Computer underground Digest Thu Jun 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 52

Computer underground Digest Thu Jun 22, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 52
ISSN 1004-042X

Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([email protected]
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
la Triviata: Which wine goes best with Unix?

CONTENTS, #7.52 (Thu, Jun 22, 1995)

File 1--COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT -- FULL TEXT
File 2--EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate
File 3--Dole and Exon Bills
File 4--(fwd) Cinci computer connection confiscated (fwd)
File 5--Baker "Rape Story" Case thrown out by Judge (excerpt)
File 6--Zine Net...The Place for Zines
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

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

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

Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:06:28 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: File 1--COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT -- FULL TEXT

THE U.S. SENATE ON JUNE 14, 1995

The text of the Communications Decency Amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jim
Exon (D-Nebraska).

This language was passed by the US Senate on June 14th.

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

This strikes all of Title IV of S. 652 and replaces it with the following:

Sec.___ OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended --

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof:

``(a) Whoever--
``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign
communications

``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly--

``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
``(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent,
with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person at the called number or who receives the
communication;

``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or
continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called
number; or

``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates
communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation
or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number
or who receives the communication; or

``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his
control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the
intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

``(d) Whoever--

``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign
communications with the United States by means of telecommunications
device makes or makes available any obscene communication in any form
including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image,
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call
or initiated the communications; or

``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such
person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subsection
(d)(1) with the intent that it be used for such activity;

shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two
years or both.

``(e) Whoever--

``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign
communications with the United States by means of telecommunications
device makes or makes available any indecent comment, request,
suggestion, proposal, image to any person under 18 years of age
regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call
or initiated the communication; or

``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such
person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1)
with the intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two
years or both.

``(f) Defenses to the subsections (a), (d), and (e),
restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for
persons providing information services and access to information
services--

(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsections (a), (d),
or (e) solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility,
system, or network over which that person has no control, including
related capabilities which are incidental to providing access or
connection. This subsection shall not be applicatable to an individual
controlled by, or a conspirator with, an entity actively involved in the
creation, editing or knowing distribution of communications which violate
this section.

(2) No employer shall be held liable under this section for the
actions of an employee or agent unless the employee's or agent's conduct
is within the scope of his employment or agency and the employer has
knowledge of, authorizes, or ratifies the employee's or agent's conduct.

(3) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a), (d)(2),
or (e) that a person has taken reasonable, effective and appropriate
actions in good faith to restrict or prevent the transmission of or access
to a communication specified in such subsections, or complied with
procedures as the Commission may prescribe in furtherance of this section.
Until such regulations become effective, it is a defense to prosecution
that the person has complied with the procedures prescribed by regulation
pursuant to subsection (b)(3). Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to treat enhanced information services as common carriage.

(4) No cause of action may be brought in any court or any
administrative agency against any person on account of any action which in
not in violation of any law punishable by criminal penalty, which activity
the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under
this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or
access to, a communication specified in this section.

(g) no state or local government may impose any liability for
commercial activities or actions by commercial entities in connection with
an activity or action which constitutes a violation described in
subsection (a)(2), (d)(2), or (e)(2) that is inconsistent with the
treatment of those activities or actions under this section provided,
however, that nothin herein shall preclude any State or local government
from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and
regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements so long as such
systems, procedures, and requirements govern only intrastate services and
do not result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or
obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude any State or local government from governing
conduct not covered by this section.

(h) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) or in the
defenses to prosecution under (a), (d), or (e) shall be construed to
affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law.

(i) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this
section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast radio or
(one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the Commission or
(one-way) cable services registered with the Federal Communications
Commission and covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in
this Act.

(j) Within two years from the date of enactment and every two
years thereafter, the Commission shall report on the effectiveness of this
section.

Sec. ____ OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.

Section 639 (47 U.S.C> 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and
inserting "$100,000"

Sec. ___ BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO.

Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking out "$10,00" and inserting "$100,000".

Sec. ___ SEPARABILITY

"(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this
Title or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of this Title and the application of such provision
to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby."

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

Date: 17 Jun 1995 00:06:28 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: File 2--EFF Analysis of Communications Decency Act as Passed by Senate

CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY AMENDMENT:
A LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION

INTRODUCTION

On June 14, 1995, the United States Senate approved by a vote of 84-16
an amendment to the Senate's omnibus telecommunications-deregulation
bill that raises grave Constitutional questions and poses great risks
for the future of freedom of speech on the nation's
computer-communications forums.

Sponsored by Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska), the amendment originated as
an independent bill titled Communications Decency Act of 1995 (CDA),
and is intended, according to its sponsor, both to prohibit "the
[computer] equivalent of obscene telephone calls" and to prohibit the
distribution to children of materials with sexual content.

As drafted, however, the legislation not only fails to solve the
problems it is intended to address, but it also imposes content
restrictions on computer communications that would chill
First-Amendment-protected speech and, in effect, restrict adults in
the public forums of computer networks to writing and reading only
such content as is suitable for children.

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CDA

The Communications Decency Act would change the language of Title 47,
United States Code, Section 223, a section that primarily does two
things:

1) it prohibits "obscene or harassing" phone calls and other, similar,
abusive uses of the telephone, and

2) it imposes regulation (promulgated and administered by the Federal
Communications Commission) on telephone services that provide
so-called "indecent" content and prohibits those services from
providing legally obscene content.

The amending language drafted by Sen. Exon and passed by the Senate
substantially restructures and alters the provisions of this section
in an effort to bring computer communications under the statute. If
the Senate-approved language becomes law, provisions in the amended
statute will:

(a) Expand the scope of the statute from telephones to
"telecommunications devices" (such as computers, modems, and the data
servers and conferencing systems used by Internet sites and by
commercial providers like America Online and CompuServe);

(b) Define as a criminal offense any communication that is legally
obscene or indecent if that communication is sent over a
telecommunications device "with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass another person";

(c) Penalize any person or entity who, by use of a telecommunication
device, "knowingly ... makes or makes available" any content or
material that is legally obscene; and

(d) Penalize any person or entity who "knowingly ... makes or makes
available" to a person under the age of 18 any content or material
that is "indecent."

The CDA outlines affirmative defenses for persons or entities who
might otherwise be liable under the statute's criminal provisions.

In spite of the efforts of Sen. Exon to address in this revision of
his legislation those criticisms and constitutional issues raised by
earlier drafts of it, the language of the CDA as passed by the Senate
is riddled with flaws that threaten the First Amendment rights both of
online service providers and of individual citizens.

THE CDA WOULD CRIMINALIZE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH.

None of the CDA's prohibitions of "obscene" communications raise any
constitutional issues; it is well-settled law that obscene content is
not protected under the Constitution. In contrast, CDA's restrictions
on "indecent" speech are deeply problematic.

What is "indecent" speech and what is its significance? In general,
"indecent" speech is nonobscene material that deals explicitly with
sex or that uses profane language. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
stated that such "indecency" is Constitutionally protected. Further,
the Court has stated that indecent speech cannot be banned altogether
-- not even in broadcasting, the single communications medium in which
the federal government traditionally has held broad powers of content
control.

The section of the CDA dealing with "obscene or harassing"
communications penalizes not only the sending of "obscene"
communications, but also those that are "indecent." This prohibition
of indecent content, even though limited somewhat in application by
the section's intent requirement, is unconstitutional on its face.

In Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), a case involving dial-in
phone-sex services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, even though a
ban on *obscenity* in "dial-a-porn" services is constitutional, a ban
on *indecency* is not. Citing earlier holdings, the Court said that
"[t]he government may not reduce the adult population to only what is
fit for children."

What are some examples of "indecent" content? The most famous example
probably is the George Carlin comedy monologue that was the basis of
the Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). In that
monologue, Carlin discusses the "Seven Dirty Words" that cannot be
uttered in broadcast media. Other examples of "indecency" could
include passages from John Updike or Erica Jong novels, certain rock
lyrics, and Dr. Ruth Westheimer's sexual-advice column. Under the CDA,
it would be criminal to "knowingly" publish such material on the
Internet unless children were affirmatively denied access to it. It's
as if the manager of a Barnes & Noble outlet could be sent to jail
simply because children could wander the bookstore's aisles and search
for the racy passages in a Judith Krantz or Harold Robbins novel.

The Supreme Court has consistently held, both before and after its
landmark obscenity decision in Miller v. California (1973), that while
sexual material and profane language can be regulated in some
specifically defined contexts (e.g., the FCC can require that
"indecent" content in broadcasting be limited to certain hours of the
broadcasting schedule when children are less likely to be exposed), in
general indecency is fully protected by the First Amendment. The Court
has even recognized that profane language may be essential to
political speech, since the emotional power of particular words may be
as important as their intellectual content. As Justice Harlan
commented in Cohen v. California (1971), "One man's vulgarity is
another's lyric."

It's important to note that not every application of this part of the
CDA would be unconstitutional. If the "obscene or harassing" offense
language been limited to instances in which the speaker intends to
"threaten," it would have raised no constitutional problems. (A threat
of blackmail or physical violence, for example, is not protected
speech.) But the CDA goes beyond threats -- it criminalizes the use
of "indecent" language even when the speaker merely intends for his
content to be "annoying," and this prohibition treads squarely on
speakers' First Amendment rights. After all, the First Amendment was
drafted to protect offensive, annoying, and disturbing speech -- there
is little need for protection of pleasant and uncontroversial speech,
since few people feel impelled to ban it. As Justice Douglas observed
in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), free speech "may best serve its high
purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction
with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." For
example, a citizen offended by the passage of the CDA who shouts an
indecent comment at his U.S. Senator may very well intend to annoy the
Senator -- nevertheless, such expression is protected under the First
Amendment. It is constitutionally absurd that speech that would be
protected if shouted on the street would turn the speaker into a felon
if sent by e-mail.

BY GRANTING THE FCC REGULATORY CONTROL OVER THE CONTENT AND
AVAILABILITY OF COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, THE CDA VIOLATES THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.

Is it constitutional for Congress to declare that computer
communications are a medium like broadcasting, where it is allowable
for the FCC to impose content-related regulations? Clearly not. Prior
to Sen. Exon's proposed changes to Section 223, the FCC has had
content control over only two specific types of communications media:

(1) broadcasting media like TV and radio (and broadcasting-related
technologies, such as cable TV), and

(2) the narrow class of telephone-based commercial services that
requires the assistance and support of government-regulated common
carriers.

In no other communications medium does the government have the
constitutional authority to impose broad regulation of indecent
content.

The justification for the federal government's special role in
regulation of broadcasting is twofold. The first rationale for such a
broad regulatory role was the "scarcity of frequencies" argument,
which appears the Supreme Court's decision in Red Lion Broadcasting
Co. v. FCC (1969). In that case, the Court held that there is a finite
number of workable broadcasting frequencies, and that the scarcity of
this important public resource entails that the airwaves be allocated
and supervised by the federal government in order to best serve the
public interest. The second rationale for a special government role in
broadcasting appears in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (the "Seven Dirty
Words" case discussed above). In this case the Court argued that
broadcasting is an especially "pervasive" medium that intrudes into
the privacy of the home, creating a constant risk that adults will be
exposed to offensive material, and children to indecent material,
without warning.

The justification for regulation of the telephone-based services is
grounded in the government's special role in supervising common
carriers. Since the telephone systems of this country, many of which
amount to monopolies, are common carriers, they are appropriately
under the jurisdiction of the FCC. It makes sense for phone-sex
services, which rely on the cooperation of common carriers, to fall
under FCC jurisdiction as well.

*Neither the broadcasting rationales nor the common-carrier rationale
support government content control over computer communications.*

First of all, the new medium of computer-based communications -- which
may take place over everything from large-scale Internet access
providers and commercial conferencing systems to the PC-based
bulletin-board system running in a hobbyist's basement -- isn't
afflicted with "scarcity." Computing hardware itself is increasingly
inexpensive, for example, and one of the basic facts of modern
computer communication is that whenever you add a computer to the
Internet, you *increase* the Internet's size and capabilities.

Secondly, computer-based communications aren't "pervasive" as that
term is used in the Pacifica case. In the world of broadcasting,
content is "pushed" at audiences by TV and radio stations and
broadcasting networks -- audiences are primarily passive recipients of
programming. In computer communications, in contrast, content is
*pulled* by users from various locations and resources around the
globe through the Internet or from the huge data servers maintained by
services like Prodigy and American Online. Exposure to content is
primary *driven by user choice*. For users with even minimal
experience, there is little risk of unwitting exposure to offensive or
indecent material.

Finally, online service providers aren't common carriers and don't
want to be -- it is the nature of this kind of service that providers
must reserve the right to make certain basic choices about content. In
contrast, a common carrier like AT&T or BellSouth has to "take all
comers." (If online service providers were treated as common carriers,
we might imagine a day when the FCC requires that an NAACP-sponsored
BBS carry hateful messages from members of the Ku Klux Klan.)

In sum, the narrow constitutional justifications for content
regulation of two specific types of media do not extend to the
traditional print media, films or oral conversations. Clearly, there
is no Constitutional rationale for extending intrusive
content-regulatory control to online communications. This means that
the CDA's "shoehorning" of online communications into the jurisdiction
of the FCC is itself unconstitutional.

It is clear that Congress could not constitutionally grant the FCC the
power to tell The New Yorker not to print profane language -- even
though *children* might come across a copy of The New Yorker. Surely
it is equally clear that Congress cannot grant the FCC the authority
to dictate how providers like Netcom and CompuServe handle content
that contains such language.

COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS POSE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND REQUIRE DIFFERENT
SOLUTIONS FROM THOSE OF OTHER MEDIA.

Even if the federal government had the constitutional authority to
regulate indecency in computer communications, it would be required by
the First Amendment to employ only the "least restrictive means" in
doing so. In the Sable case, Court noted that there are less
restrictive means than a total ban for protecting children from
indecent content on phone-sex services. These include such measures as
requiring various procedures to verify customers' ages and to deny
services to minors.

The Exon language creates an affirmative defense for online service
providers who implement the same types of procedures that the FCC now
requires of phone-sex services. But what works for phone-sex services
clearly would not work for computer-communications services. In this
fundamentally different medium, those FCC-enforced procedures are not
a "least restrictive means" -- in fact, they are potentially among the
most restrictive.

The language that penalizes anyone who "makes or makes available"
indecent content to a minor would require an access provider like
Netcom to cease carrying the entire alt.sex.* hierarchy, the great
majority of which is First-Amendment-protected speech. Suppose Netcom
tried to avail itself of legal immunity for transmitting indecency by,
say, limiting subscriber access to the "indecent" Usenet newsgroups to
Netcom subscribers age 18 or over. Since Netcom, like all Internet
access providers, is also a Usenet distribution node, *the company
would still be liable*, since, by passing "indecent" Usenet traffic
through, it would "make available" that indecent content to minors
elsewhere on the Net who aren't Netcom customers.

Note: this analysis is not meant to imply that *no* government
regulation of computer communications would meet the "least
restrictive means." As a practical matter, this medium is *uniquely
suited* to measures that simultaneously protect sensitive users and
children from offensive content and allow the full range of
constitutionally protected speech on the Net. Since both the computers
that users employ to read the Net and those that providers use to
administer the Net are highly intelligent and programmable devices, it
is relatively easy to design tools that individuals can use to filter
offensive content and that parents can use to screen content for their
children. The government's promotion of the development and
implementation of such tools, if done in a way consistent with First
Amendment guarantees, would likely qualify as a "least restrictive
means."

Furthermore, there are constitutional reasons for favoring policies
that empower individuals and families to make their own content
choices. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court acknowledged
that the right of parents to determine what is appropriate for their
children is constitutionally protected. Filtering tools could be the
fundamental means of preserving family values while exploring global
computer networks.

ADULTS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO ONLY WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.

The effect of the CDA's provisions regarding indecent content and
minors would be both dramatic and disastrous. If enacted, the CDA
would effectively turn all the public areas of the Net -- and all of
the distributed global conferencing system known as Usenet -- into the
equivalent of the Children's Room at the public library.
Traditionally, every large public library has a Children's Room -- a
confined area of the library with content deemed safe for children.
Outside of the Children's Room, the rest of the library is geared
toward, and available to, adults.

The Exon language would turn the Net as a whole into the *inverse* of
the public library -- the public spaces, including Usenet, would be
regulated as safe for children, while adults would have to talk about
adult content (detailed discussions of sexual content in the work of
James Joyce, explanations of Shakespeare's bawdy puns, or descriptions
of proper techniques for safe sex, to name some examples) in confined,
nonpublic (and probably non-global) subforums or "rooms." There would
be no more wide-ranging debates with the full set of potential
international participants about the merits of THE SATANIC VERSES --
after all, that book has indecent content. We'd have to be content
with the narrower range of participants we could lure to an "adult"
room on CompuServe or AOL -- a small group of paying subscribers
rather than a large population of discussants from commercial and
noncommercial systems alike. The CDA would diminish and perhaps
destroy the intellectual diversity and vibrancy of the Net.

CONCLUSION

The CDA represents the kind of "top-down," government-centered attempt
to regulate the content that demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the nature of this new medium. Legislation like the CDA -- particular
when based on regulatory approaches for wholly different media -- are
certain to create more practical and constitutional problems than they
solve. It is especially ironic that the Exon amendment, which would
chill the development of online services and communities and "dumb
down" the content of the Net's public spaces to a grade-school level,
has been attached to a bill deregulating communications
infrastructure. This deregulation has been presented as a boost to the
pace of development of the very technology to support these services
and communities.

EFF believes that parents, not Congress or the FCC, have the primary
right and responsibility to determine what is appropriate for their
children to see. Furthermore, it is clearly wrong for Congress to
attempt to make outlaws out of adults for engaging in public speech
that may not be suitable for minors. As Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter ruled in Butler v. Michigan (1957):

"The State insists that, by thus quarantining the general reading
public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order
to shield juvenile innocence, it is exercising its power to promote
the general welfare. Surely this is to burn the house to roast the
pig. The incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population
of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children."

And a legislative approach that was bad for the adult population of
Michigan nearly 40 years ago is surely just as bad for the adult
population of the Net today.

For More Information Contact:

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Mike Godwin Shari Steele (voice) +1.202.861.7700

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 10:38 EST
From: "AMERICAN EAGLE PUBLICATION INC." <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Dole and Exon Bills

I've been reading CuD about the Dole/Grassey bill and the Exon bill to
limit pornography on the net, and for the most part I just haven't
cared too much about it. I don't mess with that stuff at all,
personally, so I really don't give a lick about whether its there or
not. I am not real hot to outlaw it simply because my view of the
first amendment is fairly generous. On the other hand, I have no use
for it, and if every computer that had it on were fried tomorrow, it
wouldn;t bother me one bit. So when I've seen these pleas to "contact
your representatives" I've just yawned and gone on with life.

This morning, however, I woke up and something clicked. I remembered
that the NSA had a three-step plan to outlaw cryptography. Clipper was
step one. Could THIS be step two? At first it sounds crazy, but maybe
not. If I were a strategist for the NSA I'd guess it wouldn't be too
hard to ram such a bill through congress, given a little bit of the
right press and publicity (which just seems to be happening at the
right time). I'd also realize that such laws would be totally
unenforceable as long as good crypto was available to the general
public. So by passing an electronic porno law, I'd be able to
precipitate a law-enforcement crisis which would necessitate an anti-
crypto law. And it would be one that a multitude of Americans would
support out of fear for their children's safety.

Could it be? Whether it is or not, though, I hope my point is clear:
here in America, we're flushing our freedoms down the toilet as fast
as we can grab for security and safety. That's foolish beyond measure!
Like myself, you may not care anything for pornography, but realize
that one thing leads to another. Today, pornography, tommorow,
cryptography, and the day after that your front door gets slammed in
at 2 a.m. by jack-booted police. Until we're willing to defend even
what is distateful to us IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM--because we love
freedom and value it more than our own personal peace--then we'll be
divided and conquored.

I went to Argentina last fall for a conference on computer hacking and
I saw a lot of people who really did love freedom more than we do
here. Hackers, virus writers and computer security professionals sat
in the same room and talked. Not because they agreed--they argued--but
there was a good spirit to it. Here in America, most of the security
types seem to want to shut the hackers and virus writers up, and pass
laws. The argentines have had dictators enough to value their freedom
to the point that they'll even put up with something distatesful.
They'll sit and listen to Zarathustra, a virus writer who says he's
out to destroy your data, and seek a solution with technology,
believing they can beat him, rather than trying to put him behind
bars.

We need to learn from that. These bills are a good place to start.
Please fight them because you love freedom, even if you'd rather not
see porn on the net. And if you have children (as I do) and you're
concerned for them growing up in a wild and crazy world (as I am)
consider this: If you merely seek to outlaw everything that is bad or
distasteful, then you're teaching them that the law is the sum of all
morality. Whatever is illegal is bad and whatever is legal is ok.
However, if you put your ideals first, and defend them while
recognizing that you have a responsibility to govern yourself and
choose what is good and shun what is bad, then you'll teach your
children to live by their ideals regardless of what other men do,
instead of being undisciplined idiots who must be hemmed in by a
multitude of laws. Your actions speak a thousand times louder than
your words.

--Mark Ludwig

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 08:56:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--(fwd) Cinci computer connection confiscated (fwd)

[email protected] (chris dossman)

The Hamilton County Sheriffs office has confiscated $100,000.00 worth
of computer equiptment from the Cincinnati Computer Connection, a BBS
whose focus is on E-Mail and computer files.

Simon Leis, Hamilton County Sheriff, who has made a polical career
from driving pornography out of the cinti. limits organized a
"Computer Task Force" whose primary purpose was to limit fraud via
electronic communications. Simon Leis has decided that there are no
community standards.

The media depicts the situation as a case of child pornography, as
with the Exon bill with the Internet. Of 80,000 files on CCC's drives,
40 contained nudity.(no child pornography.)

We in Cincinnati need support to stop this attrocity. We have
organized a group of 5000 on a local level, but feel that this
situation needs national attention. The problem as we see it is that
the media is attempting to bring public attention to the fact that
this is a matter of pornography and anyone who opposes the Exon bill
must advocate child pornography. While Im sure the majority does not
advocate child pornography, we all must advocate the first ammendment.
Please help any way you can.

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

Date: Thu, 22 June, 1995 21:23:45 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Baker "Rape Story" Case thrown out by Judge (excerpt)

COMPUTER `RAPE' CASE THROWN OUT BY JUDGE

A judge threw out charges Wednesday against a University of Michigan
student who wrote fantasies on the Internet about raping and killing a
classmate.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said Jake Baker expressed no intent
of actually carrying out such acts. He said the tale was "only a
rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction."

((The story summarizes the case, in which Jake Baker wrote a
snuff-rape fantasy posted to alt.sex.stories))

"The government's enthusiastic beginning petered out to a salvage
effort once it recognized that the communication which so much alarmed
the University of Michigan officials was only a rather savage and
tasteless piece of fiction," Cohn wrote.

Cohn said Baker's story about a fellow student would have been
better handled as a disciplinary matter by the university.

((The story indicated that the prosecution might appeal)).

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:46:50 -0701
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: [email protected](Zine Net)
Subject: File 6--Zine Net...The Place for Zines

Zine.Net - Your guide to the chaotic world of self-publishing

I am proud to announce ZINE.NET, the new and exciting way for
zine publishers to get the most out of the World Wide Web.
You can find us at http://www.zine.net

What is Zine.Net?

Zine.Net is THE resource on the Internet for information on the
vast assortment of independent, self-published zines. It serves
as a centralized starting point for both zines created on our
server as well as pointers to existing zine sites. Our goal is
unique in that we want to generate sales for printed (hard copy)
zines. We sincerely believe the most effective method for doing
this is by allowing a reader to SAMPLE BEFORE THEY BUY. This will
be in the form of choosing a couple of selections from a zine,
converting them to HTML, and then making them available for
reading from our web site, www.zine.net.

Additionally, our research has indicated the following...

#1. Potential zine buyers are MUCH more likely to read Web based
articles than plain text, since the Web version can include
formatted text and graphics (making it considerably more
attractive).

#2. Most zine publishers don't have the time and/or resources
to produce Web versions of their printed zines.

#3. Zine publishers cannot afford an overpriced computer consultant
to design their Web site.

That's where Zine.Net comes in. We will produce a web sampler
version of your zine for the low price of $20.00. This will include
the following...

- A Scan of your zine's cover
- ASCII to HTML conversion of any two articles (you choose the
ones you want to feature)
- Scanning of artwork to accompany your articles, up to 6 images
total
- First month's inclusion on our server and in the Zine.Net
directory

How can we offer this at such a low price? Simply put, we are only
trying to break even with limited revenue from participating zine
publishers. We plan to solicit advertisers to sponsor or co-sponsor
different areas of the site for a nominal fee. As we grow, so will
the exposure for potential advertisers AND the individual zine.

From the users perspective, Zine.Net will provide an easy and well-
organized way to search and read from the current wave of
published zines. By reading sample articles, instead of relying
solely on reviews, they will be able to make up their own mind
about the quality of each. Supplemental information on how to
purchase the printed version will be linked directly from the
articles.

We will include links to existing sites for free, plus offer
reasonable storage fees for zine publishers with existing Web
versions of their publications. Our goal is to offer exposure for
printed zines--by creating original web sites--as well as to aid
existing zine sites in expanding their readership.

Pricing is as follows....
----------------------------

$20.00 - Initial setup, includes HTML/Graphic conversion of two
articles from your zine (with up to 6 graphics total),
scan of the cover plus the first month on the Zine.Net
server.

$20.00 - Additional 6 months of your zine available on our site
(extension of above) after your initial month.

$30.00 - Both of the above - You save $10.00 and get both your
zines initial setup plus 7 months on our site.

Within the first 3 months we expect to sign up a minimum of 20
original zines and have links to over 200 zine related sites. We
will also be actively advertising Zine Net, both on the web and
in national publications, to ensure a steady influx of new visitors.
This means a greater audience for our site and your zine.

To get your zine on Zine Net, we require the following....

* Plain ASCII text versions of the two articles you would like
to feature. These can be FTP'd to ftp.zine.net and put in the
/incoming directory.

If you can't FTP files, you can send us a diskette in either Mac
or PC format. Once again, be sure the files are in plain text
format.

* Hard copy of your printed zine mailed to us. This will allow us
to scan the graphics and cover. Also, it will help us to make the
Web version resemble your printed copy as closely as possible.

* Short synopsis of your zines' theme, index of articles in the
issue, pricing/ordering information plus your email address.

* Check for either $20 for one month or $30 for 7 months. Includes
all setup fees. Checks should be made payable to "Zine Net".
Credit card orders can be processed by special arrangement.

That's all there is to it. You get the benefit of having your zine
showcased on a site that SPECIALIZES in web samplers of printed
zines. We solicit outside advertisers to help us attain our
financial goals. As traffic to Zine Net increases, we both win!

Please visit our site and feel free to drop me a note if you have
any additional questions.

Roy Batchelor ([email protected])

Zine Net
Suite 108
1211 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA. 95126-2900

http://www.zine.net

Roy Batchelor ([email protected])

Zine Net
Suite 108
1211 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA. 95126-2900

http://www.zine.net

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
(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/[email protected]
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
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)

JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD

The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~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 #7.52
************************************