The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud787.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 30.9 KB | 693 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Nov 5, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 87
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail]
       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, #7.87 (Sun, Nov 5, 1995)

File 1--Re: Spam Response (CuD 7.86)
File 2--CuD as of late
File 3--Re: Cyberangel FAQ
File 4--Re: Attention Spammer: The War Has Started
File 5--Re: Cyberangels (Cu Digest, #7.86)
File 6--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)

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

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

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 08:56:46 -0500
From: [e-mail](Robert J. Woodhead (AnimEigo))
Subject: File 1--Re: Spam Response (CuD 7.86)

Barry Gold makes some interesting suggestions for detecting and
removing SPAM, but the problem with them is that they require
transactions over the internet in order to verify the veracity of
messages.  Egad, you thought the Web was a bandwidth hog?

A better approach would be a cooperative network of sites that sniff
out the stench of spam, and provide this information to client sites
who can then delete the offending bits when they appear, and refuse to
forward them.  This would require some extra cpu horsepower but less
network bandwidth.

Needless to say, the spam alert messages ought to be cryptographically
signed to prevent spoofing.  Also, some safeguards to help prevent the
abuse of the automatic email monitoring that would be necessary will
have to be considered.

Barry's suggestion does have merit for mailing lists, as they act as
exploders and so the checking overhead per email message generated is
reasonable.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 09:36:23 -0500
From: Norman Lyon <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--CuD as of late

What has been happening to Computer Underground Digest?  It used to be
a journal that seemed to place online liberties above the ideals of a
particular sect of morality.  Lately, this has included support of
invasion of privacy against a "spammer" and the backing of a right wing
vigilante pseudo organization that declares online war on anything its
members find offensive.  Movements now being published in CuD are the
same sort that you have been attacking since your inception.  Yes, some
of the viewpoints you're supporting, by inclusion in the magazine,
strike some nerve when standing up for civil liberties.  Yet the same
views do just as much as the Cliper chip and the "online decency act" for
diminishing rights.  You're advocating the removal of freedom of privacy
and letting your readers believe that a trial by a lawfully appointed
court is not needed for the online community.  You also seem to be
advocating that the moral right has the authority to dictate what we
can and can not do online, all in the name of the law.  Yet much of
what this dictation preaches is not the enforcement of laws, but
enforcement of a particular morality.

Will this level of immature journalism continue, or will I be able to
count on the intelligent, mature, and civil minded magazine that I have
counted on come back in the near future?

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

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:45:59 +0000
From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Re: Cyberangel FAQ

Wonderful. Just what we need - another bunch of kooks running around
the net acting as self-appointed "saviors" of us all. Their disdain
for the Constitution and the rule of law is obvious from the tone of
their FAQ, wherein they relegate Constitutional guarantees to
"privileges" to be granted or withheld on some fuzzy-minded notion of
majority concensus. Will we next see them attempting to apply  the
tactics of the CoS? In light of the current political disconfort the
net's instantaneous access to news and on-scene data is causing the
power brokers in Washington, D.C., is it reasonable to speculate what
hidden agenda these self-proclaimed "guardians" may have?

Should the net community regard them with the same jaundiced eye with
which the NYC transit police viewed them? Should  netters  consider
"volunteering" as cyber "angel" guard-geeks in order to watch the
watchers? Should netters even go so far as to stage well-publicized,
carefully-managed Web sites which are, in reality, merely bait to
attract and identify the likes of these?

While nobody encourages REAL crime, the "guardians" overly-altruistic
pronouncements smack of nothing so much, in the opinion of this
writer, as the mouthings of neighborhood bulliy wannabes seeking to
impose their standards on everyone; to impose their prejudices and
parochialism on all and sundry by menas of implied threats,
intimidation and harassment:  the very things they CLAIM to oppose.
These "angel" guard-geeks seem to forget that the net is global in
nature. Are they blind to the beam in their eye as they seek to rip
the splinter from ours? Why else use tactics and espouse ideals that
cast them in the image of bigots or  "small town red-necks"? Are they
and their talk-show "fearless leader" attempting to play into that
audience for political gain?

What practical difference is there between their goals, their
promotion of some "safesurf" business enterprise (in which they fail
to disavow any financial interest), their demands for enhanced ID
screening, and the actions of any fascist state whose goons demand
"your papers, please" at gunpoint? Will they next advocate stationing
of armed guards and checkpoints at the entry to print media
newsstands, or TV receivers?

Haven't we got enough problems on the net without these guys?

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

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 02:02:27 GMT
From: [e-mail](Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: File 4--Re: Attention Spammer: The War Has Started

>From: Barry Gold <[e-mail]>
>1. Mailing lists: two steps:

The proposed rememdy is unsatisfactory.  It will reject perfectly
legitimate messages, and fail to stop (in my experience) the
most common forms of mailing list attacks.

>    a) Improve majordomo and listserv to recognize obviously forged
>    headers and dump the messages.  This is a simple change.

Oh-oh.  I get very nervous when people talk about "simple changes"
to mail and news.  Things are seldom simple.  If not due to technical
issues, then due to inertia.

>    If the supposedly "verified" From: line is non-conforming, trash the
>    message.  Some examples include:
>       . more than one "from" address
>       . totally ridiculous site names, especially where the
>         top-level domain (the last one) isn't one of the "standard"
>         three-letter names or a two-letter country code.

"non-conforming" with respect to what?  RFC-822, the bible for
email headers, says multiple addresses in From: headers is perfectly
acceptable.  I have seen precisely *one* spam attack with multi-address
From: headers.  On that basis we are going to ban an entire class of
legitimate (but admittedly infrequent) addresses?  I think not.

>    b) A further improvement involves actually verifying the From:
>    line before sending the message out again.  This would be more
>    work, but would make the spammer's job much more difficult.  When
>    processing a message, majordomo/listserv should open an SMTP
>    connection to the site shown in the "From:" header.

Try to open an SMTP connection to "unicom.com".  Surprise!  There
is no computer called "unicom.com".

This suggestion also banishes all people who are not directly connected
to the Internet, but can send and receive Internet email.  (Such as
folks running "uucp" dialup links into an Internet host that forwards
their mail.)

And what happens when the host is down and not responding?  sendmail
(a popular SMTP transport) has a fairly complex method for queueing
and retrying messages.  Are you suggesting that all list administrators
implement the same measures?  Again, I think not.

The worst part of this solution is that it will be ineffective.  A
good number of list spammers (I'd guess somewhere around half) *do*
use legitimate addresses, and would pass all of the checks suggested.

The "best current practice" for this problem is to screen submissions,
and have list agents reject messages that do not correspond to a
subscriber in the list.  This has been reported to be extremely
effective in stopping list spams.

This solution, which is effective and sounds very simple, has significant
difficulties of its own.  What about the user that subscribes as
"[e-mail]" but submits a message as "[e-mail]" or
"[e-mail]"?  What about "list exploders" that further
redistribute messages to multiple people?  What about "mail-to-news
gateways", which post list messages to *local* newsgroups, where the
Usenet tools make it easier to manage large-volume lists?  As I pointed
out at the top, nothing is "simple" when it comes to email, unless
you are willing to overlook the details.

The moral of the story is that:  (1) things are being done (*effective*
things), and (2) the solutions are not as easy as they might appear.

The current state of spam defenses is as follows:  (1) thanks to the
hard work of several volunteers (clewis, snowhare, et al), Usenet spam
rapidly is becomming ineffective, (2) list managers are looking at
ways to shore up their defenses, and some have implemented effective
counter-measures, and (3) personal email is wholly open and unprotected,
and clearly will be the next frontier for spammers.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 02:11:44 GMT
From: [e-mail](Gene N. Haldeman)
Subject: File 5--Re: Cyberangels (Cu Digest, #7.86)

I am certain I won't be the only one to respond to this, but I will
have serious problems living with myself if I do not.  The CYBERANGELS
mean well, and in fact the original Guardian Angels mean well; but
meaning well doesn't cut it if the actions taken on that
"well-meaning" turn out to be destructive to the culture that the
well-meaning think they are protecting.

So, I take the CYBERANGELS purpose, as listed by them, point by point
to try to show the CYBERANGELS that this is misguided,  and in a word,
irrational.

>The purpose of the project is
>a) To promote and protect the idea that the same laws of decency and respect
>for others that apply in our streets should apply also to the Internet.

First, the net is a different culture than the ones we find on the
streets of our cities.  Where in the world is anyone given the option
to express themselves globally with a few keystrokes?  And which laws
of decency and respect are we discussing here?  The laws of decency
and respect in the USA?   As the Guardians are New York City based,
I'd have to assume that as an arbiter of what's right and wrong,
they'll disappoint the folks in central Kansas by not going far
enough, and many of the folks in their own city by going so far as to
censor conversation easily heard in Washington Square Park.

a) WHOSE laws of decency and respect?

>b) To protect our children from online abuse.

I'm fairly recent to Usenet/Internet; I've only been involved for
about 6 years now, but I have never heard of any child being abused
online.  I've heard stories of children on certain online services who
have been picked up by the unscrupulous, and in some cases, molested.
But in these cases, were these children abused ONLINE? Could this not
happen by way of the phone lines as well?  Are you going to, like the
FBI begin tapping phones?   If what you object to is that a child
ventures into an adult area and hears some language that he or she is
not used to, then I ask why the parents are not parenting.  If your
response to this is that parents can't watch everything their child
does, then my question is will the Guardians be able to watch
everything the child does?  If so, then I think I can probably find
some babysitting work for your Angels; they're certainly more capable
than any parent around.

b)  Clarify what you mean by "online abuse"

>c) To pressurize service providers to enforce their Terms of Service.

Even if you do this, who is to say I can't start my own online service
which REQUIRES each member to upload explicit photos? (Note please
that this is an EXAMPLE of what someone could do -- I wouldn't,
personally)  What if the Terms of Service allow the things *YOU*, as
Angels, and self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong, disagree with?
Besides, I see evidence that most providers are adamant about their
Terms of Service; you see, they have to be, or they will gain a bad
reputation.  They're business people, and as such, they are
conservative. Violate ToS on AOL, and you will be most likely to be
booted within the week.   Admittedly, there is a problem with
throwaway accounts, but if AOL can't police that, I guarantee you
can't.

c) How on earth can you pressurize service providers to enforce ToS
more than they already do, and more than the pressure that has already
been put upon them?

>d) To give advice and assistance to victims of hate mail, harassment and
>sexual abuse online.

Victims of hate mail have many options open to them.  The first and
best method of dealing with it is to delete it. The problem here is
that that idiot who wrote me a piece of hate mail has every right to
do so, and I have every right to delete it, or write hate mail back.

Harassment, of course, properly documented is a crime which any ISP
will support a user on.  There are a few cases, primarily associated
with the assault from the Scientology folks where certain ISPs might
back down.  In that case, it should be easy in this age to find
another provider which will stand tall against such criminal behavior.

As far as sexual abuse online is concerned, I'm afraid the Angels are
going to have to define it a little more clearly (see my response to
b).  Are you talking about the fact that some clueless males send
"wanna fuck" messages to any woman who happens to be posting on the
newsgroup, or venturing into IRC?  I would suggest that most women
know how to deal with that..you ignore the jerk, and if harassment
results, you inform your ISP or the law...no need for Angels here,
either.

d) Advice and assistment, however,  is fine; perhaps here is where the
Angels might shine.  If they set up a site where people can go to when
they have problems that can't be resolved by way of their ISP, I don't
think too many people would have a problem with that.

>e) To watch out for users violating terms of service by committing
>cybercrimes and to report them to relevant authorities (Sysadmins, or even
>Police).

When they are genuine crimes, fine.  But the Angels should be aware
that a crime in Minneapolis may not be a crime in Istanbul or Tokyo or
Stockholm.  The Angels have traditionally  been very close to
committing crimes themselves; or at least very dangerous examples.

e)  You'd better be DAMNED sure you're not stepping on someone's
rights; which means you'd better be aware of what's legal and illegal
in every country that a given message has passed through; the rights
of the originator, and the rights of the end receiver of such message,
whether it be binary or ASCII, and if it's encrypted, you'd better be
able to decrypt it accurately.  If the message is encoded in PGP, I
wish you luck.

>f) To help to make unnecessary Government legislation by showing Government
>that the World Net Community takes the safety of our children and the well
>being of all its members seriously.

Well, hell, we ALL want that.  The question is balancing that need
against the capabilities.  The Internet Guardian Angels are showing
here a naivete only matched by the most clueless of newbies.  The
problem is that there are problems enough caused by enforcers of law
who are actually *trained* in enforcing law (CF the news from
Philadelphia or Los Angeles during the past year).

When I hear people who know NOTHING about a communities standards
mouthing off about how they are going to patrol said community, it
makes me very nervous.  Whose billyclubs will be pounding on your head
the next time you speak honestly on Usenet?  Will they be the
billyclubs of the so-called CyberAngels?

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

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:01:24 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 6--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
October 25, 1995
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE
A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state
and federal level.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS ISSUE:

*  Universities Censor Student Internet Use

*  Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation

*  Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online
Indecency Legislation

*  Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access

*  Conferences
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases/Issues)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*    Universities Censor Student Internet Use

In a knee-jerk reaction to the cyber-porn scare, many universities
around the country have begun to enact policies
to regulate student Internet use.  The ACLU believes that
university censorship of student Internet usage is inconsistent
with the principles of academic freedom.  In addition, state
universities are required as state institutions to uphold the
free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.  The Internet
flourished for years as primarily an academic -- and uncensored --
domain.  Colleges should not now cave in to the Luddites by
enacting restrictive computer usage policies.

Here are a few examples of university computer usage policies
that tread on cyber-liberties:

*  After a year-long battle that made national news, Carnegie
Mellon University is expected this November to approve a policy
to censor certain Usenet newsgroups on Andrew, their flagship
computing system.  Their decision to censor is based on fear that
the university could be held criminally liable under state
obscenity and harmful to minors laws for providing access to
newsgroups that "might be" obscene.  The administration refused
to accept the suggestion of both the CMU Faculty Senate and the
ACLU that the computer network be categorized as a library, which
would entitle the network to an exemption from the Pennsylvania
obscenity statute.

*  The University of Minnesota will not allow students to have
"offensive" content on their web sites, or even to create links
to "offensive" content elsewhere on the Internet.  They have also
adopted the double standard of commercial services like America
Online and Prodigy -- despite U of Minn's explicit content
control, student web pages must include a disclaimer that the
university takes "no responsibility" for anything on the pages.

*  At George Mason University, the "Responsible Use of Computing"
policy begins with the following statement:  "The following rules
are not complete; just because an action is not explicitly
proscribed does not necessarily mean that it is acceptable."
(One could hardly imagine a better example of ambiguity with the
potential to chill protected speech.)  The policy creates a
Security Review Panel that investigates reports of "offensive"
computer behavior.  As could be predicted, the backlog of cases
before this panel is already quite long.  (The head of the
Security Review Panel is none other than Dr. Peter Denning,
husband of Dr. Dorothy Denning, infamous proponent of the Clipper
Chip.)

On the bright side, students and faculty groups continue to hotly
oppose these policies when they arise, and have been instrumental
in shaping Internet usage policies to be less inhibitive of free
speech and privacy rights.  The following online resources will
be useful to students and faculty faced with a draconian Internet
usage policy:

*  Report on Computers at Harvard, by the Civil Liberties Union
of Harvard: _Very_ comprehensive and useful report on students'
computer usage rights on Harvard's network.  Included are five
general principles for computer use, an application of the
general principles to specific aspects of computer use, and a
discussion of areas where Harvard should take immediate action to
secure students' rights on the network.  Available at
gopher://fas-gopher.harvard.edu:70/00/.studorgs/.cluh/.computer_report

*  Web Site on CMU Censorship Proposal:  Thorough history and
database of documents on Carnegie Mellon University's battle over
online censorship. Also includes information on CMU's Coalition
for Academic Freedom of Expression (CAFE).  See
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/kcf/www/censor/

*  ACLU letter and legal analysis to CMU:  send a message to
[e-mail] with "Letter to CMU" in the subject line.

The ACLU will continue to monitor university polices that
restrict online free speech and privacy rights.  The ACLU urges
all students and faculty to actively work for university computer
usage policies that protect their rights.  To inform the ACLU of
a computer usage policy at your school that may violate
cyber-liberties, contact Ann Beeson, ACLU, [e-mail].
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*    Conferees Named for Federal Online Indecency Legislation

Congress recently named the official conferees to the
telecommunications bill.  The Senate version of the telco bill (S
652) contains the Exon Amendment, approved 84-16 by the Senate on
6/14/95.  The House version of the telco bill (HR 1555) contains
the Cox/Wyden Amendment (the Internet Freedom and Family
Empowerment Act), approved 421-4 on 8/4/95.  The House version
also contains Exon-like amendments to the existing federal
obscenity statute, which came out of the House Judiciary
Committee and were adopted as last-minute additions through a
larger Manager's Amendment on 8/4/95.  The conference committee
is in charge of reconciling the differences between the House and
Senate versions of the telco bill, including the obviously
incompatible provisions regarding online content.

While more details are offered in the list below, the following
facts should be highlighted:

_Notable Conferees_
 Senator Exon:  sponsored the Exon Amendment and launched the
cyber-porn scare.
 Senator Gorton: original co-sponsor of the CDA.
 Representative Hyde: sponsored the inclusion of indecency
amendments to the federal obscenity laws in the House telco bill.
 Representatives White, Markey, Goodlatte, Fields, and Barr:
spoke in favor of Cox/Wyden amendment on the House floor during
the telco debate.

_Some Absent Conferees_
 Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 Senator Leahy: sponsored the study alternative to the CDA in the
Senate (Senator Leahy is a member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee).
 Representatives Cox & Wyden: sponsored the Cox/Wyden "Internet
Freedom and Family Empowerment Act."
 Senators who voted against the CDA.

_Other Notable Facts_
 All the Senate conferees voted for the CDA.
 All the House conferees voted for the Cox/Wyden amendment.
 All the House conferees also voted for the Exon-like indecency
amendments to federal obscenity laws.  However, they may not have
been aware of this vote because it was not a separate vote but
rather a vote to approve the Manager's amendment, which contained
many provisions unrelated to the censorship legislation.
 Given the conferees named, it is highly likely that the House
leadership, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, will play a
substantial role in the conference process.

THE LIST OF CONFEREES:

Conferees from the House were assigned to particular titles of
the telco bill; Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all
titles.  The list that follows indicates the titles over which
each conferee has jurisdiction, and the conferee's relevant
committee status, party, and area of constituency.

*Title I: Development of Competitive Telecommunications Markets
(contains the Cox/Wyden amendment)
Title II: Cable Communications Competitiveness
Title III: Broadcast Communications Competitiveness
*Title IV: Effect on Other Laws
(contains the Exon Amendment and the Exon-like indecency
amendments to the federal obscenity statute)
Title V: Definitions
Title VI: Small Business Complaint Procedure

Representatives from the House:

Jurisdiction over Titles I and IV (these conferees may
participate in discussions to reconcile the conflicting online
content provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon
Amendment, and the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal
obscenity statute):

Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of
rank:

Republicans:

Bliley, Thomas J. (Richmond, Virginia) all titles
Fields, Jack (Houston, Texas) all titles
Oxley, Michael G. (northwest Ohio) all titles
White, Rick (northwest Washington) all titles
Barton, Joseph (Fort Worth, Texas) I, II, IV, V
Hastert, J. Dennis (northeast Illinois) I, II, IV, V
Klug, Scott (Madison, Wisconsin) I, III, IV, V, VI

Democrats:

Dingell, John D. (southeast Michigan) all titles
Markey, Edward J. (northeast Massachusetts) all titles
Boucher, Rick (southwest Virginia) all titles
Eshoo, Anna G. (San Francisco Bay Area, California) all titles
Rush, Bobby L. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles

Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of
rank:

Republicans:

Hyde, Henry J. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles
Moorhead, Carlos J. (Los Angeles area, California) all titles
Goodlatte, Robert W. (Western Virginia) all titles
Buyer, Steve (northwest Indiana) all titles
Flanagan, Michael P. (Chicago, Illinois) all titles

Democrats:

Conyers, John (Detroit, Michigan) all titles
Schroeder, Patricia (Denver, Colorado) all titles
Bryant, John (Dallas, Texas) all titles

Title I only (these conferees may participate in discussions to
revise the Cox/Wyden Amendment, but may not participate in
discussions to reconcile the conflicting online content
provisions in the Cox/Wyden Amendment, the Exon Amendment, and
the Exon-like indecency amendments to the federal obscenity
statute):

Representatives from the House Commerce Committee, in order of
rank:

Republicans:

Paxon, Bill (western New York) I, III
Frisa, Dan (New York, New York) I, II
Stearns, Cliff (northeast Florida) I, III

Democrats:

Brown, Sherrod (northeast Ohio) I
Gordon, Bart (central Tennessee) I
Lincoln, Blanche Lambert (northeast Arkansas) I

Representatives from the House Judiciary Committee, in order of
rank:

Republicans:

Gallegly, Elton (southern California) I
Barr, Bob (western Georgia) I
Hoke, Martin R. (northeast Ohio) I

Democrats:

Berman, Howard L. (Los Angeles area, California) I
Scott, Robert C. (Richmond, Virginia) I
Lee, Sheila Jackson (Houston, Texas) I

Conferees from the Senate Commerce Committee, in order of rank
(the Senate conferees have jurisdiction over all titles):

Republicans:

Pressler, Larry (South Dakota)
Stevens, Ted (Alaska)
McCain, John (Arizona)
Burns, Conrad (Montana)
Gorton, Slade (Washington)
Lott, Trent (Mississippi)

Democrats:

Hollings, Ernest F. (South Carolina)
Inouye, Daniel K. (Hawaii)
Ford, Wendell H. (Kentucky)
Exon, James J. (Nebraska)
Rockefeller, John D. (West Virginia)

For a copy of the online indecency amendments, send a message to
[e-mail] with "Online Indecency Amendments" in the
subject line of the message.

For more information on the legislation and what you can do to
fight it, see:
http://epic.org/free_speech
http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*  Search for Plaintiffs Continues in Suit to Challenge Online
Indecency Legislation

As noted above, the online community should continue to urge the
conference committee to remove the censorship provisions from the
telco bill.  At the same time, a coalition has formed to organize
litigation to challenge these provisions if they are signed into
law.

The first step is the selection of plaintiffs.  We need
plaintiffs who use online networks to discuss or distribute works
or art, literary classics, sex education, gay and lesbian
literature, human rights  reporting, abortion information, rape
counseling, controversial political speech, or any other material
that could be deemed "indecent" and therefore illegal under the
proposed law.

We received a tremendous response to our first call for
plaintiffs, in the last issue of the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update.
Thanks to all the organizations who contacted us.  We urge other
groups to join the battle to save free speech in cyberspace.

Please contact Ann Beeson at the ACLU if your organization is
interested in being a plaintiff in this ground-breaking
litigation that will define First Amendment rights in cyberspace.
212-944-9800 x788, [e-mail].
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*  Effect of Telco Bill on Universal Access

In addition to the online censorship provisions in the telco
bill, the ACLU is seriously concerned about the effect of
other provisions in the bill on universal access.

For more information about the effect of the telco bill on
universal access and other public interest matters, see
the Ad Hoc Site Against the Telecommunications Bill,
co-sponsored by Center for Media Education, Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility, Consumer
Federation of America, Electronic Privacy Information
Center, Media Access Project, People for the American
Way, and Taxpayer Assets Project, at
http://www.access.digex.net:80/~cme/bill.html.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
CONFERENCES
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 26, 5 pm: "Law in Cyberspace: Free Expression and
Intellectual Property on the Internet," Georgetown University Law
Center, 600 New Jersey NW, Gewirz Conference Room, Gewirz Hall.
Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and Student Intellectual Property Law
Association.  Panelists include David Post (GULC Law professor
and author of column on cyberspace law in American Lawyer); John
Podesta (GULC professor and former senior policy advisor to
President Clinton on govt information policy); and David Johnson
(co-founder of the Cyberspace Law Institute, President of Lexis
Counsel Connect).

Nov 3, 8 pm:  John Perry Barlow on "Creating Cyberculture," Kane
Hall - University of Washington in S