792 lines
37 KiB
Plaintext
792 lines
37 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 17, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 31
|
|
ISSN 1004-042X
|
|
|
|
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
|
|
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
|
|
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
|
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
|
|
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
|
|
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
|
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
|
Ian Dickinson
|
|
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS, #8.31 (Wed, Apr 17, 1996)
|
|
|
|
File 1--ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE 4-15-96
|
|
File 2--CDA Court Challenge: Update #8 (Last Day of Testimony)
|
|
File 3--"LolitaWatch" Available (caution to the humor-impaired)
|
|
File 4--(fwd) CFP 96 Report
|
|
File 5--U of Iowa "hacker" Arrested
|
|
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
|
|
|
|
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
|
|
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:29:02 +0100
|
|
From: hauman@BB.COM(Glenn Hauman)
|
|
Subject: File 1--ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE 4-15-96
|
|
|
|
ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE
|
|
|
|
|
|
o Government Witness: Censor First, Ask Questions Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
o Plaintiffs Waive Rebuttal of Government Testimony
|
|
|
|
|
|
o Oral Arguments Moved Up to Friday, May 10th
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Whitfield
|
|
Monday, April 15, 1996 212-944-9800, x426
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHILADELPHIA--Testifying on the last day of trial in ACLU v. Reno,
|
|
government witness Dan Olsen told a three-judge panel that the best way to
|
|
comply with the censorship law would be to block all possibly "indecent"
|
|
words and images, until "questionable" material could be reviewed and
|
|
labeled for adult consumption. That process could take weeks or months,
|
|
he told the court.
|
|
|
|
Using this triage approach, as Olsen described it, Internet content
|
|
providers would have to virtually shut down their sites until they could
|
|
complete the task of self-censoring using his "-L18" system. The proposed
|
|
system requires content creators to determine whether their words or images
|
|
are "indecent" or "patently offensive," and if so attach an electronic
|
|
"-L18" label.
|
|
|
|
Olsen, a professor of computer science at Brigham Young University,
|
|
returned to the court today conclude his testimony in the last day of a
|
|
trial that could well determine the future of free speech in cyberspace.
|
|
The consolidated cases of ACLU v. Reno and ALA v. DOJ challenge provisions
|
|
of the Communications Decency Act that criminalize making available to
|
|
minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech.
|
|
|
|
"When the government forces you to censor your expression of words or
|
|
images or face jail time, that's a pretty clear violation of the First
|
|
Amendment," said Christopher Hansen, who conducted cross-examination of the
|
|
witness for the ACLU.
|
|
|
|
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter questioned Olsen closely on the effect
|
|
the censorship scheme would have on Internet sites containing "a great deal
|
|
of material not offensive to anybody," that would have to be blocked for
|
|
review. "Can you think of any time in history when we have blocked
|
|
access to material in advance?" Judge Sloviter asked.
|
|
|
|
The judges also wondered how the labeling scheme would apply to speech
|
|
in other Internet forums such as e-mail or chat rooms. Posing a
|
|
hypothetical question, Judge Stewart Dalzell asked Olsen whether an
|
|
18-year-old discussing the censorship law in a chat room with minors would
|
|
have to "label" a phrase such as "Fuck the CDA" before transmitting his
|
|
words. Yes, Olsen replied, if he wanted to be protected from prosecution.
|
|
|
|
In his testimony on Friday and today, Olsen acknowledged that PICS
|
|
(Platform for Internet Content Selection), an alternate system described by
|
|
plaintiff witnesses, would allow parents to control their children's
|
|
Internet viewing without requiring broad censorship.
|
|
|
|
According to MIT expert Dr. Albert Vezza, who testified Friday on
|
|
behalf of plaintiffs, expected industry-wide acceptance of the PICS
|
|
standard will enable any number of third-party organizations such as the
|
|
PTA, the Christian Coalition or the Boy Scouts of America to rate content
|
|
for parents and other Internet users. As early as this summer, he said,
|
|
Microsoft Corporation plans to issue software embedded with the PICS
|
|
protocol, and other corporations are expected to follow suit.
|
|
|
|
In addition, plaintiff lawyers pointed out, unlike Olsen's "-L18"
|
|
system, PICS would allow users to block all "untagged" Internet content
|
|
from the receiving end, instead of requiring the providers to censor their
|
|
material. This feature is especially important because overseas Internet
|
|
providers are not subject to U.S. laws.
|
|
|
|
By contrast, said ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen, user empowerment software
|
|
like PICS can block a site regardless of its origin. "The government's
|
|
proposal -- and the law itself -- does not take into account the global
|
|
nature of the medium," Hansen said. "If the censorship law is upheld,
|
|
minors will still be able to access any foreign site without restriction."
|
|
|
|
The key to the PICS system, and to keeping the Internet a free medium
|
|
for users of all ages, Hansen added, is parental empowerment. "While there
|
|
will always be objectionable material in any communications forum, the
|
|
responsibility -- and the tools -- for guiding children's interaction
|
|
should remain with the parents."
|
|
|
|
At the conclusion of today's trial phase, plaintiff's lawyers informed
|
|
the court that they would waive the option to rebut the government's
|
|
testimony. After a short scheduling conference, oral arguments were moved
|
|
up to Friday, May 10, instead of June 3, and the April 26 rebuttal day was
|
|
canceled.
|
|
|
|
Under procedures for oral arguments, each side will have two hours to
|
|
make its case and answer questions from the judges. Plaintiffs and
|
|
defendants are required to submit briefs and proposed findings of fact and
|
|
conclusions of law to the judges by April 29. After a ruling by the
|
|
three-judge panel, under expedited provisions, any appeal would be made
|
|
directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Lawyers for the ACLU appearing before the judges are Christopher
|
|
Hansen, Marjorie Heins, Ann Beeson, and Stefan Presser, legal director of
|
|
the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
|
|
http://www.bb.com/
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
|
|
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@EFF.ORG>
|
|
Subject: File 2--CDA Court Challenge: Update #8 (Last Day of Testimony)
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
The CDA Challenge, Update #8
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
By Declan McCullagh / declan@well.com / Redistribute freely
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In this update: BYU/CMU's Olsen testifies that "-L18" won't harm the Net
|
|
Judges realize Olsen is a weasel
|
|
Chief Judge Sloviter's incisive questions
|
|
Who is Donna Rice? A DoJ attorney can't stop laughing...
|
|
Closing arguments now set for May 10
|
|
|
|
April 18, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Department of Justice doesn't like the way
|
|
the Communications Decency Act is written.
|
|
|
|
During the the testimony that ended April 15 in Philadelphia's Federal
|
|
court, we've started to see the DoJ's legal strategy emerge -- and it
|
|
includes attempts to redefine the CDA.
|
|
|
|
The DoJ's star witness was the amazingly prudish Dan "I'm offended by
|
|
four-letter words" Olsen, who said that his plan to have service
|
|
providers card users and tag 'em as adults or minors is a fabulous way
|
|
to go. But this shifts the burden of protecting kids from smut onto
|
|
ISPs, a proposal that Congress rejected when they included "good
|
|
faith" defenses in the law.
|
|
|
|
Olsen, who will fit in just fine when he takes a job this summer as an
|
|
administrator at censorhappy Carnegie Mellon University, also kept
|
|
pushing the other half of his plan that would require all "patently
|
|
offensive" online content be tagged "-L18."
|
|
|
|
On Monday, the DoJ's very own attack-ferret Jason Baron asked Olsen:
|
|
"Your proposal would not have an adverse effect on the Net as a whole?
|
|
|
|
Olsen deadpanned: "Absolutely not!"
|
|
|
|
This isn't surprising. To Olsen, the Internet is just a bunch of geeks
|
|
who want to keep everyone else out of their own little world.
|
|
|
|
When U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter
|
|
asked him if his "-L18" system would develop side-by-side with PICS,
|
|
Olsen replied: "If technical people were left to themselves, it would
|
|
be likely to happen. I don't think this is true here. Internet people
|
|
don't like other people telling them what to do. They're afraid of the
|
|
FCC. They don't want anyone else messing in their pond."
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
JUDGES REALIZE OLSEN IS A WEASEL
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
|
|
Even the judges could tell that Olsen is a weasel.
|
|
|
|
The three judges hearing our challenge to the CDA were unsympathetic
|
|
to the Brigham Young University computer scientist and pinned him down
|
|
for almost an hour as he tried to slime away from direct questions.
|
|
|
|
Judge Stewart Dalzell is the most net-savvy judge on the panel and the
|
|
only one with young kids, so I'm guessing they're helping him to grok
|
|
the Net. He asked Olsen what would happen if U.S. citizens
|
|
automatically cache overseas material, including "indecent" files.
|
|
|
|
Again Olsen tried to weasel away from the hypothetical, but Dalzell
|
|
would have none of it: "You assumed away my question."
|
|
|
|
The DoJ witness grumpily admitted: "I'd turn the cache off."
|
|
|
|
Some of Dalzell's questions were stellar: "Assume a chat group is
|
|
talking about the CDA -- students from 13 to 18. In the course of the
|
|
chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it
|
|
your proposal that he should tag that '-L18?'"
|
|
|
|
Not hesitating, Olsen said: "Yes."
|
|
|
|
On the fight-censorship mailing list I maintain, Mark Stein writes:
|
|
|
|
Judge Dalzell was paraphrasing closely from Cohen v. California, a
|
|
seminal case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of
|
|
a man who was arrested for wearing a jacket with "Fuck The Draft"
|
|
painted on the back. This Olsen fellow's a government witness, you
|
|
say? Sounds like he's working for us.
|
|
|
|
Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally fab: "If in one issue
|
|
of the Economist the word 'fuck' appears, the library [putting it
|
|
online] would have to go through the entire text of the issue?"
|
|
|
|
Olsen replied: "Somebody would have to make this screening. Somebody
|
|
would have to make this judgement." (Later he invented the idea of
|
|
libraries banding together to pool resources to make these decisions.
|
|
I could feel the hackles of the American Library Association folks
|
|
rising. I swear, Olsen makes up these mind-fucks on the fly.)
|
|
|
|
Remember Judge Buckwalter? I wrote about him in my first CDA Update,
|
|
saying that he was the least comfortable with our cybersuit:
|
|
|
|
In an incomprehensible decision last month, Judge Ronald Buckwalter
|
|
granted us only a _partial_ restraining order preventing the Feds
|
|
from enforcing the CDA. Now he's justifying his original mistake by
|
|
taking a critical stance during this hearing...
|
|
|
|
Buckwalter has come around. Last Friday his comments indicated he was
|
|
starting to understand the issue. His questions to Olsen on Monday
|
|
showed that he finally "gets it":
|
|
|
|
Q: If the creator of the material doesn't buy into your system, it
|
|
creates a big problem... Does this mean plaintiff's proposal makes
|
|
more sense?
|
|
A: No. There are different types of proposals...
|
|
Q: On your declaration, determining which are adults, you don't
|
|
address economic claims?
|
|
A: I only address if it's technically possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
CHIEF JUDGE SLOVITER'S INCISIVE QUESTIONS
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
|
|
Chief Judge Sloviter's questions were the most incisive -- like
|
|
Dalzell, she admitted to doing a bit of out-of-court net surfing. She
|
|
asked Olsen if "children would be blocked from accessing parts of
|
|
museum collections?" Olsen admitted they would.
|
|
|
|
Some other questions from Sloviter:
|
|
|
|
Q: Would [your -L18 proposal] contain the seeds that the government
|
|
can do the blocking? Once everything is tagged as -L18, would
|
|
that facilitate any one entity saying this material should not
|
|
go out on the Internet?
|
|
A: Possibly.
|
|
Q: Can you think of any time in our history where we have blocked
|
|
material in advance?
|
|
A: Yes, every editor in every newspaper does this every day.
|
|
Q: But in an organized manner?
|
|
A: Every editor in every newspaper does this every day.
|
|
|
|
The EFF's Mike Godwin says:
|
|
|
|
That Sloviter asked this question is incredibly important -- it
|
|
shows that she recognizes that compliance with the Communications
|
|
Decency Act would amount to a complex system of prior restraints.
|
|
|
|
Even among those who disagree strongly about the scope of the First
|
|
Amendment, there is little disagreement about the general
|
|
prohibition of prior restraints on publication -- the only generally
|
|
acknowledged exception to this prohibition is the "national
|
|
security" exception (publication of troop movements during time of
|
|
war and the like). In previous obscenity/indecency cases, it has
|
|
long been established that prior restraints on publication are
|
|
impermissible.
|
|
|
|
The strangest point of the day came after Olsen testified that a
|
|
PICS-style third-party rating system would "slow the flow." (This was
|
|
a snide reference to Vanderbilt Professor Donna Hoffman's testimony
|
|
about how uninterrupted "flow" was important while web-surfing.)
|
|
|
|
Sloviter then asked him how an adult would show -L18 tagged materials
|
|
to a mature child. Olsen replied that a "teacher or parent could log
|
|
on." Sloviter parried: "Wouldn't that slow the flow?"
|
|
|
|
At this point, Olsen began to discharge a series of short, staccato
|
|
bursts of high-pitched giggles, sounding like a rabbit being tortured
|
|
to death. Damnedest thing I ever saw. The audience stared in horror.
|
|
|
|
Basically, the DoJ fucked up with this witness. Olsen was such a
|
|
censorhappy nut and so delighted with his "-L18" scheme that the court
|
|
realized it went too far -- that it was obviously unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
In other words, he was our best witness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
WHO IS DONNA RICE? A DOJ ATTORNEY CAN'T STOP LAUGHING...
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
|
|
I would have loved to have been in Washington, DC when Grey Flannel
|
|
Suit -- AKA AFSADAFOSICCI* Howard Schmidt -- was deposed on April 1.
|
|
|
|
Imagine an entire business day filled with nothing but talk of
|
|
cyberporn, with everyone trying to be serious and lawyerly. Some
|
|
representative samples, from page 244 of Grey Flannel's deposition:
|
|
|
|
A: The next one, the same [screen] with panties.jpg reflects the
|
|
image that appears on the screen after clicking on Panties.
|
|
A: The next one, the same [screen] with boobs.jpg reflects the image
|
|
that appears on the screen after clicking on Boobs.
|
|
A: And the next one is cunnilingus.jpg, which reflects the image
|
|
that comes onto the screen by clicking on Cunnilingus.
|
|
|
|
But my fave part was when former party girl and ex-No Excuses jeans
|
|
model Donna Rice-Hughes was mentioned. In the past year, Rice-Hughes
|
|
has leveraged her fame from the Gary Hart presidential campaign into a
|
|
budding career as a morality crusader at the anti-porn group "Enough
|
|
is Enough!" Read on for an excerpt from page 282 of Grey Flannel's
|
|
deposition...
|
|
|
|
Q: Are you acquainted with Kathleen Cleaver?
|
|
A: No, I'm not.
|
|
Q: Have you ever heard that name?
|
|
A: It does not ring a bell, no.
|
|
Q: Are you acquainted with Bruce Taylor?
|
|
A: Not that I'm aware of, no.
|
|
Q: Are you acquainted with Donna Rice?
|
|
A: The name Donna Rice rings a bell it seems, but I don't know from what.
|
|
|
|
[The ACLU attorneys and Pat Russotto from the DoJ can't stop laughing.]
|
|
|
|
DoJ's Tony Coppolino: "I'll explain later."
|
|
ACLU's Margorie Heins: "It's a honest answer."
|
|
ACLU's Chris Hansen: "Even Pat couldn't remain serious through that."
|
|
DoJ's Tony Coppolino, trying again: "I'll explain later!"
|
|
|
|
* AFSADAFOSICCI = Air Force Special Agent, Director of the Air Force
|
|
Office of Special Investigations, Computer Crime Investigations
|
|
|
|
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
CLOSING ARGUMENTS NOW SET FOR MAY 10
|
|
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
|
|
|
|
The closing arguments for our case now are scheduled for May 10, with
|
|
April 29 as the deadline for submitting our findings of fact and
|
|
conclusions of law -- a lengthy collection of documents that will
|
|
include everything we believe we've proved in our case. (Closing
|
|
arguments were pushed up to early May since we didn't feel a need to
|
|
call any rebuttal witnesses. After all, we had Olsen!)
|
|
|
|
Our attorneys and the DoJ each will present two hours of closing
|
|
arguments on May 10, though the timeframe is flexible. The three-judge
|
|
panel likely will issue a decision three or four weeks later, and
|
|
appeals will go directly to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
What will the Philly court decide?
|
|
|
|
Bruce Taylor, the president of the National Law Center for Children
|
|
and Families, told me that he's "confident" the court will uphold the
|
|
indecency portions of the CDA. However, the former Federal prosecutor
|
|
said he's "worried that the court may accept some of the technical or
|
|
infeasibility arguments" against the law.
|
|
|
|
I'm sure we'll talk more about it on May 9, when I'll be on a panel
|
|
at the University of Pennsylvania with Taylor and Cathy Cleaver.
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, one of the strongest aspects of our case is that we're
|
|
correct.
|
|
|
|
Stay tuned for more reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
We're back in court on May 10 for closing arguments.
|
|
|
|
Quote of the Day: "We teach them proper principles and let them govern
|
|
themselves." -Prophet Joseph Smith
|
|
|
|
Mentioned in this CDA update:
|
|
|
|
CDA Update #6, with details on Dan Olsen's "-L18" proposal:
|
|
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2143>
|
|
Brock Meeks on 4/12 and 4/15 hearings:
|
|
<http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/16/index1a.html>
|
|
Mark Eckenwiler's report on the recent CDA forum at Cornell University:
|
|
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2226>
|
|
CDA forum at the University of Pennsylvania, scheduled for May 9:
|
|
<http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~fatf/cda-forum.html>
|
|
IETF draft of "Internet Philosophy" article:
|
|
<ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-iab-principles-02.txt>
|
|
Net-Guru David Reed's article: "CDA may pervert Internet architecture":
|
|
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2093>
|
|
Censored by the CDA <http://www.iuma.com/Cyborgasm/>
|
|
Dan Olsen at BYU <http://www.cs.byu.edu/info/drolsen.html>
|
|
Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>
|
|
BYU's censorship policy <http://advance.byu.edu/pc/releases/guidelines.html>
|
|
Rimm ethics critique <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/>
|
|
Int'l Net-Censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/>
|
|
CMU net-censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kcf/censor/>
|
|
University censorship <http://joc.mit.edu/>
|
|
Grey Flannel Suit <howardas@aol.com>
|
|
Carl Kadie's CAF site <http://www.eff.org/CAF/>
|
|
Blue Ribbon T-Shirts <http://www.fqa.com/romana/blueribbon.html>
|
|
|
|
This report and previous CDA Updates are available at:
|
|
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>
|
|
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/EFF_ACLU_v_DoJ/>
|
|
<http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/>
|
|
|
|
To subscribe to the fight-censorship mailing list for future CDA
|
|
updates and related discussions, send "subscribe" in the body of a
|
|
message addressed to:
|
|
fight-censorship-request@andrew.cmu.edu
|
|
|
|
Other relevant web sites:
|
|
<http://www.eff.org/>
|
|
<http://www.aclu.org/>
|
|
<http://www.cdt.org/>
|
|
<http://www.ala.org/>
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:43:31 -0400
|
|
From: tallpaul <tallpaul@pipeline.com>
|
|
Subject: File 3--"LolitaWatch" Available (caution to the humor-impaired)
|
|
|
|
--fwd--
|
|
|
|
To--cypherpunks@toad.com
|
|
From--tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
|
|
Subject--LolitaWatch
|
|
|
|
Sunnyvale, CA. Nubility, Inc. is pleased to announce the availability of
|
|
"LolitaWatch," a filter program for the Web and Net which alerts users
|
|
about the presence of nubile, young teens (and even younger!). LolitaWatch
|
|
operates by checking the federally-mandated "age bit."
|
|
|
|
No longer will you be frustrated in trying to contact that 12-year-old
|
|
girl, only to eventually learn she's a 44-year-old male playing mind games.
|
|
|
|
The President of Nubility, Pete Ofeil, said "Hey, the government says that
|
|
they have to wear a sign announcing their age...all we're doing is offering
|
|
|
|
a service to our customers."
|
|
|
|
(There is still the problem that the girl may be a boy, or vice versa,
|
|
depending on your preferences, but this is likely to be solved as the
|
|
"Fairness to Women and Other People of Color Protection Act," which
|
|
mandates that a "gender bit" be set.)
|
|
|
|
"LolitaWatch allows me to cut quickly to the chase, screening out the
|
|
hags," says Roy G. Biv, appreciator of young girls. "I've even rigged up my
|
|
|
|
copy of LolitaWatch to automatically alert me when one of these nubile
|
|
young things enters an IRC chat room!," he added with a sly grin.
|
|
|
|
LolitaWatch is available immediately for Windows and Macintosh. No Unix
|
|
version is planned because Unix users are, well, unix.
|
|
|
|
[END T.C. MAY INSERT]
|
|
|
|
[BEGIN ANON INSERT]
|
|
|
|
Date--Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:10:40 +0200 (MET DST)
|
|
Message-Id--<199604180610.IAA27184@utopia.hacktic.nl>
|
|
Subject--GNU Version 0.01 (alpha) of KiddieFind is now available
|
|
To--cypherpunks@toad.com
|
|
From--nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
|
|
Organization--Replay and Company UnLimited
|
|
|
|
I am going ahead and releasing an alpha version of KiddieFind a free
|
|
Unix implementation of LolitaWatch. Everything is under the GPL, so
|
|
the source code is free, hack on it all you want ...
|
|
|
|
KiddieFind is an enhanced free version of Nubility Inc.'s LolitaWatch
|
|
for Unix. It works by locating network packets that have the US
|
|
federally mandated Under18 bit set, and then uses publicly accessible
|
|
databases to map them into a street address and phonenumber.
|
|
|
|
The networked version works as follows, using the provided plug in
|
|
module (a version is provided in 0.01 for AOL, I'm working on a
|
|
CompuServe version and will have it ready in a week or so) to connect
|
|
to a major online service. Once connected it goes into the equivalent
|
|
of promiscuous mode and scans all traffic for the age bit, and
|
|
forwards the information back to your system.
|
|
|
|
After collecting all this information, it scans a number of publicly
|
|
accessible databases to turn the information into a street address.
|
|
The geographical location can be approximated by running a traceroute
|
|
on the IP address of the originating packet and works backwards until
|
|
a host with reliable geographic data can be located. KiddieFind only
|
|
requires state-wide granularity, and this only to narrow the later
|
|
phonebook search.
|
|
|
|
Once a geographic location has been determined, it's not likely that
|
|
the child has her own phone. Therefore the parents must be found. A
|
|
search is done through the any number of the available on-line
|
|
telephone books. By this stage KiddieFind should have a manageable
|
|
number of candidate numbers. If real names are being used, than it's
|
|
easy to isolate the correct phone number. Hopefully the Denning
|
|
geographic information will be mandated soon, thus eliminating nearly
|
|
all sources of error isolating the correct neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
If there are still too many candiate numbers a number of other mostly
|
|
automated searches can be done. The parents' home web pages can be
|
|
searched for personal information, etc.
|
|
|
|
Once you have the system tuned, all you merely have to do to locate a
|
|
street address and phone number for any number of children is just
|
|
login and poke around a bit. Everything else is done in the
|
|
background. You don't even have to think about it.
|
|
|
|
I've obtained the address and phone numbers of over 5,000 children so
|
|
far, but I expect this will become easier after all the kinks in the
|
|
system are worked out.
|
|
|
|
GNU archives are located throughout the world, pick the one closest to
|
|
you for downloading.
|
|
|
|
[END ANON INSERT]
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:30:06 -0500 (CDT)
|
|
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
|
|
Subject: File 4--(fwd) CFP 96 Report
|
|
To: Computer Underground Digest <tk0jut2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
|
|
|
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
|
|
|
|
Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP96 Conference Report
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Copyright 1996 by Lorrie Faith Cranor. Permission to distribute this report
|
|
electronically is granted.
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Computers, Freedom and Privacy '96 was held March 27-30 at the Cambridge,
|
|
Massachusetts Hyatt Hotel. This year the (mostly) single-track conference
|
|
was excellently chronicled by the CFP96 newsletter volunteers; thus I will
|
|
dispense with my usual session-by-session description of the conference and
|
|
instead focus my annual essay on a few conference highlights and my personal
|
|
reactions to the conference. Notes and audio recordings for most sessions
|
|
are available from the CFP96 web site (http://web.mit.edu/cfp96/).
|
|
|
|
I arrived late Wednesday night, after the day's tutorials and the evening
|
|
reception, but in time to join the group of CFP regulars at the hotel bar.
|
|
Before retiring for the evening I continued several conversations started at
|
|
CFP95, explained my dissertation research to a handful of CFPers who were
|
|
actually interested in hearing about the details of my esoteric work, and
|
|
collected a long list of web pointers and book titles which said listeners
|
|
recommended. As usual, informal networking proved to be a valuable part of
|
|
my conference experience.
|
|
|
|
As the main part of the conference got started the next morning, I noticed
|
|
that law enforcement officers and hackers were largely absent from the
|
|
attendance list this year. Perhaps that's why CFP96 lacked some of the
|
|
intrigue of previous conferences. There were no arrests, no attendees taken
|
|
in for questioning, and no groups of young people clustered around the pay
|
|
phones. Actually, there weren't too many young people at the conference at
|
|
all. Perhaps due to the expensive venue (and no easy way to find roommates
|
|
to cut down on expenses) there seemed to be fewer students than usual in
|
|
attendance.
|
|
|
|
As the CFP audience seemed to have matured from previous years, so did the
|
|
tone of the discussions. At CFP93 (my first CFP) the panels explored the
|
|
strange new worlds of the electronic frontier with speakers presenting
|
|
information which really surprised many of the participants. There were so
|
|
many new ideas -- so much to disagree with -- that there were loud protests
|
|
at the end of each session from those who didn't get to have their say
|
|
before time ran out. At CFP94, most of the attendees (while probably still
|
|
in much disagreement on many topics) were for the most part so much in
|
|
agreement that the Clipper Chip was bad, that all other issues seemed much
|
|
less significant. A year later, the Clipper crisis had blown over, allowing
|
|
CFP95 to proceed with more diverse discussions. At CFP96 there were new
|
|
crises to rally around: the Communications Decency Act and the threat of
|
|
restrictive encryption legislation. But for the first time at CFP, I heard
|
|
audience members other than Dorothy Denning and thployed by the
|
|
government acknowledging that these issues might not be all black and white.
|
|
|
|
Denning's "International Developments in Cryptography" panel exposed a lot
|
|
of important issues surrounding the cryptography regulation dilemma and
|
|
featured one of the most controversial speakers of this year's conference --
|
|
Michael Nelson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
|
|
Those who put aside their outrage long enough to listen to what Nelson had
|
|
to say, seemed to find themselves agreeing with much of his analysis, while
|
|
disagreeing with some of his fundamental assumptions. What set Nelson's
|
|
perspective apart from the views held by most CFP participants was his
|
|
belief that the potential consequences of unregulated cryptography
|
|
(especially non-key-escrow) would be more harmful than the potential
|
|
consequences of regulating cryptography. Nelson kept repeating that if
|
|
nothing was done to regulate cryptography, terrorists will use it to pull
|
|
off a major disaster and "people will die." As long as the administration
|
|
assumes that the risk of disaster due to unregulated cryptography (which may
|
|
not be insignificant) is an unacceptable risk, no solution that cannot
|
|
eliminate that risk will be acceptable. The problem is we don't really know
|
|
the magnitude of the risk, nor do we know whether people find this sort of
|
|
risk acceptable. Certainly our society has determined that some risks are
|
|
acceptable and we find it preferable to live with these risks than impose
|
|
the regulations that would reduce them significantly. On the other hand, we
|
|
have decided that other risks are more than we wish to bear. But these
|
|
determinations have come about after long debate, and even after regulations
|
|
are established they tend to get changed frequently as our knowledge about
|
|
the magnitude of the risks and the public attitude towards these risks
|
|
change.
|
|
|
|
This topic was discussed again in an excellent session, "Before the Court:
|
|
Can the US Government Criminalize Unauthorized Encryption?" organized by
|
|
Andrew Grosso. Remembering the confusing mock trial held at CFP93, I was a
|
|
bit skeptical about this moot court. But I was pleasantly surprised to watch
|
|
a thoroughly researched debate over a fictitious statute outlawing
|
|
unescrowed encryption. Although most of the participants were opposed to
|
|
this hypothetical statute, those assigned to represent the government
|
|
defended it convincingly. I was also impressed with the questions asked by
|
|
the panel of real Federal judges who presided over the court. Written
|
|
arguments on both sides are available from the CFP96 web site.
|
|
|
|
Another controversial speaker, Bruce Taylor, President and General Counsel
|
|
of the National Law Center for Families and Children, participated in the
|
|
late night Communications Decency Act session which began at 9:30 Thursday
|
|
night. As Taylor debated with CDA opponents, I noted that the discussion was
|
|
more about semantics and what the law really means than anything else.
|
|
Taylor attacked opponents' statements that the CDA is unconstitutional
|
|
saying that it does not really restrict the behavior that opponents say it
|
|
does. He failed to comment on whether such restrictions would be
|
|
unconstitutional, rather he insisted that such restrictions were not a part
|
|
of the law. Examples of materials Taylor claimed would not be restricted
|
|
(but opponents said would be restricted) include dirty words and graphic sex
|
|
education materials. The root of the disagreement surrounded the
|
|
interpretation of the vague language of the legislation and the significance
|
|
of explanatory documents which Congress voted not to include in the
|
|
legislation. Audience discussion of this issue continued well past midnight,
|
|
when the hotel staff asked us to move our conversation out of the ballroom
|
|
so they could lock up for the night.
|
|
|
|
The following evening, the New England Aquarium was the delightful setting
|
|
for the EFF Pioneer Awards presentation and reception. The ever squawking
|
|
penguins repeatedly interrupted the speakers, adding a bit of levity to the
|
|
event. Many attendees commented that watching the fish swim gracefully round
|
|
and round the central tank was a fitting contrast to all the high tech talk
|
|
of the previous two days.
|
|
|
|
Other highlights of the conference for me included being a panelist on David
|
|
Chaum's "Policy Implications of Privacy Technology" lunch panel along with
|
|
Phil Zimmerman, Esther Dyson, and John Gilmore; playing a 70-year-old women
|
|
in one of Simpson Garfinkel's electronic cash scenarios; and meeting other
|
|
graduate students who are working on interdisciplinary research projects.
|
|
|
|
One topic I wish had been discussed more at this conference was medical
|
|
records privacy, especially in light of the "Bennett bill" introduced in the
|
|
US Senate last fall. One lunch workshop took a cursory look at medical
|
|
records privacy issues, but I was disappointed in the way the organizers
|
|
framed the discussion, focusing on philosophical questions rather than on
|
|
the actual issues that have proven controversial. This is a topic that has
|
|
been discussed at previous CFPs, but I think there's plenty more to discuss.
|
|
Maybe at CFP97?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
From: Q*Bert <qbert@access.digex.net>
|
|
Subject: File 5--U of Iowa "hacker" Arrested
|
|
|
|
>From http://www.uiowa.edu/~dlyiowan/issue/v127/i177/stories/A0101F.html
|
|
|
|
UI hacker invades private e-mail
|
|
|
|
Computer pirate raided thousands of students' accounts
|
|
|
|
Ann Haggerty
|
|
The Daily Iowan
|
|
|
|
UI police arrested a UI freshman Friday after he allegedly broke into
|
|
thousands of e-mail accounts at the UI from his home computer.
|
|
|
|
The arrest came after public safety officials videotaped the student
|
|
illegally entering a conference room in John Pappajohn Business
|
|
Administration Building, Lt. Richard Gordon said. Officials believe the
|
|
student was leading a computer hacking group from the room.
|
|
|
|
If tried as an adult, the 17-year-old student faces up to one year in jail
|
|
and a $1,000 fine on electronic eavesdropping charges. Gordon declined to
|
|
release the student's name because he is a juvenile.
|
|
|
|
In addition, the student will be charged with three counts of criminal
|
|
trespassing and one count of criminal mischief, Gordon said, and public
|
|
safety officers are investigating the possibility he possessed drugs and
|
|
stole computer equipment.
|
|
..............
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
|
|
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
|
|
|
|
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
|
|
available at no cost electronically.
|
|
|
|
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
|
|
|
|
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
|
|
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
|
|
|
|
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
|
|
|
|
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
|
|
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
|
|
60115, USA.
|
|
|
|
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
|
|
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
|
|
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
|
|
|
|
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
|
|
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
|
|
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
|
|
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
|
|
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
|
|
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
|
|
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
|
|
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
|
|
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
|
|
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
|
|
|
|
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
|
|
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
|
|
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
|
|
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
|
|
|
|
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD
|
|
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
|
|
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
|
|
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
|
|
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
|
|
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
|
|
Cu Digest WWW site at:
|
|
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
|
|
|
|
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
|
|
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
|
|
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
|
|
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
|
|
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
|
|
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
|
|
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
|
|
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
|
|
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
|
|
unless absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
|
|
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
|
|
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
|
|
violate copyright protections.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.31
|
|
************************************
|
|
|