1000 lines
44 KiB
Plaintext
1000 lines
44 KiB
Plaintext
Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 30 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 11
|
|
ISSN 1004-042X
|
|
|
|
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
|
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe (Improving each day)
|
|
Acting Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
|
|
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
|
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
|
Ian Dickinson
|
|
Coppice Editor: P. Bunyan
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS, #6.11 (Jan 30 1994)
|
|
File 1--Brendan Update and his "thanks"
|
|
File 2--Changes in SUBBING/UNSUBBING to CuD
|
|
File 3--CuD -- The "SECRET LIST" and other listserv information
|
|
File 4--Policy on Distributing CuDs
|
|
File 5--cDc GD Update #14
|
|
File 6--CPSR--not so bad after all
|
|
File 7--Soliciting Articles for New Journal
|
|
File 8--Leading Cryptologists Oppose Clipper
|
|
File 9--1994-01-26 Irving Testimony on Telecommunications Legislation
|
|
|
|
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
|
|
available at no cost electronically.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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: RIPCO BBS (312)
|
|
528-5020 (and via internet). 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/Publications/CuD
|
|
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in mirror2/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: Sat, 29 Jan 94 21:09:22 PST
|
|
From: smlieu@CYGNUS.COM(Sun Ming Lieu)
|
|
Subject: File 1--Brendan Update and his "thanks"
|
|
|
|
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following update on Brendan Kehoe, author of
|
|
ZEN AND THE ART OF THE INTERNET, CuD ftp archmeister, and
|
|
cyberdenizen, is great news. We've also received two posts from him,
|
|
and he sends along "THANKS" for all the posts. We mailed off the
|
|
collection of e-wishes this week, and thanks to all those who
|
|
contributed)).
|
|
|
|
Brendan continues to make phenomenal progress in the last few days.
|
|
His neurologist says that she has not seen a case like this in 12
|
|
years of practice.
|
|
|
|
The hospital is letting Brendan out on extended passes, and so he has
|
|
been visiting the hotel where his mother and brother are staying,
|
|
eating out, and other outings. He will be moving to the Spaulding
|
|
Center at Mass General in Boston on Tuesday (Feb 1). The injury to
|
|
his ear was not as serious as originally expected - he can hear from
|
|
it and it is okay for him to fly.
|
|
|
|
I talked with Brendan for about 10 minutes by phone today. He and
|
|
Jeff sprung it on me when Jeff called and was I surprised! Brendan
|
|
just came on the line saying "This friend of mine who is working in
|
|
California thinks you would like to talk to me" and started to talk up
|
|
a storm. He's been reading his mail and kept talking about how much
|
|
g++ traffic there has been and how eager he is to go back to work. He
|
|
sounded happy and excited. We talked about the weather in
|
|
Philadelphia, flying first class, living closer to the office so he
|
|
wouldn't have to commute from Santa Cruz, the earthquake in Southern
|
|
California, and so on...
|
|
|
|
Brendan wants to be done with the 2-3 weeks in Spaulding and be back
|
|
in California as soon as possible - he says end of February, although
|
|
everyone is telling him to hold his horses and not count on it quite
|
|
so soon. Does he know something we don't?
|
|
|
|
Sun Ming
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 18:19:22 CST
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
|
|
Subject: File 2--Changes in SUBBING/UNSUBBING to CuD
|
|
|
|
Less than three percent of the total CuD readership comes from the
|
|
listserv mailing list (excluding feeds), but the list continues to grow
|
|
rapidly. Because of the dramatically increased size of the mailing
|
|
list we are making an important change in how readers subscribe or to
|
|
CuD. The mailing list has roughly doubled each year, and the time of
|
|
maintaining the list semi-manually is no longer possible. Therefore,
|
|
we're moving to full automation of the mailing list.
|
|
|
|
TO SUBSCRIBE, readers should type the following in the Subject header
|
|
and first line of the message:
|
|
|
|
SUB CUDIGEST your name
|
|
|
|
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, use the following:
|
|
|
|
UNSUB CUDIGEST your name
|
|
|
|
Send the message to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET
|
|
|
|
This change will have NO EFFECT on those read CuD from
|
|
comp.society.cu-digest, public access systems, or other sources.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 18:19:22 CST
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
|
|
Subject: File 3--CuD -- The "SECRET LIST" and other listserv information
|
|
|
|
1. CUD--THE SECRET LIST (heh):
|
|
|
|
We've begun receiving inquiries asking why CuD is "secret" and why we
|
|
don't want the list known outside of a small group of people. The
|
|
reason for the inquiry comes from the automatic message that the
|
|
listserv site sends to new subscribers:
|
|
|
|
> IMPORTANT: This list is confidential. You should not
|
|
>publicly mention its existence, or forward copies of
|
|
>information you have obtained from it to third parties.
|
|
|
|
First, CuD obviously isn't "secret," at least not with over 100,000
|
|
readers on BBSes, Usenet, the mailing list, public access systems, and
|
|
elsewhere. The "confidential" note is automatically sent by the
|
|
listserv to all mailing lists that have settings that limit
|
|
distribution. So, the notice may be safely ignored. CuD can be
|
|
mentioned, discussed, and forwarded to others.
|
|
|
|
2. USING LISTSERV COMMANDS:
|
|
|
|
Users can set parameters for their own addresses (such as suspending
|
|
mail while on vacation, concealing their address, or leaving the list)
|
|
with conventional listserv commands:
|
|
|
|
> More information on LISTSERV commands can be found in the
|
|
>LISTSERV reference card, which you can retrieve by
|
|
>sending an "INFO REFCARD" command to
|
|
>LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET (or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU).
|
|
|
|
3. LEAVING THE LIST:
|
|
|
|
Readers on the mailing list can leave at any time with the command:
|
|
|
|
UNSUB CUDIGEST your name
|
|
|
|
and sending it to listserv@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
|
|
|
|
We're appreciative for the help and space that Mark, Eric, and
|
|
Charlie have provided at the UIUC site. True saints, all of 'em.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 18:51:45 CST
|
|
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
|
|
Subject: File 4--Policy on Distributing CuDs
|
|
|
|
We're continually asked about our policy on distributing or
|
|
disseminating CuDs. The policy is fairly simple:
|
|
|
|
CuDs may be freely distributed in their entirety as long as they are
|
|
unaltered. This means that they may be uploaded to bulletin boards or
|
|
placed on public access systems, or zeroxed and sent, at no cost, to
|
|
others.
|
|
|
|
In general, individual articles may be extracted in their entirety as
|
|
long as the the text, author identity and source are included.
|
|
However, some authors do retain copyright, and the authors should be
|
|
contacted. Some articles are printed on condition by the author that
|
|
they may not be extracted and distributed. A notice will appear at the
|
|
start or conclusion of the article. In these cases, the authors *MUST*
|
|
give their consent.
|
|
|
|
There are some important qualifications:
|
|
|
|
CuDs may not be sold or other distributed for commercial gain. It's
|
|
fully acceptable to place CuDs on commercial BBSes, of course, but it
|
|
is unacceptable, for example, to make CDs or hardcopies and sell them.
|
|
Because authors hold the presumptive copyright to their own works,
|
|
individual articles may be reproduced commercially IF AND ONLY IF the
|
|
authors give explicit permission.
|
|
|
|
CuDs and their contents may be cited, extracted, quoted, or other used
|
|
within fair-use guidelines, but students (and some media folk) should
|
|
bear in mind that plagiarism is considered unethical.
|
|
|
|
Our general philosophy is that CuDs should be free. Authors contribute
|
|
their works at no cost, we assemble and distribute them at no cost,
|
|
and we would take a rather dim view of anyone attempting to profit
|
|
from the altruistic voluntary labors of others. We hope that the
|
|
rumors that CuD is being sold commercially on CD are untrue.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 12:23:26 EST
|
|
From: sratte@MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM(Swamp Ratte)
|
|
Subject: File 5--cDc GD Update #14
|
|
_ _
|
|
((___))
|
|
[ x x ] cDc communications
|
|
\ / Global Domination Update #14
|
|
(' ') December 30th, 1993
|
|
(U)
|
|
Est. 1986
|
|
|
|
New gNu NEW gnU new GnU nEW gNu neW gnu nEw GNU releases for December, 1993:
|
|
|
|
+________________________________/Text Files\_________________________________
|
|
|
|
241: "Cell-Hell" by Video Vindicator. In-depth article on modifying the
|
|
Mitsubishi 800 cellular phone by Mr. Fraud himself. Rad.
|
|
|
|
242: "The Darkroom" by Mark Vaxlov. Very dark story about a high school rape
|
|
in the photography lab at school. Disturbing.
|
|
|
|
243: "Fortune Smiles" by Obscure Images. Story set in the future with
|
|
organized crime and identity-swapping.
|
|
|
|
244: "Radiocarbon Dating Service" by Markian Gooley. Who would go out with
|
|
Gooley? YOUR MOM!
|
|
|
|
245: "The U.S. Mercenary Army" by Phil Agee. Forwarded by The Deth Vegetable,
|
|
this file contains a speech by former CIA agent Agee on the Gulf War.
|
|
Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
246: "The Monolith" by Daniel S. Reinker. This is one of the most disgusting
|
|
files we've put out since the infamous "Bunny Lust." I don't wanna describe
|
|
this, just read it.
|
|
|
|
247: "Post-Election '92 Cult Coverage" by Omega. Afterthoughts on Tequila
|
|
Willy's bid for the U.S. Presidency.
|
|
|
|
248: "The Lunatic Crown" by Matthew Legare. Wear the crown. Buy a Slurpee.
|
|
Seek the adept. Do not pass 'Go.'
|
|
|
|
249: "Yet Another Suicide" by The Mad Hatter. Guy gets depressed over a girl
|
|
and kills himself.
|
|
|
|
250: "State of Seige" by Curtis Yarvin. The soldiers hunt the dogs hunt the
|
|
soldiers. Like, war, ya know. Hell!
|
|
|
|
+_________________________________/cDc Gnuz\__________________________________
|
|
|
|
"cDc: We're Into Barbie!"
|
|
|
|
cDc mailing list: Get on the ever-dope and slamagnifiterrific cDc mailing list!
|
|
Send mail to cDc@cypher.com and include some wonderlessly elite message along
|
|
he lines of "ADD ME 2 DA MAILIN LIZT!!@&!"
|
|
|
|
NEW Official cDc Global Domination Factory Direct Outlets:
|
|
The Land of Rape and Honey 502/491-6562
|
|
Desperadoes +61-7-3683567
|
|
Underworld 203/649-6103
|
|
Airstrip-One 512/371-7971
|
|
Ministry of Death 516/878-1774
|
|
Future Shock +61-7-3660740
|
|
Murder, Inc 404/416-6638
|
|
The Prodigal Sun 312/238-3585
|
|
Red Dawn-2 Enterprises 410/263-2258
|
|
Cyber Neurotic Reality Test 613/723-4743
|
|
Terminal Sabotage 314/878-7909
|
|
The Wall 707/874-1316,2970
|
|
|
|
We're always taking t-file submissions, so if you've got a file and want to
|
|
really get it out there, there's no better way than with cDc. Upload text to
|
|
The Polka AE, to sratte@phantom.com, or send disks or hardcopy to the cDc post
|
|
office box in Lubbock, TX.
|
|
|
|
cDc has been named SASSY magazine's "Sassiest Underground Computer Group."
|
|
Hell yeah!
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Drunkfux for setting up another fun HoHoCon this year, in Austin. It
|
|
was cool as usual to hang out with everyone who showed up.
|
|
|
|
Music credits for stuff listened to while editing this batch of files: Zapp,
|
|
Carpenters, Deicide, and Swingset Disaster.
|
|
|
|
Only text editor worth a damn: ProTERM, on the Apple II.
|
|
|
|
So here's the new cDc release. It's been a while since the last one. It's out
|
|
because I fucking felt like it, and have to prove to myself that I can do this
|
|
crap without losing my mind and having to go stand in a cotton field and look
|
|
at some dirt at 3 in the morning. cDc=cDc+1, yeah yeah. Do you know what this
|
|
is about? Any idea? This is SICK and shouldn't be harped on or celebrated.
|
|
This whole cyberdweeb/telecom/'puter underground scene makes me wanna puke,
|
|
it's all sick and dysfunctional. Eat my shit, G33/<W0r|_<|. Virus yourself to
|
|
death. Go blind staring at the screen waiting for more wares/inph0 to come
|
|
trickling down the wire. The more of that shit comes in, the more life goes
|
|
out. Ooh, and you hate it so much, don't you. You hate it.
|
|
|
|
Hacking's mostly a big waste of time. Fuck you.
|
|
Stupid Telephone Tricks will never be on David Letterman. Fuck you.
|
|
Cryptography? Who'd wanna read YOUR boring email? Fuck you.
|
|
Interactive television is a couch potato trap. Fuck you.
|
|
"Surf the net," sucker. "Ride the edge," you maladjusted sack of shit.
|
|
|
|
S. Ratte'
|
|
cDc/Editor and P|-|Ear13zz |_3@DeRrr
|
|
"We're into t-files for the groupies and money."
|
|
Fuck you, fuck you... and most of all, fuck YOU.
|
|
|
|
Write to: cDc communications, P.O. Box 53011, Lubbock, TX 79453.
|
|
Internet: sratte@phantom.com.
|
|
+____________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
cDc Global Domination Update #14-by Swamp Ratte'-"Hyperbole is our business"
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALL NEW cDc RELEASES FTP'ABLE FROM FTP.EFF.ORG -pub/Publications/CuD/CDC
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 10:20:19 -0600
|
|
From: marsha-w@UIUC.EDU(Marsha W)
|
|
Subject: File 6--CPSR--not so bad after all
|
|
|
|
Dear Bryce, and other people curious about CPSR,
|
|
|
|
I read the criticism of CPSR, that it had a socialist/welfare-state
|
|
agenda, and I thought, "probably some members do." I think you'll
|
|
find extremes in any organization, and CPSR is no exception. CPSR
|
|
members range from socialists to libertarians and everything in
|
|
between.
|
|
|
|
The offical stance of the organization certainly isn't socialist in
|
|
any commonly used sense of the word.
|
|
|
|
I can only speak from personal experience. I've been a member and now
|
|
a Board member, and I've met the most active people and attended a
|
|
national conference. I felt that these people have concerns about
|
|
where computer technology is taking us, with grave worries about
|
|
projects like Star Wars. CPSR wants to have some constructive input
|
|
into the National Information Infrastructure (NII). If we don't keep
|
|
our eyes wide open, the interests of the everyday user will be put
|
|
aside for those trying to make a profit out of, or control, the
|
|
technology.
|
|
|
|
I've chosen to join forces with the CPSR group because they are very
|
|
intelligent and knowledgeable and hard-working. You may have the
|
|
impression that CPSR is a socialist enclave, but from my experience,
|
|
it just ain't so. It's more like Physicians for Social
|
|
Responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Yours, Marsha Woodbury, Director at Large, CPSR
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 18:45:02 -0500
|
|
From: spaf@CS.PURDUE.EDU(Gene Spafford)
|
|
Subject: File 7--Soliciting Articles for New Journal
|
|
|
|
I'm on the editorial board of a new journal. One of the areas I'll be
|
|
coordinating is computer viruses and autonomous agents in computing
|
|
systems.
|
|
|
|
I'd like to encourage any of you with interesting research ideas or
|
|
results to write them up for submission.
|
|
|
|
Enclosed is a call for papers for the journal with more details.
|
|
+--------------------
|
|
|
|
CALL FOR PAPERS
|
|
|
|
ARTIFICIAL LIFE
|
|
|
|
Premiering in March with double Fall/Winter 1993 issue
|
|
|
|
Edited by Christopher G. Langton
|
|
Los Alamos National Laboratory and Santa Fe Institute
|
|
|
|
Artificial Life, a new quarterly from The MIT Press, is the first
|
|
unifying forum for the dissemination of scientific and engineering
|
|
research in the field of artificial life. It reports on synthetic
|
|
biological work being carried out in any media, from the familiar
|
|
"wetware" of organic chemistry, through the inorganic "hardware" of
|
|
mobile robots, all the way to the virtual "software" residing inside
|
|
computers. Covering topics from the origin of life, through self-
|
|
reproduction, evolution, growth and development, and animal
|
|
behavior, to the dynamics of whole ecosystems, its articles present
|
|
novel approaches to the theory and application of biological
|
|
phenomena.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artificial Life will be an essential resource for scientists, academics,
|
|
and students researching artificial life, biology, evolution, robotics,
|
|
artificial intelligence, neural networks, genetic algorithms, ecosystem
|
|
dynamics, and the origin of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected Articles from Volume 1, Numbers 1 & 2
|
|
|
|
Kristian Lindgren and Mats Nordahl
|
|
Cooperation and Community Structure in Artificial Ecosystems
|
|
Luc Steels
|
|
The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence
|
|
Pattie Maes
|
|
Autonomous Agents and AL
|
|
Tom Ray
|
|
An Evolutionary Approach to Synthetic Biology
|
|
Eugene Spafford
|
|
Computer Viruses as Artificial Life
|
|
Stephanie Forrest and Melanie Mitchell
|
|
Genetic Algorithms and Artificial Life
|
|
|
|
Quarterly, Volume 1 forthcoming, fall/winter/spring/summer
|
|
96 pages per issue 7 x10, illustrated, ISSN 1064-5462
|
|
|
|
Yearly Rates: $45 Individual; $125 Institution, $25 Student
|
|
|
|
For Submission Information To order Subscriptions
|
|
please contact: please contact:
|
|
|
|
Christopher G. Langton Circulation Department
|
|
Santa Fe Institute MIT Press Journals
|
|
1660 Old Pecos Trail 55 Hayward Street
|
|
Santa Fe, NM 87501 U.S.A. Cambridge, MA 02142 U.S.A.
|
|
TEL: 505-984-8800 TEL: 617-253-2889
|
|
FAX: 505-982-0565 FAX: 617-258-6779
|
|
cgl@santafe. edu journals-orders@mit.edu
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:49:38 -0800
|
|
From: Al Whaley <Al.Whaley@SNYSIDE.SUNNYSIDE.COM>
|
|
Subject: File 8--Leading Cryptologists Oppose Clipper
|
|
|
|
More than three dozen of the nation's leading cryptographers,
|
|
computer security specialists and privacy experts today urged
|
|
President Clinton to abandon the controversial Clipper encryption
|
|
proposal. The letter was coordinated by Computer Professionals
|
|
for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which has long sought to open
|
|
the issue of cryptography policy to public debate
|
|
|
|
The group cited the secrecy surrounding the proposal,
|
|
widespread public opposition to the plan and privacy concerns as
|
|
reasons why the initiative should not go forward.
|
|
|
|
The letter comes at a crucial point in the debate on
|
|
cryptography policy. An internal Administration review of the
|
|
issue is nearing completion and the National Security Agency (NSA)
|
|
is moving forward with efforts to deploy Clipper technology in
|
|
civilian agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service.
|
|
|
|
CPSR has sponsored several public conferences on
|
|
cryptography and privacy and has litigated Freedom of Informa-
|
|
tion Act cases seeking the disclosure of relevant government
|
|
documents. In one pending FOIA case, CPSR is challenging the
|
|
secrecy of the Skipjack algorithm which underlies the Clipper
|
|
proposal.
|
|
|
|
For additional information, contact Dave Banisar, CPSR
|
|
Washington, DC, (202) 544-9240, <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>.
|
|
|
|
=============================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 24, 1994
|
|
|
|
The President
|
|
The White House
|
|
Washington, DC 20500
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. President,
|
|
|
|
We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed
|
|
encryption proposal now under consideration by the White House.
|
|
We wish to express our concern about this plan and similar
|
|
technical standards that may be proposed for the nation's
|
|
communications infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
The current proposal was developed in secret by federal
|
|
agencies primarily concerned about electronic surveillance, not
|
|
privacy protection. Critical aspects of the plan remain
|
|
classified and thus beyond public review.
|
|
|
|
The private sector and the public have expressed nearly
|
|
unanimous opposition to Clipper. In the formal request for
|
|
comments conducted by the Department of Commerce last year, less
|
|
than a handful of respondents supported the plan. Several hundred
|
|
opposed it.
|
|
|
|
If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to
|
|
develop new products will face extensive government obstacles.
|
|
Cryptographers who wish to develop new privacy enhancing
|
|
technologies will be discouraged. Citizens who anticipate that
|
|
the progress of technology will enhance personal privacy will
|
|
find their expectations unfulfilled.
|
|
|
|
Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary
|
|
basis and suggest that other technical approaches will remain
|
|
viable. The government, however, exerts enormous influence in the
|
|
marketplace, and the likelihood that competing standards would
|
|
survive is small. Few in the user community believe that the
|
|
proposal would be truly voluntary.
|
|
|
|
The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that
|
|
if this proposal and the associated standards go forward, even on
|
|
a voluntary basis, privacy protection will be diminished,
|
|
innovation will be slowed, government accountability will be
|
|
lessened, and the openness necessary to ensure the successful
|
|
development of the nation's communications infrastructure will be
|
|
threatened.
|
|
|
|
We respectfully ask the White House to withdraw the Clipper
|
|
proposal.
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
Public Interest and Civil Liberties Organizations
|
|
|
|
Marc Rotenberg, CPSR
|
|
Conrad Martin, Fund for Constitutional Government
|
|
William Caming, privacy consultant
|
|
Simon Davies, Privacy International
|
|
Evan Hendricks, US Privacy Council
|
|
Simona Nass, Society for Electronic Access
|
|
Robert Ellis Smith, Privacy Journal
|
|
Jerry Berman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
|
|
|
|
Cryptographers and Security Experts
|
|
|
|
Bob Bales, National Computer Security Association
|
|
Jim Bidzos, RSA Data Security Inc.
|
|
G. Robert Blakley, Texas A&M University
|
|
Stephen Bryen, Secured Communications Technologies, Inc.
|
|
David Chaum, Digicash
|
|
George Davida, University of Wisconsin
|
|
Whitfield Diffie, Sun Microsystems
|
|
Martin Hellman, Stanford University
|
|
Ingemar Ingemarsson, Universitetet i Linkvping
|
|
Ralph C. Merkle, Xerox PARC
|
|
William Hugh Murray, security consultant
|
|
Peter G. Neumann, SRI International
|
|
Bart Preneel, Katolieke Universiteit
|
|
Ronald Rivest, MIT
|
|
Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography (1993)
|
|
Richard Schroeppel, University of Arizona
|
|
Stephen Walker, Trusted Information Systems
|
|
Philip Zimmermann, Boulder Software Engineering
|
|
|
|
Industry and Academia
|
|
|
|
Andrew Scott Beals, Telebit International
|
|
Mikki Barry, InterCon Systems Corporation
|
|
David Bellin, North Carolina A&T University
|
|
Margaret Chon, Syracuse University College of Law
|
|
Laura Fillmore, Online BookStore
|
|
Scott Fritchie, Twin-Cities Free Net
|
|
Gary Marx, University of Colorado
|
|
Ronald B. Natalie, Jr, Sensor Systems Inc.
|
|
Harold Joseph Highland, Computers & Security
|
|
Doug Humphrey, Digital Express Group, Inc
|
|
Carl Pomerance, University of Georgia
|
|
Eric Roberts, Stanford University
|
|
Jonathan Rosenoer, CyberLaw & CyberLex
|
|
Alexis Rosen, Public Access Networks Corp.
|
|
Steven Zorn, Pace University Law School
|
|
|
|
(affiliations are for identification purposes only)
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:12-0500
|
|
From: The White House <75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM>
|
|
Subject: File 9--1994-01-26 Irving Testimony on Telecommunications Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
TESTIMONY OF LARRY IRVING
|
|
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
|
|
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
|
|
|
|
ON
|
|
TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM LEGISLATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL LAW
|
|
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
|
|
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
|
|
|
|
JANUARY 26, 1994
|
|
|
|
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|
|
|
Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
|
|
before you today on issues related to the development of a
|
|
national telecommunications and information infrastructure --
|
|
and, specifically, on Administration legislative proposals to
|
|
promote the advancement of this infrastructure in a
|
|
procompetitive manner that benefits all Americans. I am pleased
|
|
to join Assistant Attorney General Bingaman, who will focus on
|
|
the Administration's reform proposals bearing on the AT&T Consent
|
|
Decree. I will discuss more generally the changes in the
|
|
competitive landscape that make the passage of telecommunications
|
|
legislation this year a top Administration priority, and, in the
|
|
context of that discussion, highlight elements of the
|
|
Administration's proposals not covered by Assistant Attorney
|
|
General Bingaman.
|
|
|
|
Vice President Gore and Secretary Brown unveiled the
|
|
Administration's National Information Infrastructure (NII)
|
|
initiative in September of last year, setting forth an agenda for
|
|
a public-private partnership to help bring about this revolution.
|
|
|
|
This includes support for innovative applications that will use
|
|
the NII, improving access to government information, protecting
|
|
individual privacy and intellectual property rights, and the
|
|
passage of telecommunications legislation -- the subject of
|
|
today's hearing.
|
|
|
|
Before proceeding further, let me underscore, Mr. Chairman,
|
|
the profound debt of gratitude the Administration owes you and
|
|
Chairman Dingell for seizing the initiative in developing H.R.
|
|
3626. Our proposals for reform of the AT&T Consent Decree
|
|
substantially build upon your efforts. The Administration also
|
|
wishes to salute the creative bipartisan legislative initiatives
|
|
undertaken by Representatives Markey and Fields, and by Senators
|
|
Hollings, Inouye, and Danforth, among others. We have closely
|
|
studied their proposals. Aspects of our set of legislative
|
|
proposals, which I will touch on today, also build in large part
|
|
upon the foundation they have established. The Administration
|
|
looks forward to working closely with Congress to arrive at a
|
|
final telecommunications legislative product that will stand the
|
|
test of time.
|
|
|
|
THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
|
|
|
|
There is a national consensus that an advanced information
|
|
infrastructure will transform life for every person in the United
|
|
States in the near future. We have all heard of countless
|
|
examples of how broadband, interactive communications will
|
|
connect and empower all people in this country. Vice President
|
|
Al Gore recently said that the word "revolution" by no means
|
|
overstates the changes ahead.
|
|
|
|
The newspapers bring us daily examples of the ways in which
|
|
the development of the NII will revolutionize American life. The
|
|
January 19 Washington Post reported how interactive dial-up
|
|
computer network services allowed individuals to communicate with
|
|
friends and relatives in the Los Angeles area immediately after
|
|
last week's disastrous earthquake, and to spread vital news to
|
|
other interested subscribers within a matter of minutes. On
|
|
January 19 Secretary of Health and Human Resources Shalala
|
|
announced a contract that will provide by the end of this decade
|
|
for the electronic payment of nearly all of the $1 billion annual
|
|
Medicare bills. The Mountain Doctor Television Project (MDTV) in
|
|
West Virginia brings high quality care to rural residents by
|
|
allowing rural physicians to link to medical specialists at the
|
|
University of West Virginia. Likewise, the Texas Telemedicine
|
|
Project offers interactive video consultation to primary care
|
|
physicians in rural hospitals as a way of alleviating the
|
|
shortage of specialists in rural areas. Also, the Texas
|
|
Education Network serves over 25,000 educators and is making the
|
|
resources of the Internet available to classrooms, so that
|
|
students in small school districts can access NASA and leave
|
|
messages for the astronauts, browse around in libraries larger
|
|
than they will ever be able to visit, and discuss world ecology
|
|
with students in countries around the world, among other things.
|
|
|
|
These and countless other examples attest to the rapid rate at
|
|
which the American public is entering the information age.
|
|
|
|
It would be a mistake, however, simply to "let nature take
|
|
its course" and allow change to proceed under the existing legal
|
|
regime, whose underlying structure was established 60 years ago.
|
|
|
|
This is true for three essential reasons.
|
|
|
|
First, in an increasingly competitive world trade
|
|
environment -- which will become even more open with the
|
|
implementation of NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round -- we simply
|
|
must ensure that our telecommunications capabilities remain the
|
|
best in the world. Because information transmission increasingly
|
|
is the life's blood of all our industries, archaic rules that
|
|
inappropriately retard innovation by telecommunications firms
|
|
have a negative impact on the international competitiveness of
|
|
the private sector in general by inhibiting industrial
|
|
productivity and job creation. Legislation that lifts these
|
|
outdated structures will enhance competitiveness and spur the
|
|
creation of good new jobs.
|
|
|
|
Second, the existing regulatory structure has been altered
|
|
on an ad hoc basis over six decades to meet perceived problems of
|
|
the moment. This has created an uneven playing field that
|
|
artificially favors some competitors over others, and that in
|
|
some instances unnecessarily discourages investment and risk-
|
|
taking. These effects, in turn, inappropriately skew the growth
|
|
of industry sectors and retard the development of the NII itself.
|
|
|
|
Accordingly, legislation is needed to eliminate these unwarranted
|
|
regulatory disparities.
|
|
|
|
Third, we need to be sure that our telecommunications
|
|
policies are fully responsive to the needs of the American people
|
|
as a whole, and, in particular, poorer and disadvantaged
|
|
Americans. As Secretary Brown stated in a January 5 address, we
|
|
cannot "become a nation in which the new information age acts as
|
|
a barrier, rather than a pathway, between Americans" -- a nation
|
|
divided between the information rich and the information poor.
|
|
|
|
Yet, while the universal provision of "plain old telephone
|
|
service" has long been a national goal, the existing regulatory
|
|
structure may not be sufficient to ensure that all Americans
|
|
benefit from the broader range of information services that will
|
|
become available under the NII. Accordingly, legislative reform
|
|
is urgently needed to address this shortcoming. As Secretary
|
|
Brown stated on January 5, "the Administration will propose a
|
|
renewal and re-invention of the concept of universal service." I
|
|
will have more to say about the Administration's views on
|
|
universal service below.
|
|
|
|
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
|
|
|
|
The Administration, as promised last fall, has developed a
|
|
comprehensive set of legislative proposals setting forth the
|
|
principles under which we believe the advanced infrastructure
|
|
should operate. As I have already indicated, the
|
|
Administration's proposals further the visions set forth in House
|
|
and Senate legislative initiatives. We build upon innovative
|
|
regulatory reforms and other dramatic steps taken by various
|
|
states, and we will work closely with the states in promoting an
|
|
advanced telecommunications and information infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Together we can encourage competition, infrastructure
|
|
modernization, and advanced NII applications in health care,
|
|
education, and government services.
|
|
|
|
Underlying the Administration's proposals are five
|
|
fundamental principles that Vice President Gore and Secretary
|
|
Brown have outlined. These principles are:
|
|
|
|
* Encouraging private investment in the NII;
|
|
|
|
* Promoting and protecting competition;
|
|
|
|
* Providing open access to the NII by consumers and service
|
|
providers;
|
|
|
|
* Preserving and advancing universal service to avoid creating
|
|
a society of information "haves" and "have nots";
|
|
|
|
* Ensuring flexibility so that the newly-adopted regulatory
|
|
framework can keep pace with the rapid technological and
|
|
market changes that pervade the telecommunications and
|
|
information industries.
|
|
|
|
ENCOURAGING PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND PROMOTING COMPETITION
|
|
The Administration believes it is time to act decisively to
|
|
lift the artificial regulatory boundaries that separate
|
|
telecommunications and information industries and markets.
|
|
|
|
Those clear, stable boundaries served us well in the past.
|
|
|
|
They enabled regulators to establish separate regulatory regimes
|
|
for firms in different industries. They also prompted regulators
|
|
to address the threat of anticompetitive conduct on the part of
|
|
some telecommunications firms by barring them from certain
|
|
industries and markets.
|
|
|
|
Technological and market changes are now blurring these
|
|
boundaries beyond recognition, if not erasing them entirely. As
|
|
Vice President Gore emphasized on January 11, we are moving away
|
|
from a world where technologically valid regulatory distinctions
|
|
may be made among local telephone, long distance telephone,
|
|
cable, and other purveyors of information transmission. Digital
|
|
technology enables virtually all types of information, including
|
|
voice, video, and data, to be represented and transmitted as
|
|
"bits" -- the ones and zeros of computer code. Thus, rules which
|
|
artificially distinguish among different types of "bit
|
|
transmitters" based on old historical understandings will no
|
|
longer serve a socially useful purpose. Accordingly, regulatory
|
|
change is necessary to fully realize the benefits of private
|
|
investment and greater competition in the information
|
|
infrastructure. Regulatory policies predicated on the old
|
|
boundaries can harm consumers by impeding competition and
|
|
discouraging private investment in networks and services. The
|
|
Administration is therefore committed to removing unnecessary and
|
|
artificial barriers to participation by private firms in all
|
|
communications markets, while making sure that consumers remain
|
|
protected and interconnected. These reforms are necessary in
|
|
order for people in the United States to "win" the information
|
|
revolution as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
To this end, the Administration supports the initiation by
|
|
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of a review of
|
|
current broadcast policies. Broadcasters remain the principal
|
|
source of free, universally available electronic information in
|
|
the United States, and it is important to ensure full
|
|
participation by that industry in the NII.
|
|
|
|
LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
|
|
The Administration supports removal of those barriers
|
|
preventing competition in the provision of local
|
|
telecommunications services. Competition already has generated
|
|
substantial benefits for consumers in a host of communications
|
|
and information service markets. For example, the varieties of
|
|
customer premises equipment have expanded dramatically since
|
|
deregulation. In addition, the price of interstate long distance
|
|
telephone services for the average residential user has declined
|
|
more than fifty percent in real dollars since 1984, due to
|
|
competition and regulatory reform. At the same time, the
|
|
infrastructure used to provide long distance service has been
|
|
substantially upgraded. There are now four digital, fiber-based
|
|
national networks serving this market, and many more
|
|
interconnected regional networks. Consumers will realize similar
|
|
benefits in service innovation, declining prices, and
|
|
infrastructure enhancement from the expansion of competition in
|
|
the local telephone market. Such competition will reduce the
|
|
ability of any telephone company to harm competition and
|
|
consumers through monopoly control and will encourage investment
|
|
and innovation in the "on and off ramps" of the NII.
|
|
|
|
Current policies regarding interconnection and service
|
|
bundling, as well as specific barriers erected by individual
|
|
states, inhibit competition -- and the low prices, service
|
|
choices, and other benefits such competition brings to consumers.
|
|
|
|
The Administration proposes to ensure that competing providers
|
|
have the opportunity to interconnect their networks to local
|
|
telephone company facilities on reasonable, nondiscriminatory
|
|
terms. Local telephone companies will also be required to
|
|
unbundle their service offerings so that alternative providers
|
|
can offer similar services using a combination of, for example,
|
|
telephone company-provided switching and their own transmission
|
|
facilities. Finally, in order to ensure a consistent,
|
|
procompetitive environment for telecommunications services, the
|
|
Administration proposes to preempt state entry barriers and rate
|
|
regulation of new entrants and other providers found by the FCC
|
|
to lack market power.
|
|
|
|
Competition in local telecommunications markets should
|
|
generally lower prices and increase innovation in the services
|
|
offered users. Nevertheless, we are aware of concerns that
|
|
repricing of some local services may result in rate increases in
|
|
some cases in an increasingly competitive environment.
|
|
|
|
Accordingly, in order to guard against any possible "rate shock"
|
|
for users, the FCC and state regulators will be directed, in
|
|
implementing network interconnection and unbundling, to prevent
|
|
undue rate increases for any class or group of ratepayers.
|
|
|
|
MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT (MFJ) RESTRICTIONS
|
|
|
|
The Modified Final Judgment (MFJ) in the AT&T Consent Decree
|
|
helped unleash an era of competition and innovation that brought
|
|
low prices and new service choices for consumers. In short, it
|
|
has been a tremendous success. The Administration acknowledges
|
|
the great public service the judiciary has performed in
|
|
overseeing the breakup of that monopoly. But twelve years have
|
|
passed since the basic framework of the MFJ was established, and
|
|
it has been ten years since the breakup took place. Technologies
|
|
and markets are changing rapidly. A judicial decree may at some
|
|
point become a barrier to a more comprehensive, far-reaching
|
|
approach to an advanced information infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Reform of the MFJ goes hand-in-glove with opening up local
|
|
competition, which I described above. The development of full-
|
|
fledged competition in the local provision of telecommunications
|
|
services will alleviate the competitive concerns that prompted
|
|
the strictures placed by the MFJ on the activities of the
|
|
Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Thus, comprehensive
|
|
legislative procedures for loosening the MFJ restrictions as
|
|
competition develops are appropriate. Implementation of these
|
|
procedures in the wake of enhanced local competition will allow
|
|
the RBOCs to compete in markets for goods and services now closed
|
|
to them. This will further enhance innovation in the American
|
|
economy and benefit consumers.
|
|
|
|
Assistant Attorney General Bingaman will address the MFJ
|
|
reform provisions. I wish to note, however, that while Assistant
|
|
Attorney General Bingaman will describe the Administration's MFJ
|
|
position, the Departments of Commerce and Justice have worked
|
|
together closely in developing our position in this area. This
|
|
position represents not only the joint efforts of our two
|
|
Departments, but also the work of others in the Administration
|
|
who have joined in this policy initiative.
|
|
|
|
CABLE TELEVISION-TELEPHONE COMPANY CROSS-OWNERSHIP
|
|
|
|
The Administration supports repeal of the current cable
|
|
television-telephone company cross-ownership restriction in the
|
|
1984 Cable Act. We believe that telephone companies should be
|
|
allowed to provide video services in their local exchange areas,
|
|
subject to effective safeguards to protect consumers and
|
|
competition.
|
|
|
|
OPEN ACCESS AND PROGRAMMING DIVERSITY
|
|
|
|
The public benefits of the information revolution would be
|
|
severely diminished without a wide range of diverse programming.
|
|
|
|
An advanced information infrastructure, to be truly useful, must
|
|
offer a potpourri of educational material, health information,
|
|
home and business services, entertainment, and other programming
|
|
matter, both passive and interactive. Barriers to open access
|
|
and widespread availability of programming serve only to harm
|
|
users. The Administration's legislative proposals are designed
|
|
to further the goals of promoting a diversity of programming and
|
|
open access to distribution of this programming.
|
|
|
|
ENSURING REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY AND FAIRNESS
|
|
|
|
As barriers to an advanced information infrastructure fall,
|
|
the regulatory regime must adapt to the changing environment. In
|
|
the rapidly changing telecommunications and information
|
|
industries, the only certainty is uncertainty. A new regulatory
|
|
framework is required that will stand the test of time, without
|
|
the need for continual upheaval in the nation's overall approach
|
|
to telecommunications and information policy. At the same time,
|
|
in the interest of fairness, similarly situated services should
|
|
be subject to the same regulatory requirements. The
|
|
Administration proposes to address these concerns by granting the
|
|
FCC flexibility to reduce regulation for telecommunications
|
|
carriers that lack market power.
|
|
|
|
The Administration also proposes a new Title VII to the
|
|
Communications Act, that will encourage firms to provide
|
|
broadband, interactive, switched, digital transmission services.
|
|
|
|
The Administration's Title VII proposal will provide the FCC with
|
|
broad regulatory flexibility while maintaining key public policy
|
|
goals, including open access, interconnection, and
|
|
interoperability requirements, and obligations to support
|
|
universal service.
|
|
|
|
UNIVERSAL SERVICE
|
|
|
|
The Administration is committed to developing a new concept
|
|
of universal service that will serve the information needs of the
|
|
American people in the 21st century. Indeed, the full potential
|
|
of the NII will not be realized unless all Americans who desire
|
|
it have easy, affordable access to advanced communications and
|
|
information services, regardless of income, disability, or
|
|
location. In his January 5 speech, Secretary Brown challenged
|
|
the private sector "to expand universal service to the National
|
|
Information Infrastructure." He pointed out that promotion of
|
|
universal service advances American competitiveness, stating:
|
|
|
|
"Just as progressive businesses have increasingly recognized that
|
|
their fate is tied to education and good schools, so the
|
|
businesses that will take advantage of the new information
|
|
marketplace must realize that our national fortune is dependent
|
|
on our national competitiveness -- on ensuring that no talent
|
|
goes to waste."
|
|
|
|
CONCLUSION
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, enactment of telecommunications reform
|
|
legislation will promote the development of the NII in a
|
|
flexible, procompetitive fashion that creates incentives for
|
|
desirable investment, economic growth, and the widescale
|
|
availability to all Americans of new, highly valued information
|
|
services. The Administration looks forward to close
|
|
collaboration with Congress to enact a set of legislative
|
|
proposals that achieves these desired ends. This concludes my
|
|
testimony. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you
|
|
may have.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
End of Computer Underground Digest #6.11
|
|
************************************
|
|
|