The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud828.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 39.0 KB | 876 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Apr 7, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 28
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas ([e-mail])
       News Editor: 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, #8.28 (Sun, Apr 7, 1996)

File 1--Singapore leader condemns Net as porn, bomb-building haven
File 2--Computers, Porn, the Law and the Media (One day in the UK)
File 3--German Internet Update (3/29/96)
File 4--Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
File 5--Letter to the Minister of Justice (Canada)
File 6--ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto
File 7--NETRADIO--"CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS" E-Mail Seminar (fwd)
File 8--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone
File 9--Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone
File 10--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA
File 11--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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

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

Date: Fri,  8 Mar 1996 02:57:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Singapore leader condemns Net as porn, bomb-building haven

ASEAN members include Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore,
Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam. So if I'm keeping track properly, China,
the U.S., the E.C., Middle Eastern nations, and ASEAN all have said they
want greater controls on the Net. The unanimity is amazing.

Also today, Reuters reports that the first Sri Lankan cybercafes are opening
up...

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

March 7, 1996

     SINGAPORE (Reuter) - ASEAN information ministers warned
Thursday there was a dark side to the information technology
revolution and agreed to establish a regulatory body to oversee
the Internet invasion.
     A joint press statement issued by the ministers said they
would set up the regulatory body by the end of the year to come
up with ``appropriate responses'' to the Internet.

[...]

     The ministers earlier expressed concern about pornographic
content in cyberspace and information on the Internet that could
spread racial and religious tension within their countries.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:39:14 -0600
From: David G. Bell <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Computers, Porn, the Law and the Media (One day in the UK)

Computers, Pornography, the Law, and the Media -- One Day in the UK.

Today, the 2nd of April 1996, British Police forces raided 40 houses
looking for child pornography.  In a court in Birmingham, two men plead
guilty when a judge ruled that computer images were photographs.  And,
somehow, BBC Radio News managed to combine these two stories into the
usual 'Internet Pornography' story, despite a police denial that
computers were involved in the first story.

In fact, it was said by one police officer that video recordings were
the most common sort of material they encountered.  Oddly enough, the
only recording medium mentioned in the news bulletins were 'computer
disks', while a longer report managed to bring in the Internet and
involve the 'usual suspects'.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:13:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--German Internet Update (3/29/96)

I'm cleaning out my mailbox now that I'm back from CFP, and found this. I
heard a common theme from the non-Americans at CFP -- if America, the
world's "freest" country, can engage in online censorship, then so can
they...

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Sat, 30 Mar 1996 07:08:14 -0800 (PST)
From--Jay Holovacs <[e-mail]>
Subject--News From Germany


The following is excerpted from Nando News Website, check it out for more
info.
     _________________________________________________________________

                GERMANY PLANS BILL TO PUNISH INTERNET INDECENCY
  ___________________________________________________________

      Copyright © 1996 Nando.net
      Copyright © 1996 Reuter Information Service

   BONN (Mar 29, 1996 10:27 a.m. EST) - Germany's justice minister is
   planning a new law making clear companies who provide access to the
   Internet are not expected to police cyberspace on the lookout for
   pornography or neo-Nazi propaganda.

   Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig told reporters on Thursday night that firms who
   offer a link to the worldwide computer network would only be punished
   if they discovered illegal material was available via their service
   and did nothing about it.

   "Someone who opens a door cannot know what the people who walk through
   it are going to be carrying," he said. "And if there were body
   searches for everyone going through your door, people would simply
   choose to go through another."

    ...

   Internet regulation has been a particularly prickly issue in Germany.
   Child pornography investigators searched the Munich offices of access
   provider CompuServe in November and found several Internet pages they
   considered illegal.

   Authorities are also investigating several other online services as
   part of a probe into pornographic and neo-Nazi material found on the
   Internet.

   But so far prosecutors have not been able to bring any charges, partly
   because legal experts are unsure where new companies stand under laws
   drafted long before they existed.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Holovacs <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sat,  6 Apr 1996 10:03:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship

My growing collection of international Net-censorship attempts is at:
  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

    SYDNEY, April 3 (UPI) -- People will face a maximum penalty of one
year in jail or fines of $7,800 ($10,000 Australian) if caught
transmitting or advertising pornographic material on the Internet, the
New South Wales government announced Tuesday.
    Corporations would face stiffer penalties, Attorney General Jeff Shaw
said at a press conference.
    Under the state government's tough new legislation soon to be
introduced, it will be illegal to transmit, advertise, permit access to
and retrieve of pornographic material on-line.
    The new laws will also cover computer games that include violence and
sexual activity, Shaw said.
    He said the move to penalize people who peddle and download porn was
necessary to protect children, but he admitted policing the legislation
could be ``difficult.''

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 23:19:17 -0500
From: Dov Wisebrod <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Letter to the Minister of Justice (Canada)

Folks,

The following letter is in the mail.

It is a response to a pending amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code
revising the law of search and seizure of computer systems and data. While
not a Canadian Communications Decency Act, the legislative Bill reflects as
much misunderstanding of computers and computer mediated communication as
the infamous American Act.

The letter was prepared through the combined efforts of Dov Wisebrod, Daniel
Shap, David Fruitman, and John Kingdon. It has been sent to the Minister of
Justice (Hon. Allan Rock), the Department of Justice's advisor on computer
law (Donald Piragoff), the Federal Privacy Commissioner (Bruce Phillips),
and the local Member of Parliament (Tony Ianno).

Please distribute widely.

Dov

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

The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada
206  St. George St., Suite 603
Toronto, Ontario, Canada  M5R 2N6
http://www.io.org/~logic
[e-mail]  -  [phone]

March 18, 1996

The Honourable Allan Rock
Minister of Justice
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
239 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0H8

Dear Mr. Rock:

Re:   Bill C-118
    "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend certain other Acts"

The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada ("LoGIC") is a conduit for the
exchange of information and ideas about policies concerning emerging
communication and information technologies.  We are devoted to ensuring
informed public, legislative, and regulatory responses to these
technologies, which at present are manifest most profoundly in the Internet.
We want to ensure that new laws and regulations have no detrimental effects
on the free and interactive communication of information.

We are concerned about certain proposed amendments to the Criminal Code
contained within Bill C-118 (as it was identified while passing First
Reading during the last complete session of the Legislature).  Our concerns
relate to section 41 of the Bill.  Section 41 proposes to amend the existing
Criminal Code section 487, which sets out information required for search
warrants.

For your immediate reference, we have attached to this letter the text of
section 487 as it would appear after being amended.  The proposed amendments
are highlighted by capitalization.  Our comments and recommendations with
respect to the substance of these provisions follow.

Comments
--------

The proposed amendments would introduce new subsections 487(2.1) and
487(2.2) providing for the search and seizure of computer systems and data.
Our primary concern is that the provisions do not adequately reflect the
complexities of computer use and communication.  In particular, the
provisions do not accord with the distributed nature of the medium,
including the distribution of users of a particular computer system and the
distribution of data accessible by the system.  The proposed amendments
ignore the globally distributed nature of data and its users.

The new subsection 487(2.1)(a) would provide that a person authorized to
search a computer system for data may use any computer system in the
building "to search any data contained in or available to the computer
system."  The quoted language does not distinguish between the two sources
of data.  However, there is good reason to treat data available to the
computer system differently from data contained within it.  Data available
to the system may be physically located outside of the jurisdiction of the
issuer of the warrant, potentially bringing the persons authorizing and
conducting the search into conflict with foreign law.  A similar concern is
identified and addressed in the existing subsection 487(2), which provides
for modified search warrants in circumstances where the subject of the
search "is believed to be in any other territorial division" within Canada.
In the context of the search of a computer system, it is quite probable that
the data available to the computer system includes data located in
jurisdictions outside of Canada.  The international nature of the difficulty
calls for a solution beyond that offered by subsection 487(2).  It is
necessary to have two distinct sets of provisions, one of which governs the
search of data "contained in" a computer system and another specifically
designed to address the difficulty of searching data "available to" a
computer system.  The words "or available to" should be removed from the
proposed amendment to both subsections 487(2.1)(a) and 487(2.2)(a).

In addition, the proposed amendments do not respect the privacy rights of
persons whose data may be contained in or available to the computer system
subject to the search.  The disregard for privacy rights may be seen in two
related ways.  First, data available to the system may include data
contained in other computer systems and available only by password access to
those other systems.  The other computer systems may be within the control,
ownership, and reasonable expectation of privacy of persons unrelated to the
subject and purpose of the search warrant.  The provisions thus create a
"backdoor" to search computer systems for which a warrant has not directly
been issued.  Similarly, data contained in the computer system may be
subject to the control, ownership, and reasonable expectation of privacy of
other persons.  For instance, if the computer system subject to the search
is used to provide an online service to subscribers, it may contain the
private data of those subscribers.  This data may include electronic
correspondence or other information sent by the subscribers to others, as
well as electronic information sent by others to the subscribers.  Again, a
"backdoor" is created by the new provisions to infringe the reasonable
expectation of privacy of both the sender and the recipient of this
electronic information.

These concerns are intensified by the language of the proposed subsection
487(2.2).  The subsection would provide that any warrant authorizing the
search of any building or place also authorizes the search of "any data
contained in or available to" any computer system at that location.  The
proposed language explicitly authorizes the search of computer data without
requiring any information to be sworn in support of the reasons for the
search.  There is no requirement of any substantive review by a judge
authorizing the search of data.  In effect, the proposed subsection creates
a default authorization to search data.  Given the problems inherent in any
search involving a computer system, a judicial review of the information
justifying the search of data is essential in all cases.  The authorizing
judge must be presented with clear and reasonably precise reasons and
guidelines for the intended search and seizure.  This is necessary to ensure
that both the purpose and conduct of the search is justified.  In order to
maintain these protective measures in the procedure for authorizing a
search, the proposed default authority must be removed.

Finally, we are concerned about the potential for self-incriminatory
activity by the person whose property is the subject of a search.
Subsection 487(2.1) would authorize the person conducting the search to use
the computer system in order to search, reproduce, and seize data.
Subsection 487(2.2), while similar, would add that the person whose property
is being searched "shall, on presentation of the warrant, permit the person
carrying out the search" to use the computer system.  It is unclear from
this language whether the person whose property is being searched is
required to take positive steps to assist the person carrying out the
search.  Our concern is that the inherent vagueness of the proposed
provision allows for such an interpretation.  If the computer system is
accessible only by first supplying a password, the person may have to supply
it.  If the data being searched is encrypted, the person may have to provide
the decryption key.  This would amount to being compelled to assist in the
discovery of evidence against oneself, which is inconsistent with the most
fundamental principles of criminal law.  The proposed amendment should be
rewritten to remedy its potentially dangerous vagueness.

Recommendations
---------------

o  Remove the words "or available to" from the proposed amendment.

o  Require a search warrant for a computer system to describe the type of
data authorized to be searched.

o  Require a search warrant for data to limit the computer systems
authorized to be searched.

o  Do not provide for default authorization to search computer systems.

o  Do not compel potentially self-incriminatory activity from the person
whose property is being searched.

Thank you for the time taken to consider our comments and recommendations.
We would be pleased to confer with you further.  Daniel Shap, a co-founder
of The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada, has previously commented at
length on this subject.  His 1993 paper, entitled "Search and Seizure of
Canadian Computer Environments," was prepared for, and is in the possession
of, Donald Piragoff of the Department of Justice.  It is also available on
the Internet's World Wide Web at:
http://www.io.org/~logic/papers/ds-search.htm

The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada may be contacted at the above
street and Internet addresses and telephone number.  We look forward to
hearing from you.

Yours very truly,

[Signed]

Dov Wisebrod
L o G I C
The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada

c.c.  Donald Piragoff
    Department of Justice

    Bruce Phillips
    Federal Privacy Commissioner

    Tony Ianno
    Member of Parliament


SECTION 41:   INFORMATION FOR SEARCH WARRANTS
-----------------------------------------------

487
---

(1)   A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or
place
(a)   anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any
other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed,
(b)   anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford
evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the
whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence,
against this Act or any other Act of Parliament, or
(c)   anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be
used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which
a person may be arrested without warrant,

may at any time issue a warrant under his hand authorizing a person named
therein or a peace officer

(d)   to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to
seize it, and
(e)   subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable,
bring the thing seized before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the
justice or some other justice for the same territorial division in
accordance with section 489.1.

(2)   Where the building, receptacle or place in which anything mentioned in
subsection (1) is believed to be is in any other territorial division, the
justice may issue his warrant in like form modified according to the
circumstances, and the warrant may be executed in the other territorial
division after it has been Endorsed, in Form 28, by a justice having
jurisdiction in that territorial division.

(2.1)  A PERSON AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS SECTION TO SEARCH A COMPUTER SYSTEM IN
A BUILDING OR PLACE FOR DATA MAY
(A)   USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE BUILDING OR PLACE TO
SEARCH ANY DATA CONTAINED IN OR AVAILABLE TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM;
(B)   REPRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE REPRODUCED ANY DATA IN THE FORM OF A PRINT-OUT
OR OTHER INTELLIGIBLE OUTPUT;
(C)   SEIZE THE PRINT-OUT OR OTHER OUTPUT FOR EXAMINATION OR COPYING; AND
(D)   USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COPYING EQUIPMENT AT THE PLACE TO MAKE
COPIES OF THE DATA.

(2.2)  EVERY PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BUILDING OR PLACE
IN RESPECT OF WHICH A SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL, ON
PRESENTATION OF THE WARRANT, PERMIT THE PERSON CARRYING OUT THE SEARCH
(A)   TO USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE BUILDING OR PLACE
TO SEARCH ANY DATA CONTAINED IN OR AVAILABLE TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR DATA
THAT THE PERSON IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION TO SEARCH FOR;
(B)   TO OBTAIN A HARD COPY OF THE DATA AND TO SEIZE IT; AND
(C)   TO USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COPYING EQUIPMENT AT THE PLACE TO MAKE
COPIES OF THE DATA.

(3)   A search warrant issued under this section may be in the form set out as
Form 5 in Part XXVIII, varied to suit the case.

(4)   An endorsement that is made on a warrant as provided for in subsection
(2) is sufficient authority to the peace officers or the persons to whom it
was originally directed and to all peace officers within the jurisdiction of
the justice by whom it is endorsed to execute the warrant and to deal with
the things seized in accordance with section 489.1 or as otherwise provided
by law.

(6)   Subsections 487(2) and (4) apply, with such modifications as the
circumstances require, to a warrant issued under subsection (1).

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

Date: 1 Apr 1996 16:25:03 -0500
From: "Dave Banisar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto

        Reply to:   ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto


              Association For Computing Machinery
                     Office of US Public Policy
                     666 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
                              Suite 301
                      Washington, DC 20003 USA
              (tel) 202/298-0842 (fax) 202/547-5482

      Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers
                     United States Activities
                        1828 L Street NW
                              Suite 1202
                   Washington, DC 20036-5104 USA
              (tel) 202/785-0017 (fax) 202/785-0835

April 2, 1996

Honorable Conrad Burns
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
US Senate SD-508
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Burns:

    On behalf of the nation's two leading computing and engineering
associations, we are writing to support your efforts, and the efforts of
the other cosponsors of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, to
remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption
technology.  The Encrypted Communications Privacy Act sets out the
minimum changes that are necessary to the current export controls on
encryption technology.  However, we believe that the inclusion of issues
that are tangential to export, such as key escrow and encryption in
domestic criminal activities, is not necessary.  The relaxation of
export controls is of great economic importance to industry and users,
and should not become entangled in more controversial matters.

    Current restrictions on the export of encryption technology harm
the interests of the United States in three ways: they handicap American
producers of software & hardware, prevent the development of a secure
information infrastructure, and limit the ability of Americans using new
online services to protect their privacy.  The proposed legislation will
help mitigate all of these problems, though more will need to be done to
assure continued US leadership in this important hi-tech sector.

    Technological progress has moved encryption from the realm of
national security into the commercial sphere. Current policies, as well
as the policy-making processes, should reflect this new reality. The
legislation takes a necessary first step in shifting authority to the
Commerce Department and removing restrictions on certain encryption
products.  Future liberalization of export controls will allow Americans
to excel in this market.

    The removal of out-dated restrictions on exports will also enable
the creation of a Global Information Infrastructure sufficiently secure
to provide seamless connectivity to customers previously unreachable by
American companies.   The United States is a leader in Internet
commerce.  However, Internet commerce requires cryptography.  Thus
American systems have been hindered by cold-war restraints on the
necessary cryptography as these systems have moved from the laboratory
to the marketplace.  This legislation would open the market to secure,
private, ubiquitous electronic commerce.  The cost of not opening the
market may include the loss of leadership in computer security
technologies, just at the time when Internet users around the world will
need good security to launch commercial applications.

    For this legislation to fulfill its promise the final approval of
export regulations must be based on analysis of financial and commercial
requirements and opportunities, not simply on the views of experts in
national security cryptography. Therefore, we urge you to look at ways
to further relax restrictive barriers.

    Finally, the legislation will serve all users of electronic
information systems by supporting the development of a truly global
market for secure desktop communications.  This will help establish
private and secure spaces for the work of users, which is of particular
interest to the members of the IEEE/USA and the USACM.

    On behalf of the both the USACM and the IEEE/USA we look forward
to working with you on this important legislation to relax export
controls and promote the development of a robust, secure, and reliable
communications infrastructure for the twenty-first century.

    Please contact Deborah Rudolph in the IEEE Washington Office at
[phone] or Lauren Gelman in the ACM Public Policy Office at (202)
298-0842 for any additional information.


               Sincerely,


               Barbara Simons, Ph.D.3
               Chair, U.S. Public Policy
               Committee of ACM


               Joel B. Snyder, P.E.
               Vice President, Professional Activities and
               Chair, United States Activities Board

cc:   Members of the Subcommittee on
    Science, Technology and Space

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:43:12 -0600
From: Michael Lazar <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--NETRADIO--"CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS" E-Mail Seminar (fwd)

Thought this would be of interest to many of you...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:11:22 EST -0500
From--Chuck Poulton <[e-mail]>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

    Prof. Larry Lessig, University of Chicago Law School
    Prof. David Post, Georgetown University Law Center
    Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
    and the Cyberspace Law Institute and Counsel Connect present

**************     CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS      **************

                   a FREE e-mail Internet seminar
                    (one message every 2-3 days)
                    Over 8000 subscribers already

    *  Learn the basic principles of -- and unlearn some common
       myths about --
                   -  copyright law,
                   -  free speech law,
                   -  libel law,
                   -  privacy law,
                   -  contract law, and
                   -  trademark law
      as they apply on the Net, from three of the top experts in
      the law of cyberspace.

   *  The seminar is aimed at educated laypeople, not primarily at
      lawyers.  Low on legalese and Latin.

   *  This is a low-traffic distribution list, NOT a discussion
      list.  Subscribers will get one message (a few paragraphs
      long) every few days.

   *  The seminar will start in April or May, but you should sign
      up now -- send a message with the text

            SUBSCRIBE CYBERSPACE-LAW yourfirstname yourlastname

            to [e-mail]


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

Larry Lessig clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, and now teaches constitutional law and the law of
cyberspace.  He's written about law and cyberspace for the
Yale Law Journal and the University of Chicago Legal Forum
(forthcoming).

David Post practiced computer law for six years, then clerked
for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now
teaches constitutional law, copyright law, and the law of
cyberspace.  He's written about law and cyberspace for the
University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming) and the Journal
of Online Law, and writes a monthly column on law and
technology issues for the American Lawyer.

Eugene Volokh worked as a computer programmer for 12 years,
and is still partner in a software company that sells the
software he wrote for the Hewlett-Packard Series 3000.  He
clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and
now teaches constitutional law and copyright law.  He's written
about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law
Review, Michigan Law Review (forthcoming), and the University
of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming).

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:46:53 +4200 (CST)
From: "Bob Izenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone

# ACTA Internet Phone Petition (RM No. 8775)
#
# BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
#
# In the Matter of
#
# THE PROVISION OF INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL INTEREXCHANGE
# TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE VIA THE "INTERNET" BY NON-TARIFFED,
# UNCERTIFIED ENTITIES

Is the whole ACTA complaint based on the marketing of this
category of software as an "Internet telephone"?  If the phone
analogy is the one that we go with in evaluating the merits of
the ACTA position, to which part of the regulated telephone
network does the Internet Phone software correspond?  It is
not the service, for the software providers have no responsibility
for actual transmission of voice traffic.  It is not the telephone
network, for the transmission facilities used by the software are
provided by third parties who have no business relationship with
the software providers.  If we look for what part of the physical
telephone world is close in function to the software to which the
ACTA objects, it is the telephone set itself.  It, coupled with
the computer upon which it runs, places calls which cannot be
completed without substantial support hardware and software
provided by other companies and organizations.  It does not
seem to be a long distance offering in the sense that AT&T,
Sprint, MCI, and other traditional long distance companies
are....  Not unless you do not differentiate between the
Internet Phone software itself and the mechanisms that carry
the information which it exchanges.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:44:13 -0800
From: Barry Gold <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone

It strikes me that respondents in this rulemaking have two good,
simple, responses:

1. We're not selling phone services, we're selling "phones".  As far
as I know, these companies charge nothing for calls, they simply sell
(or rent) their software for a fixed price.  The software runs on
standard equipment, connecting to existing wiring (telephone modem,
ISDN, or T1/2/3 link).  This makes it phone equipment -- it attaches
to existing lines -- not service.

2. Assuming they lose and the FCC issues the ruling requested by the
ATCA:
    Surprise!  We've put our software in the public domain!  It's now
    available on all SimTel mirrors and on sites in the UK, France,
    Australia, Finland, etc.

    (In other words, you can shut us down, but it won't stop the s/w
    from being used and in fact it will be used more widely as
    freeware than ever before!  Kill us and our death spasms will
    injure you more than we ever did alive.)

Now obviously, outcome 1 is preferred, for several reasons:

a. It allows I-Phone, etc. to continue making money to support further
development and support of their software.  In the longer run, all
products need support and extensions to continue to exist in the
marketplace.

b. Response 2 would damage the phone companies, but would also remove
the incentive for anybody else to enter the market.

Unfortunately, there are some providers who can't use response #1 as
an escape, because they provide connection to the local phone network
at the other end, rather than just selling/renting ("licensing")
software.  But maybe some creative soul on this list can figure out a
way for them to beat this rap, too.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:54:11 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail](--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject: File 10--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA

Witness the dread "chilling effect."

This letter from Stanley Chodorow, Provost at the University of
Pennsylvania, demonstrates the tough position that many university
administrators now find themselves in as a result of the Communications
Decency Act.

Almost reluctantly, Provost Chodrow points out, "Members of the Penn
community should be aware that although enforcement of the 'indecency'
provision is temporarily barred, the bill's other provisions are and will
remain in effect unless overturned or repealed.  Those provisions subject
violators to substantial criminal penalties. Individuals or institutions
that make information or materials available on  electronic networks have
an obligation to comply with the statute."

The full text of Chodorow's letter follows below.

--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine

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


To the Penn community:

Recent federal legislation has significant implications for all members of
the  Penn community who use telecommunications or electronic networks. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 , signed into law by President Clinton on
February 8, includes provisions, known as the Communications Decency Act,
that  prohibit dissemination of certain materials to persons under the age
of 18.

One provision prohibits using a telecommunications device to make and
transmit   any "obscene or indecent" communication to anyone known to be
under 18. Another prohibits using any "interactive computer service" to
display, in a manner available to anyone under 18, any communication that,
"in context, depicts or  describes, in terms patently offensive as measured
by contemporary community  standards, sexual or excretory activities or
organs." While the terms  "indecent" and "patently offensive" are not
defined in the law and their  meaning is unclear, the terms may be
construed to include materials with  literary, scientific, artistic, or
educational value.

The constitutionality of these provisions has been challenged in Federal
court  on the grounds that they prohibit speech protected by the First
Amendment and  are impermissibly vague and overbroad. The court has entered
an order that  temporarily bars enforcement of the prohibition against
"indecent"  communications, but the order does not bar enforcement of the
Act's other  provisions. Penn believes the constitutional challenges are
important and  should be resolved quickly, because we believe the Act may
chill the free  exchange of ideas and information that is central to the
University's mission.  It may also significantly restrict the development
and usefulness of new forms  of electronic communication.

Members of the Penn community should be aware, however, that although
enforcement of the "indecency" provision is temporarily barred, the bill's
other provisions are and will remain in effect unless overturned or
repealed.  Those provisions subject violators to substantial criminal
penalties.  Individuals or institutions that make information or materials
available on  electronic networks have an obligation to comply with the
statute. Individuals  who distribute information through the University's
computing resources are  responsible for the content they provide and may
wish to evaluate the material  they make available in light of the Act's
requirements. The University is  unable to prevent information that is
posted to publicly accessible resources,  such as newsgroups and homepages,
from becoming available to persons under the  age of 18.

We regret the uncertainty and disruption caused by this legislation and
will  try to keep you informed (via  Almanac  and the  University's home
page  on the  WorldWideWeb) of significant developments as they occur.

Stanley Chodorow
Provost

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 11--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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) (860)-585-9638.
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/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 #8.28
************************************