The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud807.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 38.7 KB | 867 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Jan 24, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 07
                           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, #8.07 (Wed, Jan 24, 1996)

File 1-- From TIME: Quittner on hate groups (fwd)
File 2--ALERT - Bernie S. Sentencing Friday
File 3--Response to the Simon Wiesenthal Center
File 4--CompuServe and "pornography"
File 5--CompuServe and "pornography"
File 6--MCI to ban Spammers
FIle 6--Re: Letter from Simon Wiesenthal Center to ISPs
File 7--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update 1/10/96
File 8--Re: Cu Digest, #8.01 - CI$ case
File 9--Re: Notifcation Letter AOL.COM (fwd)
File 10--EFF 96 Pioneer Awards - nominations due Feb. 15
File 11--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 18:16:40 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1-- From TIME: Quittner on hate groups (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
[e-mail] (Philip Elmer-DeWitt)
Date--Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:17:14 -0500

The following is copyright material from the 1/22/96 issue of TIME, posted
by permission.

HOME PAGES FOR HATE

A campaign to limit the voices of white supremacists on the Internet has
defenders of the First Amendment worried

By Joshua Quittner

On the Internet, when people want to chat about the bleaker side of
life, they often find their way to alt.support.loneliness. The forum,
a Usenet newsgroup, is open 24 hours a day for anyone who wants to
post messages lamenting a breakup with a spouse, or how tough it is to
meet people or find true love or even a true date. It s a moderately
popular group. Or it was, before the Carolinian Lords of the
Caucasus showed up.

The CLOC, an unabashedly white-supremacist organization based in
Columbia, South Carolina, takes pride in running locals off of certain
innocuous parts of Usenet with its race baiting. Members claim to have
emptied out half a dozen forums already, including, improbably,
alt.fan.barry-manilow and alt.food.dennys. If you want an organization
which makes things happen, visit our victims and learn first-hand what
kind of a group we are, they boast at their World Wide Web site, which
features an image of a burning cross. CLOC is clearly on the forefront
of the great war for Aryan domination of the Internet.

This virtual hooliganism may sound absurd. For people who rely on the
Internet to communicate, though, it s a real and growing problem. Like
more conventional groups, racists have discovered that the Net is a
marvelous way to get their message out to a huge audience at low cost.
Last week, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the world s largest Jewish
human rights organization, decided that enough is enough. Citing the
rapidly expanding presence of organized hate groups on the Internet,
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the center s associate dean, sent letters to
hundreds of Internet access providers, asking them to help draft a
code of ethics that would squelch Websites that promote bigotry and
violence.

Predictably, civil libertarians are uneasy about the proposal, seeing
it as yet another assault on free speech in cyberspace. Congress has
already signaled its intent to enact legislation that would
criminalize indecent=

speech online, rather than adopting the less onerous restriction
against obscene speech that is the print standard.

Yet Cooper claims that his letter is very much in keeping with the
Constitution and with traditional media practice. He argues that the
First Amendment also protects publishers who choose not to disseminate
materials they find offensive. Most mainstream newspapers and
magazines, for example, won t run ads from racist or hate groups. The
people who sell access to the Internet, he believes, should start
behaving the same way.  In effect, says Cooper, this is a recognition
that the Internet has come of age. We re not looking for prior
restraint or to keep these guys off the Internet. We re saying adopt
the same approach to the First Amendment that your brothers have done
in traditional media.

Among purists, though, the whole point of the Internet is that it isn
t like traditional media. A wide spectrum of viewpoints is tolerated
and even encouraged online, especially on the freewheeling,
anarchistic Usenet.. The notion is that, for the first time in
history, anyone can express his or her views to a mass audience. As a
result, Cooper s proposal is stirring up opposition from cyberspace
denizens on both the left and the right.

It s gotten a cold reception from Internet access providers too. The
answer to hateful speech is more speech, says Sameer Parekh, president
of Community ConneXion, a popular provider in Berkeley, California.
By banning hate groups from the Net, he says, you are promoting the
idea that they might actually have something valuable to say.  The
campaign has given even the hate-mongers a chance to sound
civic-minded. Says Milton John Kleim Jr., a self-described white
nationalist Usenet Viking whose writings also appear on many racist
Web pages: What Mr. Cooper doesn t understand is the fact that there
are a lot of people in our society who are very angry--the angry white
male theme. A lot of these angry white males, if they re prohibited
from venting their views, might actually come forward and do
something.

But what if freedom of speech destroys an environment, as victims of
the Carolinian Lords of the Caucasus know it can? They re real idiots,
says Jay D. Dyson, who used to post messages to the
alt.support.loneliness group until the invasion by CLOC. Dysonexplains
that at first CLOC members used the forum to troll for new members. It
s frightening because these [lonely] people at are the lowest point
in their lives and a drowning man will grasp at anything to keep from
going under. Later, though, the postings turned nasty and even
threatening. A CLOC leader, who uses the screen name Racial Theorist,
says his organization doesn t mean anyreal harm: What this thing is
about is having fun. And shock value.

Perhaps. But it s finished as far as Dyson and his friends are
concerned.  Last week the lonely folks decided to deal with the
racists in their own way. They voted to create a special kind of
newsgroup where unruly intruders can be evicted. No one should be
forced to tolerate intolerance, even in cyberspace. With reporting by
Chris Stamper/New York

Copyright 1996 Time Inc.

--Philip Elmer-DeWitt
[e-mail] TIME Magazine
www.pathfinder.com=

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:48:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--ALERT - Bernie S. Sentencing Friday

I just found out that Bernie S. will be sentenced this Friday morning
at 9 am in Easton, PA for the crime of removing batteries from a tone
dialer several years ago. This is defined as a victimless misdemeanor
for which the judge in this small town (under considerable influence
from the Secret Service) set bail at $250,000. He could get two years
in prison at sentencing. Press attention could be very helpful in
avoiding a sentence as irrational as the bail setting - right now the
only influence these people are getting is from the Secret Service and
they want to put Bernie S away for as long as they can. If you're not
entirely up to date on this story, finger [e-mail] for all of
the details.

If you know of anyone who will cover this story, please get ahold of
them right away so they can plan on being there. If anyone is interested
in going, let me know so we can hopefully fill some cars from NYC.

Sentencing is scheduled for Friday, January 26 at 9 am
Courtroom 5
Northampton County Government Center
7th and Washington Street
Easton, PA 18042-7492

[phone] (district attorney)

case # 2173-1993
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Edward E. Cummings
Misdemeanor 2 - tampering with physical evidence

Please help spread the word.

[e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 18:46:24 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Response to the Simon Wiesenthal Center

In response to recent efforts by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to request
that ISPs voluntarily create acceptable use policies that prohibit hate
speech, one of my recommendations to CuD readers is to fill out the
online survey at their web site, http://www.wiesenthal.com.  Particularly
if you believe, like I do, that the remedy of choice for bad speech is
more speech, not enforced silence.

The survey asks questions about your thoughts on hate speech, freedom of
speech, the First Amendment, what are the best measures to restrict
racism online, whether you think the SWC is being productive or not, etc.

FWIW, I agree with the SWC's assertion that internet service providers
have the legal right to dictate terms of service to include acceptable
use guidelines prohibiting hate speech.

Where I disagree is the assertion that ISPs have a moral obligation to
excercise those rights.  The free speech model is preferable.

I also disagree with the metaphor comparing an ISP to a media outlet like
CNN.  The telephone company is a more apt comparison.  If I commit a
crime using my phone, no one threatens to drag Southwestern Bell into
court, yet somehow Real/Time Systems, my ISP, would be.

David Smith               * dp : 304-6308               * Ask me about
[e-mail]            *                             * fighting censorship
President, EFF-Austin     * http://www.io.com/~efaustin * of the Internet
Board of Directors, CTCLU * http://gopher.aclu.org      *

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:39:50 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail](M. Steven McClanahan)
Subject: File 4--CompuServe and "pornography"

>Thomas Wulfing, a spokesman at the German Embassy, London, told
>   d.Comm, "There have been no comments on the situation from the German
>   national or the Bavarian governments. My latest information is that it
>   was the Munich prosecutor who authorised this action. It's good that
>   we clarify this thing. As far as I know the prosecutor has taken up
>   that issue. He wants a way of banning the free access to pornography
>   on the Internet and within that plan has informed CIS. And CIS as far
>   as I know has agreed because it has no interest whatsoever in
>   promoting pornography."

This is, as is much of the material surrounding this controversy,
self-aggrandinzing rhetoric. Although, the seeming alliance between CIS
management and the Bavarian prosecutor is rather interesting.

CompuServe is not interested in promoting pornography _from which it does
not profit directly_. Look in many of the graphics forums and you will see
things that would make Senator Exon's blood boil, (although I imagine that
wouldn't be too hard). When it comes to selling things in the "Electronic
Mall," and their classifieds, CompuServe seems to have lost sight of their
desire not to promote pornography. The German's may being trying to save
the world, but, as always, CIS is trying to keep you buying from their
advertisers, instead of from the Internet.

Prior to becoming and ISP, I shopped three times a week in CompuServe's
Electronic Mall. Now, with the web and T1 accesss, why should I both to put
up with CompuServe's "Electronic Mall," which pales in comparison to the
WWW.

The real issue, as I see it, is how much money CompuServe can make. Not
that they have a particular concern for, or against, pornography and/or
being prosecuted for distributing it. The traditional online services are
dinosaurs sinking the proverbial ooze of the swamp and will do anything to
survive, even through their time is long since past.

>
>   For the service provider, the whole process of providing access is
>   becoming far too complex. The service provider is simply the
>   messenger, not the provider of content, and as such there is no reason
>   why the messenger should be shot.

As an ISP, I say "here, here" to that.

If it is true that those you don't remember history are doomed to repeat
it, then it is important to remember that in 1913, at a beer hall in
Munich, Bavaria, a German fascist totalitarian regime was born. It is also
interesting to note that Adolf Hitler spent less than 2 years locked up in
a castle, (which was supposedly a "prison"), for attempting to overthrow
the duly constituted, government, because he, (an Austrian, no less),
didn't like the terms of the Treaty of Versailles the government was
enforcing. One wonders how long the Germans will put so-called
"cyber-criminals" in jail for distributing a photograph of a naked person,
(even if that person isn't extremely seditious).


        /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                        M. STEVEN McCLANAHAN, MICP
                          aWWWsome NET SERVICES
                          (http://awwwsome.com/)

                  "YOUR BUSINESS ON-RAMP TO THE INTERNET"
              Internet Presence, Technical Support & Training,

                          Computer Consulting via:
        MEDLaw Consulting & Silicon Alchemy Computer Systems UNLTD
                 (http://awwwsome.com/medlaw/) (pending)
              (916) 226-WEBB (voice) / [phone] (fax)

        /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Entire contents of message, copyright 1995, M. Steven McClanahan, MICP

     customers who use its Internet service to persistently send
     unsolicited electronic mail for mass distribution - a practice
     called spamming in Internet slang. The prohibitions include
     sending e-mail to more than 25 users if complaints are received,
     posting articles to Usenet or newsgroups that fall outside their
     subject charter, and posting an identical article or
     advertisement to multiple Usenet or newsgroups.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:49:20 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: FIle 6--Re: Letter from Simon Wiesenthal Center to ISPs

Here is the letter that one ISP wrote in response to Rabbi Cooper's
request to deny service to people who engage in hate speech.

David Smith               * dp : 304-6308               * Ask me about
[e-mail]            *                             * fighting censorship
President, EFF-Austin     * http://www.io.com/~efaustin * of the Internet
Board of Directors, CTCLU * http://gopher.aclu.org      *

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:48:33 -0900
From--Sky Dayton <[e-mail]>

David,

Follows is our letter to the SWC.

I didn't have a chance to post it to the newsgroup. The noise/bandwidth
ratio there looks really bad, and it'll probably just get drowned out.

Sky

--

Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Simon Wiesenthal Center
9760 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA  90035-4792

Dear Rabbi Cooper:

Thank you for your letter of January 9th. I though I would take the
opportunity to respond to your concerns directly.

EarthLink Network views the Internet as an incredible new communications
medium, with the potential of creating a global community in a way never
before seen. Through a heightened interaction among peoples, we hope the
Internet will help to help break down geographic, economic, political,
religious and other barriers. On the Internet, there is no "people over
there". On the Internet, everyone is right here.

The Internet today reflects our society in every way. All ends of the
spectrum utilize it to communicate their message. Thus, it's no surprise to
find hate groups on the Internet. The Internet is a perfect reflection of
information available in the analog world.

While we personally abhor discrimination and bigotry based on sex, race,
creed or any other reason, we will not censor communications sent through
our network. Our subscriber agreement requires legal use, but our policing
stops there.

As a principle, Internet access companies are not concerned with the
qualities of content that travel over their networks. We are "common
carriers" of information. Content providers such as America Online and
Compuserve are a different story. They manufacture and control information.
We merely route information, in the form of bits, to people who use our
service.

Online services are analogous to newspapers and magazines. Internet access
companies are analogous to postal services and phone companies.

For as long as we provide access, EarthLink Network will work to ensure the
legal and free use of the Internet. I urge you to take part in this
activism. But I caution you that the Internet will reject any form of
censorship. Rather than try to enforce a code as you propose, I suggest you
let the Internet community make its own judgment about content. You may be
surprised at what you find.

Sincerely,


Sky Dayton
CEO & Chairman

--
Sky Dayton, CEO                       |  Voice: 213-644-9500
EarthLink Network, Inc.               |  Fax:   [phone]
[e-mail]                     |  3171 Los Feliz Blvd.
http://www.earthlink.net              |  Los Angeles, CA 90039

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:54:49 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 7--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update 1/10/96

----------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 1996
ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE
A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies
at the state and federal level.
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS ISSUE:

*    The Fourth Horseman of the Internet -- Hate Mongers -- Rears Its Ugly
Head Again

*     German News Magazine "Der Spiegel" Tells the Real Story About
CompuServe's Ban of Sex-Related Newsgroups

*     Virginia Legislature Considers Strict Labeling Requirements for Online
Content

*     ACLU of Washington Settles Internet Parody Case; Student Gets Second
Chance at National Merit Scholarship

*     Where Oh Where is the Telco Bill?

*     ACLU Speaks on Cyber-Liberties

----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases)
----------------------------------------------------------------
*    The Fourth Horseman of the Internet -- Hate Mongers -- Rears Its Ugly
Head Again

Just in case the Pornographers, Hackers, and Pedophiles didn't scare you away
from the Internet, the Simon Wiesenthal Center raised another spectre for you
to fear -- the Neo-Nazis and other Hateful Undesirables on the Net.  The
Simon Wiesenthal Center has been trying for almost two years to rid the
Internet of hate speech, and one of their techniques is commendable and
appropriate -- the use of more speech to expose and humiliate these
intolerant groups.  The Center has an excellent web page that tracks the
online activities of hate groups and urges online users to post other
accounts of online hate.  See http://www.wiesenthal.com.

Unfortunately, rather than simply exercising their own First Amendment right
to protest such groups, the Center has waged an all-out war to deny such
groups of their equivalent free speech rights.  The war has fueled an already
hysterical rush by both private business and government to censor the Net
unnecessarily.  It is particularly troublesome that an organization like the
Wiesenthal Center that is dedicated to promoting tolerance would seek to
erode the liberty most necessary for a free and tolerant society -- free
speech.

In August 1994, the Wiesenthal Center waged its first campaign by presenting
a dossier to the Federal Communications Commission that documented hate
speech on online networks.  (While the Center has never attempted to define
just what it means by "hate speech," it appears to be referring primarily to
anti-black, anti-gay and anti-Semitic speech.)  The FCC turned the dossier
over to the U.S. Justice Department, who knows better than to pursue any hate
groups on the basis of their speech alone.  (See US News and World Report,
9/8/94.)  In fact, when the Senate subcommittee on terrorism held hearings in
May 1995 on the use of online services by terrorist and anti-government
groups, DOJ's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt testified that
the government must be careful not to "trade off the guarantees of the Bill
of Rights in order to uphold our duty to ensure domestic tranquillity."  See
"Hate Speech on Internet Called Protected by Constitution," New York Times,
5/12/95.

Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, the Wiesenthal Center was again
successful in fueling the mainstream press hysteria about hate groups
organizing through online media.  See, e.g., "The Internet: Far-Right Groups
Get Mainstream Access," San Francisco Chronicle, 4/22/95.  Yet while no
evidence ever conclusively linked the Internet with the plotting of the
Oklahoma bombing, the press ignored the incredible array of online resources
that were devoted to assisting citizens in the aftermath of the tragedy.
 Within hours after the bombing, Internet users could find up-to-date
information about the rescue effort, learn how to send money or provide other
assistance to victims and their families, and provide tips in the search for
suspects.

This week, the Wiesenthal Center launched the latest weapon in its battle to
rid online networks of hate groups -- it issued a plea to Internet Service
Providers to pledge "to refuse or terminate service to any individual or
group that exploits our services to promote an agenda of hate or violence."
 See "Group Urges an Internet Ban on Hate Groups' Messages," New York Times,
1/10/96.  The Center's letter shows both a lack of understanding of online
technology and a lack of respect for a truly democratic communications
medium.

In both the New York Times story and in a radio talk show debate with the
ACLU's Ann Beeson, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Center,
suggested that it wasn't targeting online discussion forums like Usenet, but
rather was targeting the Internet's World Wide Web.  That would imply that a
service provider who adopted the code of ethics would have to censor a
message posted to a hate group's web page but could let slide the same
message if posted to a Usenet newsgroup -- a nonsensical result.

The Rabbi's rationale for applying different standards to Usenet and the Web
was that individuals "don't have a chance to respond to hate speech on the
Web."  That is simply incorrect -- almost all web pages include e-mail
addresses that allow anyone who comes across the site to communicate with the
site's creators.  The distinction also ignores the fact that most online
users initially encounter particular web sites by using search engines like
Yahoo.  Any search for "White Supremacy" or "Aryan Nation" brings up not only
those sites that support such ideas, but also many sites (including the Simon
Wiesenthal web page!) that denounce hate speech and provide information on
how to oppose hate groups.

The Wiesenthal Center's answer to hate speech gives no credit to the growing
number of Internet sites created specifically to track and expose hate
groups.  For example, "The Hate Page of the Week" provides a link to a
different hate group each week and encourages users to flame the site.  See
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~efx/hpotw.html.  "The Net Hate Page" also
provides links to hateful web sites, tracks the activities of hate groups,
and discusses ways to fight them.  See http://www.vir.com/Shalom/hatred.html.

The Wiesenthal Center has also suggested that it is merely asking online
providers to act like other "publishers" of information, like newspapers and
radio broadcasters, who traditionally refuse to provide a platform for hate
speech.  But that's a bad idea for several reasons.  First, as Prodigy and
other large commercial providers know, choosing to edit online information is
a two-edged sword that can make online providers liable for the libelous acts
of its users.  See _Stratton-Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co._, No.
31063/94 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 5/24/95).  Second, many small Internet Service
Providers just don't have the resources to monitor all the web sites housed
on their systems.

Finally, and most importantly, service providers have already proved woefully
inept at determining just what speech is "offensive" -- whether it is
sexually explicit or hateful.  A few examples include America Online's
hilarious censorship of gay video titles (see Cyber-Liberties Update
12/6/95), CompuServe's ban of newsgroups on disability and gay issues in an
effort to satisfy a German prosecutor (see article later in this issue), and
AOL's short-lived screening of the word "breast" from online educational
materials on breast cancer.

Because online providers are not government entities, there is currently no
constitutional remedy against online providers who decide to censor.  But it
is in the providers' own best interest _not_ to censor but rather to follow
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' advice regarding speech that offends:
"[T]he remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." _Whitney
v. California_, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927).

The ACLU calls on all service providers to reject the Wiesenthal Center's
code of ethics for online hate speech.  We urge all online users to write to
their service providers and urge them to respect their free speech right to
respond openly and publicly to online speech that is offensive or
disagreeable.

A copy of the letter that the Wiesenthal Center sent to hundreds of Internet
service providers is available on their web site at
http://www.wiesenthal.com.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 00:58:37 +0100 (GMT+0100)
From: Steffan Henke <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--Re: Cu Digest, #8.01 - CI$ case

Hello, just a quick reply to the CI$ case:

> One way to prevent such things from happening again is to make sure that
> this censorship is not in the economic best interest of Compuserve, and
> Germany.  If they want to interfere with First Amendment rights, then we
> should exercise our First Amendment rights to not communicate with them.

Who is "them" in that case ? Germans ? All the CI$ users ?


> then do not accept their standards.  If you are a Compuserve subscriber
> then cancel your account.

That decision would make sense, indeed. But other providers (AOL, eg. do
also censor)

> Germany and Compuserve have chosen to selectively cut themselves off
> from the rest of the internet community, let's make it a complete

These are very bad prejudices. I'm German, but I have not chosen to cut
myself off from the rest of the internet community. Not at all.
On the contrary, we have many progressive powers who are strongly against
censorship. I count myself as one of these.

> separation.  Do not send any E-mail to Compuserve or Germany.  Do not
> reply to any newsgroup posts, and do not access any of their web pages.

What about the case when Italian Fido BBS were raided by the Italian
police ? What do you suggest ? Ignore all the Italian sysops and BBS ?
BTW, my homepage is http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~henker
Too sad you won't have a look at it. But I'll never know because you'll
never answer this email. YOU stop communication, not German users who are
strongly against censorship.

> If you receive E-mail, then simply ignore it, send a copy of this
> letter, or your own explanation that you will no longer use a system

Are you really honestly suggesting this ?

> that censorship of the 'net is not acceptable and will only succeed in
> destroying the 'net.

That is true indeed.

> The World Wide Web should allow the exchange of any ideas around the
> world.  It should not be limited to the minimum acceptable ideas that

You're drifting away from the CI$ case. What does the WWW have to do with
the censorship of newsgroups ?



Anyway, happy new year to CUD... 1996 does not start that good.

Steffan



... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 14:01:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Carlton Hogan <[e-mail]
Subject: File 9--Re: Notifcation Letter AOL.COM (fwd)

 Dear America Online:

 I received this E-mail today, informing me that copyrighted work
 created by me was to be made available on America On-line. Although
 I have allowed dissemination of the work (a glossary of AIDS, medical,
 and clinical trials terminology) by non-profit groups, I regret that
 I cannot allow America Online (henceforth referred to as AOL) to profit
 from distribution of this document.

 Specifically, I am troubled by AOL's denial of service and "TOS"
 penalties imposed on subscribers for usage of sexually explicit
 language, discussion of gay sexuality, and one infamous case, the use
 of the word "breat" by breast cancer survivors.  In addition, I am
 dissapointed that AOL, rather than helping to fight censorship of the
 Internet, is instead implicitly supporting such efforts.

 Severe restrictions in allowable language are troubling in a number of
 regards. Indecent speech, short of obscenity, has been found worthy
 of protection by the US Supreme Court. William Jennings Bryan said that
 it was speech that some might find objectionable that most needed
 protection. What AOL and other internet censors are perpetrating will
 make material easily found in any library forbidden on the Internet.

 Most importantly, I work in the field of HIV/AIDS. Sexually explicit,
 anatomically precise information is one of our most effective tools in
 fighting the transmission of HIV. Likewise, any description of clinical
 manifestations may refer to genital or peri-anal areas, common sites
 of opportunistic infection. Restricting speech on the Internet may,
 thereby, directly cost lives.

 For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience allow AOL, if it continues
 it's current policies, to distribute my work, especially when you
 are profiting from such propagation. I ask you to immediately
 cease and desist. Failure to comply will result in further action.

 Sincerely,

 Carlton Hogan


  Hi there,

  America Online's client software offers full integration of the Net into
  the AOL Service.  We also offer access through our Service to various World
  Wide Web sites on the Net. We think your site will be very attractive to
  our members and accordingly, we will be providing a link on the AOL Service
  from time to time to your site and will be generally using the tools and
  procedures available on the Internet.

  We believe the link to your site will prove to be beneficial to AOL, our
  members, and to you.

  Please feel free to reply to this note or contact us at [e-mail] if
  you need any additional information.

  Currently we are pointing to: http://www.teleport.com/~celinec/glossary.htm

  Thanks,
  America Online/Web Division

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:30:47 -0800
From: Stanton McCandlish <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 10--EFF 96 Pioneer Awards - nominations due Feb. 15

      THE FIFTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL EFF PIONEER AWARDS:
        CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
          Deadline: February 15, 1996


In every field of human endeavor,there are those dedicated to expanding
knowledge,freedom,efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier,
this is especially true. To recognize this, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation established the Pioneer Awards for deserving individuals and
organizations.

The Pioneer Awards are international and nominations are open to all.

In March of 1992, the first EFF Pioneer Awards were given in Washington
D.C.  The winners were: Douglas C. Engelbart, Robert Kahn, Jim Warren, Tom
Jennings, and Andrzej Smereczynski. The 1993 Pioneer Award recipients were
Paul Baran, Vinton Cerf, Ward Christensen, Dave Hughes and the USENET
software developers, represented by the software's originators Tom
Truscott  and Jim Ellis. The 1994 Pioneer Award winners were Ivan
Sutherland, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, Murray Turoff and Starr
Roxanne Hiltz, Lee Felsenstein, Bill Atkinson, and the WELL. The 1995
Pioneer Award winners were Philip Zimmermann, Anita Borg, and Willis Ware.

The Fifth Annual Pioneer Awards will be given in Boston, Massachusetts, at
the 6th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy in March of 1996.

All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of judges chosen
for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the technical,
legal, and social issues involved in computer technology and computer
communications.

There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the following
guidelines apply:

   1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the
health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.

   2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural.

   3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the
private or public sectors.

   4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one
recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization.

   5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however
brief, for nominating the individual or organization, along with a means of
contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. Anonymous nominations
will be allowed, but we prefer to be able to contact the nominating
parties in the event that we need more information..

   6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff
members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards.

   7) Persons or representatives of organizations receiving a Pioneer
Award will be invited to attend the ceremony at the Foundation's expense.

You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per
nomination. You may return the forms to us via email to

     [e-mail]

You may mail them to us at:

Pioneer Awards
c/o Mike Godwin
2163-A North Valley St.
Berkeley, CA 94702

Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at
which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the
nominee deserves the award.  You may attach supporting documentation.
Please include your own name, address, and phone number.

We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made
and
are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them,

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

    -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------

Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the following
information about your nominee for the Pioneer Awards:

 Nominee's name:

Title:

Company/Organization:

Contact number or email address:

Reason for nomination:

Your name and contact information:

Extra documentation attached:

DEADLINE: ALL NOMINATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION BY MIDNIGHT, EASTERN STANDARD TIME U.S., February 15, 1996.

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


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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 11--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 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 post with this in the "Subject:: line:

     SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to:   [e-mail]

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

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 CU-DIGEST
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)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS [phone]:291/[e-mail]
         In ITALY: ZERO! 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/
                  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)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~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 #8.07
************************************