The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud987.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 42.5 KB | 957 lines

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Nov 26, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 87
                           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, #9.87 (Wed, Nov 26, 1997)

File 1--CyberPatrol, The Friendly Censor
File 2--Ghost Stories - Hudson Institutes info-war Hallucination (Crypt)
File 3--USACM Calls on Pres Clinton to Veto HR 2265
File 4--RE: Microsoft's licensing (Cu Digest, #9.86)
File 5--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: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:46:23 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 1--CyberPatrol, The Friendly Censor

CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor

By Jonathan Wallace [e-mail]

This is the second in a series of articles about
censorware products. The first, The X-Stop Files,
can be found at http://www.spectacle.org/cs/xstop.html.
The Censorware Page, http://www.spectacle.org/cs/,
contains continuing coverage of these issues and links to
other sites.
-------------------------------------------

"We didn't create our product for libraries," admits
Susan Getgood, director of marketing for Microsystems
Inc., distributors of CyberPatrol blocking software.
But Microsystems is in business to make a profit, and when
libraries come knocking on the door asking to buy
the product, the company will sell it to them.

Today, CyberPatrol is installed in at least
two major public library
systems, in Boston, Ma. and Austin, Tx. In the
former, after a bitter debate, it was installed on
terminals for use by people under 18 only.
In the latter, it was installed
on  all terminals; the library is now, after
many months, considering a pilot program to offer uncensored
Internet access to adults, on one out of fifty terminals.

News coverage of the blocking software industry has been
dominated by the antics of Brian Milburn, president
of rival Solid Oak Software, distributors of Cybersitter,
the product which, in pursuit of a
fundamentalist agenda, blocked the National Organization for
Women among numerous other sites. By contrast, Microsystems
has appeared to be the most reasonable and flexible of
blocking software providers. It maintains a review board
which meets every two months to review its blocking policies
and which includes members of the gay community. When authors
of web pages have complained to Microsystems that their sites
were blocked, Microsystems has frequently apologized for the
error and unblocked the sites in the product's next update.

I was one of those authors. In February of this year, I was
informed that CyberPatrol blocked the pages pertaining to
my book, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996),
http://www.spectacle.org/freespch.
I wrote an angry letter to Microsystems and received the
following reply:

"Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
This site was blocked in error.
I have removed this site from the CyberNOT list.
This change will take effect
with the next build of the CyberNOT list, by next Tuesday.
Please accept my
apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.

Debra Greaves
Internet Research Supervisor"

At the time, the Boston Public Library had just installed
CyberPatrol. Ironically,
six branches of the Boston library had my
book on the shelves but you couldn't get to
the Web page from a terminal with CyberPatrol installed.

With a new wave of libraries considering the purchase of
blocking software, I decided to go back and take another look
at CyberPatrol. The informal methodology I used was to check
my collection of ethical, political and legal Web sites
(http://www.spectacle.org/links.html)
against the Cybernot search engine that Microsystems
maintains on its Web page (http://www.microsys.com).
A Cybernot search
will tell you whether or not the product blocks a particular
site, but will not reveal in which category it
is blocked. My goal was to determine which of these
sites, containing controversial speech but no obscenity or
illegal material whatever, were blocked by CyberPatrol.

Cybernot reported that CyberPatrol blocked twelve of my
bookmarked sites, out of a total of about 270. These included:

The Flag Burning Page, http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag.html.
This site, which I regard as one of the most intelligent and
funny resources on the Web, examines the unconstitutionality
under the First Amendment of laws against burning the flag.

The Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org. This
is a large collection of resources on Second Amendment
right-to-bear-arms issues. While the blocking of this
site is questionable under any theory, it is also a nice
illustration of the inconsistency of CyberPatrol and of all
blocking software. The product does not block the
National Rifle Association, http://www.nra.org, or
numerous other sites on both sides of
the gun control issue.

The Newtwatch page, http://www.cais.com/newtwatch/, is
regrettably no longer on the Web, but CyberPatrol blocks it
at its former URL. Funded by the Democratic party,
Newtwatch was a combination of devastating political
reportage and satire aimed at Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich. It contained nothing that was offensive
to children by any stretch of the imagination--
unless they were Republican children with no sense
of humor.

Another vanished Web page that is still blocked is
the Dr. Bonzo web page, http://www.iglou.com/drbonzo/anathema.htm,
a series of satirical essays on religious matters. The blocking
of these two pages, long removed from the Web, raises
questions about the frequency with which the CyberPatrol
database is updated. A third blocked page which is no
longer on the Web contained nothing but a copy of
the U.S. Constitution.

Other sites contained some explicit text but did so in
the pursuit of a socially significant goal. For example,
the Jake Baker page,
http://krusty.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html,
contains news reports and analysis of the case of the
University of Michigan student who was arrested for
distributing a rape and torture fantasy about a classmate
on Usenet. Baker's stories, which led to his arrest,
are also linked from this page.
The case broke some new legal ground, and Mark Mangan
and I used this site as a research resource in writing
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. It is hard to imagine how we
could have written about the case without reading
Baker's horrifying stories, which are presumably
the reason why CyberPatrol blocks the entire site.

 CyberPatrol also blocks a Usenet search engine,
www.dejanews.com. Dejanews, of course, is a
major resource for anyone searching for Usenet discussion on
any topic, and we also relied heavily on it in writing
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. One startled user of the Austin
Public Library posted  to Usenet a
few weeks ago: "As DejaNews is one of the top Internet
research tools, [this] decision transcends comprehension."
Dejanews does not relay any graphics posted to Usenet;
Microsystems apparently fears users will find explicit
text.

CyberPatrol blocked some of the bookmarked sites for
no imaginable reason. The company has admitted
to a number of errors in the past, in addition
to the blocking of the Sex, Laws and Cyberspace
page. Like other blocking software companies,
Microsystems has employees surfing the
Web, looking for sites to add to the Cybernot list--
and frequently they are not very careful. For
example, Cybernot reports that the Society
for the Promotion of Unconditional Relationships (SPUR)
( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/xgv92/spur2.htm)
is blocked. The group describes its mission
thus: "to increase
public understanding and awareness of the nature and
benefits of Unconditional Commitment in
Relationships." The SPUR page contains articles
with names like "The Role of Faith in Relationships."

It was also hard to understand why CyberPatrol blocks the
Interactivism page (www.interactivism.com). This site specializes
in virtual activism; its top page, as I write these words,
invites you to send faxes to politicians on issues including
 handgun control,  freedom for Tibet,  and campaign
finance reform.

Adults researching a variety of topics, notably
freedom of speech-related issues, in the Austin public
library are going to run into some significant roadblocks.
The Austin library blocks four categories, three of them
sex-related (including the categories under which
Dejanews and the Jake Baker page are blocked) and
the fourth entitled "gross depictions". Jon Lebkowsky,
an Austin-based author and activist, was involved in discussions
with library officials about their installation
of CyberPatrol. He commented: "The Austin Public
Library promised that filters would be an 'interim
measure,' but backed off from that promise,
thinking that their scaled-down
filtering was gaining acceptance....
The APL should have honored the American Library
Association's position on filters and removed the
software after the Supreme Court's CDA decision."

 Microsystems  acknowledges  that
CyberPatrol was never meant to be used to determine what
adults can see. In March 1997, Susan Getgood
wrote in a message posted to the Fight-Censorship
list:

"The CyberNOT list was designed to be used by adults
to manage children's access to the Internet.
It is not a filter meant for adults."

A few weeks ago, at the annual New York Library
Association meeting in Syracuse, Susan Getgood
conducted a panel on blocking software. During the
Q&A afterwards, I asked her:

"Isn't it true that CyberPatrol blocks First Amendment
protected, socially valuable material?"

Susan thought for an extraordinarily long time before
answering the question. Finally, she said very carefully,
that in creating the Cybernot list, Microsystems didn't
think about whether blocked pages are constitutionally
protected or socially valuable. The company only thought
about whether the material is (by its own standards)
"inappropriate for children."

Microsystems standards for determining appropriateness
were not written by a librarian, nor meant for use in libraries.
They weren't meant to keep speech from adult eyes.
Applied to children, they draw no distinction between
eight year olds and eighteen year olds.
The latter conceivably might have a research assignment
which involves looking at the Flag Burning page, the
Jake Baker page or the Second Amendment Foundation.
"Just as the CDA tried to reduce the entire net to
something appropriate for 12-year-olds,
so CyberPatrol is trying to expand the
children's section to fill the entire library", said
Jamie McCarthy, an Internet activist and software
developer based in Michigan.

In the Boston Public Library, CyberPatrol is installed
on terminals used by people under 18, unless there is
a parental permission slip on file allowing use of an
uncensored computer. The three sex-related categories
aree blocked; one of these, SexActs, is used to block
text-only sites and is one of the categories assigned
to Dejanews and the Jake Baker page. This category
has also been used to block feminist discussion groups.

The company's willingness to unblock sites is meaningless.
The Internet is growing by leaps and bounds every week,
and even as the company deletes sites like mine from the Cybernot
database, Microsystems' harried surfers will be making
fresh mistakes. Seth Finkelstein,
a Boston-based software developer who follows censorware
issues closely, commented: "No small group of
people can hope to keep up with all the
changes on the Web. Offering to correct 'mistakes',
while good from a marketing standpoint, simply
does not make up for the impossible
nature of the task. We only see the problems
which have been exposed so far; what else is lurking,
 not yet uncovered in their blacklist?"

Putting a barrier between users and research sources
is not what libraries do. Mark Mangan and
I could not have written Sex, Laws and Cyberspace in
the Austin library; too many of our sources are blocked.
(Cyberpatrol also previously blocked The Electronic
Frontier Foundation archives, www.eff.org, and the MIT Student
Association for Free Expression, www.mit.edu/activities/safe/,
two other sources we consulted in writing our book.)
I hope that there are at least some librarians in Austin
who feel ashamed that their library could not be used as
a research source for a book on freedom of speech.

CyberPatrol doesn't belong in public libraries. The company,
by its own statements, has all but admitted this. The library
which buys CyberPatrol has only itself to blame for its dereliction
of responsibility towards its users.

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

If you don't want to see any more of these messages,
simply remove yourself from the list by visiting
http://www.spectacle.org/ or by typing the following
URL into a Web browser:

http://www.greenspun.com/spam/remove-2.tcl?domain=specpress&email=cudigest%40sun
 .soci.niu.edu




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

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:23:38 -0500
From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Ghost Stories - Hudson Inst's info-war Hallucination (Crypt)

Source -  CRYPT NEWSLETTER 45 November -- December 1997

SOME GHOST STORIES SEEN THROUGH A MIRROR: The Hudson Institute's
info-war hallucination.

If you visit this page often you surely have noticed grim dramas
that play themselves out in the pronouncements of various national
security experts.

Time and time again, prophets appear to warn that our safety and
security are at stake or that fantastical threats and intrigue
are mounting in the corridors of foreign power.

The solutions offered are always the same. Spend more taxpayer
dollars.  Give them to the Pentagon, proxies of the Pentagon,
and/or consultants offering guidance to the Department of Defense.

In the mainstream media, no one ever questions the methods or
results of the prophets of national doom even though the same
prophets have racked up a startling number of foolish mistakes and
false alarms in the past few years.

Few average Americans know how such mistakes are vended as
truth or how intelligence information is twisted into unrecognizable
analyses that share no relationship with their original sources.  No
one gets to look behind the doors of the national security
apparatus except the carefully screened.  Never you and certainly
never anyone you know.

Well, this story gives you a peek behind that door.  It's a
look at the nuts-and-bolts constituting an intelligence analysis provided
by a highly respected think tank.  Buckle yourself in and grab the bottle
of Tums because it's not a pretty picture.

In Crypt News 44, you read the tale of Mary C. FitzGerald, a
Hudson Institute research fellow whose paper "Russian Views on
Electronic and Information Warfare" dove into the realms of
telepathy, the paranormal and their alleged military application.

In it, FitzGerald fell for an old April Fool's joke known as
the Gulf War virus hoax, too.

The Hudson Institute paper stated:

"For example, one cannot exclude the use of software inserts in
imported gear used in the Iraqi air defense system for
blocking it at the beginning of the war," is one of the incarnations
of it -- as reprinted from "Russian Views on Electronic and Information
Warfare." Published on the Internet earlier this year, it was
disseminated through Winn Schwartau's Information Warfare mailing
list.

But where did this really come from?

Ironically, the same statement can be found in an article retrieved
from the CIA's Foreign Information Broadcast Surface (FBIS).  Crypt
Newsletter obtained an interesting FBIS English translation of an article
published in October of 1995. Written by a Major M. Boytsov, it
appeared with the title "Russia: Information Warfare" in a Russian
publication entitled "In Foreign Navies."

Despite it's misleading title, Boytsov's article is not about Russian
ideas on information warfare.  Instead, it is more a survey and analysis
of U.S. Department of Defense thinking and effort on the subject.
Boytsov's sources are attributed in a footnote to the "foreign press."

So, in October of 1995, Boytsov writes in "Information Warfare,"
"For example, one cannot exclude the use of software inserts
[programmnyye zakladki] in imported gear used in the Iraqi air
defense system for blocking it at the beginning of the war." Since
Boytsov's sources are the "foreign press," it's quite likely
he read of the Gulf War virus hoax either from US News & World Report,
the original mainstream media source to spread it, or others
pulled along for the ride. (As we've learned, this particular hoax
sprang from an April Fool's joke published in Infoworld magazine.
The joke was accepted as reality by the national news media and
now it's an inescapable part of computer virus lore.)

Since Mary C. FitzGerald's paper was provided as intelligence for
the U.S. military, it is of further interest to taxpayers to know that
money is being spent to educate the Department of Defense on issues
that are normally reserved for television programs on the
FOX network -- urban X-File-type myths.

Another section of the Hudson Institute research paper on Russian
views in information warfare are worth reviewing when compared with a
completely different article published in 1994 by a colonel in
the Russian military.

Appearing in an August 1994 issue of Foreign Military Review,
and again made available to Crypt Newsletter translated from Russian
through the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS),
Colonel V. Pavlychev writes in the article "Psychotronic Weapons: Myth or
Reality":

"The second direction [at the U.S. Department of Defense] includes
an in-depth study of paranormal phenomena that are of greatest interest
from the standpoint of possible military use -- clairvoyance, telekinesis,
and so forth."

Most of Pavlychev's paper is written from the standpoint
of discussing U.S. Department of Defense involvement in potential
use of the paranormal as a weapon.  Leaving aside the ridiculous nature of
the topic for an instant, keep in mind that Mary C. FitzGerald's Hudson
Institute paper is on "Russian" military views.

In "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare," published
by the Hudson Institute and FitzGerald on the Internet earlier this year,
we see:

"The second direction includes an in-depth study of paranormal
phenomena that are of greatest interest from the standpoint of
possible military use -- clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathic hypnosis,
and so forth."

But wait.  These aren't Russian views at all.  Instead,
Colonel Pavlychev attributes them to two Americans: Russell Targ and
Keith Harary, who authored a book called "The Psychic Race" in 1984.
Targ was a known as a psychic researcher at Stanford Research Institute
in the Seventies and Eighties until this type of fringe science became
badly discredited.  Harary was a psychic who worked with Targ and
who occasionally published in unusual journals like "Journal of the
American Society of Psychical Research."

Pavlychev also writes on the U.S. use of remote-viewers, or
clairvoyants -- which is what most people, including the Russians, call
them. ("Remote viewer," in Crypt Newsletter's estimation, was nothing
but a clever dodge used by the crackpots in the U.S. Army and intelligence
agencies in the Eighties to avoid immediately tipping off supervisors,
the press and the skeptical that they were involved in using the
equivalent of "crystal ball gazers" for military reconnaissance.)

Anyway, Pavlychev's article states:

"The framework of this phenomenon is quite broad: on a
strategic scale, it is possible to penetrate the enemy's main
command and control facilities to become familiar with his
classified documents; on the tactical level, reconnaissance can
be conducted on the battlefield and in the enemy's rear area
(the "clairvoyant-scout" will always be located at a safe
place). However, problems do exist -- the number of individuals
possessing these abilities is limited, and the data received
cannot be checked."

Once again, this is material roughly attributed to Targ and
Harary in 1984 -- not Russians in 1997.

In the Hudson Institute research paper, this year,
we read:

"The framework of this phenomenon is quite broad:  on a strategic
scale, it is possible to penetrate the enemy's main command-and-control
facilities to become familiar with his classified documents; on the
tactical level, reconnaissance can be conducted on the battlefield and
in the enemy's rear area (the 'clairvoyant-scout' will always be located
at a safe place).  However, problems do exist -- the number of
individuals possessing these abilities is limited, and the data
received cannot be checked."

In Pavlychev's "Psychotronic Weapons," we see:

"According to military experts, using psychokinesis to
destroy command and control systems and disrupt the functioning of
strategic arms is timely. The ability of a human organism to
emit a certain type of energy today has been confirmed by
photography of a radiation field known as the Kirlian effect.
Psychokinesis is explained by the subject's generation of an
electromagnetic force capable of moving or destroying some
object. Studies of objects destroyed as a result of experiments
conducted have shown a different form of breakage than under the
effect of physical force."


The Hudson Institute researcher writes in 1997:

"The ability of a human organism to emit a certain type of energy
has been confirmed by photography of a radiation field known as the
Kirlian effect. Psychokinesis is explained by the subject's generation
of an electromagnetic force capable of moving or destroying some object.
Studies of objects destroyed as a result of experiments
conducted have shown a different form of breakage than under the
effect of physical force."

In 1994, Pavlychev says:

Using telepathic implantation, an enemy formation, "instead
of exploiting the success, will try to consolidate on the line
achieved or even return to the starting line."

In 1997, the Hudson Institute research paper states of the power
of implanted telepathic command: "For example, personnel of an enemy
formation executing a sudden breakthrough of defenses, instead of
exploiting the success, will try to consolidate on the line achieved
or even return to the starting line."

In 1994, Pavlychev states:

"Many western experts, including military analysts, assume that
the country making the first decisive breakthrough in this field will
gain a superiority over its enemy that is comparable only with the
monopoly of nuclear weapons. In the future, these type of
weapons may become the cause of illnesses or death of an object
(person), and without any risk to the life of the operator
(person emitting the command). Psychotronic weapons are silent,
difficult to detect, and require the efforts of one or several
operators as a source of power. Therefore, scientific and
military circles abroad are very concerned over a possible
'psychic invasion' and note the need to begin work on taking
corresponding countermeasures."

In 1997, the Hudson Institute publication reads:

"Many 'Western experts,' including military analysts, assume that
the country making the first decisive breakthrough in this field
will gain a superiority over its enemy that is comparable only with
the monopoly of nuclear weapons.  In the future, these types of weapons
may become the cause of illness or death of an object (person),
and without any risk to the life of the operator (person emitting the
command). Psychotronic weapons are silent, difficult to detect, and
require the efforts of one or several operators as a source of power.
Therefore, scientific and military circles abroad are very concerned
over a possible 'psychic invasion' . . . "

Pavlychev's 1994 article also distinctly points to sources
derived from U.S. writers, specifically, the eccentrics --
colleagues of Hal Puthoff, and employees of military men Albert
Stubblebine and John B. Alexander's "spoon-bending" and "out of body
experience" programs -- in residence at Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) and the U.S. Army to study the paranormal in the
Eighties.

Other material from the Pavlychev paper is roughly attributed
to another U.S. source, a book called "Mind Wars: The True Story of
Government Research Into the Potential of Psychic Weapons,"
written by Ronald McRae and published by St. Martins in 1984.

And still other sources include American network television shows
and the New York Times -- obviously also published in the
U.S.

It need repeating that Pavlychev's article is _not_ a monograph
on Russian military views on the paranormal, but rather his analysis of
the U.S. military's involvement in the area with information obtained
from open source literature published in the United States.

Paradoxically, the Hudson Institute's Mary C. FitzGerald uses
the same subject material as Pavlychev's 1994 article and turns
it around 180 degrees to show "Russian Views on Electronic and
Information Warfare."

What does all this gobble on telepathy and psychotronic
brain weapons from books on the paranormal and comments from
fringe researchers written in the Eighties have to do with
Russian views on information warfare today? Does it have anything to
do with information warfare and Internet security at all?
Excellent questions!  Ask the mandarins at the Hudson Institute.
Perhaps they know.

All of this serves to demonstrate that the environment in which these
weird stories of strange pseudo-science and technology in service
to the military machine circulate is like a hall of mirrors in which the
equivalent of techno-myths and modern ghost stories bounce back and
forth through Cold War minds until few can even tell where they
originally came from.

Like any good ghost story, they gain credibility when passed through
supposedly expert sources -- think tanks. But the only thing remarkable
about them is how they're used to frighten the ignorant -- in this case,
military men, political leaders or uncritical journalists.

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

Notes:Mary C. FitzGerald responded to having her report
written up with regards to the Gulf War virus hoax in the Netly News.
Her comments are appended to the original (URL below) and they are
republished here in contrast with this issue's analysis.

Mary C. FitzGerald replied:

"According to George Smith, the sun revolves around the earth, the
earth is flat, the Conquest of the Skies will never fly, and the new
Revolution in Military Affairs is a Pentagon war-theory euphemism
wherein futuristic contraptions are predominantly products of wishful
thinking.

"Mr. Smith debunks the potential use of computer viruses in warfare. He
further argues that they are merely a conspiracy by the Pentagon and
conservative think tanks designed to enhance a non-existent threat --
presumably to increase defense spending. He has the right to say
whatever he thinks, but the only thing he has demonstrated is his own
selective paranoia.

"The paper he cites is my presentation of Russian views on the nature
of future war, a subject to which the Russians for many decades have
devoted extensive resources and manpower. The Chief of the Russian
General Staff, Marshal Ogarkov, not the Pentagon, used the phrase the
Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) over two decades ago to point out
the impact of technology on future warfare. His writings and those of
other Russian military theorists on the RMA are proving to be very
prophetic. Ogarkov in the mid-70s correctly envisioned the type of
warfare that was demonstrated in Desert Storm. Russian military
theorists are evaluating not only the impact of computer viruses, but
also all other types of information weapons, logic bombs, special
microbes, and micro-chipping. They are also studying the impact of
other new technologies (such as precision-guided munitions,
third-generation nuclear weapons, and weapons based on new physical
principles). George Smith may refuse to accept the potential of new
technologies on modern warfare, but the Russians clearly disagree with
him.

"P.S. Throughout his commentary, Mr. Smith erroneously takes my
discussion of what Russian military theorists have said and presents
it as direct quotes from me."

More relevant links:

See the hyper-linked version on http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt .

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

copyright 1997 Crypt Newsletter. All rights reserved.

INTERNET: [e-mail]
          [e-mail]
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt

Mail to:
Crypt Newsletter
1635 Wagner St.
Pasadena, CA 91106
ph: 818-568-1748

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:04:25 -0500
From: USACM Washington Office <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--USACM Calls on Pres Clinton to Veto HR 2265

PRESS RELEASE

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1997

COMPUTER SCIENTISTS URGE PRESIDENT CLINTON TO VETO LEGISLATION
RESTRICTING FLOW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

Computer scientists fear that legislation rushed through in the closing
days of Congress may inadvertently criminalize many scientific publications
that are freely available on the Internet today. They are calling on the
President to veto the measure.

The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) said
that the legislation could lead to criminal prosecutions against
scientists, educators and others who do nothing more than share their own
articles on the Internet with students and colleagues.  According to USACM
Chair Dr. Barbara Simons, "This legislation was hurried through Congress,
was poorly drafted, and is likely to have many unintended consequences."

The "No Electronic Theft Act" would criminalize the copying of materials
which are currently protected under the well established U.S. doctrine of
Fair-Use. According to the Act, any person who infringes a copyright
willfully, by the electronic reproduction or distribution of one or more
copies which have a total retail value of more than $1000 dollars, will be
subject to a criminal prosecution.

The scientists say that an essential element of research is that papers
be reviewed by others.  Scientists submit papers describing their research
to scientific journals which facilitate the peer-review process.  The
journals then print the reviewed papers and thus own their copyrights.
Since the Internet's development, researchers have used it to make their
research widely available to others in their field.  According to the
letter, "Under the No Electronic Theft Act, an author who posts their
research on the Internet, and whose documents are frequently read on-line,
could be subject to criminal prosecution."

USACM argues that the No Electronic Theft Act will have a chilling effect
upon the free speech of scientists and professionals in universities and
research labs.  Universities may forbid scientists from publishing their
research on- line, or reading and reviewing other scientist's research
on-line, to avoid the potential of massive copyright litigation.

According to Dr. Simons "This legislation is clearly contrary
to the White House's stated goal of avoiding Internet regulation. We
believe it is inconsistent with the Administration's policy to promote
dramatically expansive laws for the Internet where other less burdensome
means may be available to address copyright concerns."

The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communications between computer
scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing community.

For more information, Please contact:


Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM: 408/256-3661, [e-mail]
David Farber, USACM:  215/898-9508, [e-mail]
Lauren Gelman, Associate Director, USACM, 202/544-4859, [e-mail]

http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/

_____________________
November 25, 1997

President William J. Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Clinton:

    The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee
believes that the  "No Electronic Theft Act" (H.R. 2265), which is now
before you, does not adequately reflect the nature of the new digital
environment and will have a  negative impact on the rich scientific
communications that have developed on the Internet in many fields,
including computer science.  For this reason, we are asking you to veto the
legislation. We agree that copyright holders have a legitimate need to
protect their intellectual property.  However,  we are concerned that the
bill was rushed through both Houses of Congress without careful
consideration of its unintended consequences.

    We are concerned the Bill may:

*    Restrict scientists and other professionals from making their
research available on the Internet for use by colleagues and students.
Most scientists do not own the copyright on their own materials.  Instead,
that copyright ownership is retained by the scientific journal which
peer-reviews and publishes the research.  Under the No Electronic Theft
Act, an author who posts their research on the Internet, and whose
documents are frequently read on-line, could be subject to criminal
prosecution.  If the bill becomes law, scientists may have to choose
between having their work peer-reviewed or making it widely available.

*    Criminalize the transfer of information that is currently protected
under the U.S. 'fair use' doctrine.  Copyright law is derived from the U.S.
Constitution and is intended to advance "science and the useful arts."  The
fair-use doctrine protects reading and nonprofit copying and thus allows
scientists and educators to openly exchange information.  H.R. 2265 does
not explicitly protect the "fair use" privilege which makes this open
exchange of scientific information possible.

*    Chill free speech in universities and research labs. The
terminology used in the Bill, including "willfully" and "for profit," are
not defined; it is unclear what the parameters of a criminally prosecutable
copyright infringement are.  As a result, it is likely that many
institutions will mandate that all copyrighted documents be removed from
the net to avoid having to defend copyright infringement prosecutions.

    We hope that you will veto this measure and ask your staff to work
with Congress during the next session to develop more sensible legislation.


Sincerely,

Dr. Barbara Simons Chair,
U.S. Public Policy Committee
Association For Computing


The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communication between computer
scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing
community.

cc:   Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.
    Ira Magaziner, Senior Adviser to President
    Brian Kahin, Office of Science Technology and Public Policy.
    Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee
    John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee
    Howard Coble, Chair, Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee,
House Judiciary     Committee
    Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
    Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
    John Ashcroft, Chair, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights
Subcommittee, Senate   Judiciary Committee
    Mike DeWine, Chair, Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition
Subcommittee, Senate   Judiciary Comittee
    Representative Virgil H. Goode
    Representative Barney Frank, House Judiciary Committee
    Representative Christopher Cannon, House Judiciary Committee
    Representative William Delahunt, House Judiciary Committee
    Representative Elton Gallegly, House Judiciary Committee
    Representative Bob Clement

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:28:05 +1000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File 4--RE: Microsoft's licensing (Cu Digest, #9.86)

 > Date--         Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:24:07 -0500
 > From--         James Love <[e-mail]>

 > The following is a letter by Brian Glaeske, a software developer, to
 > the US DOJ, regarding the Common Control DLL.  Microsoft's licensing
 > requires developers who want to distribute this DLL to also distribute
 > MSIE4.0

 > The URL for the license is:
 >

http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/IEProg/Licensing.htm#ch
_

 > MSHTML_licensing

 > The letter follows:

 > Forwarded by James Love <[e-mail]>
 >   -----------------------------
 > Subject--Microsoft Antitrust

<SNIP>

> It is the responsibility of DOJ to ensure that Microsoft does not use
 > its OS monopoly to monopolize the market for applications. I believe
 > that forcing third party developers to distribute Microsoft Internet
 > Explorer is a blatant anti-competitive act.

If you actually read the Licensing and Distribution information, you will
find that Microsoft only requires that you LICENSE IE4.0, not necessarily
re-distribute it.

The following paragraph is from the URL quoted above...

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

Application developers who want to redistribute Microsoft(r) Internet
Explorer technologies, such as the WebBrowser control, Wininet.dll,
Urlmon.dll, or Comctl32.dll, must obtain a redistribution license for
Microsoft(r) Internet Explorer 4.0. The Internet Explorer self-extracting
executable installs a number of system files and registry entries in
addition to the actual WebBrowser control. You can license Microsoft
Internet Explorer for Windows(r) 95, Windows(r) 3.1, Windows NT(r)
Workstation, and Apple Macintosh(r) royalty-free to redistribute within
your organization or to your customers. Plus, you can use the Microsoft
Internet Explorer Administration Kit (IEAK) to easily create Internet
Explorer distribution media, which you can customize to specify start and
search pages and a favorites list. This lets your organization create and
distribute a Web browser that reflects your specific needs and the needs
of your users. For more information on redistributing Internet Explorer,
see the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ieak/.

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

Nowhere in the licensing information do I find any requirement that you
must distribute IE4.0 in order to distribute comctl32.dll. While I
personally find it strange that Microsoft requires you to license IE4.0
to distribute something that was originally a part of the OS, I can live
with it. It seems to me as if Microsoft have simply changed the licensing
requirements of comctl32.dll, and not in an overly harsh, or even vaguely
restrictive way.

It is easy to get an IE4.0 re-distribution license and then simply not
distribute IE4.0 - you can freely distribute Netscape or some other
browser (or even NO browser) under the terms of this license.

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

Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 5--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 #9.87
************************************