The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud864.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 37.6 KB | 898 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Sep 4, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 64
                           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, #8.64 (Wed, Sep 4, 1996)
File 1--Sep 20th SF C'punks meeting: ITAR on trial
File 2--National ID Card Web Pages
File 3--Bernie S. attacked in prison
File 4--Anon.penet.fi is closed!
File 5--Press Release on anon.penet.fi closing
File 6--"Wired UK" response to Observer Article
File 7--London Observer replies (9/1/96) (fwd)
File 8--British Hacker ("The Squidge") Arrested (fwd)
File 9--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, 6 Sep 1996 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Sep 20th SF C'punks meeting: ITAR on trial

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Fri, 06 Sep 1996 03:51:20 -0700
From--John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]

We're having another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Friday, September
20th.  Meet at the Federal Building in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, at 11:45AM, in high-quality business drag.  [There will also
be a regular Saturday meeting this month, on Sep 14.]

It's been eleven months to the day since our first hearings in Dan
Bernstein's lawsuit against the NSA and State Department.  At this
hearing, starting at High Noon, we hope to convince Judge Marilyn Hall
Patel to declare that the ITAR (export regulations) and AECA (export
law) are unconstitutional.  We are asking her to order the State
Department to immediately stop enforcing them with respect to
cryptographic software.

Simultaneously, the government is asking her to declare that their
actions have been completely legal and Constitutional, and to throw
out our lawsuit.

Judge Patel has asked both sides to fully explore all the legal issues
in the case for this hearing, leaving aside any unresolved factual
questions (like exactly how many people have had their exports
denied).  She plans to decide the questions:

    *  Should the government's actions be examined under the "strict
       scrutiny" appropriate when they attempt to restrict speech,
       or under a looser "O'Brien" test that applies when the
       government seeks to restrict conduct and only incidentally
       restricts speech?
    *  Is the ITAR Scheme a prior restraint on speech?
    *  Does the ITAR Scheme impermissibly punish speech after the fact?
    *  Is the ITAR Scheme too vague to constitutionally regulate speech?
    *  Is the ITAR Scheme so broadly worded that it unconstitutionally
       limits speech protected by the First Amendment?
    *  Were the government's actions as applied to Dan Bernstein
       unconstitutional restrictions on his First Amendment rights?

It's possible, but unlikely, that the judge will decide some of this
then-and-there.  Instead, we will get some insights into how she is
leaning, based on her questions and comments.  Her written decision
will come out some weeks or months later.  She then plans to certify
the case for immediate appeal to a higher court (the Ninth Circuit,
also here in San Francisco), to confirm or deny her legal analysis.

>From there it will probably go to the Supreme Court.

Watch the wheels of justice grind!  Meet the intrepid lawyers who are
working hard to protect our rights!  Shake hands with one or more NSA
representatives specially flown in for the occasion!  Meet some
journalists and be quoted talking about crypto freedom!

We will follow the hearing with a group lunch at Max's Opera Plaza, a
block away at Van Ness Avenue and Golden Gate Avenue.

As background, Dan Bernstein, ex-grad-student from UC Berkeley, is
suing the State Department, NSA, and other agencies, with help from
the EFF.  These agencies restrained Dan's ability to publish a paper,
as well as source code, for the crypto algorithm that he invented.  We
claim that their procedures, regulations, and laws are not only
unconstitutional as applied to Dan, but in general.  Full background
and details on the case, including all of our legal papers (and most
of the government's as well), are in the EFF Web archives at:
    http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case.

Like Phil Karn's and Peter Junger's cases, this lawsuit really has the
potential to outlaw the whole NSA crypto export scam.  We intend to
make your right to publish and export crypto software as well-
protected by the courts as your right to publish and export books.  It
will probably take more years, and an eventual Supreme Court decision,
to make it stick.  But this is the hearing at which we plan to
convince our judge that these laws really are unconstitutional.  Her
order restoring our legal right to publish crypto source code could
come out by Christmas!

Please make a positive impression on the judge.  Show her -- by
showing up -- that this case matters to more people than just the
plaintiff and defendant.  Demonstrate that her decision will make a
difference to society.  That the public and the press are watching,
and really do care that she handles the issue well.

We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse.
There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no
photography, but the session will be tape-recorded and transcribed,
and you can take notes if you like.  The lobby guards will want to
hold onto guns, "munitions", and even small pocketknives, before
they'll let you go upstairs to the courtrooms.

So, here's your excuse to put on a nice costume, take an early lunch,
and pay a call on the inner sanctum of our civil rights.  See you there!

    John Gilmore

PS:  If you can't come, you can still contribute.  Join EFF's Legal
Defense Fund; see http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/cyberlegal_fund_eff.announce.

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

Date: 2 Sep 1996 13:52:18 -0500
From: "Dave Banisar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--National ID Card Web Pages


         EXTENSIVE NATIONAL ID CARD WEB SITE IS NOW ON LINE


The London-based human rights watchdog Privacy International (PI)
has just opened an extensive web page on National ID cards. The
initiative comes in the wake of pending efforts in the United
States, Canada and United Kingdom to implement national ID card
systems.

The page contains a 7,000 word FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on
all aspects of ID cards and their implications. Also included in the
PI documents is a paper describing successful campaigns opposing to
ID cards in Australia and other countries.  The page also has links
to numerous other sites and documents.

PI Director Simon Davies said he hoped the page would help promote
debate about the cards, "ID cards are often introduced without
serious discussion or consultation. The implications are profound,
and countries planning to introduce them should proceed with
caution."

"The existence of a card challenges important precepts of individual
rights and privacy. At a symbolic and a functional level, ID cards
are often an unnecessary and potentially dangerous white elephant.
They are promoted by way of fear-mongering and false patriotism, and
are implemented with scant regard for serious investigation of the
consequences." he said.

The URL is :

   http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/

PI has also set up an auto response function for the FAQ document.
Its address is: [e-mail]

Privacy International is an international human rights group
concerned with privacy and surveillance issues. It is based in
London, UK. For further information contact the Privacy
International Washington Office at +1.202.544.9240 or email
[e-mail]. PI's web page is available at:
http://www.privacy.org/pi/

David Banisar ([e-mail])     *  202-544-9240 (tel)
Privacy International Washington Office *  202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301     *  HTTP://www.privacy.org/pi/
Washington, DC 20003

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

Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Bernie S. attacked in prison

COMPUTER HACKER SEVERELY BEATEN AFTER CRITICIZING PRISON CONDITIONS

TARGET OF CAMPAIGN BY U.S. SECRET SERVICE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A convicted hacker, in prison for nothing more than possession of
electronic parts easily obtainable at any Radio Shack, has been
savagely beaten after being transferred to a maximum security prison
as punishment for speaking out publicly about prison conditions.
Ed Cummings, recently published in Wired and Internet Underground, as
well as a correspondent for WBAI-FM in New York and 2600 Magazine,
has been the focus of an increasingly ugly campaign of harrassment
and terror from the authorities. At the time of this writing, Cummings
is locked in the infectious diseases ward at Lehigh County prison in
Allentown, Pennsylvania, unable to obtain the proper medical treatment
for the severe injuries he has suffered.

The Ed Cummings case has been widely publicized in the computer hacker
community over the past 18 months. In March of 1995, in what can only
be described as a bizarre application of justice, Cummings (whose pen
name is "Bernie S.") was targetted and imprisoned by the United States
Secret Service for mere possession of technology that could be used to
make free phone calls. Although the prosecution agreed there was no
unauthorized access, no victims, no fraud, and no costs associated with
the case, Cummings was imprisoned under a little known attachment to the
Digital Telephony bill allowing individuals to be charged in this fashion.
Cummings was portrayed by the Secret Service as a potential terrorist
because of some of the books found in his library.

A year and a half later, Cummings is still in prison, despite the
fact that he became eligible for parole three months ago. But things have
now taken a sudden violent turn for the worse. As apparent retribution for
Cummings' continued outspokenness against the daily harrassment and
numerous injustices that he has faced, he was transferred on Friday
to Lehigh County Prison, a dangerous maximum security facility. Being
placed in this facility was in direct opposition to his sentencing
order. The reason given by the prison: "protective custody".

A day later, Cummings was nearly killed by a dangerous inmate for not
getting off the phone fast enough. By the time the prison guards stopped
the attack, Cummings had been kicked in the face so many times that he
lost his front teeth and had his jaw shattered. His arm, which he tried
to use to shield his face, was also severely injured. It is expected that
his mouth will be wired shut for up to three months. Effectively,
Cummings has now been silenced at last.

From the start of this ordeal, Cummings has always maintained his
composure and confidence that one day the injustice of his
imprisonment will be realized. He was a weekly contributor to a
radio talk show in New York where he not only updated listeners on
his experiences, but answered their questions about technology.
People from as far away as Bosnia and China wrote to him, having
heard about his story over the Internet.

Now we are left to piece these events together and to find those
responsible for what are now criminal actions against him. We are
demanding answers to these questions: Why was Cummings transferred
for no apparent reason from a minimum security facility to a very
dangerous prison? Why has he been removed from the hospital immediately
after surgery and placed in the infectious diseases ward of the very
same prison, receiving barely any desperately needed medical
attention? Why was virtually every moment of Cummings' prison stay a
continuous episode of harrassment, where he was severely punished for
such crimes as receiving a fax (without his knowledge) or having too
much reading material? Why did the Secret Service do everything in
their power to ruin Ed Cummings' life?

Had these events occurred elsewhere in the world, we would be quick
to condemn them as barbaric and obscene. The fact that such things are
taking place in our own back yards should not blind us to the fact that
they are just as unacceptable.

Lehigh County Prison will be the site of several protest actions as will
the Philadelphia office of the United States Secret Service. For more
information on this, email [e-mail] or call our office at
[phone].

More information on this case can be found on the following
web site: http://www.2600.com.

9/4/96

            -30-




These are the people responsible for keeping Ed Cummings imprisoned.


Name/Address                            Phone                   Fax

Bucks County Correctional Facility      215.325.3700            215.345.3940
1730 South Easton Road
Doylestown, PA
Director:  Mr. Nesbitt (warden equivalent)
Chief:     John Henderson (had Cummings thrown into maximum security
          for receiving a fax from a reporter - later
          told Cummings he had "no right" to speak
          to the press)

Lehigh County Prison                    610.820.3270
38 North Fourth Street
Allentown, PA 18103
Warden:    Ed Sweeney               610.820.3133            610.820.3450

Haverford Township Police Department
        John Morris                     610.853.2400            610.853.1706
          (original arresting officer who believed Cummings was involved
       in a drug deal because he was observed selling electronic
       components to a vehicle occupied by African Americans)

Northampton County Probation Department
        Scott Hoke (parole officer)     610.559.7211            610.559.7218
       (as Cummings' parole officer for a minor infraction years
            earlier, Hoke had told Cummings that parole was a waste of
        time for such a trivial offense. However, after being
        interviewed by the Secret Service, Hoke did an about face
        and began referring to Cummings as a very dangerous criminal
        who needed to be in prison for a long time.)

Harrisburg Parole Office
        Ralph Bigley                    717.787.2563            717.772.3534
        Mr. Bigelow                     717.787.5699

Northampton County Courthouse (main)    610.559.3000
        Judge Panella                   610.515.0830            610.515.0832

US District Court, Philadelphia (main)  215.597.2995
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
        Judge Marjorie Rendell          215.597.3015            215.580.2393
        Judge Jay C. Waldman            215.597.9644            215.580.2155
        Judge Charles B. Smith          215.597.0421            215.597.6125

Assistant U.S. Attorney
Anne Whatley Chain, Esq.                215.451.5282
615 Chestnut Street
Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Special Agent Thomas L. Varney
U.S. Secret Service (main)              215.597.0600            215.597.2435
Room 7236
Federal Building
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
       (Varney was the key factor in having Ed Cummings imprisoned
            since March of 1995. It was he who convinced Det. John Morris
            that Cummings' possession of electronic components and certain
        books and magazines made him a danger to society. His testimony
        stands out in its incredible assessment of Cummings as nothing
        short of a terrorist and his ability, as a representative of
        one of the nation's most powerful agencies, to convince others
        in law enforcement that Cummings belongs in prison with the most
        dangerous and most violent of criminals.)




Every one of these people has the power to do something. Please contact
them and convince them to take an interest!

Pennsylvania Elected Officials

Governor:

Tom Ridge
[phone]
[e-mail]

Senators:

Arlen Specter (R)
[phone]
[e-mail]

Rick Santorum (R)
[phone]
[e-mail]

Representatives:

1st District
Thomas Foglietta (D)
[phone]

2nd District
Chaka Fattah (D)
[phone]

3rd District
Robert Borski (D)
[phone]

4th District
Ron Klink (D)
[phone]

5th District
William Clinger (R)
[phone]

6th District
Tim Holden (D)
[phone]

7th District
Curt Weldon (R)
[phone]
[e-mail]

8th District
James Greenwood (R)
[phone]

9th District
Bud Shuster (R)
[phone]

10th District
Joseph McDade (R)
[phone]

11th District
Paul Kanjorski (D)
[phone]
[e-mail]

12th District
John Murtha (D)
[phone]
[e-mail]

13th District
Jon Fox (R)
[phone]
[e-mail]

14th District
William Coyne (D)
[phone]

15th District
Paul McHale (D)
[phone]
[e-mail]

16th District
Robert Walker (R)
[phone]
[e-mail]

17th District
George Gekas (R)
[phone]

18th District
Mike Doyle (D)
[phone]

19th District
Bill Goodling (R)
[phone]

20th District
Frank Mascara (D)
[phone]

21st District
Phil English (R)
[phone]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 96 15:47:45 +0300
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 4--Anon.penet.fi is closed!

Due to both the ever-increasing workload and the current uncertain
legal status of the privacy of e-mail in Finland, I have now closed
down this service until further notice. For now, you can still mail
NON-ANONYMOUSLY to existing [e-mail] users using the
[e-mail] address convention, so that you might
establish another way to communicate with people you only know by
their anon.penet.fi address, but news postings and anonymous mail is
not supported.

To use the non-anonymous forwarding service, you have to modify the
anon address by swapping the first two letters (an to na, standing
for Not Anonymous), so that [e-mail] becomes
[e-mail]. But remember that your address will *not* be
removed - this method is only intended as a stop-gap to enable you
to establish another way of communicating with the people you only
know by their anon.penet.fi addresses.

If you feel that the service has been valuable, you can send a
letter of support to [e-mail], and likewise, if you
feel it is a good thing the remailer has gone off the air, you can
use the address [e-mail] to outline your reasons. As
people always ask me why anyone would need a service such as
anon.penet.fi, I am collecting case stories at [e-mail].

I have now maintained this service for over 3 years, and as there
have appeared a number of other similar, reliable and well
maintained servers, I feel we have reached a situation where the
current anon.penet.fi server can be retired. Thank you for a very
interesting time on the net!

    Julf

P.S.: More info and the full press release on http://www.penet.fi/

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

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 08:34:37 -0500
From: Charles Stanford <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--Press Release on anon.penet.fi closing


                                PRESS RELEASE
                                30.8.1996

Johan Helsingius closes his Internet remailer

   Johan Helsingius has decided to close his Internet remailer. The
   so-called anon.penet.fi anonymous remailer is the most popular
   remailer in the world, with more than half a million users.

   "I will close down the remailer for the time being because the legal
   issues governing the Internet in Finland are yet undefined. The legal
   protection of the users needs to be clarified. At the moment the
   privacy of Internet messages is judicially unclear."

   The idea of an anonymous remailer is to protect the confidentiality of
   its users' identity. The remailer itself does not store messages but
   serves as a channel for message transmission. The remailer forwards
   messages without the identity of the original sender.

   Finland is one of the leading countries in Internet usage. Therefore
   all decisions and changes made in Finland arouse wide international
   interest.

   "I have developed and maintained the remailer in my free time for over
   three years now. It has taken up a lot of time and energy. Internet
   has changed a lot in these three years - now there are dozens of
   remailers in the world, which offer similar services.

   I have also personally been a target because of the remailer.
   Unjustified accusations affect both my job and my private life", says
   Johan Helsingius.

   The closing of the remailer will raise a lot of discussion among the
   Internet community. "Remailers have made it possible for people to
   discuss very sensitive matters, such as domestic violence, school
   bullying or human rights issues anonymously and confidentially on the
   Internet. The closing of anon.penet.fi will make it harder to discuss
   these matters.", says Helsingius.

Child porn claims proven false

   Last Sunday's issue of the English newspaper Observer claimed that the
   remailer has been used for transmitting child pornography pictures.
   The claims have been investigated by the Finnish police. Observer's
   claims have been found groundless.

   Police sergeant Kaj Malmberg from the Helsinki Police Crime Squad is
   specialized in investigating computer crimes. He confirms that more
   than a year ago Johan Helsingius restricted the operations of his
   remailer so that it cannot transmit pictures.

   "The true amount of child pornography on the Internet is difficult to
   assess, but one thing is clear: We have not found any cases where
   child porn pictures were transmitted from Finland", Kaj Malmberg says.

Basic rules need to be clarified

   There are several significant projects going on in Finland at the
   moment that deal with the impact of information technology. Johan
   Helsingius is a participant in both the [1]TIVEKE project run by the
   Ministry of Communications and the [2]Information Society Forum
   project run by the Ministry of Finance. These projects assess the
   political and social issues of networks and the impact of information
   technology. However, these projects need the support of practical,
   down-to-earth work to highlight current problems and suggest possible
   solutions.

   Johan Helsingius has taken an initiative to set up a working group to
   discuss the practical problems related to ethical and civil rights
   issues in connection with the Internet.

   "I will try to set up a task force which will include Internet experts
   together with representatives of civic organizations and public
   authorities. The group could suggest ways to deal with problems such
   as the lack of guidelines in applying the existing laws on the
   Internet. I hope that the results of this work will support the
   development of the network", he says.

   For further information, please contact

   Johan Helsingius
   Oy Penetic Ab
   e-mail: [3][e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 19:47:45 +0200
From: Hari Kunzru <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--"Wired UK" response to Observer Article

Review Editor, Wired UK, from Public Netbase, Vienna, Austria (www.t0.or.at)

**** BEGINS ****

Dear Will Hutton

Your cover splash on paedophilia and the Internet last week was a disgrace
to the traditions of liberal, intelligent journalism that I and others have
always looked for in The Observer - a tradition of telling the truth and
serving the public. It was a disservice to your readers, an affront to
those of us who care about the future of the Internet - and a setback to
the cause of fighting the brutalisation and molestation of children.

Your piece implies that companies which provide full access to the Usenet
newsgroups on the Internet - in particular Demon - are willing links in a
chain of pederasty. It suggests that if the strictures being urged on these
providers by the Clubs and Vice Unit of the Metropolitan Police were
heeded, and these companies took data from various Internet newsgroups off
their machines, then the problem would be eased. It does not mention that
the Met's list of newsgroups is a mixed bunch, some of which (for example,
alt.homosexual) are not pornographic.

The truth of the matter is that such a change would achieve little if
anything. Full newsgroup access is currently available from hundreds of
machines all over the world, all of them accessible through all Internet
providers. So as a pragmatic measure in the fight against child abuse,
removing them from the computers of British companies is futile. It is hard
to understand as anything other than a gesture - a threatening one,
designed to show that the police can shut down newsgroups without any need
to show cause or prove a case.

The argument that Demon and many other Internet providers are making is
that the law should recognise that they are not responsible for information
that is accessed through their computers. In this, they ask for the same
treatment that phone companies and post offices get. Your article quoted
DCI French of the Clubs and Vice unit saying that "Morally you cannot adopt
this position." If this is the case, why not put a director of BT on your
front page with the caption "Millionaire behind the sordid phone sex
business". Behind the Internet business, too, for that matter - the system
uses BT's lines. Are you saying that BT is responsible, too?

Obviously not. Paedophiles are responsible for paedophilia - not telecoms
companies or Internet providers. But your article chose to ignore this and
look elsewhere - at Demon and at Johan Helsingius, who runs a non-profit
computer system in Finland which puts computer files on to the Internet
without any sign of their original provenance. This is a service with many
uses. It helps in anonymous counselling, it helps in whistle-blowing. You
claim that it is used for 90% of the Internet's child porn - a claim for
which I could see no credible support. Mr Helsingius stops messages going
to newsgroups that have been brought to his attention as likely to carry
child pornography. His system can be accessed by policemen who go to the
trouble of getting a warrant (and the Finnish police do not think that
there is a child porn problem in the system). It retransmits only short
text files, extraordinarily poorly suited to imagery. And it cannot in
itself be used, as your article suggests, to participate in anything "live"
or "interactive".

In short, the article on your front page and its companion inside are
shoddy work. When evidence from the Internet is not available, they bring
forward the use paedophiles make of videos and magazine photographs - thus
underlining the crucial point that the Internet is not the cause of all
this. The truth of the matter is that networks of pederasts existed prior
to, and independently of, the Internet. Much of the current outrage comes
from the fact that the Internet is revealing new aspects of this unhappy
state of affairs. And those who look beyond a knee-jerk shoot-the-messenger
response see that the Internet can in fact be used to fight the scourge.
The Dutch police, rather than attacking the companies that provide access
to the Internet, are using the Internet as a way of finding child
pornography. They are establishing web sites and hotlines whereby people
can help them in this work. When they find perpetrators in their
jurisdiction, they prosecute. They are eager that other police forces work
with them in exploring these avenues.

The position The Observer took last week will not bring about an end to
paedophile crimes. It will instead usher in a new era of arbitrary
censorship and surveillance. You
vilify Johan Helsingius for reposting anonymous messages. Presumably then
you would applaud if he read all of the messages which passed through his
machine and deleted those which he disapproved of? And you would encourage
other media -- like Demon, the Royal Mail and BT -- to do the same? You
vilify Demon for not immediately banning the newsgroups as requested by
Scotand Yard. Presumably then you are happy that Scotland Yard should draw
up lists of material which it deems unsuitable for public consumption and
enforce them without judicial, political or public review?

In your other articles, you document real evidence of real suffering caused
by this disgusting trade. These offer real constructive ways of fighting
this evil: combating child-sex tourism, tracking down paedophiles
themselves, creating an intelligent debate about images of children in the
mainstream media. In attacking Internet service providers you not only
endanger freedom of expression on a nascent medium - a freedom about which
many care passionately. You also take people attention away from the real
problem, which is attacking the practising paedophiles.

Mr Hutton, I'm not blind to the fact that people use the Internet to
distribute revolting material the creation of which is clearly criminal. It
is something that a lot of people, online as well as off, want to do
something about. But it's not Demon's business or Demon's fault. It's not
something that the Met's cosmetic censorship strategy will change. It's not
why Mr Helsingius does what he does. And it's not something that journalism
like this will stop.

Sincerely

Oliver Morton
Editor
Wired UK

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:36:28 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--London Observer replies (9/1/96) (fwd)

[e-mail] (Mlissa3379)
Newsgroups--alt.censorship
Subject--Re--Against PICS and Internet Censorship

The Observer today published an editorial in response to their articles
last week. Comment, for or against?

The Observer, 1 September, 1996

Editorial comment

In a philosophical tangle over the Net

THERE ARE two substantial objections to the story and comment that we
ran last week over the transmission of paedophile material on the
Internet, which aroused a fierce response on both sides.  The first is
philosophical.  No state or regulatory intervention can be justified in
the free world of cyberspace.  The Internet is the embodiment of
individual liberty.

The second is technical.  The Observer betrayed a lack of understanding
of the Internet - how it works and how impossible, even self-defeating,
any form of regulation might be.  Given the millions of transactions
that occur daily across national boundaries, cyberspace cannot be
successfully regulated.  Worse, the anonymous servers that might be used
by sexual deviants can also be used, for example, by victims of
political persecution.  This is much more complex than we indicated.

The philosophical issue is comparatively simple.  Freedom of expression
in civil society is qualified by rules - over, say, incitement to racial
hatred or sexual indecency.  John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty,
accepted the need for constraints of this type on individual freedom;
even this ardent defender of liberty recognised it cannot be an
absolute.  The Internet is emerging as a major cultural and
communications force; its freedoms must be protected even while it
conforms to the same democratically established rules as apply in normal
society.

The effectiveness of intervention is more difficult.  We report today on
some ideas.  Service providers can adopt codes of practice and patrol
their web sites more intensively; regulatory agencies can establish
hotlines to which users can report illegal material (such a scheme is
already up and running in the Netherlands); and there is the
international cybercop unit established last week by the World Congress
against the sexual exploitation of children.  New legal obligations
might have to be accepted by service providers.

The Observer is on the side of the Internet, but against the abuse that
succours the sexual exploitation of children.  Those who say taking such
a position is absurd, because of the nature of the Internet, should
pause.  If so, what future is there for our civilisation?

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Noah <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 8--British Hacker ("The Squidge") Arrested (fwd)

From -Noah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:26:00 -0500
From--Frosty <[e-mail]>

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
C Y B E R - S P A C E  P R O J E C T  Email List   /  Instructions at the end
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

Nexus :::

[e-mail]                             Cap'n B at Rabbit
Solutions, UK

ENGLAND:

The Squidge was arrested at his home yesterday under the Computer Misuse
Act. A long standing member of the US group the *Guild, Squidge was silent
today after being released but it appears no formal charges will be made
until further interviews have taken place.

Included in the arrest were the confiscation of his computer equipment
including two Linux boxes and a Sun Sparc. A number of items described as
'telecommunications devices' were also seized as evidence.

Following the rumours of ColdFire's recent re-arrest for cellular fraud
this could mean a new crackdown on hacking and phreaking by the UK
authorities. If this is true, it could spell the end for a particularly
open period in h/p history when notable figures have been willing to
appear more in public.

We will attempt to release more information as it becomes available.

(not posted by Squidge)

--
    Brought to you by The NeXus.....

* [e-mail]    aka ---* Frosty, ilKhan of the SotMESC
* To send a submission, use this address with 'CSP' in the Subject line
* Thanks to: Voyager, 2600, LOD, Knight Lightning, the Unabomber, etc
* for supporting us with our scholarship fund and humanity award.
* Finger SotMESC or http://www.datasync.com/sotmesc/gcms

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 9--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)
         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 #8.64
************************************