Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 7, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 28 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish 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, #8.28 (Sun, Apr 7, 1996) File 1--Singapore leader condemns Net as porn, bomb-building haven File 2--Computers, Porn, the Law and the Media (One day in the UK) File 3--German Internet Update (3/29/96) File 4--Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship File 5--Letter to the Minister of Justice (Canada) File 6--ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto File 7--NETRADIO--"CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS" E-Mail Seminar (fwd) File 8--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone File 9--Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone File 10--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA File 11--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: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 02:57:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: File 1--Singapore leader condemns Net as porn, bomb-building haven ASEAN members include Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam. So if I'm keeping track properly, China, the U.S., the E.C., Middle Eastern nations, and ASEAN all have said they want greater controls on the Net. The unanimity is amazing. Also today, Reuters reports that the first Sri Lankan cybercafes are opening up... -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- March 7, 1996 SINGAPORE (Reuter) - ASEAN information ministers warned Thursday there was a dark side to the information technology revolution and agreed to establish a regulatory body to oversee the Internet invasion. A joint press statement issued by the ministers said they would set up the regulatory body by the end of the year to come up with ``appropriate responses'' to the Internet. [...] The ministers earlier expressed concern about pornographic content in cyberspace and information on the Internet that could spread racial and religious tension within their countries. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:39:14 -0600 From: David G. Bell Subject: File 2--Computers, Porn, the Law and the Media (One day in the UK) Computers, Pornography, the Law, and the Media -- One Day in the UK. Today, the 2nd of April 1996, British Police forces raided 40 houses looking for child pornography. In a court in Birmingham, two men plead guilty when a judge ruled that computer images were photographs. And, somehow, BBC Radio News managed to combine these two stories into the usual 'Internet Pornography' story, despite a police denial that computers were involved in the first story. In fact, it was said by one police officer that video recordings were the most common sort of material they encountered. Oddly enough, the only recording medium mentioned in the news bulletins were 'computer disks', while a longer report managed to bring in the Internet and involve the 'usual suspects'. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:13:29 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 3--German Internet Update (3/29/96) I'm cleaning out my mailbox now that I'm back from CFP, and found this. I heard a common theme from the non-Americans at CFP -- if America, the world's "freest" country, can engage in online censorship, then so can they... -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Sat, 30 Mar 1996 07:08:14 -0800 (PST) From--Jay Holovacs Subject--News From Germany The following is excerpted from Nando News Website, check it out for more info. _________________________________________________________________ GERMANY PLANS BILL TO PUNISH INTERNET INDECENCY ___________________________________________________________ Copyright © 1996 Nando.net Copyright © 1996 Reuter Information Service BONN (Mar 29, 1996 10:27 a.m. EST) - Germany's justice minister is planning a new law making clear companies who provide access to the Internet are not expected to police cyberspace on the lookout for pornography or neo-Nazi propaganda. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig told reporters on Thursday night that firms who offer a link to the worldwide computer network would only be punished if they discovered illegal material was available via their service and did nothing about it. "Someone who opens a door cannot know what the people who walk through it are going to be carrying," he said. "And if there were body searches for everyone going through your door, people would simply choose to go through another." ... Internet regulation has been a particularly prickly issue in Germany. Child pornography investigators searched the Munich offices of access provider CompuServe in November and found several Internet pages they considered illegal. Authorities are also investigating several other online services as part of a probe into pornographic and neo-Nazi material found on the Internet. But so far prosecutors have not been able to bring any charges, partly because legal experts are unsure where new companies stand under laws drafted long before they existed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Holovacs ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: File 4--Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship My growing collection of international Net-censorship attempts is at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/ -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- SYDNEY, April 3 (UPI) -- People will face a maximum penalty of one year in jail or fines of $7,800 ($10,000 Australian) if caught transmitting or advertising pornographic material on the Internet, the New South Wales government announced Tuesday. Corporations would face stiffer penalties, Attorney General Jeff Shaw said at a press conference. Under the state government's tough new legislation soon to be introduced, it will be illegal to transmit, advertise, permit access to and retrieve of pornographic material on-line. The new laws will also cover computer games that include violence and sexual activity, Shaw said. He said the move to penalize people who peddle and download porn was necessary to protect children, but he admitted policing the legislation could be ``difficult.'' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 23:19:17 -0500 From: Dov Wisebrod Subject: File 5--Letter to the Minister of Justice (Canada) Folks, The following letter is in the mail. It is a response to a pending amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code revising the law of search and seizure of computer systems and data. While not a Canadian Communications Decency Act, the legislative Bill reflects as much misunderstanding of computers and computer mediated communication as the infamous American Act. The letter was prepared through the combined efforts of Dov Wisebrod, Daniel Shap, David Fruitman, and John Kingdon. It has been sent to the Minister of Justice (Hon. Allan Rock), the Department of Justice's advisor on computer law (Donald Piragoff), the Federal Privacy Commissioner (Bruce Phillips), and the local Member of Parliament (Tony Ianno). Please distribute widely. Dov ---------------------------------------------- The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada 206 St. George St., Suite 603 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5R 2N6 http://www.io.org/~logic logic@io.org - (416) 963-9434 March 18, 1996 The Honourable Allan Rock Minister of Justice Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Dear Mr. Rock: Re: Bill C-118 "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend certain other Acts" The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada ("LoGIC") is a conduit for the exchange of information and ideas about policies concerning emerging communication and information technologies. We are devoted to ensuring informed public, legislative, and regulatory responses to these technologies, which at present are manifest most profoundly in the Internet. We want to ensure that new laws and regulations have no detrimental effects on the free and interactive communication of information. We are concerned about certain proposed amendments to the Criminal Code contained within Bill C-118 (as it was identified while passing First Reading during the last complete session of the Legislature). Our concerns relate to section 41 of the Bill. Section 41 proposes to amend the existing Criminal Code section 487, which sets out information required for search warrants. For your immediate reference, we have attached to this letter the text of section 487 as it would appear after being amended. The proposed amendments are highlighted by capitalization. Our comments and recommendations with respect to the substance of these provisions follow. Comments -------- The proposed amendments would introduce new subsections 487(2.1) and 487(2.2) providing for the search and seizure of computer systems and data. Our primary concern is that the provisions do not adequately reflect the complexities of computer use and communication. In particular, the provisions do not accord with the distributed nature of the medium, including the distribution of users of a particular computer system and the distribution of data accessible by the system. The proposed amendments ignore the globally distributed nature of data and its users. The new subsection 487(2.1)(a) would provide that a person authorized to search a computer system for data may use any computer system in the building "to search any data contained in or available to the computer system." The quoted language does not distinguish between the two sources of data. However, there is good reason to treat data available to the computer system differently from data contained within it. Data available to the system may be physically located outside of the jurisdiction of the issuer of the warrant, potentially bringing the persons authorizing and conducting the search into conflict with foreign law. A similar concern is identified and addressed in the existing subsection 487(2), which provides for modified search warrants in circumstances where the subject of the search "is believed to be in any other territorial division" within Canada. In the context of the search of a computer system, it is quite probable that the data available to the computer system includes data located in jurisdictions outside of Canada. The international nature of the difficulty calls for a solution beyond that offered by subsection 487(2). It is necessary to have two distinct sets of provisions, one of which governs the search of data "contained in" a computer system and another specifically designed to address the difficulty of searching data "available to" a computer system. The words "or available to" should be removed from the proposed amendment to both subsections 487(2.1)(a) and 487(2.2)(a). In addition, the proposed amendments do not respect the privacy rights of persons whose data may be contained in or available to the computer system subject to the search. The disregard for privacy rights may be seen in two related ways. First, data available to the system may include data contained in other computer systems and available only by password access to those other systems. The other computer systems may be within the control, ownership, and reasonable expectation of privacy of persons unrelated to the subject and purpose of the search warrant. The provisions thus create a "backdoor" to search computer systems for which a warrant has not directly been issued. Similarly, data contained in the computer system may be subject to the control, ownership, and reasonable expectation of privacy of other persons. For instance, if the computer system subject to the search is used to provide an online service to subscribers, it may contain the private data of those subscribers. This data may include electronic correspondence or other information sent by the subscribers to others, as well as electronic information sent by others to the subscribers. Again, a "backdoor" is created by the new provisions to infringe the reasonable expectation of privacy of both the sender and the recipient of this electronic information. These concerns are intensified by the language of the proposed subsection 487(2.2). The subsection would provide that any warrant authorizing the search of any building or place also authorizes the search of "any data contained in or available to" any computer system at that location. The proposed language explicitly authorizes the search of computer data without requiring any information to be sworn in support of the reasons for the search. There is no requirement of any substantive review by a judge authorizing the search of data. In effect, the proposed subsection creates a default authorization to search data. Given the problems inherent in any search involving a computer system, a judicial review of the information justifying the search of data is essential in all cases. The authorizing judge must be presented with clear and reasonably precise reasons and guidelines for the intended search and seizure. This is necessary to ensure that both the purpose and conduct of the search is justified. In order to maintain these protective measures in the procedure for authorizing a search, the proposed default authority must be removed. Finally, we are concerned about the potential for self-incriminatory activity by the person whose property is the subject of a search. Subsection 487(2.1) would authorize the person conducting the search to use the computer system in order to search, reproduce, and seize data. Subsection 487(2.2), while similar, would add that the person whose property is being searched "shall, on presentation of the warrant, permit the person carrying out the search" to use the computer system. It is unclear from this language whether the person whose property is being searched is required to take positive steps to assist the person carrying out the search. Our concern is that the inherent vagueness of the proposed provision allows for such an interpretation. If the computer system is accessible only by first supplying a password, the person may have to supply it. If the data being searched is encrypted, the person may have to provide the decryption key. This would amount to being compelled to assist in the discovery of evidence against oneself, which is inconsistent with the most fundamental principles of criminal law. The proposed amendment should be rewritten to remedy its potentially dangerous vagueness. Recommendations --------------- o Remove the words "or available to" from the proposed amendment. o Require a search warrant for a computer system to describe the type of data authorized to be searched. o Require a search warrant for data to limit the computer systems authorized to be searched. o Do not provide for default authorization to search computer systems. o Do not compel potentially self-incriminatory activity from the person whose property is being searched. Thank you for the time taken to consider our comments and recommendations. We would be pleased to confer with you further. Daniel Shap, a co-founder of The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada, has previously commented at length on this subject. His 1993 paper, entitled "Search and Seizure of Canadian Computer Environments," was prepared for, and is in the possession of, Donald Piragoff of the Department of Justice. It is also available on the Internet's World Wide Web at: http://www.io.org/~logic/papers/ds-search.htm The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada may be contacted at the above street and Internet addresses and telephone number. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours very truly, [Signed] Dov Wisebrod L o G I C The Legal Group for the Internet in Canada c.c. Donald Piragoff Department of Justice Bruce Phillips Federal Privacy Commissioner Tony Ianno Member of Parliament SECTION 41: INFORMATION FOR SEARCH WARRANTS ----------------------------------------------- 487 --- (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place (a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed, (b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament, or (c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which a person may be arrested without warrant, may at any time issue a warrant under his hand authorizing a person named therein or a peace officer (d) to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to seize it, and (e) subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable, bring the thing seized before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the justice or some other justice for the same territorial division in accordance with section 489.1. (2) Where the building, receptacle or place in which anything mentioned in subsection (1) is believed to be is in any other territorial division, the justice may issue his warrant in like form modified according to the circumstances, and the warrant may be executed in the other territorial division after it has been Endorsed, in Form 28, by a justice having jurisdiction in that territorial division. (2.1) A PERSON AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS SECTION TO SEARCH A COMPUTER SYSTEM IN A BUILDING OR PLACE FOR DATA MAY (A) USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE BUILDING OR PLACE TO SEARCH ANY DATA CONTAINED IN OR AVAILABLE TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM; (B) REPRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE REPRODUCED ANY DATA IN THE FORM OF A PRINT-OUT OR OTHER INTELLIGIBLE OUTPUT; (C) SEIZE THE PRINT-OUT OR OTHER OUTPUT FOR EXAMINATION OR COPYING; AND (D) USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COPYING EQUIPMENT AT THE PLACE TO MAKE COPIES OF THE DATA. (2.2) EVERY PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BUILDING OR PLACE IN RESPECT OF WHICH A SEARCH IS CARRIED OUT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL, ON PRESENTATION OF THE WARRANT, PERMIT THE PERSON CARRYING OUT THE SEARCH (A) TO USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE BUILDING OR PLACE TO SEARCH ANY DATA CONTAINED IN OR AVAILABLE TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR DATA THAT THE PERSON IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION TO SEARCH FOR; (B) TO OBTAIN A HARD COPY OF THE DATA AND TO SEIZE IT; AND (C) TO USE OR CAUSE TO BE USED ANY COPYING EQUIPMENT AT THE PLACE TO MAKE COPIES OF THE DATA. (3) A search warrant issued under this section may be in the form set out as Form 5 in Part XXVIII, varied to suit the case. (4) An endorsement that is made on a warrant as provided for in subsection (2) is sufficient authority to the peace officers or the persons to whom it was originally directed and to all peace officers within the jurisdiction of the justice by whom it is endorsed to execute the warrant and to deal with the things seized in accordance with section 489.1 or as otherwise provided by law. (6) Subsections 487(2) and (4) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to a warrant issued under subsection (1). ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1996 16:25:03 -0500 From: "Dave Banisar" Subject: File 6--ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto Reply to: ACM/IEEE Letter on Crypto Association For Computing Machinery Office of US Public Policy 666 Pennsylvania Avenue SE Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003 USA (tel) 202/298-0842 (fax) 202/547-5482 Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers United States Activities 1828 L Street NW Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 USA (tel) 202/785-0017 (fax) 202/785-0835 April 2, 1996 Honorable Conrad Burns Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee US Senate SD-508 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Burns: On behalf of the nation's two leading computing and engineering associations, we are writing to support your efforts, and the efforts of the other cosponsors of the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, to remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption technology. The Encrypted Communications Privacy Act sets out the minimum changes that are necessary to the current export controls on encryption technology. However, we believe that the inclusion of issues that are tangential to export, such as key escrow and encryption in domestic criminal activities, is not necessary. The relaxation of export controls is of great economic importance to industry and users, and should not become entangled in more controversial matters. Current restrictions on the export of encryption technology harm the interests of the United States in three ways: they handicap American producers of software & hardware, prevent the development of a secure information infrastructure, and limit the ability of Americans using new online services to protect their privacy. The proposed legislation will help mitigate all of these problems, though more will need to be done to assure continued US leadership in this important hi-tech sector. Technological progress has moved encryption from the realm of national security into the commercial sphere. Current policies, as well as the policy-making processes, should reflect this new reality. The legislation takes a necessary first step in shifting authority to the Commerce Department and removing restrictions on certain encryption products. Future liberalization of export controls will allow Americans to excel in this market. The removal of out-dated restrictions on exports will also enable the creation of a Global Information Infrastructure sufficiently secure to provide seamless connectivity to customers previously unreachable by American companies. The United States is a leader in Internet commerce. However, Internet commerce requires cryptography. Thus American systems have been hindered by cold-war restraints on the necessary cryptography as these systems have moved from the laboratory to the marketplace. This legislation would open the market to secure, private, ubiquitous electronic commerce. The cost of not opening the market may include the loss of leadership in computer security technologies, just at the time when Internet users around the world will need good security to launch commercial applications. For this legislation to fulfill its promise the final approval of export regulations must be based on analysis of financial and commercial requirements and opportunities, not simply on the views of experts in national security cryptography. Therefore, we urge you to look at ways to further relax restrictive barriers. Finally, the legislation will serve all users of electronic information systems by supporting the development of a truly global market for secure desktop communications. This will help establish private and secure spaces for the work of users, which is of particular interest to the members of the IEEE/USA and the USACM. On behalf of the both the USACM and the IEEE/USA we look forward to working with you on this important legislation to relax export controls and promote the development of a robust, secure, and reliable communications infrastructure for the twenty-first century. Please contact Deborah Rudolph in the IEEE Washington Office at (202) 785-0017 or Lauren Gelman in the ACM Public Policy Office at (202) 298-0842 for any additional information. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D.3 Chair, U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM Joel B. Snyder, P.E. Vice President, Professional Activities and Chair, United States Activities Board cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:43:12 -0600 From: Michael Lazar Subject: File 7--NETRADIO--"CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS" E-Mail Seminar (fwd) Thought this would be of interest to many of you... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:11:22 EST -0500 From--Chuck Poulton ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Prof. Larry Lessig, University of Chicago Law School Prof. David Post, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law and the Cyberspace Law Institute and Counsel Connect present ************** CYBERSPACE LAW for NONLAWYERS ************** a FREE e-mail Internet seminar (one message every 2-3 days) Over 8000 subscribers already * Learn the basic principles of -- and unlearn some common myths about -- - copyright law, - free speech law, - libel law, - privacy law, - contract law, and - trademark law as they apply on the Net, from three of the top experts in the law of cyberspace. * The seminar is aimed at educated laypeople, not primarily at lawyers. Low on legalese and Latin. * This is a low-traffic distribution list, NOT a discussion list. Subscribers will get one message (a few paragraphs long) every few days. * The seminar will start in April or May, but you should sign up now -- send a message with the text SUBSCRIBE CYBERSPACE-LAW yourfirstname yourlastname to LISTPROC-REQUEST@COUNSEL.COM **************************************************************** Larry Lessig clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and now teaches constitutional law and the law of cyberspace. He's written about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal and the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming). David Post practiced computer law for six years, then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and now teaches constitutional law, copyright law, and the law of cyberspace. He's written about law and cyberspace for the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming) and the Journal of Online Law, and writes a monthly column on law and technology issues for the American Lawyer. Eugene Volokh worked as a computer programmer for 12 years, and is still partner in a software company that sells the software he wrote for the Hewlett-Packard Series 3000. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and now teaches constitutional law and copyright law. He's written about law and cyberspace for the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Michigan Law Review (forthcoming), and the University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:46:53 +4200 (CST) From: "Bob Izenberg" Subject: File 8--Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone # ACTA Internet Phone Petition (RM No. 8775) # # BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 # # In the Matter of # # THE PROVISION OF INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL INTEREXCHANGE # TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE VIA THE "INTERNET" BY NON-TARIFFED, # UNCERTIFIED ENTITIES Is the whole ACTA complaint based on the marketing of this category of software as an "Internet telephone"? If the phone analogy is the one that we go with in evaluating the merits of the ACTA position, to which part of the regulated telephone network does the Internet Phone software correspond? It is not the service, for the software providers have no responsibility for actual transmission of voice traffic. It is not the telephone network, for the transmission facilities used by the software are provided by third parties who have no business relationship with the software providers. If we look for what part of the physical telephone world is close in function to the software to which the ACTA objects, it is the telephone set itself. It, coupled with the computer upon which it runs, places calls which cannot be completed without substantial support hardware and software provided by other companies and organizations. It does not seem to be a long distance offering in the sense that AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and other traditional long distance companies are.... Not unless you do not differentiate between the Internet Phone software itself and the mechanisms that carry the information which it exchanges. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:44:13 -0800 From: Barry Gold Subject: File 9--Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone It strikes me that respondents in this rulemaking have two good, simple, responses: 1. We're not selling phone services, we're selling "phones". As far as I know, these companies charge nothing for calls, they simply sell (or rent) their software for a fixed price. The software runs on standard equipment, connecting to existing wiring (telephone modem, ISDN, or T1/2/3 link). This makes it phone equipment -- it attaches to existing lines -- not service. 2. Assuming they lose and the FCC issues the ruling requested by the ATCA: Surprise! We've put our software in the public domain! It's now available on all SimTel mirrors and on sites in the UK, France, Australia, Finland, etc. (In other words, you can shut us down, but it won't stop the s/w from being used and in fact it will be used more widely as freeware than ever before! Kill us and our death spasms will injure you more than we ever did alive.) Now obviously, outcome 1 is preferred, for several reasons: a. It allows I-Phone, etc. to continue making money to support further development and support of their software. In the longer run, all products need support and extensions to continue to exist in the marketplace. b. Response 2 would damage the phone companies, but would also remove the incentive for anybody else to enter the market. Unfortunately, there are some providers who can't use response #1 as an escape, because they provide connection to the local phone network at the other end, rather than just selling/renting ("licensing") software. But maybe some creative soul on this list can figure out a way for them to beat this rap, too. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:54:11 -0800 (PST) From: telstar@WIRED.COM(--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: File 10--IMPACT: U. Penn on CDA Witness the dread "chilling effect." This letter from Stanley Chodorow, Provost at the University of Pennsylvania, demonstrates the tough position that many university administrators now find themselves in as a result of the Communications Decency Act. Almost reluctantly, Provost Chodrow points out, "Members of the Penn community should be aware that although enforcement of the 'indecency' provision is temporarily barred, the bill's other provisions are and will remain in effect unless overturned or repealed. Those provisions subject violators to substantial criminal penalties. Individuals or institutions that make information or materials available on electronic networks have an obligation to comply with the statute." The full text of Chodorow's letter follows below. --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine =============================================== To the Penn community: Recent federal legislation has significant implications for all members of the Penn community who use telecommunications or electronic networks. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 , signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, includes provisions, known as the Communications Decency Act, that prohibit dissemination of certain materials to persons under the age of 18. One provision prohibits using a telecommunications device to make and transmit any "obscene or indecent" communication to anyone known to be under 18. Another prohibits using any "interactive computer service" to display, in a manner available to anyone under 18, any communication that, "in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." While the terms "indecent" and "patently offensive" are not defined in the law and their meaning is unclear, the terms may be construed to include materials with literary, scientific, artistic, or educational value. The constitutionality of these provisions has been challenged in Federal court on the grounds that they prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment and are impermissibly vague and overbroad. The court has entered an order that temporarily bars enforcement of the prohibition against "indecent" communications, but the order does not bar enforcement of the Act's other provisions. Penn believes the constitutional challenges are important and should be resolved quickly, because we believe the Act may chill the free exchange of ideas and information that is central to the University's mission. It may also significantly restrict the development and usefulness of new forms of electronic communication. Members of the Penn community should be aware, however, that although enforcement of the "indecency" provision is temporarily barred, the bill's other provisions are and will remain in effect unless overturned or repealed. Those provisions subject violators to substantial criminal penalties. Individuals or institutions that make information or materials available on electronic networks have an obligation to comply with the statute. Individuals who distribute information through the University's computing resources are responsible for the content they provide and may wish to evaluate the material they make available in light of the Act's requirements. The University is unable to prevent information that is posted to publicly accessible resources, such as newsgroups and homepages, from becoming available to persons under the age of 18. We regret the uncertainty and disruption caused by this legislation and will try to keep you informed (via Almanac and the University's home page on the WorldWideWeb) of significant developments as they occur. Stanley Chodorow Provost ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 11--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: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org 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/ 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 #8.28 ************************************