Computer underground Digest Thu Mar 11, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 19

Computer underground Digest Thu Mar 11, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 19
ISSN 1004-042X

Editor: Jim Thomas ([email protected])
News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([email protected])
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.19 (Thu, Mar 11, 1997)

File 1--SUPREMES: The Countdown Begins
File 2--Junk Mail
File 3--Book Review - The Secret Museum
File 4--** >= Ascend 5.0A SECURITY ALERT ** (fwd)
File 5--Pedophiles on the Net (fwd)
File 6--Response to CyberAngels FACE Project
File 7--CyberAngels' Noble Activity
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996)

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:13:12 -0800
From: --Todd Lappin-- <[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--SUPREMES: The Countdown Begins

THE CDA DISASTER NETWORK
March 5, 1997

Believe it or not, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the
constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act in just two short weeks.

In the meantime, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Voters
Telecommunications Watch have launched a COUNTDOWN TO THE SUPREME COURT
campaign to help spread the news about the case and provide an opportunity
for Internet users to join the fight.

Read on for more details, and as always...

Work the Network!

--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine

The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition -- http://www.ciec.org

______________________________________________________________

THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE LANDS IN THE SUPREME COURT IN 15 DAYS
JOIN THOUSANDS OF YOUR FELLOW INTERNET USERS IN A HISTORIC COUNTDOWN

March 4, 1996

Please distribute widely with this banner in tact. Please post only in
appropriate forums. Do not distribute after March 19, 1997
___________________________________________________________________
NEWS - COUNTDOWN TO THE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS OVER FREE SPEECH ONLINE

The fate of the Internet and the future of the First Amendment in the
information age hang in the balance.

In just two weeks, on March 19th, 1997 at 10:00 am, the United States
Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a legal battle over the
constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law which
imposes broadcast-style content regulations on the Internet. A decision is
expected in June of 1997.

Will the Supreme Court agree with 2 federal courts that found the
Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, ruling that the Internet is a
unique communications technology that deserves the same First Amendment
protections enjoyed by the print media? Or will the Court side with
Senator Exon, the Justice Department, and the Christian Coalition, who have
argued that the government is the best judge of what material is
appropriate online?

The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on the future of the
Internet as a viable means of free expression, education, and commerce.

JOIN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUR FELLOW NET USERS IN A HISTORIC COUNTDOWN

With your help and support, the entire Internet community will have an
opportunity to join together in the fight for the future of the Net.

______________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE

In anticipation of this historic event, the Center for Democracy and
Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) have
launched a COUNTDOWN TO THE SUPREME COURT campaign to help spread the news
about the case and provide an opportunity for Internet users to join the
fight.

If You Maintain A World Wide Web Page:

1. Add the following link *TODAY* in a prominent location on your site:

<a href="http://www.ciec.org">
<img src="http://www.ciec.org/images/countdown.gif" alt="Countdown to
Supreme Court"></a>
<br clear=all><br>

2. IMPORTANT -> Let us know you have joined the campaign:

Drop us a note at <[email protected]> and let us know you have
added the link to your site. We will keep a running tally of the
number of participating sites.

If You Don't Maintain A World Wide Web Page:

1. Forward this Alert to your friends

2. Visit the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition page
(http://www.ciec.org) to keep up to date on the latest news about the
case and information on how you can join the fight to preserve the
future of the Internet as a viable means of free expression,
education and commerce.

________________________________________________________________
HOW WILL THIS CAMPAIGN WORK?

After you have added the link (above) to your page, an animated image
counting down the days until the Supreme Court argument will be displayed
on your site. The image will be updated daily (the update will occur at
our server -- you will not have to do anything).

By clicking on the icon, visitors to your page will jump directly to the
Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition site which contains the latest news
and information on the case, court documents, along with information on how
they can join the fight.

The "Countdown to the Supreme Court" campaign is similar to the "question
mark/fireworks" campaign last June announcing the decision in the
Philadelphia case. Both campaigns were organized by the Center for
Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org and the Voters
Telecommunications Watch http://www.vtw.org.

_________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was enacted in February of 1996 as
part of the Telecommunications Reform Act. The law seeks to protect minors
from objectionable or sexually explicit material on the Internet by
imposing broad content regulations and stiff criminal penalties on the
"display" of "indecent" or "patently offensive" material on the Internet.

While supporters of the CDA argue that the law is designed to protect
children from so-called "pornography" on the Internet, two separate Federal
Courts have agreed that the law goes far beyond that and would ban
otherwise constitutionally protected materials.

It is important to note that the CDA is not about obscenity, child
pornography, or using the Internet to stalk or prey on children. These
activities are already illegal under current law and are not at issue in
this case.

Opponents to the new law argue that while well intentioned, the CDA fails
to account for the unique nature of the Internet, and that it will have a
far-reaching chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech online.
On a global, decentralized communications medium like the Internet, the
only effective and constitutional means of controlling access to
objectionable material is to rely on users and parents, not the government,
to decide what material is or is not appropriate.

On the Internet, every single user is a publisher with the capacity to
reach millions of people. As a result, all of us have a stake in the
outcome of this case.

Two lawsuits were filed to challenge the constitutionality of the CDA in a
Philadelphia federal court in February 1996.

The cases have been brought, respectively, by The Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), comprised of the American Library
Association. civil Liberties groups, Internet Service Providers, Commercial
Online Service Providers, Newspaper, Magazine and Book Publishers, and over
56,000 individual Internet users. The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil
liberties groups, advocacy groups, online content providers, and others
filed the initial case on the day the CDA was signed into law.

The ACLU and CIEC cases will be argued together before the Supreme Court on
March 19, 1997 by CIEC lead attorney Bruce Ennis. A decision is expected
in June.

Detailed information on the legal challenges, as well as information about
the CDA, is available at the following web sites:

Legal Challenges To The CDA
---------------------------

* The Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) - http://www.ciec.org/
* The ACLU - http://www.aclu.org/

The outcome of this legal battle will have far reaching implications. At
stake is nothing less than the future of the First Amendment in the
information age.

___________________________________________________________________
FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information on this event, including press inquiries, please contact:

Jonah Seiger, <[email protected]> +1.202.637.9800
Communications Director, Center for Democracy and Technology/Citizens
Internet Empowerment Coalition

Shabbir Safdar, <[email protected]> +1.718.596.2851
co-founder, Voters Telecommunications Watch
member, Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition

Or Visit http://www.ciec.org/
___________________________________________________________________
end alert

+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
This transmission was brought to you by....

THE CDA DISASTER NETWORK

The CDA Disaster Network is a moderated distribution list providing
up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the
Communications Decency Act.

To SUBSCRIBE, send email to <[email protected]> with "subscribe
cda-bulletin" in the message body. To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to
<[email protected]> with "unsubscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:09:02 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hinchey <[email protected]>
Subject: File 2--Junk Mail

In reference to Cu-Digest #9.11, in a snippit about Wallace and
Cyber Promotions, the following statement was made. I am sure
that no one relishes having unsolicited email hitting their
mailboxes every few hours, but I do not think that this snippit
really highlights the issues involved.

> IMHO, such guys like Wallace ought to be thrown in jail for
> trespassing. Unlike a letter mailed to my house or business, which
> costs me nothing, email DOES cost me. I pay for my online time, and

Anyone who thinks that junk mail to our household or business is not
costing us money is completely ignorant of many issues in our
society.

How about the problem finding suitable garbage dumps, or should I
say "Sanitary Disposing System", escallated by the production of
junk mail?

How about the decimation of our current lumber resources in many
parts of the world, including the rain forest? How about the
environmental impact during the logging process itself? What the
heck, what is that rain forest thing anyway? Just wear your oxygen
mask while you sit home and tend to your nice private and secure
mailbox.

Some people pollute the environment by taking that large box of junk
mail that is saved for the recycle depot with their vehicle. If
there is a depot that is. Often this material is refused because
it is of the wrong paper type.

How about all the pollution from cars delivering these flyers, etc.
In my particular area it never fails that someone who obviously
could use a good walk now and then, is driving house to house with
their vehicle to deliver these things.

Since I do not read these flyers coming to my home, someone must be
paying for it. Someone who has read the flyer must be purchasing a
product and paying a little more for the flyer I never read. It
might be small but it is still there.

Bottom line is, we do not like these things but at least these
individuals might escalate the issue to a point that the whole
issue is looked at as an environmental issue, as well as a privacy
issue. In the old paper way, or the new e-mail way, societies
rights are being stepped on.

Before anyone writes me stupid and insulting email like last time I
tried to raise these points for discussion, please read this whole
note, and not just HALF. If you have opinions I would appreciate
hearing them by way of this forum and not in personal email,
especially when it contains profanity.

Please remember I am not supporting spaming! Personally I would
outlaw all advertising outside of certain 'Non Impact" advertising
systems", like Television, where it is used to subsidize the cost
of the television system itself. But in my opinion people who call
for the government to step in and put someone in jail because they
are spaming is no better than someone who cries that certain sites
should be censored because of adult material. They both are
inviting government control into our lives in their own way.

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

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 16:47:45 +1100 (EST)
From: Danny Yee <[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Book Review - The Secret Museum

Source -- [email protected]

title: The Secret Museum
: Pornography in Modern Culture
by: Walter Kendrick
publisher: University of California Press 1996
other: 318 pages, references, bibliography, index, US$13.95

The word "pornography" is often used as if it were entirely unproblematic,
even by those campaigning against its censorship. In _The Secret Museum_
Kendrick has produced a history of the term which should be mandatory
reading for anyone who finds themselves using it regularly. (It is not a
history of pornography itself, so those seeking titillation should look
elsewhere.) While many analyses and histories of pornography depend
on complex critical and psychoanalytical theories or have obviously
polemical goals, Kendrick's account is unburdened by such baggage.

"Pornography" is barely two centuries old, having its origins in the
response to explicit artifacts unearthed at Pompeii (which were stored in
the "Secret Museum" from which Kendrick takes his title) and in scientific
studies of prostitution from a public hygiene perspective. Having
explained this, Kendrick moves on to what he calls the "pre-pornographic
era", when the crudities of writers such as Catulus, Horace, Shakespeare,
and Chaucer posed knotty problems for the censors. A failure to take
into account the _intentions_ of such works, or to make special allowance
for their artistic merits, resulted in Bowdlerisation and other responses
which seem laughable to us now. Less fuss was made about works, such as
those in the tradition that originated with Aretino, which would now be
labelled pornographic: they were too obscure to attract attention.

Similarly, the collection of erotica by aristocratic bibliomanes was,
because of the scarcity of the material and the standing of those
involved, not a matter of great concern. Urbanisation and the spread
of literacy removed this protection, fanning the spread of affordable
and popular sensation novels and other such works. These fell into
the hands of those -- the young, women, the lower classes -- considered
incapable of coping with them. Here originated the mythological Young
Person at risk of corruption, whose presence continues to haunt debates
about pornography.

Kendrick next surveys some of the early legal landmarks: the 1857 trials
of _Madame Bovary_ and _Les Fleur du Mal_ in France; in Britain the
1763 Wilkes trial, Lord Campbell's Act, the Hicklin test, and and the
origins of Anglo-Saxon anti-obscenity legislation. Turning to the United
States, he covers early legislation there and the career of Comstock.
(The first half of _The Secret Museum_ rarely ventures outside Western
Europe and the United States; the second deals almost exclusively with
the United States.)

Two chapters, "Good Intentions" and "Hard at the Core", trace the gradual
refinement, in various trials, of "pornography" so as to exclude material
of artistic, literary, and scientific value and to take into account
the intentions of its creators. This culminated in the 1966 ruling by
the United States Supreme Court that redeemed the pornographic classic
_Fanny Hill_, on the grounds that "a book cannot be proscribed unless
it is found to be utterly without redeeming social value".

After the rejection of the 1970 Report, the nature of the debate changed.
With Brownmiller, Dworkin, McKinnon, and the feminist anti-pornography
campaign the focus was on "harms" instead of morals. Instead of gentlemen
protecting innocent children and women from depravity, women were now
preventing brutish young men from becoming rapists: the Young Person
had arisen in a new form. The 1986 Meese Report ("an unbelievably
fatuous document") took a similar tack. Kendrick saw this as a sign
of a "post-pornographic era" and concluded "we have fought ignorant
battles... and... we ought not to be so stupid as to believe that we
must fight them again".

This is where the _The Secret Museum_ (published in 1987) originally
concluded. This 1996 paperback edition contains a new chapter written in
the aftermath of the Communications Decency Act ("a radically ignorant
and atavistic piece of work"). Kendrick now thinks he was too hasty in
predicting an end to battles over pornography -- they will be fought
over and over again, in the same form they have been for the last two
centuries.

--

Disclaimer: I requested and received a review copy of _The Secret Museum_
from the University of California Press, but I have no stake, financial
or otherwise, in its success.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:35:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: File 4--** >= Ascend 5.0A SECURITY ALERT ** (fwd)

From -Noah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:18:36 -0800
From--Kit Knox <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

** IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ *********************************************

There exists a new feature in the 5.0A series of releases for the MAX which
allow a user to reboot your Ascend MAX at will. This is done via an
undocumented login entry point that has been introduced without notice to
the public by Ascend.

Users can telnet to a max on port 150 and the Max will act as though the
call came in via a T1 etc. Using this and another bug a user can cause the
max to reboot. The exact sequence to cause the reboot has been reported to
Ascend and I am waiting for an official response. After a fix has been made
available I will immediatly release the details. In the meantime it is
HIGHLY reccomended that you filter access for incoming tcp to port 150.

If you are not running 5.0A or above please report back to the list if your
max accepts a telnet to port 150 so we can figure out which release this
"feature" was introduced silently.

The Max's seem to now also answer on port 1723. Anyone know what this is
used for?

This whole thing smells of the non-zero length tcp offsets bug from awhile
back. Sigh.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:13:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest <[email protected]>
Subject: File 5--Pedophiles on the Net (fwd)

((MODERATORS' NOTE: TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal
devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics.
It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various
telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and
networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also
gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified
organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you
qualify:
* [email protected] *
======

From--TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Feb 97 09:02:00 EST Volume 17 --Issue 54

Date--Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:48:39 PST
[email protected] (Tad Cook)

By Drake Witham

Knight-Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- In early February, police say, a man here ended three
months of increasingly suggestive on-line chat with a 13-year-old boy
in California and flew across the country to arrange a sexual
encounter with the child.

But when he arrived at a Huntington Beach restaurant for a
face-to-face meeting with the boy, he was instead arrested by local
vice officers.

That reckoning is clearly an exception in the freewheeling world of
cyber-chat, where growing numbers of young Americans are spending
hours sitting at keyboards talking intimately with strangers.

Police efforts to rein in on-line sexual predators face daunting
legal, technical and financial challenges. Pursuing them is so
difficult, and some critics wonder just how serious the problem is.

To be arrested, pedophiles must transmit obscene images of provable
minors or step out from behind their keyboards and solicit sex from a
child in person.

"It takes about 30 seconds to find a hard-core conversation or
full-color image and six months to build a case," said Sgt. Nick
Battaglia of the San Jose (California) Police Department. "And then
you can find out the guy you've been talking to all along lives in
Australia."

If the predators are elusive, their prey is right at home.

Nearly six million kids under 18 regularly use the Internet, up from
1.1 million in 1995, a recent study estimates, and chat rooms are
their favorite hangouts.

"Children love e-mail and they love chat," said Tom Miller, who
conducted the study for the private Emerging Technology Research
Group. "The curiosity is such a part of their natural profile."

One recent afternoon America Online, the most widely used on-line
service, had more than 400 public chat lobbies open, each with more
than 20 talkers; more than 50 "member rooms," many with sexually
suggestive labels, filled to capacity; and an unknown number of
private rooms.

Much of the explicit talk kids encounter in those rooms would shock or
frighten parents. What's more shocking to some is that it's legal for
an adult to write sexually explicit messages to children on line.

"It's kind of like a verbal orgy," said Nan McCarthy, who has been
hanging around on line for 10 years researching her recently published
novel "Chat." "These people in live chat rooms don't spend a lot of
time on foreplay."

Only a few local police departments across the country routinely
conduct on-line sex crime investigations, though some others have
worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an ongoing national
effort.

A successful investigation requires large sums of money for high-tech
computer equipment, many man hours and officers who can present
themselves as children or pedophiles.

To pull off the recent sting in Huntington Beach, an officer had to
strain his voice to sound like a 13-year-old and dupe the man into a
meeting. The suspect, a 39-year-old employee of the National Academy
of Sciences, will be arraigned March 13.

Most on-line pedophiles aren't caught. "We think of child victimization
as this big monster hiding under the bridge, but it's not like that,"
said Peter Banks, training director for the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. "They charm kids. They're very good at
what they do."

"The Internet has got to be the pedophile's dream come true. They can
stalk children without any concern of being seen," said Cheryl Kean of
Rochester, N.Y. She has not had contact with her 13-year-old daughter
since she disappeared in December with a 22-year-old man she met on
the Internet.

Just how much sex crime is actually perpetrated using the Internet is
impossible to estimate.

The missing-children center says it has documented more than 50 cases
of child abductions by predators who gained the trust of children with
sweet talk on the Internet. Most of those children have since been
located.

Dr. Ira Rosen, a child psychiatrist and physician from Dayton, Ohio,
who has worked with abused children for decades, says the new
technology clearly has made pedophilia easier. But he believes it's
unlikely that the number of people with the problem are growing.

"It's certainly more visible," said Dr. Jonathan Freedman, a clinical
sociologist in Atlanta and former education director for the Hutchings
Psychiatric Center in Syracuse, N.Y.

In the unregulated chat section of the Internet called the Internet
Relay Chat -- or IRC -- evidence of pedophilia is frighteningly
visible. A large array of individuals is almost always there, trading
electronic images of nude children -- sometimes engaged in horrifying
acts -- across state and national borders.

In California last year, two men held a "pedo party" in which they
photographed a 10-year-old girl in explicit poses and transmitted, in
real time, the images to users in other states and Finland. They even
took requests.

Authorities in Minnesota discovered last fall that two inmates
compiled a list of addresses and physical descriptions for 2,000
children, and sent it beyond prison walls and over the Internet.

Inspired by the Internet-related abduction and murder of a Maryland
child in 1993, the FBI launched an operation called Innocent Images in
1994. Agents in 52 of the bureau's 56 field offices have since prowled
on line, using suggestive log-on decoys like "horny15bi" and racy
conversations to identify potential pedophiles in 46 states.

Agents have had the most success thus far posing as adults looking for
sexually explicit images of children. To date there have been 237
searches, 112 formal charges, 87 arrests and 78 convictions out of
Innocent Images, according to Larry Foust, a spokesman in the FBI
Baltimore field office. Agents in a branch of that office run the
FBI's Internet sex sting operation.

Kimberly Kellogg, a criminal defense attorney in Kansas City, Kan.,
handles about 20 pedophilia cases a year and says on-line law
enforcement techniques may be entrapment.

"It may not be your true pedophile but someone who is just curious,"
she said. "If the FBI is setting this up, I would think there is an
excellent chance of proving entrapment."

Lt. Dan Johnson, a vice squad officer in Huntington Beach, disagrees.

"In order to entrap someone you have to put the idea in their head and
make it so attractive that a normally law-abiding citizen would want
to do it," Johnson said. "How do you make it attractive to have sex
with a 13-year old?"

Even the most ardent defenders of free speech on the Internet stop
short of condoning child exploitation, but are concerned the search
for pedophiles could eventually lead police to overstep constitutional
boundaries.

"For the FBI to go in and entice people, masquerading in this game
playing, this is likely to extend into other areas. I could see it
very easily with the militia movement," said David Sobel, legal
counsel for the Electronic Privacy and Information Center. "I think
it's a strange way to use limited law enforcement resources."

Even some officers who conduct on-line investigations question the
need for such operations. Detective Tom Polhemus of the Fairfax County
Police Department in Northern Virginia said Internet investigations
put the emphasis in the wrong place.

"That's not how kids are being abused," said Polhemus, who handles
child exploitation cases. "They're being abused by your best friend,
your friendly neighbor, your husband. If the Internet is all we
worried about, we'd be sitting here all day eating doughnuts."

Just what can or should be done to make the Internet less menacing to
children remains a divisive question.

Last year Congress made it illegal to transmit any sort of sexually
explicit message to children.

Critics said the new law violated basic principles of free speech and
was so vague that it might shut down sites for Playboy magazine and
Planned Parenthood. Last June, a federal appellate court in
Philadelphia agreed, striking down the measure on the grounds that it
violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court
will decide the case this spring.

Meanwhile, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that
would require Internet service providers to offer software that could
be used to block sexual and violent images.

But Internet experts say such efforts are futile because of the technology's
basically open structure.

Complicating the problem is the varied nature of the on-line
world. The largest numbers of on-line users connect through structured
commercial sites like America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy.

America Online offers parental controls to determine which sites,
newsgroups and chat rooms their children can use, and offers
guidelines for all users on keeping safe on-line.

But it also is clear that it is easy and common for libidinous adults
to meet children in these services, despite such safeguards.

"Parents can control everything from web access to newsgroups to
e-mail. Chat rooms generally have a guide in them and guides can be
paged 24 hours a day," said Andrew Graziani, a spokesperson for
America Online. "But we're not monitoring private messages."

The Internet and the Internet Relay Chat are more difficult to
police. There is no normal commerce on the IRC and thus no providers
to share the burden of protecting children. And dozens of sites
selling access to sexual images and chat on the Internet appear and
disappear with startling speed.

Software with names like Net Nanny and Cybersitter designed to screen
kids from such sites is increasingly popular. Since January 1995,
Surfwatch has sold three million copies of a program that blocks
access to 25,000 adult sites and can be
tailored by parents.

"It's a nice alternative. There's a value for law enforcement, but we
favor a more preventative approach," said Jay Friedland, co-founder of
Surfwatch.

But Friedland also points out that parents can't rely solely on
software, because kids are often more savvy then their parents about
computers and can find a way around protective programs.

+ + + +

Related Internet sites include:

http://www.yahooligans.com
http://www.cyberangels.org/chatsmarts.html,
http://www.cyberangels.org/AOLsmarts.html
http://www.cyberstalker.org
http://www.nvc.org/ddir/info44.htm

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:30:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <[email protected]>
Subject: File 6--Response to CyberAngels FACE Project

In all the volume of text on this subject, I still can't find anyone
hitting the points that seem most relevant to me.

1. Hatcher says his downloaded pedophilic images will be saved direct to
floppy disk and then submitted to "the authorities" in order to protect
himself from laws against possession of child pornography. Clearly however
federal law states that possession of three or more pieces of child
pornography IN ANY FORM (including a floppy disk) is illegal. Also, it
seems likely that Hatcher's browser may store the obscene images in a
cache file on his hard drive, since that is what browsers do. Therefore,
even after he has surrendered his floppy disk, his computer is likely to
retain the illicit imagery, leaving him at risk.

2. In view of this, as I suggested in my original letter, Hatcher and his
friends will need some kind of official or unofficial exemption from
prosecution. There is no other way for them to operate securely. I would
guess that if he really has spoken to the feds as he claims, they have
told him, in effect, "Don't worry, just follow our guidelines, and you
won't be prosecuted."

3. Hence, this WILL be an incentive for pedophiles to participate covertly
in his porn-hunting activity, since any pedophile will obviously enjoy the
idea of working under a security umbrella.

4. Lastly, Hatcher did not address the possibility that I raised, of a
prankster supplying him with a perfectly innocent picture while claiming
that the "dirty bits" have been edited out. Perhaps Hatcher doesn't
believe that anyone would stoop so low. But think about it, Colin. Maybe I
have already offered my own services to you as a porn hound, using a fake
user ID. Maybe I am, even now, selecting photographs of children of rich
celebrities (who are most likely to sue), and I am preparing these as GIFs
for your site. Momentarily, I will send them to you together with faked
headers purporting to show where I found the pictures online, depicting
the most heinous sex acts. Now, tell me please, what are you going to do
when I tip off The National Enquirer about this? What will you do when the
parents see their kids pictured on your site as victims of parental child
abuse? Isn't it clear from this purely hypothetical example that you risk
being accused of gross negligence in your activities? And does this not
suggest to you that there is something basically dim-witted about your
plan?

Yes, I was the one who referred to it as dim-witted in the first place,
and I'm afraid this was not a pejorative remark, it was an accurate
description, since you do indeed seem to have a very dim perception of
the situation.

Lastly, I suppose we should remind you that when the FBI launched its
famous original raid on AOL (aka Satan's den or kiddieporn) they were
unable to find even 100 people to arrest, and I believe they ended up
indicting only about 12 people. Bearing in mind that AOL had about 5
MILLION users at the time, and bearing in mind that AOL is able to snoop
freely through all the so-called private chat rooms on its own system,
doesn't this suggest to you that child pornography is EXTREMELY RARE
online?

Shouldn't this make us wonder why you have such a "thing" about it? Why,
Colin, are you so obsessed with pictures of little girls and boys having
sex? I'm sure they shock you; but what is the real nature of this
response? Could it be that you find it, on some level, not only shocking
but a little bit ... exciting?

Of course, you will find this suggestion offensive. I have noticed,
however, that the most virulent anti-porn crusaders do seem to have a kind
of love-hate relationship with the material that they denounce, and I
wonder if you are really as pure in heart and mind as you purport to be.

--Charles Platt

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:35:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Michaelson <[email protected]>
Subject: File 7--CyberAngels' Noble Activity

This ridiculous controversy over some vigilantes perusing dirty kiddie pix
in the name of Morality is getting tiresome. Of all the causes in the world
that need a champion, ya just gotta wonder! I can't help thinking of the
classic joke about two people with binoculars who watch their neighbor
undressing by the window. They "tsk-tsk" at each other, berating their
neighbor for being such an unabashed exhibitionist. Of course, CyberAngels
are for more noble, because they are *only* interested in protecting our
beloved children. Right.

> How many pedophiles do you know who would be happy to register their
> names and addresses with the FBI and risk background investigations,
> when they can obtain child pornography freely and safely without needing
> to do that?

If CyberAngels' voyeuristic activity has any point, it's not free and safe.
But anyway, I don't know any pedophiles (not personally, that I'm *aware* of),
but I suppose the answer to the broader question is: about as many as there
are with no record of arrests, and would who like some immunization from
future prosecution.

> Any CyberAngel member who stores illegal images on a Hard drive is as
> guilty as anyone else of possession of child pornography.

I guess if the disk is hard it means their is more of a thrill than if
it's floppy. It's good that we've recognized this fine legal and moral
distinction.

These cop-wannabes can have all the credentials in the world; they can
concoct all the rationalizations one can think of. But their motives for
engaging in this lurid activity will always be highly suspect to me.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:

SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: [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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #9.19
************************************