informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0794.txt

885 lines
39 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 6, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 94
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.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, #7.94 (Wed, Dec 6, 1995)
File 1-- ALERT: House is lost; we must call the Senate
File 2--USATODAY: Indecency Zapped, Bill Inches Along
File 3--ACLU Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisons
File 4--Cyber Angels Reply to Query
File 5--AOL Censors Gay Video Titles - "Buns" ok, "Studs" not!
File 6--A Day Without Graphics
File 7--New Internet-censorship Discussion list
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:49:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@VTW.ORG>
Subject: File 1-- ALERT: House is lost; we must call the Senate
========================================================================
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS
(INCLUDING THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AND THE HYDE AMDT)
Short Update: The House Conference Committee voted for a terrible
bill.
What You Can Do Now: Call the Senate conferees and tell them to
oppose the infringements on free speech.
CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NET CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION
Dec 6, 1995
PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT
REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 20, 1995
REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS
________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
The Latest News
What You Can Do Now
List of Participating Organizations (changed)
________________________________________________________________________
THE LATEST NEWS
Today the House Conference committee voted to criminalize "indecent
material" on electronic networks. The Christian Coalition, which has
pushed for such restrictions throughout the year, now smells blood and
is closing in for the kill. If we lose the Senate Conference Committee
vote, we will have lost a tremendous amount of our First Amendment
rights. All content on the Internet will be dumbed down to the level of
Saturday morning cartoons.
Parents, educators, libraries and individuals who post anything on the
Internet that someone, somewhere considers indecent will be subject
to jail time and fines. Traditional fiction and many great works of
art will fall prey to this law.
Even if the Federal government does not prosecute every violation of
this law, the chilling effect on speech throughout the United States will
be severe. Intimidation is a tremendous persuader.
Please call now and tell the Senate conferees to oppose the unconstitutional
indecency restrictions in the Telecomm.
For a more detailed analysis of the language that passed, check the WWW
or Gopher sites of the ACLU, CDT, EFF, and EPIC.
Three more alerts, after this one, are expected: the full House floor vote
on the Telecomm bill, the full Senate floor vote on the Telecomm bill, and
then the unlikely Presidential veto.
________________________________________________________________________
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
1. All of the proposals available to the conference committee will
fundamentally restrict your speech on the Internet and other public
networks. Look at the list below and call the Senators in your
state and ask them to oppose them. If none of the members are in
your state, call Sen. Dole.
If we cannot convince the conference committee to make the right
choices at this juncture, we will have positioned the Internet
community as vulnerable to widespread arrests throughout the next
few years.
If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following:
Please oppose the unconstitutional Internet indecency restrictions,
such as those passed by the House conference committee Telecomm bill
and those proposed by Sen. J.J. Exon. They will criminalize many
forms of expression, including much art, music, and literature
which should be protected by the First Amendment.
or
As a religious person and a parent, I oppose all the
unconstitutional indecency restrictions currently proposed in the
Telecomm bill. I, the parent, am the best person to monitor my
child's access to the Internet.
or
Although there is information on the Internet that I wouldn't
allow my children to see, I don't agree with all the proposals in
the Telecomm bill that would censor indecent material on the
Internet. I have parental control tools that are far more
effective at controlling my children's access to the Internet
than the legislation being proposed.
Senate members of the Conference Committee
P ST Name and Address Phone Fax
= == ======================== ============== ==============
R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 n.a.
D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213
R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-602-952-8702
R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259
R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393
R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046
R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245
2. Send mail to vtw@vtw.org and let us know how it went.
$ Mail vtw@vtw.org
Subject--phoned Senator XXX
They thanked me for my opinion and said they had received many
calls speaking out against net censorship.
^D
Mail sent!
3. If you run any sort of system that allows a welcome message for all
users, please add the following:
The Christian Coalition and others are lobbying for broad
infringements on free speech net by passing legislation that "dumb
down" Internet content to that which is acceptable to children. In
addition, services like this one might become liable for what their
users say and read on the Internet. Please call Congress now; for
more info URL:http://www.vtw.org/ or send mail to files@vtw.org with
"send alert" in the subject line. (12/6/95)
If you have a Web page that gets a lot of traffic, please add the
following link:
<a href="http://www.vtw.org/">
Stop the Christian Coalition and others from restricting your
online speech! (12/6/95)</a>
4. This is a very tense week. All indications are that a very very
bad bill will get passed.
________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have
joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the
Communications Decency Act.
American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association *
American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association
of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston
Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship
Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic
Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice -
New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association *
Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer
Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group,
Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation *
Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers
Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New
Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free
Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against
Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly
Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland
Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global
Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium *
Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The
Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data
Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle
Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National
Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force *
National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon
Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way
* Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for
Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL *
Voters Telecommunications Watch
(Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities,
not EFF chapters or divisions.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:06:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: File 2--USATODAY: Indecency Zapped, Bill Inches Along
Note: "Few believe the president will veto the bill."
Also, on the front page of USA Today: "ACLU will challenge in court..."
-Declan
---
TELECOM REFORM BILL INCHES FORWARD (Excerpts)
Page 5B
By David Lynch
USA Today
House and Senate negotiators made limited progress Wednesday on
legislation that would reform the telecommunications industry. But key
lawmakers insist they will finish their work this year.
"There's a 75% chance or better of it getting through this year," says
Bell Atlantic Chairman and CEO Ray Smith.
Members of the congressional conference committee on the bill met
Wednesday, ratifying aides' agreements on 33 issues...
Earlier in the week, conferees agreed to keep federal price limits on
all but the smallest cable systems until 1999. The decision was viewed
as a concession to President Clinton, who threatened to veto the bill
in part because of fears of higher cable rates.
But Greg Simon, an aide to Vice President Gore, says the Whit House
still objects to provisions in the bill that would raise limits on the
number of TV and radio statios a company could own and govern how
quickly phone companies could compete.
Still, outside the long-distance industry, which opposes the measure
in its current form, few believe the president will veto the bill.
---
HOUSE PANEL VOTES TO ZAP 'INDECENCY' IN CYBERSPACE (Excerpts)
Page 1A
By Leslie Miller
USA TODAY
A House panel Wednesday voted to protect kids from online pornography
by prohibiting "indecency" in cyberspace.
The cyberspace action virtually ensures the telecommunications bill
will include sweeping provisions that some, including Sen. James Exon,
D-Neb, say will clean up "filth" on the Internet.
The Amercian Civil Liberties Union says it plans to challenge in court
any of the proposals being considered.
The original House bill encouraged software solutions; now the bill is
more like Exon's Communications Decency Act.
"The House came within an inch of getting it right," says Jerry
Berman, Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is
unconstitutional... It really does ban the seven dirty words and would
make Catcher in the Rye questionable."
------------------------------
From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:20:40 -0500
Subject: File 3--ACLU Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisons
From--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 12/6/95
----------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases)
----------------------------------------------------------------
* ACLU Announces Plans to Challenge Online Censorship Provisions in
Court;Says That House Conference Vote Leaves No Other Options
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Phil Gutis 202-675-2312
WASHINGTON -- Saying that it could not depend on Congress to protect free
speech on the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today that it
would challenge in court any of the online censorship proposals now being
considered by a House-Senate conference committee.
In a vote today, the House members of the Congressional conference committee
on the telecommunications bill betrayed their chamber's earlier vote to
reject censorship on the Internet.
"All of Congress's proposals violate the First Amendment and privacy rights
of adults to communicate freely in the online environment," said Barry
Steinhardt, ACLU Associate Director. "Congress is making it ever more clear
that we will have to turn to the courts to uphold free speech in the
promising new medium of cyberspace."
The ACLU rejected as unconstitutional the proposals offered by Senator J.
James Exon, D-Nebraska, Senator Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, and
Representative Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, as well as the one offered by
Representative Rick White, R-Washington.
The House conferees voted today on how to respond to the Senate's provisions
on Internet censorship. Although they first adopted the White censorship
proposal -- which the media widely and inaccurately portrayed as a compromise
-- they then amended it to include the Senate's standard for censorship.
Last August, the House won widespread praise from the online community when
it adopted an amendment to encourage Internet providers to better develop
screening technologies for parents to use in controlling what their children
see in cyberspace. House Speaker Newt Gingrich went as far as to call the
Senate version of the legislation a clear "violation of free speech" and a
"violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other."
Unfortunately," said ACLU Legislative Counsel Donald Haines, "the House
members graciously accepted their applause for opposing censorship and then,
in a legislative slight of hand, turned right around and came up with their
own scheme to censor what people say and see on the Internet."
The ACLU said that it would continue to work in Congress to keep the Internet
free. "Regardless of how the bill turns out," said Haines, "both the House
and Senate need to continue to hear that their censorship is simply not
acceptable."
The House conferee's vote today removes the best chance that a
telecommunications bill will emerge without an Internet censorship provision,
the ACLU said.
"If Congress adopts either the White or Exon censorship schemes -- which
appears increasingly likely -- they will force us to turn to the Courts and
we will sue," Steinhardt said.
More than 25 civil liberties groups, regional Internet service providers, and
commercial producers of entertainment, information, and journalism joined an
ACLU letter, delivered earlier today, that urged the conferees to reject all
proposals to impose new government censorship regulations on cyberspace and
online communications.
The ACLU said that, interestingly enough, the groups and individuals who are
eager to challenge the censorship provisions should they become law have
communicated with the ACLU via the Internet.
Online political columnists, distributors of gay and lesbian resources, human
rights groups, academic researchers of human sexuality, AIDS education
groups, prisoners' rights groups, and student groups with controversial web
pages have all already approached the ACLU about being plaintiffs in a court
challenge. The groups said that they fear prosecution because they use online
services to post, exchange, or distribute material that could be deemed
"indecent" under the proposed law.
-------------------------
For a copy of the coalition letter sent to the conferees, send a message to
infoaclu@aclu.org with "letter opposing White and Hyde" in the subject line.
The following organizations signed the letter:
American Civil Liberties Union
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Communication Association
Art and Technology Society
Association of Alternative Newsweeklies
Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression
Coalition for Academic Freedom of Expression, Carnegie Mellon University
Council of Literary Magazines and Presses
Datalytics, Inc.
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Feminists for Free Expression
Filz and Associates, Inc.
HotWired Magazine
Human Rights Watch
Justice on Campus Project
Internet Users Consortium
LitNet (The Literary Network)
Lumberyard BBS Community Network
MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression
Media Democracy in Action Consortium (MeDIA Consortium)
National Campaign for Freedom of Expression
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Writers Union
NorthWest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
Oregon Coast Rural Information Service Cooperative
Pacific Online Access
Public Access Networks Corp. (Panix)
The Society for Human Sexuality, University of Washington
Wired Magazine
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:40:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles J Anthe <anthe+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: File 4--Cyber Angels Reply to Query
After reading the original post here on the mission of the
CyberAngels, I sent a message to Colin Hatcher, their cooridinator. The
following is his reply to my letter, in which he was very good about
quoting my original message, so both my point and his should be clear. I
thought others might want to see how he responds to at least my personal
concerns about their mission...
Date--Thu, 30 Nov 1995 01:42:19 -0800
To--Charles J Anthe <anthe+@andrew.cmu.edu>
From--angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels--Colin Gabriel Hatcher/Patrik "Harlequin
"
Olterman)
Subject--Re: Concerns
Hi Charles and thanks for writing.
> As a freshman in college at Carnegie Mellon University, I have some
>very serious concerns about the material from your group that has been
>posted on Computer Underground Digest. (CuD)
> One of the most disturbing things I noticed was an update you had on
>one of your successful "inquiries". This involved a 16-year-old girl who
>had posted supposedly obscene materials. (Supposedly because I myself
>have never seen them and therefore cannot be one to judge.) You reported
>this to the sysadmin, and this was later discovered to be an older, male
>teacher.
> I am apalled by your behavior in this matter for several reasons:
> 1.) By reporting this to the sysadmin, you started a witchhunt
>within the school for a perfectly legal posting on the Internet.
> 2.) This was *not* child pornography. No children were used or
>harmed in the posting. (I am assuming it was a text file.)
> 3.) If it had been a 16-year old girl who had posted the message,
>what business was it of yours? Teenagers are developing their sexuality
>at that age (I know I was), and some do it in different ways. I fail to
>see how this message fell under your guidelines as something that needed
>protecting or investigting.
> 4.) You have probably destroyed a man's career at that school. While
>you or I may find what he does, says, or posts *personally* distasteful,
>it is no excuse to start sending investigations and allegations his way,
>ruining his *professional* life.
You know I hadn't thought about it that way. Perhaps you are right about
that. Although as it turned out it was an older man masquerading, we had
no idea when we reported the matter originally. His post was inviting
other young girls to share sexual/masturbation fantasies and was itself
very graphic, but you are right. It could have been a 16 year old girl,
and I agree with you, the fact that it was extremely graphic is not
relevant to the matter in hand.
> As you or may or may not be aware, Carnegie Mellon has received
>considerable national media attention for its decision to censor certain
>newsgroups on campus. I am personally involved in trying to get that
>decision overturnedm, and I keep an eye out for other activities that
>seem similar. While I am no proponent of child pornography, I see no
>reason to censor text stories that are fictional that involve children
>and sex. (Will you attempt to ban _The Bluest Eye_ or _Beloved_ next?
>These are literary masterpieces that have won considerable awards that I
>read in high school.)
I was not aware of that at Carnegie Mellon and we fully support your
campaign. We don't believe that censoring newsgroups is a good move at
all.
> Above all, I am a firm believer in the US Constitution. I find
>myself in numerous debates about the Constitution, and one of my
>personal favorite rights is the right to free speech. This is not speech
>that you and I agree on, but *all* speech, including hate speech and
>sexually explicit speech.
True and we agree with you. Our major concern is with the trade in child
pornography on the Internet. CyberAngels on patrol make a clear
distinction between material that they themselves may disagree with (which
is nevertheless legal and has a right to be there), and material that is
possibly criminal in nature. We are not concerned to prevent free
discussions, no matter what the subject matter. We support freedom of
speech, thought and expression globally.
We are standing up for the rights of all the unconsenting victims of crimes
being committed on the net. And particularly for those abused children who
may never enjoy the many and extraordinary benefits of the Internet, but
who's images are being traded like some evil card game being played out
globally across the electronic airwaves. Bear in mind that when images are
traded between two willing persons, there are people involved whose consent
was not given - that is the kids whose bodies were used to provide visual
sexual stimulation to others. We don't see that as a First Amendment issue
at all.
> I implore you to move forward cautiously. As long as you take
>careful thoughts in between each step and do not trample on the rights
>of people, I will be the first to praise you. But the minute you begin
>to believe that your beliefs should take precedence and that vigilante
>justice on the Internet is the only way for you to gain control, I will
>be the first to try and dismantle and remove you from the Net.
Thankyou for your concern and for expressing it so courteously. I don't
believe that we will fall into the trap of denying others the right to
speak while speaking very very loudly ourselves. Nevertheless, judge us by
all means by our actions.
Colin Gabriel Hatcher
CyberAngels Chief Coordinator
[original message ends]
------------------------------
From: ACLUGPC@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:20:40 -0500
Subject: File 5--AOL Censors Gay Video Titles - "Buns" ok, "Studs" not!
From--ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: 12/6/95
* AOL Censors Gay Video Titles, Finds "Buns" Acceptable but "Studs" Too
Sleazy
AOL customers won't be surprised to hear that the AOL censors are at it
again. AOL has long had a policy of screening certain "dirty words" from its
public bulletin boards and chat groups. Last week, The Boston Globe reported
that AOL had banned the word "breast." The company agreed to reverse the
policy after "several days of on-line protests by irate breast cancer
patients." Richard A. Knox, "Women Go Online To Decry Ban On Breast,'" The
Boston Globe, 12/1/95.
Another example of AOL's attempt to use censorship to create a
"family-friendly" service was recently brought to the ACLU's attention.
Jeff Satkin is owner and operator of ATKOL Gay Videos, a mail-order gay video
store headquartered in Plainfield, NJ. Last August, Jeff responded to AOL's
bid for new business by signing up as an advertiser on "Downtown AOL" (DT
AOL). AOL describes the site as "a virtual small business community where
potential customers will come to browse and shop for products and services of
all types." Jeff paid the advertising fee and sent AOL an electronic copy of
his extensive mail-order video catalog for posting on the DT AOL site. Under
the contract, AOL agreed to run the ad for a term of one year. According to
Jeff, AOL posted the catalog in full for four weeks with no complaints.
Then, in September, AOL sent Jeff a letter requesting that a huge percentage
of titles in the ATKOL Video mail-order catalog be removed from the online
version of the catalog that appeared on Downtown AOL. An AOL employee had
gone through a printed version of the list and highlighted the offending
titles that would need to be removed. The result is a hilarious but
frightening example of arbitrary censorship.
At the ACLU's suggestion, Jeff wrote to AOL and asked them to explain the
guidelines they used for censoring his catalog. After considerable delay,
AOL wrote back the following:
"DT AOL does not have any written standards for its advertisements. As the
manager of the area I determine whether an advertisement has the look and
feel that best fits our environment. I edited the file you sent and removed
any titles which I felt didn't reflect the image we would like to project. I
may have missed a few as you pointed out, so feel free to remove those as
well if you would like."
Here are just a few examples of AOL's arbitrary rating system as applied to
the ATKOL Video catalog. (And remember, these are **titles only**!! -- no
pictures, no cover art, no narrative -- just titles.)
AOL Says AOL Says
"Thumbs Down" -- "Thumbs Up" --
These titles were censored as These titles were not censored --
too sleazy for AOL!: they must have had "the look and
feel that best fits the AOL environment":
A Brother's Desire A Family Affair
Advanced Disrobics Lockerroom Fever
All About Sex ABC's of Sex
All the Right Stuff All Men Do It!
As the Bed Turns Bed Tales
Bare Bones Bareback
Bedroom Eyes Bedroom Lies
Bi N Large Bi-Conflict
The Big Nasty The Big Drill
Bigger Than Huge Bigger Than Life
Black Magic Magic Choices
Black Dudes Blond Lovers
The Boy Next Door Boys from New Jersey
Brotherly Love Brother Trouble
Buns N Hoses Bung Hole Buddies
Dirty Pictures Dirty Picture Show
Elements of Passion Passion By Fire
Everybody Does It Every Which Way
Filth Dirty Laundry
Gayracula Gay Tarzan
Hot Lunch Hot Stuff
Latin on the Loose Latin Lust
Leather Angel Leather Report
Man in Motion The Man Inside
Men in Shorts Men with Tools
Night Maneuvers Nights in Black Leather
Power Grip Power Trip
Rican Christmas Latino Nights
The Rites of Spring The Rites of Summer
Skin Deep Skin Tight
Spring Semester Spring Break
Sunday Brunch Summer Heat
Tough and Tender Tough Iron
White Trash White on White
Wild Dreams Wild Thing
You Are Not Alone Alone and Private
Titles with any of the following words, regardless of the full title, were
also censored: "pleasure," "black," "hard," "boys," "jock," "Rican," "sex,"
"stud," "straight," "young."
A few more interesting facts about the case should be noted. First, while
AOL has never publicized the list of "vulgar" words that it routinely screens
from its public sites, most of the screened words are classic profanity and
"dirty words." None of the titles that AOL censored from ATKOL Video's list
contain those "dirty" words. Second, it is clear that AOL's action was an
overreaction to the recent federal law enforcement raids on alleged child
pornographers using AOL -- Jeff received the letter shortly after the raids
made the headlines. But *none* of Jeff's videos contain child porn. And
again -- the info in the catalog was *titles only* and contained no
substantive material at all.
Third, it appears that AOL's arbitrary standards may be a little homophobic.
While "Wet and Wild" was an unacceptable title in a gay video catalog, AOL
ran an ad in Downtown AOL for Affinity Teleproductions, Inc. that read: "Now
you can join exotic Anna Nicole Smith on her sensuous Edenquest adventure in
her exclusive photo portfolio. . . . Anna Nicole Smith "The Collectors Set"
features ten eye opening Edenquest photographs in vivid color . . . . It's
all Anna Nicole Smith wet and wild drenched in sun and powder sugar sand.
"With Love, Anna Nicole" is your personal trip to paradise with the world's
most exciting woman in her most provocative photos ever."
The troubles experienced by ATKOL Video when it legitimately tried to do
business with AOL just proves once again that censorship rules are by nature
arbitrary and unfair -- whether imposed by the government or by private
industry.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 03:04:08 GMT
From: davidbat@MEGAWEB.COM(David Batterson)
Subject: File 6--A Day Without Graphics
Visit the DAY WITHOUT GRAPHICS homepage at:
http://www.cyberzine.org/html/WAD/index.html
[PLEASE distribute this message far and wide.]
A DAY WITHOUT GRAPHICS
SEATTLE--AIDS and HIV-disease awareness will extend to the World
Wide Web of the Internet for World AIDS Day, December 1, when A
Day Without Graphics will take place. Participating Internet
sites will disable inline graphics, darken their text screens or
link to a special page on the Web to demonstrate AIDS awareness.
The idea for A Day Without Graphics came from other World
AIDS Day activities taking place. A Day Without Art is a project
where museums remove or drape works of art and A Day Without
Light is a project where city lights are lowered for candlelight
marches. Both projects are held in cities all over the world.
Likewise, A Day Without Graphics will take place at Internet
sites worldwide.
"We want to encourage every Internet site to get involved in
AIDS awareness in a creative way," said Rex Rivers, manager of
The Land of Awes Information Services. "The potential of the
medium is enormous and a lot of people can be reached by it.
Hopefully, everyone who uses the Internet will come to understand
the worldwide AIDS pandemic a little better through this project."
There are a number of ways that Internet Web sites can
demonstrate solidarity in AIDS awareness. The first is by
re-designing their homepages for white text on a black background
with an explanation of why it was done that day. Technical
assistance will be made available for those sites who would like
to do this. The second method will be disabling graphics.
Organizers suggest linking existing inline graphics to a message
describing the Day Without Graphics project instead. The third
method suggested is to add a prominent link to the Day Without
Graphics homepage.
"We welcome additional input from the online community," said
Tom Hicks of CyberZine. "There are a lot of creative people out
on the Internet and I feel that we should all work together to
raise awareness of AIDS issues."
Those Internet web sites who will be participating in A Day
Without Graphics are requested to send electronic mail
to wad@cyberzine.org providing their homepage URL for inclusion
in the list of links. Individuals are encouraged to visit the Day
Without Graphics site at
http://www.cyberzine.org/html/WAD/wadpage.html on World AIDS Day,
December 1st.
For media information contact:
Rex Rivers
The Land of Awes
Information Services
Post Office Box 16782
Wichita, KS 67216-0782
Voice:316-269-0913 or 316-264-4646
Fax: 316-269-4208
Modem: 316-269-3172
Email: awes@fn.net
AWES http://www.fn.net/~awes/egcm.htm
Thank you very much.
Tom Hicks
wad@cyberzine.org
The CyberQueer Lounge
http://www.cyberzine.org/html/GLAIDS/glaidshomepage.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:00:08 -0500
From: chuckufarley@TOP.MONAD.NET
Subject: File 7--New Internet-censorship Discussion list
I have started a discussion mailing list that has to do with censorship on the
internet. I thought CuD readers would be interested. Thanks for your
consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Censorship and Privacy:
Concerns, Legislation and Alternate Solutions FAQs
Keep this FAQ, it may come in handy at some point. Please distibute freely.
Who started this list?
It was a joint venture between ALL the NEWS NOT FIT to PRINT(ANNFP) and the
Internet Users Consortium. We can be reached at:
http://top.monad.net/~chuckufarley/net.htm &
http://www.indirect.com/www/molsen/ repectively.
How do I get on the list?
send email to "listserv@monad.net" and put the line
"subscribe internet_censorship" as the body of the message.
How do I get off this crazy thing?
send email to "listserv@monad.net" and put the line
"unsubscribe internet_censorship" as the body of the message.
How do I send messages to everyone on the list?
send the message you want distributed to "internet_censorship@monad.net".
Why did we start this discussion list?
Discussing censorship allows the Internet users the luxury of gaining
insights they may not have had if they were forced to form all their
opinions from media sources compliant with the censors or exclusively on
their own. For this same reason, the government wishes to implement
censorship and regulation in the first place. We need to develop our ideas
and mature them in order to effectively speak with all the Internet users
of the world.
The Internet needs to continue to have a decentralized construct. If we
dont communicate and discuss ideas and strategies as those who support
censorship do, we will have lost an incredible advantage to a group who
will attempt to centralize control of the Internet. We need to discuss and
define thoughts that will provide alternative solutions to the very real
concerns we have on the Internet. People who dont even enjoy the wonders of
the Internet should not be the ones regulating it.
What is the purpose of this discussion list?
To provide a forum for people to discuss topics involving government
regulation of the Internet. Issues applicable to this discussion list are
related to free speech threats, impending legislation and discussions about
their future implications. Also, individuals can ask others where to find
government resources and activism sites or newsgroups throughout the
Internet.
Who can make posts on this list?
Anyone who is subscribing to this list and has a comment, idea or question
that applies to Civil Rights Issues on the Internet. All members are
encouraged to respond to any given post on this list. Grassroots
organizations are welcome to use this forum to distribute condensed
newsletters or alerts that are directly applicable to this discussion lists
subject matter. Lengthy newsletters will cause some very unhappy
subscribers and moderators alike so please be respectful and be concise. It
is recommended that if it is too long to include the contents or a section
of the newsletter and interested subscribers may request the intact version
directly.
Can the information from this list be shared with others?
Unless expressly requested by the sender, all posts are considered to be
reproducible in any other forum so long as the original sender is given the
credit as they wish to have it appear. If a subscriber wishes something to
not be forwarded they should make mention of it. If a subscriber wishes a
post to appear with a given citation alongside the post they should mention
this or include this in the footer. If you just want to get comments and
alerts by being a subscriber, you are welcome to do so. We have no comment
quota.
What is the Ultimate Goal of this list?
To communicate thoughts about censorship and Civil Right threats on the
Internet with activists, grass roots organizations and individuals alike.
Together, we can come up with alternate strategies than outright censorship
and contact legislators in an attempt that they will implement our ideas.
We need to discuss and define thoughts that will provide alternative
solutions to the very real concerns we have on the Internet. People who
dont even enjoy the wonders of the Internet should not be the ones
regulating it.
Any other questions about the list, write to:
chuckufarley@top.monad.net
list owner
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 5 Nov, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.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 CUDIGEST
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.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) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
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/
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/ (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 #7.94
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink