informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0826.txt
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

938 lines
39 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

Computer underground Digest Sun Mar 31, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 26
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.26 (Sun, Mar 31, 1996)
File 1--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (From telecom.digest)
File 2--CONGRESS: Interview with Anna Eshoo
File 3--Georgia Computer Regulation (fwd)
File 4--German Censorship comment (Re: Cu Digest, #8.17)
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Mar, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:32:27 -0500 (EST)
From: ptownson@MASSIS.LCS.MIT.EDU(Patrick A. Townson)
Subject: File 1--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (From telecom.digest
)
This is a special bulletin received Friday morning regards the
squabble between the telephone companies and the I-Phone people;
the ones who use the software which allows voice communication
via the Internet. The war has started! It appears the carriers are
serious about getting rid of this Internet feature. A formal
complaint has been filed with the Federal Communications Commission.
PAT
Subject--LD Co.'s File Complaint Against Internet Phone Authors
From--drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz)
Date--Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:12:59 EST
Organization--Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861
Retrieved this from ftp.fcc.gov last night. No official word yet on
the Commission's response (no docket no. yet). Also, no word yet on
precisely which "non-dominant telecommunications companies" are
actually represented in this petition:
ACTA Internet Phone Petition (RM No. 8775)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
THE PROVISION OF INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL INTEREXCHANGE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE VIA THE "INTERNET" BY NON-TARIFFED,
UNCERTIFIED ENTITIES
AMERICA'S CARRIERS TELECOMMUNICATION
ASSOCIATION ("ACTA"),
Petitioner
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING,
SPECIAL RELIEF, AND
INSTITUTION OF RULEMAKING AGAINST:
VocalTec, Inc.; Internet Telephone
Company; Third Planet Publishing Inc.;
Camelot Corporation; Quarterdeck
Corporation; and Other Providers
of Non-tariiffed, and Uncertified
Interexchange Telecommunications
Services,
Respondents.
To the Commission:
SUMMARY OF FILING
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association ("ACTA"), a
trade association of interexchange telecommunications companies,
submits this Petition for Declaratory Ruling, for Special Relief, and
for Institution of Rulemaking Proceedings. This petition concerns a
new technology: a computer software product that enables a computer
with Internet access to be used as a long distance telephone, carrying
voice transmissions, at virtually no charge for the call.
ACTA submits that the providers of this software are tele-
communications carriers and, as such, should be subject to FCC
regulation like all telecommunications carriers. ACTA also submits
that the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet.
ACTA submits that it is not in the public interest to permit long
distance service to be given away, depriving those who must maintain
the telecommunications infrastructure of the revenue to do so, and nor
is it in the public interest for these select telecommunications
carriers to operate outside the regulatory requirements applicable to
all other carriers.
ACTA asks the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling confirming
its authority over interstate and international telecommunications
services using the Internet.
ACTA asks the Commission, as special relief. to order the
Respondents to immediately stop their unauthorized provisioning of
telecommunications services pending their compliance with 47 U.S.C.
Sections 203 and 214. and in order to give the Commission time for
appropriate rulemaking.
ACTA asks the Commission to institute rulemaking to govern the
use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING,
SPECIAL RELIEF, AND INSTITUTION OF RULEMAKING
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association ("ACTA"). by
its attorneys, submits this Petition for Declaratory Ruling, for
Special Relief, and for Institution of Rulemaking Proceedings. In
support of this petition, the following is shown.
STANDING
ACTA is a national trade association of competitive
interexchange, non-dominant telecommunications companies. Its members
provide interexchange telecommunications services on an intrastate,
interstate and international basis to the public at large.
Some of its members also act as underlying (or wholesale)
carriers providing network facilities, equipment and service to other
member carriers which permits telecommunications services to be resold
to the public. Other ACTA members supply facilities and equipment to
member and non-member wholesale and resale carriers.
ACTA's carrier members must be certificated and tariffed before
the FCC and most state regulatory commissions in order to render their
telecommunications service to the public. In addition, ACTA carrier
members are subject to the requirements of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the "Act"), and various state laws and regulations
which prohibit engaging in unreasonable practices and/or unduly
discriminatory conduct.
ACTA carrier members are required to pay, directly, or
indirectly, various fees and charges in order to render their services
to the public. Filing fees and annual fees are levied by the FCC and
most states.
In addition, the FCC and most states require interexchange
carriers to assess and collect from the using public specific charges
to support various regulatory policies and programs used to sustain
and advance national and state goals for telecommunications.
Entities, like those which are described hereinafter, which do
not comply with or operate subject to the same statutory and
regulatory requirements as ACTA's carrier members, distort the
economic and public interest environment in which ACTA carrier members
and nonmembers must operate. Continuing to allow such entities to
operate without complying with or being subject to the same legal and
regulatory requirements as ACTA carrier members threatens the
continued viability of ACTA's members and their ability to serve the
public and acquit their public interest obligations under federal and
state laws.
As the appointed representative of its members charged with
advancing their economic interests and assisting in achieving and
maintaining their legal and regulatory compliance, ACTA has standing
to file and prosecute these petitions.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BACKGROUND
A growing number of companies are selling software for the
specific purpose of allowing users of the Internet to make free or
next to free local, interexchange (intraLATA, interLATA) and
international telephone calls using the user's computer (Attach ment
1). One of the Respondents, VocalTec, Inc., advertises the ability of
its software called "Internet Phone," to connect any user of "Internet
Phone" with any other user of "Internet Phone" anywhere in the world.
The software enables users to audibly talk with one another in
real-time. Respondents make a one-time charge for the software, but
users incur no other charges for making local or long distance
telephone calls to any other "Internet Phone" user in the world
(except for whatever the user already pays monthly to whomever
provides them Internet access).
ASSERTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JURISDICTION
ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the Commission to exercise
jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate
and international telecommunications services. As a first step, ACTA
submits that the Commission may deem it appropriate to issue a
declaratory ruling officially establishing its interest in and
authority over interstate and international telecommunications
services using the Internet.
Secondly, ACTA submits that the Commission has an obliga tion,
heightened by the recent enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, to address on a focused basis the on-going, unregulated and
unauthorized provisioning of telecommunications services. The
Commission should, as special relief, issue an order to the
Respondents to immediately stop arranging for, implementing, and
marketing non-tariffed, uncertified telecommunications services
without complying with applicable provisions of the Act, particularly
Sections 203 and 214, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 214.
Further, ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the Commis- sion
to examine and adopt rules, policies and regulations govern ing the
uses of the Internet for the provisioning of telecommuni- cations
services. The use of the Internet to provide telecommu- nications
services has an impact on the traditional means, methods, systems,
providers, and users of telecommunications services. The unfair
competition created by the current unregulated bypass of the
traditional means by which long distance services are sold could, if
left unchecked, eventually create serious economic hardship on all
existing participants in the long distance marketplace and the public
which is served by those participants. Ignored, such unregulated
operations will rapidly grow and create a far more significant and
difficult to control "private" operational enclave of telecommu
nications providers and users. Such development will clearly be
detrimental to the health of the nation's telecommunications industry
and the maintenance of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure.
ARGUMENT
Commission's Authority to Regulate the Internet. ACTA submits
that the Commission has the authority to regulate the Internet under
the provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 151, which created the
Commission:
[for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in
communication by wire and radio so as to make avail able, so far as
possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient,
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with
adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the
national defense. for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property, through the use of wire and radio communication. . . .
The Internet is a unique form of wire communication. It is a resource
whose benefits are still being explored and whose value is not fully
realized. Its capacity is not, however, infinite. The misuse of the
Internet as a way to bypass the traditional means of obtaining long
distance service could result in a significant reduction of the
Internet's ability to handle the customary types of Internet traffic.
The Commission has historically protected the public interest by
allocating finite communications resources/frequencies and organizing
communications traffic. ACTA submits that here also it would be in
the public interest for the Commission to define the type of
permissible communications which may be effected over the Internet.
Commission's Authority to Regulate Respondents as Interstate
Telecommunications Carriers. ACTA submits that by both estab- lished
precedents defining "common carriage" or public utility" type of
operations for purposes of regulatory jurisdiction, and by statutory
enactment, the Respondents, as purveyors of Internet long distance
services, are interstate telecommunications carri- ers, subject to
federal regulation. Section 3 of the new "Telecommunications Act of
1996," Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), to be codified at 47
U.S.C. Section 153, includes the following definitions:
(48) Telecommunications. -- The term "telecommunications" means the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
informa tion of the user's choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.
(49) Telecommunications Carrier. -- The term "telecommunications
carrier" means any provider of telecommunications services, except
that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications
services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier
shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent
that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except
that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and
mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage.
(51) Telecommunications Service. -- The term "telecommunications
service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly
to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively
available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.
It would appear that Respondents are currently operating without
having complied with the requirements of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, applicable to providing interstate and international
telecommunications services. e.g., Sections 203 and 213, codified at
47 U.S.C. Sections 203 and 214.
Case law also supports the Commission's authority to regulate
the Respondents. In 1968, the Supreme Court was presented the issue
of the Commission's authority to regulate the cable television
industry, or CATV, then still in its infancy but growing quickly. In
United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), the
Supreme Court had to decide whether the Federal Communications
Commission 1) had the authority under the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, to regulate CATV systems, a new technology and therefore
not specifically discussed in the Act, and 2) if the Commission had
such authority, whether it also had the authority to issue the
particular prohibitory order that it had: one designed generally to
preserve the status quo pending further investigation and proceedings,
and not issued pursuant to the cease and desist rules of Section 312
of the Act (47 U.S.C. Section 312).
The Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative.
The Supreme Court stated that "the [Federal Communications] Commission
has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV [was]
imperative if it [was] to perform with appropriate effectiveness
certain of its other responsibil ities." Id. at 173. At that time,
cable television characteristically neither produced its own
programming nor paid producers or broadcasters for use of the
programming which CATV redistributed. Id. at 162. The Court noted
the Commission's concern that competition by CATV might destroy or
degrade the service offered by local broadcasters and exacerbate the
financial difficulties of UHF and educational television
broadcasters.
Commission's Authority to Grant Special Relief to Maintain the
Status Quo. With regard to the procedural issue, the Court in
Southwestern Cable upheld the authority of the Commission to issue an
order maintain the status quo. The argument was made that the
Commission could only issue prohibitory orders under the Act's Section
312 cease and desist provisions which, the Court assumed without
finding, were only proper after a hearing or the waiver of the right
to a hearing. The Court rejected that argument stating:
The Commission's order was thus not, in form or function, a
cease-and- desist order that must issue under Sections 312(b), (c).
The Commission has acknowledged that, in this area of rapid and
significant change, there may be situations in which its generalized
regulations are inadequate, and special or additional forms of relief
are imperative. It has found that the present case may prove to be
such a situation, and that the public interest demands "interim relief
limiting further expansion," pending hearings to determine appropriate
Commission action. Such orders do not exceed the Commission's
authority. This Court has recognized that "the administrative process
[must] possess sufficient flexibility to adjust itself' to the
"dynamic aspects of radio transmission," F. C. C. v. Pottsville
Broadcasting Co., supra, at 138, and that it was precisely for that
reason that Congress declined to "stereotype the powers of the
Commission to specific details......... National Broadcasting Co. v.
United States, supra, at 219.
The Commission should take the same action in 1996 with regard to the
new technology of long distance calling via Internet as it did thirty
years ago in 1966 with regard to the then-new technology of cable
television: grant special relief to maintain the status quo so that it
might carefully consider what rules are required to best protect the
public interest and to carry out Its statutory duties.
Other Issues Necessitating the Commission's Regulation of Long
Distance via the Internet. The Commission has a duty to oversee and
effect the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as its
long-standing duties under 47 U.S.C. Section 151. The Commission
should take action in order to preserve fair competition and the
health of the Nation's telecommunications industry. Absent a healthy
industry, with users paying telecommunications companies a fair price
for telecommunica tions services, the Commission's duty to effectively
promote universal service cannot be achieved. Absent action by the
Commission, the new technology could be used to circumvent
restrictions traditionally found in tariffs con cerning unlawful uses,
such as gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drug traffic, and other
illegal acts.
INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONDENTS
ACTA does not possess a listing of all the companies providing
free long distance calls via computer software. However, Attachment I
contains some information regarding the following Internet telephone
software companies and products:
a. Company: VocalTec, Inc.
157 Veterans Drive
Northvale, NJ 07647
Telephone: (201) 768-9400
Product: Internet Phone
Distributors: VocalTec, Inc.; and
Ventana Communications Group
Research Triangle Park, NC
b. Company: Internet Telephone Company
Boca Raton, FL
Telephone (407) 989-8503
Product: WebPhone
c. Company: Third Planet Publishing Inc.
a division of Camelot Corporation
Product: Digiphone
d. Company: Quarterdeck Corporation
13160 Mindanao Way, 3rd Floor
Marina Del Ray, CA 90292
Telephone (310) 309-3700
Product: WebTalk
e. Company: Unknown
Product: CyberPhone
CONCLUSION
Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the
public interest. Therefore, ACTA urges the Federal Communications
Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its jurisdiction in this
matter and: issue a declaratory ruling establishing its authority over
interstate and international telecommuni- cations services using the
Internet; grant special relief to maintain the status quo by
immediately stop the sale of this software; and institute rulemaking
proceedings defining permissible communications over the Internet.
Respectfully submitted,
AMERICA'S CARRIERS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Charles H. Helein
General Counsel
Of Counsel:
Helein & Associates, P.C.
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 700
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 714-1300 (Telephone)
(703) 714-1330 (Facsimile)
Dated: March 4, 1995
Footnotes:
1 47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.
2 The user must hook up a microphone to his computer and
either a headset or speakers.
3 ACTA asserts that Respondents are also intrastate
telecommunications carriers, subject to regulation by state
public utility commissions.
4 The Commission had ordered that respondents, a cable
company, generally restrict their carriage of Los Angeles signals
to areas served by them on February 14, 1966, pending hearings to
determine whether the carriage of such signals into San Diego
contravened the public interest. The order did not prohibit the
addition of new subscribers within areas served by respon dents
on February 15, 1966; it did not prevent service to other sub
scribers who began receiving service or who submitted an ac-
cepted subscription request" between February 15, 1966, and the
date of the Commission's order; and it did not preclude the
carriage of San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, signals to subscribers
in new areas of service. United States v. Southwestern
Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 180 (1968).
5 Id. at 180.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 06:08:06 -0800
From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject: File 2--CONGRESS: Interview with Anna Eshoo
Salutations!
Whew! On Tuesday I made the big transcontinental puddle-jump from San
Francisco to Boston, where I'm now attending the Sixth Conference on
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. We're all hunkered down here at the
Cambridge Hyatt Regency, amid lots of amazing people, a lot of cool ideas,
and (surprise!) a lot of talk and concern about the Communications Decency
Act.
I'll try to tell you more about the conference later this week.
But in the meantime... I invite you to take a journey into the mind of
Rep. Anna Eshoo.
Rep. Eshoo, you will recall, is the California Congresswoman who recently
introduced the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 -- legislation that
could function as an alternative to the Communications Decency Act.
In this interview with Rep. Eshoo, we learn more about how the
Communications Decency Act became law, the sinister plottings of the
Christian Coalition, and the magnitude of Congress's ignorance about what
the Internet is really all about.
As Rep. Eshoo puts it, "My sense is, that most members of Congress have
little appreciation or understanding that the Internet is not a federal
interstate freeway -- it's not a public highway. This is a private
network."
Many thanks to Gary Brickman, Managing Editor of Interactive Age Digital,
for passing this interview along.
Work the network!
--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine
=============================================================
Reforming the Communications Decency Act:
An interview with Rep. Anna Eshoo
(From Interactive Age Digital, on the Wed at http://techweb.cmp.com/ia)
On March 21, a federal court began judging the fate of the Communications
Decency Act (CDA) -- the restrictive legislation barring online
dissemination of material judged "indecent" As the legal challenges
progress through the courts, Congress is considering legislation designed
to narrow the scope of the indecency ban.
One of those bills, the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 was introduced
last week. Authored by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, a Democrat representing
most of Silicon Valley in California, the bill seeks to bar only material
that is considered "harmful to minors, using a criteria based on widely
accepted standards now in place across the nation.
Eshoo, first elected in 1992, serves on the House Commerce Committee, and
on the Telecommunications Subcommittee, where the Telecommunications bill
and Decency act were shaped.
Interactive Age Digital's Gary Brickman recently spoke with Representative.
Eshoo about censoring the censorship laws.
IAD: How did the Communications Decency Act become law?
REP. ESHOO: This indecency proposal that became part of the overall bill
did not go either through the committee, nor was it amended on the floor of
the House. This was slipped in when we were in the conference committee.
So, my experience there -- and it was a very close vote on this indecency
proposal - really took me back. It said that First Amendment rights, in my
view, would be violated. Right alongside of that, the government -- not
moms and dads -- would be the decider on what is harmful to minors. I'd
been working with various individuals and organizations to shape
legislation that would correct this, and that's what the Online Parental
Control Act of 1996 represents.
IAD: How did the right wing of the Republican Party get the strength to
pass the CDA?
REP. ESHOO: Certainly the language that was jammed into the bill at the
last minute I don't think withstands the scrutiny of the public. Of course
Rick White [Republican - Washington], one of my colleagues in the House,
tried to have language that would not be as restrictive as the language
ended up. Certainly there were many members that quoted Ralph Reed who
heads up the Christian Coalition. But it lost on a very close vote [17-16].
IAD: So you think the Christian Coalition was the major force in this
country behind the CDA?
REP. ESHOO: I think very much so. But I also think there were organizations
that certainly lobbied on the Senate side -- because it was Senator Exon
(Democrat-Nebraska) that first introduced language that resembled this, the
decency clause. There were many family and parental groups that stressed
their concerns about what children can and are, most frankly, submitted
too. And so that became a very real concern of members of Congress.
The irony in the Telecommunications bill is that Congress understood
television better than the Internet. Because the V-Chip did become part of
the legislative language when it comes to TV. My sense is, that most
members of Congress have little appreciation or understanding that the
Internet is not a federal interstate freeway -- it's not a public highway.
This is a private network.
IAD: To go back to the analogy of television versus the Internet in terms
of government regulation -- isn't the Internet funded in part by federal
dollars that go to educational institutions or research facilities that
receive grants for work they do on the Internet?
REP. ESHOO: They certainly have the Internet, and they certainly make use
of it. But the Internet in and of itself is not a government-funded
network.
IAD: But neither is ABC or CBS...
REP. ESHOO: I'm sure going back over the years the government, through
research dollars helped develop it. But for the most part, these are
private networks. Cyberspace is something that is relatively new.
IAD: Should government regulate the Internet in any way? What form would
that take?
REP. ESHOO: We're not talking about regulation per se, we're talking about
censorship, which goes right to the heart of our First Amendment Rights.
The way the language is constructed in the law is that the indecency
standard is so vague and so broad that it leads to the criminal penalties
that are contained in the bill. In my view, that is harmful in and of
itself. I'm a mother, I'm a parent. My children are grown now, but I'm
certainly sensitive to the legitimate concerns that parents would have.
IAD: Is it realistic to expect that in an election year, with Republicans
in charge of Congress that your bill will pass?
REP. ESHOO: I think that we have a very good opportunity to gather
bipartisan support. I plan to demonstrate the technologies that are
available now [to block sites from minors], so members will be not only be
introduced to the legislation, but also understand the tools that will
provide what parents legitimately need to have.
IAD: The President was fairly silent on the Communications Decency Act as
it was worded when it passed...
REP. ESHOO: It was not an area of the bill that was highlighted. This small
part of the bill, as much of an impact as it had to online users, was not
something that was debated on the floor of the House of Representatives..
IAD: Do you expect the White House will support your bill?
REP. ESHOO: We will certainly meet with the White House and make them very
much aware of what this legislation contains.
IAD: There are some concerns in the online community that judging material
based on "community standards," a criteria supported in your bill, is
impossible to apply to the Internet...
REP. ESHOO: Just a moment. My bill adds two new defenses. One, the use of
labeling or segregating systems to restrict access to online materials,
using the standards defined by PICS, the platform for Internet content
selection project, and two, it protects information content providers who
use these technologies from civil or criminal liability.
IAD: What will the impact on the growth of the Internet industry if the law
stands as it is now written?
REP. ESHOO: This is more than a growing industry in the country. We're the
leaders in the world on this. Obviously we're dealing with a law that
applies to the United States, but we have to keep in mind that this is a
world wide activity. I think it can and will have a chilling effect on both
the part of users, and on the part of those who manufacture technology.
IAD:Why not let the courts deal with this?
REP. ESHOO: Well, the court is not going to rewrite the law. The case is
designed to knock out this section [the indecency standard] of the law. If
in fact it does -- and my guess is, the court will -- what's left in place?
I really do believe that we can and should legislatively speak to the
concerns that parents have. I think that's a very important thing. But the
way we do it, and honor the Constitution, has to be primary.
-- Gary Brickman
Managing Editor, Interactive Age Digital
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
This transmission was brought to you by....
THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK
The CDA Information Network is a moderated mailing list providing
up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the
Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, send email to
<majordomo@wired.com> with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body.
------------------------------
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 3--Georgia Computer Regulation (fwd)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:18:44 -0800 (PST)
================
Date--Tue, 19 Mar 96 16:34:37 -0800
From--"rep. mitchell kaye" <mkaye@gahouse.com>
ALERT!!! This bill has just passed the Georgia Legislature and is
awaiting Governor Zell Miller's signature. It will restrict non specific
e-mail addresses as well as links that are on pages without permission.
It will also send a bad message from Georgia to the world about our
welcoming technology. Please write the Gov ASAP.
Write to Mr. Steve Wrigley, Executive Secretary to
Governor Zell Miller
State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
urging the Governor to veto House Bill 1630. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
Thank you! Please spread the word!!!
Rep. Mitchell Kaye
=============
H. B. No. 1630 (FLOOR SUBSTITUTE)(AM)
By: Representative Parsons of the 40th
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
To amend Article 6 of Chapter 9 of Title 16 of the Official
Code of Georgia Annotated, known as the "Georgia Computer
Systems Protection Act," so as to provide that it shall be
unlawful for any person or organization knowingly to
transmit certain misleading data through a computer or
telephone network for the purpose of setting up,
maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an
electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic
information storage bank; to provide for a penalty; to
provide that civil actions are allowed; to repeal
conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
Article 6 of Chapter 9 of Title 16 of the Official Code of
Georgia Annotated, known as the "Georgia Computer Systems
Protection Act," is amended by adding, following Code
Section 16-9-93, a new Code Section 16-9-93.1 to read as
follows:
"16-9-93.1.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, any organization,
or any representative of any organization knowingly to
transmit any data through a computer network or over the
transmission facilities or through the network facilities
of a local telephone network for the purpose of setting
up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an
electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic
information storage bank or point of access to electronic
information if such data uses any individual name, trade
name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal,
or copyrighted symbol to falsely identify the person,
organization, or representative transmitting such data or
which would falsely state or imply that such person,
organization, or representative has permission or is
legally authorized to use such trade name, registered
trademark, logo, legal or official seal, or copyrighted
symbol for such purpose when such permission or
authorization has not been obtained; provided, however,
that no telecommunications company or Internet access
provider shall violate this Code section solely as a
result of carrying or transmitting such data for its
customers.
(b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to
limit an aggrieved party's right to pursue a civil action
for equitable or monetary relief, or both, for actions
which violate this Code section."
SECTION 2.
Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a member of the
General Assembly from using the state seal or the Georgia
flag which contains the state seal on a home page that is
clearly identified with the name of the member as the home
page of that member.
SECTION 3.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are
repealed.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 19:28 EDT
From: E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Subject: File 4--German Censorship comment (Re: Cu Digest, #8.17)
I would like to discuss several statements by those opposed to efforts to
remove German censorship by those not in Germany. I have earlier
commented on why such efforts are not due to "local decisions" in the
United States of America. They are not justified by the United States
Constitution's Bill of Rights; the United States Constitution's Bill of
Rights is justified by the ethical system also justifying these actions.
First, some have argued that the German government's actions are
legitimate under the philosophy of "might is right." I do not hold this
philosophy to be ethically valid. Furthermore, since those not in Germany
have the "might" to enforce a lack of censorship upon Germany, this
philosophy would hold that such actions are by definition "right." In
other words, "might is right" would hold that a government's actions are
only legitimate as far as it can enforce such actions; the German
government has shown that it cannot enforce the actions in question.
Second, acts by private citizens, without the direct support and
authorization of their government, cannot be acts of war. Under war's
primary definition, wars are only conflicts between countries or between
factions within a country (civil war).
Third, even if these acts were acts of war, wars may be perfectly
legitimate and right by most ethical standards. For instance, the war
against Nazi Germany is considered to have been ethically right by all
except a few groups such as neo-Nazis and pacifists. The "war" currently
in question involves no actual harm to others; therefore, those opposed
to other wars on pacifistic grounds could not oppose this "war" on those
grounds.
Fourth, one may argue against outside assistance to "pro-democracy"
movements in areas in which the people would not vote for a democratic
government; however, this is only a valid argument against
pro-_democracy_ movements. It is not a valid argument against backing of
civil liberties, since civil liberties do not depend on the support of a
majority for legitimacy. (Civil liberties are essentially limitations on
the power of a government (and of others) - including of a democratic
government.)
Sincerely Yours,
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Mar, 1996)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.26
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink