informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0590.txt

980 lines
44 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 1 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 90
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Editor: Tamen O. DeSchrew, III
CONTENTS, #5.90 (Dec 1 1993)
File 1--Conference in Russia
File 2--HR 3627 - Export Controls on Cryptography Software
File 3--Psuedospoofed again
File 4--re: Student sues to regain Internet access (CuD 5.88)
File 5--Re: Cu Digeset, #5.89
File 6--Commentary on Cyber-issues in Elansky/Ionizer Sentence
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.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.
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 the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
EUROPE: ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
UNITED STATES:
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/cud
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
KOREA: ftp: cair.kaist.ac.kr in /doc/eff/cud
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Nov 1993 22:29:56 U
From: "Anne" <harwell@BANDW.PANAM.EDU>
Subject: File 1--Conference in Russia
CALL FOR PAPERS
----- (Feel Free To Cross Post This Announcement) ----
Association for International Education
Announces
the First International Conference on Distance Education
in Russia
DISTANCE LEARNING AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION
and the Exhibition
BUILDING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
July 5-8, 1994
Moscow, Russia
CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
This conference will display a range of ongoing projects,
studies and initiatives that reflect Russia's needs for changes
in higher education, and the application of new information,
telecommunication, and distance education technologies in the
Russian educational and training sectors.
The conference will stimulate the investigation of practical
approaches to introducing Russians to the new democratic educational
system and market-oriented economy through distance learning and
mass media, as well as to providing Russian students and adults
with world-wide telecommunications access to higher education
institutions and training agencies.
The goal of the exhibition is to demonstrate modern information,
communication, and multimedia technologies, along with their
applications in education and training. It will provide conference
participants with information on the state-of-the-art in
creating the learning environment and classrooms of the 21st
century.
TOPICS OF THE CONFERENCE
Distance Education:
Theory
Quality and Standards; Recognition and Academic
Mobility
Higher Education; Training and Re-training
Economics, Management and Marketing of Distance
Education
Priorities and Strategies
Educational Environment:
Information Technologies in the Classroom
Electronic Tutors and Testing Systems
Multimedia
Audio- and Video-Conferences
Computer Mediated Communications
Innovative Solutions
DEMONSTRATIONS
The conference will also serve as a site for the
showcasing of completed or ongoing projects.
The Information Systems Research Institute of Russia
(ISRIR) is responsible for the Federal program aimed at
the development of new information technologies in
Russian higher education. ISRIR will award limited number
of grants to support selected projects. Other
organizations and foundations are invited to observe the
presentations of working projects and other activities.
EXHIBITION
The exhibition focuses on the equipment, systems,
software and other products or processes that can be used
in distance learning and education process in general.
Organizations, corporations, and institutions are invited
to present their educational products supportive to
distance learning and international education.
Special guest tours of decision-makers and experts from
Russian Ministries, governmental agencies, state and
private comp3anies and institutions will be organized.
Invitations are being sent to key people from the
user/purchaser community in Russia.
The winners of a national competition for creative
software will demonstrate their products to potential
partners.
SUBMISSION OF PAPERS
The official languages for presentations are Russian
and English. Translation facilities will be provided on
request. All the presented papers must be in English.
Prospective presenters must submit the following to the
Program Committee by January 1, 1994, by fax or e-mail in
plain ASCII form:
(i) presenter proposal form;
(ii) a one-page abstract suitable for the conference
program booklet.
Please indicate under which topic you feel your paper
should be presented.
Acceptance of a paper implies a commitment on the part
of the author(s) to present it at the conference.
Accepted papers will be published in the conference
proceedings.
Final decisions on acceptance of papers for the 1994
conference proceedings will be made by the Program
Committee of international experts by February 1, 1994.
All presenters will be notified.
KEY DATES
January 1 - Deadline of submission of abstracts
February 1 - Notification of acceptance of papers
March 1 - Preliminary program will be published.
Deadline of submission of full papers
in English (not exceeding 5000 words)
April 1 - Conference registration deadline
July 5 - Conference starts
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FEE
Payment before April 1, 1994: USD 200
Payment after April 1, 1994: USD 250
This payment does not include accommodation and
transportation expenses.
Chairman of the International Program Committee
+-----------------------------------------------
Michael G. Moore, Editor
The American Journal of Distance Education
Chairman of The National Organizing Committee
+---------------------------------------------
Alexander N. Tikhonov
First Vice-Chairman,
Russian Federation State Committee
for Higher Education (Ministry)
THE ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
The Association was created in 1993 and is a not-for-
profit, non-governmental, publicly supported, educational
service organization with the goal of assisting in
enhancing the quality and availability of international
educational exchange programs using computer,
telecommunication and information technologies, and
developing a distance education system in Russia.
Its objective is, among others, to provide a channel
for the international exchange of information, experience
and material in the field of education technology,
including new information technologies in distance
education - with particular reference to business,
technical and vocational education, industrial and
commercial training, teacher training and continuing
education.
The Association unites leading Russian educational and
academic institutions, including State Pedagogical
University, Peoples Friendship University. The
Association is supported by the Russian Federation State
Committee for Higher Education and Information Systems
Research Institute of Russia.
SPONSORS
Organisations interested in acting as co-sponsors of
the Conference are asked to contact the Conference
Secretariat for further information.
o
+ X-------- Cut here -----------------------------------
O
First International Conference on
Distance Education in Russia
"DISTANCE LEARNING AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION"
PRESENTER PROPOSAL FORM
First name, last name:___________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Job or Title:____________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Organisation:____________________________________________
Title of the paper:______________________________________
Sessions of the Conference:
Distance Education:
Theory
Quality and Standards
Recognition and Academic Mobility
Higher Education
Training and Re-training
Economics, Management and Marketing of
Distance Education
Educational Environment:
Information Technologies in a Classroom
Electronic Tutors and Testing Systems
Multimedia
Audio- and Video-Conferencing
Computer Mediated Communications
Innovative Solutions
Co-presenters:___________________________________________
Equipment Needs:_________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Telephone (work, home):__________________________________
Facsimile:_______________________________________________
E-mail:__________________________________________________
Please return to the Conference Secretariat:
ROSNIIIS (12-4), 22 Shepkina, 129090 Moscow, Russia
Fax: 7(095) 954-5127 and 288-1861
Internet: DE_RUSSIA_1994@AIE.MSK.SU
O
+--X-------- Cut here -----------------------------------
o
First International Conference on Distance Education in
Russia
"DISTANCE LEARNING AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION"
INFORMATION REQUEST
To receive future Conference/Exhibition
announcements, please complete this form, detach and send
to the address below.
First name, last name:___________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Job or Title:____________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Organisation:____________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Telephone (work, home):__________________________________
Facsimile:_______________________________________________
E-mail:__________________________________________________
Please add your questions, ideas and comments below.
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
+________________________________________________________
Please return to the Conference Secretariat:
ROSNIIIS (12-4), 22 Shepkina, 129090 Moscow, Russia
Fax: 7(095) 954-5127 and 288-1861
Internet: DE_RUSSIA_1994@AIE.MSK.SU
------------------------------
Date: 26 Nov 1993 23:18:39 GMT
From: Dave Banisar <Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: File 2--HR 3627 - Export Controls on Cryptography Software
Maria Cantwell
1st District, Washington
1520 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-6311
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4701
For Immediate Release For More Information
November 23, 1993 Larry West (202) 225-6311
Cantwell Introduces "Encryption" bill to Expand Export Markets for US
Computer and Software Companies
US Rep. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has introduced legislation to amend the
Export Administration Act to allow US computer and software
manufacturers to compete in an international market that could mean as
much as $6 billion to $9 billion a year to American high-tech
industries. Cantwell's bill would liberalize export controls on software
that features encryption capabilities, which protect computer data
against unauthorized disclosure, theft or alteration.
As communications systems link more and more computers and telephones
around the world, Cantwell said, businesses and indviduals are becoming
more concerned about protecting the privacy of their electronic files,
messages and transactions. She said the worldwide demand for
cryptographic software, and computer systems that employ such software,
is growing rapidly and American companies must be allowed to meet that
demand. According to Cantwell, this legislation is needed to ensure that
American companies do not lose critical international markets to foreign
competitors, who operate with few export restrictions. Currently, more
than 200 software and hardware products for text, file and data
encryption are available from 20 foreign countries.
"The Export Administration Act has erected a wall between American
high-tech companies and their international customers -- it's time to
lower the wall," Cantwell said. "Computer and software technology are
among the most competitive fields in the world, and American companies
are the clear leaders. To maintain that lead, American companies must be
able to respond to worldwide consumer demand."
Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance, an
association of America's nine leading software companies, applauded
Cantwell for introducing the leigslation and said the bill would "assist
US software companies and maintaining their competitive edge in
international markets."
Dr. Nathan Myhrvold, senior vice president for Advance Technology at
Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington, also praised Cantwell for
her leadership on this issue.
"The ability to include encryption features in software we sell
markets," Myhrvold said. " We commend Rep. Cantwell for recognizing the
importance of this issue to the American software industry."
CANTWELL ON EXPORT CONTROLS/ ADD ONE
Cantwell said current export controls that prohibit the export of
American software programs that offer good encryption capabilities only
make it harder for American companies to compete internationally. She
said the regulations ignore the realities of today's post-Cold War
global economy and the needs of one of this country's most innovative
and successful industries. American software companies currently
command a 75 percent worldwide market share, and many of those companies
earn more than 50 percent of their annual revenues from exports, but
Cantwell said that could change quickly.
"The United States' export control system is broken and needs to be
fixed," Cantwell said. "It was designed as a tool of the Cold War, to
help America fight against enemies that no longer exist. If we continue
to prevent American companies from meeting the worldwide demand for
cryptographic software, America gains nothing -- but those companies
stand to lose $6 billion and $9 billion a year."
Paul Brainerd, CEO of Aldus in Seattle, said, "Rep. Cantwell's bill
would liberalize outdated export controls, which are threatening the
continued success of America's software companies in world markets. In
order to remain competitive worldwide, American companies must be able
to offer features -- like information security -- demanded by our
customers and available from foreign companies."
Cantwell said her legislation would not interfere with the
government's ability to control exports to nations with terrorist
tendencies (such as Iran, Libya and Syria) or other embargoed countries
(such as Cuba and North Korea). On the other hand, she said, current
export controls on American software do not prevent anyone from
obtaining cryptographic software.
"Much of this is ordinary shrink-wrapped software," Cantwell said,
"the kind millions of people buy every day for their home and business
computers at regular retail outlets. International consumers who cannot
purchase American computer systems and software programs with encryption
features don't do without, they just buy those products elsewhere. They
are concerned with protecting their privacy and keeping their businesses
secure."
Cantwell said she is determined to bring the issue out from behind
closed doors and into the light of public debate before the House
Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment marks up the
Export Administration Act early next year. She said she hopes her bill
will encourage the Administration to act quickly to revise export
controls on software -- perhaps before Congress reconvenes in late
January.
"The Administration is reviewing this issue, and I think they are
interested in making the changes that will allow American companies to
remain competitive," Cantwell said. "I would like nothing better than
to come back to Congress after the recess and discover that the problem
had been solved."
###
AMERICAN COMPUTER COMPANIES MUST BE ALLOWED TO
EXPORT SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES
_Introduction and Summary_
America's computer software and hardware companies, including such
well-known companies as Apple, DEC, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lotus,
Microsoft, Novell and Wordperfect, have been among the country's most
internationally competitive firms earning more than one-half of their
revenues from exports. Unfortunately, this vital American industry is
directly threatened by unilateral U.S. Government export controls which
prevent those companies from meeting worldwide user demand for software
that includes encryption capabilities to protect computer data against
unauthorized disclosure, theft or alteration. Legislative action is
needed to ensure that American companies do not lose critical
international markets to foreign software companies that operate without
significant export restrictions.
_The Problem_
With ready access to powerful, interconnected, computers, business and
home users increasingly are relying on electronic information storage
and transmissions to conduct their affairs. At the same time, computer
users worldwide are demanding that computer software offer encryption
capabilities to ensure that their data is secure and its integrity is
maintained.
Unfortunately, current unilateral U.S. "munitions" export controls
administered by the National Security Agency and the State Department
effectively prohibit the export of American software programs offering
good encryption capabilities.
Yet these unilateral U.S. controls are _not_ effective in restricting
the availability of encryption abroad. More than 200 generally
available, mass-market foreign commercial programs and products, as well
as many programs available from the Internet, all offer good encryption.
In addition, generally available software with encryption capabilities
is sold within the U.S. at thousands of retail outlets, by mail and over
the phone. These programs may be transferred abroad in minutes by
anyone using a public telephone line and a computer modem.
The only result of continued U.S. export controls is to threaten the
continued preeminence of America's computer software and hardware
companies in world markets. American software companies stand to lose
between $6 and $9 billion in annual revenues from sales of generally
available software. In addition, American hardware companies are losing
hundreds of millions of dollars in computer system sales every year,
because sales increasingly are dependent on the ability of a U.S. firm
to offer encryption as a feature of an integrated customer solution
involving hardware, software and services.
_The Solution_
Legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Maria Cantwell would ensure that
exports of software with encryption capabilities would be controlled by
the Secretary of Commerce as a commercial item and would be exportable.
This legislation is strongly supported by the Business Software Alliance
and the Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF CANTWELL BILL
EXPORT CONTROL LIBERALIZATION FOR
INFORMATION ECURITY PROGRAMS AND PRODUCTS
_Section 1_
Section 1 amends the Export Administration Act by adding a new
subsection that specifically addresses exports of computer hardware,
software and technology for information security including encryption.
The new subsection has three basic provisions:
1) It gives the Secretary of Commerce exclusive authority over the
export of such programs and products except those which are specifically
designed for military use, including command, control and intelligence
applications or for deciphering encrypted information.
2) The Government is generally prohibited from requiring a validated
export license for the export of generally available software (e.g. mass
market commercial or public domain software) or computer hardware simply
because it incorporates such software.
Nevertheless, the Secretary will be able to continue controls on
countries of terrorists (like Lybia, Syria and Iran) or other embargoed
countries (like Cuba and North Korea) pursuant to the Trading With The
Enemy Act os the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (except for
instances where IEEPA is employed to extend EAA-based controls when the
EAA is not in force).
3) The Secretary is required to grant validated licenses for exports of
sotware to commercial users in any country to which exports of such
software has been approved for use by foreign financial institutions.
Importantly, the Secretary is not required to grant such export
approvals if there is substantial evidence that the software will be
diverted or modified for military or terrorists' end-use or re-exported
without requisite authorization.
_Section 2_
Section 2 provides definitions necessary for the proper implementation
of the substantive provisions. For example, generally available
software is offered for sale or licensed to the public without
restriction and available through standard commercial channels of
distribution; sold as is without further customization; and designed to
be installed by the purchaser without additional assistance from the
publisher. Computer hardware and computing devices are also defined.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------
103D CONGRESS H.R. 3627
1ST SESSION
---------------------------------------
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MS. CANTWELL (for herself and ___) introduced the following bill which
was referred to the Committee on __________.
---------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 with
respect to the control of computers and related equipment.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
3 SECTION 1. GENERALLY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE
4 Section 17 of the Export Administration Act of 1979
5 (50 U.S.C. App. 2416) is amended by adding at the end
6 thereof the following new subsection:
7 %%(g) COMPUTERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT.---
8 %%(1) GENERAL RULE.---Subject to paragraphs
9 (2) and (3), the Secretary shall have exclusive au-
2
1 thority to control exports of all computer hardware,
2 software and technology for information security
3 (including encryption), except that which is specifi-
4 cally designed or modified for military use, including
5 command, control and intelligence applications.
6 %%(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES.---No
7 validated license may be required, except pursuant
8 to the Trading With The Enemy Act or the Inter-
9 national Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only
10 to the extent that the authority of such act is not
11 exercised to extend controls imposed under this act),
12 for the export or reexport of---
13 %%(A) any software, including software with
14 encryption capabilities, that is---
15 %%(i) generally available, as is, and is
16 designed for installation by the purchaser;
17 or
18 %%(ii) in the public domain or publicly
19 available because it is generally accessible
20 to the interested public in any form; or
21 %%(B) any computing device soley because
22 it incorporates or employs in any form software
23 (including software with encryption capabilities)
24 exempted from any requirement for a validated
25 license under subparagraph (A).
3
1 %%(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILI-
2 TIES.---The Secretary shall authorize the export or
3 reexport of software with encryption capabilities for
4 nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which ex-
5 ports of software of similar capability are permitted
6 for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact
7 by United States persons, unless there is substantial
8 evidence that such software will be---
9 %%(A) diverted to a military end-use or an
10 end-use supporting international terrorism;
11 %%(B) modified for military or terrorist end-
12 use; or
13 %%(C) reexported without requisite United
14 States authorization.
15 %%(4) DEFINITIONS.---As used in this
16 subsection---
17 %%(A) the term %generally available' means,
18 in the case of software (including software with
19 encryption capabilities), software that is offered
20 for sale, license, or transfer to any person with-
21 out restriction through any commercial means,
22 including, but not limited to, over-the-counter
23 retail sales, mail order transactions, phone
24 order transactions, electronic distribution, or
25 sale on approval;
4
1 %%(B) the term %as is' means, in the case of
2 software (including software with encryption ca-
3 pabilities), a software program that is not de-
4 signed, developed, or tailored by the software
5 company for specific purchasers, except that
6 such purchasers may supply certain installation
7 parameters needed by the software program to
8 function properly with the purchaser's system
9 and may customize the software program by
10 choosing among options contained in the soft-
11 ware program;
12 %%(C) the term %is designed for installation
13 by the purchaser' means, in the case of soft-
14 ware (including software with encryption capa-
15 bilities)---
16 %%(i) the software company intends for
17 the purchaser (including any licensee or
18 transferee), who may not be the actual
19 program user, to install the software pro-
20 gram on a computing device and has sup-
21 plied the necessary instructions to do so,
22 except that the company may also provide
23 telephone help line services for software in-
24 stallation, electronic transmission, or basic
25 operations; and---
5
1 %%(ii) that the software program is de-
2 signed for installation by the purchaser
3 without further substantial support by the
4 supplier;
5 %%(D) the term %computing device' means a
6 device which incorporates one or more
7 microprocessor-based central processing units
8 that can accept, store, process or provide out-
9 put of data; and
10 %%(E) the term %computer hardware', when
11 used in conjunction with information security,
12 includes, but is not limited to, computer sys-
13 tems, equipment, application-specific assem-
14 blies, modules and integrated circuits.''
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 09:05:29 -0500
From: ferguson@ICP.NET(Paul Ferguson x2044)
Subject: File 3--Psuedospoofed again
In Cu Digest, #5.89, Michael Roberts <nagap@mindvox.phantom.com>
forwarded a message entitled "A Psychopunk's Manifesto," which
contains a byline of "...by T.C. Hughes."
This "document" has already made its rounds in the cypberspatial world
and its originator has stirred up quite a bit of trouble by incessant
claims of conspiracy in the .cypherpunks agenda.
CuD readers should be aware that "T.C. Hughes" does not exist; this
"manifesto" is a psuedospoof in itself. The "T.C. Hughes" moniker is
an apparent conjugation of the real identities of Tim May and Eric
Hughes (who, in fact, did not author the original message), who
started the .cypherpunks mailing list. The message, if memory serves
me correctly, was originally composed by an12070, an anonymous
harbinger at penet.fi, who has appeared under several alaises,
including Medusa, The Executioner, S.Boxx and more recently, The
Pervert.
Looks like the psuedospoof has come home to roost.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 23:45:08 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@LRW.COM>
Subject: File 4--re: Student sues to regain Internet access (CuD 5.88)
A recent CuD article reports on the case of Gregory Steshenko, who was
terminated by Microsoft for some of his network postings, then began
posting from his University of Texas account, and is now suing the
university when it responded to complaints by removing his account (or
at least his network posting privileges). Mr. Steshenko claims First
Amendment protections, and the article quotes various "electronic
frontier" personalities describing this as an important case for free
speech on the networks.
It bothers me how little thought these spokesmen appear to be giving
to the effects of what they are defending. The Internet has been
described as an anarchy, but in fact only relatively small parts of
the Internet are actually anarchic. Most of the Internet, in fact, is
better described as self-governing. There are a variety of social
norms concerning network use and interactions. One doesn't post
messages to unrelated groups. One doesn't evade moderation
restrictions. One maintains a certain (rather limited, it must be
admitted) degree of restraint in how one describes other network
participants. There are few effective mechanisms for enforcing these
norms, and they are certainly broken on an all-too-regular basis; but
the network continues to function because social pressure *can* be
applied to those who become too annoying; and in the most outrageous
cases, it's possible to remove the offenders' access to the net. I
can cite two specific examples of this in the recent past:
- A regular poster to the INFO-VAX mailing list lost patience with
some of the sillier postings appearing there and began to
berate those who asked "dumb" questions. As time went on,
his postings became more and more abusive, and eventually a
fair amount of bandwidth was being used in debates about his
postings, rather then the technical issues that group is list
is meant to discuss. The list maintainer, who's been very
"hands-off" over the years, asked the abuser to tone things
down. This drew a characteristically insulting response.
The list maintainer modified the forwarding software to
block all postings by this person.
Needless to say, cries of "censorship!" were heard for a while
(though not, interestingly enough, from the person being
censored; to his credit, he had a message forwarded to the
list acknowledging the right of the list maintainer to do what
he had done) - but the list soon settled back to more useful
issues.
- Someone posted messages ostensibly asking for information about some
sex phone lines - but in fact really acting as ads for those
lines. The messages were posted to every single Usenet news
group. The person's account was removed after multiple
complaints to his system manager. He then obtained an account
on a different system, and started his postings again. This
time, his account was removed rather quickly. He's been
quiet since.
Depending on how you look at these two incidents, they either
represent self-government or censorship. My own view is that it's the
former. No community can exist without some degree of self definition
and regulation. It's all too easy to disrupt a discussion; all it
takes is a powerful and insistent voice. That's not hard to acquire
on the network; all it takes is the willingness to spend time typing.
(In the case of the sex phone line ads, all it took was a dumb program
to walk the list of newsgroups.)
I expect Mr. Steshenko will probably prevail: Individualism is a
strong thread in our political and legal history, and is exteremely
powerful in the area of free speech. Even if he loses his lawsuit,
he'll get Internet access in some other form, and continue his
(according to the original article) offensive postings and other
actions. Some will cheer this as an extension of First Amendment
rights to electronic media. I think it makes an excellent example of
why "First Amendment rights" should *not* be blindly extended to all
electronic media without careful analysis.
I can ignore a leaflet or newspaper; I can choose not to stop and
listen to a speaker on a public street. It's much harder to be quite
so accepting of loudspeakers at 3:00 AM, or of repeated harranging
telephone calls. And, indeed, speech using the latter modalities is
much more tightly regulated than that using the former. Where do the
electronic media fall? I submit they fall somewhere in between:
Messages are more easily ignored than, say, people who show up at
meetings and spend all their time shouting about their pet peeve, but
in large enough volume inappropriate messages are at least as damaging
to discourse. Private Email is more easily ignored than telephone
calls, but either can constitute harrassment. (While in principle,
direct speech can also be harrassing, except for recent "political
correctness" cases, it's not easy to find even claims of harrassment
in this form. Phone harrassment, on the other hand, is seen enough in
need of regulation that you can find quotations from tarriffs and laws
touching on the matter in the front of any phone book.)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 02:02:31 GMT
From: kadie@CS.UIUC.EDU(Carl M Kadie)
Subject: File 5--Re: Cu Digeset, #5.89
Anon by Request (a student at UTD) writes:
>It would seem to me that Steshenko has violated his contract with UTD.
>The document we have to sign in order to get an account makes it clear
>that the system is to be used for educational purposes only, and that
>we are subject to account cancellation if we abuse privileges...
But does the U. of Texas at Dallas interpret and apply this policy
consistently or does it single out offensive speech for punishment?
Any institution that calls itself a university should interpret
"educational purposes" broadly. The "Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students", the main statement of academic freedom for U.S.
students, says:
Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals. As members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth.
From what I know of Steshenko's postings, they easily fits this broad
interpretation of "educational".
>Why does he think he can get away from this at a government-run
>facility, when he couldn't at Microsoft?
Because like any organization, the U. of Texas must work within its
charters, these include the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court
has said that this limits the Government's authority to control the
media that owns and controls. The rationale is that it would be
dangerous for a Government that is elected by the people to have too
much control on the content of what people read and write.
The Supreme Court calls created forums, like a student newspaper or
campus mail systems, limited public forums. It says that the
government can limited who may access these forums and/or what topics
may be discussed. But otherwise, "it is bound by the same standards as
apply in a traditional public forum"; "content-based prohibition must
be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."
_Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd Ed. by Martha
M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe says:
"Although school boards are not obligated to support student
papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech
forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be
construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence,
school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication
simply because of displeasure with the content. In an illustrative
case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a university could
not change its funding policy for a student paper based on the 'hue
and cry' of the public objecting to a particular issue [Stanley v.
Magrath, 719 F.2d 279, 282-283 (8th Cir. 1983).]
- Carl
REFERENCES
ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/academic/faq/media.control
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 22:51:01 EST
From: IIRG <rune@world.std.com>
Subject: File 6--Commentary on Cyber-issues in Elansky/Ionizer Sentence
IIRG RESPONSE TO THE ELANSKY SENTENCING
The sentencing of Michael Elansky to 28 months in prison makes us
wonder who will be the next victim of our judicial system. Although we
may not agree with Judge Miano's ruling on the alleged probation
violations, we can understand the ruling resulted mainly due to
Miano's lack of knowledge in the field of telecommunications. The
initial charges that were the reason for Mike's arrest were dropped.
Given this, we wonder just how he violated his probation. It makes no
sense to us, nor to the many people we've consulted. Our main concerns
now are the terms of Mike's probation:
1. A ban preventing anyone under 18 years of age to use Elansky's
computer bulletin board, The Ware House.
This is an interesting idea. How does the Judge propose that Mike
enforce this? If a simple statement of age at logon is expected to be
enough, then this ruling is essentially unenforceable. A 13 year old
child can simply logon as a 35 year old adult.
On the other hand, if the Judge expects mail in registrations with a
photo-copy of a driver's license m from his users, this would defeat
the purpose of running the board in the first place, which is to
promote free exchange of information and ideas between the users under
the freedom which anonymity provides. Unfortunately, many systems have
been forced to adopt this policy.
2. A ban on Elansky (Ionizer) placing pyrotechnic information or any
other "harmful" information on his bulletin board.
It would be difficult to cite a more blatant example of First
Amendment infringement than the above. "Harmful" is an utterly
subjective term entirely open to interpretation. Harmful to whom or to
what? And just who would be charged with determining whether or
not a particular piece of information is "harmful?" In addition,
according to mandate one, there would be no users under the age of 18.
Aren't adults entitled to freedom from government censorship, or is
this becoming another Red China? Where's the EFF when you need them?
3. A requirement that a probation officer have complete freedom to
search Elansky's computer system to ensure the requirements have
not been violated.
Does this mean Mike must grant sysop access to a probation officer?
We personally know of no sysop that would like an untrained, computer
illiterate individual rummaging through his BBS. "Big Brother"
conspiracy freaks will love this one.
We only hope that in future cases, courts will become more educated as
to the inner workings of the BBS community. If the current trend
continues, we can only see a gross violation of personal privacy in
the future.
Will the proposed "Information Super-Highway" become a super
speed-trap?
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.90
************************************

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink