
Computer underground Digest    Wed  Jul 26, 1995   Volume 7 : Issue 63
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson

CONTENTS, #7.63 (Wed, Jul 26, 1995)


File 1--Correction to Cincinnati BBS Document (CuD 7.62)
File 2--The Case of the Two Cybersex Studies
File 3--"Imprisonment wihouth Guilt" for "Hacking"
File 4--[to GovAccess] sample of VTW's *stellar* tech-civlib alerts!
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

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

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

Date: 25 Jul 95 10:56:35 EDT
From: Lance Rose <72230.2044@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 1--Correction to Cincinnati BBS Document (CuD 7.62)

       That legal paper you published in 7.62 is not a criminal
indictment, but a civil complaint.  For a few moments, I had the
bizarre experience of thinking I was seeing a prosecutor trying to put
his own people in jail <g>.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: D B McCullagh <declanm@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: File 2--The Case of the Two Cybersex Studies

Distribute Freely


The Case of the Two Cybersex Studies, (c) 1995
By Declan McCullagh
declanm@netcom.com
July 24, 1995


     Dr. Michael Mehta's telephone rang.
     "Hi, this is Marty Rimm calling from Carnegie Mellon
University. I'm the principal investigator of a study on pornography,
and I'm leading a 15-person interdisciplinary research team. I'd like
to take a look at the research you presented earlier this month."
     Mehta, then a graduate student at York University in Ontario,
remembers answering the phone last fall. He never thought then that an
unexpected phone call from Marty Rimm would bring him to accuse the
former Carnegie Mellon student of stealing his ideas and his research
eight months later.
     When he first talked to Rimm, he was flattered to be contacted
by what he thought was a senior professor at a prestigious university.
He tried to help the researchers at Carnegie Mellon University.
     "Rimm asked for a copy of my paper that I presented at a
conference in November. He said Carnegie Mellon was publishing a book,
and he might include my paper as a chapter if I sent it to him," says
Mehta.
     Mehta and Dwaine Plaza, also of York University, had studied
how adult BBS operators were marketing pornography on the information
superhighway. After the two researchers sent "everything they had" to
Rimm, they waited hopefully but never heard from him again.
     "I feel like a total fool now," says Mehta. "I was under the
impression that Rimm was a tenured faculty member. He never corrected
me when I called him 'professor Rimm.'"
     He didn't know about the controversy Rimm's paper had caused
until last week, when an associate at the University of Waterloo told
readers of a cyberlaw mailing list that Mehta and Plaza presented a
cybersmut paper at a conference last November. Then researchers and
reporters started calling Canada.
     Mehta is "flabbergasted" by the publicity Rimm's paper has
generated "down south." His local papers haven't covered Rimm's study,
so he wasn't aware of the controversy its publication caused. Now a
post-doctoral fellow at Queen's University, he had given up hope of
publishing his paper and moved on to researching democratic rights and
public accountability for technology.
     After learning that Rimm was an undergraduate, Mehta felt
silly at first. But after he read Brock Meeks' CyberWire Dispatches,
he became convinced of the "seriousness of this issue" and decided to
go public with his concerns.
     Rimm reportedly has retained a lawyer and has declined to
comment.
     "It's funny how a breakdown in trust between people who have
never met can happen over the wires," Mehta says. "I trusted Rimm, and
he stole some of our ideas, lied to me, and distorted facts beyond
belief."
     Looking back, he says Rimm's behavior was peculiar. He
remembers asking Rimm for a copy of the book he was writing. "Rimm
said there was an export restriction on it -- his publisher said there
was an export ban," Mehta says.

     Studying CyberSmut: Similarities and Differences

     "I don't think the parallels between the two studies are
coincidences. There are a lot of similarities that can't be accounted
for by chance," says Mehta, who's working to document the resemblances.
     Rimm's paper, published in the July issue of the Georgetown
Law Journal and cited on the front page of Time magazine, never
mentions Mehta's study.
     Mehta says that Rimm changed the direction of his research
without giving the York University researchers credit: "Rimm wasn't
looking at the commercial distribution of BBS pornography until he
spoke with us in November. We told him that we were looking for adult
BBS logos and telephone numbers in Usenet images."
     Rimm's study claims that he downloaded and reviewed Usenet
images in September, but doesn't say when they were analyzed.
     His study also lingers on the salacious details of erotica,
repeating words like "fuck," "cock," "pedophile," and "paraphilia"
dozens of times. "We also started off with emotionally laden language.
But in the end, we cut down those terms," says Mehta. "That's what the
Journal of Sex Research wanted. You think law journals are tough?  Try
peer review!"
     The Carnegie Mellon study somewhat resembles the Mehta-Plaza
study, yet it also differs in many ways:
     * Rimm talks about pornography on adult BBSs, the Internet,
Usenet, and the World Wide Web. The Canadian study only looks at
images, many from adult BBSs, appearing on a small selection of Usenet
newsgroups.
     * Rimm reviews descriptions of hundreds of thousands of
images.  The other study looked at the actual images, but only at a
few hundred.
     * Rimm sorts images into only one category. The York
University study categorizes each image in 22 different ways.
     * Rimm waxes poetic about how "pornography permeates the
digital landscape." Plaza and Mehta discuss "a symmetric measure of
association for 2x2 crosstabulations used when comparing
non-parametrically distributed variables."
     Some of the Mehta-Plaza study's findings contradict Rimm's.
Since the Canadian researchers actually looked at the images, they
found that many "bestiality" images were actually cartoons: "There
were only a few actual digitized photographs in our sample showing
such acts."
     Also, where Rimm talks about "the ease of copying and
disseminating digitized child pornography," the Canadian researchers
say they found "no actual images showing a sexual act with children or
adolescents."
     After presenting their paper at the November 1994 "Symposium
on Free Speech and Privacy in the Information Age," Plaza and Mehta
tried for months to find a publisher, but were stonewalled by the
Journal of Sex Research. "They didn't like our findings," says Mehta.
The journal's editors reportedly also disliked the references to
anti-porn activist Catherine MacKinnon.
     Ironically, MacKinnon published a commentary on Rimm's research
in the most recent Georgetown Law Journal, hailing it as a "landmark
study of pornography in cyberspace."
     While both papers conclude that adult BBS operators are using
the Internet to market their images, some recent evidence suggests the
practice may not be widespread. Brian Reid, a network researcher and
Usenet guru at Digital Equipment Corporation, says adult BBS operators
become upset when their images appear surreptitiously on Usenet
newsgroups. When they find out, they demand that the images be
removed.
     Donna Hoffman, an associate professor of management at
Vanderbilt University, agrees: "On the supply side, the operators
realize that such 'leakage' hurts the market. On the demand side, the
potential customer will say, 'Why should I pay over there when I can
see it here for free?'"
     Whatever the reality, after all this controversy, there may be
a happy ending in store for the pair of researchers. Mehta says he was
ready to give up on publishing their study, but now "our paper will
help shed a little light on this issue." In the wake of the Rimm
scandal, he thinks they'll have better luck finding a journal to
accept it.

[Since his paper has not been published, Mehta decided not to put it
online. He has agreed to answer questions about it and can be reached
at: mm39@post.queensu.ca]



A: ABSTRACT

"A content analysis of pornographic images on the Internet"
By Michael D. Mehta and Dwaine E. Plaza

This paper examines the nature and content of 150 randomly selected
pornographic images available through newsgroups located on the
Internet computer network. Using content analysis, we identify themes
which appear most frequently, and explore differences in the type of
material posted by commercial and non-commercial users. Results
suggest that commercial vendors are more likely to post explicit
pornographic material in public access newsgroups in order to attract
new customers to their private, pay-per-use bulletin board services.



B: PARALLEL CONSTRUCTIONS

Following are examples of where the two studies express similar ideas.
Page numbers are in parentheses. Since both studies talk about similar
topics, many parallel constructions could be coincidences. Rimm never
mentions the Mehta-Plaza study in his paper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIMM STUDY				MEHTA/PLAZA STUDY DRAFT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1867) 17 of the 32 alt.binaries 	(7) 17 Usenet newsgroups were
Usenet newsgroups contained 		identified that contained sexually-
pornographic imagery			oriented images
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1865) Images are also posted to	(16) Other newsgroups besides
newsgroups outside the alt.binaries	those studied may contain
hierarchy				sexually-explicit images
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1914) Pornography is widely 		(13) Pornography on computer
available through computer networks	networks is widely available
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1852) Pornography is being vigorously	(14) Commercial distributors
marketed in computer environments	of pornography use the Internet to
					market it
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1851,1875) Pornographers are using	(14) Commercial distributors of
Usenet newsgroups to advertise		pornography post images to newsgroups
products and attract customers		to attract customers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1868) The role of the NSFnet		(4) The role of the NSF backbone
backbone began to change		is now changing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1862) The Internet is increasingly	(3) The Internet has the potential
being used by pornographers		to disseminate pornography
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1861) One of the largest uses for	(4) The distribution of pornography
computer networks is the distribution	is a new use for computer networks
of sexually explicit imagery
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1910) Pornographers are using	 	(6) Commercial vendors may see
newsgroups to advertise at no cost	newsgroups as a way to advertise
					freely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1862) Until recently, the primary	(4) Until recently, the primary use
use of the Internet was	linking		of the Internet was for scientific
university and government computers	research purposes
for research purposes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1868) Multimedia graphics are being	(16) There are more advanced types
developed				of image files which simulate
					movement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1885) The presentation of kappa	(10) Kappa coefficients were
values was unnecessary because of the	calculated and indicated a good
high level of reliability *		degree of inter-coder reliability
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1916) The study lists 4 boldfaced	(22) The study lists 22 categories
categories and 18 additional ones
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1852) Consumers enjoy considerable	(5) Users download images in
privacy while downloading images from	the privacy of their offices
computer networks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1875) An adult BBS sysop can find	(14) Most images come from magazines
images in magazines			or videotapes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1912) Raises questions about		(17) Says the Internet has the
community standards in cyberspace	potential to undermine local laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1908) Lawmakers are grappling with     (18) Content of computer pornography
digitized pornography and may decide	will change with regulation of
to regulate the Internet		the "global village."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1853) It may be difficult for 		(17) It is necessary for others
researchers to repeat this study	to replicate this study
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1875) Adult BBS operators are more	(14) Commercial operators are
likely to post explicit pornography **	more likely to post explicit
					pornography
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* = Mehta says: "The kappa coefficient came right from us. He asked how we
calculated reliability, and we told him. It's in there, but he didn't use it.
I don't think he knew how."

** = Rimm's study says that adult BBS owners post 71% of hardcore
pornography but just 59% of the combined total of hardcore and
softcore pornography.



C: ESTIMATES OF WORD OCCURRENCES (1)

Note the highly emotional words Rimm uses in his study. Where
Mehta-Plaza use the term "commercial vendor," Rimm uses "pornographer."

                          	      Mehta-Plaza Study	   Rimm Study (2)
                                      -----------------	   ----------
Paraphilia / Paraphilic 	      0			   82
Pornographer			      0			   70
Child (3)              		      1	                   52
Hard-Core			      0                    52
Bestiality			      2                    45
Pedophilia / Pedophile / Pedophilic   0			   41
Commercial                            42 		   39
Dog / Horse                           0                    23
Fisting				      0                    22
Obscene				      0			   21
Cock				      0                    21
Fuck				      0 		   21
Incest                                2                    17
Pussy				      0                    17
Pain                                  0                    15
Abuse				      0	                   7
Torture				      0                    7
Penis				      7			   4
"She holds the dog cock! Inserts
it in her daughter's ass!"	      0                    2

(1) Since the counting technique isn't perfect the data shouldn't be
seen as exact. Also, Rimm's paper is considerably longer so one would
expect a word to occur more often.

(2) To obtain these figures, the Mehta-Plaza paper was saved to a file
with the references and Table 1 included. The Rimm paper and footnotes
from http://trfn.pgh.pa.us/guest/mrstudy.html were saved in a single
file. The following command sequence was used to extract word counts
from the two files:

	tr '\040' '\012' < {study} | fgrep -i {word} | wc -l

(3) Usually used in the phrase "child pornography." In this case, data
were reviewed manually for accuracy. The one use of the word "child"
in the Mehta-Plaza study was: "We never came across an image depicting
a sexual act between an adult and a child/adolescent or acts between
children."

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

From: Emmanuel Goldstein <emmanuel@2600.COM>
Subject: File 3--"Imprisonment wihouth Guilt" for "Hacking"
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 16:20:27 -0400 (EDT)

What follows is a letter from Bernie S., who has been in prison for
over four months, held with no bail for possessing a red box and
cellular software. Please help get his words to the public. I've
been trying to get EFF and EPIC people involved in what I believe
is a milestone case and one which will affect a lot of people in
the future. I'm utterly disgusted at the lack of response I've
gotten from them so far.

emmanuel@2600.com


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

THIS IS A COPY OF A LETTER FROM ED CUMMINGS (BERNIE S.)
WHO IS STILL IN FEDERAL PRISON IN NEW JERSEY. HIS TRIAL
IS SCHEDULED FOR THE END OF THE MONTH - YOU MAY HAVE
THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP WITH HIS CASE. PLEASE
SPREAD THE WORD AND READ THE NEW LAWS THAT HE CITES -
THIS IS A CASE THAT WILL AFFECT A GREAT MANY PEOPLE.



July 10, 1995

This week marks four months of imprisonment without having been
found guilty of any crime.

I'm enclosing a copy of the United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 18,
ss1029. The two statutes I'm charged with are: ss1029(a)(6)(B) (one
count) for possession of cellular software on the hard drive of my
laptop, and ss1029(a)(5) (two counts) for possessing a modified
Telecommunications Instrument (a modified Touch-Tone dialer). These
two amendments to ss1029 were enacted by Congress on October 21,
1994 after heavy lobbying by the cellular industry. Any discussion
of my case without understanding this new legislation is
unproductive.

The statutes are worded as follows:

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

ss1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access
devices

(a) Whoever -

...

(5) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics
in, has control or custody of, or possesses a telecommunications
instrument that has been modified or altered to obtain unauthorized
use of telecommunications services; or

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics
in, has control or custody of, or possesses -

(A) a scanning receiver, or

(B) hardware or software used for altering or modifying
telecommunications instruments to obtain unauthorized access to
telecommunications services.

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

It's important to note that the government is not alleging that
I've "acted" illegally. I'm not being charged with "cloning",
selling, or using any illegally cloned cellular phones, possessing
fraudulent or stolen Electronic Serial Numbers (ESN's), possessing
any equipment or software enabling the acquisition of others'
ESN's, or selling or using any "Red Boxes". The government's
charges against me are solely that I had the "intent" to use
software or hardware to violate new federal laws.

Until very recently, the federal statutes used to prosecute those
accused of defrauding telecommunications carriers relied on the
"access device" definition embodied in ss1029. That definition
(which was actually worded years ago in an effort to curb
credit-card fraud) failed to adequately describe certain types of
fraud involving "ESN/MIN tumbling" cellular phones, blue boxes, red
boxes, etc. because none of these devices accessed a specific
person's account. The government was having trouble prosecuting
these cases because the laws didn't fit the crime. Last October 21,
at the behest of telecommunications and cellular industry
lobbyists, Congress quietly enacted two amendments to ss1029 that
neatly sidestep the long-standing and well-defined phrase "access
device" by using undefined terminology which can be interpreted so
broadly it can be applied to just about anything the government
wants. With the passage of ss1029(a)(5) and (a)(6)(A) and
(a)(6)(B), it can now be a federal felony to possess, use, sell, or
lend anything that might enable anyone to obtain "unauthorized use"
or "unauthorized access" to telecommunications services - neither
of which the law defines. Other terminology like "altered",
"modified", and "telecommunications instrument" are also
conveniently undefined.

With regards to the "hardware or software used for altering or
modifying telecommunications instruments" mentioned in
ss1029(a)(6)(B), the government is ostensibly trying to prevent
people from reprogramming the ESN & MIN in cellular phones, as well
as the identifying information in any future PCS devices that are
coming out in the future. ESN's are easily and commonly
reprogrammed to allow one subscriber to have two or more cellular
phones on the same account - something that cellular carriers would
rather tell subscribers is impossible and that they have to setup
separate accounts with different phone numbers and additional
$20-$40/month "access fees" for each phone. The MIN, or phone
number, is easily reprogrammed from the keypad of all modern
cellular phones, and the associated ESN can be reprogrammed by
using a PC connected to the phone's data port with the proper
software. Since the government doesn't define "alter" or "modify"
but clearly intends it to mean changing the contents on data in a
memory chip, and since it also fails to define "unauthorized use"
and "unauthorized access", it opens up a Pandora's box of potential
violations of these new felony statutes.

For instance, the practice of storing commonly-called telephone
numbers in a cellular phone (some have up to 200 memories for this)
is also, by the same implied definition, "altering" or "modifying"
that "telecommunications instrument". "Unauthorized use" is not
defined in the statutes, but could be interpreted to mean calling
someone who doesn't want to be called. Simply dialing a number on
a cellular phone "alters" and "modifies" the contents of memory
addresses in microchips contained in that phone. So does dialing
someone who doesn't want to be called constitute a felony under
this statute? FCC regulations prohibit transmission of profanity
over the airwaves. Cellular telephones are actually computerized
two-way radios. Does using profane language during a cellular
telephone conversation then constitute "unauthorized use" under
s1029(a)(5), making participants felons? As you know, a casual scan
of the 825-895 Mhz radio spectrum that cellular radiotelephones use
(which itself is now a federal felony!) would expose a whole lot of
felons (profanity abounds).

There are other problems with these amendments. Title 18
ss1029(a)(6)(a) makes it a federal felony to possess "a scanning
receiver". I believe this statute tries to address the users of so
called "ESN grabbers" that intercept the reverse-channel data
transmissions of cellular telephones. These data streams can be
demodulated and contain the ESN/MIN pairs that illegal cellular
cloners use to program into other cellular phones to charge calls
to the legitimate customers' accounts without their knowledge.
Unfortunately, the drafters of this legislation didn't bother to
consider that "scanning receivers" of many types are sold by the
tens of millions at stores all over the country for perfectly
reasonable purposes. Scanning radios are used by enthusiasts
worldwide to listen to public-service radio traffic (i.e., police,
fire, ambulance, weather, municipal, etc.), and all modern
digitally-tuned radios in cars and home stereos utilize "scanning"
functions for easy tuning. Maybe there was some underlying intent
to outlaw the millions of radios out there that can easily monitor
law enforcment frequencies; perhaps the government's paranoia has
extended this far. In any case, this is clearly a bad law, and I
could go on and on as to why. The only way to change these
badly-worded amendments is to lobby (i.e. buy) Senators and
Congresspersons to propose and pass new legislaton amending these
bad laws so that they make sense. The cellular industry did just
that in 1986 with the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act)
and in 1994 with these amendments to USC 18 ss1029. Unfortunately,
those of us who care about changing these bad laws don't have the
money or the influence to buy legislation.

Although I haven't read the several page article about my case in
the summer issue of 2600, I'm disappointed there was no mention of
the legislation that made this entire episode possible. To me,
that's the real story.

My trial is scheduled for July 31 at 10:00 AM in coutroom 9-B
(ninth floor) of the US Federal Courthouse at 601 Market Street in
Philadelphia. If any of this changes, I'll let you know. There are
some pending pretrial defense motions but whether the judge decides
to hear them before July 31 remains to be seen. I'm extremely
frustrated having been held for over four months in pretrial
detention because it makes preparing a defense virtually impossible
given my inaccessibility to normal resources.

If you read over the enclosed summary of the BRADY case (which
involved someone who was allegedly selling "Tumbling MIN/ESN
celullar phones") you will see that government "expert" witnesses
are capable of making all kinds of misstatements of facts, either
out of incompetence or intention. If this occurs during my trial
(which I believe is entirely possible) I will have to present
expert witnesses to counter the government's. Is a jury of 12
technically untrained people going to believe a United States
Secret Service Agent who specializes in telecommunications and
computer fraud, or someone I come up with who claims the agent
doesn't know what he's talking about? It all comes down to
credibility, not about what's right and wrong.

The government has unlimited resources to prosecute this case, and
I'm broke. I can't even afford to hire any expert witnesses, let
alone someone of the stature necessary to credibly counter the
government's experts. Do me a big favor and put word out that I
need expert witnesses with that kind of credibility. The only thing
I can offer them is the notoriety and publicity of presenting their
expertise at a highly publicised trial.

This case is legally significant because its outcome will set a
legal precedent on which future cases of this type are based. The
two statutes I am charged with are untested - no one has ever been
convicted of them. This case WILL be in the law books, one way or
another. Its outcome will affect many people in the future. There
are also Constitutional issues at stake. Do we really want the
government to be able to imprison anyone for publishing a computer
program? Or for possessing readily-available electronic components
that can be purchased at Radio Shack and other companies
nationwide? That's what this case amounts to. Again, I'm not even
being accused of committing any fraud, just possessing software and
commonly available components that the government says show I had
the INTENT to commit fraud. The ramifications are frightening - not
just for me, who could spend years in federal prison, and be
labeled a federal felon the rest of my life - but for anyone else
whose curiosity extends to computers, telecommunications, software,
and electronics. If I am convicted, the government can declare
open-season on anyone fitting that profile, just as they do now on
people fitting "drug courier profiles". Hackers, phreaks, and
computer and electronics hobbyists will all be fair game.

Please get the word out on what I'm saying here. Implore people to
write their legislators to amend these bad laws. It's a long-shot,
but negative publicity might help to get the government to back
down.

This has been an extremely stressful and depressing ordeal for me.
It has resulted in the loss of my job (all my clients have had to
turn elsewhere), my life savings, several months of my life (maybe
more), it's affected my health (I've repeatedly been denied access
to the physical therapy that my orthopedic surgeon says is
necessary for me to regain the use of my arm), and generally been
a living hell. I don't want anyone else to have to go through this
nightmare. Please do what you can, and encourage others to do the
same. It may not make a difference, but then again it might. At the
risk of sounding grandiose, how this case is decided truly impacts
out entire community.

I hope to see the EFF and/or EPIC actively involved in my case.
Either organization might have information my attorney can use.
Anyone who needs to can contact him, Ken Trujillo, at
ktrujillo@aol.com.

Thanks again for all your help on this as it comes down to the
wire. It's extremely frustrating to have to rely on others to do
things that I'd be perfectly capable of doing myself if I weren't
locked up in here. Times like these make you realize who your
friends really are.

Ed Cummings 48919-066
FCI Fairton
A-Left
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320

bernies@2600.com

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 13:52:45 -0700
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Subject: File 4--[to GovAccess] sample of VTW's *stellar* tech-civlib alerts!

I cannot recommend Voters Telecomm Watch too highly to my GovAccess readers.

If you care about the barrage of attacks that naive and/or ignorant and/or
arrogant and/or flat-out irresponsible, pandering, media-seeking
politicians are proposing to inflict on traditional civil liberties - using
the singular excuse that such liberties are aided by computer - I *urge*
you to subscribe to VTW.

Except for its most crucial, time-sensitive action-alerts, I will not be
duplicating VTW's *excellent* content to GovAccess in the future. Git it
direct!

--jim


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Date--Sat, 22 Jul 1995 09:20:15 -0400
From--shabbir@panix.com
Subject--(Weekly) VTW Billwatch #10

============================================================================
      VTW BillWatch: A weekly newsletter tracking US Federal legislation
        affecting civil liberties.  BillWatch is published every
           Friday afternoon as long as Congress is in session.

               Issue #10, Date: Sat Jul 22 00:55:27 EDT 1995

      Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact
          Redistribute no more than two weeks after above date
             Reproduce this alert only in relevant forums

      Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw@vtw.org)

      *** Know of someone in NY/NJ with a fax machine but without net ***
      *** access that's interested in VTW's issues?  Tell them to     ***
      *** call and get on our weekly fax distribution list at         ***
      *** (718) 596-2851.                                             ***

         To get on the distribution list for BillWatch, send mail to
                            listproc@vtw.org with
                   "subscribe vtw-announce Firstname Lastname"
                             in the subject line.

         Email vtw@vtw.org with "send billwatch" in the subject line
                  to receive the latest version of BillWatch
____________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
        Rumor Central (RC)
        *** Legislative information is unchanged since last week ***
        Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act (HR 1978, S n.a.)
          (awaiting official presentation in the House, nothing in Senate)
        1995 Communications Decency Act (HR 1004, S 314)
          (passed Senate, fight in the House)
        1995 Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act
          (HR n.a., S 892, Senate hearing scheduled for July 24th)
        Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
          (HR n.a., S 974, not currently moving in the Senate)

____________________________________________________________________________
RUMOR CENTRAL (RC)

                        "The Net: under attack again"

        Whenever pro-censorship forces attack the Internet, they
        trot out kids who have been "cyber-stalked" or have found
        pornography online.  Unfortunately what you never hear about
        is kids using the net in exciting ways because it doesn't make
        good sensationalistic news.

        Do you know of a young child using the Internet with their
        parent's permission?  Their input is needed THIS WEEKEND.
        Please contact VTW at vtw@vtw.org, or by phone at (718) 596-2851.
        The information will be put into the Congressional Record by
        anti-net-censorship legislators to counter the pro-censorship
        hysteria.

        Remember, please contact us THIS WEEKEND.


                   "Dole/Grassley hearings Monday"

        Followers of BillWatch will note that Monday, July 24th, marks
        the Dole/Grassley hearings on S 892 (1995 Protection of
        Children from Computer Pornography Act).  When you hear about
        the hearing through the media (we won't be able to get it
        through the Congressional Record) you're going to flip.

        Expect a large collection of people who claim to be the victims
        of "cyber-stalkers".  While violence against children is
        abhorred by all reasonable people, you cannot be harmed through
        your computer.  One needs to perform a physical act to commit
        such a crime.  Let's severely punish and despise the crime, not
        the speech.

        If it goes as predicted, the hearing should anger you.
        Remember this the next time you see an alert asking you to call
        Congress.  BillWatch looks forward to seeing Brock Meeks'
        review of the hearing.


                        "The Rimm follies"

        The text of the Rimm study, and commentary by Anne Wells
        Branscomb, Catherine MacKinnon, and Carlin Meyer can be found
        at:
                URL:http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/rimm.html


Send your interesting rumors (anonymously or not) to vtw@vtw.org.
All mail headers will be destroyed.

____________________________________________________________________________
Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act (HR 1978, S n.a.)

Description:
        HR 1978 is an attempt to recognize the unique medium that is
        online systems and avoid legislating censorship.  It would:
         -prohibit the FCC from regulating constitutionally-protected
          online speech
         -absolve sysops and services from liability if they take
          good faith measures to screen their content or provide
          parental-screening software

        See directions below for obtaining analyses from various
        organizations.

House of Representatives, citizen action required:
        Take a moment to read and familiarize yourself with the bill.
        It may be the only time you ever see a bill that *prohibits*
        the FCC from regulating the Internet.

House sponsors: Cox (R-CA), Wyden (D-OR)

House status:
        Currently HR 1978 is being examined by several DC policy groups
        (EPIC, CDT, ACLU, & PFAW) to ensure it won't have any
        undesirable side effects.  Therefore, the legislation as
        written may change slightly to correct any problems found.

House actions anticipated:
        Representatives Cox and Wyden will propose their bill and
        the Christian Coalition will propose the Communications Decency
        Act.  Although Rep. Gingrich's opposition to the Communications
        Decency Act is encouraging, it isn't clear that it will be enough
        to keep the House from passing another clearly unconstitutional
        bill.

Where to get more info:
        Email:  vtw@vtw.org (with "send hr1978" in the subject line)
        Gopher: gopher -p 1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com
        WWW:    http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon

____________________________________________________________________________
1995 COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (CDA) (Passed Senate, HR 1004)

Description:
        The CDA would criminalize electronic speech currently protected
        in print by the First Amendment.

House of Representatives, citizen action required:
        Call the League of Women Voters in your city and find out who
        your representative is and ask them where they stand.  Directions
        can be found by sending mail to vtw@vtw.org with "send alert"
        in the subject line.

House CDA sponsors: Johnson (D-SD)

House status:
        Currently the CDA is unattached to any legislation, however
        it is expected that someone will introduce it as an amendment
        to the Telecomm bill in the next few weeks.  In addition,
        three Representatives (Gingrich, Cox, and Wyden) have all taken
        public positions against the Communications Decency Act.  Anti-
        censorship legislation (HR 1978) has come out of their objections
        to the CDA.

        The palatable Leahy alternative has been attached to the
        House Telecomm Reform bill by an amendment sponsored by
        Rep. Ron Klink (D-4-PA).

House actions anticipated:
        The House Telecomm Reform bill will go to a floor vote
        in mid to late July.  The Christian Coalition will find
        someone to try to amend the Communications Decency Act to
        the Telecomm Reform bill.  Reps. Cox and Wyden will propose
        their alternative to the bill.

        Request the CDA FAQ and familiarize yourself with the issues
        surrounding the bill.  Directions below.

Senate, citizen action required:
        None.  That battle is lost.

Senate status:
        The Senate affirmed the Communications Decency Act (84-16)
        as amended to the Telecommunications Reform bill (S 652).

Where to get more info:
        WWW:    http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon
                http://www.eff.org/
                http://www.cdt.org/
                http://epic.org/free_speech
        Gopher: gopher -p 1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com
                gopher gopher.eff.org
        Email:  vtw@vtw.org (with "send cdafaq" in the subject line)
                cda-status@cdt.org
                cda-info@cdt.org

____________________________________________________________________________
1995 Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act (S 892)

Description:
        Would make Internet Service Providers liable for shielding
        people under 18 from all indecent content on the Internet.

Senate sponsors: Dole (R-KS), Coats (R-IN), Grassley (R-IA), McConnell (R-KY),
        Shelby (R-AL), Nickles (R-OK), Hatch (R-UT)

Senate status: Currently in the Judiciary committee, scheduled for a
        July 24th hearing.  The hearing promises to be a bonanza of
        net porn/stalker hysteria.

Senate citizen action required:
        Request bill and analysis below and familiarize yourself with it.

House of Representatives status: No House version is known about.

Citizen action required:
        None.

Where to get more info:
        Email:  vtw@vtw.org (with "send s892" in the subject line)
        WWW:    URL:http://www.panix.com/vtw/exon
        Gopher: URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/11/vtw/exon

____________________________________________________________________________
Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (HR n.a., S 974)

Description:
        S 974 has many effects (not good) on law enforcement's use of
        intercepted communications.  It would also make it unlawful for
        any person to publicly disseminate encoding or encrypting
        software including software *currently allowed* to be exported
        unless it contained a "universal decoding device".  This
        more than likely means that Clipper-style key escrow systems
        could be disseminated, but not strong, private cryptography.

Senate sponsors: Grassley (R-IA)

Senate status: Currently not active and probably won't move before the
        August recess.

Senate citizen action required:
        Request bill below and familiarize yourself with it.  VTW is
        tracking this bill, and will alert you when there is movement.
        There is no Congressional action to take right now; as other
        bills (such as the Communications Decency Act) pose a greater,
        more immediate threat.

House of Representatives status: No House version is currently enrolled.

Where to get more info:
        Email:  vtw@vtw.org (with "send s974" in the subject line)
        Gopher: URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com:70/11/vtw/

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

Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)

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

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

Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message:  SUB CUDIGEST  your name
Send it to  LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to  LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:  In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS:  +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
         Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
         In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS:  +39-464-435189
         In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS:  +352-466893

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #7.63
************************************

