informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido1209.nws

2367 lines
106 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
F I D O N E W S -- Vol.12 No. 9 (27-Feb-1995)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: |
| FidoNet BBS community | "FidoNews" BBS |
| _ | +1-519-570-4176 |
| / \ | |
| /|oo \ | Small animal psychology and |
| (_| /_) | Spiritual guidance Department: |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Rev. Richard Visage 1:163/409 |
| | | \ \\ | |
| | (*) | \ )) | Editor: |
| |__U__| / \// | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| _//|| _\ / | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| (_/(_|(____/ | Tim |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MORE addresses: |
| |
| Don -- don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Max -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Tim Pozar -- pozar@kumr.lns.com |
| David Deitch -- 1:133/411.411, deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org |
|
| submissions=> editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies of fidonews or the internet gateway faq |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 2
Catholic Information Network [1:202/1613.0]................. 2
** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***.............. 2
EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS.............. 14
No, Not Atheist-Only........................................ 18
Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol ( 19
From Russia with love....................................... 20
Dear Reverend Visage,....................................... 21
Subject: gii_expression_letter.announce..................... 23
Reply to the christian fanatic Mikhail Marendik............. 32
A Canadian reader amazed by ignorance in Russia............. 32
Subject: Russian objects to atheism in snooze <bleh>........ 34
I_UFO Forum: When Science Confronts Belief.................. 35
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 41
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 2 27 Feb 1995
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
We have a huge issue today, so I am going to skip the
editorial and get on with the news.
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Catholic Information Network [1:202/1613.0]
Richard Walker (walker@starbase.neosoft.com)
Catholic Information Network Access information
A couple years I, on 1:106/960.0, acted as the fidonet gateway for
this group of conferences, providing a feed for several folks here and
there. About a year ago (more or less) , the originator and moderator
(finally) got his system running under a compliant mailer and got
nodelisted, at which time CIN switched to his node for the primary
access point. This is *much* more effecient than having a secondary
node do the gateing, for obvious reasons. As I have had periodic
requests from different folks for CIN feeds recently, I figure their
must be some old elists out there or something. This said, to anyone
wanting a feed for the extensive, high-quality echos of the Catholic
Information Network, please contact Mike Mollerus, at 1:202/1613.0.
He'll be more than happy to help you out.
As an aside, in response to Mikhail's article in v12.i7; there is no
way in the world fidonet could be considered "atheist only",
considering that I, as a hard-core, conservative, Latin Rite Catholic,
have never caught any administrative flack for my beliefs or use of
fidonet to publish and advocate those beliefs. I just don't see how
it is possible to come to such a conclusion. Relax!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***
From Eff
This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the
U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the
"Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will
have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for
freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all
electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove
guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic
networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively
close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and
information.
For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for
Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix
attached at the end of this document. The text to S. 314
is also included in this Appendix.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 3 27 Feb 1995
This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary
to give you sufficient information to make an informed
decision. Time is of the essence, we are going to turn
this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you
are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before
midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995.
Even if you read this petition after the due date, please
submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to
continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future
and the more signatures we get, the more influence the
petition will have on discussion. And even if Congress
rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do
submit your signature anyway for the same reason.
Please do upload this petition statement as soon as
possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area.
If you have access to one of the major national on-line
services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try
to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000
signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible
if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such
as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this
petition to electronic freedom of expression.
Here is a brief table of contents:
(1) Introduction (this section)
(2) The Petition Statement
(3) Instructions for signing this petition
(4) Credits
(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent)
****(2) The Petition Statement
In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of
S. 314 (the "Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these
reasons:
S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would
prohibit any provider of telecommunications service from
carrying such traffic, under threat of stiff penalty. Even
aside from the implications for free speech, this would
cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the
various telecommunications services. In a time when the
citizenry and their lawmakers alike are calling for and
passing "no unfunded mandates" laws to the benefit of the
states, it is unfortunate that Congress might seek to
impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the
framework for the information age.
An additional and important consideration is the technical
feasibility of requiring the sort of monitoring this bill
would necessitate. The financial burden in and of itself -
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 4 27 Feb 1995
in either manpower or technology to handle such monitoring
(if even legal under the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out
of business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail
their services.
The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling
effect in the telecommunications service community, not
only restricting the types of speech expressly forbidden by
the bill, but creating an environment contrary to the
Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and
assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet
embody as nothing has before.
By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon
each individual user is surprisingly simple in the online
and interactive world, and there is no legitimate reason to
shift that burden to providers who carry that content.
Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is
comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the
reader, viewer, or participant unparalleled control over
his or her own information environment. All without
impacting or restricting what any other user wishes to
access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by
this S. 314 simply unnecessary.
In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial
interest in arenas such as the Internet, restriction and
regulation of content or the flow of traffic across the
various telecommunications services would have serious
negative economic effects. The sort of regulation proposed
by this bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet
has seen, giving the business community reason to doubt the
medium's commercial appeal.
We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this
bill. We ask that the Senate be an example to Congress as
a whole, and to the nation at large - to promote the
general welfare as stated in the Preamble to the
Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and
ideas across all of our telecommunications services.
*****(3) Instructions for signing the petition
======================================
Instructions for Signing This Petition
======================================
It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a
vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests
made in the petition. If you do not agree with everything
in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign
it.
In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 5 27 Feb 1995
Congress, the President of the United States, and the
news media.
Including your full name is optional, but *very highly
encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the
petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly
discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made
to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers.
Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask
that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you
are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to
sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately.
Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your
signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these
directions EXACTLY:
1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the
Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement:
SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Full name> <US Citizen>
You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED'
should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is
optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your
name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your
first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's
not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen,
please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES',
and if you are not, a 'NO'. All signatures will be
tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen
***************************************************
Example: My e-mail signature would be:
SIGNED dave@kachina.altadena.ca.us Dave C. Hayes YES
***************************************************
2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any
other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments
to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the
special petition e-mail signature address.
3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to
the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me:
4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an
automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail
address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or
reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may
also contact you again in the future should we need more
information, such as who your House Representative and
Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear
whether such information is needed.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 6 27 Feb 1995
Thank you for signing this petition!
*****(4) Credits
The petition statement was written by slowdog
<slowdog@wookie.net>, super.net.freedom.fighter.
The rest of this document mostly collated from the net
by Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter.
Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and
self.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few
suggestions and will be tallying the signatures.
Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of
the bill.
(p.s., send your signature to s314-petition@netcom.com)
******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314
[This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and
Technology, a non-profit public interest organization.
CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies
that advance Constitutional civil liberties and democratic
values in new computer and communications technologies.
For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger
<jseiger@cdt.org>.]
CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95
SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION
A. OVERVIEW
Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have
introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations
on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content
carried over all forms of electronic communications
networks. If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of
1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability
on telecommunications service providers (including
telephone networks, commercial online services, the
Internet, and independent BBS's) if their network is used
in the transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or
harassing messages. The legislation is identical to a
proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed
along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S.
1822, 103rd Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text the
proposed statute, with proposed amendment, is appended at
the end of this document.
The bill would compel service providers to chose between
severely restricting the activities of their subscribers
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 7 27 Feb 1995
or completely shutting down their email, Internet access,
and conferencing services under the threat of criminal
liability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to
closely monitor every private communication, electronic
mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive
carried by or available on their network, a proposition
which poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech
and privacy rights of all American citizens.
S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step
backwards on the path to a free and open National
Information Infrastructure. The bill raises fundamental
questions about the ability of government to control
content on communications networks, as well as the locus
of liability for content carried in these new
communications media.
To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital
media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of
public interest organizations including the ACLU, People
For the American Way, and Media Access Project, along with
representatives from the telecommunications, online
services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to
explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the
free flow of information and freedom of speech in the
online world. CDT believes that technological
alternatives which allow individual subscribers to control
the content they receive represent a more appropriate
approach to this issue.
B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314
S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and
harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications
providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content
carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks.
The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act
(47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to
prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext
and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate
telephone lines. This section, commonly known as the
Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse
Helms), has been the subject of extended Constitutional
litigation in recent years.
* CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR
NETWORKS
S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including
telephone companies, commercial online services, the
Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or
other content carried on its network -- including the
private conversations or messages exchanged between two
consenting individuals.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 8 27 Feb 1995
Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise
makes available any comment, request, suggestion,
proposal, image, or other communication" which is
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a
"telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of
$100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)).
In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers
would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or
other content before transmitting it to the intended
recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or
severely restrict their subscribers from communicating
with individuals and accessing content available on other
networks.
Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete
boundaries. Instead, users of one service can easily
communicate with and access content available on other
networks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on
the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content,
would make the carrier legally responsible not only for
the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content
generated by subscribers of other services.
This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to
the free flow of information throughout the online world
and the free speech and privacy rights of individual
users. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not
only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it
would also violate current legal protections.
* CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL
PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES
S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to
indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the
age of 18 to cover similar content carried by
telecommunications services (such as America Online and
the Internet). (Sec (a)(4)).
As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of
telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits,
or otherwise makes available (directly or by recording
device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes
which is available to any person under the age of 18 years
of age or to any other person without that person's
consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
communication placed the call or initiated the
communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or
two years in prison.
This would force carries to act as private censors of all
content available in public forums or file archives on
their networks. Moreover, because there is no clear
definition of indecency, carriers would have to restrict
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 9 27 Feb 1995
access to any content that could be possibly construed as
indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of
the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives,
and content available for commercial purposes would have
to be meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid
potential liability for the carrier.
Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of
content available on online networks, and limit the
editorial freedom of independent forum operators.
ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS
* AMENDMENT TO ECPA
Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the
unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital
communications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term
"digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511
currently prevents unauthorized interception and
disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes
electronic mail and other forms of communications in
digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear
importance.
* CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS
PROGRAMMING
Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of
the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any
cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or
leased access programming which contains "obscenity,
indecency, or nudity".
C. ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER
CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA
Government regulation of content in the mass media has
always been considered essential to protect children from
access to sexually-explicit material, and to prevent
unwitting listeners/views from being exposed to material
that might be considered extremely distasteful. The
choice to protect children has historically been made at
the expense of the First Amendment ban on government
censorship. As Congress moves to regulate new interactive
media, it is essential that it understand that interactive
media is different than mass media. The power and
flexibility of interactive media offers a unique
opportunity to enable parents to control what content
their kids have access to, and leave the flow of
information free for those adults who want it. Government
control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the
desired purpose.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 10 27 Feb 1995
Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and
the software used to access online services such as
America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability
to limit access to certain types of services and selected
information. Moreover, the electronic program guides
being developed for interactive cable TV networks also
provide users the capability to screen out certain
channels or ever certain types of programming. Moreover,
in the online world, most content (with the exception of
private communications initiated by consenting
individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words,
users must seek out the content they receive, whether it
is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive.
By its nature, this technology provides ample control at
the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online
services, Internet service providers) in most cases act
only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated
by individual subscribers.
CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better
served by giving parents and other users the tools to
select which information they (and their children) should
have access to. In the case of criminal content the
originator of the content, not the carriers, should be
responsible for their crimes. And, users (especially
parents) should be empowered to determine what information
they and their children have access to. If all carriers
of electronic communications are forced restrict content
in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314,
the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness
of digital media for communications and information
dissemination would be drastically limited.
D. NEXT STEPS
The bill has been introduced and will next move to the
Senate Commerce Committee, although no Committee action
has been scheduled. Last year, a similar proposal by
Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee
as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S.
1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT
will be working with a wide range of other interest groups
to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow of
information in interactive media.
TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314
**NOTE: [] = deleted
ALL CAPS = additions
47 USC 223 (1992)
Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District
of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications]
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 11 27 Feb 1995
OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS"
(a) Whoever--
(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE--
(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal]
MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST,
SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
[(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues,
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass any person at the called number;]
"(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS
ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY,
ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO
RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION;
(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the
called number; or
[(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation
ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or]
(D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES
COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH
CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON
AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION,
(2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used
for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO
YEARS, or both.
(b)(1) Whoever knowingly--
(A) within the United States, by means of [telephone]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device)
any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the
call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
(B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with
title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 12 27 Feb 1995
years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly--
(A) within the United States, [by means of telephone],
makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES,
TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any
indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available
to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without
that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such
communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or
(B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity
prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than
$[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months]
TWO YEARS, or both.
(3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this
subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited
communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the
Commission may prescribe by regulation.
(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever,
within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph
(1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1)
or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000]
100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each
day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either--
(i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or
any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the
Commission for such purposes, or
(ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative
proceedings.
(6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate
district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice
which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted
in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or
within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not,
to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a
communication specified in subsection (b) from the
telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 13 27 Feb 1995
writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the
carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such
communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the
provider of such communication.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may
be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common
carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on
account of--
(A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good
faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection; or
(B) any access permitted--
(i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation
by a provider of communications that communications provided by
that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or
(ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not
allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to
restrict access to communications described in subsection (b).
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider
of communications services to which subscribers are denied access
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action
for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such
action shall be limited to the question of whether the
communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within
the category of communications to which the carrier will provide
access only to subscribers who have previously requested such
access.
*********************************************
NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as
it would be changed. For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable
text such as:
[...]
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device';
(B) by striking out `makes any comment, request,
suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
`makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any
comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication';
(C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
`(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a
[...]
See:
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 14 27 Feb 1995
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill
http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog
Stop the Communications Decency Act!
------- Message 2
>From: lpd@aladdin.com (L. Peter Deutsch)
>To: antryg@cs.nmt.edu
>Subject: Re: FW: PETITION to Stop S.314 (fwd)
I'm disappointed that the petition is couched primarily in terms of economic
burden. S.314 is so blatantly at odds with (among other things) the First
Amendment and existing principles of "common carrier" licensing and of
freedom of the press that this would have been a great opportunity to make
an argument based on principle too, not just an economic argument that I'm
afraid could be nickel-and-dimed to death.
I'll sign the petition, because I don't disagree with anything in it and
it's important. I just wish it said more than it does.
L. Peter Deutsch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS
From: mech@eff.org (1:1/31)
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS
First Amendment Protects Information about Privacy Technologies
February 21, 1995
San Mateo, California
In a move aimed at expanding the growth and spread of privacy and
security technologies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is sponsoring
a federal lawsuit filed today seeking to bar the government from
restricting publication of cryptographic documents and software. EFF
argues that the export-control laws, both on their face and as applied
to users of cryptographic materials, are unconstitutional.
Cryptography, defined as "the science and study of secret writing,"
concerns the ways in which communications and data can be encoded to
prevent disclosure of their contents through eavesdropping or message
interception. Although the science of cryptography is very old, the
desktop-computer revolution has made it possible for cryptographic
techniques to become widely used and accessible to nonexperts.
EFF believes that cryptography is central to the preservation of
privacy and security in an increasingly computerized and networked
world. Many of the privacy and security violations alleged in the
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 15 27 Feb 1995
Kevin Mitnick case, such as the theft of credit card numbers, the
reading of other peoples' electronic mail, and the hijacking of other
peoples' computer accounts, could have been prevented by widespread
deployment of this technology. The U.S. government has opposed such
deployment, fearing that its citizens will be private and secure from
the government as well as from other vandals.
The plaintiff in the suit is a graduate student in Mathematics at the
University of California at Berkeley named Dan Bernstein. Bernstein
developed an encryption equation, or algorithm, and wishes to publish
the algorithm, a mathematical paper that describes and explains the
algorithm, and a computer program that runs the algorithm. Bernstein
also wishes to discuss these items at mathematical conferences and
other open, public meetings.
The problem is that the government currently treats cryptographic
software as if it were a physical weapon and highly regulates its
dissemination. Any individual or company who wants to export such
software -- or to publish on the Internet any "technical data" such as
papers describing encryption software or algorithms -- must first
obtain a license from the State Department. Under the terms of this
license, each recipient of the licensed software or information must be
tracked and reported to the government. Penalties can be pretty stiff
-- ten years in jail, a million dollar criminal fine, plus civil fines.
This legal scheme effectively prevents individuals from engaging in
otherwise legal communications about encryption.
The lawsuit challenges the export-control scheme as an ``impermissible
prior restraint on speech, in violation of the First Amendment.''
Software and its associated documentation, the plaintiff contends, are
published, not manufactured; they are Constitutionally protected works
of human-to-human communication, like a movie, a book, or a telephone
conversation. These communications cannot be suppressed by the
government except under very narrow conditions -- conditions that are
not met by the vague and overbroad export-control laws. In denying
people the right to publish such information freely, these laws,
regulations, and procedures unconstitutionally abridge the right to
speak, to publish, to associate with others, and to engage in academic
inquiry and study. They also have the effect of restricting the
availability of a means for individuals to protect their privacy, which
is also a Constitutionally protected interest.
More specifically, the current export control process:
* allows bureaucrats to restrict publication without ever going to
court;
* provides too few procedural safeguards for First Amendment rights;
* requires publishers to register with the government, creating in
effect a "licensed press";
* disallows general publication by requiring recipients to be
individually identified;
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 16 27 Feb 1995
* is sufficiently vague that ordinary people cannot know what conduct
is allowed and what conduct is prohibited;
* is overbroad because it prohibits conduct that is clearly protected
(such as speaking to foreigners within the United States);
* is applied overbroadly, by prohibiting export of software that
contains no cryptography, on the theory that cryptography could
be added to it later;
* egregiously violates the First Amendment by prohibiting private
speech on cryptography because the government wishes its own opinions
on cryptography to guide the public instead; and
* exceeds the authority granted by Congress in the export control laws
in many ways, as well as exceeding the authority granted by the
Constitution.
If this suit is successful in its challenge of the export-control laws,
it will clear the way for cryptographic software to be treated like any
other kind of software. This will allow companies such as Microsoft,
Apple, IBM, and Sun to build high-quality security and privacy
protection into their operating systems. It will also allow computer
and network users, including those who use the Internet, much more
freedom to build and exchange their own solutions to these problems,
such as the freely available PGP encryption program. And it will
enable the next generation of Internet protocols to come with built-in
cryptographic security and privacy, replacing a sagging part of today's
Internet infrastructure.
Lead attorney on the case is Cindy Cohn, of McGlashan and Sarrail in
San Mateo, CA, who is offering her services pro-bono. Major assistance
has been provided by Shari Steele, EFF staff; John Gilmore, EFF Board;
and Lee Tien, counsel to John Gilmore. EFF is organizing and
supporting the case and paying the expenses.
Civil Action No. C95-0582-MHP was filed today in Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California. EFF anticipates that the case
will take several years to win. If the past is any guide, the
government will use every trick and every procedural delaying tactic
available to avoid having a court look at the real issues.
Nevertheless, EFF remains firmly committed to this long term project.
We are confident that, once a court examines the issues on the merits,
the government will be shown to be violating the Constitution, and that
its attempts to restrict both freedom of speech and privacy will be
shown to have no place in an open society.
Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is
available from the EFF's online archives. The exhibits which contain
cryptographic information are not available online, because making them
publicly available on the Internet could be considered an illegal
export until the law is struck down. We are still uploading some of
the documents, including the main complaint, so please try again later
if what you want isn't there yet. See:
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 17 27 Feb 1995
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case
Press contact: Shari Steele, EFF: ssteele@eff.org, +1 202 861 7700.
For further reading, we suggest:
The Government's Classification of Private Ideas: Hearings Before a
Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Government Operations, 96th Cong., 2d
Sess. (1980)
John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
Department of Justice, Memorandum to Dr. Frank Press, Science Advisor to
the President, Re: Constitutionality Under the First Amendment of ITAR
Restrictions on Public Cryptography (May 11, 1978). [Included in the
above Hearings; also online as http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/
ITAR_export/ITAR_FOIA/itar_hr_govop_hearing.transcript].
Alexander, Preserving High-Tech Secrets: National Security Controls on
University Research and Teaching, 15 Law & Policy in Int'l Business 173
(1983)
Cheh, Government Control of Private Ideas-Striking a Balance Between
Scientific Freedom and National Security, 23 Jurimetrics J. 1 (1982)
Funk, National Security Controls on the Dissemination of Privately
Generated Scientific Information, 30 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 405 (1982)
Pierce, Public Cryptography, Arms Export Controls, and the First
Amendment: A Need for Legislation, 17 Cornell Int'l L. J. 197 (1984)
Rindskopf and Brown, Jr., Scientific and Technological Information and
the Exigencies of Our Period, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 909 (1985)
Ramirez, The Balance of Interests Between National Security Controls and
First Amendment Interests in Academic Freedom, 13 J. Coll. & U. Law 179
(1986)
Shinn, The First Amendment and the Export Laws: Free Speech on
Scientific and Technical Matters, 58 Geo. W. L. Rev. 368 (1990)
Neuborne and Shapiro, The Nylon Curtain: America's National Border and
the Free Flow of Ideas, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 719 (1985)
Greenstein, National Security Controls on Scientific Information, 23
Jurimetrics J. 50 (1982)
Sullivan and Bader, The Application of Export Control Laws to Scientific
Research at Universities, 9 J. Coll. & U. Law 451 (1982)
Wilson, National Security Control of Technological Information, 25
Jurimetrics J. 109 (1985)
Kahn, The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York:
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 18 27 Feb 1995
Macmillan (1967) [Great background on cryptography
and its history.]
Relyea, Silencing Science: national security controls and scientific
communication, Congressional Research Service. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corp. (1994)
John Gilmore, Crypto Export Control Archives, online at
http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/export.html
EFF Crypto Export Control Archives, online at
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Not Atheist-Only
by John Passaniti, 1:2613/102, philjohn@eznet.net
I was amused to read the rant offered by Mikhail Ramendik in volume
12, number 7. In it, he says he is "amazed" by atheism in Fidonews
and open flames against Christianity.
Maybe he wouldn't be so "amazed" if he understood that Fidonet is a
pluralistic society of individuals, and that society includes--
non-exclusively-- both atheists and Christians. Fidonews is the
weekly voice of Fidonet participants, and in it you will find all
sorts of commentary, from every viewpoint imaginable.
If Mikhail doesn't appreciate such diversity in Fidonet, he is
welcome to find a network that reflects his views. If he finds the
occasional excesses of language in Fidonews to be upsetting, he
should consider the fine and respected tradition of samizdat
publishing his country is known for: He should self-publish his own
version of Fidonews that meets with his approval. Nobody is stopping
him or anyone else from doing exactly that.
I believe the root problem here is Mikhail is now learning what we as
Americans often take for granted-- freedom of the press. As
Americans, we have grown up in a culture that permits and encourages
people to express themselves, and Fidonews is just an electronic
extension of that. Our freedom of press has produced some of the
greatest thoughts in the world-- and some of the most banal. In doing
so, it reflects our true diversity, and thus, our strength.
As this kind of freedom is probably relatively new to Mikhail, I'll
assume his response is to the novelty of free expression of religious
pluralism. I hope he gets used to it soon.
Mikhail closes his article with a typical rant against atheism; he
charges atheism with 75 years of his country's problems. Gee, I
always thought those problems were because of a repressive government
structure, a state-run economy, and a military build-up that America
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 19 27 Feb 1995
only barely won. Thanks to Mikhail, we learn it was really because of
atheism!
Thanks Mikhail for your stunning insight! I'm glad to see that along
with the democratic reforms and religious freedoms your country is
moving toward, you are also adopting two traditions some American
Christian Fundamentalists have been perfecting for years: historical
revisionism and scape-goating.
This atheist is happy as a democratic capitalist, and there is
nothing intrinsic about atheism that I have ever come across which
leads one to or intrinsically supports Communism. Communist
governments seek to control the individual, and atheism is often used
as a tool to displace non-government control (such as from clergy, or
from the individual themselves acting on faith). That Mikhail
confuses atheism as a philosophy and atheism as a tool used by a
repressive government kind of surprises me.
While it might be amusing to have Mikhail defend Christianity, I
suggest Mikhail first examine the situation in context. Spend a
weekend and read every back issue of Fidonews. If Mikhail does this,
I think he will quickly learn that Christians are quite well
represented in Fidonews (and Fidonet). Mikhail will find his
Christian brothers and sisters offering everything from thrilling
inspiration to sheer embarassment. Mikhail will also find displays
of Christian "love," which in Fidonews has ranged from an open,
unconditional style to some of the most hate-filled rhetoric ever
published anywhere.
Welcome to Fidonet, Mikhail. Can you handle it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:41:12 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol (fwd)
From--an0@anon.penet.fi (The Anonymous Administrator)
Organization--Anonymous contact service
Reply-To--an0@anon.penet.fi
Date--Sat, 18 Feb 1995 12:03:58 UTC
Subject--Anon.penet.fi compromised!
I am pretty shocked! Based on a request from Interpol, the Finnish
police have gotten a search&seizure warrant on my home and the
anon.penet.fi server, and gotten the real mail address of a user that
has allegedly posted material stolen from the Church of Scientology.
Fortunately I managed to prevent them from getting more than this one,
single address.
There is going to be a very high-level public debate on how it is
possible that a country that prides itself on honoring human rights
and privacy very strongly has allowed this to happen. Maybe we can use
the publicity to stop this from happening again.
But in this situation, I find it pretty understandable that some of
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 20 27 Feb 1995
you might want all traces of your ID removed. I have now added the
alias "remove@anon.penet.fi" to my server. If you want to be removed,
just send a (possibly empty) message to that address. But I am hoping
it won't be empty. I am hoping that you do outline *why* you have
needed the server, and what you think about the actions of the Finnish
authorities.
The messages will be anonymized using the normal anon.penet.fi
procedure, and used to support the demand for a re-interpretation of
the privacy laws in Finland.
If you *don't* want to be removed, but still want to send a comment,
you can use the addresses anon-support@lists.otol.fi (if you are *for*
keeping the server) and anon-against@lists.otol.fi (if you are
*against* the server). If you want to be anonymous, use
anon-support@anon.penet.fi and anon-against@anon.penet.fi.
Julf (admin@anon.penet.fi)
Daddy always said to kick the boy when he's down
Rick Simms
No Name No Slogan
Acid Horse
Don't just eat that hamburger, eat the HELL out of it.
Bob Dobbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Russia with love.
by Eric Rheinlander
3:350/114
From Russia with love. In response to the derision and critisism in
Fido News Vol 12 No. 8 I say I feel sorry for Mikhail Ramendik for
the way he copped it, twice in one session, from both the Rev. Shawn
McMahon and Charles Herriot aka Doc Logger in Swamp Swine. Both seem
to be a little confused about the need of usage of the F word. One of
them, the dear old Doc is wondering how the Russian procreate without
the activity this words meaning conjures to him, never even
contemplating that one can engage in the very same activity and call
it Love making without debasing it. Hence the saying "From Russia
with love". :-)
At the same time I am quite sure that having nailed a plastic Jesus
to his monitor will cause less rage than if he would confess to
having done the same with a rag doll replica of Muhammed. Confirming
Mikhails observation with regards to the treatment of christian
beliefs.
My opinion is that all of them, Jesus and Muhamed and others deserve
respect. And if one does not have that, at least one should grant it
to the people to whom they mean something. Similarly the Rev. Shawn
McMahon over revs his motor by jumping to conjections about all the
dictatorial implications Mikhails comments may have and the terrible
danger to our beloved dog with the disk in his mouth.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 21 27 Feb 1995
Now I am quite sure that our treasured and beloved canine will not
wither on the [back] bone when one very mild Christian with a very
difficult background voices his concern. I am very content with the
way the net is and fully accede that everyone, in the words of
Fredrik the Great of Prussia, should achieve her/his happiness in
their own fashion, peculiar as it might be and believe in the rights
of others to do their own thing as long as it is not forced on to
somebody else.
But there is another form of dictatorship which is the terrorism of
words and the vehemence in which they are uttered and is called brow
beating.
It sounds great to proclaim the principles of personal freedom and
use them to camouflage ones insensitivities and disregard for others,
attacking the very essence of the doctrine they are believing to
protect. I think, a little bit of gentleness to the Mr Ramendiks of
the planet would have not gone astray.
Greeting.....Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor-beings:
Please indicate that the following was submitted by Charles
Herriot (1:163/110) who has gambled his entire economic
future on a GIANT Pumpkin growing contest. Roll da' flic,
Sylvia....
Swamp Swine Magazine,
Shuckmagosh, Ohio
Dear Reverend Visage,
I sense your malign influence in the fact that Bill Cassidy
has suggested that I become his deputy Regional Coordinator
should he sweep the current election. Bill is obviously
deranged to make such a suggestion, particularly since I
believe that all policy complaints should be settled by
dueling at forty paces with brocolli jello. As a good and
decent gesture, I recommend that we send Bill to Belgium.
The Region 12 election has become a rich source of
amusement. The Retentive Officer, Tony "Screamin' GMD
Deathrottle" Bearman, has imposed rules that would make a
legion of Ibogaine crazed lawyers beg for mercy. My fervent
prayers go out to all of the sysop peasantry so that they
don't colour outside the lines and spoil their ballots when
casting a vote. The polling firm of Dubois, Shrunkel,
Andjerson has put Clifford Morrison in the lead.
In other news, we borrowed Bill "Ever been blown ashore,
Billy?" Clinton for a few days. With Newts running amok in
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 22 27 Feb 1995
Washington, Billy has become increasing irrelevant on the
political scene so I am sure that he wasn't missed. Bill
planted a tree and managed not to lose his lunch as he sat
across the table from Sheila.
Have you noticed that George Peace hasn't quite rendered a
decision in the Stein vs. Kolin complaint? It must be a real
bitch for George to stand there and watch continental drift
race right past him.
I am having a delightful semantic debate with the school
board which controls my older rugrat's school. They
apparently have a policy that children can be expelled for
using profanity. As a deeply concerned parent, I have asked
for a complete list of all the words deemed to be profane so
that I can properly educate my son. Unfortunately, the
school board wishes to dodge the issue by refusing to
provide the list, relying upon what they tell me is a
self-evident appraisal of offensive language. We are
progressing slowly in our tortuous discussions and have
already established that "gee whiz", even though it derives
from the passage of liquid waste, is not profane.
I must go Visage, the O.J. Voyeurism Show has come back on.
After watching the witness sit down, I feel educated when
the CNN announcer cuts in to tell me that the witness has
sat down. Stunning and inciteful commentary like this is not
to be missed and someone really oughta tell Greta that
winter is over and she can take those walnuts out of her
cheeks. Your secretary became hysterical when I told her
that we could be watching this drama for months...possibly
years. As a good and decent gesture I suggest that we send
her to Arkansas.
Regards,
Doc Logger
Trout Ranching Emporium,
FlinFlon, Manitoba
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 23 27 Feb 1995
Subject: gii_expression_letter.announce
From: mech@eff.org (1:1/31)
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
485 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017-6104
TEL (212) 972-8400
FAX (212) 972-0905
Email: hrwnyc@hrw.org
1522 K Street, NW, #910 Washington, DC 20005-1202
TEL (202) 371-6592
FAX (202) 371-0124
Email: hrwdc@hrw.org
TITLE: 2/16/95 Press Release on Letter to G-7 on Global
Information Infrastructure
For Further Information, Please Contact:
Ann Beeson Human Rights Watch phone: 212-972-8400 x258 e-mail:
beesona@hrw.org
Marc Rotenberg Electronic Privacy Information Center phone:
202-544-9240 e-mail: rotenberg@epic.org
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS URGE GORE TO PROTECT FREE
EXPRESSION ON INFO-HIGHWAY
February 16, 1995 -- A coalition of leading human rights and civil
liberties groups today urged Vice President Al Gore to carry the
banner of free speech to Brussels where the G-7 will meet next
week to discuss the future of the global information
infrastructure (GII). The coalition alleges that the current U.S.
agenda for the GII is incomplete because it fails to include core
free expression principles.
The Clinton Administration has stated that it wants to achieve
support from the G-7 for five basic principles for building the
GII: encouraging private investment; promoting competition;
creating a flexible regulatory environment; providing open access
to networks and services for providers and users; and ensuring
universal service. The Administration gave a detailed description
of these principles in a document released yesterday entitled "The
Global Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation."
The coalition asks the U.S. to add a "sixth principle" for
adoption at next week's G-7 gathering that "explicitly recognizes
a commitment to protect and promote the free exchange of
information and ideas on the GII." The letter (a copy of which is
attached) recommends that the Clinton Administration:
-protect against censorship and promote diverse ideas and
viewpoints on the GII.
-support broad access to the GII by people of all nations.
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 24 27 Feb 1995
-promote strong information privacy rights on the GII.
The group points to the inevitable impact the GII will have on
social, political, and economic life. If properly designed, the
GII will "motivate citizens to become more involved in
decisionmaking at local and global levels as they organize,
debate, and share information unrestricted by geographic distances
or national borders."
The letter was signed by Human Rights Watch, Electronic Privacy
Information Center, American Civil Liberties Union, American
Library Association, Article 19, Center for Democracy and
Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the
American Way, and Privacy International.
Subject: ACTION ALERT: The Sixth Principle
Dear GII folks,
Below is an Action Alert regarding our letter to Al Gore on the G-7
Conference. PLEASE POST THIS WIDELY! Our letter has already generated a
lot of attention from netizens, and this is their chance to become
involved.
Thanks for all your help--
Ann Beeson
Bradford Wiley Fellow
Free Expression Project
Human Rights Watch
(212) 972-8405 x258
Free Expression On The Global Information
Infrastructure Is In Jeopardy Unless You Act Now!
BACKGROUND: On February 25-26, the G-7 countries will meet
in Brussels to make crucial decisions that will affect the
future of the global information infrastructure (GII). The
Clinton Administration wants support from the G-7 for five
basic principles for building the GII: encouraging private
investment; promoting competition; creating a flexible
regulatory environment; providing open access to networks
and services for providers and users; and ensuring universal
service.
ISSUE: These five principles will not protect online free
expression! In a letter to Al Gore last week, nine leading
human rights and civil liberties groups recommended a specific
principle to protect free expression in cyberspace. (The full
text of the letter is available at:
FTP: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/OP/gii_expression_letter.eff
Gopher: gopher.igc.apc.org, path: 1/int/hrw/expression, filename: 1, port:
5000 (menu path: Human Rights Organizations With an International
Focus / Human Rights Watch (HRW) / Human Rights Watch Free
Expression Project / general.952)
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 25 27 Feb 1995
WWW: gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:5000/00/int/hrw/expression/1
ACTION: Send the Vice President a message by Internet e-mail
at vice-president@whitehouse.gov (non-Internet users see end)
before Saturday, February 25th urging the adoption of a "sixth
principle" that protects and promotes free expression on the GII. (See
the sample letter below.) Please use the subject header "Sixth
Principle", and copy your message to: g7@hrw.org.
NOTE: Because there is currently no guarantee that White House email is
read and carefully considered in a timely manner, it is strongly
advised that you *also* send your letter via postal mail and fax to:
Vice President Albert Gore
Old Executive Office Building
Washington DC 20500 USA
Fax: +1 202 456 7044
Please do also email it and cc g7@hrw.org.
Join Human Rights Watch, Electronic Privacy Information
Center, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library
Association, Article 19, Center for Democracy and
Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the
American Way, and Privacy International in the fight for
free expression in cyberspace!
----------- cut here ------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
S212 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510
e-mail: vice.president@whitehouse.gov
cc: g7@hrw.org
Dear Mr. Vice President:
I am writing to ask that you add a "sixth principle" for
adoption by the G-7 this week that explicitly recognizes a
commitment to protect and promote the free exchange of
information and ideas on the global information
infrastructure (GII).
I also support the specific recommendations regarding free
expression principles for the GII that were provided to you
in the February 16th letter from leading human rights and
civil liberties organizations.
The U.S. should carry the free speech banner as it shapes
the development of the GII.
Sincerely,
[name]
----------- cut here ------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 26 27 Feb 1995
FidoNet users: send your email to the UUCP gateway for your area. It
must be addressed "To: UUCP, <nodenumber here>". The FIRST line of
the message must be a second "To:" line - "To:
vice-president@whitehouse.gov". The SECOND line *must* be a blank
line - this formatting is required by the mail gateway. The THIRD
line should begin the salutation and letter. To cc your message to
g7@hrw.org, repeat this proceedure in a separate message for
g7@hrw.org (some UUCP FidoNet<-->Internet mailgates may not support
direct cc's in a single message - better to be safe than sorry.)
CompuServe users: send your email to
Internet:vice-president@whitehouse.gov or CIS ID 75300,3115.
Other online services: Contact your system admins for instructions on
how to send Internet email.
[A letter from EFF and many other non-profits to Vice President Al Gore
regarding GII priorities and freedom of expression.]
February 16, 1995
The Honorable Al Gore Vice President of the United States S212
Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Vice President:
We understand that you will be addressing the G-7 Ministerial
Conference on the Information Society, which takes place in
Brussels February 25-26, 1995. The undersigned represent leading
human rights and civil liberties organizations dedicated to
promoting free expression in the new information age. We write
today to ask you to urge the G-7 ministers to adhere to
international free expression principles in any international
agreement regarding the development, content, control and
deployment of the global information infrastructure (GII).
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
proclaims:
*Everyone has the right . . . to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.*
Since the Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948, the ability
of individuals to exercise their free expression rights has been
transformed by technological advances. Today, interactive
communications technologies provide an opportunity to reinvigorate
Article 19 by empowering citizens to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas instantaneously, across the globe.
The GII can motivate citizens to become more involved in
decisionmaking at local and global levels as they organize,
debate, and share information unrestricted by geographic distances
or national borders. Increased citizen awareness and involvement
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 27 27 Feb 1995
will contribute to the spread of democratic values. In
particular, the GII has the potential to:
* permit individuals with common interests to organize
themselves in forums to debate public policy issues.
* provide instant access to a wide range of information.
* increase citizen oversight of government affairs.
* decentralize political decisionmaking.
* empower users to become active producers of information
rather than passive consumers.
Already, existing online networks empower citizens worldwide.
Individuals in war-torn countries have used the Internet and other
online networks to report human rights abuses quickly to the
outside world. When traditional means of communication broke down
and the war in Sarajevo made it impossible for civilians to leave
their homes without risking their lives, many citizens used online
technology to communicate with family members, the international
press, and humanitarian relief agencies. People from across the
globe are communicating online to fight censorship, scrutinize
government, and exchange information and strategies on an endless
array of subjects.
However, the GII's inevitable impact on social, political, and
economic life presents risks as well as opportunities. Although
the extraordinary potential for a GII has been suggested by
existing online communications networks, the present online
community is still quite limited. Only countries with a
sophisticated telecommunications infrastructure are able to take
advantage of online technology. While the Internet has reached
more than 150 countries, two-thirds of the Internet host computers
are in the U.S., and the 15 countries with the most Internet hosts
account for 96% of all Internet hosts worldwide. As a recent
report noted, "the Internet's diffusion appears to be inversely
related to the occurrence of humanitarian crises -- it is
precisely those nations that lack a strong presence on the Net
where wars, famines and dictators abound."
Even in countries with advanced telecommunications
infrastructures, only persons with access to equipment and
training can take advantage of new information resources. General
illiteracy remains the primary obstacle to computer literacy. And
while the GII may foster an unprecedented sharing of cultural
traditions, current users of online technology are primarily
American, affluent, white, and male.
Finally, some governments have inhibited online expression through
limitations on the use of encryption technology, restrictive
access practices, and content liability laws. Just as
authoritarian governments control other forms of media,
governments may restrict access to the GII out of fear that
citizens will use it to undermine government authority. In India,
exorbitant licensing fees operate to exclude many people from
online services, and an archaic telegraph law requires online
carriers to ensure that no obscene or objectionable messages are
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 28 27 Feb 1995
carried on their networks. In Singapore, users of Teleview, the
government's sophisticated public interactive information system,
must agree not to use the service to send "any message which is
offensive on moral, religious, communal, or political grounds."
Even the United States has continued to impose restrictions on the
free flow of technologies designed to provide users with greater
privacy and to foster freedom of communication.
The undersigned organizations have reviewed "The Global
Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation." We
understand that the U.S. hopes to achieve support among G-7
countries for five core principles as the basis for a global
information infrastructure: encouraging private investment;
promoting competition; creating a flexible regulatory framework;
providing open access to the network for all information service
providers; and ensuring universal service. We recognize the
importance of these principles in providing a foundation for a GII
and applaud the administration's support of universal service.
However, we believe that the administration has failed to address
some core free expression principles. Absent consideration of
these principles, the current U.S. position on the future of the
GII is incomplete.
To reduce the risks of the GII and to maximize its potential to
promote democracy, the GII must adopt and expand upon
international standards of free expression. The following
international rights and freedoms are of particular relevance to
online activity:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
* Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
* Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
* Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence."
* Article 18: "Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion."
* Article 20: "Everyone has the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association."
* Article 21: "Everyone has the right to take part in the
government of his country."
* Article 27: "Everyone has the right freely to participate
in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
* Article 19: The right "to hold opinions without
interference" and "to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers . . . through any
media."
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 29 27 Feb 1995
* Article 17: Freedom from "arbitrary or unlawful
interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence."
* Article 18: "Freedom of thought, conscience and
religion."
* Article 21: "The right of peaceful assembly."
* Article 22: "The right to freedom of association with
others."
* Article 25: The right "to take part in the conduct of
public affairs."
* Article 26: "All persons are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. . . . [T]he law shall prohibit any discrimination and
guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status."
All of the G-7 members, including the United States, are parties
to the ICCPR. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, and the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights also contain important free expression standards
which should be considered in developing the GII.
In the strong tradition of free speech protection under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, the U.S. should
advocate for the universal application of two important free
expression principles not yet codified in international law.
First, the U.S. should advocate for an explicit prohibition
against prior censorship. Second, the U.S. should promote an
explicit prohibition against restrictions of free expression by
indirect methods such as the abuse of government or private
controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or
equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any
other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of
ideas and opinions.
Recommendations:
The undersigned organizations have identified three principal
areas of concern regarding free expression and the GII: content
regulation, access, and information privacy. We recommend the
following guidelines to address those concerns.
Content Issues
Recognizing the mandates of Articles 7, 18, 19, and 20 of the
UDHR, and Articles 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26 of the ICCPR, we call on
the Clinton Administration to protect the free exchange of
information and ideas on the GII.
* Prior censorship of online communications should be
expressly prohibited on the GII.
* Any restrictions of online speech content should be
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 30 27 Feb 1995
clearly stated in the law and should be limited to direct and
immediate incitement of acts of violence.
* Laws that restrict online speech content should
distinguish between the liability of content providers and the
liability of data carriers.
* Online free expression should not be restricted by
indirect means such as the abuse of government or private controls
over computer hardware or software, telecommunications
infrastructure, or other equipment essential to the operation of
the GII.
* The GII should promote noncommercial public discourse.
* The right of anonymity should be preserved on the GII.
* The GII should promote the wide dissemination of diverse
ideas and viewpoints from a wide variety of information sources.
* The GII should enable individuals to organize and form
online associations freely and without interference.
Access Issues
Recognizing the mandates of Articles 7, 19, 20, 21, and 27 of the
UDHR, and Articles 19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 of the ICCPR, we call on
the Clinton Administration to support broad access by individuals
and groups to the GII development process, to online training, and
to the GII itself.
* Governments should provide full disclosure of information
infrastructure development plans and should encourage democratic
participation in all aspects of the development process.
* The GII development process should not exclude citizens
from countries that are currently unstable economically, have
insufficient infrastructure, or lack sophisticated technology.
* The GII should provide nondiscriminatory access to online
technology.
* To guarantee a full range of viewpoints, the GII should
provide access to a diversity of information providers, including
noncommercial educational, artistic, and other public interest
service providers.
* The GII should provide two-way communication and should
enable individuals to publish their own information and ideas.
* To protect diversity of access, the GII should have open
and interoperable standards.
* Deployment of the GII should not have the purpose or
effect of discriminating on the basis of race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status.
* The GII should encourage citizens to take an active role
in public affairs by providing access to government information.
* Governments should encourage widespread use of the GII and
should strive to provide adequate training.
Information Privacy
Recognizing the mandates of Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17
of the ICCPR, we call on the Clinton Administration to promote
strong information privacy rights on the GII. Online
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 31 27 Feb 1995
communications are particularly susceptible to unauthorized
scrutiny. Encryption technology is needed to ensure that
individuals and groups may communicate without fear of
eavesdropping. Lack of information privacy would inhibit online
speech and unnecessarily limit the diversity of voices on the
GII.
* Governments should ensure enforceable legal protections
against unauthorized scrutiny and use by private or public
entities of personal information on the GII.
* Personal information generated on the GII for one purpose
should not be used for an unrelated purpose or disclosed without
the person's informed consent.
* Individuals should be able to review personal information
on the GII and to correct inaccurate information.
* The GII should provide privacy measures for transactional
information as well as content.
* The Clinton Administration should oppose controls on the
export and import of communications technologies, including
encryption.
* Users of the GII should be able to encrypt their
communications and information without restriction.
* Governments should be permitted to conduct investigations
on the GII pursuant only to lawful authority and subject to
judicial review.
The G-7 Ministerial Conference on the Information Society will
focus international attention on the development of the global
information infrastructure. We encourage the Clinton
Administration to use this opportunity not simply to promote free
expression values in principle, but to secure these values through
specific decisions regarding the development, content, control and
deployment of the GII. We request that the U.S. add a "sixth
principle" for adoption by the G-7 gathering that explicitly
recognizes a commitment to protect and promote the free exchange
of ideas and information on the GII. The U.S. is seen as the
world's champion of the fundamental right of free expression, and
it should continue to carry the free speech banner as it shapes
the development of the GII.
Sincerely,
Gara LaMarche, Director Ann Beeson, Bradford Wiley Fellow Free
Expression Project Human Rights Watch
Marc Rotenberg Executive Director Electronic Privacy Information
Center
Ira Glasser Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union
Judith F. Krug Director, Office for Intellectual Freedom American
Library Association
Sandy Coliver Law Program Director Article 19 International Centre
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 32 27 Feb 1995
Against Censorship
Jerry Berman Executive Director Center for Democracy and
Technology
Andrew Taubman Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation
Arthur J. Kropp President People for the American Way
Simon Davies Director General Privacy International
cc: The Honorable Ronald Brown United States Secretary of
Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to the christian fanatic Mikhail Marendik
From: Daniel Hammarberg (2:205/433.2)
Is Fidonet a home for religious fanatics?
Christianity was made not to be criticized. If someone still protests
against it, that person must be attacked, not his views.
Oh no, someone used the ford 'fuck'. If people were allowed to do
that, it wouldn't be very beneficial to christianity. Remember,
criticizm is not allowed.
So, we atheists are to blame for a fascist government? Well, then
I'll better charge you for your opinions. During the crusades, as
many as 10 million people may have been killed. And then the
witchburnings. There's another genocide. Although no one has the
bodycount(the christians didn't want people to remember their
crimes), the estimated figures are between 0,5 million to 30 million
people.
Atheism is the enemy of christian oppression. The christians know
that. So to stay in power, atheists and intellectuals must be killed.
Talking about technical stagnation... How many years do you think
christianity have slowed down progress? At least a 1000 years.
Science was banned when the christians were really powerful.
Scientists were harassed and imprisoned. Science is a great weapon
against christian oppression, so it must be stopped...
BTW, you should have drawn that cross upside down. You christians
talk about satan being bad to justify your own oppression, when
neither god or satan exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian reader amazed by ignorance in Russia
by Michael Hall, 1:3402/30
This article was written in response to "A Russian reader amazed by
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 33 27 Feb 1995
atheism in snooze" by Mikhail Ramendik, 2:5020/261.10.
In the article, Mikhail Ramendik cites:
>ads of anti-religious echo conferences and even open flame
>against Christianity.
In addition:
>The 'last bite' that made me write this was an article 'from Michael
>Johnson' in No.5. The word 'f&^k' was actually used without special
>characters, not only preventing SysOps from reading the snoozie to
>their girlfriends, but openly insulting all the community!
He then goes on to rail against "atheistic nonsense," believing it
to be not only the source of Communism, but the stake through his
country's heart until its recent "liberation" at the hands of
drunken fools.
To address the points in order:
Whether there are anti-religious conferences in fidonet or not, they
are an exercise of free speech, something not currently practiced in
post-Communist Russia. There are also pro-religious conferences.
Perhaps Ramendik does not understand the concept of freely writing
what one thinks, and mistakes this for attacks on his personal form
of religion.
Secondly, issue is taken with one person's use of a word. Ramendik
claims this word insults "all the community" (fidonet? Russia?
certain religious people? -- he doesn't define this), but goes on in
a sexist manner to imply all sysops have girlfriends. He ignores the
fact that many female sysops might have boyfriends, likewise gay
male sysops.
But his point is somehow women can't comprehend a word like the one
he cited. An alarming and completely sexist idea.
Some churches may well believe using a word like fuck is
anti-religious. Women driving cars are a sight offensive to Islam.
At one time, black people were offensive to proper church-going
people in South Africa. In my home province of Alberta, I watched in
a court room as Jim Keegstra's father patted a book in his hand and
whispered to his son that yes, indeed, Jews did indeed control the
world's money supply -- it was all in the Bible right here.
Religion was used by Hitler to support the Second World War that
ravaged Russia. Atheism wasn't the cause of the war -- neither was
religion, but it was used to carry it forward.
Ramendik would use his beliefs to control others. This is not what
fidonet is about. Unfortunately, it's what many religions actively
practice and what Russia's current leaders are about.
Electronic networks don't seek to emulate the past -- whether it be
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 34 27 Feb 1995
still-repressive regimes like Russia's (where the news is still
censored and not allowed to report the truth -- like the butchery the
government is perpretrating in Chechynia), or repressive churches that
seek to limit knowledge about the world, confining it to a single book
like the Bible or the Koran.
They're about a new future where ideas are disseminated, held up to
the light, and scrutinized.
If ideas fail, it's because they're no good. That must be the test.
Thank goodness Ramendik doesn't make the rules here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Russian objects to atheism in snooze <bleh>
From: C I A (1:2623/71)
A Russian reader amazed by atheism in snooze
by Mikhail Ramendik, 2:5020/261.10,ramen@pccross.msk.su
>The 'last bite' that made me write this was an article 'from Michael
>Johnson' in No.5. The word 'f&^k' was actually used without special
>characters, not only preventing SysOps from reading the snoozie to
>their girlfriends, but openly insulting all the community!
Hrmm, well, *I* don't have a problem with the word FUCK, and I am a
woman. I don't know of too many mature adults offended by the word
FUCK, EXCEPT christian fundamentalists..
>Otherwise I'd answer all the atheistic nonsense, because we
>have heard it here from the Communist government for 75 years!
>Atheism is indeed the source of communism, and communism acknowledges
>this. So there is probably nothing the atheists can invent to attack
>Christianity that the Russians do not know very well. Oh, if only
>I had the feed...
I find that hard to believe. I always pictured communism as being a
RELIGION OF THE STATE rather then of a god. ya know, where the STATE
is the supreme being. An atheist accepts NOTHIN higher then ones
self - not state, not god, not nothin =)
>So I'd like to know - is FidoNet officially atheist-only? If not, is
>religious discussion in the snooze okay? If yes, I'll be answering the
I sure as hell HOPE NOT! We get enuf of the religious SPAM
everywhere all over every net! Lets keep it out of the snooze -
>atheists there. For we in Russia have seen the consequences of atheism.
>75 years of technical stagnation, millions of martyred people, and a
>world war - this is what we paid for atheism! And personally I do not
>want my fellow Fidonetters to pay the same price.
Don't blame athiesm (the ABSENCE of faith) for communisms problems -
Communism is a flawed ideology, which has its roots in CHRISTIAN
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 35 27 Feb 1995
doctrine - not atheist!! Do atheists claim we are our brothers keeper?
Do atheists demand obedience to some "authority" above ones own
mind? Do atheists resort to force when an indivdual refuses to accept
their ideas?? Only those perpetrating FRAUDS do that, such as
christianity and communism...
" The alledged short cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short
circuit destroying the mind"
-Fellow (ex) Russian, Ayn Rand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I_UFO Forum: When Science Confronts Belief
From: Fredric Rice (1:102/890)
Greetings, FidoNews readers. What follows might be of some
interest to you. It has to do with the I_UFO forum which was
advertised in FidoNews not too long ago and some of the mind
set which one might expect in the forum which was never
addressed. Since I have delinked I_UFO and have been asked not
to participate, I've elected to respond to the moderator
publically to air a little insight into what the forum is like.
(I would like to solicit input from individuals around the
network who have observed like-minded forums; it should be
interesting to compile some notes and perhaps derive an article
for publication in SKEPTIC Magazine.)
A detailed examination into I_UFO isn't really needed so long
as one gets a good look at the book titled "Turncoats and True
Believers," written by Goertzel and published through
Prometheus Press, 1992. The book explores the psychology of
people who persist in beliefs which goes against objective
evidence and actually covers the phenomena observed in I_UFO in
great detail. (Two other books of notice are "Higher
Superstition," by Gross and Levitt and "Questioning Technology"
by Carnes.) How a group of individuals might desire the peace
of mind that not having to think critically offers is covered
well in the book, "The True Believer," by Eric Hoffer.
The science-oriented educational organization referenced in
this message (called CSICOP) is an international organization
which solicits and reports upon scientific investigations
into claims of the paranormal. Among the fellows are well known
and highly respected professionals with a broad spectrum of
credentials. Robert A. Baker, Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins,
Martin Gardner, Stephen J. Gould, Philip J. Klass, Edwin C.
Krupp, Paul Kurtz, Carl Sagan, Eugenie Scott, and Robert
Sheaffer are but a few of the well known authors and populizers
of psychology, zoology, astronomy, and anthropology. (Most
college students will recognize Edwin C. Krupp from his hosting
"Project Universe.") The number of professional magicians,
wizards and conjurers which CSICOP employs to explain and
demonstrate how perpetuators of the paranormal perform their
tricks creates a constant irritant for those who would wish
that their tricks be held secret. Among the magicians which
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 36 27 Feb 1995
assist in ferreting out the hows behind alleged paranormal
feats is Penn and Teller and Wizard James Randi.
The level of discomfort caused by CSICOP is felt in I_UFO.
There are periodic CSICOP-bashing articles who's authorship is
at times difficult to pin down. When the misconceptions and
out-and-out lies (seasoned with personal attacks) are addressed
and corrected, the silence is usually, as they say,
overwhelming.
That's enough background. Let me address the letter sent to me
by one of the moderators of I_UFO -- someone who calls himself
"Bartoo."
Mod> Fred I have had it!
What ever could it be this time. (Rhetorical question.) Could
it be the list of unusual events around the world I enumerated
which self-professed "psychics" failed to predict? (No real
"psychic" could have missed "foreseeing" Michael Jackson
marrying Presley. No real "psychic" could have missed
"foreseeing" the Soviet Union break-up, you know. The list of
what "psychics" missed is nearly endless.)
Is that what has got you upset? (I only listed some 20 items
which "psychics" should have seen. I didn't even include the
earthquake in Japan on my list, as I recall.) Does the fact
that no self-professed "psychic" has _ever_ predicted
_anything_ which wasn't already common knowledge or easilly
predictable upset you? Is it the fact that I was so audacious
as to enumerate but a few instances that "psychics" should
have easilly seen but did not?
Mod> I've given you every opportunity to by your
Mod> own statements to back up your position.
What posistion, _specifically_, do you think I didn't back up
fully? And isn't asking someone to provide evidence for claims
contrary to the dictates of the I_UFO forum? Doesn't the rules
of I_UFO specifically state that no one is required to answer
questions about the validity of their paranormal claims and
that doing so is considered an ejectionable violation?
Or do the rules only apply to believers in the paranormal?
Mod> When a person claims to be the EXPERT and the one backing
Mod> up their carrer field as our police officer and keeper of
Mod> the dictate of a field of endeaver in it's respective Model,
Mod> but refuses to give us the reason to accept that stance or
Mod> role model that person becomes suspect.
Like most of your posts, "Bartoo," that sentence is formatted
so badly that the statement itself is far too ambiguious to
address. It appears as though you think someone in the I_UFO
forum is a police officer and it appears as though I have
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 37 27 Feb 1995
asked said police officer to provide evidence for a claim he
or she forwarded.
I'm unwilling to guess at what you're talking about.
Mod> A true Scientist is open to all aspects representative
Mod> to the Field of Endeaver.
A true scientist asks questions to test the validity of claims.
I have constantly asked people to provide evidence for their
claims and have been personally attacked for doing so with the
demand that by asking "falsifying" questions, I'm insulting. A
true scientist doesn't get his or her feelings hurt by having
to admit that they have no evidence for their unscientific
beliefs. Scientists are allowed to compartimentalize what they
will employ science towards, certainly, yet they may not claim
to be employing science when they're presenting unfounded
conjecture.
A true scientist examines the validity of claims and compares
them with the known results of previous evaluations of the
claims, checking to see if any new evidence has come to light
to warrant another review of the claim. In every paranormal and
outrageous claim I've seen in I_UFO, no new evidence is
provided (indeed, demands for evidence results in claims of
"you're insulting me!") for claims which have been debunked
since the 1920's.
I understand that there is a need for a forum which is for
believers in the paranormal only and where believers are free
from having their beliefs questioned. Yet don't call that
science, "Bartoo." Call it science and you must expect to be
questioned. State clearly the dictates of the forum in the
rules which are posted so that people know that science is not
to be discussed and you'll avoid having scientists check into
the forum.
Mod> A true scientist does not look down on unknown
Mod> possibilities in a rapidly changing world.
A true scientist provides evidence for his or her claims and
does not hide in the I_UFO forum where the priesthood (i.e.
the moderatorship) keeps them safe from having to do so.
What you have in I_UFO are those who are resentful of
scientific method as their deeply-held beliefs are not
verifiable using scientific method. (They demand that science
is a religion exactly equal to any system predicated upon faith
rather than evidence.) It is filled with people who are not
interested in reviewing the physics behind a claim and who want
very much to believe that scientific method is flawed somehow
simply because it doesn't support their beliefs.
One can't be a scientist, "Bartoo," when one doesn't subscribe
to scientific method. None of the paranormalists in the I_UFO
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 38 27 Feb 1995
forum care one iota what science has to say about anti-gravity
devices and "culminating harmonic frequencies converging at
right angles to the cosmic Center" blather.
Such nonsense provides comfort to believers and asking
questions about the validity of such claptwaddle is very
uncomfortable. It is why anyone who asks questions critical of
claims are ejected.
Mod> By refusing to change or open up to new
Mod> possibility, is the reason for the purge.
Straw man. By asking for evidence for outrageous claims I, as
do the other scientists who venture into I_UFO, evidence the
desire to examine the possibilities of all claims. Yet
according to your dictates, asking for evidence for outrageous
claims is contrary to the dogma of the I_UFO forum. Everyone
who participates is requested to believe or keep their mouth
shut. The irony of your claim is outstanding.
Additionally, I started the SKEPTIC forum where believers in
the paranormal could come and present their reasoning
rationally and where the elements of their experiences and
observed phenomena could be examined critically and
scientifically. In SKEPTIC, believers in the paranormal state
their beliefs and reasoning clearly and usually rationally and
believer and skeptic alike learn from each other. The only
thing not permitted are untestable claims of deities.
Someone who creates a science-oriented forum and invites claims
of the paranormal to discussion could hardly be claimed to be
close-minded, "Bartoo."
Mod> Sad but true IMO you fall into this group.
I'm sure that all critically minded fall into your straw man
group. Only the believers in the paranormal are desired in the
I_UFO forum; individuals who question critically the validity
of claims are defacto enemies of the near religious beliefs
expressed in the forum and as such, straw man arguments must be
contrived least it appear that the priesthood is dogmatically
pulling the party line and close-minded.
I_UFO is a "bully pulpit," much like call-in radio shows like
Rush Limbaugh. Callers are allowed a short time to correct the
misconceptions and outright lies whereafter they are talked
over and hung up on. After the caller is gone, the bully pulpit
then proceeds to attack the caller without any opposistion.
Rational, scientific discussion is not desired as it
contradicts beliefs held very dear. Any "caller," however
rational and focused he or she is, is touted as "childish
ranting."
Some familure?
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 39 27 Feb 1995
Mod> You stated you had seven hundred books
Mod> in library, and huge data base.
At _minimum_ my library contains 700 volumes. Of what topic
are you refering to, specifically? Do you want references
behind the physics of why anti-gravity is a physical
impossibility (due to their being no anti-gravitron particle)
rather than it being a technological difficulty? Will Stephen
Hawking be enough or do you want to hear it directly from the
gods rather than one step removed? Is that what your complaint
is all about?
I can provide a great many references by well respected
physicists on any number of paranormal claims. Just ask. Unlike
believers in the paranormal in the I_UFO forum, I'm willing to
answer any and all questions. I can post any number of articles
from peer-reviewed journals which discuss the physical
impossibilities of anti-gravity rather than the technological
difficulties.
But then we have another problem about the I_UFO forum, don't
we? A little problem about cross posting and posting articles
having to be approved by the priesthood before hand else doing
so is an ejectionable violation, remember?
Or has that rule been dropped from the list of I_UFO rules?
Mod> My question to you was are you willing to share?
Do you want the titles of all of the volumes in my library? Or
do you want the titles and ISBN's of just specific volumes
which cover a specific topic? You're meandering again. What is
it that you want?
Also, wasn't my references already offered in I_UFO enough?
Mod> I received no reply.
Since I_UFO is a religious forum where asking questions is
considered off-topic and where asking questions results in
people believing that they're being insulted, I delinked the
forum. For a month or so the moderatorship wished I would go
away on my own, telling me that I was welcome so long as I
didn't insult anyone. Then, every time I asked a question, I
was called insulting.
The last was the claim by the moderatorship that "science has
elected not to review hard evidence" for claims of the
paranormal. When I asked for what, _specifically_, this "hard
evidence" was, I was told that I was insulting. And neither
you, "Bartoo," nor the other moderator would tell me what,
_specifically_, this "hard evidence" was nor even who these
vague, undefined "scientists" were who were ignoring it.
Sound familure?
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 40 27 Feb 1995
I see no need to walk into a church and correct the priesthood.
If you are actually favorable to allowing science in the forum,
I would be quite willing to relink and continue to ask for
evidence from people provided you don't continue to complain
about it.
Mod> I asked seeing as how you are our self proclaimed science
Mod> cop, [...]
Straw man again. The I_UFO forum has several critically-minded
individuals who mostly keep their mouths shut simply because
they follow the rules. During the last week of my visit to the
forum various individuals commented about how my postings were
a "breath of fresh air" and a "welcome change of reason." My
network mail suggests that I shut-up least said reason be
ejected from the forum due to violations of the rules.
I can only wonder if that is actually why you're upset. 'The
fact that since I started speaking up, others have begun to as
well. The church no longer contains pews filled with believers.
There are some warewolves hidden among the pious.
Mod> Personally speaking I doubt anyone here wants or needs a
Mod> CSICOP.
Does CSICOPs very existance threaten you? Is that why you
elected to adopt a confrontational and highly emotional
defensive posture? Or is your complaint based upon my
correcting the outright lies which were perpetuated in the
forum about CSICOP? Each of the points addressed in my
correction are easilly verified. (All issues of their peer-
reviewed journal Skeptical Inquirer contain information which
corrects several of the lies in the CSICOP-bashing article I
addressed.)
Just because there are organizations of scientists and
magicians which evaluate and explain claims of the paranormal
doesn't mean that they are personally out to "get" anyone.
Educational groups exist for a variety of reasons yet few (if
any) are out to "get" anyone.
Additionally, the claims made in the I_UFO forum which were
addressed (and soundly debunked) seven decades ago indicates
that a great many people do indeed need organizations such as
CSICOP.
Mod> After being what I consider fair and spending more time on
Mod> you than was returned or warranted I feel justified in
Mod> asking you to leave.
I'm not surprised. Indeed, I predicted it in my magazine
article in SKEPTIC Magazine. I am happy to see that you have
finally asked honestly for me to leave (even if you have to
contrive straw men to justify it to yourself) rather than
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 41 27 Feb 1995
continue to complain about how insulting my asking questions
is.
Mod> You are here by noticified your presence
Mod> here is suspended in definitely.
"Noticified..." Charming.
-=-
When science confronts claims of the paranormal, science always
wins -- when science is allowed to have its say. In the I_UFO
forum, however, adhearants to scientific method are ejected.
This was expected prior to going in, obviously, and the
experiment yielded predictable results.
If anyone is interested in the SKEPTIC Magazine article
referenced above, you may FileRequest SKEPTIC.ART from my
system. I would like to solicit input from readers detailing
their experiences with must-believers around the network.
Additionally, IUFO.ZIP contains a few messages from various
science-oriented participants and responses by the moderators.
"We have a civilization based on science and technology
and have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one
understands science and technology." - Carl Sagan, 1994
Fredric Rice,
The Skeptic Tank 1:102/890.0.
(818) 335-9601
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Donald Tees, Sylvia Maxwell
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell,
Vince Perriello, Tim Pozar
Tom Jennings
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
more addresses:
Rev. Richard Visage -- 1:163/409
Don -- 1:221/192, don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Sylvia -- 1:221/194, max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com
(Postal Service mailing address)
FidoNews
FidoNews 12-09 Page: 42 27 Feb 1995
128 Church St.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 2S4
voice: (519) 570-3137
Fidonews is published weekly by and for the members of the FIDONET
INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR ELECTRONIC MAIL system. It is a compilation
of individual articles contributed by their authors or their
authorized agents. The contribution of articles to this compilation
does not diminish the rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in
these articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
FidoNews.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
Copyright 1995 Donald Tees. All rights reserved. Duplication
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use
in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or the eds.
Articles by Madam emilia may be retransmitted freely through
cyber-space.
OBTAINING COPIES: The most recent issue of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained by sending SASE to the above paper-mail
address, or trade for copy of your 'zine.
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org,
in directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews.
Anyone interested in getting a copy of the INTERNET GATEWAY FAQ may
freq GISFAQ.ZIP from 1:133/411.0, or send an internet message to
fidofaq@gisatl.fidonet.org. No message or text or subject is
necessary. The address is a keyword that will trigger the automated
response. People wishing to send inquiries directly to David Deitch
should now mail to fidonet@gisatl.fidonet.org rather than the
previously listed address.
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.
"the pulse of the cursor is the heartbeat of fidonet"...
-- END