. Mr.
- Galkin has concentrated his private practice in the Computer Law area since
- 1986. He represents small startup, midsized and large companies, across the
- U.S. and internationally, dealing with a wide range of legal issues
- associated with computers and technology, such as developing, marketing and
- protecting software, purchasing and selling complex computer systems, and
- launching and operating a variety of online business ventures. He also enjoys
- writing about computer law issues!
-
- Mr. Galkin is available for consultation with individuals and companies,
- wherever located, and can be reached as follows: E-MAIL:
- galkin@aol.com/TELEPHONE: 410-356-8853/FAX: 410-356-8804/MAIL: 10451 Mill Run
- Circle, Suite 400, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
-
- ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
- Articles in The Report are available to be published as columns in both print
- and electronic publications. Please contact Mr. Galkin for the terms of such
- usage.
- ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
-
- *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
- STOPPING THE ALTRUISTIC INFRINGER
- *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
-
- This is the first of a series of articles discussing recommendations made in
- the report issued September 5, 1995 by President Clinton's Information
- Infrastructure Task Force. The report is entitled "Intellectual Property and
- the National Information Infrastructure," and is commonly referred to as the
- White Paper. At the end of the article there is information on how to get
- print and electronic copies of the White Paper.
-
- The White Paper reviews and interprets current U.S. intellectual property law
- and makes various recommendations for changes to facilitate the development
- of the national information infrastructure (NII). These recommendations take
- the form of new proposed legislative changes as well as lending support to
- currently pending legislation.
-
- This article discusses recommendations relating to criminal penalties imposed
- for certain copyright offenses perpetrated over the Internet.
-
- A 1994 case in Massachusetts is one example given in the White Paper of why
- criminal laws need to be strengthened. In U.S. v. LaMacchia, a university
- student established several bulletin board systems (BBS) that were accessible
- via the Internet. The purpose of these BBS systems was to allow users to
- download (pirate) commercially produced software for free. The keyword here
- is "free." The student's objective was "altruistic" and did not seek to make
- a profit on these unlawful transfers of software. The court found that,
- without a profit motive, the student could not be convicted of criminal
- violations under the U.S. Copyright Act, and his actions did not amount to
- wire fraud. The indictment claimed that over a period of six weeks the
- copyright owners lost over $1,000,000.
-
- It is important to keep in mind that civil remedies would nevertheless be
- available in such a case. These include damages, preliminary injunctions to
- prevent or restrain infringement, permanent injunctions where liability is
- established and there is a threat of continuing infringement, and impounding
- or destruction of all copies.
-
- Why would anyone distribute software for free on such a large scale? First of
- all, there is little cost involved in setting up a BBS or other system for
- this purpose. Secondly, the White Paper points out that there are those who
- have the philosophical belief that Cyberspace should be a free realm and will
- create such systems to promote this concept.
-
- The court in LaMacchia stated that it believed that the actions committed
- should be criminal, but said that it was up to the legislature to restructure
- the statutes to make it so: "Criminal as well as civil penalties should
- probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted software
- even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer. One could
- envision ways that the copyright law could be modified to permit such
- prosecution. But, "[i]t is the legislature, not the Court which is to define
- a crime, and ordain its punishment.""
-
- To rectify this problem, Senate Bill 1122, endorsed in the White Paper, was
- introduced in the 104th Congress by Senators Leahy and Feingold. This Bill
- would make it a criminal act under the copyright laws to willfully reproduce
- or distribute copyrighted material which has a retail value of more than
- $5,000. The prohibition includes assisting someone to do the same. Because of
- this "assisting" provision, online system providers will need to take
- specific precautions where users can freely upload materials which are then
- made available to all users.
-
- The drafters of the Bill believe that it is drafted in such a way that
- unintentional or careless acts of infringement will not fall under the
- criminal provisions. For this conclusion they rely on the "wilful"
- requirement and the $5,000 threshold to distinguish between the criminals and
- the inadvertent infringers. However, criminal liability is probably easier
- to arise than they suspect.
-
- Most people would agree that it should be criminal for LaMacchia to
- distribute software in the manner he did, thereby robbing the copyright
- owners of potential profits. However, this criminal liability will also apply
- to many text transfers that are currently occurring where there is no
- criminal intent. Whether such acts are deemed criminal will depend upon how a
- court interprets "wilful."
-
- Prior to the U.S. joining the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, a work
- distributed without a copyright notice would pass into the public domain.
- Therefore, a person could claim that since the work did not have a notice,
- they thought it was in the public domain. However, under the Berne
- Convention, this is no longer the case. Works do not need any notice to
- maintain their copyright. Therefore, it can no longer be assumed that if
- there is no copyright notice that the work is in the public domain. The
- presumption would be, rather, that the work is not in the public domain.
- Therefore, transfers of documents, where it cannot be demonstrated were
- reasonably believed to be in the public domain, though they had the
- appearance of public domain documents, may often be deemed wilful.
-
- Additionally, while the $5,000 amount may sound like a lot of copying, on the
- Internet documents available for downloading on web pages or otherwise may be
- downloaded hundreds or thousands of times. Therefore, a report for which the
- owner might charge $50, if downloaded one hundred times, would be a criminal
- act. It is important to remember that the requirement under the copyright law
- for criminal sanctions that the infringement be "willful" applies to the act
- of reproducing or distributing and does not mean that the infringer
- "willfully" intended to reproduce or distribute material he or she knew was
- worth $5,000.
-
- Indemnifications from users might provide some limited protection for online
- systems, but these would probably not go over well from a marketing
- standpoint - unless universally required by all similar services.
-
- A result of this legislation, if it passes (which is likely), will be that
- vendors of information must make greater efforts to verify the right to
- distribute materials. Or at least establish that the materials are probably
- in the public domain. As competition between commercial interests increases,
- and as scrutiny of activities by government entities also increases, vendors
- must develop vigilant procedures to clear ownership issues, or face the
- consequences.
-
- [HOW TO GET THE WHITE PAPER: Print copies of the White Paper may be obtained
- for free by sending a written request to: "Intellectual Property and the NII"
- c/o Terri A. Southwick, Attorney-Advisor Office of Legislative and
- International Affairs U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Box 4 Washington, D.C.
- 20231. Copies are also available from the IITF Bulletin Board, which can be
- accessed through the Internet by pointing the Gopher Client to iitf.doc.gov
- or by telnet to iitf.doc.gov (log in as gopher).]
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:55:40 -0400
- From: Andy Oram <andyo@ORA.COM>
- Subject: File 8--New Web site on government censorship
-
- The Web sites I've seen on Exon etc. seem to be getting out of date,
- or just focus on one or two details. So, with help from Cyber-Rights
- members (a CPSR working group) and some other people, I wrote a new
- Web page to present the main issues in a punchy, direct way. The
- title is "Government Censorship Threatens the Information
- Infrastructure." It refers to other Web pages for details.
-
- Please let everyone who might be interested know about this URL.
-
- http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/free-speech/
-
- Thanks to everybody who contributed information and ideas,
- particularly Craig Johnson.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:14:05 -0500 (CDT)
- From: security@rockpile.com
- Subject: File 9--New Jersey BBS Sting (excerpts)
-
- From: NYTIMES SEPT 12,1995
-
- By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
-
- c.1995 N.Y. Times News Service
-
- NEW YORK - It was a classic sting operation, the kind of undercover
- gambit that has nabbed bad guys for decades: federal agents disguised
- as big-time thieves set up shop and put the word out on the street
- that they were eager for business. Soon shifty characters were
- stopping by, officials said, peddling stolen goods that were worth
- millions of dollars.
-
- But as the agents revealed Monday, the meeting place for this
- subterfuge was not some shady storefront. It was a computer bulletin
- board that the U.S. Secret Service had rigged together to troll for
- people who are illegally trafficking in the codes that program
- cellular phones.
-
- .....................
-
- According to the criminal complaint in the case, a Secret Service
- agent used the Internet, the global computer network, to announce that
- the bulletin board catered to those involved in breaking into
- computers and in cellular-phone and credit-card fraud.
-
- .....................
-
- After buying hundreds of the stolen phone codes, the Secret Service
- conducted raids in several states late last week, arresting the six
- people and seizing more than 20 computer systems, as well as equipment
- for making cellular phones operate with stolen codes, said the United
- States Attorney in Newark, Faith S. Hochberg.
-
- Officials said that of those arrested, two of them, Richard Lacap of
- Katy, Texas, and Kevin Watkins of Houston, were particularly
- sophisticated because they actually broke into the computer systems of
- cellular phone companies to obtain the codes.
-
- ------------------------------
-
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
- From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
- Subject: File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 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 LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
- The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
- or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
- 60115, USA.
-
- To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST
- Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
- (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
-
- Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
- news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
- LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
- libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
- the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
- On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
- on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
- and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
- CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
- 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
-
- EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
- Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
- In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
- In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
-
- UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
- ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
- aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
- world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
- wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
- EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
- ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
-
- JAPAN: 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 #7.80
- ************************************
-
-