Computer underground Digest Wed Jun 19, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 47 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) 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, #8.47 (Wed, Jun 19, 1996) File 1--Re: Virtual Magistrate Decision File 2--(S 1237) Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 File 3--Re: Just a bit of nagging..... File 4--Religious right and the Net File 5--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, 24 May 1996 13:32:58 -0700 From: Alan Lewine Subject: File 1--Re: Virtual Magistrate Decision I attended the National Association for Automated Information Research conference on Online Disp[ute Resolution at which the Virtual Magistrate decision was announced. I have posted the Virtual Magistrate decision in full text to Declan for posting to this list. Here is a brief summary of the decision as I see it. (Incl. relevant portions of the America Online Terms of Service (TOS) and Rules of the Road (RoR) - part of the contract between AOL and its members. full text of the decision is available at http://vmag/law.vill.edu:8080/ . AOL voluntarily participated in the first arbitration proceding on the Internet through the Virtual Magistrate (VM), which involved a challenge against a spammer, E_mail America, distributing junk mail on the AOL network. Although the VM does not have any legal enforcement power, the establishment of an Internet protocol prohibiting spammingmay provide persuasive authority to cite in future legal procedings. VM released its decision 21 May. The decision along with the complaint and all associated materials are available thru the VM web site. the decision involved three parties: an actor - E-mail America (who never responded to invitations to participate), a complainant - Jim Tierney, a former state Attorney General and AOL subscriber, and a sysop - AOL. It took the form of an "in rem" (involving a thing, rather than person(s)) proceding against a screenname and an associated e-mail advertisement. Perhaps a proceding against such cyberspacial entities would be better termed "in meme" than "in rem." Virtual Magistrate Decision Paragraph 4(a) of the TOS addressing content may be read as addressing content generally, whether or not it originates within AOL. Therefore , because AOL is not a public forum or common carrier, the determinatio n of what is offensive is within the subjective purview of AOL. AOL may appropriately consider system limitations internet custom and practice, and especially customer complaints While AOL does not pre-screen content, blocking of a repetitive message that has been post-screened at least once would not violate the no pre-screening promise in the TOS. See also relevant passages in TOS and RoR: TOS 2.5: Prohibits online conduct by members that inhibit other member use or enjoyment TOS 4.2 AOL Inc. reserves the right to prohibit conduct . . . harmfu l to individual members. RoR 2.C. Online Conduct prohibited or discouraged includes harassment, impersonation and especially, (viii) unsolicited advertising. Fromthe Rules of the Road and Terms of Service, contractual AOL documents: << RULES OF THE ROAD <<2.C. Online Conduct. Please refer to Section 2.5 of the Terms of Service Agreement for AOL Inc. policy on impermissible types of online conduct. Below are some common violations of the Terms of Service. This list is not exhaustive. AOL Inc. reserves the right, but does not assume the responsibility, to restrict communication which AOL Inc. deems in its discretion to be harmful to individual Members, damaging to the communities which make up the AOL Service, or in violation of AOL Inc. or any third-party rights. Please be aware, however, that communication over the AOL Service often occurs in real-time, or is posted on one of the AOL Service thousands of message boards or libraries, and AOL Inc. cannot, and does not intend to, screen communication in advance. (i) Offensive Communication. The AOL Service is a community-oriented service composed of many different communities of people. Our goal is to provide an interesting, stimulating and fun place for all Members. Using vulgar, abusive or hateful language undermines this goal and is not allowed. Please use your best judgment and be respectful of other Members. . . . (ii) Harassment. When a Member targets another specifically to cause him/her distress, embarrassment, unwanted attention, or other discomfort, this is harassment. AOL Inc. does not condone harassment in any form and may suspend or terminate the accounts of any Member who harasses others. You may have a disagreement with someone's point of view -- we encourage lively discussion in our chat rooms and message boards -- but personal attacks, or attacks based on a person race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other such affiliation, are prohibited. If you have a disagreement with someone's point of view, address the subject, not the person. (v) Impersonation. This can involve the portrayal of an account in an official capacity, such as AOL Inc. staff or an information provider, authorized Guide or Host, or communication under a false name or a name that you are not authorized to use. Members must avoid the portrayal of AOL personnel or others persons in all forms of online communication, including, but not limited to, screen names, member profiles, chat dialogue and message postings. (viii) Advertising and Solicitation. You may not use the AOL Service to send unsolicited advertising, promotional material, or other forms of solicitation to other Members except in those specified areas that are designated for such a purpose (e.g., the classified area). <>ALEWINE@DCEZ.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:18:35 -0500 From: critcrim@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Critical Criminology - ASA) Subject: File 2--(S 1237) Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 ((MODERATORS' NOTE: This week, C-CSPAN televised the hearings of S 1237, which would greatly expand the definition of "child pornography" in a way that some feel would restrict otherwise protected expression of art, literature, and even communication of fantasy. Below is the text of the Bill)). Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 (Introduced in the Senate) S 1237 IS 104th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1237 To amend certain provisions of law relating to child pornography, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 13 (LEGISLATIVE DAY, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995 Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. THURMOND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend certain provisions of law relating to child pornography, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) the use of children in the production of sexually explicit material, including photographs, films, videos, computer images, and other visual depictions, is a form of sexual abuse which can result in physical or psychological harm, or both, to the children involved; (2) child pornography permanently records the victim's abuse, and its continued existence causes the child victims of sexual abuse continuing harm by haunting those children in future years; (3) child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity; (4) prohibiting the possession and viewing of child pornography encourages the possessors of such material to destroy them, thereby helping to protect the victims of child pornography and to eliminate the market for the sexually exploitative use of children; and (5) the elimination of child pornography and the protection of children from sexual exploitation provide a compelling governmental interest for prohibiting the production, distribution, possession, or viewing of child pornography. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. Section 2256 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2)(E), by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, or the buttocks of any minor, or the breast of any female minor'; (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting before the semicolon the following: `, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image'; (3) in paragraph (6), by striking `and'; (4) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(8) `child pornography' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, drawing, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-- `(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; `(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or `(C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.'. SEC. 4. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL CONSTITUTING OR CONTAINING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 2252 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `Sec. 2252. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography `(a) Any person who-- `(1) knowingly mails, transports, or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography; `(2) knowingly receives or distributes-- `(A) any child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or `(B) any material that contains child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; `(3) knowingly reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; `(4) either-- `(A) in the maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the United States Government, or in the Indian country (as defined in section 1151), knowingly sells or possesses with the intent to sell any child pornography; or `(B) knowingly sells or possesses with the intent to sell any child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or that was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or `(5) either-- `(A) in the maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the United States Government, or in the Indian country (as defined in section 1151), knowingly possesses 3 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, computer disks, or any other material that contains any child pornography; or `(B) knowingly possesses 3 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, computer disks, or any other material that contains any child pornography that has been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). `(b)(1) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but, if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter or chapter 109A, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 5 years nor more than 15 years. `(2) Whoever violates paragraph (5) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.'. (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending the item relating to section 2252 to read as follows: `2252. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.'. SEC. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENTS. Section 101 of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: `, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18, United States Code'; and (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: `, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18, United States Code'. SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:24:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brock N. Meeks" Subject: File 3--Re: Just a bit of nagging..... CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // Jacking in from the "One that Got Away" Port: Washington, DC -- President Clinton call your spooks, get FBI Director Louis Freeh on the phone. Tell them to order in pizza. Bill, it's going to be a long night. All your plans to hold the U.S. crypto market hostage have just been fucked... and you didn't even get kissed. A virtual tactical nuke was hurled into the arcane subculture of encryption technology Monday when RSA President Jim Bidzos revealed that his company's Japanese subsidiary had developed the underlying code for a monster chipset to be manufactured by NTT, the Japanese telecom giant. Bidzos said the chipset will be capable of scrambling voice and data real time with a so-called "key length" of up to 1024 bits. That key length stuff is just so much gibberish to those playing without a scorecard, so let me drill down on it for you. Basically, the longer the key length, the harder it is for a message to be broken by "brute force" automated attacks. Current U.S. laws prohibit the export of any encryption device with a key length longer than 40-bits, or roughly the equivalent of Captain Crunch decoder ring. Although it's not possible to make direct comparisons between a public key system, like RSA, and private key systems, such as the exportable 40-bit encryption, the 1024-bit key RSA scrambling scheme is a hell of a lot tougher to break and it makes the Feds uneasy. Bidzos, speaking during lunchtime at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) 6th Cryptography and Privacy conference, told how his Japanese based company, Nihon-RSA, developed a set of two chips capable of scrambling messages at a level that will make the spooks in the Puzzle Palace (the National Security Administration) cough up hair balls that would make the First Cat Socks envious. Bidzos seems to have found crypto's magic bullet; a legit way to essentially give the finger to U.S. export laws for crypto product. For years now the White House has been locked into a kind of crypto war. The Administration insists that strong encryption products must not be exported for fear that "terrorists, child pornographers and drug barons" and a rabble of assorted "bad guys" would snag the technology and proceed to plot the destruction of the "World As We Know It"... or at least Western Democracy, if the inbred Iranians got in line first. The White House crypto-fascist team, led by the NSA, FBI and assorted military hawks, have offered braindead compromise plans, including three versions of the "Clipper Chip." This is a plan whereby you can buy strong locks for your data with the simple caveat that when you buy and use the products, you have to put the decoding key "in escrow." This way if a law enforcement agency ever has the need to unscramble any of your messages -- without you knowing it -- they can simply ask for these escrowed keys and have them handed over. Yes, even your local sheriff's department can ask for the keys. Now, the government promises it will use this power only for good and never for evil. Honest, that's what they say. Of course, the Justice Department, in writing the rules for getting the keys, totally absolves any law enforcement agency of all harm if this power is abused in any way. Oh.. and if that power is abused, the sheriff or the FBI or fucking Park Police for that matter, can still use any "evidence" they gin up on you. Honest, I'm not making any of this stuff up. So the battle has raged. The industry has been loathe to develop such products only for the American market because the cost of producing essentially duplicate products for domestic and foreign markets just wouldn't be cost effective. So, you and I are stuck having to use some pretty tedious encryption technologies, such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which is great, but tough to use. Or we can use the Captain Crunch Decoder ring equivalents available off the shelf. In the meantime, other countries are happily making and distributing robust encryption technologies, at a possible loss of up to $60 billion for U.S. companies, at least if industry is to be believed (okay... I see you all laughing...) Bidzos, tired of fighting the wars here, enlisted the help of the Japanese. After setting up his Japanese unit, he hired a crack team of Japanese crypto experts who essentially "reverse engineered" the company's own U.S. crypto product, according to Kurt Stammberger, RSA director of technology marketing. It was a brilliant move. Bidzos can't be slammed by the State Department for violating crypto export laws because, well, he didn't export a damn thing, except some U.S. greenbacks, which of course, could have gone to U.S. cryptographers, but let's not quibble about jobs. Anyone want to kick around the subject of global competitiveness? What's happened here is the Japanese have now trumped the entire world on the crypto market. What's more, Clinton's brain-dead allegiance to the FBI, et al., has now allowed the Japanese government, which still owns a large share of NTT, which owns a minority share of RSA's Japanese subsidiary, to have a lock on the world's strongest encryption technology. Can you say "Remember the VCR" or "Remember the Semiconductor" or how about "Thanks, Bill. We're fucked." The boys in the Pentagon made a stink a few years ago when a Japanese company made a play for Fairchild, a top defense contractor. It was feared that the Japanese, by swallowing up the U.S. company, would also gain access to technologies vital to the U.S. military. The deal was squashed. Natch... now it looks like the G.I.'s with the stars on their shoulders have just put their spit-shined combat boots up their own ass by supporting Clinton and his continued ban on crypto exports. "We truly have ceded this market Japanese companies," Bidzos said. "It's almost too late to turn it around." Some 15 COUNTRIES have already placed orders for these chips, Bidzos said, adding that the Japanese will not build the chips with a key escrow function. EPIC Director Marc Rotenberg said he was told by a Japanese representative that the country's constitution wouldn't allow key escrow because it doesn't allow wire-tapping. Umm... maybe the Japanese just don't have *really* bad guys like the FBI assumes we have here. What's more, Bidzos says the deal with NTT is "no coup." He says the Germans and French "aren't far behind" in developing similar technologies. The RSA bombshell "fuels the argument that this stuff can't be contained in our own borders," said PGP's Zimmermann. Just how the relationship between NTT and RSA works out isn't set, Bidzos acknowledged. "They'll pay us a royalty for the chips they sell," he said. "We're working it all out." Meanwhile, from my office window here in DC I've already counted 17 Domino's Pizza delivery bikes go screaming by on their way to the White House. Through my telescope I can see the White House balcony; it looks like Bill is sick, like he's just heard some "really bad news." And behind him, just inside the double-doors, on a persian rug placed there by Warren G. Harding, I think Socks the Cat has just coughed up a hairball... or maybe it was Louis Freeh. From this angle, I just can't be sure. Meeks out... ------------ Additional reporting by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 21:42:50 PDT From: Jonathan Blumen Subject: File 4--Religious right and the Net THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND INTERNET CENSORSHIP by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net (This article appeared in the May issue of Freedom Writer, the newsletter of ther Institute for First Amendment Studies.) A trial taking place in Philadelphia now will determine the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law passed last fall which criminalizes the online "depiction or description" of sexual acts and organs. By its terms, the CDA permits regulation of electronic text far beyond what is permissible for books and magazines under the First Amendment. In the back of the courtroom, representatives of the religious right, such as ex-prosecutor Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children and Families, are monitoring each day of the trial with intent interest. Why are they there? Not only is the CDA an extension of the religious right's campaign to dictate moral standards in traditional media; the CDA itself is a creature of the religious right, which had a significant hand in sculpting it, lining up politicians to support it, and then supplying them with the ammunition they needed to get it passed. Soon after the Republicans released their Contract with America, the Christian Coalition responded with its Contract with the American Family; item 10 called for strict regulation of the Internet to protect minors against sexual material. Bruce Taylor responded to the Christian Coalition's call. Taylor prosecuted more than sixty obscenity cases during his tenure with the Department of Justice, before leaving to become Executive Director of the National Law Center for Children and Families. Working behind the scenes advising Nebraska Senator James J. Exon, a conservative Democrat who had made the issue of Internet indecency his own, Taylor helped draft the CDA, first introduced by Exon during 1994. The bill expired that year but succeeded in becoming law in 1995, after the election of a Republican majority with ties to the religious right. On June 12, 1995, the Senate initiated debate on the CDA with a prayer by the Senate chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie: "Almighty God, Lord of all life, we praise You for the advancements in computerized communications that we enjoy in our time. Sadly, however, there are those who are littering this information superhighway with obscene, indecent, and destructive pornography." Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, foremost adversary of the CDA, later commented that the Chaplain should "allow us to debate these issues and determine how they come out and maybe pray for our guidance, but allow us to debate them. He may find that he has enough other duties, such as composing a prayer each morning for us, to keep him busy." The entire Senate debate, spearheaded by Senator Exon and Republicans Dan Coats and Charles Grassley, was informed by the sensibilities of the religious right. The Senators read letters from the Christian Coalition and from Bruce Taylor into the record. More significantly, they flaunted statistics from the notorious Marty Rimm "cyberporn" study two weeks before it was released in an exclusive article in the July 3rd Time magazine. Apparently, the proponents of the CDA had been given a preview of the study's contents. Mike Godwin, staff counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, believes that the religious right acted as the conduit between the Georgetown Law Journal, then preparing the Rimm study for publication, and the pro-censorship Senators. Godwin discovered that as early as November 1994, Bruce Taylor was assisting Marty Rimm, then a junior at Carnegie Mellon, in preparing his study, a thesis project. Deen Kaplan, a Georgetown Law student and editor of the Law Journal, shared office space with Taylor in a complex which also housed the National Coalition for Children and Families and Donna Rice's organization, Enough is Enough. Another protege of Taylor's, John McMickle, was now on Senator Grassley's staff, and assisted him in drafting his own Internet indecency legislation. Deen Kaplan compiled Senator Exon's "Blue Book" of Internet pornography, which he brandished to great effect during the Senate discussions. On June 14, Senator Coats of Indiana announced in the Senate that there were 450,000 pornographic images and text files on the Net, which had been accessed 6.4 million times in the last year. Although he did not give the source of these statistics, they came directly from the still-secret Rimm study. After its release in July, the cyberporn study was quickly discredited as a scientific document and revealed to be the publicity-seeking stunt of a University undergraduate, but the damage it caused continues: the Department of Justice introduced it in evidence in the current trial of the CDA. Ironically, the author soon tried to distance himself from the use the religious right made of his study. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition had praised the study on Nightline. Marty Rimm responded: "Frankly, my sense is that things are getting blown out of proportion because people are angry that the study will be misappropriated. Their concerns are indeed well-founded. For instance, Ralph Reed stated on Nightline that According to the Carnegie Mellon University survey, one-quarter of all the images involve the torture of women. This is simply untrue; the Carnegie Mellon study does not report any results concerning torture. Many others on Capitol Hill have misappropriated the study as well." Some Congressmen privately told constituents that they had no choice but to vote for a law which they believed the courts would later hold unconstitutional; the Senate passed the CDA by a vote of 86-14. The next day, Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition exulted: "We are proud and honored that the first item of the Contract With The American Family that passed either house of Congress is designed to protect our children... We applaud Senators Coats and Exon for their decisive step forward to protect our nation's youth from the real threat of cyber-porn, and we look forward to swift action in the House." For a while, it looked as if the CDA would be defeated in the House, where Speaker Gingrich had announced that it was unconstitutional. The CDA was never reported out of committee, and the House made a show of passing the Cox-Wyden amendment, which lauded the Internet and announced that the FCC would never have any role in regulating it. However, in a remarkable manipulation of the procedural rules, Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, another long-time supporter of the religious right's agenda, added his own version of Internet indecency language to the Telecommunications Reform Act in a last minute "manager's mark amendment." This swept to victory shortly afterwards as the House endorsed the Telcom act, with most legislators completely unaware that Congressman Hyde had tacked it on to the bill. The next day, Ralph Reed said, apropos of this and other legislative developments: "We are on a roll.... We never expected to make so much progress so quickly... Our grassroots will stay engaged until the final item is passed and signed by this or a future president." He made no mention of the unsavory way in which Congressman Hyde had resuscitated a law declared dead by the Speaker. A House-Senate conference commitee reconciled the Exon and Hyde versions, and later that fall, President Clinton signed the telcom bill, including the CDA, into law. The religious right is not resting on its laurels. In addition to attending the Philadelphia case, it has taken to the media with an aggressive defense of the CDA. A few weeks ago, I debated ex-prosecutor Patrick Trueman, now legislative affairs director for the American Family Association, on NBC's America's Talking cable network. Trueman called the Internet "depraved" and accused me of wanting "to let the perverts go." Shortly after, he released a letter to the press in which he called for the prosecution of the Compuserve online service under the CDA for its alleged hosting of pornographic images. In her fine 1993 history of American arts censorship, ACLU attorney Marjorie Heins wrote that "the message of religiously based 'profamily' leaders like Reverend Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association or Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition was not merely that their views on sexuality, women's rights, reproductive freedom, and religion were correct, but that other views should not even be heard." These two organizations, and others like them, have now mounted a pre-emptive strike against the Internet. Jonathan Wallace, a software executive and attorney, is co-author with Mark Mangan of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace, a book about Internet censorship (Henry Holt, 1996) (http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--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: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) 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 CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (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 (312) 528-5020 (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: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 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 #8.47 ************************************