textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0923.txt

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Mar 23, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 23
                           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
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.23 (Sun, Mar 23, 1997)

Subject: Jacking in from the "Man Behind the Curtain" port (fwd)
Subject: "Software Blocking"  Bill introduced in Texas
Subject: Vietnam to Censor Net
Subject: Bell Atlantic Calls for Coopertion against Fraud
Subject: Wired News/Reuters: Bill tries to ban Internet gambling
Subject: Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997
Subject: Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:44:05 EST
From: Martin Kaminer <iguana@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Jacking in from the "Man Behind the Curtain" port (fwd)

Thought you might be interested in this.

 Martin Kaminer
   ---------

Sent from: Brock N. Meeks <brock@well.com>

CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright 1997 // March 1997

Jacking in from the "Man Behind the Curtain" port:

Here... March This
by Lewis Koch
CWD Special Correspondent

Chicago --You better not hack, better not phreak -- The President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection [http://www.pccip.gov]
is coming to town.

This behind closed doors Commission holds the key to America's most
precious civil liberty chastity belt:  Privacy.  And now it's going on
tour.  That right, the Commission is coming to a town near you, a
dog-and-pony road trip whose tour jackets are read:  MADE in the NSA.

The Commission's goal during the tour is to hear from the people, to
collect ideas about how to protect the critical infrastructure from...
>from... why the newest threat (ominous music) to our national well being
now that the Sovs are gone, Saddam's waiting for a bullet and the Chicoms
are turning capitalists -- (scary music swells)  -- "cyber-terrorists"
attacking our so-called "critical infrastructures" through devious
computer hacking raids.  Honest.

And yet, even as members of the Commission smile politely and nod their
graying heads, they are busy trying to figure out (read:  Justify) just
how to rewrite U.S. laws which would lift, or at least modify, the decades
old ban that keeps our nation's top spooks from the National Security
Agency from gathering intelligence on you and me.

Which is not to say these kats don't have an ironic sense of humor.  One
of their first public debuts will be in San Francisco during next week's
Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference.  Of course, if you can make it
to CFP, you might try the Los Angeles, California,  Public Works Hearing
Room, City Hall, room 350, third floor, starting at 10 a.m.   and if you
can't grok with the freaks in L.A. or the cypherpunks in San Francisco,
perhaps you can make it to Commission's other scheduled stops in Atlanta,
Houston, St. Louis or Boston.   (Call now, operators are standing by,
202-828-8869, ask for Liz.)

Between all his strenuous fund raising efforts, President Clinton last
July found the time to form a this Commission to inquire into the question
of whether this nation has protected its precious physical and cyber
innards,  namely electric power, gas and oil, telecommunications, banking
and finance, transportation, water supply, emergency services, and of
course, continuity of government services, and...the Internet.

By this time the Government has caught on to the fact that the Internet
is no longer a fun toy for academics and young people but rather but
serious business for people who bustle around or sleep over at the White
House. There is money to be made on the Net, power to be wielded.

There are also some big bucks to be spent, billions maybe, on what will
almost certainly be efforts to "make things safe" from cyberterrorism.

The most important job this Commission, however, will be to direct
attention away from the real issues: who was/is responsible for developing
weak, vulnerable infrastructures in this country in the first place. (Pay
no attention to the men behind the curtain, the men who built the
crumbling infrastructures of Internet Central in the first place.)

Second, while it would be foolish to deny that problems exists with
thieves who use computers and cyberspace, where some child pornography
and a whole hell of a lot of money laundering takes place, cyberspace is
merely a reflection of society, the good and the bad and a lot in between.

What then, do "cyber threats "actually look like?  Who might carry them
out.  How? Where?   And who will lead the effort to gather, collate, fold
and staple all this valuable information? A recognized Internet expert?
Someone with extensive experience in networks and cross-platform
computing?  Nope... not for Bill Clinton.   Just wouldn't do.

No, sir, what we need to combat terrorism is, well, a goddamn, real life
combat veteran, by gwad!  Enter Robert T. March, chairman of this
Infrastructure Protection Task Force.  You can call him "Bob" or simply
"The General" will do because, well, that's what he did most of his life
and besides, it has a real nice ring to it.

The executive order creating this Commission states that the chairman be
"from outside the Federal government," which Marsh is, technically, since
he retired from the military in 1989.  He still collects his "inside" the
Federal government military retirement pay though.  Question is, do you
want someone who might played a part creating the mess, now deciding how
to fix it?

The background information on General Marsh is kinda skimpy, at least for
someone who spent the vast majority of his adult life, rising to the rank
of General.  He's 73,  a West Point graduate, a resident Alexandria, a
tony Virginia suburb a stone's throw from Washington, D.C.

"His last assignment was serving as the commander of the Air Force
Systems Command, where he directed the research, development, test and
acquisition of aerospace systems for the Air Force," reads his brief bio
on the Web page.  So we can at least legitimately guess that he was heavy
into some kinds of high tech R&D and Procurement stuff, pushing paper and
awarding big time contracts.

It seems that following his retirement, Marsh marched right back into
research, development, test and acquisition, only, well, on the other
side.

"He served as the first chairman of Thiokol Corp [http://www.thiokol.com/],"
his bio reads, "as it transitioned from Morton-Thiokol in 1989 to separate
company status."

(Remember the Challenger Disaster in 1986?
[http://www.fas.org/spp/51L.html] Can you spell O-rings? If you click on
the company's Web page history section,
[http://www.thiokol.com/History/History.htm#HistoryOfCompany] this seems
to be a non-event.  Could there have been two Morton-Thiokol companies?)

Marsh is a very active senior, serving on the board and as a stockholder
active in a surprising number of other high tech ventures, some or all of
which could conceivably wind up providing all kinds of high priced of
technical goodies to combat bad guys bent on physical and cyber
destruction of our dear, up-until-now unprotected infrastructures.

And according to public information office of the Commission, Marsh
intends on keeping his corporate goodies "but at a reduced compensation"
because he was merely "designated" by the President -- which in White
House jargon means...whatever the hell one wants it to mean -- as long as
you don't have to give up the stock and the options and the director's
fees  (Being "designated" means never having to say I'm sorry.).

Marsh also has strong ties to CAE Electronics,
[http://www.cae.ca/cae_electronics_inc/cae_electronics_inc.html] a new
U.S. company which markets high tech stuff. CAE has a Canadian papa,
which, among the high tech goodies it markets are "Air Traffic Management
Systems" and "Engineering and Software Support for Weapons Systems." So,
having someone on the Director's payroll in the States, someone with 35
years of experience in the United States Air Force, makes good, er,
business sense.

Marsh also owns 40,000 shares and makes $8,000.00 a year plus expenses
for his directorship in Teknowledge,
[http://www.teknowledge.com/company/company.html] a Palo Alto high tech
firm parked behind a fence and leafy trees.  Teknowledge is very
interested in communications and the Department of Defense.  Here is how
the company describes some of what it does:

"Since the DoD and many commercial businesses plan to conduct large-scale
operations over international computer networks similar to the Internet,
much of the Teknowledge's current and future project focus is in providing
network associate systems to make access to knowledge easier, and network
accelerators to make knowledge access over networks faster and more cost
effective."

So, we're taking marketing here, not rocket science;  it's easy to see
how Teknowledge might be a "good fit" for any computer infrastructure
"hardening" contracts. Cyberwarriors already have a name for it: "Minimum
Essential Information Infrastructure (MEII) also known as "emergency lanes
on the information highway."

Marsh is also a director of Comverse Government Systems
Corp.[http://www.cis.comverse.com/]. Among the things that Comverse makes
are digital monitoring systems for law enforcement and intelligence
agencies. Oh?  Yes.  Digital wiretapping, monitoring,  as
in...why...yes...of course.  The perfect party gift for the FBI in search
of the hackers who put on those nasty things on the Justice Department
Web site.

Marsh also is a trustee of MITRE Corp, which, we see
[http://www.fast.org/irp/contract/m.htm], is into air defense and other
command, control, communications, and intelligence systems used by
Department of Defense clients.  The company's ties to the defense
intelligence community go back to the late 1950, with project code names
such as HAVE STARE and STEEL TRAP.

And when the General takes his World Tour back home D.C. will we ever see
it's findings?  The Commission isn't bound by the Freedom of Information
Act, so we don't have those thumb screws to turn.  However, the Commission
is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which, in part, is
there to "to open to public scrutiny the manner in which government
agencies obtain advise from private individuals."  Of course, this
situation being one of vital national security interest, cyber-terrorists
and all tha t, don't expect a flood of documents and sunshine from the
General.

Apart from the General, there's an interesting internal conflict on the
Commission.  You see, though it's headed by a "civilian," it's run by the
FBI, which doesn't get along with the CIA and neither get along with all
that well with the NSA.  It's a schizophrenic role for the FBI, to be
sure.  Actually, there are people in the FBI who at least know the right
questions to ask, that's a start.  The problem is whether their questions
can be heard over the din of furious, clueless answers shouted out by Dir.
Louis Freeh, James Kallestrom and others in their own agency.

So, come on out and give the General a few choice thoughts... and don't
forget to call to reserve your spot in line... government operators are
standing by, ahem, from the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST only, of course.

But hurry, this country is not sold in stores.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:46:28 EST
From: Martin Kaminer <iguana@MIT.EDU>
Subject: "Software Blocking"  Bill introduced in Texas

Sent from: Joe Corcoran <joe@hosaka.SmallWorks.COM>

The following is a bill being introducted to the Texas State Legislature.
It may be of interest to you.
- -----------------------------------------

Introduce version- Bill Text                             H.B.  No.1300

By Corte
75R4899 SRC-D


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT


Relating to the provision of certain software to persons who access the
Internet; providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF  THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.   Chapter 35, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by
adding Subchapter I to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER I.   PROVISION OF SOFTWARE TO BLOCK OR SCREEN INTERNET
MATERIAL
Sec. 35.101  DEFINTIONS.  In this subchapter:
(1)   "Freeware" means software that is distributed to a person free of
charge regardless of whether use of the software is subject to certain
restrictions.
(2)   "Internet" means the largest nonproprietary nonprofit cooperative
public computer network, popularly known as the Internet. (3)   "Interactive
computer service" means any information service or system that provides or
enables computer access by multiple users to the Internet.
(4)   "Shareware" means copyrighted software in which the copyright owner
sets certain conditions for its use and distribution, including requiring
payment to the copyright owner after a person who has secured a copy of the
software decides to use the software, regardless of whether the payment is
for additional support or functionality for the software.
Sec.  35.102  SOFTWARE THAT RESTRICTS ACCESS TO CERTAIN MATERIAL ON
INTERNET.
(a)  A person who provides an interactive computer service to another person
for a fee shall provide free of charge to each subscriber of the service in
this state a fully functional shareware, freeware, or demonstration version
of software that enables the subscriber to automatically block or screen
material on the Internet and that provides cost-free usage for at least 30
days.
(b)  A provider is considered to be in compliance with this section if the
provider places, on the provider's first page of text information accessible
to a subscriber, a link to the software descried by Subsection  (a).
(c)   This section does not apply to an institution of higher education, as
that term is defined by Section 61.003, Education Code that provides
interactive computer Service.
Sec.  35.103    CIVIL PENALTY.
(a)  A person who violates  Section35.102 is liable to the state for a civil
penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation.
(b)  The attorney general may institute a suit to recover the civil penalty.
Sec. 35.104     CRIMINAL PENALTY
(a)  A person commits an offense if the person violates Section 35.102.
(b)  An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
SECTION 2.      This Act takes effect September 1,1997, except that
a civil or criminal penalty for a violation of Section 35.102, Business &
Commerce Code, as added by this Act, may be imposed only for a violation
that occurs on or after January 1, 1998.
SECTION 3.  The importance of this legislation and the crowded
condition of the calendars in both house create an emergency and an
imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to
be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is
hereby suspended.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------------------------------------------------------------

The Internet Tax Freedom Act
Introduced in the Senate March 13, 1997

By Senator Wyden (for himself and Senator Kerry):

S. 442. A bill to establish a national policy against State
and local government interference with interstate commerce on
the Internet or interactive computer services, and to
exercise Congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce
by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions
that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the
Internet, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

See bill, Wyden's statements and section-by-section analysis at:

http://jya.com/s442.htm

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:13:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Vietnam to Censor Net

Source  - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

[The China model. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

03/11/97 - 01:47 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Via USA Today Web Site

Vietnam to censor the Net

HANOI, Vietnam - All information coming into Vietnam through the Internet
will be censored and the government announced Tuesday it will control who
has access to online services.

It also will limit the gates through which Internet servers in Vietnam
are linked to the world's largest information network.

The new regulations, to take effect next week, were widely publicized in
state-controlled media.

The controls were issued in a decree by Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet, who
said information servers must be based in Vietnam. This will ensure that
information entering and leaving Vietnam goes through a
government-filtered gateway, the Communist Party newspaper, The People,
reported.

The government has been looking for efficient ways to allow Internet
service, while restricting its contents.

By The Associated Press

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 00:47:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "noah@enabled.com" <noah@enabled.com>
Subject: Bell Atlantic Calls for Coopertion against Fraud

-Noah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:43:23 -0500
From--Bell Atlantic <pressrelease@ba.com>

NEWS RELEASE *********************************************************
******************************************************** BELL ATLANTIC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                         Contact:
March 3, 1997                                              Paul Miller
                                                          804-772-1460
                                                          iller@ba.com


            BELL ATLANTIC CALLS FOR INDUSTRY COOPERATION
             TO 'OUTFOX' $4-BILLION-A-YEAR PHONE FRAUD


ARLINGTON, Va.- With telephone fraud in the United States costing $3.7
billion a year and rising at double-digit rates, Bell Atlantic today
called on industry rivals nationwide to band together to develop ways
to stop the menace.   In an unprecedented call for cooperation, the
company urged all telecommunications carriers to join the Alliance to
Outfox Phone Fraud.

Created three years ago, the alliance is a broad-based international
group of telecommunications companies and related businesses whose
goal is to create consumer awareness about telephone fraud and its
prevention. The animated character Freddie the Phone Fraud Fox(r)
serves as the official mascot for the public awareness campaign.

In addition to Bell Atlantic, alliance members include The American
Public Communications Council, Bellcore, Communications Fraud Control
Association, Hewlett-Packard, Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co.,
Intelligent Switched Systems-Canada, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Park Region
Mutual Telephone Co., Pennsylvania Telephone Association, Public
Service Telephone Co. and Southwestern Bell.

"The alliance is a key way for the growing number of carriers in the
nation to pool their resources and share information about phone fraud
occurrence and tips on prevention,"  said Mary Chacanias, director of
fraud prevention in Bell Atlantic's Carrier Services organization.

The Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 has brought hundreds of new
carriers into the marketplace, multiplying the opportunities for
criminals to commit phone fraud.   The fast growth of the wireless
industry is one factor accounting for the rise in fraud in recent
years. Also, the advent of portable computing has made it easier for
ingenious criminals to commit  phone fraud with less risk.

Phone fraud has gone beyond "tumbling," or guessing at, wireless phone
numbers to cloning of wireless phones.  The latest and fastest-growing
type of fraud is subscription fraud, which affects both wireline and
wireless carriers..  Such fraud can occur when a user provides the
carrier with a false address, identification, or credit rating and then
makes long distance phone calls on that account.

The most effective perpetrators of phone fraud stay one step ahead of
the law by placing their calls quickly before telephone operators and
law enforcement agencies can catch them.

"All telecommunications companies must  be faster and more skilled at
chasing the crooks who know too well how to take advantage of our
networks," Chacanias said. "An aggressive, well-organized anti-fraud
program can stop the theft of millions of dollars in phone service.

"With the cooperation of all the carriers, we can put an enormous dent
in phone fraud," she said. "In the short time our alliance has been
functioning, we've been able to make a difference in this problem."

For more information about the alliance or to join, those interested
should call 800-9-OUTFOX.  The alliance can also be reached at
www.gnat.net/outfox on the worldwide web.

Bell Atlantic Corp. (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new
communications, entertainment and information industry.  In the
mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local
telecommunications and advanced services.  Globally, it is one of the
largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication
marketplace.  Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in
Telecom Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing
high-growth national and international business opportunities in all
phases of the industry.

                               ####


INTERNET USERS:  Bell Atlantic news releases, executive speeches, news
media contacts and other useful information are available at Bell
Atlantic's News Center on the World Wide Web (http://www.ba.com). To
receive news releases by e-mail, visit the News Center and register
for personalized automatic delivery of Bell Atlantic news releases.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:02:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Wired News/Reuters: Bill tries to ban Internet gambling

Source  - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

[I haven't read the text of the bill yet -- I'm having it faxed to me now
-- but I wonder whether it would even work. That is, I'm curious whether
it affects companies within the *jurisdiction* of the FCC, or companies
that are actively being *regulated* by the FCC. Beginning with Computer
II, the FCC has defined "enhanced" service providers as firms *not*
providing standard voice offerings, a category that includes Internet
providers and is not subject to regulation under Title II of the
Communications Act. --Declan]

**************

Reuters // U.S. Bill To Ban Internet Gambling Introduced

   WASHINGTON - A bill to ban all forms of gambling on the Internet has
   been introduced in the U.S. Senate.

   "Given the tremendous potential for abuse, addiction and access by
   minors, online gambling should be prohibited," Sen. Jon Kyl, an
   Arizona Republican, said. He was joined by two other Republicans and
   three Democrats in offering the bill.

   Currently, only computer gambling on sports events is prohibited. The
   legislation would extend criminal penalties to companies who offer all
   types of computer gambling.

   Communications companies regulated by the U.S. Federal Communications
   Commission would be required to discontinue services to any companies
   they carry that offer gambling.

   Kyl said the bill also eliminates ambiguity about the definition of
   bets and wagers to make any form of online betting illegal.

   The bill was introduced on the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court
   heard arguments about a 1996 law banning transmission of sexually
   explicit material on the Internet to anyone younger than 18.

   The Clinton administration argued that the law should be upheld to
   protect young children. Opponents said it violated free-speech rights
   of adult Internet users and should be found unconstitutional. A
   decision in the case is due by July.

**************

Wired News
ACLU: Gambling Bill Would Turn ISPs Into Cops
   by Ashley Craddock

   6:03pm  20.Mar.97.PST A new bill that would outlaw Internet gambling
   in the United States was attacked Thursday for a provision that the
   American Civil Liberties Union says would force Internet service
   providers to act as online cops.

   Online gambling, which defies traditional state jurisdictions, has
   caught the Department of Justice with its pants down. So far, the
   department has been unable to establish any adequate plan to police
   cyberwagers. While the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 prohibits the use
   of phone lines to place bets across state lines, the question of
   whether the act applies to online gambling remains unsettled. The
   issue is further complicated by the fact that many online casinos have
   moved their operations offshore.

   The bill introduced Thursday, the Internet Gambling Protection Act by
   Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), tries to give teeth to government
   prohibitions against online wagers. Besides criminalizing all gambling
   and specifying that virtual casinos cannot evade gambling laws by
   offering "prizes" rather than cash, the bill holds ISPs liable for
   providing access to gambling sites once state or local law enforcement
   agencies have notified the ISPs that such activities are taking place.

   Prosecuting crime on the Internet "is extremely difficult," says
   Vincent Sollitto, a spokesman for Kyl. "This is one mechanism to help
   law enforcement keep a clamp on some of the offshore activity that's
   making it impossible to restrict online bets."

   Although only a handful of online casinos currently exist, the
   phenomenon has been generating a good deal of heat and light in the
   form of press coverage and concern from politicians who fear that home
   gambling will eat away at America's moral fiber. "Gambling erodes
   values of hard work, sacrifice, and personality," Kyl said as he
   introduced his anti-gambling bill.

   But however small the current universe of online casinos, proprietors
   of the gaming industry, who rake in US$550 billion-a-year, are eagerly
   looking to plumb the Internet's financial possibilities, which at
   least one analyst has predicted could amount to $10 billion a year by
   2000.

   But critics charge that making service providers responsible for
   providing access to Web sites places them in the position of policing
   content rather than simply acting as carriers.

 [...]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 11:57:50 -0400
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997

Source  - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

[Full text of the bill is not yet available on-line.  Perhaps
Declan's fax machine is faster than my mouse, though.  In any case,
here's a few words from our sponsors.  From other commentary on the
bill, it appears that the bill would place all ISPs under the
regulatory ability of the FCC.  Hooray.]



By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hutchinson,
Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Johnson):

S. 474. A bill to amend sections 1081 and 1084 of title 18, United
States Code; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act of 1997. It will outlaw gambling on the Internet. I
believe it will protect children from logging on to the Internet and
being exposed to activities that are normally prohibited to them. And
for those people with a gambling problem, my bill will make it harder
to gamble away the family paycheck.

Gambling erodes values of hard work, sacrifice, and personal
responsibility. Although the social costs of gambling are difficult to
quantify, research indicates they are potentially staggering. Gambling
is a growing industry in the United States, with revenues approaching
$550 billion last year--three times the revenues of General Motors
Corp. In 1993, more Americans visited casinos than attended a major
league baseball game.

The problem can only grow worse with online casinos. Now it is no
longer necessary to go to a casino or store where lottery tickets are
sold. Anyone with a computer and a modem will have access to a casino:
Internet users can access hundreds of sites for blackjack, craps,
roulette, and sports betting. Gambling addiction is already on the
rise. Online gambling will only increase the problem.

Why is this bill necessary? It dispels any ambiguity by making clear
that all betting, including sports betting, is illegal. Currently,
nonsports betting is interpreted as legal. The bill also clarifies the
definition of bets and wagers. This ensures that those who are
gambling cannot circumvent the law. For example, virtual gaming
businesses have been known to offer prizes instead of money, in an
attempt to evade the law.

Additionally, my bill clarifies that Internet access providers are
covered by the law. As the National Association of Attorneys General
[NAAG] task force on Internet Gambling reported, `this is currently
the most important section to State and local law enforcement
agencies, because it provides a civil enforcement mechanism.'
FCC-regulated carriers notified by any State or local law enforcement
agency of the illegal nature of a site are required to discontinue
services to the malfeasor. NAAG believes that this can be a very
effective deterrent. The bill includes interactive computer-service
providers among those entities required to discontinue such service
upon notice. Federal, State, and local law enforcement entities are
explicitly authorized to seek prospective injunctive relief against
continued use of a communications facility for purposes of gambling .

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act makes explicit the intent of
Congress to create extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding Internet
gambling activities. Too often, illicit operators of virtual casinos
set up shop in friendly jurisdictions beyond the direct application of
U.S. law. It will also require the DOJ to report on the difficulties
associated with enforcing the statute. Finally, it places some burden
on the bettor.

The Internet has great potential to promote both educational
opportunities and business expansion in this country. At the same
time, the Internet is fast becoming a place where inappropriate
activities such as gambling , pornography, and consumer fraud thrive.
Recently, many businesses have welcomed law enforcement's involvement
in cracking down on consumer fraud. We must find a constitutional way
to deal with the other problems raised by this revolution in
communications. I believe that it is possible to impose some
conditions, as we have in other areas, without violating free speech
rights.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 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.

         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  +352-466893

  UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #9.23
************************************