textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0818.txt

Computer underground Digest    Wed  Feb 28, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 18
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU)
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #8.18 (Wed, Feb 28, 1996)

File 1--     CDT Press Release/2d suit against CDA
File 2--Are you feeling threatened by the CDA?
File 3--British virus writer to jail for 18 months
File 4--(Fwd) RE: White House Not Decent
File 5--Response to "French Book Banning"
File 6--NIU President Responds to Telecommunications Bill
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)

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

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

Date:         Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:09:15 -0600
From:         Stephen Smith <libertas@COMP.UARK.EDU>
Subject: File 1--     CDT Press Release/2d suit against CDA

Following is a relase prepared by the Center for Democracy and Technology
on the challenge to CDA:



CDA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FAILS TO RECOGNIZE
UNIQUE NATURE OF THE INTERNET

On Monday, February 26, the Citizens Internet Empowerment
Coalition, the American Library Association, America Online,
Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft, NETCOM, The Commercial Internet
eXchange, The Newspaper Association of America, Wired Magazine,
Hotwired, Families Against Internet Censorship, and several other
plaintiffs filed suit in a Federal Court in Philadelphia PA
seeking to overturn the Communications Decency Act on the
grounds that it is a violation of the First Amendment rights of
all Internet users.

In a 55 page complaint that details the history of the Internet
and outlines how the network operates, the CIEC intends to educate
the court on how the Internet functions and why the broad content
regulations imposed by the CDA threaten the very existence of the
Internet as a viable medium for free expression, education, and
commerce. Among other things, the CIEC challenge argues that:

   * The Internet is a unique communications medium which deserves
First Amendment protections at least as broad as those afforded to
print media.

   * Individual users and Parents, not the Federal Government,
should determine for themselves and their children what material
comes into their homes based on their own tastes and values.

   * The CDA will be ineffective at protecting children from
"indecent" or "patently" offensive material online.

The CIEC challenge is separate from the case brought by the ACLU,
EFF, EPIC, Planned Parenthood, and several other plaintiffs in the
same Philadelphia court on February 8, 1996. The ACLU effort has
made significant and important headway in the past several weeks.
The CIEC case will reinforce the ACLU's efforts while focusing on
the unique nature of the Internet and alternatives to government
content regulations. ACLU and CIEC attorneys are closely
coordinating their efforts, and it is expected that the courts
will eventually consolidate the two cases.

The outcome of the legal challenges to the CDA will likely
determine the legal status of speech on the Internet and the
future of the First Amendment in the Information Age.

Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Members and Plaintiffs

The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition is a large and diverse
group of Internet users, businesses, non-profit groups, and civil
liberties advocates, who share the common goal of protecting the
First Amendment and the viability of the Internet as a means of
free expression, education, and commerce. CIEC members believe
that parents, not the United States Government, are the best and
most appropriate judges of what material is appropriate for
themselves and their children.

Named Plaintiffs in the CIEC Challenge to the Communications
Decency Act:

American Library Association
America Online, Inc.
American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Society of Newspaper Editors
Association of American Publishers
Association of Publishers, Editors and Writers
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition
Commercial Internet eXchange
Compuserve, Inc.
Families Against Internet Censorship
Freedom to Read Foundation
HotWired Ventures Ltd.
Interactive Digital Software Association
Interactive Services Association
Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Network
NETCOM On-Line Communications Services, Inc.
Newspaper Association of America
Prodigy, Inc.
Society of Professional Journalists
Wired Ventures Ltd.

Members of the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition:

Americans for Tax Reform
Association of American University Presses, Inc.
Association of National Advertisers
Association of Research Librarians
Center for Democracy and Technology
Coalition for Networked Information
Media Access Project
Media Institute
Microsystems Software, Inc.
National Assoc. of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges
People for the American Way
Recording Industry Association of America
Special Libraries Association
Surfwatch Software, Inc.
University of California Santa Barbara Library

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 16:47:15 -0500
From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM
Subject: File 2--Are you feeling threatened by the CDA?

To any interested parties:

We have become aware of an effort to promote the voices of people who
are presently not represented in the pending law suits challenging the
CDA.  If you feel that material you have posted, are posting, or will
be posting may be considered "indecent" or "patently offensive," you
might want to consider getting involved.

Jim Crawford, a partner at the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader,
Harrison, Segal & Lewis, is preparing an amicus brief in support the
ACLU's challenge to the indecency provisions contained in the recently
passed telecommunications law.  The brief will focus on the
overbreadth of the CDA, with particular emphasis on two groups of
amici -- content providers (those who place content on the Internet
that the CDA now criminalizes or potentially criminalizes under its
overbroad language); and access providers (ISPs, mainly).  As to
content providers, the argument will be that there is a tremendous
amount of socially valuable expression on the Internet that could be
termed "indecent," or "patently offensive," depending on the community
standards to be applied, under the CDA's overbroad provisions, but
which should not be censored as to adults or minors.   Amici want to
provide the court with very specific examples of such expression.

Among others, Crawford is interested in physicians' or medical groups;
universities and professors; artists; musicians; museums; and
businesses (who

may use provocative advertising and marketing techniques).  In other
words, if you are concerned that the content of your postings may be
considered "indecent" or "patently offensive," the amici may be
interested in hearing from you.

Anyone who is interested in being considered for amicus status should
forward a   statement of interest to Jennifer in Jim Crawford's office
at Jennifer_DuFault_James@SHSL.com.

Please feel free to pass this on to other persons who may be
interested.

Thank you.   Vic Walczak

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:59:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Crypt Newsletter <crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--British virus writer to jail for 18 months

In mid-November 1995, the English trial of virus-writer Chris Pile
ended with a bang after months of stops and starts when the 26
year-old Devon man was sent away for 18 months as punishment for
spreading and inciting others to distribute the SMEG computer
viruses, programs of his design.

It was a depressing tale that stretched over a year, from
Pile's arrest and the confiscation of his computer by New Scotland
Yard's computer crime unit in 1994, to his conviction in Crown
Court in mid-1995, to the inevitable sentencing which sent him up
for a year and a half stint in an English bighouse the same
week when many others in computerland where trotting out shiny new
wares at ComDex in Las Vegas.

During the case, Pile admitted to five counts of unauthorized access
to computers to facilitate crime and five of unauthorized
modifications of computer software between 1993 and April 1994. He
also confessed to a charge of inciting others to spread viruses.

The English newspaper The Independent referred to Pile, known
briefly as the Black Baron in the virus underground, as a "'mad and
reclusive boffin' who wreaked havoc on computer systems by spreading
[viruses] . . . across the world . . ." [Webster's New World
Dictionary informs readers "mad boffin" is Brit slang for "mad
scientist."]

The Times asserted Microprose had been struck by one of Pile's
SMEG viruses and estimated that it lost 500,000 pounds in business
and wasted 480 man hours checking files for Pile's replicating code.
Another company, named Apricot, was claimed to have been closed while
clearing a third of its machines from a Pile-written virus infection.

In America, Dr. Alan Solomon - developer of the UK-based Solomon
Anti-virus Toolkit (S&S International), worked the news of Pile's
downfall into a presentation given by his firm at ComDex in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The following week, Graham Cluley - a colleague and
employee of Solomon at S&S, privately remarked on the Compuserve
on-line service that the  severity of Pile's sentence surprised him.

The treatment of Pile, an unemployed self-taught programmer, by the
English press was slightly reminiscent of the US media's portrayal of
Kevin Mitnick.  For the press, Pile was writ large as a young
cyber-madman bent on corrupted programming that resulted in
computer data damage escalating into the millions of dollars. Worse,
his code was said to be in the hands of shadowy criminal arch-fiends
in the US and Europe. Mitnick, of course, had been attributed with
cartoonish superhuman malevolence by the US media, a man dangerous
enough to bring down the Internet, steal the Christmas card list from
your computer and/or break into military computers controlling
NORAD.

English newspapers repeatedly reprinted the activation message from
Pile's SMEG.Pathogen virus.  "Your hard disk is being corrupted
courtesy of PATHOGEN!  Programmed in the U.K. (Yes, NOT Bulgaria!)
[C] the Black Baron 1993-94.  Featuring SMEG v0.1: Simulated
Metamorphic Encryption Generator! 'Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back
for breakfast.....' Unfortunately some of your data won't!!!!!"
Only superficially baleful and menacing, the message was a mixture of
quote from an English TV show named "Red Dwarf" and the stereotypical
gloating anti-style of previous virus writers to numerous to count.

For The Independent Pile was the "most famous" of virus-writers and
the "most dangerous" of a small band of them working in England.  The
Independent exaggerated when adding further that Pile's viruses,
called SMEG.Queeg and SMEG.Pathogen, were "the two most sophisticated
ever written." This was probably surprising news even to the anti-virus
software developers interviewed for the Black Baron stories. Indeed,
Alan Solomon's "Virus Encyclopedia," a compilation of technical notes
on computer viruses gives them a page a piece, neither much more nor
less than the hundreds of other entries in the book.

Pile's viruses, however, had reached "criminal elements" working in
Northern Ireland, the US, and Germany, according to the Independent.

The demonization and denunciation of Pile was unusually harsh in
light of the fact that prosecution witness Jim Bates commented to
Crypt Newsletter that UK authorities were uninterested in sending
officials overseas to collect evidence on the SMEG viruses in the
United States because a guilty verdict had been arrived at by
mid-1995.

Bates was the prosecution's point man in the case against Pile.  He
was, perhaps, the most experienced for the job, having played a
starring role in another famous U.K. computer crime case - the
prosecution of Joe Popp for the AIDS Information diskette extortion
scheme - in 1991.

In late 1989, Jim Bates was among the first to examine software
called the AIDS Information Trojan. The AIDS Info Trojan, as it
became known, was used as part of a computer blackmail attempt
launched by Popp, an erratic scientist living in Cleveland, Ohio.
Popp had concocted a scheme to extort money from PC users in Europe.
It involved the programming of a software booby-trap that masqueraded
as a database containing information on AIDS and how to assess an
individual's risk of contracting the disease.

The database, as one might expect, was trivial and contained only the
barest information on AIDS. However, when an unwitting user installed
the software, the AIDS Information Trojan created hidden
directories and files on the computer while hiding a counter in
one of the system's start-up files.  Once the count reached 90, Popp's
creation would encrypt the directory entries, alter the names of files
with the intent of making them inaccessible and present the operator with
a message to send approximately $200 to a postal drop in Panama City for
a cure reversing the effects of the program. The AIDS Information Trojan
came with a vaguely menacing warning not to install the software if one
didn't intend to pay for it at once.

Popp mailed 20,000 sets of the trojan on disk to users in Europe,
apparently subscribers to a now defunct magazine called PC Business
World.  The plan quickly fizzled but Bates was among the first to
analyze Popp's A
on it to English authorities.

The disks were eventually traced back to Popp and New Scotland Yard
began a lengthy process of extraditing him to England to stand
trial for computer blackmail in connection with the disks, a
battle which took almost another two years.  Bates was flown to
Cleveland during this time to present evidence in court which
persuaded American authorities to hand over Popp for extradition
to London. Bates also analyzed Popp's original AIDS Information
Trojan software, source code and a program which was evidently
intended to reverse the effects of the logic bomb, thus
regenerating a victim's data.

However, instead of going smoothly, the Popp trial became a source of
controversy.  It was claimed the Cleveland man was unfit to stand
trial because he began wearing a cardboard box over his head, making
it impossible to determine whether he was legitimately non compos mentis
or merely shamming.  As a result, Bates said to Crypt, Popp was
declared a "public disgrace" by the court and ejected from the
country. In England, this is an unusual classification which,
apparently, allows the case to remain open, the purpose being - on
this occasion, according to Bates - to discourage by intimidation
the authoring of books or a publicity tour of talk shows in the
United States by the defendant. At the time, it was difficult to
tell if Bates was being serious or facetious.

Chris Pile, unlike Joe Popp, appeared not to be flat crazy. Plus,
his computer viruses worked too well. It didn't take much work to
scare the uninformed with them. And Pile's legal defense team was
unable to muster the kind of sophisticated defense necessary to
mitigate Jim Bates' expertise.

For Pile's prosecution, Bates furnished collection and evaluation
of evidence relating to the spread of the Pile/SMEG viruses and
damages attributed to them.

Pile, said Bates, had attached a SMEG virus to a computer game and
uploaded it to a bulletin board system in the United Kingdom.  The
virus writer had also targeted the Dutch-made Thunderbyte anti-virus
software, initially by infecting one of the company's anti-virus
programs distributed via the shareware route.  After examining
software and source code for Pile's computer virus encryption
engine, named the SMEG, Bates also maintained Pile had invested
a great deal of time in fine-tuning subsequent editions of it
so it specifically generated computer virus samples opaque to
the Thunderbyte anti-virus scanning software.

Although there has been little unusual about this habit of virus
writers since 1993, it surely must have seemed remarkable
techno-magic to the English Crown Court. The judge treated it so.

"I dare say you were looking forward to reading in the computer
press about the exploits of the Black Baron," said judge Jeremy
Griggs to the defendant. "Those who seek to wreak mindless havoc on
one of the vital tools of our age cannot expect lenient treatment,"
he thundered before sending Pile over for eighteen months.

In the wake of Pile's sentencing, English newspapers continually
exaggerated the virus-writer as an international menace. The Times
of London echoed The Independent's hyperbole, maintaining Pile had
written a "training manual" for virus-writers found "in America and
Northern Ireland where it was being used by criminals."

Ali Rafati, as part of Pile's legal defense, said his client was a
"sad recluse."  The real Pile is difficult to describe in any detail
even though an excessively overwrought and lugubrious "Biography of a
virus-writer" was written about him by a cyber acquaintance and
circulated widely in the computer virus underground in 1994, just
before he was arrested by New Scotland Yard.

As bombastic as anything written by The Independent, Black Baron's
biography begins:

"In 1969 Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon. It was a momentous
year for the world. But no-one [sic] at the time paid much attention to
a baby boy being born in a town in southern England. This baby boy
was destined to grow into one of the most infamous computer virus
writers of all time. In 1969 The Black Baron was born!"

Curiously, almost 80 percent of the Black Baron's "biography" is a
reprint of material written by Ross M. Greenberg, a semi-retired
programmer who wrote the Flu_Shot and VirexPC sets of anti-virus
software. The reprint dates from 1988 and contains standard
anti-virus rant and rave, calling virus-writers "worms." One
supposes it could be called mildly irritating by the thin-skinned.

In any case, if the Black Baron's biography is taken at face value,
Greenberg's anti-virus-writer spiel was the seed that formed the basis
of Pile's desire to write viruses as a means toward impressing people.

Black Baron's biography reads (errors reprinted), ". . . when
computers stop attracting social inadequates, but whom I am refering
to the arrogant members of the anti-virus lobby as well as the
nefarious virus authors. But what of the Black Baron? What is he? Is
he a malicious criminal? A computer terrorist? A social inadequate
trying to reassure himself of his own inadequacies through destroying
computer data? I don't [believe] so. I have spoken to Black Baron on
a number of occassions. He is happy to discuss his work, and, at my
request, he has even released a document detailing the design of SMEG.
He doesn't feed on the panic and fear that SMEG viruses such as
Pathogen and Queeg cause. Rather he revels in the embarrasement and
panic which his software causes the arrogant anti-virus writers."

At the time, Pile was unemployed. The "biography" concludes:

"After talking with him, I understand the Black Baron. I feel sorry for
him as well. He is a highly gifted individual who has not been given a
chance by computer society. So he has made his own chance. We all need
recognition. Mainly through employment, but we as thinking machines must
receive recognition for our abilities. Otherwise we sink into melancholy
and paranoida. Black Baron has received his recognition. We, the
computer society are responsible for the creation of Pathogen, Queeg,
SMEG and all the other computer viruses. We have no one to blame but
ourselves. It is our desire to keep the computer fraternity a closed
club which has alienated so many of our colleagues. By rubbing their
noses in it, so to speak, we have begged for trouble, and like the
inhabitants of Troy, we have received it."

English newspapers reported Pile had confessed to police he had
written the viruses to "increase his self-esteem" and because England
appeared not to have produced any virus writers capable of programming
samples capable of spreading in the real world.

The legal offices of Rafferty and Woodmansea, Pile's legal team were
contacted repeatedly by Crypt Newsletter but could not be reached for
opinion. Surprisingly, a secretary on the end of the phone claimed
they lacked e-mail addresses.

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 21:20:41 -0500
From: IPS@OLYMPUS.NET(Steve O'Keefe)
Subject: File 4--(Fwd) RE: White House Not Decent

Sent--	Sunday, February 25, 1996 9:43 AM
To--	cypherpunks@toad.com

(Reprinted without permission from the Seattle Times
Personal Technology section)

White House Site Blocked

Add the White House to the Internet's extensive list of dens of
sin.

Surfwatch, a widely used software program that prevents access
to, and downloading of, sexually explicit material on the
Internet, accidently blocked access to the White House home page
recently - all because a "White House for Kids" Web site address
contained the word "couples."

That's a dirty word in the Surfwatch universe because many
sexually explicit online sites use it as part of their come-on.

In this case, "couples" merely referred to the Executive Branch
tandems of President and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al and Tipper
Gore.

Surfwatch fixed the problem within hours, although some might
still find the site offensive.

For political reasons, that is.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 07:47:54 -0800 (PST)
From: beust@SOPHIA.ILOG.FR(Cedric Beust)
Subject: File 5--Response to "French Book Banning"

Declan McCullagh <declan@WELL.COM> writes

: (I'm already hosting a book banned by the French government:
:     http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/le-secret/)

      Ok this is it. I have tried my best to resist the urge to reply, but
      this new mention is one too many. I can't let any more misinformation
      spread like this.

      First of all, I have nothing against you. Declan, and I respect the
      cause you *think* you are defending, but I will try to show that you
      have gone too far in this quest, and that you lost the minimum sense
      of "esprit critique" under the so-called motivation of defending free
      speech.

      Le Grand Secret is *not* a "book banned by the French government". It
      is a book banned by Francois Miterrand's family, on their request
      (and that of their lawyer's, who also has many good reasons to see
      this book withdrawn from the shelves as I will make clear below).

      The book hasn't been censored because of so-called sensitive material
      contained in it, but on the sole criterion that it relates private
      details of Mr. Mitterrand and relatives. This is a simple breach of
      privacy affair, not an attempt to hide away information from the public
      by some government cabal (remember, there is no cabal, and this
      applies to real life too :-)).

      If you had the curiosity to have the book read by a French speaking
      person, they would have let you know very quickly that this book
      contains *nothing* sensational. You can read here and there a few
      clear abuses of privileges (implying the lawyer I mentioned above,
      thus his haste to have the court censor it), but nothing unsuspected
      (you do expect the relatives of the president of a nation to have
      some privileges, don't you ? I am not saying this is normal, but just
      that it can be expected, and is no secret).

      Now, let me try to explain why you shouldn't be hosting this book.

      In France (just like in the United States and more and more
      countries), the government is trying to have a stake at
      -- somehow -- introducing regulations in the Internet. France might
      have its own CDA very soon. This kind of very unfortunate affair (*)
      is exactly what the government is expecting to justify a quick
      intervention and the creation of hasty measures to stop this den of
      pirates that dwell in the Internet. For you are a pirate, Declan,
      because you are violating the copyright law that applies to this book
      (the United States signed the Berne agreement regarding copyright and
      intellectual property). Are you aware of this ? Are you aware that
      what you are doing is exactly the same as hosting a pirate copy of,
      say, Microsoft NT, on your web page and say to all "come and download
      it" ?

      Don't you have the impression that by trying to defend the free
      speech on the Internet, you are doing exactly the opposite ?

      It's curious to see that as soon as the mere consideration of free
      speech comes into play, all actors (you first, this might apply to
      the EFF as well) suddenly lose all sense of criticism and are more
      hasty to wave blindly the banner of free speech than initiate a more
      thorough enquiry in order to make sure what this is all about.

      Please, Declan, don't think I am bashing your overall work. I am
      just trying to say you should be more careful when exercising your
      right to fight censorship and promote free speech.

      Regards,

Cedric BEUST
beust@sophia.inria.fr


(*)   (I remind the CUDers that it all started when a French cybercafe decided
      to put the book online right after it was withdrawn from the
      stores. I can elaborate and give more precise details on how and why
      the bartender was arrested afterwards in case this is of interest)

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 03:23:52 -0600
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 6--NIU President Responds to Telecommunications Bill

               NIU RESPONDS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL

   President John E. La Tourette
   February 16, 1996

Since passage earlier this month of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, colleges and universities across the country have been
struggling to understand the potential implications of the bill's
so-called "indecency" provisions as they relate to faculty, staff
and student use of the Internet. As you may know, a federal judge in
Philadelphia recently granted a temporary restraining order that
prohibits the U.S. Justice Department from enforcing the indecency
provisions; however even that decision left supporters and opponents
confused. Clearly, this issue will not be definitively resolved
anytime soon, and we recognize the need to address campus concerns
in the interim. In consultation with NIU legal counsel and policy
experts at the American Council on Education and the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, I offer the
following thoughts.

At the heart of the controversy are provisions which prohibit
Internet users from sending "indecent" material to minors or from
making such material available in any way that could be accessible
to children. Critics have also charged that a little-noticed
provision in the indecency section of the legislation would ban all
discussion of abortion on computer networks. (On this point,
President Clinton has clearly stated that the Justice Department
will not enforce a provision that is clearly in violation of the
First Amendment.)

Two basic issues define this controversy: the definition of
indecency, and institutional and individual liability. As these are
issues of infinite complexity, no official or organization has yet
issued a definitive interpretation of the legal issues involved. The
American Council on Education, the American Library Association and
the American Association of State Colleges and Universities are
working in Washington to craft technical amendments to the
Telecommunications Bill that would resolve many of the issues that
concern their member institutions. Additionally, Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont) and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), both members of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill (SB1567) on
February 9 which would strip out the indecency provisions
altogether.

Controversy surrounding use of the Internet clearly identifies a
mismatch between the speed of technological advancement and our
nation's ability to thoughtfully deal with ensuing constitutional
questions. Further, the legal questions with which we are faced go
far beyond issues of alleged "indecency." For example, the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) recently
urged its members to adopt a "code of ethics" for students using the
Internet, and suggests that students be required to agree to follow
the code before being given e-mail addresses. AASCU's recommendation
follows an incident at the University of Maryland in which a student
posted unsubstantiated hearsay on the Internet about a local woman
whom he said had been abusing her high school-aged daughter. The
student listed the woman's phone number on this world-wide post, and
she subsequently received numerous harrassing calls.

AASCU's most recent posting on this subject suggests that colleges,
universities and other providers of Internet access could be held
harmless for indecent or harrassing posts by students if the network
manager can show that the institution has taken good faith,
reasonable, effective and appropriate actions under the
circumstances to restrict or prevent access to minors to (indecent)
communications. It remains unclear, however, how an institution
could prove "good faith" in an environment where students have
access to many campus computer servers, and where millions of e-mail
and other Internet communications by students and faculty are sent
daily. AASCU officials also note that the Justice Department will
likely develop guidelines for owners and operators of computer
servers on what "reasonable and appropriate" measures they can take
to avoid transmission or display of indecent content to minors.
AASCU plans to further discuss the implications of the
Communications Decency Act at a meeting next month of campus
governmental relations and communications representatives; NIU will
be represented at that meeting.

In the meantime, Northern Illinois University will continue to
foster and protect academic freedom in teaching, research and
creative artistry as strongly as ever. That this will continue is
unmistakably guaranteed by the governance standards of the Board of
Trustees and the University Constitution. The University has not
changed any policy or any operation as a result of this law being
passed -- there is still access to the Internet, home pages and the
other uses which have been provided to our academic community.
Moreover, it is unlikely that reasonable and responsible use of this
communications tool will result in adverse consequences for
individual members of the university community. University employees
are financially protected in the responsible performance of their
duties through the newly strengthened Indemnification Policy in our
new Board's bylaws. At the same time, we take very seriously any
real or potential threats to academic freedom, and will continue to
closely monitor developments in this case. Although there are many
unanswered questions that we could discuss internally, it is more
appropriate for faculty and staff concerns to be communicated to our
elected officials in Washington. A list of their names and
addresses, including e-mail addresses, is attached.

The telecommunications act was several years in the making, received
extensive bipartisan support, and was intended to liberate
technology and make it work more effectively for all citizens.
Unfortunately, as often happens in our legislative process, some
unintended provisions made their way into what is otherwise a
positive set of reforms. We all have an interest in seeing the goals
of the original legislation realized. At the same time, we are
appropriately concerned about the imposition of vague,
"community-based" decency standards on the normal, scholarly
activities of this or any institution of higher learning.

_________________________________________________________________


   Illinois Senators

   Carol Moseley-Braun
   SH-320 Hart Senate Office Building
   Washington, D.C. 20510-1301
   202/224-2854
   E-Mail: senator@moseley-braun.senate.gov

   Paul Simon
   SD-462 Dirksen Senate Office Building
   Washington, D.C. 20510-1302
   202/224-2152
   E-Mail: senator@simon.senate.gov

_________________________________________________________________


   U.S. Representatives from Northern Illinois Districts

   Philip M. Crane
   233 Cannon House Office Building
   Washington, D.C. 20515-1308
   202/225-3711


   J. Dennis Hastert
   2453 Rayburn House Office Building
   Washington, D.C. 20515-1314
   202/225-2976
   FAX: 202/225-0697
   E-Mail: dhastert@hr.house.gov


   Donald Manzullo
   426 Cannon House Office Building
   Washington, D.C. 20515-1316
   202/225-5676
_________________________________________________________________


   President John E. La Tourette
   February 16, 1996






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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 16 Dec, 1995)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:

     SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to:   cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to  CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  +352-466893

  UNITED STATES:  etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8)  in /pub/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #8.18
************************************