932 lines
44 KiB
Plaintext
932 lines
44 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
|
|
Computer underground Digest Wed Feb 15, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 13
|
|
ISSN 1004-042X
|
|
|
|
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
|
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
|
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
|
|
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
|
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
|
Ian Dickinson
|
|
Copy Ediotr: Ettie-Ann Shrdlu
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS, #7.13 (Wed, Feb 15, 1995)
|
|
|
|
File 1--FBI Press Release in re Kevin Mitnick
|
|
File 2--Kevin Mitnick Apprehended (NYT Excerpt) (fwd)
|
|
File 3--Senate Bill 314 - "Communications Decent Act of 1995"
|
|
File 4--Re: Senate Bill 314: Electronic Monitoring (fwd)
|
|
File 5--Commentary on the Exon Amendment (By Lance Rose)
|
|
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
|
|
File 5--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
|
|
|
|
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
|
|
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:36:02 -0600
|
|
From: jthomas2@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
|
|
Subject: File 1--FBI Press Release in re Kevin Mitnick
|
|
|
|
FBI PRESS RELEASE (Feb 15, 1995)
|
|
|
|
At 1:30 a.m., today, February 15, 1995, agents of the FBI
|
|
arrested KEVIN MITNICK, a well-known computer hacker and federal
|
|
fugitive. The arrest occurred after an intensive two-weak electronic
|
|
manhunt led law enforcement agents to MITNICK's apartment in Raleigh,
|
|
North Carolina.
|
|
|
|
MITNICK, 31, was convicted by Federal authorities in 1988 in
|
|
Los Angeles for stealing computer programs and breaking into
|
|
corporate networks.
|
|
|
|
He received a one-year sentence in that case, and a Federal warrant
|
|
was issued following MITNICK's violation of probation.
|
|
|
|
In this latest incident, MITNICK is alleged to have
|
|
electronically attacked numerous corporate and communications carriers
|
|
located in California, Colorado, and North Carolina where he caused
|
|
significant damage and stole proprietary information. One of the
|
|
attacked sites was the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), and
|
|
Tsutomu Shimomura, a system administrator at SDSC, provided
|
|
significant assistance to law enforcement personnel during the
|
|
investigation. MITNICK is also under investigation by state law
|
|
enforcement authorities in Seattle for separate activities there.
|
|
|
|
As is typical in such interstate computer cases, may FBI
|
|
offices and United States Attorneys' Offices have carefully
|
|
coordinated their efforts. These offices include the FBI's Nation al
|
|
Computer Crime Squad at the Washington Metropolitan Field Office, as
|
|
well as FBI and United States Attorneys' Offices in the Eastern
|
|
District of North Carolina (Raleigh), the Central District of North
|
|
Carolina (Greensboro), the Southern District of California (San
|
|
Diego), the Central District of California (Los Angeles), the Northern
|
|
District of California (San Francisco), and the District of Colorado.
|
|
Legal and technical assistance is also being provided by the
|
|
Criminal Division's Computer Crime Unit in Washington, D. C.
|
|
|
|
On February 15, 1995, a complaint was filed in U. S. District
|
|
Court, Raleigh, N. C., charging KEVIN MITNICK with violation of 18 U.
|
|
S. Code, Section 1029 (Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With
|
|
Access Devices) in violation Title 18, Section 1038 (Fraud and Related
|
|
Activities in Connection with Computers).
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:33:50 -0600
|
|
From: jthomas2@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Jim Thomas)
|
|
Subject: File 2--Kevin Mitnick Apprehended (NYT Excerpt) (fwd)
|
|
|
|
HOW A COMPUTER SLEUTH TRACED A DIGITAL TRAIL
|
|
|
|
(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
|
|
|
|
New York Times, Feb 16
|
|
|
|
RALEIGH, N.C. (8.59 p.m.) -- It takes a computer hacker to catch one.
|
|
|
|
And if, as federal authorities contend, 31-year-old computer outlaw
|
|
Kevin D. Mitnick is the person behind a recent spree of break-ins to
|
|
dozens of corporate, university and personal computers on the global
|
|
Internet, his biggest mistake was raising the interest and ire of
|
|
Tsutomu Shimomura.
|
|
|
|
Shimomura, who is 30, is a computational physicist with a reputation
|
|
as a brilliant cyber-sleuth in the tightly knit community of
|
|
programmers and engineers who defend the country's computer
|
|
networks.
|
|
|
|
And it was Shimomura who raised the alarm in the Internet world
|
|
after someone used sophisticated hacking techniques on Christmas
|
|
Day to remotely break into the computers he keeps in his beach
|
|
cottage near San Diego and steal thousands of his data files.
|
|
|
|
Almost from the moment Shimomura discovered the intrusion, he made it
|
|
his business to use his own considerable hacking skills to aid the
|
|
FBI's inquiry into the crime spree.
|
|
|
|
He set up stealth monitoring posts, and each night over the last few
|
|
weeks, Shimomura used software of his own devising to track the
|
|
intruder, who was prowling around the Internet. The activity usually
|
|
began around mid-afternoon, Eastern time, broke off in the early
|
|
evening, then resumed shortly after midnight and continued through
|
|
dawn.
|
|
|
|
Shimomura's monitoring efforts enabled investigators to watch as the
|
|
intruder commandeered telephone company switching centers, stole
|
|
computer files from Motorola, Apple Computer and other companies, and
|
|
copied 20,000 credit-card account numbers from a commercial computer
|
|
network used by some of the computer world's wealthiest and
|
|
technically savviest people.
|
|
|
|
And it was Shimomura who concluded last Saturday that the intruder
|
|
was probably Mitnick, whose whereabouts had been unknown since
|
|
November 1992, and that he was operating from a cellular telephone
|
|
network in Raleigh, N.C.
|
|
|
|
((Story describes 48 hour stake-out))
|
|
|
|
A COMPUTER SLEUTH BECOMES A VICTIM
|
|
|
|
On Christmas Day, Tsutomu Shimomura was in San Francisco, preparing to
|
|
make the four-hour drive to the Sierra Nevadas, where he spends most
|
|
of each winter as a volunteer on the cross-country ski patrol near
|
|
Lake Tahoe.
|
|
|
|
((Story describes Christmas computer intrusion and taunting))
|
|
|
|
By masquerading as a familiar computer, an attacker can gain access to
|
|
protected computer resources and seize control of an otherwise
|
|
well-defended system. In this case, the attack had been started from a
|
|
commandeered computer at Loyola University of Chicago.
|
|
|
|
Though the vandal was deft enough to gain control of Shimomura's
|
|
computers, he, she or they had made a clumsy error. One of Shimomura's
|
|
machines routinely mailed a copy of several record-keeping files to a
|
|
safe computer elsewhere on the network -- a fact that the intruder did
|
|
not notice.
|
|
|
|
That led to an automatic warning to employees of the San Diego
|
|
Supercomputer Center that an attack was under way. This allowed the
|
|
center's staff to throw the burglar off the system, and it later
|
|
allowed Shimomura to reconstruct the attack.
|
|
|
|
((The story describes Shmoura's respected credentials in
|
|
computer-security circles)
|
|
|
|
WATCHING AN ATTACK FROM A BACK ROOM
|
|
|
|
The first significant break in the case came on Jan. 28, after Bruce
|
|
Koball, a computer programmer in Berkeley, Calif., read a newspaper
|
|
account detailing the attack on Shimomura's computer.
|
|
|
|
The day before, Koball had received a puzzling message from the
|
|
managers of a commercial on-line service called the Well, in
|
|
Sausalito. Koball is an organizer for a public-policy group called
|
|
Computers, Freedom and Privacy, and the Well officials told him that
|
|
the group's directory of network files was taking up millions of bytes
|
|
of storage space, far more than the group was authorized to use.
|
|
|
|
((The story indicates that Koball found that odd, notified Well
|
|
officials, and the Well officials eventually called Shimoura, who
|
|
recruited to colleagues, Andrew Gross and Julia Menapace, to help
|
|
him))
|
|
|
|
((The story adds that the Well personnel set up a monitoring
|
|
system))
|
|
|
|
Though the identity of the attacker or attackers was unknown, within
|
|
days a profile emerged that seemed increasingly to fit a well-known
|
|
computer outlaw: Kevin D. Mitnick, who had been convicted in 1989 of
|
|
stealing software from Digital Equipment Corp.
|
|
|
|
Among the programs found at the Well and at stashes elsewhere on the
|
|
Internet was the software that controls the operations of cellular
|
|
telephones made by Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Novatel, Oki, Qualcomm and
|
|
other manufacturers. That would be consistent with the kind of
|
|
information of interest to Mitnick, who had first made his reputation
|
|
by hacking into telephone networks.
|
|
|
|
((The story notes that the intruder obtained Motorola security
|
|
software)
|
|
|
|
But one brazen act helped investigators. Shimomura's team, aided by
|
|
Mark Seiden, an expert in computer fire walls, discovered that someone
|
|
had obtained a copy of the credit-card numbers for 20,000 members of
|
|
Netcom Communications Inc., a service based in San Jose that provides
|
|
Internet access.
|
|
|
|
((According to the story, the monitoring team shifted operations
|
|
to San Jose and Netcom to obtain a better vantage point))
|
|
|
|
Late last week, FBI surveillance agents in Los Angeles were almost
|
|
certain that the intruder was operating somewhere in Colorado. Yet
|
|
calls were also coming into the system from Minneapolis and Raleigh.
|
|
|
|
The big break came late last Saturday night in San Jose, as Shimomura
|
|
and Gross, red-eyed from a 36-hour monitoring session, were eating
|
|
pizza. Subpoenas issued by Kent Walker, the U.S. assistant attorney
|
|
general in San Francisco, had begun to yield results from telephone
|
|
company calling records.
|
|
|
|
And now came data from Walker showing that telephone calls had been
|
|
placed to Netcom's dial-in phone bank in Raleigh through a cellular
|
|
telephone modem.
|
|
|
|
The calls were moving through a local switching office operated by GTE
|
|
Corp. But GTE's records showed that the calls had looped through a
|
|
nearby cellular phone switch operated by Sprint.
|
|
|
|
Because of someone's clever manipulation of the network software, the
|
|
GTE switch thought that the call had come from the Sprint switch, and
|
|
the Sprint switch thought that the call had come from GTE. Neither
|
|
company had a record identifying the cellular phone.
|
|
|
|
When Shimomura called the number in Raleigh, he could hear it looping
|
|
around endlessly with a "clunk, clunk" sound. He called a Sprint
|
|
technician in Raleigh and spent five hours comparing Sprint's calling
|
|
records with the Netcom log-ins. It was nearly dawn in San Jose when
|
|
they determined that the cellular phone calls were being placed from
|
|
near the Raleigh-Durham International Airport.
|
|
|
|
((Shimora, according to the story, rode around Raleigh with a Sprint
|
|
technician, honed in on the caller by measuring signal-strength))
|
|
|
|
At that point, it was time for law-enforcement officials to take over.
|
|
At 10 p.m. Monday, an FBI surveillance team arrived from Quantico, Va.
|
|
|
|
In order to obtain a search warrant it was necessary to determine a
|
|
precise apartment address. And although Shimomura had found the
|
|
apartment complex, pinning down the apartment was difficult because
|
|
the cellular signals were creating a radio echo from an adjacent
|
|
building. The FBI team set off with its own gear, driven by the Sprint
|
|
technician, who this time was using his family van.
|
|
|
|
On Tuesday evening, the agents had an address -- Apartment 202 -- and
|
|
at 8:30 p.m. a federal judge in Raleigh issued the warrant from his
|
|
home. At 2 a.m. Wednesday, while a cold rain fell in Raleigh, FBI
|
|
agents knocked on the door of Apartment 202.
|
|
|
|
said he was on the phone with his lawyer. But when an agent took the
|
|
receiver, the line went dead.
|
|
((The story concludes by describing that it took Mitnick more
|
|
than five minutes to open the door, and when he did, Mitnick claimed
|
|
that he was on the phone with his lawyer)).
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 23:49:02 -0600
|
|
From: jim thomas <tk0jut1@CS.NIU.EDU>
|
|
Subject: File 3--Senate Bill 314 - "Communications Decent Act of 1995"
|
|
|
|
(Obtained from gopher.eff.org)
|
|
|
|
Senate Bill: S 314
|
|
S 314 IS
|
|
104th CONGRESS
|
|
1st Session
|
|
To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications
|
|
network and telecommunications devices and facilities.
|
|
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
|
|
February 1 (legislative day, January 30), 1995
|
|
Mr. Exon (for himself and Mr. Gorton) introduced the following
|
|
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
|
|
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
|
|
A BILL
|
|
To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications
|
|
network and telecommunications devices and facilities.
|
|
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
|
|
United States of America in Congress assembled,
|
|
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
|
|
This Act may be cited as the `Communications Decency Act of 1995'.
|
|
SEC. 2. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
|
|
UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.
|
|
(a) Offenses: Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
|
|
U.S.C. 223) is amended--
|
|
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
|
|
(A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
|
|
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
|
|
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;' and
|
|
(D) by striking out subparagraph (D) and inserting the
|
|
following:
|
|
`(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; or';
|
|
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking `telephone facility'
|
|
and inserting `telecommunications facility';
|
|
(3) in subsection (b)(1)--
|
|
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
|
|
(i) by striking `telephone' and inserting
|
|
`telecommunications device'; and
|
|
(ii) inserting `or initiated the communication' and
|
|
`placed the call', and
|
|
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility'
|
|
and inserting `telecommunications facility'; and
|
|
(4) in subsection (b)(2)--
|
|
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
|
|
(i) by striking `by means of telephone, makes' and
|
|
inserting `by means of telephone or telecommunications
|
|
device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes
|
|
available'; and
|
|
(ii) by inserting `or initiated the communication'
|
|
after `placed the call'; and
|
|
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility'
|
|
and inserting in lieu thereof `telecommunications facility'.
|
|
(b) Penalties: Section 223 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended--
|
|
(1) by striking out `$50,000' each place it appears and
|
|
inserting `$100,000'; and
|
|
(2) by striking `six months' each place it appears and
|
|
inserting `2 years'.
|
|
(c) Prohibition on Provision of Access: Subsection (c)(1) of such
|
|
section (47 U.S.C. 223(c)) is amended by striking `telephone' and
|
|
inserting `telecommunications device.'
|
|
(d) Conforming Amendment: The section heading for such section is
|
|
amended to read as follows:
|
|
`obscene or harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and
|
|
facilities in the district of columbia or in interstate or foreign
|
|
communications'.
|
|
SEC. 3. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.
|
|
Section 639 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 559) is
|
|
amended by striking `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'.
|
|
SEC. 4. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON RADIO.
|
|
Section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
|
|
striking out `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'.
|
|
SEC. 5. INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
|
|
Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
|
|
(1) in paragraph (1)--
|
|
(A) by striking `wire, oral, or electronic communication'
|
|
each place it appears and inserting `wire, oral,
|
|
electronic, or digital communication', and
|
|
(B) in the matter designated as `(b)', by striking `oral
|
|
communication' in the matter above clause (i) and inserting
|
|
`communication'; and
|
|
(2) in paragraph (2)(a), by striking `wire or electronic
|
|
communication service' each place it appears (other than in the
|
|
second sentence) and inserting `wire, electronic, or digital
|
|
communication service'.
|
|
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION ON BILLING FOR TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE
|
|
CALLS.
|
|
Section 228(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
|
|
228(c)(6)) is amended--
|
|
(1) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (C);
|
|
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
|
|
inserting a semicolon and `or'; and
|
|
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
|
|
`(E) the calling party being assessed, by virtue of being
|
|
asked to connect or otherwise transfer to a pay-per-call
|
|
service, a charge for the call.'.
|
|
SEC. 7. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
|
|
Part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
|
|
551 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
|
|
`SEC. 640. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
|
|
`(a) Requirement: In providing video programming unsuitable for
|
|
children to any subscriber through a cable system, a cable operator
|
|
shall fully scramble or otherwise fully block the video and audio
|
|
portion of each channel carrying such programming so that one not a
|
|
subscriber does not receive it.
|
|
`(b) Definition: As used in this section, the term `scramble'
|
|
means to rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so
|
|
that the programming cannot be received by persons unauthorized to
|
|
receive the programming.'.
|
|
SEC. 8. CABLE OPERATOR REFUSAL TO CARRY CERTAIN PROGRAMS.
|
|
(a) Public, Educational, and Governmental Channels: Section
|
|
611(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 531(e)) is
|
|
amended by inserting before the period the following: `, except a
|
|
cable operator may refuse to transmit any public access program or
|
|
portion of a public access program which contains obscenity,
|
|
indecency, or nudity'.
|
|
(b) Cable Channels for Commercial Use: Section 612(c)(2) of the
|
|
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 532(c)(2)) is amended by
|
|
striking `an operator' and inserting `a cable operator may refuse
|
|
to transmit any leased access program or portion of a leased access
|
|
program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 13:48:14 EST
|
|
From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
|
|
Subject: File 4--Re: Senate Bill 314: Electronic Monitoring (fwd)
|
|
|
|
-----------------------Original message----------------------------
|
|
>Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 04:56:36 -0500
|
|
>From: ah846@freenet.carleton.ca (Steve Crocker)
|
|
>To: act@fc.net
|
|
>--Re: Senate Bill 314: Electronic Monitoring (fwd)
|
|
>
|
|
>The following is the best comment I have seen so far on S314. Enjoy.
|
|
>
|
|
>-Steve
|
|
>
|
|
>Article #32884 (32938 is last):
|
|
>From: aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz)
|
|
>--Re: --> How about a Net Petition for this? (was Re: Senate Bill 314)
|
|
>Reply-To: aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz)
|
|
>Date: Thu Feb 9 23:38:42 1995
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
>In a previous article, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) says:
|
|
>
|
|
>> Would there be any value to starting a net.petition drive on this matter,
|
|
>> ala Clipper? Because I'm petitioned-out, I would not lead such a drive,
|
|
>> but I am willing to act as e-mail signature tallyer since I got the system
|
|
>> down pretty pat
|
|
>
|
|
>I think it would be more effective if people printed out a petition,
|
|
>got signatures with addresses on the hardcopy, and mailed it to their
|
|
>Senators and reps ( since a Senate bill can be blocked by the House ).
|
|
>
|
|
>I say that because most Congressional offices check whether or not
|
|
>a signature belongs to a real voter with a real address in *their*
|
|
>district. An *original* letter counts more than a carbon-copy
|
|
>letter.
|
|
>
|
|
>Also, since many Senators are network-illiterate, it might
|
|
>be well to remind them of the massive chilling effect that this
|
|
>legislation would have on legitimate First Amendment speech,
|
|
>and how many millions of voters that would tick off, and just
|
|
>how committed the academic community and the technical community
|
|
>are to academic freedom, and how loudly and publically they'll
|
|
>scream for the heads of Congressmen who infringe on their First
|
|
>Amendment rights.
|
|
>
|
|
>It might also be well to point out that such legislation would
|
|
>impose tremendous financial burdens on every large-scale online
|
|
>service provider. Instead of a system having one employee per
|
|
>several hundred users, it would be necessary to have one (paid)
|
|
>censor per several dozen users, which would shut down the vast
|
|
>majority of affordable information services and BBSs, or cause
|
|
>rates to go up *very* sharply. Hell hath no fury like a
|
|
>computer game enthusiast shut off from freeware and shareware.
|
|
>
|
|
>There are studies to support the fragility of the Net with respect
|
|
>to rate increases. For example, a few years ago the House
|
|
>Telecommunications Subcommittee refused to allow the phone
|
|
>companies to impose a $2.50 - $5.00 / hr. "access fee" for phone
|
|
>lines used by value-added networks, because studies by the U.S. Commerce
|
|
>Dept. showed that such a rate increase would have crippled
|
|
>affordable student access ( including medical student access )
|
|
>to information services and information networks ( the two
|
|
>being largely synonymous, since most information providers
|
|
>also carry message traffic for users ).
|
|
>
|
|
>The Commerce Dept. also pointed out that anything which 'chills' the
|
|
>information industry in the U.S. also places the U.S. at a competitive
|
|
>disadvantage relative to other countries (such as France)
|
|
>which have more advanced telecommunications systems ( e.g.
|
|
>Minitals ) and extremely favorable networking climates.
|
|
>
|
|
>So imagine what the impact would be if every network had
|
|
>to police *every* message. Think about the cost of hiring
|
|
>those censors coming out of *your* pocket to pay increased
|
|
>network fees - which by the way is an unfunded mandate
|
|
>imposing heavy burdens on private industry.
|
|
>
|
|
>It should also be pointed out that there's no way to
|
|
>keep the U.S. Internet 'squeaky clean' as long as it's
|
|
>connected to the global Internet, unless the U.S. wishes
|
|
>to impose an 'information iron curtain' on every U.S.
|
|
>university. That kind of thinking in the Soviet Union
|
|
>is what hobbled academic advancement and scientific
|
|
>advancement for many decades, making the Soviets look
|
|
>like provincial hicks. It was also one of the main
|
|
>factors which brought *down* the Soviet Union, because
|
|
>scientists and academics who normally *avoid* politics
|
|
>began opposing the Central Committee. There's an *enormous*
|
|
>bandwidth of information passing between universities and
|
|
>their students, with no practical way to police it all.
|
|
>
|
|
>Before Congress underestimates what the denizens of Internet
|
|
>can do to defend themselves via networking, Congress would do
|
|
>well to ponder just how quickly scientists and academics on
|
|
>Internet drove the mighty Intel to its knees over defective
|
|
>Pentiums.
|
|
>
|
|
>The same thing could happen to Newt Gingrich. Suppose for
|
|
>example that one day in the not-too-distant future, Newt is
|
|
>impressing the yokels with the Vast Internet-Awareness of his
|
|
>leadership, and suddenly 4,000 blue-ribbon Internet experts
|
|
>( including the authors of books about Internet ) deenounce
|
|
>Newt and company as totally ignorant of the realities of Internet.
|
|
>
|
|
>Suppose that every major information service in this country,
|
|
>and tens of thousands of Usenet sites in this country, and
|
|
>hundreds of thousands of BBSs in this country, suddenly start
|
|
>warning over 10 million users that they may soon have to pay
|
|
>double or triple the cost of a subscription, because the moralists
|
|
>in Congress wants to force net owners to be net police.
|
|
>
|
|
>Admittedly, there are serious problems on the Net, such as
|
|
>pedophile activity. However I think that can be dealt with in
|
|
>much the same way as the postal inspectors deal with it, by
|
|
>drawing out the perpetrators and nailing them with stings.
|
|
>Local police departments have been doing the same thing (as
|
|
>in "Operation Longarm"). There's no need for draconian
|
|
>measures that would affect legitimate networking.
|
|
>
|
|
>I don't think the Net should run scared. Don't forget that
|
|
>every one of you has a printer capable of cranking out a *lot*
|
|
>of flyers, which you can staple to every tree, and pass out
|
|
>to every user group, and drop off in every student union in
|
|
>America. All you need are the words to print, and there are
|
|
>thousands of skilled writers out there who'll be as angry about
|
|
>this as you are.
|
|
>
|
|
>Don't just inform computer users. What about those four or
|
|
>five friends of yours who haven't gotten around to getting
|
|
>a modem, or haven't gotten around to exploring Internet.
|
|
>Suppose they find out they might *not* be able to explore
|
|
>the Internet, because their local public access network
|
|
>may have to shut down due to Congressional intimidation.
|
|
>Suppose you share your fears that your school-age students
|
|
>and their school-age students may not *have* affordable
|
|
>online access to compete. Suppose the public becomes
|
|
>*fearful* that the Internet may become as elite as it
|
|
>was not too many years ago, when the 'information insiders'
|
|
>were government contractors who had a slab of Congressional
|
|
>pork at taxpayer expense for the price of a campaign contribution.
|
|
>
|
|
>I've watched public access develop over the past 15 years. I've
|
|
>watched the Free-nets develop, with over 50,000 users in
|
|
>Cleveland alone. I watched during the early days of the
|
|
>Free-net movement, when elitists said it was *irresponsible*
|
|
>to allow the public access to online free speech. I laughed
|
|
>when I saw millions of people on CompuServe, and Genie, and
|
|
>America Online, because I realized that there was no going back,
|
|
>because those millions of people would never settle for less
|
|
>than full network access. I walked through a Waldenbooks
|
|
>store today, and saw that for the first time ever in history,
|
|
>the hottest selling items were books about Internet, mostly for
|
|
>the novice user willing to pay $25 or more for directions.
|
|
>
|
|
>I know how those people think. I've helped a few hundred
|
|
>users get online and form special interest groups over the
|
|
>past decade. I've seen how quickly they take to the Net
|
|
>like a fish to water. I've seen how quickly they come to
|
|
>value being able to post freely without waiting two days
|
|
>for a censor to review every word. I've served as a
|
|
>sigop, and I've seen firsthand just how responsibly the
|
|
>public uses their First Amendment rights online.
|
|
>
|
|
>At issue are the rights of *everyone* to freedom of speech,
|
|
>press, and assembly, rights which every one of you now takes
|
|
>for granted - even though many of you may have an almost
|
|
>buried fear that freedom is too good to last, because a
|
|
>meddlesome government will louse it up.
|
|
>
|
|
>A bookstore owner isn't legally accountable for the content of
|
|
>every book in the store, because the courts held that such
|
|
>liability would chill not only freedom of the press, but also
|
|
>would chill the right of the people to access information.
|
|
>Similarly, a newscaster isn't liable if a live mike picks
|
|
>up foul language when covering a town meeting. So why should
|
|
>a newsgroup be held liable? If you get an assembly permit
|
|
>and hold a meeting in the park, and an onlooker drops an
|
|
>'obscene' magazine on the ground, are the organizers culpable?
|
|
>Of course not!
|
|
>
|
|
>So why should an *online* repository of information be any
|
|
>different? Well it shouldn't, because the right to *freely*
|
|
>exchange information and ideas is a *Constitutional* right,
|
|
>the very First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
|
|
>
|
|
>However eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If we're
|
|
>not vigilant, Congress may establish a 'two tiered' Bill of
|
|
>Rights, in which computer users have fewer rights than the
|
|
>printing-press owners who feed you politically slanted news
|
|
>from the partisan spin doctors.
|
|
>
|
|
>I remember the scary times back in the mid 1980s, when
|
|
>the Reagan Administration tried to impose burdensome national
|
|
>security regulations on public networks to limit access to
|
|
>"sensitive but unclassified" data. The scheme was simple -
|
|
>if you spoke your mind online, or accessed a fact online,
|
|
>that was "data" - not free speech, because who are peons
|
|
>to have free speech.
|
|
>
|
|
>In the mid 80's, the government argued that computer
|
|
>communications shouldn't be counted as free speech, because
|
|
>they weren't human voices. They argued that communications shouldn't
|
|
>be private, because machines have no privacy. Finally we *did*
|
|
>get the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That made
|
|
>possible *cheap* email, because the Electronic Privacy Act
|
|
>*exempted* email carriers from liability for content, just
|
|
>like the U.S. Post Office, or FedEx. Now, apparently,
|
|
>Congress can't leave well enough alone.
|
|
>
|
|
>I remember back when there weren't any Free-nets or low-cost
|
|
>national networks - just fat cat overpriced services eager
|
|
>to dominate the market by making sweetheart deals with the
|
|
>phone companies for 'gateway' services which would have
|
|
>soaked all that the traffic would bear, if the courts hadn't
|
|
>balked at the idea. True public access didn't *matter* to
|
|
>those people, because all they were interested in was
|
|
>lucrative commerce.
|
|
>
|
|
>Now the 'conservative' Congress is interested in something
|
|
>else. They're interrested in currying favor with moralists
|
|
>by slaying the ee-vil dragon of im-mo-ra-li-ty on Internet
|
|
>and on the BBSs. Obviously they don't give a hoot about *your*
|
|
>interests. You're an acceptible casualty. You got left out
|
|
>of the partisan wheeling and dealing in the smoke-filled room.
|
|
>
|
|
>Think about the abuse potential of this law. Think about a
|
|
>politician being able to intimidate the owners of a 'politically
|
|
>incorrect' network because somebody unbeknownst to them is
|
|
>smuggling erotica - or planting erotica or whatever. Bear in
|
|
>mind that it's not uncommon for a big-city BBS can have over
|
|
>200 million words of files (over a gigabyte). Who can
|
|
>police all that.
|
|
>
|
|
>If you want representation in Congress, you're going to have
|
|
>to get voters thinking your way, using all your powers of
|
|
>networking and persuasion.
|
|
>
|
|
>You're also going to have to make a hard choice. You're going
|
|
>to have to put *your* interests ahead of the non-issues that
|
|
>the Party uses to herd the voters.
|
|
>
|
|
>Can you do that? Yes you can, for one reason. The terrain
|
|
>is in your favor. Internet is not Politically Correct.
|
|
>BBSs are not Politically Correct, for several reasons.
|
|
>There's a *very* strong academic presence on Internet,
|
|
>and academics value the free exchange of ideas above
|
|
>almost anything else. There's also the *reality* of
|
|
>the free exchange of ideas among *non*-academic users.
|
|
>These are people who *discuss* political issues - they don't
|
|
>just passively sit in front of the Toob lapping up simplistic
|
|
>propaganda about what they 'should' think.
|
|
>
|
|
>Also, the online community has a *very* long memory. Once
|
|
>articles and petitions start flying, they keep circulating,
|
|
>often for years. The Net is a big place, and there are *lots*
|
|
>of data sites where copies of a petition or persuasive article
|
|
>can be lodged, to turn up again years later in time for elections.
|
|
>
|
|
>Use the 'long memory' of the Net. Watch C-Span II, and when a
|
|
>butt-kissing 'party discipline' Congressman twists the issues or
|
|
>plays dumb, WRITE IT DOWN. Put that statement on the nets.
|
|
>Make sure EVERY online voter who values free speech gets to see
|
|
>every word said AGAINST free speech.
|
|
>
|
|
>If one of these bozos is from your own Senatorial district,
|
|
>find out who *else* he/she is selling out. Call for the
|
|
>formation of 'grapevines' to pass around information -
|
|
>and when you find out where the bodies are buried, PUT THAT
|
|
>ON THE NET, and ask everybody to call every talk show they
|
|
>can find and ask "what about this", and "what about that",
|
|
>until Senator Bozo can't even fart sideways or sell a vote
|
|
>without getting himself and his backers nailed to the wall.
|
|
>
|
|
>Organize boycotts against key Congressional districts if you
|
|
>have to. Make clear to the voters of that district that if
|
|
>they elect a 'hatchet man' to do a number on our rights, then
|
|
>we the people can and will boycott their tomatoes, or widgets,
|
|
>or whatever else they make, because when it comes to our
|
|
>Constitutional rights, we're as determined as the Minutemen
|
|
>of 1776 to defend our liberties.
|
|
>
|
|
>Is that too hardnosed? Maybe. It's also Constitutionally
|
|
>protected speech, as long as you stick to facts. Partisans
|
|
>do that sort of thing all the time. Mo-ra-lists lie like rugs
|
|
>and urge you to vote for people who take food out of the mouths
|
|
>of helpless infants. If that's the way the Game is played to
|
|
>push a *partisan* agenda, then it's equally legit to protect
|
|
>our networks.
|
|
>
|
|
>If Congress doesn't want to face that type of opposition, then
|
|
>maybe they should reword their proposed legislation without the
|
|
>vague language intended to intimidate First Amendment freedoms.
|
|
>
|
|
>Maybe they should treat the Nets with the same respect as they treat
|
|
>bookstore owners, and newspapers, and public libraries - because the
|
|
>First Amendment of the Bill of Rights applies equally to
|
|
>every citizen and entity. If Congress can't respect the Bill
|
|
>of Rights, then Congress *should* be opposed tooth and nail.
|
|
>If a Congressman even *once* opposes the Bill of Rights, then
|
|
>that Congressman should be RELENTLESSLY targeted for defeat
|
|
>by any networkers inclined to do so - to make *sure* that that
|
|
>Congressmen is never given a second chance to infringe our
|
|
>liberties.
|
|
>
|
|
>Congressional backers and campaign contributers may need to
|
|
>be shown that the First Amendment is the 'third rail' of
|
|
>politics - touch it, and their candidate is dead politically,
|
|
>down the tubes along with whatever investment his/her backers
|
|
>have made.
|
|
>
|
|
>There's one important fact to remember about bullying moralists:
|
|
>they attack the weak. They may need to be *shown* that we the
|
|
>people can make those attacks costly, until every Congressman
|
|
>who dares to attack the Internet fears for his/her political career.
|
|
>Then you'll have fewer Congressmen sucking up to moralists.
|
|
>
|
|
>I don't believe for an instant that most Congressmen have any
|
|
>commitment whatsoever to morality. If they did, they wouldn't
|
|
>be slashing aid to dependent children, including several million
|
|
>infants. I think those Congressman are sucking up to moralists
|
|
>for a *practical* reason - they want the support of preachers
|
|
>who can sway voters from the pulpit.
|
|
>
|
|
>Well think about it. We've got an *enormous* pulpit here on
|
|
>the Net. We can reach millions of people, possibly *more*
|
|
>people than are swayed by preachers, because network regulation
|
|
>hits networkers where they live. What's more, we can reach
|
|
>millions of *networkers*, people who *know* how to communicate.
|
|
>
|
|
>Another useful attribute of the Net is its heterogeneity.
|
|
>People on the Net are exposed to so many viewpoints that they
|
|
>can't be 'herded' by Congress. When Congress bullies some other
|
|
>industry, Congress can force that industry to the bargaining
|
|
>table - "go along with this or we regulate". That won't work
|
|
>on the Net. Once Congress stirs up a hornet's nest on the Net,
|
|
>people will do whatever they feel they must to oppose those
|
|
>Congressmen - and they'll keep doing it regardless of what
|
|
>'secret deals' are proposed.
|
|
>
|
|
>The usual Congressional tactic of striking terror into the heart
|
|
>of an industry will still work - but with one important difference.
|
|
>Opponents of opressive *online* regulation don't have to rent
|
|
>auditoriums and lick envelopes and get tax-exempt status to organize
|
|
>opposition. They've already *got* super-powered networking access
|
|
>right on their desks, without even getting off their duffs or
|
|
>rummaging for a stamp.
|
|
>
|
|
>So be sure to grab copies of the best writings on these topics.
|
|
>Pass them around. When people in your community come to you
|
|
>to get some printout for their kids' school project, give them
|
|
>some printout about rights too - and carefully explain that if
|
|
>burdensome regulation goes through, freebies might become very
|
|
>hard to get, because costs may go up.
|
|
>
|
|
>I don't say that costs *will* go up because I'm not absolutely
|
|
>sure. I believe costs will go up unless the legislation fails.
|
|
>Whatever you believe, whatever you fear, *communicate* that to
|
|
>others, and don't be intimidated - because you are after all a
|
|
>resident of the Nets, and your opinion is worth something.
|
|
>
|
|
>Thanks very much for reading, and have a pleasant crusade :)
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> - Jim Kutz
|
|
> Internet: aa387@cleveland.freenet.edu
|
|
>--
|
|
> "Knowing what thou knowest not
|
|
> Is, in a sense
|
|
> Omniscience."
|
|
> - Piet Hein
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: 14 Feb 95 13:11:18 EST
|
|
From: Lance Rose <72230.2044@COMPUSERVE.COM>
|
|
Subject: File 5--Commentary on the Exon Amendment (By Lance Rose)
|
|
|
|
|
|
As widely reported, the "Exon amendment" has been reintroduced in
|
|
this year's Congress. It would expressly extend existing FCC phone
|
|
sex regulation to online services of all sorts, and add a new
|
|
provision that apparently would make it illegal for an online system
|
|
or BBS to connect to the Internet, or at least any part of the
|
|
Internet that contains stuff that might be coonsidered obscene.
|
|
|
|
The Exon Amendment has been widely denounced by online veterans,
|
|
while at the same time gaining a lot of support from parents of kids
|
|
who go online. I agree that at least part of it -- making illegal any
|
|
giving of access to obscene materials -- has got to go. However, we
|
|
need to recognize the political reality that when the moralists and
|
|
family value types, represented in this case by Senator Exon, slam
|
|
their fists down against online pornography, then online pornography
|
|
has to give some ground.
|
|
|
|
But let's leave this mainstream discussion aside for a moment. How
|
|
many of us are pausing, for even a second, to appreciate the
|
|
stabilizing effects of a law like the Exon Amendment? With certain
|
|
adjustments, it can set up a nice safe harbor, giving onliners
|
|
nationwide far clearer guidance on how to stay within legal bounds.
|
|
|
|
With a few changes, the Exon Amendment can be a big winner, instead
|
|
of the latest chapter in the oppression of the online world. With the
|
|
general subject of regulating sexual content of online systems on the
|
|
table, let's use the opportunity to get online systems the help and
|
|
protections they've needed for years.
|
|
|
|
Here are the changes that would make the Exon amendment come up a
|
|
winner:
|
|
|
|
1. Get rid of the proposed change to the existing voice phone
|
|
harassment provision, Section 223(a), which would make it illegal to
|
|
"make available" obscene, etc. messages to others. This would make
|
|
all Internet-connected systems liable. Voice phone harassment should
|
|
remain voice phone harassment, and there's no good reason for skewing
|
|
the law this way.
|
|
|
|
2. Have this national law preempt *all* state laws on obscenity and
|
|
indecency over phone lines, period. This would be a BIG bonus.
|
|
Geographic localities couldn't set up "obscenity speed traps" for
|
|
unwary out-of-state BBS'.
|
|
|
|
3. Similarly, have the law prescribe that all prosecutions MUST be
|
|
held in the county where the defendant is located. No more
|
|
prosecutions where half the battle is won simply forcing defendants to
|
|
defend in out of state courts. It would also help restore some sense
|
|
that the local community's values will control, though not formally or
|
|
strictly in this case.
|
|
|
|
4. The law should also specify the "community" whose standards will
|
|
be used for obscenity prosecutions under the law, in a step by step
|
|
procedure. First, the court should determine if there is a relevant
|
|
online community whose standards can be used. Feeding into such a
|
|
determination might be, for instance, whether an identifiable
|
|
community defines its borders adequately with age verification
|
|
procedures. If there is no such viable community, then the court must
|
|
look to the local geographic community where the defendant based his
|
|
or her operations. If there is no such base of operations, only then
|
|
will the "offended" community's values be used for obscenity purposes.
|
|
|
|
5. If the defendant is prosecuted in his or her role as operator of
|
|
an online system or service claimed to be illegal, then the prosecutor
|
|
must show that the service is "generally and obviously illegal" to
|
|
impose liability on the sysop based simply on system contents.
|
|
Otherwise, the sysop can only be prosecuted for messages or materials
|
|
to the extent to which he or she was actually familiar with them, and
|
|
which he or she knew or should have known were illegal or likely to be
|
|
illegal.
|
|
|
|
With these changes, the Exon Amendment could be converted into a nice
|
|
statute setting out clear standards for a reasonable, national law of
|
|
cyberspace indecency and obscenity.
|
|
|
|
Anybody up for pushing for this approach? It's a heck of a lot more
|
|
realistic than thinking we can win a war about online sex against the
|
|
moralists. Confusin' 'em with reasonableness might work.
|
|
|
|
- Lance Rose
|
|
Author, "NetLaw"
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
|
|
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
|
|
|
|
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 a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
|
|
Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
|
|
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/
|
|
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/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)
|
|
|
|
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
|
|
ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
|
|
|
|
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU
|
|
Cu Digest WWW site at:
|
|
URL: http://sun.soci.niu.edu:80/~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 #7.13
|
|
************************************
|
|
|
|
|