informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0991.txt

825 lines
36 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 17, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 91
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.91 (Wed, Dec 17, 1997)
File 1--Text of S 1482: "No Electronic Theft Act"
File 2--Internet Risks and Liability
File 3--Policy Post 3.15 -- CDT, EFF, CPSR Call on FCC to Protect
File 4--The Big Lie : AAS editorial on "Cyberspace Issues"
File 5--Computer humor
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:54:12 -0800 (PST)
From: CuDigest <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 1--Text of S 1482: "No Electronic Theft Act"
((Moderators' Note: Thanks to the person who sent this over
(but who's address was garbled on arrival)).
Union Calendar No. 198
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
A BILL
To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to
provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright
infringement provisions, and for other purposes.
October 23, 1997
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
HR 2265 RH
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
[Report No. 105-339]
To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to
provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright
infringement provisions, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 25, 1997
Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. COBLE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts,
and Mr. CANNON) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
October 23, 1997
Additional sponsors: Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. Clement
October 23, 1997
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[STRIKE OUT ALL AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND INSERT THE PART
PRINTED IN ITALIC]
[FOR TEXT OF INTRODUCED BILL, SEE COPY OF BILL AS INTRODUCED ON
JULY 25, 1997]
A BILL
To amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to
provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright
infringement provisions, and for other purposes.
[Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, [<-Italic]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `No Electronic Theft (NET) Act'.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated
paragraph relating to the term `display', the following new
paragraph:
`The term `financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation
of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of
other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright
willfully either--
`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain, or
`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more
copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18.'.
(c) LIMITATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS- Section 507(a) of title
17, United States Code, is amended by striking `three' and
inserting `5'.
(d) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT- Section 2319 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking `subsection (b)' and
inserting `subsections (b) and (c)';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
`subsection (a) of this section' and inserting `section
506(a)(1) of title 17'; and
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting `including by electronic means,'
after `if the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution,'; and
(ii) by striking `with a retail value of more than
$2,500' and inserting `which have a total retail value
of more than $2,500'; and
(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e) and
inserting after subsection (b) the following:
`(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of
title 17--
`(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in
the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense
consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more
copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
`(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in
the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is
a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
`(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in
the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense
consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more
copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
`(d)(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to
Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of
the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer
shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim
of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss
suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of
the offense on that victim.
`(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall
include--
`(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by
conduct involved in the offense;
`(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and
`(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.'.
(e) UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION AND TRAFFICKING OF LIVE MUSICAL
PERFORMANCES- Section 2319A of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
`(d) VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT- (1) During preparation of the
presentence report pursuant to Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to
submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim impact
statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent
and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim, including
the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
`(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall
include--
`(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by
conduct involved in the offense;
`(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such works; and
`(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.'.
(f) TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES- Section 2320 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
`(d)(1) During preparation of the presentence report pursuant to
Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of
the offense shall be permitted to submit, and the probation officer
shall receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim
of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss
suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic impact of
the offense on that victim.
`(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements shall
include--
`(A) producers and sellers of legitimate goods or services
affected by conduct involved in the offense;
`(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such goods or
services; and
`(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.'.
(g) DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION- (1) Under the authority
of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat.
1987) and section 21 of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law
100-182; 101 Stat. 1271; 18 U.S.C. 994 note) (including the
authority to amend the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements), the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure
that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a
crime against intellectual property (including offenses set forth
at section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, and sections
2319, 2319A, and 2320 of title 18, United States Code) is
sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and to adequately
reflect the additional considerations set forth in paragraph (2) of
this subsection.
(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Sentencing Commission
shall ensure that the guidelines provide for consideration of the
retail value and quantity of the items with respect to which the
crime against intellectual property was committed.
SEC. 3. INFRINGEMENT BY UNITED STATES.
Section 1498(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking `remedy of the owner of such copyright shall be by action'
and inserting `action which may be brought for such infringement
shall be an action by the copyright owner'.
SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act or
the amendments made by this Act modifies liability for copyright
infringement, including the standard of willfulness for criminal
infringement.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:38:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve Worona <slw1@cornell.edu>
Subject: File 2--Internet Risks and Liability
INTERNET RISKS AND LIABILITY
An Intensive One-Day Workshop
Los Angeles, California
January 30, 1998
(See bottom of this memo for additional dates and locations.)
WHO SHOULD ATTEND:
* Webmasters
* Web-content developers
* Lawyers
* Risk managers
* Librarians
* Judicial administrators
* Public relations directors
TOPICS:
The Internet
* What's the Internet all about?
* Live demonstrations and examples
* Today's technology: capabilities and challenges
* Why traditional computer security isn't enough
Computer Law and Policy
* How to avoid liability
* Recent cases and legislation
* Developing effective policies and practices
* Common mistakes and how to avoid them
* Policy pros and cons
Key Areas of Potential Liability
* Copyright
* Public information and privacy
* Defamation and harassment
* Pornography, obscenity, and indecency
When Precautions Fail
* Your rights and responsibilities
* Gathering evidence without compromising prosecution
* Taking preemptive action
* Working cooperatively with law enforcement
INVITATION
from Charles W. Jermy, Associate Dean
Cornell School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions
As you know well, colleges and universities are in the midst of an
information technology revolution. Faculty, staff, students, alumni,
and the general public are using information resources and technologies
in new and transforming ways. The Internet and the World Wide Web have
become indispensable tools, not just for research and instruction, but
for numerous business functions as well: admissions, grade reporting,
student services, public information, development, and much more.
As we rely on the Web to share information with individuals both inside
and outside our organizations, we also take on a new spectrum of risks
and liabilities. Those who depend on information technology to do
their jobs need guidance on the often very confusing legal requirements
governing that technology. The Internet Risks and Liability Workshop
is an intensive one-day program that identifies the most effective
procedures for ensuring the legal and ethical use of the Internet for a
variety of business purposes.
The presenters explain -- in non-technical, jargon-free language -- how
the Internet really works and what the relevant laws mean. They
highlight current legislation and case law, illustrated by live
Internet demonstrations. They also describe effective practices for
limiting institutional risk and liabilities, while upholding the
principles of intellectual property and free expression. The program
concludes with guidance on developing institution-specific Internet
policies and practicies.
As never before, information technology professionals, legal counsel,
and policy makers must work together to determine the steps our
institutions should take to thrive in the Information Age. I hope you
will plan on participating in the program.
PRESENTERS
Marjorie W. Hodges, J.D.
Policy Advisor, Office of Information Technologies, and Director,
Computer Policy and Law Program, Cornell University
Marjorie W. Hodges is a frequent speaker on the legal and ethical
aspects of computer policies. A contributing editor of the national
quarterly Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, Ms. Hodges is
recognized as a national authority in the field of computer policy and
law. She is the leader of the CAUSE Policy Constituent Group and is a
contributing author of the monograph "Contemporary Issues in Judicial
Affairs," in which she addresses First Amendment issues and computer
policy in higher education.
Steven L. Worona
Assistant to the Vice President for Information Technologies, and
Director, Computer Policy and Law Program, Cornell University
Steven L. Worona has worked in the field of computer-mediated
information storage and delivery for over twenty-five years. Mr.
Worona is the creator of Cornell's CUinfo, the first campus-wide
information system. He was also a principal developer of the PL/C
compiler at Cornell, and of the XCELL+ factory simulation system
marketed commercially by Express Software Products, Inc. Mr. Worona
serves on a wide variety of technical committees and task forces in the
academic computing field and has spoken and consulted internationally
on current applications and future trends in computer-based
communication.
Hodges and Worona are the authors of "Legal Underpinnings for Creating
Campus Computer Policy" and "The First Amendment in Cyberspace," both
published recently in CAUSE/EFFECT magazine.
PROGRAM INFORMATION
Internet Risks and Liability will be held in the Sheraton Gateway Hotel
at 6101 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, which is
conveniently located next to the Los Angeles International Airport.
Participants should plan to arrive for registration on Friday, January
30, at 8:00 a.m. and to leave no earlier than 5:00 p.m.
The program charge for Internet Risks and Liability is $475. This
includes course materials, continental breakfast, and refreshment
breaks. Continuing Education Units (CEUs) will be available to program
participants. Please register early to secure a space in the workshop
as enrollment is limited. Persons whose cancellations are received in
writing by January 15 will receive a full refund. Cancellations
received after January 15 are subject to a $100 cancellation fee.
Substitutions may be made prior to January 27.
For additional information and application forms, please call (607)
255-7259 or e-mail us at cusp@cornell.edu. See also
<http://www.sce.cornell.edu/html/irl.html>
ACCOMMODATIONS
Participants should make their own reservations by calling the Sheraton
Gateway Hotel directly at (310) 642-1111. Please indicate that you
will be attending Internet Risks and Liability in order to qualify for
the special rate of $99 per night (single or double occupancy). Early
reservations are recommended. Room availability and rates cannot be
guaranteed after January 8. Twenty-four-hour airport shuttle service
is available.
ADDITIONAL DATES AND LOCATIONS
February 16, 1998 Chapel Hill, NC
March 25, 1998 Baltimore, MD
April 24, 1998 Dallas, TX
The 3-day Computer Policy and Law Annual Seminar will take place at
Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) on July 8-10, 1998.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:15:28 -0500
From: Graeme Browning <gbrowning@CDT.ORG>
Subject: File 3--Policy Post 3.15 -- CDT, EFF, CPSR Call on FCC to Protect
The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 3, Number 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online
-------------------------------------------------------------
CDT POLICY POST Volume 3, Number 15 Decenber 16, 1997
CONTENTS: (1) Civil Liberties Groups Call on FCC to Protect Privacy, Security
as FBI Pushes Digital Telephony Law
(3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe
(4) About CDT, Contacting us
** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact **
Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <gbrowning@cdt.org>
|PLEASE SEE END OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION|
_______________________________________________________________
(1) CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS CALL ON FCC TO PROTECT PRIVACY, SECURITY AS FBI
PUSHES DIGITAL TELEPHONY LAW
Dec. 15 -- Three leading online civil liberties groups have urged the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to find that the FBI is trying
improperly to enhance its surveillance capabilities, and is overlooking key
privacy rights, under a controversial 1994 wiretap law.
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility (CPSR), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
asked the FCC on December 12 to take a more active role in protecting
privacy as telephone companies and the FBI struggle to implement the new
wiretap law. The three groups urged the FCC not to focus solely on
personnel security practices and recordkeeping among the telephone
companies affected by the law, as it has been doing, but instead to broaden
its examination by demanding that the digital technology the companies plan
to use be made tamperproof.
The Comments, along with detailed background information on CALEA, will be
posted soon at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/
CALEA BACKGROUND
Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA), more commonly called the "digital telephony" law, in October 1994.
The law requires telecommunications carriers--primarily local telephone
companies and wireless service providers--to upgrade their switching
equipment and computer software so that law enforcement officials can
perform wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance despite the
addition of new technologies.
Congress passed CALEA to assuage the concern of law enforcement that new
digital modes of transmitting information could render wiretapping
obsolete. Like so many new technologies, however, digital telephony can be
a boon to the pursuer as well as to the wrongdoer. With digital telephony
law enforcement officials can amass much more detailed information on a
private citizen's calling habits than ever before. The debate over CALEA
depends, at least in part, on whether it will be implemented in a way that
maintains law enforcement's traditional surveillance capabilities, or
whether government will use it as an excuse to exploit the full
surveillance capabilities of digital technology.
Fcc Proceeding Fails To Give Adequate Attention To Privacy
In October, the FCC issued a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" seeking
comments from the communications industry, law enforcement agencies and the
public on CALEA. The notice focused almost entirely on two areas: the
telephone companies' recordkeeping and personnel security practices, and
the definition of key terms in the 1994 law. CDT and the other two groups
joining in last Friday's filing argue that the Commission has overlooked
the issue of privacy in its efforts to flesh out the law, despite Congress'
clear directives in the statute that privacy be protected.
While the FCC's proposed rules require more detailed recordkeeping and
background checks on phone company employees, Congress specifically called
for systems designed to protect the privacy of communications not
authorized to be intercepted. In CDT's view, this requires telephone
companies to withhold information which law enforcement doesn't have
specific legal authority to intercept. As telephone companies increasingly
adopt packet switching protocols, the separation of call content from
packet addressing information becomes critical to ensure that law
enforcement doesn't receive call content without probable cause.
IMPLEMENTATION DELAYED
A series of disputes has delayed the implementation of the law. In the past
two years the FBI has twice attempted to draft notices to telephone
companies outlining how many wiretap intercepts they can be required, under
the law, to perform at one time in any given service area. Both of these
drafts have been roundly criticized for proposing a surveillance capacity
that far exceeds traditional law enforcement needs. On the separate
question of capability, the telecommunications industry earlier this year
proposed a compliance standard that calls for switching software upgrades
to make interceptions easier. But the FBI opposed adopting that standard
because it doesn't go far enough to satisfy the Bureau's demands for
enhanced surveillance capabilities. For example, the industry standard
calls for tracking capabilities in wireless telephones. The FBI, however,
wants other features, such as the ability to continue monitoring parties on
a conference call even after the person named in the surveillance order has
left the call. The FBI also wants telecommunications carriers to be
required to provide law enforcement with more detailed information on a
citizen's calling practices.
COMPUTER SECURITY
Computers increasingly control telecommunications switching, and most of
the telephone companies' efforts to comply with CALEA will involve changes
to the software that controls switching within the companies' central
offices. Carriers will soon be establishing computerized surveillance
administration functions, that, in turn, may be networked with other system
administration functions and also linked to computers located outside the
switching office. All in all, the changes could leave the carriers' systems
vulnerable to employees bent on doing mischief, or to malicious hackers.
Because of this possibility, CDT, EFF and CPSR have urged the FCC to
examine the security of these new software protocols. Among the factors
that CDT believes the FCC should require are:
* System integrity. Both hardware and software systems must be tamperproof.
Most systems have a maintenance function that allows "backdoor" access,
which
could be used to subvert the entire system.
* Simple authentication for individual system users. Fixed passwords for user
identification are inherently dangerous because they reside in the system's
memory and can be plucked out by technology-savvy wrongdoers.
* System-to-system authentication. When whole systems within the telephone
industry are networked to each other, it's equally important that each
system
be able to authenticate contact with another system.
* Audit trails which the industry can use to review surveillance activity.
* Intrusion detection programs within the telephone systems themselves which
will help identify when a surveillance technology is being put to an
improper
use.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James X. Dempsey, Staff Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology
+1.202.637.9800, <jdempsey@cdt.org>
________________________________________________________________
(3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting
civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT
Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news
publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by
more than 13,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and
activists, and have become the leading source for information about
critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other
interactive communications media.
To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to
majordomo@cdt.org
in the BODY of the message (leave the SUBJECT LINE BLANK), type
subscribe policy-posts
If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the
above address with a subject of:
unsubscribe policy-posts
_______________________________________________________________
(4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US
The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest
organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop
and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and
constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications
technologies.
Contacting us:
General information: info@cdt.org
World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/
FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/
Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006
(v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:36:07 +0000
From: David Smith <bladex@bga.com>
Subject: File 4--The Big Lie : AAS editorial on "Cyberspace Issues"
Source -- fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Below is an editorial that ran in Wednesday's Austin American Statesman.
My response letter is appended below, and I encourage other
fight-censorship subscribers to write letters to the editors of their
local newspapers. We can yak to each other till the cows come home
but we need to express our ideas in other forums and other audiences as
well.
There are some things I didn't address in my letter that I want to bring
up online -- namely that the issues of children, adult material, and
filtering is difficult enough without the Statesman deliberately
distorting the experience of what it is like to be online.
Out of the thousands and thousands of websites that I have looked at in
my life I can only remember two instances of "uninvited smut". Once
because I didn't read the preceding link page closely enough and the
second where someone was making the point about how rarely this happens.
Also, being sent an e-mail solicitation to join or look at a sexually
explicit site is not the same as being sent pornography.
Anyone with an e-mail address knows that if there is pornography on your
screen, it's because you took deliberate actions and steps to place it
there. That's what it is like to be online but you would never know
that from reading their editorial page.
Cyberspace issues
Austin American Statesman
Wednesday, December 03, 1997
It is axiomatic that the federal government should tread lightly around
the Internet. The U.S. Supreme Court said so clearly this year in
striking down the Communications Decency Act, Congress' attempt to block
online pornography.
But that doesn't mean the World Wide Web should be a sexual free-fire
zone where anything goes whether you want it or not. Anyone with an
e-mail address can attest to the flood of sexually explicit messages and
solicitations that greet the user nowadays.
A conference in Washington this week is exploring ways to make the
Internet safe for children and adults who wish not to be entertained by
the smut available in cyberspace. They have their work cut out for them
because any screening or rating system is greeted by screeches of
protest from the civil libertarians who won't care what the children
see.
It isn't in the government's interest, and possibly not within its
grasp, to be the online censor. The solution to uninvited smut via
computer should be improving the technology in the marketplace.
Among the issues being explored at the Washington conference are
filtering software and ratings programs. President Clinton has called
for universal self-rating for Internet companies, but that idea has had
a tepid reception so far.
It is in the best interest of the online companies and Internet
providers to offer a filtering system that works. Twice as many
households with children have computers as households without children.
Those families have a vital interest in protecting their children from
the sexually explicit offerings on the Internet.
Free speech critics complain the filtering systems filter too much,
blocking protected speech as well as pornography. Some family-oriented
groups claim they don't filter enough and smut creeps in.
Although self-rating has flopped so far, third-party ratings may hold
the answer for the civil libertarians and those concerned about
pornography online. Under that system, a third-party rates the Web
publishers and the individual user can choose the rating he or she
prefers.
As for the sleazy e-mail messages, Congress is considering bills to make
it a criminal act to offer sexual content to minors through e-mail. That
may or may not pass Supreme Court muster.
But there, too, the answer may lie in improved technology that will
allow those who want everything to get it and those who wish to protect
themselves and their families from sleazy solicitors to do so.
--- end of editorial -----
Letter to the Editorial
December 3, 1997
The computer magazine Family PC recently polled 750 subscribers about
family life online. While a majority expressed concerns about their
children accessing sexually explicit material, 73% of them felt that
monitoring their children's use of the Internet, being involved in their
children's activities, and setting specific rules for participation
would be their approach and strategy to guiding and raising their
children online. This is what parents do in real life.
In your editorial about cyberspace issues, however, the only solutions
to these social and moral issues you think are worth discussing involve
sitting around and waiting for the technology that will save us.
If you truly want to help parents, cut back on the screeching and
fear-mongering about all the bad things that could happen to children
online and replace it with some of the common sense advice available at
sites like Safe Kids Online (http://www.safekids.com) and Netparents
(http://www.netparents.org). You might sell less newspapers but you'll
be doing everyone involved a favor.
* * *
http://www.zdnet.com/familypc/content/kidsafety/results.html -- Family
PC Survey
http://www.io.com/~kinnaman/pchealth/draft.html -- TISPA page on
filtering software & parental guides to the Internet as required by
HB1300.
David Smith
david_smith@unforgettable.com
http://www.realtime.net/~bladex
File under : Internet activist
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:19:54 -0600
From: Jerrold Zar <T80JHZ1@WPO.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 5--Computer humor
Here's some lunchtime humor I received on an Internet list
from a John Longreco:
~~~ The Techno Terms Dictionary ~~~
486 - The average IQ needed to understand a PC.
State-of-the-art - Any computer you can't afford.
Obsolete - Any computer you own.
Microsecond - The time it takes for your state-of-the-art
computer to become obsolete.
G3 - Apple's new Macs that make you say "Gee, three times
faster than the computer I bought for the same price a
Microsecond ago."
Syntax Error - Walking into a computer store and saying "Hi,
I want to buy a computer and money is no object."
Hard Drive - The sales technique employed by computer
salesmen, esp. after a Syntax Error.
GUI - What your computer becomes after spilling your coffee
on it. (pronounced "gooey")
Keyboard - The standard way to generate computer errors.
Mouse - An advanced input device to make computer errors
easier to generate.
Floppy - The state of your wallet after purchasing a
computer.
Portable Computer - A device invented to force businessmen
to work at home, on vacation, and on business trips.
Disk Crash - A typical computer response to any critical
deadline.
Power User - Anyone who can format a disk from DOS.
System Update - A quick method of trashing ALL of your
software.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), 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);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.91
************************************