The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud966.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 42.6 KB | 893 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Sep 3, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 66
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas ([e-mail])
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.66 (Wed, Sep 3, 1997)

File 1--High Profile Detainee Seeks Legal Help
File 2--Kevin Mitnick Press Release
File 3--Strangelovian pronouncements from the Hudson Institute
File 4--EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian
File 5--On Media Hacks and Hackers (Crypt reprint)
File 6--Digital Highway Robbery (fwd)
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:08:09 -0400
From: Evian Sim <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--High Profile Detainee Seeks Legal Help

September 3, 1997

Mr. Kevin Mitnick has been detained in Federal custody without
bail on computer "hacking" allegations for over thirty months.
Having no financial resources, Mr. Mitnick has been appointed
counsel from the Federal Indigent Defense Panel.  As such, Mr.
Mitnick's representation is limited; his attorney is not permitted
to assist with civil actions, such as filing a Writ of Habeas
Corpus.

For the past two years, Mr. Mitnick has attempted to assist in his
own defense by conducting legal research in the inmate law library
at the Metropolitan Detention Center (hereinafter "MDC") in Los
Angeles, California.  Mr. Mitnick's research includes reviewing
court decisions for similar factual circumstances which have
occurred in his case.  MDC prison officials have been consistently
hampering Mr. Mitnick's efforts by denying him reasonable access
to law library materials.  Earlier this year, Mr. Mitnick's lawyer
submitted a formal request to Mr. Wayne Siefert, MDC Warden,
seeking permission to allow his client access to the law library
on the days set aside for inmates needing extra law library time.
The Warden refused.

In August 1995, Mr. Mitnick filed an administrative remedy request
with the Bureau of Prisons complaining that MDC policy in
connection with inmate access to law library materials does not
comply with Federal rules and regulations.  Specifically, the
Warden established a policy for MDC inmates that detracts from
Bureau of Prison's policy codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Briefly, Federal law requires the Warden to grant additional law
library time to an inmate who has an "imminent court deadline".
The MDC's policy circumvents this law by erroneously interpreting
the phrase "imminent court deadline" to include other factors,
such as, whether an inmate exercises his right to assistance of
counsel, or the type of imminent court deadline.
 For example, MDC policy does not consider detention (bail),
motion, status conference, or sentencing hearings as imminent
court deadlines for represented inmates.  MDC officials use this
policy as a tool to subject inmates to arbitrary and capricious
treatment.  It appears MDC policy in connection with inmate legal
activities is inconsistent with Federal law and thereby affects
the substantial rights of detainees which involve substantial
liberty interests.

In June 1997, Mr. Mitnick finally exhausted administrative
remedies with the Bureau of Prisons.  Mr. Mitnick's only avenue of
vindication is to seek judicial review in a Court of Law.  Mr.
Mitnick wishes to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his
conditions of detention, and a motion to compel Federal
authorities to follow their own rules and regulations.

Mr. Mitnick is hoping to find someone with legal experience, such
as an attorney or a law student willing to donate some time to
this cause to insure fair treatment for everyone, and to allow
detainees to effectively assist in their own defense without
"Government" interference.  Mr. Mitnick needs help drafting a
Habeas Corpus petition with points and authorities to be submitted
by him pro-se.  His objective is to be granted reasonable access
to law library materials to assist in his own defense.

If you would like to help Kevin, please contact him at the
following address:

    Mr. Kevin Mitnick
    Reg. No. 89950-012
    P.O. Box 1500
    Los Angeles, CA 90053-1500

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:13:29 -0400
From: Evian Sim <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Kevin Mitnick Press Release

Press Release
August 7, 1997

THE UNITED STATES V. KEVIN DAVID MITNICK

I.  Proceedings to Date

With 25 counts of alleged federal computer and wire fraud violations still
pending against him, the criminal prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is
approaching its most crucial hour.  The trial is anticipated to begin in
January, 1998.  In reaching this point, however, Kevin has already
experienced years of legal battles over alleged violations of the
conditions of his supervised release and for possession of unauthorized
cellular access codes.

A.  Settling the "Fugitive" Question

The seemingly unexceptional charges relating to supervised release
violations resulted in months of litigation when the government attempted
to tack on additional allegations for conduct occurring nearly three years
after the scheduled expiration of Kevin's term of supervised release in
December, 1992.  The government claimed that Kevin had become a fugitive
prior to the expiration of his term, thereby "tolling" the term and
allowing for the inclusion of additional charges.  After months of
increasingly bold assertions concerning Kevin's "fugitive" status,
evidentiary hearings were held in which the government was forced to
concede that its original position in this matter was unsupported by the
facts.

B.  Sentencing

In June of this year Kevin was sentenced for certain admitted violations of
his supervised release and for possession of unauthorized access codes.
The court imposed a sentence of 22 months instead of the 32 months sought
by the government.  Since Kevin has been in custody since his arrest in
February 1995, this sentence has been satisfied.  We are currently
preparing a request for release on bail.

During this stage of the proceedings, the government sought to impose
restrictions on Kevin's access to computers which were so severe as to
virtually prohibit him from functioning altogether in today's society.  The
proposed restrictions sought to completely prohibit Kevin from "using or
possessing" all computer hardware equipment, software programs, and
wireless communications equipment.  After arguments that such restrictions
unduly burdened Kevin's freedom to associate with the on-line computer
community and were not reasonably necessary to ensure the protection of the
public, the court modified its restrictions by allowing for computer access
with the consent of the Probation Office.  Nonetheless, the defense
believes that the severe restrictions imposed upon Mr. Mitnick are
unwarranted in this case and is, therefore, pursuing an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit.

II.  The Government Seeks to make an Example of Mr. Mitnick

One of the strongest motivating factors for the government in the
prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is a desire to send a message to other
would-be "hackers".  The government has hyped this prosecution by
exaggerating the value of loss in the case, seeking unreasonably stiff
sentences, and by painting a portrait of Kevin which conjures the likeness
of a cyber-boogie man.

There are a number of objectives prompting the government's tactics in this
respect.  First, by dramatically exaggerating the amount of loss at issue
in the case (the government arbitrarily claims losses exceed some $80
million) the government can seek a longer sentence and create a
high-profile image for the prosecution.  Second, through a long sentence
for Kevin, the government hopes to encourage more guilty pleas in future
cases against other hackers.  For example, a prosecutor offering a moderate
sentence in exchange for a guilty plea would be able to use Kevin Mitnick's
sentence as an example of what "could happen" if the accused decides to go
to trial.  Third, by striking fear into the hearts of the public over the
dangers of computer hackers, the government hopes to divert scrutiny away
from its own game-plan regarding the control and regulation of the Internet
and other telecommunications systems.

III.  Crime of Curiosity

The greatest injustice in the prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is revealed when
one examines the actual harm to society (or lack thereof) which resulted
from Kevin's actions.  To the extent that Kevin is a "hacker" he must be
considered a purist.  The simple truth is that Kevin never sought monetary
gain from his hacking, though it could have proven extremely profitable.
Nor did he hack with the malicious intent to damage or destroy other
people's property.  Rather, Kevin pursued his hacking as a means of
satisfying his intellectual curiosity and applying Yankee ingenuity.  These
attributes are more frequently promoted rather than punished by society.

The ongoing case of Kevin Mitnick is gaining increased attention as the
various issues and competing interests are played out in the arena of the
courtroom.  Exactly who Kevin Mitnick is and what he represents, however,
is ultimately subject to personal interpretation and to the legacy which
will be left by "The United States v. Kevin David Mitnick".

  ______________________________
Donald C. Randolph

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 17:48:41 -0700
From: Jonathan Wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject:Ratings Systems for the Web (SLAC Bulletin fwd, 1 sept)

SLAC Bulletin September 1, 1997
-----------------------------

 The SLAC bulletin is a periodic mailer on Internet freedom of
speech issues from the authors of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry
Holt 1996).  For more information, contact Jonathan Wallace,
[e-mail], or visit our Web pages at
http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/.

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

RATINGS SYSTEMS FOR THE WEB

by Jonathan Wallace [e-mail]

In our book, we supported self-rating of Web sites as
good citizenship. Not long after the book came out, I
had serious second thoughts about this; one of the
first essays distributed to the SLAC list was entitled
"Why I Will Not Rate My Site"
(http://www.spectacle.org/cda/rate.html).

Now, the issue of ratings systems has come to the fore
again. The Supreme Court threw out the Communications
Decency Act in June, and the same organizations that
defended the CDA--Focus on the Family, Enough is
Enough, The American Family Association--are out there
arguing for ratings systems. President Clinton has
supported this idea with some vague words about "a
V-chip for the Internet." And Senator Murray of
Washington, among others, has introduced legislation
calling for mandatory self-rating and criminal
prosecution for mis-rating of Web sites.

This week in New York,  a group of news organizations
got together in New York and agreed that they would not
rate their sites. This was an act of courage, possibly
a major crack in the facade, as some of these
organizations had previously been favorable to ratings.
But how do you rate the news? It portrays violence
every day, as it covers wars and revolutions around the
world. Are photographs of starving children or massacre
victims pornography?  Do you want to prevent your
children from reading news on the Web?

Let's distinguish three possible approaches to ratings:
third party ratings systems, self-rating, government
rating. In the third scenario--unlikely--the government
picks everyone's rating. Let's discard that one and
talk about the other two.

In a third party rating system, the American Family
Association puts up its own server, which rates the Net
according to the AFA's values. So do the People for the
American Way (progressive-left organization), the
Christian Coalition, the AFL-CIO, etc. etc. You use
software which checks the server of your chosen
organization to determine the acceptability of a Web
site. All of this is free choice based on a free
market; you are paying for the software; the government
is nowhere in the picture. No-one has placed a rating
on their own site; and anyone who chooses can avoid
ratings systems entirely, choosing not to use any of
the third party servers available.

By contrast, self-ratings force us to a one-size fits
all system. How do I select a rating for my own pages?
When I wrote that I would not rate my own site, I was
concerned about my Auschwitz Alphabet pages
(http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html) which contain
explicit descriptions of human medical experimentation
and upsetting photographs. Do I rate them the same way
as Sexyweb.com? Will we create a rating system which is
so fine-tuned it contains gradations for "Mindless
violence", "news violence," and "Violence with
redeeming social value"? If so, what parent is going to
want to fine-tune browser software with hundreds of
available choices?

This problem exists before the government even gets
involved--but is much exacerbated by the passage of
laws against mistaken self-rating. Suppose I give An
Auschwitz Alphabet the equivalent of a PG rating, and
then a parent in Tennessee complains to the local
prosecutor? Government enforcement of "voluntary"
ratings will certainly engender these kinds of
nightmares.

If I refuse to rate my site at all, most of the
software available under a self-ratings system will
block it along with all other unrated sites.  (Earlier
this summer, there was a report, later denied, that the
next release of Microsoft Internet Explorer would come
configured, out of the box, to block unrated sites.
Ironically, Microsoft's MSN is one of the organizations
now refusing ratings.) Thus, I will eventually give up
the majority of my monthly audience of more than 20,000
people.

The problem with ratings is similar to the problems
with computer software in general--you can have systems
that are easy to use, or systems that are powerful, but
not both.  An easy to use ratings system would contain
five or six ratings, like the Motion Picture
Association of America  scheme. But such a system would
not have the precision necessary to distinguish An
Auschwitz Alphabet from Sexyweb.com.

A system capable of making very fine distinctions
between works of entertainment value appealing only to
prurient instincts and works entertaining for other
reasons, between works of news, historical, cultural,
scientific and artistic value, would have to contain
thousands  of gradations.  And who is qualified to
judge? The work of rating literary works has been going
on since there have been literary works--we call it
"criticism".  If you can't get, say, Edmund Wilson,
Alfred Kazin et al. to agree on the value of a
particular work, who else can you trust to do so? Will
you trust the author himself, and then clap him in jail
if his ego leads him to mis-rate?

About a year and a half ago, a free speech activist in
Canada carried out a successful April Fool's Day joke:
he circulated a file calling for the rating of all
library books with a bar code system.  Many people took
the mail seriously and reacted with horror. Not all of
them were equally horrified about rating the Net. But
what is the difference? Why is An Auschwitz Alphabet
sacrosanct if printed on paper, but subject to rating
if posted on the Web?

Last night I watched a discussion on a show called The
Web, a CNet production which runs on the Science
Fiction channel. A representative of Enough is Enough
debated the Webmistress of Sexyweb.com. The moderator
asked smart questions, but the battle over ratings was
lost at the moment the producer picked the guests. The
owners of X-rated services are among the only content
providers who will be happy to self-rate, and who will
pick the most stringent possible ratings, to protect
themselves against obscenity prosecutions if possible.
They will still make their dollar.  It is the rest of
us--the amateur providers of serious, sometimes
controversial content on the Web--who have the most to
fear from a government-backed ratings system.

If you want to support third party ratings servers on
the Web, go right ahead. I'll ignore their existence.  But I
remain convinced that if we see a "voluntary" self-rating system
backed by government enforcement, my only choice will be to refuse
to rate my pages. And to disappear from the screens of most of my
readers.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:48:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Crypt Newsletter <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--Strangelovian pronouncements from the Hudson Institute

The declarations of think tank national security mandarins always
make for good reading.  The Hudson Institute, founded in 1961 by
one of the prototypes for Dr. Strangelove -- Herman Kahn, is chock
full of such individuals.  And ex-NSA chief William Odom is its
director of security studies.

And so it is in this rarefied atmosphere that Mary C. FitzGerald,
one of the institute's research fellows, a self-confessed
"computer illiterate," came to write about a subject she called
"Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare."

The Russians, she wrote recently, are planning on using computer
viruses delivered over the Net to smite their enemies in time of
war.  As proof of the veracity of the plan, FitzGerald cites the
story of a computer virus, written by the U.S. military, that
struck down the Iraqi air defense network in the Gulf War.

The only trouble with this particular story is that it is, indeed,
only that. In fact, it's one of the more persistent myths about
computer viruses.

This legend was the result of an April Fool's hoax run amok.
Appearing in an April 1991 issue of Infoworld magazine, the Gulf
War virus story was a cleverly written joke by reporter John Gantz
who called it "totally a spoof." Gullible editors at US News &
World Report bit hard and paved it over as a hot scoop. The news
magazine subsequently immortalized it in its 1992 book on the
conflict, "Triumph Without Victory." Since then it's also been
passed on in a number of official U.S. Department of Defense
documents.

Unsurprisingly, FitzGerald refused to believe it was an April
Fool's joke. The Russians believed it, she said.  Experts from
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory believed it -- she said.
Officials from Northrop Grumman were coming to interview her --
she said.  So FitzGerald insisted she believed it, too.

Information warriors at the USAF's College of Aerospace Doctrine
at Maxwell AFB in Alabama have coined the term "fictive
environment" to describe what happens when bogus tales are spun to
deceive the enemy during Net war. Ironically, FitzGerald is also
an adjunct professor at Maxwell. At Crypt News, we don't call this
"fictive environment." We call it being gored by your own bull.

George Smith, Crypt Newsletter
[e-mail]

Additional material on this topic of interest was/is published in
current issues of the Netly News and Crypt Newsletter.

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:24:08 -0400
From: Marc Rotenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian

Press Release
August 29, 1997

                   EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian

The Electronic Privacy Information Center said today that Experian
has misled consumers and ISPs about a new on-line service that
will likely increase the amount of SPAM that Internet users
receive.

In an August 21, 1997 press release Experian claims that "EHI's
program as been reviewed by the Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
Both organizations approve of the program's respect for consumer
privacy."

Contrary to Experian claims, EPIC conducted no formal review of
the program, did not approve of the program's practices, and did
not consent to the use of EPIC's name in Experian's promotional
statements.

At a metting in Washington earlier this year, Experian's Ian Oxman
was told repeatedely that EPIC would not and could not endorse
this program. When word got out that Experian intended to include
EPIC's name in the EHI press release, Mr. Oxman was instructed by
an email to remove EPIC's name.

Marc Rotenberg, director of EPIC, said that "the EHI program fails
to uphold basic fair information practices. There is no
opportunity for users to correct or inspect their data, nor is
there any effort to control secondary use.  EHI offers one model
for controlling SPAM, but it is hardly ideal."

"We are particularly concerned that ISP's would get into the
business tracking preferences and sending SPAM to their own
customers. The privacy implications are staggering."

"We are also less than overwhelmed by Experian's recent success
with on-line database management."

"We urge ISPs that are want to maintain user trust and show
support for consumer privacy not to back the EHI effort,"
Rotenberg said.

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

Date: 27 Aug 97 00:36:12 EDT
From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--On Media Hacks and Hackers (Crypt reprint)

Source - CRYPT NEWSLETTER 44

ON MEDIA HACKS AND HACKERS: THE TROUBLE WITH JOURNALISTS IS . . .
THEY JUST WON'T STOP

In as fine a collection of stereotypes as can be found, the
Associated Press furnished a story on July 14 covering the annual
DefCon hacker get together in Las Vegas. It compressed at least one
hoary cliche into each paragraph.

Here is a summary of them.

The lead sentence: "They're self-described nerds . . . "

Then, in the next sentence, "These mostly gawky, mostly male
teen-agers . . . also are the country's smartest and slyest
computer hackers."

After another fifty words, "These are the guys that got beat up in
high school and this is their chance to get back . . . "

Add a sprinkling of the obvious: "This is a subculture of computer
technology . . ."

Stir in a paraphrased hacker slogan: "Hacking comes from an
intellectual desire to figure out how things work . . ."

A whiff of crime and the outlaw weirdo: "Few of these wizards will
identify themselves because they fear criminal prosecution . . .  a
25-year-old security analyst who sports a dog collar and nose ring,
is cautious about personal information."

Close with two bromides that reintroduce the stereotype:

"Hackers are not evil people. Hackers are kids."

As a simple satirical exercise, Crypt News rewrote the Associated
Press story as media coverage of a convention of newspaper editors.

It looked like this:

LAS VEGAS -- They're self-described nerds, dressing in starched
white shirts and ties.

These mostly overweight, mostly male thirty, forty and
fiftysomethings are the country's best known political pundits,
gossip columnists and managing editors. On Friday, more than 1,500
of them gathered in a stuffy convention hall to swap news and
network.

"These are the guys who ate goldfish and dog biscuits at frat
parties in college and this is their time to strut," said Drew
Williams, whose company, Hill & Knowlton, wants to enlist the best
editors and writers to do corporate p.r.

"This is a subculture of corporate communicators," said Williams.

Journalism comes from an intellectual desire to be the town crier
and a desire to show off how much you know, convention-goers said.
Circulation numbers and ad revenue count for more than elegant
prose and an expose on the President's peccadillos gains more
esteem from ones' peers than klutzy jeremiads about corporate
welfare and white-collar crime.

One group of paunchy editors and TV pundits were overheard joking
about breaking into the lecture circuit, where one well-placed talk
to a group of influential CEOs or military leaders could earn more
than many Americans make in a year.

Few of these editors would talk on the record for fear of
professional retribution. Even E.J., a normally voluble 45-year-old
Washington, D.C., editorial writer, was reticent.

"Columnists aren't just people who write about the political
scandal of the day," E.J. said cautiously. "I like to think of
columnists as people who take something apart that, perhaps, didn't
need taking apart."

"We are not evil people. We're middle-aged, professional
entertainers in gray flannel suits."

  +++++++++

["Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the
Electronic Frontier" by Suelette Dreyfus with research by Julian
Assange, Mandarin, 475 pp.]

Excerpts and ordering information for "Underground" can be found
on the Web at http://www.underground-book.com .

George Smith, Ph.D., edits the Crypt Newsletter from Pasadena,
CA.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:17:37 +0100
From: "Richard K. Moore" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Digital Highway Robbery (fwd)

from The Nation Digital Edition
        http://www.thenation.com


                        Digital Highway Robbery

                Where is the "competition"  the Telecom-
                munications Act was supposed to provide?


                        By  Robert W. McChesney


The 1996 Telecommunications Act has just marked its first year of
existence. From Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich, the bipartisan proponents of
the legislation promised it would unleash a "digital revolution," combining
fantastic technologies with the genius of the unregulated market. At the
very least, competition would improve products and services and lower cable
and telephone charges for consumers. In the long run, the
Telecommunications Act would usher in the Information Age, an era of
unprecedented human freedom and economic prosperity. None of the above
promises have materialized, nor is there any reason to believe they will.
Here's what has happened:

In early February, the Federal Communications Commission began allocating
the digital spectrum to the existing commercial broadcasters. Without any
public debate or competitive arrangement, the largest media companies in
the world are being handed what could become the equivalent of at least
five new channels in every market where they currently own one. This
near-secret process virtually guarantees that Disney/Cap Cities, Time
Warner, General Electric, Westinghouse, Viacom, the Tribune Company and the
News Corporation, among others, can maintain their rule over U.S. media for
another generation or two. It is worth noting that The Washington Post
estimated the value of this digital spectrum to run as high as $70 billion.
The stench of corruption is so thick that The Wall Street Journal even ran
a front-page article on March 17 deploring the giveaway, and Bob Dole
followed suit in a New York Times Op-Ed two weeks later. As Senator John
McCain puts it, broadcasters "are about to pull off one of the great scams
in American history."

Since the Telecommunications Act gave a green light to consolidation by
lifting many media ownership restrictions and advising the F.C.C. to
eliminate the rest as soon as possible, its passage was like firing the gun
to launch the Oklahoma land rush. In telephony, the seven regional Baby
Bells will soon be reduced to five because of the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX and
PacTel-SBC Communications mergers. MCI is joining with British Telecom, and
almost all industry analysts expect even more consolidation in the next few
years. MCI president Gerald Taylor states that the probable outcome will be
"four to six global gangs" dominating the world telecommunications market.
The recent World Trade Organization telecommunications "liberalization"
deal -- pushed for by the United States on behalf of its telecom firms --
almost assures that outcome.

In broadcasting, the major networks are now permitted to own stations
reaching up to 35 percent of the population, and there are loopholes that
effectively make the percentage somewhat higher. Rupert Murdoch's Fox
Broadcasting purchased the New World chain in 1996 and now has twenty-two
stations reaching 40 percent of the population. Westinghouse's CBS, G.E.'s
NBC and Disney's ABC are all shopping to expand their holdings to the legal
limit. In radio, the restrictions were loosened even more, and the past
year has seen a wave of unprecedented consolidation. The two largest radio
chains now control some 180 stations between them; one, Westinghouse,
captures 40 percent of all radio revenues in New York, Chicago,
Philadelphia and Boston. In cable television, as Variety notes, "mergers
and consolidations have transformed the cable-network marketplace into a
walled-off community controlled by a handful of media monoliths."

To communications companies, then, the act has been a big success. The U.S.
commercial media system is currently dominated by a few conglomerates --
Disney, the News Corporation, G.E., cable giant T.C.I., Universal, Sony,
Time Warner and Viacom -- with annual media sales ranging from $7 billion
to $23 billion. These giants are often major players in broadcast TV, cable
TV, film production, music production, book publishing, magazine
publishing, theme parks and retail operations. The system has a second tier
of another fifteen or so companies, like Gannett, Cox Communications, Dow
Jones, The New York Times Co. and Newhouse's Advance Communications, with
annual sales ranging from $1 billion to $5 billion.

That the 1996 Telecommunications Act's most immediate effect was to
sanctify this concentrated corporate control is not surprising; its true
mission never had anything to do with increasing competition or empowering
consumers. Among other things, it was about getting the issue of
fundamental communications policy-making off the Congressional and public
agenda and safely installed in the hands of the F.C.C. and other
administrative agencies, where special interests duke it out for the best
possible deals with minimal or nonexistent public involvement. It was also
about having a statute that rejected the notion that there was a public
interest in communication that the market could not satisfy. The only
debate concerned whether the cable companies, the broadcasters, the Baby
Bells or the long-distance carriers would get the most breaks. A few crumbs
were tossed to "special interest" groups like schools and hospitals, but
only when they didn't interfere with the pro-business thrust of the
legislation.

Why did Congress give the act such overwhelming bipartisan approval? Most
members of Congress are very comfortable handing issues over to big
business, especially when the corporate cause is encased in the approved
jargon of "choice," "competition," "free markets" and the like. Also, the
debate was framed in terms of technocratic issues that few members could
possibly have understood. Finally, one need only look at the strength of
the broadcast, cable, computer and telecommunications lobbies. The National
Association of Broadcasters, for example, is generally regarded as one of
the two or three most dominant lobbies in Washington, if not the absolute
leader. The N.A.B.'s PAC alone -- not to mention member companies and
executives -- has increased its contributions to Congressional races
fivefold over the past decade, to nearly $1 million by 1996. The phone
companies are every bit as lavish.

By any known theory of democracy, such a concentration of control over
media into so few hands, especially hands that have distinct self-interests
that are often at odds with the needs of a democratic political culture, is
a severe problem. Yet the sponsors of the Telecommunications Act said not
to worry. If their beloved "free" market didn't introduce competition and
break up the corporate media monopoly, digital technology and the Internet
would.

Yet it is with the Internet that the Telecommunications Act reaches tragic
proportions. In keeping with the model the corporate giants prefer, the key
decisions on the Net's future will be made by the F.C.C. and other
administrative bodies, and these decisions, unbeknown to the general
public, will probably determine its future course. Guided by the dictum
"Whoever makes the most money sets the course," the Internet has already
turned dramatically away from the noncommercial, nonprofit, independent and
open public sphere that it promised to be just a few years ago. The media,
telecommunications and computer giants are doing everything within their
power to see that the Internet is drawn into their empires. The outcome is
still very much in doubt -- and the Internet will likely remain a
tremendous and even revolutionary asset in many respects -- but there is
little reason to believe that digital technology unaided by social policy
can miraculously overcome the power of the media and communications
conglomerates. As Frank Beacham, one of the Internet's earliest and most
fervent advocates, lamented last year, the market-driven Internet is
shifting "from being a participatory medium that serves the interests of
the public to being a broadcast medium where corporations deliver
consumer-oriented information. Interactivity would be reduced to little
more than sales transactions and e-mail."

The most disastrous consequence of the Telecommunications Act, however, may
well be the F.C.C.'s new policy to convert broadcasting from analog to
digital formats. The telecom law advised the F.C.C. to institute such a
policy and to favor the existing broadcasters (surprise, surprise), though
otherwise it provides little instruction on how best to proceed. With the
switch to digital television, the technical quality will improve, the
number of channels will have the potential to increase by a factor of at
least five and television sets will likely become a primary means for
Americans to access the World Wide Web. This will be a communications
revolution on the level of the introduction of AM radio in the twenties and
VHF television in the forties and fifties. "Everything will be different"
with digital television, F.C.C. chairman Reed Hundt proclaims. "The change
is so extreme that many people have not grasped it."

The White House and Hundt claim that handing out new licenses is no
giveaway, because while they will allow the existing commercial
broadcasters to use chunks of the digital spectrum at no charge (as is the
current practice) the F.C.C. will also require them to do some "public
interest" broadcasting for as much as 5 percent of their airtime. An
inkling of just how rigorous Hundt's new "public interest" standard might
be came last summer when the F.C.C. instituted a new policy whereby
commercial broadcasters are required to do three hours of children's
"educational" programming per week. The only catch is that these shows will
all be advertising-supported, which means that the basic problem is not
eliminated. The Wall Street Journal observes that many advertising agencies
regarded the deal as providing a "marketing bonanza" for Madison Avenue,
which is always on the lookout for new ways to carpet-bomb the "littlest
consumers."

The most "radical" public service proposal by Senator McCain, Hundt and the
Clinton Administration is to require some free airtime for political
candidates, whereas "moderates," like The New York Times, merely ask that
the broadcasters be required to speed the conversion to digital format.
Regardless of the final deal, when the dust clears the commercial
broadcasters will be sitting in the catbird seat. What is being negotiated
now are the terms of the surrender. Indeed, by proceeding with the spectrum
allocation before determining a public interest standard, the F.C.C. is
effectively giving away whatever leverage it might have.

The F.C.C.'s digital TV plan is a ripoff, pure and simple. Instead of six
to ten "free" channels in every market we may have forty to a hundred, but
they will be owned by the same corporations, all mimicking one another to
provide the tried and true commercial fare. Or the media giants may attempt
to use the spectrum for nonbroadcast applications, if that seems more
profitable. We are told by countless P.R. flacks that the commercial
broadcasters will "give the people what they want," but the truth is that
they will, as always, give advertisers and their shareholders what they
want. "We're here to serve advertisers," CBS C.E.O. Michael Jordan recently
stated. "That's our raison d'=EAtre."

In all these areas -- media and communications corporate concentration, the
Internet and digital television -- it is imperative that we have the public
debate that the corporate interests have done so much to prohibit. There
are lots of ideas floating around outside the corridors of power. Why not
lease the spectrum and use the proceeds ($2 billion to $5 billion annually)
to subsidize all forms of noncommercial broadcasting? Why not require
broadcasters to provide advertising-free news and children's programming
every day, and why not have the decisions for this programming made by
kids' TV producers and journalists, insteady of by Rupert Murdoch and other
corporate chieftains? Why not tax advertising and use those funds to
subsidize kids' TV and noncommercial journalism? Why not make sure that
there are dozens of digital TV channels for public access, community groups
and noncommercial utilization? Why not require as a licensing condition
that broadcasters not televise any political advertising? It is not enough
to give free airtime; we need to abolish the entirely bogus,
anti-democratic practice of TV political ads.

What we need then is another Telecommunications Act, but one that reflects
the full intelligence and interests of our population, not the needs of a
handful of super-powerful corporations. There has been a groundswell of
media activism in the past year or two, with the founding of the Cultural
Environment Movement and the Media & Democracy Congress, and the renewed
interest by organized labor in media policy issues. Moreover,
Representative Bernie Sanders and members of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus have earmarked breaking up the media as a key issue for democratic
politics. But we have a long way to go. The lesson for activists of all
stripes is clear: As long as we have the current media system, progressive
social change is going to be vastly more difficult, if not impossible. It
is incumbent upon all democratic activists to incorporate media politics
into their agenda.

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

Robert W. McChesney teaches journalism at the University of Wisconsin. He
is the author of Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (Seven
Stories) and co-author, with Edward S. Herman, of The Global Media: The New
Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism (Cassell).

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

Join a discussion in the Digital Edition Forums.
Or send your letter to the editor to [e-mail].

The Nation Digital Edition http://www.thenation.com


Copyright (c) 1997, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved.
Electronic redistribution for nonprofit purposes is permitted, provided
this notice is attached in its entirety. Unauthorized, for-profit
redistribution is prohibited. For further information regarding reprinting
and syndication, please call The Nation at [phone], ext. 226 or send
e-mail to Max Block at [e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)

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 (815-753-6436), 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);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: [phone]

  UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
    Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/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 #9.66
************************************