The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud851.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 35.7 KB | 842 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Jul 7, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 51
                           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, #8.51 (Sun, Jul 7, 1996)

File 1--About this Issue--From the "Fight-Censorship" List
File 2--Re: Australian atty-general investigating Adelaide Inst.'s web site?
File 3--Cube approves only restricted Net access
File 4--Europeans fight a Net dominated by English
File 5--Dutch clamp down on Internet child porn
File 6--UK Encryption Bill (fwd)
File 7--Response from Singapore on country's Net-regulations
File 8--German computer blackmail attempts
File 9--F-C Dispatch #16: DoJ files appeal, Supreme Court ho!
File 10--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:    Sun, 07 Jul 96 15:26 CDT
From: Cu Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--About this Issue--From the "Fight-Censorship" List

This issue is devoted to snippets from Declan McCullagh's
fight-censorship discussion group. It's by far the best
discussion group for First Amendment issues on the Net for news
and informed commentary about freedom of speech topics.

To subscribe to future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related
announcements, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the
body of a message addressed to:
  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Re: Australian atty-gen invest'ing Adelaide Inst.'s web site?

The messages I forwarded earlier earlier about the Simon Wiesenthal
Center were accurate:
 http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=3089

The Center is up to its same old Internet scare-mongering. Below, Rabbi
Cooper not only decries holocaust revisionists on the Net, he also reminds
the Australian public that students can download bomb-making materials!
(Obviously the state must censor libraries, wherein the same information
can be found.)

According to Cooper, this speech that he personally dislikes is why the
Australian government must crack down on free expression online.

More info on the SWC's other previous net-censorship attempts, including
links to ACLU and CDT reports, is at:
 http://www.gsia.cmu.edu/andrew/ml3e/www/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/censorship.html

-Declan


>The Advertiser,

Saturday, July 6, 1996 >Internet target of Nazi hunters >By Anthony Keane

>
>A controversial Adelaide-based Internet site is being investigated by the
>Federal Government.
>
>Holocaust-denial group the Adelaide Institute is one of two groups that have
>been targeted by international Nazi hunters, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
>
>A spokesman for the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, said yesterday the
>Government had received a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los
>Angeles calling for an investigation into whether the Internet site breached
>any local laws.
>
>"We are investigating the claims made by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre," he said.
>
>The letter says the centre has "identified over 100 different Web sites
>which promote racist violence, mayhem and terrorism".
>
>"Two Australian Web sites have come to the attention of researchers at the
>Wiesenthal Centre," it says.
>
>The Advertiser yesterday logged into the Adelaide Institute site. Excerpts
>included:
>
>"We reject outright that a questioning of the alleged homicidal gas chamber
>story constitutes 'hate talk', is 'anti-Semitic', 'racist' or even
>'neo-Nazi' activity.
>
>"We are a group of individuals who are looking at the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust,
>in particular we are investigating the allegation that Germans
>systematically killed six million Jews...."
>
>"We at the Adelaide Institute believe that those who level the homicidal
>gassing allegations at the Germans owe it to the world to come up with
>irrefutable evidence that this happened."
>
>The other Internet site under investigation, called Al-Moharer Al-Australi,
>is based in Melbourne.
>
>Adelaide Institute director Dr Fredrick Toben said he would welcome the
>Federal Government investigation.
>
>"But we would also like them to investigate the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and
>the tradition it comes from, namely the Babylonian Talmud, which is the
>moral and legal foundation of modern Judaism,"  he said.
>
>"The Babylonian Talmud is anti-gentile, anti-Christian, against everything
>non-Jewish and it is full of hate.
>
>"The Adelaide Institute has put in a complaint to the Attorney-General's
>Department that the Babylonian Talmud contains hate literature and is
>racist, is full of bigotry, is offensive to everyone not Jewish, especially
>to Christians and to every decent Jew who believes in the equality of
>humankind, and it needs investigation,"
>
>SA Jewish Community Council president, Mr Norman Schueler, said: "Anything
>that tries to rewrite history is not on, so we therefore welcome an
>investigation.
>
>"As far as we are concerned, the Adelaide Institute has promoted things that
>are incorrect and are inconsistent with established fact."
>
>                               ==========
>
>The Courier-Mail (Brisbane) Friday, July 5, 1996
>
>Jews trace cyberspace 'hatred' to Australia
>
>By Rodney Chester and Rory Callinan
>
>The Federal Government is investigating two controversial Australian-based
>anti-semitic Internet sites after an alert from international Nazihunters,
>the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
>
>The centre, renowned for its dogged pursuit of hundreds of Nazi war
>criminals, detected the controversial sites as it followed the trail of
>far-right groups into cyberspace.
>
>After locating the sites earlier this year, the centre wrote to the
>Australian Embassy in Washington calling on the Attorney-General to
>investigate if the sites breached any local laws.
>
>The sites, one calling itself Adelaide Institute says: "We are a group of
>individuals who are looking at the Jewish-Nazi holocaust.
>
>"We are worried about the fact that to date it has been impossible to
>reconstruct a homicidal gas chamber."
>
>Al Moharer Al-Australi says it "wants to challenge all forms of New World
>Order conditioning and thought control".
>
>Wiesenthal Centre associate dean Abraham Cooper, speaking from its Los
>Angeles headquarters, said many "hate" groups around the world had taken to
>the Net in the past 18 months to reach a potential audience of 40 million.
>
>Rabbi Cooper said there were about 100 Web sites around the world promoting
>"hatred and mayhem".
>
>"It is an unprecedented but powerful tool that not only can be used for
>good but also be used for evil," he said.
>
>"Our experience has been that the authorities don't even understand the
>technology that well."
>
>Rabbi Cooper said there had been numerous cases in the United States where
>"very bright" students had down-loaded bomb-making recipes off the net.
>
>One science teacher in Miami "was about one second away from blowing up both
>himself and his school", he said.
>
>The centre, which uses the Web to promote its own cause, has set up a
>cuberwatch programme "not because we are opposed to computers but because
>we're committed to human rights."
>
>Adelaide Institute director Fredrick Toben said last night: "We would
>welcome any investigation.
>"But we would also like them to investigate Rabbi Cooper and the tradition
>that he comes from, namely from the Babylonian Talmud which is the ethical
>base that he operates on.
>"It is used by  certain members of the Jewish community as a guide  and the
>Babylonian Talmud is full of filth and hatred  so let him (the Rabbi) cast
>the first stone."
>
>A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Darrel Williams confirmed the
>office had received the letter and claims were being investigated.
>
>Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies president Laurie Rosenblum said he
>regularly received complaints from Queenslanders about material on the
>Internet.
>
>He said there was urgent need to censor the Net.
>
>"The problem is that you have got this technology where some extremist
>organisation can print out stuff and transpose it and then hand it out or
>publish it in a newsletter," he said
>
>The Australian Broadcasting Authority is expected to release its guidelines
>on control of the Internet today.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Cube approves only restricted Net access

June 20, 1996

HAVANA (Reuter) - Cuban authorities have approved access to
the Internet and other global information networks but will
limit such access according to national interests, official
media said Thursday.
     The ruling Comunist Party newspaper Granma said regulations
adopted earlier this month outlined the need for access to
Internet and other world information networks, while observing
interests such as ``defense and national security.''
     The policy of establishing who had access would be defined
by Cuba's interests, giving priority to individuals and bodies
with most relevance to the country's life and development, the
newspaper said.
     It did not specify who such people might be, but they are
likely to come from approved state organizations and academic
and research centres.
     Information divulged from such global networks should be
trustworthy and in line with Cuba's ``ethical principles'',
Granma said.
     A committee regulating the policy on global information
networks would be drawn from ministries that will include the
Interior Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the Armed Forces
Ministry, Granma said.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 22:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Europeans fight a Net dominated by English

[While note exactly net-censorship, I'll still link this in to:
  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/ --Declan]


BRUSSELS, BELGIUM, 1996 JUN 21 (NB) -- The European Commission (EC) is
urging its members to make sure that English, which already has a
strong position on the World Wide Web, does not become the de facto
language of European online services and Internet systems.

According to Nana Mouskouri, Euro Member of Parliament (MP) and
perhaps best known as the Greek singer of the smash hit of the 1960s,
"Never on a Sunday," the danger is much more than simply seeing
languages other than English falling into disuse on the Internet.

[...]

"I think it's essential that we protect that cultural heritage and
make sure that it's not destroyed by the information society which
would then be an information society with no content," she said.

So far, Mouskouri's campaign has received only the support from the
EC, but there is a possibility that the EC could well turn the support
into a full fledged campaign, backed by European legislation,
something that could have some serious effects on the future of the
Web in Europe.

(Sylvia Dennis/19960621/Press & Reader Contact: European Commission
[phone])

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:46:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Dutch clamp down on Internet child porn

Interesting concept... -Declan

---

June 20, 1996

     THE HAGUE, Netherlands (Reuter) - Dutch Justice Minister
Winnie Sorgdrager Thursday opened an Internet site where surfers
on the world-wide web could report child pornography.
     ``The web-site provider will ask the issuer to remove the
child pornography from the Internet and will report them to the
police if they fail to do so,'' she said at the opening of the
site, a self-regulatory service from Internet access providers.
     Child pornography is prohibited under Dutch law and
offenders face jail terms of up to four years.
     Sorgdrager said Dutch input on the Internet formed only a
tiny part of the total. The fight against child pornography
would only succeed if other European Union member states adopted
the idea.
     The Dutch foundation of Internet providers, which maintains
the web-site, said it expected a speedy removal of pornography.
     ``In the start-up phase we tested the method on a Dutch
distributor of child pornography who immediately stopped
publishing images,'' said chairman Felipe Rodriguez.
     ``The web-site will eliminate all on-line child pornography
sent from the Netherlands,'' he said.
     Germany has recently acted against child pornography and
racism on the Internet by banning entire discussion groups. This
method is criticised by web-devotees who say that this violates
their right to free speech.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Computer underground Digest <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--UK Encryption Bill (fwd)

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The original headers of this fowarded post were
deleted in the compilation process. Apologies to the sender -- jt))

                              ========

The following was published yesterday in the Engineer magazine in the
UK under the headline 'DTI plans for secure telecoms' -

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

"The government has recommended licensing 'trusted third parties' as
conduits of encrypted information sent over public networks.

In a white paper published this week, the Department of Trade and Industry
has floated the plan of offering licenses to software firms 'known to be
trustworthy'.

'It is not the intention of the government to regulate the private use of
encryption' says the white paper.  'It will, however, ensure that
organisations and bodies wishing to provide encryption services to the
public will be appropriately licensed.'

Licensed organisations would allow compamies to send sensitive information
to customers or other offices.  It would, for instance, allow users of the
Internet to send credit card details without the fear of them being picked
up by a hacker.  'Secure electronic commerce between parties will become
possible because they will have confidence in the security andintegrity of
their dealings,' says the paper.

Issues to be resolved include a 'common architectural framework' across
countries, so information can be safely transmitted across boundaries."

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]
Subject: File 7--Response from Singapore on country's Net-regulations

[Forwarded with permission. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:54:24 +-800
[e-mail]
Subject--Singapore Internet Regulations

Dave Farber recently returned from a trip to Asia and has been sending
recollections to IP. Read the second half of his note for this graf:

"the Singapore Government is about to publish network content
regulations which ban provider in Singapore from offering material which
is considered offensive to the culture. ISPs (which are only 3 in number
at this time) will be also required to block international URLs which
lead to
sites which contain such offensive information."

I fear Singapore has taken the lead internationally in restricting online
speech. Some of the reports I have at
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/:

...
 - -Declan

Dear Declan,

I appreciate your material on the Internet but I must say that there are
several aspects of your latest post (repeating some of David Farber's
material) on Singapore's Internet Regulations that I feel need to be
clarified in the interest of a informed discussion.  This is a long note
so those who are not interested have my sincere apologies in advance.

(1) There are 3 IASPs (Internet Access Service Providers) in Singapore
and these are licenced to operate.  I think the number of IASPs will not
be allowed to proliferate.  Before anyone gets on to a soapbox about how
wonderful healthy competition is and that IASPs should be allowed to
propagate like wildflowers, consider the following:

* Singapore is a very small market.  There is a population of 3 million
and geographically, its only about the size of Manhattan island.

* The startup costs of IASPs is not insubstantial.  Apart from the
hardware there is the need for an International Leased Circuit for
Internet access.  T1 lines and up cost a fair bit.  A lot of the
equipment have short lifespan.  For example, I think hundreds of 14.4
modems had to be dumped to put in 28.8 ones last year.

* Having invested such amounts into their infrastructure, it is only
sensible that existing IASPs have some measure of protection from a
free-for-all market.

* Existing IASPs are able to offer fairly competitive prices (bearing in
mind the high costs of the ILC to the US).  Internet accounts are about
$9.95 per month (US$6) for the first 12 hours and then $2.50 per hour
(abt US$1.8).  Service quality is also decent.  One of my IASPs, for
example, has more than a thousand phone lines for dial-up access, with a
ration of dial-up lines to subscribers something in the region of 1:20.
 I believe this is considered to be very decent.  Of course, IASPs in US
can be much cheaper if ads in US Magazines are to be believed.
Nonetheless, I think they are affordable in Singapore, and not unreasonable.

In the premises, I think that the control of IASPs from proliferating is
not necessarily a Bad Thing.  Bear in mind also that there are no
prequalifications or pre-registration requirements for holding Internet
accounts.  Anyone and everyone can apply to get a dial-up account.
 Better to have controls over the number of players in the market, and
therefore assure certain service quality standards, than to allow a
free-for-all with shoddy standards.

(2) I think the position discussed by our policy makers is that sites
with offensive materials should be blocked by IASPs.  If policy makers
determine what these sites are and inform IASPs accordingly, and the list
is not too unmanageable from a technical point of view, this policy is
also justifiable.

HOWEVER, when you superimpose such a policy against a normative
"standard" of freedom-for-all and unrestricted-access, then this policy
would fall afoul of such a set of "norms."  The thing is, that such a
"norm" has never been accepted in Singapore, for better or for worse.
 The position is that controls on media are believed to be necessary.
 Whether or not you agree is not as important as the fact that such
controls are in place and therefore, why not for the Internet?

(3) I am not at all sure that its fair to say that "Singapore has taken
the lead internationally in restricting online speech" -- If you look at
all the materials on-line about restrictions imposed by various countries
on the Internet, from Germany to France to the (mebbe, hopefully
unsuccessful) CDA and all the other details in the recent Human Rights
Watch report, it seems that the "norm" of free unhindered access to
information on the Internet is honoured more in its breach than its
observance.  I have not read the "Singapore leader condemns Net" report
that you have at your website recently and do not recall it much.
 However, I am able to say that on the whole, there is more or less
acceptance of the Internet as a fact of today's society and
communications network.  Our policy makers have emphasised that they see
the benefits of the Internet, but are ever watchful of some of the darker
parts of the Internet.

(4) Contrary to Charlie Mullins response, search engines do not have to
go.  If ultimately the search engine points to a place that is listed as
prohibited e.g. www.websex.com (fictitious, at least I don't know of such
a site), then the fact that the search engine points me to it does not
ultimately allow me to access the site if the site is properly blocked
(either IP level or whatever).  However, as Declan pointed out in an
earlier comment, it would be simple to have an overseas proxy serve out
these web pages without it appearing as if the data came from the
originating site.

(5) Again Charlie Mullins is wrong if he thinks that it is intended that
someone sift through millions of web pages.  However, if a patently
offensive web page is brought to the notice of the powers-that-be (by
users or sheer notoriety), then the appropriate listing of the site as
"banned" could be done.

(6) The powers-that-be have also opined that they recognise that
censorship will not be 100% effective, but that something *has* to be
done if only to make a statement.

Rgds,

TAN Ken Hwee
[e-mail]

Disclaimer -- I write in my personal capacity only.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:59:10 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--German computer blackmail attempts

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

 Date--Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:35:25 +0100
 [e-mail] (Frank Rieger)

 The HERF-against-banks-story from the Sunday Times 3 weeks ago was somewhat
 overhyped and has a lack of facts..  I have collected some facts on real
 blackmail attempts performed in Germany on a much lower, but maybe
 comparable level.

 Since February 1996 until last week a person named Markus S=F6hnke
 Ungerb=FChler was calling German banks and corporations, claiming he was a
 member of the Chaos Computer Club and has hacked the corporate computer
 system. He claimed, that he has his hands on data that proves tax
 manipulations and other illegal activities of this company. He also claimed
 the hacking of several systems in main German press magazines like stern and
 Spiegel.  Ungerb=FChler asked the banks and companies for paying him some
 1000 Deutschmarks for giving them the data "back". Another scheme was to ask
 for payment for removing allegedly planted negative-stories from the press
 computers.  As known by now all of some dozen companies and banks paid in
 panic reaction for avoiding any press coverage. Only a very, very small
 minority of victims asked the police for help - after paying.  In several
 cases Ungerb=FChler handed out some disks with the "data" in exchange for
 the money. These disks were empty.

 Mr. Ungerb=FChler has escaped in February from an psychiatric hospital,
 where he was arrested cause of being an proven schizophrenic and
 blackmailer. He started his activities two days after his getaway. He based
 in London and operated via some Fax- and Voicemail boxes.  The investigation
 of the case was difficult, cause none of the victims was willing to prove
 the identity of the blackmailer for the police etc.  (Ungerb=FChler used to
 show money couriers from the banks his authentic passport to prove he is the
 right person to receive the money)

 He is definitely not a member of the Chaos Computer Club and is, as far as
 known by now, unable to hack into computer systems. He is simply a
 confidence trickster.

 The case shows, how fast and easy big companies pay, if they fear press
 coverage of real or alleged problems. They pay to everyone who believable
 claims to be _able_ to perform hacking or electronic attacks.

 In the light of this case, I could imagine, that around 40 banks in London
 City have paid for being not attacked by HERF - without the real prove, that
 the blackmailers own such weapons. There is a real huge amount of
 irrationality in computer security issues, especially in the financial
 sector. It seems like no one trusts his security measures. As I have learned
 in this case, these security-guys are thinking all the time in a worst-case
 manner and if the worst case occurs they are unable to react rational. You
 did not need Schwartau-style doomsday-weapons for getting lots of money - ou
 only have to be eloquent and know the right buzzwords.  Finally the
 Ungerb=FChler-case was mainly fixed cause of massive activities of an
 well-known international security company paid by one of the victims, not
 cause of so good cooperation between police and the victims.

 Frank

 (source: partly from Der Spiegel 24.6.1996,
 http://eunet.bda.de/bda/int/spon/magazin/gesel02.html)

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:04:49 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--F-C Dispatch #16: DoJ files appeal, Supreme Court ho!

                       Fight-Censorship Dispatch #16
      ---------------
             Justice Department files appeal, Supreme Court ho!
      ---------------
         By Declan McCullagh / [e-mail] / Redistribute freely
      ---------------

In this dispatch: Justice Department's appeal means long, tortuous process
                  A mysterious "Order on Motion for Clarification"
                  Text of Justice Department's Notice of Appeal


July 2, 1996

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Department of Justice yesterday appealed the
Philadelphia court's decision striking down the Communications Decency
Act, a move that sets the stage for a long, tortuous climb to the
Supreme Court.

The government's "Notice of Appeal" is a terse, two-page statement
saying they "hereby appeal" the "Adjudication and Order entered June
12," the day the special three-judge panel unanimously declared the CDA
to be unconstitutional and blocked the Justice Department from
enforcing it.

Next move is the DoJ's. They have until September 1 to file a
"jurisdictional statement" arguing that the Supreme Court should hear
their appeal.

The Supreme Court doesn't automatically have to accept jurisdiction,
notes Ann Beeson, an attorney with the ACLU. "The Supreme Court can
still decline to exercise jurisdiction over the case," she says,
adding: "They do not have the same kind of discretion they have in
a cert petition."

All the DoJ has to do is convince the Supremes that there's "still a
substantial federal question," says Beeson. "If they're not convinced
there is a question, they can decline the appeal."

But by all accounts, there's precious little chance of that happening.

After Justice files the jurisdictional statement, our attorneys have 30
days to file a response -- and then when the next term begins on October
7, the Supremes will meet to discuss the case. (If the procedure is
anything like granting cert, the votes will be cast in a secret
conference attended only by the justices and the actual vote won't be
disclosed.)

The climb to the nation's highest court will be only partly over by
then, since the court's decision to consider our case marks the start of
the briefing schedule. The government will have 45 more days to file
their arguments saying why the Philadelphia decision was wrong; we have
30 more days to rebut.

If the Department of Justice -- hardly the speediest bureaucracy in DC
-- uses all of their alloted time, the paperwork won't be complete
until Christmas.

And then the Supremes need plenty of time to digest it.

So everyone's best guess is that the Supreme Court will hear the
combined ACLU and ALA coalition lawsuits early next year -- just in
time for the rescheduled Electronic Freedom March on the nation's
Capitol.

As I wrote in a recent HotWired column:

  "The ACLU predicts the Supreme Court will issue a decision near the
   close of the next term, which ends in July 1997 -- just in time for
   Congress to try again."


+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
            THE MYSTERIOUS "ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION"
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+

You might be surprised by a mysterious sentence in the text of the
Justice Department's notice of appeal talking about a "Order on Motion
for Clarification" the court issued on June 28.

Not to worry. The judges ruled so vigorously in our favor that the DoJ
wanted to be sure the government could prosecute anyone they think
may violate other parts of the CDA.

"Because of the wording of the court's actual order, they unwittingly
called into question whether the DoJ could enforce the provisions of
the CDA that we didn't challenge," says Ann Beeson from the ACLU.

The Philadelphia court quickly issued the clarification.


+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
             TEXT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S "NOTICE OF APPEAL"
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+


                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____________________________________________________________

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,    :    CIVIL ACTION
    et al., Plaintiffs;            :    No. 96-963
                                   :
               v.                  :
                                   :
JANET RENO, in her official        :
capacity as Attorney General of    :
the United States, Defendant.      :

_____________________________________________________________

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,      :    CIVIL ACTION
  INC., et al., Plaintiffs;        :    No. 96-1458
                                   :
               v.                  :
                                   :
UNITED STATES DEP'T OF JUSTICE,    :
   et al., Defendants.             :

_____________________________________________________________


                    DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that defendant Janet Reno, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the United States, hereby appeals,
pursuant to section 561(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-104, Sec.561(b), 110 Stat. 143, to the Supreme Court of the
United States from the Adjudication and Order entered June 12, 1996, as
clarified by the Order on Motion for Clarification entered on June 28,
1996, in American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, Civ. A. No.
96-0963 (E.D. Pa.).

Notice is also hereby given that defendants United States Department of
Justice and Janet Reno, in her official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States, hereby appeal, pursuant to section 561(b) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Sec.561(b), 110
Stat. 143, to the Supreme Court of the United States from the
Adjudication and Order entered June 12, 1996, as clarified by the Order
on Motion for Clarification entered on June 28, 1996, in American
Library Ass'n, et al. v. Department of Justice, et al., Civ. A. No.
96-1458 (E.D. Pa.).


Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL R. STILES
United States Attorney

MARK R. KMETZ
Assistant United States Attorney

FRANK W. HUNGER
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division

DENNIS G. LINDER
Director, Federal Programs Branch

[signed]
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Trial Attorney

[signed]
JASON R. BARON
PATRICIA M. RUSSOTTO
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
901 E. Street N.W.
Washington, Dc 20530
Tel: [phone]

Date: July 1, 1996


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

MEA CULPA. In F-C Dispatch #13, I wrote that the Washington Post ran an
article "on the first page of the Outlook section bashing
"self-indulgent dross" and "crap" on the Net. I neglected to mention
that John Schwartz and Kara Swisher had an excellent rebuttal inside.

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

Mentioned in this CDA update:

  HotWired column on what kind of net-censorship Congress will try next:
    http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/24/declan4a.html
  Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13:
    http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2741

  Fight-Censorship list   <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>
  Int'l Net-Censorship    <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/>
  Justice on Campus       <http://joc.mit.edu/>

This document and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at:
  <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>

To subscribe to future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related
announcements, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body
of a message addressed to:
  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 10--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/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 #8.51
************************************