Computer underground Digest    Sun  May 28, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 39
                          ISSN  1004-042X

      Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
      News Editor: 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
      Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #8.39 (Sun, May 28, 1996)

File 1--The Civil Liberies On-line Circus
File 2--Article #12 of France's proposed telecoms law
File 3--University of Wisconsin/Madison hires cyber-police
File 4--19 year old arrested for making terrorist threats
File 5--Nat'l Jrnl article sez net-activism is just political hicks
File 6--Cyber Sit-in
File 7--(fwd fyi) Internet a Broadcast Media?
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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

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

Date: 23 May 96 04:00:19 EDT
From: Lance Rose <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--The Civil Liberies On-line Circus

The Civil Liberties Online Circus:  Why Bother with Real Life When
We Can Yell About Heaven and Hell?

Civil liberties groups are rallying the troops of good netizens
against one absurd, banal evil after another.  What are today's
greatest hits?  (1) The CDA, (2) the crypto software battles, and
(3) the proposed NII copyright legislation.


It's understandable that civil liberties groups have to yell louder.
They need to combat the moves of powerful, well-connected industry
and political groups.  There's a sinking feeling, however, that they
might be losing a little perspective amidst all their exhorting.
Let's look at the 3 big battles mentioned above.

1.  The CDA has been labeled some sort of showdown on the future of
free speech on the Internet.  Hey, check your calendar -- we're
still in the prehistory of the digital era.  It's a little early for
showdowns when we're only learning how to crawl.  The current CDA
fight is just the latest battleground in a moral/legal debate that
in the past half century has stretched from books, to comic books,
to television, to telephone, to computer games, and now to online
transmissions.  This infinitely rewinding moral play may make for
good drama for some, but the real action on online free speech --
where there is some prospect for defining rights, rather than the
routine compromise between moralists and free speech advocates we
will inevitably see play out in the CDA  -- will be elsewhere.

How deeply are CDA opponents getting lost in the hype?  Check this
out:  One of their arguments against the CDA is that it wrongly
seeks to impose the "indecency" standard from television -- a
"pervasive" medium -- on the supposedly non-"pervasive" Internet.
This is a creditable legal argument (though it begs the question on
"pervasiveness" until the Su. Ct. gets its hands on the issue).
Another of their arguments is that if an indecency standard is
indeed applied to the Internet, it would be impossible to enforce
meaningfully, and would shut down practically all speech.  Whoa --
let's circle back to the top now.  Isn't an indecency standard of
some sort very much in place for television today?  And isn't
television a hugely popular mass medium, at the very center of U.S.
and other societies?

Seems these two arguments don't hang together, unless we all share
some very damning assessments of the current TV system, which is not
very likely.  In other words, the anti-CDA position is not logically
consistent -- it's just an all-out opposition to the CDA.  That's
fine, but let's at least recognize it for what it is, rather than a
position derived axiomatically from bedrock-strong First Amendment
first principles.  Some litigators among us, round about now, might
contend that good adversaries legitimately plead alternative
theories, but that's my point.   They're alternative theories, and
fairly mutually exclusive, to boot.

2.  On to the crypto battles.  Will common netizens have the right
to encrypt their messages without handing their encryption keys over
to the government?  Who knows, but there's lots of fighting going
on, and more doomsaying predictions that we're battling over the
deepest privacy questions ever.  The feds want our crypto keys, and
they've rolled out Clipper 3 now, just to show how belligerent they
are about it.  The civil liberties groups are running test cases,
grass roots campaigns, cultivating politician champions and pursuing
various other agendas in a truly all-out effort to save crypto for
all of us.

But what is crypto, really, but just an awkward way of hiding
things?  We're not talking about the underlying math, of course,
designed by guys next to whose intellects most of us are just chimps
in lab cages.  Rather, what is crypto used for?  It is used to hide
a message right in someone else's face.  It is like sticking a
self-incriminating note in a physical capsule that is uncrackably
hard and strong, then lobbing the capsule through the window of a
police station to sit in the middle of the floor among a bunch of
cops, powerless to open it up and figure out how to get the perp.
Gee, is that really the best way to hide a message (given that the
cops" first move will be to look outside for those responsible)?  Or
is it better to leave the cops blissfully unaware of the message's
existence, or its true nature, so they never even get close to the
point of having an encrypted message they're trying to crack?

You probably get the point by now.  Encryption rights are the brute
force, crude wood cudgel approach to achieving message secrecy.  Far
more elegant and effective means of attaining secrecy exist today,
and will be devised in the future.  That's where the action will be
after the dust has cleared on today's crypto rights battles, no
matter who "wins" them.

3.  The proposed "National Information Infrastructure" copyright
legislation.  There's a lot of fire and brimstone being spewed over
this one, but who has really looked at the proposed law?  There
ain't much there.

One part of the proposed law gives a copyright owner control over
"transmissions" of works online.  The opposing civil liberties
people say this will make browsing on the Net illegal.  What?

If the online copyright proposal would make browsing on the Net
illegal, then it's already illegal today.  That's right.  Copyright
owners today control rights to make "copies" of their works.  If you
copy my text on your computer, even in RAM, you've made a copy of my
work, and theoretically violated my copyright.  Then why aren't
copyright owners already suing everyone on the Internet?  Because,
first, the very way the Net works is by people putting up materials
for others to browse.  Second, enforcement against individual
browsing users is nearly impossible.  Third, browsing users have a
very, very good argument that anyone who voluntarily places their
materials into an online environment where it will be routinely and
customarily browsed implicitly licenses such use of their materials.

If the new proposal turns the current "copying" right into a
so-called "transmission" right when it happens across a network,
this is no more than a change in terminology.  The same factors
described above apply as much to "transmissions" involving browsing
users as to "copying" involving browsing users.

The other major part of the proposed law makes various efforts to
hack copy protection schemes illegal.  Why are some people concerned
about this?  Have you seen the Web lately?  We're not exactly
suffering an information shortage.  Copy protection will take some
stuff out of the public flow, but probably not a whole lot.  What we
do have right now are some very wary publishers, unwilling to make
certain investments in online information unless they know they can
protect it heavily if they feel a need to do so.  We also have a
bunch of hackers who are indeed ready to grab anything they can get
their hands on, the more protected the better.  So this part of the
law calms the publishers down, tells them it's safe to go in the
water.  Does it really consign the Net to hell, as some civil
liberties groups seem to think, merely to give some legal protection
to copy protection devices?  No.


Here comes the part that you may find hard to believe:  in all the
battles mentioned above, I personally side with the civil liberties
groups every single time.  Then why the criticisms?  It looks like
these groups, with their admirable principles and agendas, are
increasingly getting lost in hyperbole and losing important
perspective.  Frankly, the shrillness is beginning to hurt my ears.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:17:03 +0100
From: Jean-Bernard Condat <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Article #12 of France's proposed telecoms law

  Paris, May 23, 1996: There is an EC regulation called which applies to
all EC countries.
This restricts the use of cryptography in the context of weapons of
mass destruction, but not for any other purpose. The UK also has an
export licensing requirement which is similar in scope. France, on
the other hand, has much wider restrictions.  The EC regulation is
"Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations" and the UK
is "Export of Goods (Control) Order".

  Attached is a message containing the pending French legislation,
followed by some comments. I hope this is helpful to readers on both
sides of the pond.

[Tuesday, 07 May 96 08:30:54 EST, "jean-bernard condat" <[email protected]>
writte:]
---------------
     Art. 12

     Article  28  of  the  Law No. 90-1170 dated December 29, 1990, on
     telecommunications regulation is hereby amended as follows:

     I - Section I is hereby amended as follows:

     1)  The  first  paragraph  shall  be  completed  by the following
     phrase: "Secret coding method denotes all materials  or  programs
     conceived or modified for the same purpose."

     2)  The  second  and  third paragraphs are hereby replaced by the
     following provisions:

     "To  preserve  the interests of national defense and the internal
     or  external  security  of  the  State,  while   permitting   the
     protection   of   information   and  the  development  of  secure
     communications and transactions,

     1) the use of a secret coding method or service shall be:

     a) allowed freely:

     -  if  the  secret  coding  method  or service does not allow the
     assurance of confidentiality, particularly when it  can  only  be
     used  to  authenticate a communication or ensure the integrity of
     the transmitted message;

     -  or  if  the  method or the service assures confidentiality and
     uses only coding conventions managed according to the  procedures
     and  by  an organization approved under the conditions defined in
     Section II;

     b)  subject  to  the authorization of the Prime Minister in other
     cases.

     2)  the  supply,  importation from countries not belonging to the
     European Community, and exportation of secret coding  methods  as
     well as services:

     a)  shall  require  the prior authorization of the Prime Minister
     when they assure confidentiality; the authorization  may  require
     the supplier to reveal the identity of the purchaser;

     b) shall require declaration in other cases."

     3)  A decree sets the conditions under which the declarations are
     signed and the authorizations  approved.   This  decree  provides
     for:

     a)  a  simplified  system  of  declaration  or  authorization for
     certain types of methods or services or for certain categories of
     users;

     b) the substitution of the declaration for the authorization, for
     transactions concerning secret coding methods or  services  whose
     technical  characteristics or conditions of use, while justifying
     a certain attention being paid with regard to the  aforementioned
     interests,  do  not  require  the  prior  authorization  of these
     transactions;

     c)   the   waiver  of  all  prior  formalities  for  transactions
     concerning secret coding  methods  or  services  whose  technical
     characteristics   or   conditions   of  use  are  such  that  the
     transactions are not capable of damaging the interests  mentioned
     at the beginning of this paragraph.

     II - Section II is hereby replaced by the following provisions:

     "II  -  Organizations  responsible  for  managing,  on  behalf of
     others, the coding  conventions  for  secret  coding  methods  or
     services  that  allow  the  assurance  of confidentiality must be
     approved in advance by the Prime Minister.

     They  are  obligated  to maintain professional confidentiality in
     the exercise of their approved activities.

     The approval shall specify the methods and services that they may
     use or supply.

     They shall be responsible to preserve the coding conventions that
     they manage. Within the framework of application of the  Law  No.
     91-646  dated  July  10,  1991, concerning the confidentiality of
     correspondence  sent  via  telecommunications,  and  within   the
     framework  of investigations made under the rubric of Articles 53
     et seq. and 75 et seq. of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  they
     must  release  them  to  judicial  authorities  or  to  qualified
     authorities, or implement them according to their request.

     They must exercise their activities on domestic soil.

     A  decree in the Council of State sets the conditions under which
     these organizations shall be approved, as well as the  guarantees
     which the approval shall require; it specifies the procedures and
     the  technical  provisions  allowing  the  enforcement   of   the
     obligations indicated above.

     III  -  a)  Without  prejudice  to the application of the Customs
     Code, the  fact  of  supplying,  importing  from  a  country  not
     belonging  to  the  European  Community,  or  exporting, a secret
     coding method or  service,  without  having  obtained  the  prior
     authorization mentioned in I or in violation of the conditions of
     the  granted  approval,  shall  be  punishable  by   six   months
     imprisonment and a fine of FF 200,000.

     The fact of managing, on behalf of others, the coding conventions
     for secret coding methods or services that allow the assurance of
     confidentiality,  without  having obtained the approval mentioned
     in II or in violation of the conditions of this approval,  shall
     be punishable by two years imprisonment and a fine of FF 300,000.

     The  fact of supplying, importing from a country not belonging to
     the European Community, or exporting, a secret coding  method  or
     service,  in order to facilitate the preparation or commission of
     a felony or misdemeanor,  shall  be  punishable  by  three  years
     imprisonment and a fine of FF 500,000.

     The  attempt to commit the infractions mentioned in the preceding
     paragraphs shall be punishable by the same penalties.

     b)  The natural persons guilty of the infractions mentioned under
     a) shall  incur  the  complementary  penalties  provided  for  in
     Articles   131-19,   131-21,  and  131-27,  as  well  as,  either
     indefinitely or for  a  period  of  five  years  or  longer,  the
     penalties  provided  for  in  Articles  131-33  and 131-34 of the
     Criminal Code.

     c)  Judicial  persons  may be declared criminally responsible for
     the  infractions  defined  in  the  first  paragraph  under   the
     conditions  provided  for  in Article 121-2 of the Criminal Code.
     The penalties incurred by judicial persons are:

     1)  the  fine according to the modalities provided for by Article
     131-38 of the Criminal Code;

     2)  the penalties mentioned in the Article L.  131-39 of the same
     code. The prohibition mentioned in 2) of this article  L.  131-39
     concerns  activities,  during  the  exercise  of which, or on the
     occasion of the exercise of which, the infraction was committed."

     III - Section III becomes IV.

     Its   last   paragraph   is  hereby  replaced  by  the  following
     provisions:

     "The  fact  of refusing to supply information or documents, or of
     obstructing the progress of the investigations mentioned in  this
     section  IV, shall be punishable by six months imprisonment and a
     fine of FF 200,000."

     IV - Section IV becomes V.

     After the word "authorizations," the words "and declarations" are
     hereby inserted.

     V - A section VI is hereby added, formulated as follows:

     "VI  -  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not hinder the
     application of the Decree dated April 18, 1939, establishing  the
     regulation of war materials, arms, and munitions, to those secret
     coding methods which are specially conceived or modified to allow
     or facilitate the use or manufacture of arms."

     VI  -  This  article is applicable to overseas territories and to
     the territorial commonwealth of Mayotte.

                   Copyright 1996 Steptoe & Johnson LLP

     Steptoe  & Johnson LLP grants permission for the contents of this
     publication to be reproduced and  distributed  in  full  free  of
     charge,  provided that: (i) such reproduction and distribution is
     limited to educational and professional non-profit use only  (and
     not  for  advertising  or  other  use); (ii) the reproductions or
     distributions make no edits or changes in this  publication;  and
     (iii) all reproductions and distributions include the name of the
     author(s) and the copyright notice(s) included  in  the  original
     publication.
 ---------------
In trying to analyze the impact of the proposed law, I would note
the following:

Section I:

Paragraph 1 (a), first bullet, seems to explicitly allow digital
signatures, and does not require that the secret keys used for such
purposes be escrowed.

Paragraph 1 (a), second bullet, in combination with Section II,
strongly hints at a requirement for key escrow. Conceivably,
depending on the details of Law No 91-646 dated July 10, 1991
concerning the confidentiality of correspondence sent via
telecommunications, the use of short keys that might expose
information to unauthorized individuals (a la the IBM masked DES
and Lotus Notes solution) might even be prohibited!

Paragraph 1 (b) provides an escape clause for certain favored
activities (and/or organizations?). Presumably international
standards such as Visa/MasterCard's SET, which apply strong
confidentiality to only certain data fields, notably the
cardholders account number, would be permitted under this kind of
an exception.  Banking transactions and other sensitive information
may also be excluded from the key escrow requirement, especially if
(since) the Government could subpoena the bank's records directly.
This is further borne out by paragraph 3, (a, b, and c).

Paragraph 1 seems to apply to the use of encryption, as opposed to
the supply, import, or export. However, unless such use is covered
by Law No. 91-646, the proposed amendment does not seem to apply
criminal or civil penalties to such use.

Paragraph 2 is interesting, in that it differentiates between
"supply" and "importing from countries not belonging to the
European community". This may be a techni-cality of the European
Community import/export laws -- perhaps importation from countries
within the European Community no longer has any meaning, since such
customs barriers were supposed to have been removed. I would
interpret "supply" to include the offering for sale, or even
distributing for free, such code, even by a French citizen. This
would therefore appear to apply to the (re-)distribution of PGP
and/or any home-grown French products, as well as any encryption
products originating within the EC. If so, this would seem to be
more even-handed with respect to imports from the US and elsewhere
than might otherwise appear, and may obviate any claim that the law
would violate the World Trade Organization's Most Favored Nation
agreements. The apparent import preference for EC products simply
reflect's France's obligation to allow the free flow of goods
within the EC.

Paragraph 3 seems to provide for some simplified administrative
mechanisms that may be less onerous than a case by case review. IN
US terms, this may be similar to requesting a commodity
jurisdiction from Commerce, rather than having encryption being
construed as following under the ITARs. If so, we should certainly
investigate these options. Subparagraphs b and c may apply to the
use of relatively short keys, or for transactions of limited scope,
e.g., for SET.

Section II defines conditions for establishing and approving escrow
agencies.  Given the requirement for "professional
confidentiality", I would not be at all surprised if the civil law
"notaires" didn't jump at the chance to get into this business.

The requirement that they exercise their activities on French soil
is rather obscure.  The prior language doesn't explicitly say that
anything about escrow, nor where the escrowed keys must be
maintained -- it only talks about the management of coding
conventions, and the requirement to comply with the requirements of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which presumably requires that they
divulge the keys and/or the text of any confidential messages upon
demand by a proper authority. But a literal reading of the text
would suggest that a standards organization that manages and
preserves the coding conventions would have to carry out their
activities on French soil, while the escrow repository might be
elsewhere.

Section III certainly makes it clear that they are serious about
all this.  The natural persons who have committed, or even
attempted to commit acts in violation of the Act are subject to
fines and imprisonment, and I would hazard a guess that the
Articles 131-33 and 131-34 would debar them from participating in
any future importing or exporting.

Corporations (judicial persons) may be held criminally responsible
for any infractions caused by their employees, and I would assume
that Article 131-39 would also lead to a debarment for future
import or export, in exactly the same manner as US export
violations would.

Section VI makes the Act applicable to overseas territories, which
means that some of the more obscure areas and countries would also
be covered, such as French Guiana, etc.

Disclaimer: I am not a French attorney, nor someone who is at all
knowledgeable about EC law. The preceding analysis should not be
construed as any kind of an official position.  Go get your own
hired guns if you need advice!

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--University of Wisconsin/Madison hires cyber-police

[Now _this_ is a disturbing turn of events, though I suppose it was
inevitable. "Electronic recidivism rates?" --Declan]


// [email protected] // I do not represent the EFF // [email protected] //


Chicago Tribune
May 20, 1996 Monday, FINAL EDITION
NEWS; Pg. 3; ZONE: M; In the Midwest.
LENGTH: 317 words
BYLINE: Compiled by David Elsner.
DATELINE: MADISON, WISCONSIN

BODY:

 The University of Wisconsin -Madison is planning to hire a computer cop
to police the electronic traffic of its students and faculty.

 The "network investigator" would examine pranks, harassment, copyright
infringement, software thievery and other computer system misuses and
abuses, officials said.

                    ....................

 UW-Madison is now advertising the full-time post. Officials envision an
investigator who will track down, retrieve and restore offending
electronic communication. The evidence would be turned over to university
officials or police.

 Five years ago, relatively few students and faculty members had Internet
access and electronic mail, or e-mail. Today, university officials handle
50,000 separate computer accounts, and a part-time investigator has not
been able to keep up with the volume.

During the spring semester,
officials received an average of two to three complaints a week about
computer abuses, said Susan Puntillo, of UW-Madison's Division of
Information Technology.

 Years ago, warnings and reprimands generally sufficed. Even now, once
chastised, few repeat their offense. Puntillo estimated electronic
recidivism rates at less than 1 percent.

                    ....................

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 20:49:53 +0000
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--19 year old arrested for making terrorist threats

The first quotation is an AP article excerpt about a college student
arrested for making a terrorist threat via a Usenet post.

The second excerpt is the text of the actually message in question.

--- Excerpt 1 ----

NET THREAT IS TRACED TO STUDENT

SACRAMENTO (AP) - An Internet message declaring an "open season"
on state Sen. Tim Leslie because of the lawmaker's stance on
mountain lions has been traced to a 19-year-old college student in
El Paso, Texas, authorities say.
 Jose Eduardo Saavedra was arrested on a no-bail warrant based on
felony charges filed in Sacramento alleging that he had made
terrorist threats and threatened a public official, said El Paso
County sheriff's Sgt. Don Marshall.
 The computer message posted March 6 read: "Let's hunt Sen. Tim
Leslie for sport. ... I think it would be great" if he "were
hunted down and skinned and mounted for our viewing pleasure."
 Leslie, who pushed for a ballot measure that would have removed
special protections for mountain lions in California, expressed
relief that an arrest had been made but said the incident raised
"big new issues" about the use - and misuse - of the Internet.
                     ...............
 According to Al Locher of the Sacramento County district
attorney's office, Saavedra was tracked down by investigators
working on information from his Internet provider, Primenet of
Arizona.
---end excerpt---

 +++++++++++++++++++

--- Excerpt 2 ---
Path--news.primenet.com!zuma
From--Zuma <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
talk.environment,sci.environment,talk.politics.animals,rec.pets,ca.politics,rec
.pets.cats,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.food.veg,alt.save-the-earth
Subject--Re--Hunting Mountain Lions
Followup-To:
talk.environment,sci.environment,talk.politics.animals,rec.pets,ca.politics,rec
.pets.cats,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.food.veg,alt.save-the-earth
Date--6 Mar 1996 16:09:00 -0700
Organization--Primenet (602)395-1010
Lines--19
[email protected]
Message-ID--<[email protected]>
References--<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
[email protected]
Xref--news.primenet.com talk.environment:58565 sci.environment:94565
talk.politics.animals:67399 rec.pets:57445 ca.politics:97674
rec.pets.cats:152834 rec.animals.wildlife:11723 rec.food.veg:78925

Instead of huntng Lions in California, let us declare open season
on State SEN Tim Leslie, his family, everyone he holds near and
dear, the Cattlemen's association and anyone else who feels that LIONS
in California should be killed.

I think it would be great to see ths slimeball, asshole, conservative
moron hunted down and skinned and mounted for our viewing pleasure.

I would rather see every right-wing nut like scumface Leslie destroyed
in the name of politicl sport, then lose one mountain lion whose only
fault is havng to live in a state with a fuck-ed up jerk like this
shit-faced republican and his supporters.

Pray for his death.  Pray for all their deaths.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:04:50 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Nat'l Jrnl article sez net-activism is just political hicks

Tommorrow, Washington's politically-powerful National Journal
reportedly will publish a know-nothing piece of "journalism" saying
that net-aided politics is essentially nothing but a batch of
ineffective, know-nothing nerds and back-water political hacks.

Check it out on Friday or thereafter -- at www.politicsusa.com -- and
forward your *informed* comments to the NJ's Editor and Letters
Editor.

--jim

On the other hand, maybe we ought to just continue escalating our
political effectiveness using the net, and let it come as a total
shock to the Beltway insiders who trust this piece of misinformed
blather ... when we provide more and more swing votes in contested
elections -- as already occured with DeFoley8 against ex-Speaker Tom
Foley, VTW for now-Senator Ron Wyden, me for now-available Calif
legislative data, the gun BBS against ex-Calif Senate Prez Pro Tem
David Roberti, etc.  :-)

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 96 12:15 EST
From: [email protected] <[email protected]
Subject: File 6--Cyber Sit-in

Well folks,

The CDA is STILL legal and AOL and other online providers, not to
mention the feds are still practicing censorship.  I suggest we each
make a statement.

CCA (Creative Coalition on AOL, now OFF AOL) a grass roots
organization which began when a bunch of AOL poets protested the daily
censorship of their poems by AOL, is holding a cyber sit-in
demonstration.  It is being sponsored by the ACLU.  This forum will
take place for 24 hours starting on June 2 at 6.a.m. EDT.  This will
be held in two places, one, right under the noses of AOL in the ACLU
Freedom Hall area of AOL.  There will be live chat and in the Freedom
of Expression folder there will be a place to post letters to your
congress persons as well as local editors of newspapers.  These will
be forwarded for you.  On the net, chat and bulletin boards will be at
http://www.stjpub.com/cca/

AOL poets, atheists, screenwriters, and netizens of every ilk are sick
of these crummy censorship practices.  CCA has represented all artists in
the quest for freedom of expression.  Now it is your turn to let your
voice be heard.  June 2, 24 hours, on AOL and CCA website, please join CCA
in their demonstration against censorship.


Jordanne Holyoak, media director, CCA
Dwain Kitchel, web liason, CCA
http://www.stjpub.com/cca/

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:02:14 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]
Subject: File 7--(fwd fyi) Internet a Broadcast Media?

Date--         Thu, 23 May 1996 15--01--44 EDT
From-- [email protected]
Subject--      Internet a Broadcast Media?

From DM News International, April 15, 1996:


          European Commission Wants Control Over WWW

                        by Thomas Weyr

Brussels - The European Commission has issued yet another draft of its
Television Without Frontiers directive, this one with a "legal
clarification" that widens the definition of broadcasting to include
the Internet.
    The "clarification" states that a moving or non-moving sequence of
images, whether or not accompanied by sound, constitutes a TV program.
    "I am very worried about this development," said Alistair Tempest,
director general of FEDIM (the Federation of European Direct
Marketing), "because broadcasting becomes anything but personal
correspondence and can be regulated."
    E-mail, Tempest noted, is excepted.  Anything else would be fair
game for national and European regulators, both from the broadcasting
and the telecom end.
    And such regulations could seriously crimp U.S. direct marketing
efforts on TV and over the Web.
    The struggle over updating the original TV Without Frontiers
directive -- first issued in 1989 -- has been underway for over a year.
The explosive growth of the WWW in recent months has served to
intensify the conflict.
    "This is a fascinating exercise in how European politics works,"
Tempest said.  He noted that the European Commission -- the
policy-making bureaucrats in Brussels -- had sent the directive to the
European parliament in Strasbourg without the expanded broadcast
definition.
    The parliament debated the issue late last year, and last month
returned the draft to the EC with a number of proposed amendments
including this one, which the commission then dutifully incorporated
into the new draft.
    The decision now rests with representatives of the member states
in Brussels, who can revise the directive once again or adopt it and
send it back to the member governments for reconciliation with national
laws.
    On March 22, experts from the 15 member countries held a meting
without coming to a conclusion.  "They agreed that the more important
issues, including this one, should be kicked upstairs to the council of
ministers for resolution," Tempest said.
    Agreement in principle, he added, might be reached next month,
with a common position worked out over the summer.  "I don't expect
anything concrete to come out till after the summer," he said.
    Fortunately for the direct marketing industry, FEDIM isn't the
only body up in arms about the implication of the new broadcast
definition.
    Software manufacturers like Mircosoft and programmers like Time
Warner and Polygram are also lobbying hard in Brussels to delete the
"clarification."
    "We have time to put pressure on them," Tempest said.

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

Posted by Adam Starchild
    The Offshore Entrepreneur at http://www.au.com/offshore<<

reposted : Gary D. Goodman

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 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:   [email protected]

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  [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) (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/[email protected]
        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 #8.39
************************************

From [email protected] Wed May 29 15:14 CDT 1996
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by sun.soci.niu.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
       id AA13631; Wed, 29 May 1996 15:14:33 -0500
Received: from MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU by MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1)
  with BSMTP id 7881; Wed, 29 May 96 15:14:22 LCL
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Date:    Wed, 29 May 96 15:13 CDT
To: [email protected]
From: Cu Digest ([email protected])  <[email protected]>
Subject: cud839.go
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 37535
Status: RO
X-Status:


Computer underground Digest    Sun  May 26, 1996   Volume 8 : Issue 39
                          ISSN  1004-042X

      Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
      News Editor: 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
      Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #8.39 (Sun, May 26, 1996)

File 1--The Civil Liberies On-line Circus
File 2--Article #12 of France's proposed telecoms law
File 3--University of Wisconsin/Madison hires cyber-police
File 4--19 year old arrested for making terrorist threats
File 5--Nat'l Jrnl article sez net-activism is just political hicks
File 6--Cyber Sit-in
File 7--(fwd fyi) Internet a Broadcast Media?
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)

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

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

Date: 23 May 96 04:00:19 EDT
From: Lance Rose <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--The Civil Liberies On-line Circus

The Civil Liberties Online Circus:  Why Bother with Real Life When
We Can Yell About Heaven and Hell?

Civil liberties groups are rallying the troops of good netizens
against one absurd, banal evil after another.  What are today's
greatest hits?  (1) The CDA, (2) the crypto software battles, and
(3) the proposed NII copyright legislation.


It's understandable that civil liberties groups have to yell louder.
They need to combat the moves of powerful, well-connected industry
and political groups.  There's a sinking feeling, however, that they
might be losing a little perspective amidst all their exhorting.
Let's look at the 3 big battles mentioned above.

1.  The CDA has been labeled some sort of showdown on the future of
free speech on the Internet.  Hey, check your calendar -- we're
still in the prehistory of the digital era.  It's a little early for
showdowns when we're only learning how to crawl.  The current CDA
fight is just the latest battleground in a moral/legal debate that
in the past half century has stretched from books, to comic books,
to television, to telephone, to computer games, and now to online
transmissions.  This infinitely rewinding moral play may make for
good drama for some, but the real action on online free speech --
where there is some prospect for defining rights, rather than the
routine compromise between moralists and free speech advocates we
will inevitably see play out in the CDA  -- will be elsewhere.

How deeply are CDA opponents getting lost in the hype?  Check this
out:  One of their arguments against the CDA is that it wrongly
seeks to impose the "indecency" standard from television -- a
"pervasive" medium -- on the supposedly non-"pervasive" Internet.
This is a creditable legal argument (though it begs the question on
"pervasiveness" until the Su. Ct. gets its hands on the issue).
Another of their arguments is that if an indecency standard is
indeed applied to the Internet, it would be impossible to enforce
meaningfully, and would shut down practically all speech.  Whoa --
let's circle back to the top now.  Isn't an indecency standard of
some sort very much in place for television today?  And isn't
television a hugely popular mass medium, at the very center of U.S.
and other societies?

Seems these two arguments don't hang together, unless we all share
some very damning assessments of the current TV system, which is not
very likely.  In other words, the anti-CDA position is not logically
consistent -- it's just an all-out opposition to the CDA.  That's
fine, but let's at least recognize it for what it is, rather than a
position derived axiomatically from bedrock-strong First Amendment
first principles.  Some litigators among us, round about now, might
contend that good adversaries legitimately plead alternative
theories, but that's my point.   They're alternative theories, and
fairly mutually exclusive, to boot.

2.  On to the crypto battles.  Will common netizens have the right
to encrypt their messages without handing their encryption keys over
to the government?  Who knows, but there's lots of fighting going
on, and more doomsaying predictions that we're battling over the
deepest privacy questions ever.  The feds want our crypto keys, and
they've rolled out Clipper 3 now, just to show how belligerent they
are about it.  The civil liberties groups are running test cases,
grass roots campaigns, cultivating politician champions and pursuing
various other agendas in a truly all-out effort to save crypto for
all of us.

But what is crypto, really, but just an awkward way of hiding
things?  We're not talking about the underlying math, of course,
designed by guys next to whose intellects most of us are just chimps
in lab cages.  Rather, what is crypto used for?  It is used to hide
a message right in someone else's face.  It is like sticking a
self-incriminating note in a physical capsule that is uncrackably
hard and strong, then lobbing the capsule through the window of a
police station to sit in the middle of the floor among a bunch of
cops, powerless to open it up and figure out how to get the perp.
Gee, is that really the best way to hide a message (given that the
cops" first move will be to look outside for those responsible)?  Or
is it better to leave the cops blissfully unaware of the message's
existence, or its true nature, so they never even get close to the
point of having an encrypted message they're trying to crack?

You probably get the point by now.  Encryption rights are the brute
force, crude wood cudgel approach to achieving message secrecy.  Far
more elegant and effective means of attaining secrecy exist today,
and will be devised in the future.  That's where the action will be
after the dust has cleared on today's crypto rights battles, no
matter who "wins" them.

3.  The proposed "National Information Infrastructure" copyright
legislation.  There's a lot of fire and brimstone being spewed over
this one, but who has really looked at the proposed law?  There
ain't much there.

One part of the proposed law gives a copyright owner control over
"transmissions" of works online.  The opposing civil liberties
people say this will make browsing on the Net illegal.  What?

If the online copyright proposal would make browsing on the Net
illegal, then it's already illegal today.  That's right.  Copyright
owners today control rights to make "copies" of their works.  If you
copy my text on your computer, even in RAM, you've made a copy of my
work, and theoretically violated my copyright.  Then why aren't
copyright owners already suing everyone on the Internet?  Because,
first, the very way the Net works is by people putting up materials
for others to browse.  Second, enforcement against individual
browsing users is nearly impossible.  Third, browsing users have a
very, very good argument that anyone who voluntarily places their
materials into an online environment where it will be routinely and
customarily browsed implicitly licenses such use of their materials.

If the new proposal turns the current "copying" right into a
so-called "transmission" right when it happens across a network,
this is no more than a change in terminology.  The same factors
described above apply as much to "transmissions" involving browsing
users as to "copying" involving browsing users.

The other major part of the proposed law makes various efforts to
hack copy protection schemes illegal.  Why are some people concerned
about this?  Have you seen the Web lately?  We're not exactly
suffering an information shortage.  Copy protection will take some
stuff out of the public flow, but probably not a whole lot.  What we
do have right now are some very wary publishers, unwilling to make
certain investments in online information unless they know they can
protect it heavily if they feel a need to do so.  We also have a
bunch of hackers who are indeed ready to grab anything they can get
their hands on, the more protected the better.  So this part of the
law calms the publishers down, tells them it's safe to go in the
water.  Does it really consign the Net to hell, as some civil
liberties groups seem to think, merely to give some legal protection
to copy protection devices?  No.


Here comes the part that you may find hard to believe:  in all the
battles mentioned above, I personally side with the civil liberties
groups every single time.  Then why the criticisms?  It looks like
these groups, with their admirable principles and agendas, are
increasingly getting lost in hyperbole and losing important
perspective.  Frankly, the shrillness is beginning to hurt my ears.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:17:03 +0100
From: Jean-Bernard Condat <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Article #12 of France's proposed telecoms law

  Paris, May 23, 1996: There is an EC regulation called which applies to
all EC countries.
This restricts the use of cryptography in the context of weapons of
mass destruction, but not for any other purpose. The UK also has an
export licensing requirement which is similar in scope. France, on
the other hand, has much wider restrictions.  The EC regulation is
"Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations" and the UK
is "Export of Goods (Control) Order".

  Attached is a message containing the pending French legislation,
followed by some comments. I hope this is helpful to readers on both
sides of the pond.

[Tuesday, 07 May 96 08:30:54 EST, "jean-bernard condat" <[email protected]>
writte:]
---------------
     Art. 12

     Article  28  of  the  Law No. 90-1170 dated December 29, 1990, on
     telecommunications regulation is hereby amended as follows:

     I - Section I is hereby amended as follows:

     1)  The  first  paragraph  shall  be  completed  by the following
     phrase: "Secret coding method denotes all materials  or  programs
     conceived or modified for the same purpose."

     2)  The  second  and  third paragraphs are hereby replaced by the
     following provisions:

     "To  preserve  the interests of national defense and the internal
     or  external  security  of  the  State,  while   permitting   the
     protection   of   information   and  the  development  of  secure
     communications and transactions,

     1) the use of a secret coding method or service shall be:

     a) allowed freely:

     -  if  the  secret  coding  method  or service does not allow the
     assurance of confidentiality, particularly when it  can  only  be
     used  to  authenticate a communication or ensure the integrity of
     the transmitted message;

     -  or  if  the  method or the service assures confidentiality and
     uses only coding conventions managed according to the  procedures
     and  by  an organization approved under the conditions defined in
     Section II;

     b)  subject  to  the authorization of the Prime Minister in other
     cases.

     2)  the  supply,  importation from countries not belonging to the
     European Community, and exportation of secret coding  methods  as
     well as services:

     a)  shall  require  the prior authorization of the Prime Minister
     when they assure confidentiality; the authorization  may  require
     the supplier to reveal the identity of the purchaser;

     b) shall require declaration in other cases."

     3)  A decree sets the conditions under which the declarations are
     signed and the authorizations  approved.   This  decree  provides
     for:

     a)  a  simplified  system  of  declaration  or  authorization for
     certain types of methods or services or for certain categories of
     users;

     b) the substitution of the declaration for the authorization, for
     transactions concerning secret coding methods or  services  whose
     technical  characteristics or conditions of use, while justifying
     a certain attention being paid with regard to the  aforementioned
     interests,  do  not  require  the  prior  authorization  of these
     transactions;

     c)   the   waiver  of  all  prior  formalities  for  transactions
     concerning secret coding  methods  or  services  whose  technical
     characteristics   or   conditions   of  use  are  such  that  the
     transactions are not capable of damaging the interests  mentioned
     at the beginning of this paragraph.

     II - Section II is hereby replaced by the following provisions:

     "II  -  Organizations  responsible  for  managing,  on  behalf of
     others, the coding  conventions  for  secret  coding  methods  or
     services  that  allow  the  assurance  of confidentiality must be
     approved in advance by the Prime Minister.

     They  are  obligated  to maintain professional confidentiality in
     the exercise of their approved activities.

     The approval shall specify the methods and services that they may
     use or supply.

     They shall be responsible to preserve the coding conventions that
     they manage. Within the framework of application of the  Law  No.
     91-646  dated  July  10,  1991, concerning the confidentiality of
     correspondence  sent  via  telecommunications,  and  within   the
     framework  of investigations made under the rubric of Articles 53
     et seq. and 75 et seq. of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  they
     must  release  them  to  judicial  authorities  or  to  qualified
     authorities, or implement them according to their request.

     They must exercise their activities on domestic soil.

     A  decree in the Council of State sets the conditions under which
     these organizations shall be approved, as well as the  guarantees
     which the approval shall require; it specifies the procedures and
     the  technical  provisions  allowing  the  enforcement   of   the
     obligations indicated above.

     III  -  a)  Without  prejudice  to the application of the Customs
     Code, the  fact  of  supplying,  importing  from  a  country  not
     belonging  to  the  European  Community,  or  exporting, a secret
     coding method or  service,  without  having  obtained  the  prior
     authorization mentioned in I or in violation of the conditions of
     the  granted  approval,  shall  be  punishable  by   six   months
     imprisonment and a fine of FF 200,000.

     The fact of managing, on behalf of others, the coding conventions
     for secret coding methods or services that allow the assurance of
     confidentiality,  without  having obtained the approval mentioned
     in II or in violation of the conditions of this approval,  shall
     be punishable by two years imprisonment and a fine of FF 300,000.

     The  fact of supplying, importing from a country not belonging to
     the European Community, or exporting, a secret coding  method  or
     service,  in order to facilitate the preparation or commission of
     a felony or misdemeanor,  shall  be  punishable  by  three  years
     imprisonment and a fine of FF 500,000.

     The  attempt to commit the infractions mentioned in the preceding
     paragraphs shall be punishable by the same penalties.

     b)  The natural persons guilty of the infractions mentioned under
     a) shall  incur  the  complementary  penalties  provided  for  in
     Articles   131-19,   131-21,  and  131-27,  as  well  as,  either
     indefinitely or for  a  period  of  five  years  or  longer,  the
     penalties  provided  for  in  Articles  131-33  and 131-34 of the
     Criminal Code.

     c)  Judicial  persons  may be declared criminally responsible for
     the  infractions  defined  in  the  first  paragraph  under   the
     conditions  provided  for  in Article 121-2 of the Criminal Code.
     The penalties incurred by judicial persons are:

     1)  the  fine according to the modalities provided for by Article
     131-38 of the Criminal Code;

     2)  the penalties mentioned in the Article L.  131-39 of the same
     code. The prohibition mentioned in 2) of this article  L.  131-39
     concerns  activities,  during  the  exercise  of which, or on the
     occasion of the exercise of which, the infraction was committed."

     III - Section III becomes IV.

     Its   last   paragraph   is  hereby  replaced  by  the  following
     provisions:

     "The  fact  of refusing to supply information or documents, or of
     obstructing the progress of the investigations mentioned in  this
     section  IV, shall be punishable by six months imprisonment and a
     fine of FF 200,000."

     IV - Section IV becomes V.

     After the word "authorizations," the words "and declarations" are
     hereby inserted.

     V - A section VI is hereby added, formulated as follows:

     "VI  -  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not hinder the
     application of the Decree dated April 18, 1939, establishing  the
     regulation of war materials, arms, and munitions, to those secret
     coding methods which are specially conceived or modified to allow
     or facilitate the use or manufacture of arms."

     VI  -  This  article is applicable to overseas territories and to
     the territorial commonwealth of Mayotte.

                   Copyright 1996 Steptoe & Johnson LLP

     Steptoe  & Johnson LLP grants permission for the contents of this
     publication to be reproduced and  distributed  in  full  free  of
     charge,  provided that: (i) such reproduction and distribution is
     limited to educational and professional non-profit use only  (and
     not  for  advertising  or  other  use); (ii) the reproductions or
     distributions make no edits or changes in this  publication;  and
     (iii) all reproductions and distributions include the name of the
     author(s) and the copyright notice(s) included  in  the  original
     publication.
---------------
In trying to analyze the impact of the proposed law, I would note the following:

Section I:

Paragraph 1 (a), first bullet, seems to explicitly allow digital signatures,
and does
not require that the secret keys used for such purposes be escrowed.

Paragraph 1 (a), second bullet, in combination with Section II, strongly
hints at a
requirement for key escrow. Conceivably, depending on the details of Law No
91-646 dated July 10, 1991 concerning the confidentiality of correspondence sent
via telecommunications, the use of short keys that might expose information to
unauthorized individuals (a la the IBM masked DES and Lotus Notes solution)
might even be prohibited!

Paragraph 1 (b) provides an escape clause for certain favored activities (and/or
organizations?). Presumably international standards such as Visa/MasterCard's
SET, which apply strong confidentiality to only certain data fields, notably
the
cardholders account number, would be permitted under this kind of an exception.
Banking transactions and other sensitive information may also be excluded from
the key escrow requirement, especially if (since) the Government could subpoena
the bank's records directly. This is further borne out by paragraph 3, (a,
b, and c).

Paragraph 1 seems to apply to the use of encryption, as opposed to the supply,
import, or export. However, unless such use is covered by Law No. 91-646, the
proposed amendment does not seem to apply criminal or civil penalties to
such use.

Paragraph 2 is interesting, in that it differentiates between "supply" and
"importing
from countries not belonging to the European community". This may be a techni-
cality of the European Community import/export laws -- perhaps importation
from countries within the European Community no longer has any meaning, since
such customs barriers were supposed to have been removed. I would interpret
"supply" to include the offering for sale, or even distributing for free,
such code,
even by a French citizen. This would therefore appear to apply to the
(re-)distribution
of PGP and/or any home-grown French products, as well as any encryption products
originating within the EC. If so, this would seem to be more even-handed with
respect to imports from the US and elsewhere than might otherwise appear,
and may obviate any claim that the law would violate the World Trade
Organization's
Most Favored Nation agreements. The apparent import preference for EC products
simply reflect's France's obligation to allow the free flow of goods within
the EC.

Paragraph 3 seems to provide for some simplified administrative mechanisms
that may be less onerous than a case by case review. IN US terms, this may
be similar
to requesting a commodity jurisdiction from Commerce, rather than having
encryption being construed as following under the ITARs. If so, we should
certainly
investigate these options. Subparagraphs b and c may apply to the use of
relatively
short keys, or for transactions of limited scope, e.g., for SET.

Section II defines conditions for establishing and approving escrow agencies.
Given the requirement for "professional confidentiality", I would not be at
all surprised
if the civil law "notaires" didn't jump at the chance to get into this business.

The requirement that they exercise their activities on French soil is rather
obscure.
The prior language doesn't explicitly say that anything about escrow, nor
where the
escrowed keys must be maintained -- it only talks about the management of
coding
conventions, and the requirement to comply with the requirements of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which presumably requires that they divulge the keys and/or
the text
of any confidential messages upon demand by a proper authority. But a literal
reading of the text would suggest that a standards organization that manages and
preserves the coding conventions would have to carry out their activities on
French soil, while the escrow repository might be elsewhere.

Section III certainly makes it clear that they are serious about all this.
The natural
persons who have committed, or even attempted to commit acts in violation of
the Act
are subject to fines and imprisonment, and I would hazard a guess that the
Articles 131-33 and 131-34 would debar them from participating in any future
importing or exporting.

Corporations (judicial persons) may be held criminally responsible for any
infractions
caused by their employees, and I would assume that Article 131-39 would also
lead to a
debarment for future import or export, in exactly the same manner as US
export violations
would.

Section VI makes the Act applicable to overseas territories, which means
that some of the
more obscure areas and countries would also be covered, such as French
Guiana, etc.

Disclaimer: I am not a French attorney, nor someone who is at all
knowledgeable about EC
law. The preceding analysis should not be construed as any kind of an
official position.
Go get your own hired guns if you need advice!


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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--University of Wisconsin/Madison hires cyber-police

[Now _this_ is a disturbing turn of events, though I suppose it was
inevitable. "Electronic recidivism rates?" --Declan]


// [email protected] // I do not represent the EFF // [email protected] //


Chicago Tribune
May 20, 1996 Monday, FINAL EDITION
NEWS; Pg. 3; ZONE: M; In the Midwest.
LENGTH: 317 words
BYLINE: Compiled by David Elsner.
DATELINE: MADISON, WISCONSIN

BODY:

 The University of Wisconsin -Madison is planning to hire a computer cop
to police the electronic traffic of its students and faculty.

 The "network investigator" would examine pranks, harassment, copyright
infringement, software thievery and other computer system misuses and
abuses, officials said.

                    ....................

 UW-Madison is now advertising the full-time post. Officials envision an
investigator who will track down, retrieve and restore offending
electronic communication. The evidence would be turned over to university
officials or police.

 Five years ago, relatively few students and faculty members had Internet
access and electronic mail, or e-mail. Today, university officials handle
50,000 separate computer accounts, and a part-time investigator has not
been able to keep up with the volume.

During the spring semester,
officials received an average of two to three complaints a week about
computer abuses, said Susan Puntillo, of UW-Madison's Division of
Information Technology.

 Years ago, warnings and reprimands generally sufficed. Even now, once
chastised, few repeat their offense. Puntillo estimated electronic
recidivism rates at less than 1 percent.

                    ....................

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 20:49:53 +0000
From: David Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--19 year old arrested for making terrorist threats

The first quotation is an AP article excerpt about a college student
arrested for making a terrorist threat via a Usenet post.

The second excerpt is the text of the actually message in question.

--- Excerpt 1 ----

NET THREAT IS TRACED TO STUDENT

SACRAMENTO (AP) - An Internet message declaring an "open season"
on state Sen. Tim Leslie because of the lawmaker's stance on
mountain lions has been traced to a 19-year-old college student in
El Paso, Texas, authorities say.
 Jose Eduardo Saavedra was arrested on a no-bail warrant based on
felony charges filed in Sacramento alleging that he had made
terrorist threats and threatened a public official, said El Paso
County sheriff's Sgt. Don Marshall.
 The computer message posted March 6 read: "Let's hunt Sen. Tim
Leslie for sport. ... I think it would be great" if he "were
hunted down and skinned and mounted for our viewing pleasure."
 Leslie, who pushed for a ballot measure that would have removed
special protections for mountain lions in California, expressed
relief that an arrest had been made but said the incident raised
"big new issues" about the use - and misuse - of the Internet.
 The Carnelian Bay Republican said it was a "very serious matter"
when someone could "threaten or intimidate or extort others in a
public forum like this."
 According to Al Locher of the Sacramento County district
attorney's office, Saavedra was tracked down by investigators
working on information from his Internet provider, Primenet of
Arizona.
---end excerpt---

 +++++++++++++++++++

--- Excerpt 2 ---
Path--news.primenet.com!zuma
From--Zuma <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
talk.environment,sci.environment,talk.politics.animals,rec.pets,ca.politics,rec
.pets.cats,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.food.veg,alt.save-the-earth
Subject--Re--Hunting Mountain Lions
Followup-To:
talk.environment,sci.environment,talk.politics.animals,rec.pets,ca.politics,rec
.pets.cats,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.food.veg,alt.save-the-earth
Date--6 Mar 1996 16:09:00 -0700
Organization--Primenet (602)395-1010
Lines--19
[email protected]
Message-ID--<[email protected]>
References--<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
[email protected]
Xref--news.primenet.com talk.environment:58565 sci.environment:94565
talk.politics.animals:67399 rec.pets:57445 ca.politics:97674
rec.pets.cats:152834 rec.animals.wildlife:11723 rec.food.veg:78925

Instead of huntng Lions in California, let us declare open season
on State SEN TIM LESLIE, his family, everyone he holds near and
dear, the Cattlemen's association and anyone else who feels that LIONS
in California should be killed.

I think it would be great to see ths slimeball, asshole, conservative
moron hunted down and skinned and mounted for our viewing pleasure.

I would rather see every right-wing nut like scumface Leslie destroyed
in the name of politicl sport, then lose one mountain lion whose only
fault is havng to live in a state with a fuck-ed up jerk like this
shit-faced republican and his supporters.

Pray for his death.  Pray for all their deaths.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:04:50 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Nat'l Jrnl article sez net-activism is just political hicks

Tommorrow, Washington's politically-powerful National Journal
reportedly will publish a know-nothing piece of "journalism" saying
that net-aided politics is essentially nothing but a batch of
ineffective, know-nothing nerds and back-water political hacks.

Check it out on Friday or thereafter -- at www.politicsusa.com -- and
forward your *informed* comments to the NJ's Editor and Letters
Editor.

--jim

On the other hand, maybe we ought to just continue escalating our
political effectiveness using the net, and let it come as a total
shock to the Beltway insiders who trust this piece of misinformed
blather ... when we provide more and more swing votes in contested
elections -- as already occured with DeFoley8 against ex-Speaker Tom
Foley, VTW for now-Senator Ron Wyden, me for now-available Calif
legislative data, the gun BBS against ex-Calif Senate Prez Pro Tem
David Roberti, etc.  :-)

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 96 12:15 EST
From: [email protected] <[email protected]
Subject: File 6--Cyber Sit-in

Well folks,

The CDA is STILL legal and AOL and other online providers, not to
mention the feds are still practicing censorship.  I suggest we each
make a statement.

CCA (Creative Coalition on AOL, now OFF AOL) a grass roots
organization which began when a bunch of AOL poets protested the daily
censorship of their poems by AOL, is holding a cyber sit-in
demonstration.  It is being sponsored by the ACLU.  This forum will
take place for 24 hours starting on June 2 at 6.a.m. EDT.  This will
be held in two places, one, right under the noses of AOL in the ACLU
Freedom Hall area of AOL.  There will be live chat and in the Freedom
of Expression folder there will be a place to post letters to your
congress persons as well as local editors of newspapers.  These will
be forwarded for you.  On the net, chat and bulletin boards will be at
http://www.stjpub.com/cca/

AOL poets, atheists, screenwriters, and netizens of every ilk are sick
of these crummy censorship practices.  CCA has represented all artists in
the quest for freedom of expression.  Now it is your turn to let your
voice be heard.  June 2, 24 hours, on AOL and CCA website, please join CCA
in their demonstration against censorship.


Jordanne Holyoak, media director, CCA
Dwain Kitchel, web liason, CCA
http://www.stjpub.com/cca/

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:02:14 -0700
From: Jim Warren <[email protected]
Subject: File 7--(fwd fyi) Internet a Broadcast Media?

Date--         Thu, 23 May 1996 15--01--44 EDT
From-- [email protected]
Subject--      Internet a Broadcast Media?

From DM News International, April 15, 1996:


          European Commission Wants Control Over WWW

                        by Thomas Weyr

Brussels - The European Commission has issued yet another draft of its
Television Without Frontiers directive, this one with a "legal
clarification" that widens the definition of broadcasting to include
the Internet.
    The "clarification" states that a moving or non-moving sequence of
images, whether or not accompanied by sound, constitutes a TV program.
    "I am very worried about this development," said Alistair Tempest,
director general of FEDIM (the Federation of European Direct
Marketing), "because broadcasting becomes anything but personal
correspondence and can be regulated."
    E-mail, Tempest noted, is excepted.  Anything else would be fair
game for national and European regulators, both from the broadcasting
and the telecom end.
    And such regulations could seriously crimp U.S. direct marketing
efforts on TV and over the Web.
    The struggle over updating the original TV Without Frontiers
directive -- first issued in 1989 -- has been underway for over a year.
The explosive growth of the WWW in recent months has served to
intensify the conflict.
    "This is a fascinating exercise in how European politics works,"
Tempest said.  He noted that the European Commission -- the
policy-making bureaucrats in Brussels -- had sent the directive to the
European parliament in Strasbourg without the expanded broadcast
definition.
    The parliament debated the issue late last year, and last month
returned the draft to the EC with a number of proposed amendments
including this one, which the commission then dutifully incorporated
into the new draft.
    The decision now rests with representatives of the member states
in Brussels, who can revise the directive once again or adopt it and
send it back to the member governments for reconciliation with national
laws.
    On March 22, experts from the 15 member countries held a meting
without coming to a conclusion.  "They agreed that the more important
issues, including this one, should be kicked upstairs to the council of
ministers for resolution," Tempest said.
    Agreement in principle, he added, might be reached next month,
with a common position worked out over the summer.  "I don't expect
anything concrete to come out till after the summer," he said.
    Fortunately for the direct marketing industry, FEDIM isn't the
only body up in arms about the implication of the new broadcast
definition.
    Software manufacturers like Mircosoft and programmers like Time
Warner and Polygram are also lobbying hard in Brussels to delete the
"clarification."
    "We have time to put pressure on them," Tempest said.

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

Posted by Adam Starchild
    The Offshore Entrepreneur at http://www.au.com/offshore<<

reposted : Gary D. Goodman

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 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:   [email protected]

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  [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) (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/[email protected]
        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 #8.39
************************************

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.661.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.