Computer underground Digest Wed Nov 26, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 87 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 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, #9.87 (Wed, Nov 26, 1997) File 1--CyberPatrol, The Friendly Censor File 2--Ghost Stories - Hudson Institutes info-war Hallucination (Crypt) File 3--USACM Calls on Pres Clinton to Veto HR 2265 File 4--RE: Microsoft's licensing (Cu Digest, #9.86) File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:46:23 -0500 (EST) From: jw@bway.net Subject: File 1--CyberPatrol, The Friendly Censor CYBERPATROL: The Friendly Censor By Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net This is the second in a series of articles about censorware products. The first, The X-Stop Files, can be found at http://www.spectacle.org/cs/xstop.html. The Censorware Page, http://www.spectacle.org/cs/, contains continuing coverage of these issues and links to other sites. ------------------------------------------- "We didn't create our product for libraries," admits Susan Getgood, director of marketing for Microsystems Inc., distributors of CyberPatrol blocking software. But Microsystems is in business to make a profit, and when libraries come knocking on the door asking to buy the product, the company will sell it to them. Today, CyberPatrol is installed in at least two major public library systems, in Boston, Ma. and Austin, Tx. In the former, after a bitter debate, it was installed on terminals for use by people under 18 only. In the latter, it was installed on all terminals; the library is now, after many months, considering a pilot program to offer uncensored Internet access to adults, on one out of fifty terminals. News coverage of the blocking software industry has been dominated by the antics of Brian Milburn, president of rival Solid Oak Software, distributors of Cybersitter, the product which, in pursuit of a fundamentalist agenda, blocked the National Organization for Women among numerous other sites. By contrast, Microsystems has appeared to be the most reasonable and flexible of blocking software providers. It maintains a review board which meets every two months to review its blocking policies and which includes members of the gay community. When authors of web pages have complained to Microsystems that their sites were blocked, Microsystems has frequently apologized for the error and unblocked the sites in the product's next update. I was one of those authors. In February of this year, I was informed that CyberPatrol blocked the pages pertaining to my book, Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996), http://www.spectacle.org/freespch. I wrote an angry letter to Microsystems and received the following reply: "Hi Jonathan, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This site was blocked in error. I have removed this site from the CyberNOT list. This change will take effect with the next build of the CyberNOT list, by next Tuesday. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused. Debra Greaves Internet Research Supervisor" At the time, the Boston Public Library had just installed CyberPatrol. Ironically, six branches of the Boston library had my book on the shelves but you couldn't get to the Web page from a terminal with CyberPatrol installed. With a new wave of libraries considering the purchase of blocking software, I decided to go back and take another look at CyberPatrol. The informal methodology I used was to check my collection of ethical, political and legal Web sites (http://www.spectacle.org/links.html) against the Cybernot search engine that Microsystems maintains on its Web page (http://www.microsys.com). A Cybernot search will tell you whether or not the product blocks a particular site, but will not reveal in which category it is blocked. My goal was to determine which of these sites, containing controversial speech but no obscenity or illegal material whatever, were blocked by CyberPatrol. Cybernot reported that CyberPatrol blocked twelve of my bookmarked sites, out of a total of about 270. These included: The Flag Burning Page, http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag.html. This site, which I regard as one of the most intelligent and funny resources on the Web, examines the unconstitutionality under the First Amendment of laws against burning the flag. The Second Amendment Foundation, http://www.saf.org. This is a large collection of resources on Second Amendment right-to-bear-arms issues. While the blocking of this site is questionable under any theory, it is also a nice illustration of the inconsistency of CyberPatrol and of all blocking software. The product does not block the National Rifle Association, http://www.nra.org, or numerous other sites on both sides of the gun control issue. The Newtwatch page, http://www.cais.com/newtwatch/, is regrettably no longer on the Web, but CyberPatrol blocks it at its former URL. Funded by the Democratic party, Newtwatch was a combination of devastating political reportage and satire aimed at Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. It contained nothing that was offensive to children by any stretch of the imagination-- unless they were Republican children with no sense of humor. Another vanished Web page that is still blocked is the Dr. Bonzo web page, http://www.iglou.com/drbonzo/anathema.htm, a series of satirical essays on religious matters. The blocking of these two pages, long removed from the Web, raises questions about the frequency with which the CyberPatrol database is updated. A third blocked page which is no longer on the Web contained nothing but a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Other sites contained some explicit text but did so in the pursuit of a socially significant goal. For example, the Jake Baker page, http://krusty.eecs.umich.edu/people/pjswan/Baker/Jake_Baker.html, contains news reports and analysis of the case of the University of Michigan student who was arrested for distributing a rape and torture fantasy about a classmate on Usenet. Baker's stories, which led to his arrest, are also linked from this page. The case broke some new legal ground, and Mark Mangan and I used this site as a research resource in writing Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. It is hard to imagine how we could have written about the case without reading Baker's horrifying stories, which are presumably the reason why CyberPatrol blocks the entire site. CyberPatrol also blocks a Usenet search engine, www.dejanews.com. Dejanews, of course, is a major resource for anyone searching for Usenet discussion on any topic, and we also relied heavily on it in writing Sex, Laws and Cyberspace. One startled user of the Austin Public Library posted to Usenet a few weeks ago: "As DejaNews is one of the top Internet research tools, [this] decision transcends comprehension." Dejanews does not relay any graphics posted to Usenet; Microsystems apparently fears users will find explicit text. CyberPatrol blocked some of the bookmarked sites for no imaginable reason. The company has admitted to a number of errors in the past, in addition to the blocking of the Sex, Laws and Cyberspace page. Like other blocking software companies, Microsystems has employees surfing the Web, looking for sites to add to the Cybernot list-- and frequently they are not very careful. For example, Cybernot reports that the Society for the Promotion of Unconditional Relationships (SPUR) ( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/xgv92/spur2.htm) is blocked. The group describes its mission thus: "to increase public understanding and awareness of the nature and benefits of Unconditional Commitment in Relationships." The SPUR page contains articles with names like "The Role of Faith in Relationships." It was also hard to understand why CyberPatrol blocks the Interactivism page (www.interactivism.com). This site specializes in virtual activism; its top page, as I write these words, invites you to send faxes to politicians on issues including handgun control, freedom for Tibet, and campaign finance reform. Adults researching a variety of topics, notably freedom of speech-related issues, in the Austin public library are going to run into some significant roadblocks. The Austin library blocks four categories, three of them sex-related (including the categories under which Dejanews and the Jake Baker page are blocked) and the fourth entitled "gross depictions". Jon Lebkowsky, an Austin-based author and activist, was involved in discussions with library officials about their installation of CyberPatrol. He commented: "The Austin Public Library promised that filters would be an 'interim measure,' but backed off from that promise, thinking that their scaled-down filtering was gaining acceptance.... The APL should have honored the American Library Association's position on filters and removed the software after the Supreme Court's CDA decision." Microsystems acknowledges that CyberPatrol was never meant to be used to determine what adults can see. In March 1997, Susan Getgood wrote in a message posted to the Fight-Censorship list: "The CyberNOT list was designed to be used by adults to manage children's access to the Internet. It is not a filter meant for adults." A few weeks ago, at the annual New York Library Association meeting in Syracuse, Susan Getgood conducted a panel on blocking software. During the Q&A afterwards, I asked her: "Isn't it true that CyberPatrol blocks First Amendment protected, socially valuable material?" Susan thought for an extraordinarily long time before answering the question. Finally, she said very carefully, that in creating the Cybernot list, Microsystems didn't think about whether blocked pages are constitutionally protected or socially valuable. The company only thought about whether the material is (by its own standards) "inappropriate for children." Microsystems standards for determining appropriateness were not written by a librarian, nor meant for use in libraries. They weren't meant to keep speech from adult eyes. Applied to children, they draw no distinction between eight year olds and eighteen year olds. The latter conceivably might have a research assignment which involves looking at the Flag Burning page, the Jake Baker page or the Second Amendment Foundation. "Just as the CDA tried to reduce the entire net to something appropriate for 12-year-olds, so CyberPatrol is trying to expand the children's section to fill the entire library", said Jamie McCarthy, an Internet activist and software developer based in Michigan. In the Boston Public Library, CyberPatrol is installed on terminals used by people under 18, unless there is a parental permission slip on file allowing use of an uncensored computer. The three sex-related categories aree blocked; one of these, SexActs, is used to block text-only sites and is one of the categories assigned to Dejanews and the Jake Baker page. This category has also been used to block feminist discussion groups. The company's willingness to unblock sites is meaningless. The Internet is growing by leaps and bounds every week, and even as the company deletes sites like mine from the Cybernot database, Microsystems' harried surfers will be making fresh mistakes. Seth Finkelstein, a Boston-based software developer who follows censorware issues closely, commented: "No small group of people can hope to keep up with all the changes on the Web. Offering to correct 'mistakes', while good from a marketing standpoint, simply does not make up for the impossible nature of the task. We only see the problems which have been exposed so far; what else is lurking, not yet uncovered in their blacklist?" Putting a barrier between users and research sources is not what libraries do. Mark Mangan and I could not have written Sex, Laws and Cyberspace in the Austin library; too many of our sources are blocked. (Cyberpatrol also previously blocked The Electronic Frontier Foundation archives, www.eff.org, and the MIT Student Association for Free Expression, www.mit.edu/activities/safe/, two other sources we consulted in writing our book.) I hope that there are at least some librarians in Austin who feel ashamed that their library could not be used as a research source for a book on freedom of speech. CyberPatrol doesn't belong in public libraries. The company, by its own statements, has all but admitted this. The library which buys CyberPatrol has only itself to blame for its dereliction of responsibility towards its users. ----------------------- If you don't want to see any more of these messages, simply remove yourself from the list by visiting http://www.spectacle.org/ or by typing the following URL into a Web browser: http://www.greenspun.com/spam/remove-2.tcl?domain=specpress&email=cudigest%40sun .soci.niu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:23:38 -0500 From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <70743.1711@compuserve.com> Subject: File 2--Ghost Stories - Hudson Inst's info-war Hallucination (Crypt) Source - CRYPT NEWSLETTER 45 November -- December 1997 SOME GHOST STORIES SEEN THROUGH A MIRROR: The Hudson Institute's info-war hallucination. If you visit this page often you surely have noticed grim dramas that play themselves out in the pronouncements of various national security experts. Time and time again, prophets appear to warn that our safety and security are at stake or that fantastical threats and intrigue are mounting in the corridors of foreign power. The solutions offered are always the same. Spend more taxpayer dollars. Give them to the Pentagon, proxies of the Pentagon, and/or consultants offering guidance to the Department of Defense. In the mainstream media, no one ever questions the methods or results of the prophets of national doom even though the same prophets have racked up a startling number of foolish mistakes and false alarms in the past few years. Few average Americans know how such mistakes are vended as truth or how intelligence information is twisted into unrecognizable analyses that share no relationship with their original sources. No one gets to look behind the doors of the national security apparatus except the carefully screened. Never you and certainly never anyone you know. Well, this story gives you a peek behind that door. It's a look at the nuts-and-bolts constituting an intelligence analysis provided by a highly respected think tank. Buckle yourself in and grab the bottle of Tums because it's not a pretty picture. In Crypt News 44, you read the tale of Mary C. FitzGerald, a Hudson Institute research fellow whose paper "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare" dove into the realms of telepathy, the paranormal and their alleged military application. In it, FitzGerald fell for an old April Fool's joke known as the Gulf War virus hoax, too. The Hudson Institute paper stated: "For example, one cannot exclude the use of software inserts in imported gear used in the Iraqi air defense system for blocking it at the beginning of the war," is one of the incarnations of it -- as reprinted from "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare." Published on the Internet earlier this year, it was disseminated through Winn Schwartau's Information Warfare mailing list. But where did this really come from? Ironically, the same statement can be found in an article retrieved from the CIA's Foreign Information Broadcast Surface (FBIS). Crypt Newsletter obtained an interesting FBIS English translation of an article published in October of 1995. Written by a Major M. Boytsov, it appeared with the title "Russia: Information Warfare" in a Russian publication entitled "In Foreign Navies." Despite it's misleading title, Boytsov's article is not about Russian ideas on information warfare. Instead, it is more a survey and analysis of U.S. Department of Defense thinking and effort on the subject. Boytsov's sources are attributed in a footnote to the "foreign press." So, in October of 1995, Boytsov writes in "Information Warfare," "For example, one cannot exclude the use of software inserts [programmnyye zakladki] in imported gear used in the Iraqi air defense system for blocking it at the beginning of the war." Since Boytsov's sources are the "foreign press," it's quite likely he read of the Gulf War virus hoax either from US News & World Report, the original mainstream media source to spread it, or others pulled along for the ride. (As we've learned, this particular hoax sprang from an April Fool's joke published in Infoworld magazine. The joke was accepted as reality by the national news media and now it's an inescapable part of computer virus lore.) Since Mary C. FitzGerald's paper was provided as intelligence for the U.S. military, it is of further interest to taxpayers to know that money is being spent to educate the Department of Defense on issues that are normally reserved for television programs on the FOX network -- urban X-File-type myths. Another section of the Hudson Institute research paper on Russian views in information warfare are worth reviewing when compared with a completely different article published in 1994 by a colonel in the Russian military. Appearing in an August 1994 issue of Foreign Military Review, and again made available to Crypt Newsletter translated from Russian through the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), Colonel V. Pavlychev writes in the article "Psychotronic Weapons: Myth or Reality": "The second direction [at the U.S. Department of Defense] includes an in-depth study of paranormal phenomena that are of greatest interest from the standpoint of possible military use -- clairvoyance, telekinesis, and so forth." Most of Pavlychev's paper is written from the standpoint of discussing U.S. Department of Defense involvement in potential use of the paranormal as a weapon. Leaving aside the ridiculous nature of the topic for an instant, keep in mind that Mary C. FitzGerald's Hudson Institute paper is on "Russian" military views. In "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare," published by the Hudson Institute and FitzGerald on the Internet earlier this year, we see: "The second direction includes an in-depth study of paranormal phenomena that are of greatest interest from the standpoint of possible military use -- clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathic hypnosis, and so forth." But wait. These aren't Russian views at all. Instead, Colonel Pavlychev attributes them to two Americans: Russell Targ and Keith Harary, who authored a book called "The Psychic Race" in 1984. Targ was a known as a psychic researcher at Stanford Research Institute in the Seventies and Eighties until this type of fringe science became badly discredited. Harary was a psychic who worked with Targ and who occasionally published in unusual journals like "Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research." Pavlychev also writes on the U.S. use of remote-viewers, or clairvoyants -- which is what most people, including the Russians, call them. ("Remote viewer," in Crypt Newsletter's estimation, was nothing but a clever dodge used by the crackpots in the U.S. Army and intelligence agencies in the Eighties to avoid immediately tipping off supervisors, the press and the skeptical that they were involved in using the equivalent of "crystal ball gazers" for military reconnaissance.) Anyway, Pavlychev's article states: "The framework of this phenomenon is quite broad: on a strategic scale, it is possible to penetrate the enemy's main command and control facilities to become familiar with his classified documents; on the tactical level, reconnaissance can be conducted on the battlefield and in the enemy's rear area (the "clairvoyant-scout" will always be located at a safe place). However, problems do exist -- the number of individuals possessing these abilities is limited, and the data received cannot be checked." Once again, this is material roughly attributed to Targ and Harary in 1984 -- not Russians in 1997. In the Hudson Institute research paper, this year, we read: "The framework of this phenomenon is quite broad: on a strategic scale, it is possible to penetrate the enemy's main command-and-control facilities to become familiar with his classified documents; on the tactical level, reconnaissance can be conducted on the battlefield and in the enemy's rear area (the 'clairvoyant-scout' will always be located at a safe place). However, problems do exist -- the number of individuals possessing these abilities is limited, and the data received cannot be checked." In Pavlychev's "Psychotronic Weapons," we see: "According to military experts, using psychokinesis to destroy command and control systems and disrupt the functioning of strategic arms is timely. The ability of a human organism to emit a certain type of energy today has been confirmed by photography of a radiation field known as the Kirlian effect. Psychokinesis is explained by the subject's generation of an electromagnetic force capable of moving or destroying some object. Studies of objects destroyed as a result of experiments conducted have shown a different form of breakage than under the effect of physical force." The Hudson Institute researcher writes in 1997: "The ability of a human organism to emit a certain type of energy has been confirmed by photography of a radiation field known as the Kirlian effect. Psychokinesis is explained by the subject's generation of an electromagnetic force capable of moving or destroying some object. Studies of objects destroyed as a result of experiments conducted have shown a different form of breakage than under the effect of physical force." In 1994, Pavlychev says: Using telepathic implantation, an enemy formation, "instead of exploiting the success, will try to consolidate on the line achieved or even return to the starting line." In 1997, the Hudson Institute research paper states of the power of implanted telepathic command: "For example, personnel of an enemy formation executing a sudden breakthrough of defenses, instead of exploiting the success, will try to consolidate on the line achieved or even return to the starting line." In 1994, Pavlychev states: "Many western experts, including military analysts, assume that the country making the first decisive breakthrough in this field will gain a superiority over its enemy that is comparable only with the monopoly of nuclear weapons. In the future, these type of weapons may become the cause of illnesses or death of an object (person), and without any risk to the life of the operator (person emitting the command). Psychotronic weapons are silent, difficult to detect, and require the efforts of one or several operators as a source of power. Therefore, scientific and military circles abroad are very concerned over a possible 'psychic invasion' and note the need to begin work on taking corresponding countermeasures." In 1997, the Hudson Institute publication reads: "Many 'Western experts,' including military analysts, assume that the country making the first decisive breakthrough in this field will gain a superiority over its enemy that is comparable only with the monopoly of nuclear weapons. In the future, these types of weapons may become the cause of illness or death of an object (person), and without any risk to the life of the operator (person emitting the command). Psychotronic weapons are silent, difficult to detect, and require the efforts of one or several operators as a source of power. Therefore, scientific and military circles abroad are very concerned over a possible 'psychic invasion' . . . " Pavlychev's 1994 article also distinctly points to sources derived from U.S. writers, specifically, the eccentrics -- colleagues of Hal Puthoff, and employees of military men Albert Stubblebine and John B. Alexander's "spoon-bending" and "out of body experience" programs -- in residence at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and the U.S. Army to study the paranormal in the Eighties. Other material from the Pavlychev paper is roughly attributed to another U.S. source, a book called "Mind Wars: The True Story of Government Research Into the Potential of Psychic Weapons," written by Ronald McRae and published by St. Martins in 1984. And still other sources include American network television shows and the New York Times -- obviously also published in the U.S. It need repeating that Pavlychev's article is _not_ a monograph on Russian military views on the paranormal, but rather his analysis of the U.S. military's involvement in the area with information obtained from open source literature published in the United States. Paradoxically, the Hudson Institute's Mary C. FitzGerald uses the same subject material as Pavlychev's 1994 article and turns it around 180 degrees to show "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare." What does all this gobble on telepathy and psychotronic brain weapons from books on the paranormal and comments from fringe researchers written in the Eighties have to do with Russian views on information warfare today? Does it have anything to do with information warfare and Internet security at all? Excellent questions! Ask the mandarins at the Hudson Institute. Perhaps they know. All of this serves to demonstrate that the environment in which these weird stories of strange pseudo-science and technology in service to the military machine circulate is like a hall of mirrors in which the equivalent of techno-myths and modern ghost stories bounce back and forth through Cold War minds until few can even tell where they originally came from. Like any good ghost story, they gain credibility when passed through supposedly expert sources -- think tanks. But the only thing remarkable about them is how they're used to frighten the ignorant -- in this case, military men, political leaders or uncritical journalists. ----------------- Notes:Mary C. FitzGerald responded to having her report written up with regards to the Gulf War virus hoax in the Netly News. Her comments are appended to the original (URL below) and they are republished here in contrast with this issue's analysis. Mary C. FitzGerald replied: "According to George Smith, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, the Conquest of the Skies will never fly, and the new Revolution in Military Affairs is a Pentagon war-theory euphemism wherein futuristic contraptions are predominantly products of wishful thinking. "Mr. Smith debunks the potential use of computer viruses in warfare. He further argues that they are merely a conspiracy by the Pentagon and conservative think tanks designed to enhance a non-existent threat -- presumably to increase defense spending. He has the right to say whatever he thinks, but the only thing he has demonstrated is his own selective paranoia. "The paper he cites is my presentation of Russian views on the nature of future war, a subject to which the Russians for many decades have devoted extensive resources and manpower. The Chief of the Russian General Staff, Marshal Ogarkov, not the Pentagon, used the phrase the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) over two decades ago to point out the impact of technology on future warfare. His writings and those of other Russian military theorists on the RMA are proving to be very prophetic. Ogarkov in the mid-70s correctly envisioned the type of warfare that was demonstrated in Desert Storm. Russian military theorists are evaluating not only the impact of computer viruses, but also all other types of information weapons, logic bombs, special microbes, and micro-chipping. They are also studying the impact of other new technologies (such as precision-guided munitions, third-generation nuclear weapons, and weapons based on new physical principles). George Smith may refuse to accept the potential of new technologies on modern warfare, but the Russians clearly disagree with him. "P.S. Throughout his commentary, Mr. Smith erroneously takes my discussion of what Russian military theorists have said and presents it as direct quotes from me." More relevant links: See the hyper-linked version on http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt . ------------------------------------------------------------- George Smith, Ph.D., edits the Crypt Newsletter from Pasadena, CA. copyright 1997 Crypt Newsletter. All rights reserved. INTERNET: 70743.1711@compuserve.com crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt Mail to: Crypt Newsletter 1635 Wagner St. Pasadena, CA 91106 ph: 818-568-1748 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:04:25 -0500 From: USACM Washington Office Subject: File 3--USACM Calls on Pres Clinton to Veto HR 2265 PRESS RELEASE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1997 COMPUTER SCIENTISTS URGE PRESIDENT CLINTON TO VETO LEGISLATION RESTRICTING FLOW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION Computer scientists fear that legislation rushed through in the closing days of Congress may inadvertently criminalize many scientific publications that are freely available on the Internet today. They are calling on the President to veto the measure. The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) said that the legislation could lead to criminal prosecutions against scientists, educators and others who do nothing more than share their own articles on the Internet with students and colleagues. According to USACM Chair Dr. Barbara Simons, "This legislation was hurried through Congress, was poorly drafted, and is likely to have many unintended consequences." The "No Electronic Theft Act" would criminalize the copying of materials which are currently protected under the well established U.S. doctrine of Fair-Use. According to the Act, any person who infringes a copyright willfully, by the electronic reproduction or distribution of one or more copies which have a total retail value of more than $1000 dollars, will be subject to a criminal prosecution. The scientists say that an essential element of research is that papers be reviewed by others. Scientists submit papers describing their research to scientific journals which facilitate the peer-review process. The journals then print the reviewed papers and thus own their copyrights. Since the Internet's development, researchers have used it to make their research widely available to others in their field. According to the letter, "Under the No Electronic Theft Act, an author who posts their research on the Internet, and whose documents are frequently read on-line, could be subject to criminal prosecution." USACM argues that the No Electronic Theft Act will have a chilling effect upon the free speech of scientists and professionals in universities and research labs. Universities may forbid scientists from publishing their research on- line, or reading and reviewing other scientist's research on-line, to avoid the potential of massive copyright litigation. According to Dr. Simons "This legislation is clearly contrary to the White House's stated goal of avoiding Internet regulation. We believe it is inconsistent with the Administration's policy to promote dramatically expansive laws for the Internet where other less burdensome means may be available to address copyright concerns." The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional association of computer scientists in the United States. ACM's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communications between computer scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing community. For more information, Please contact: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM: 408/256-3661, simons@VNET.IBM.COM David Farber, USACM: 215/898-9508, farber@cis.upenn.edu Lauren Gelman, Associate Director, USACM, 202/544-4859, gelman@acm.org http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/ _____________________ November 25, 1997 President William J. Clinton 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Clinton: The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee believes that the "No Electronic Theft Act" (H.R. 2265), which is now before you, does not adequately reflect the nature of the new digital environment and will have a negative impact on the rich scientific communications that have developed on the Internet in many fields, including computer science. For this reason, we are asking you to veto the legislation. We agree that copyright holders have a legitimate need to protect their intellectual property. However, we are concerned that the bill was rushed through both Houses of Congress without careful consideration of its unintended consequences. We are concerned the Bill may: * Restrict scientists and other professionals from making their research available on the Internet for use by colleagues and students. Most scientists do not own the copyright on their own materials. Instead, that copyright ownership is retained by the scientific journal which peer-reviews and publishes the research. Under the No Electronic Theft Act, an author who posts their research on the Internet, and whose documents are frequently read on-line, could be subject to criminal prosecution. If the bill becomes law, scientists may have to choose between having their work peer-reviewed or making it widely available. * Criminalize the transfer of information that is currently protected under the U.S. 'fair use' doctrine. Copyright law is derived from the U.S. Constitution and is intended to advance "science and the useful arts." The fair-use doctrine protects reading and nonprofit copying and thus allows scientists and educators to openly exchange information. H.R. 2265 does not explicitly protect the "fair use" privilege which makes this open exchange of scientific information possible. * Chill free speech in universities and research labs. The terminology used in the Bill, including "willfully" and "for profit," are not defined; it is unclear what the parameters of a criminally prosecutable copyright infringement are. As a result, it is likely that many institutions will mandate that all copyrighted documents be removed from the net to avoid having to defend copyright infringement prosecutions. We hope that you will veto this measure and ask your staff to work with Congress during the next session to develop more sensible legislation. Sincerely, Dr. Barbara Simons Chair, U.S. Public Policy Committee Association For Computing The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional association of computer scientists in the United States. ACM's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communication between computer scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing community. cc: Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. Ira Magaziner, Senior Adviser to President Brian Kahin, Office of Science Technology and Public Policy. Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee Howard Coble, Chair, Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee John Ashcroft, Chair, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights Subcommittee, Senate Judiciary Committee Mike DeWine, Chair, Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee, Senate Judiciary Comittee Representative Virgil H. Goode Representative Barney Frank, House Judiciary Committee Representative Christopher Cannon, House Judiciary Committee Representative William Delahunt, House Judiciary Committee Representative Elton Gallegly, House Judiciary Committee Representative Bob Clement ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:28:05 +1000 From: arb@LATROBE.VIC.GOV.AU Subject: File 4--RE: Microsoft's licensing (Cu Digest, #9.86) > Date-- Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:24:07 -0500 > From-- James Love > The following is a letter by Brian Glaeske, a software developer, to > the US DOJ, regarding the Common Control DLL. Microsoft's licensing > requires developers who want to distribute this DLL to also distribute > MSIE4.0 > The URL for the license is: > http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/IEProg/Licensing.htm#ch _ > MSHTML_licensing > The letter follows: > Forwarded by James Love > ----------------------------- > Subject--Microsoft Antitrust > It is the responsibility of DOJ to ensure that Microsoft does not use > its OS monopoly to monopolize the market for applications. I believe > that forcing third party developers to distribute Microsoft Internet > Explorer is a blatant anti-competitive act. If you actually read the Licensing and Distribution information, you will find that Microsoft only requires that you LICENSE IE4.0, not necessarily re-distribute it. The following paragraph is from the URL quoted above... ---------------- Application developers who want to redistribute Microsoft(r) Internet Explorer technologies, such as the WebBrowser control, Wininet.dll, Urlmon.dll, or Comctl32.dll, must obtain a redistribution license for Microsoft(r) Internet Explorer 4.0. The Internet Explorer self-extracting executable installs a number of system files and registry entries in addition to the actual WebBrowser control. You can license Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows(r) 95, Windows(r) 3.1, Windows NT(r) Workstation, and Apple Macintosh(r) royalty-free to redistribute within your organization or to your customers. Plus, you can use the Microsoft Internet Explorer Administration Kit (IEAK) to easily create Internet Explorer distribution media, which you can customize to specify start and search pages and a favorites list. This lets your organization create and distribute a Web browser that reflects your specific needs and the needs of your users. For more information on redistributing Internet Explorer, see the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ieak/. ---------------- Nowhere in the licensing information do I find any requirement that you must distribute IE4.0 in order to distribute comctl32.dll. While I personally find it strange that Microsoft requires you to license IE4.0 to distribute something that was originally a part of the OS, I can live with it. It seems to me as if Microsoft have simply changed the licensing requirements of comctl32.dll, and not in an overly harsh, or even vaguely restrictive way. It is easy to get an IE4.0 re-distribution license and then simply not distribute IE4.0 - you can freely distribute Netscape or some other browser (or even NO browser) under the terms of this license. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) 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 (815-753-6436), 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); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/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 #9.87 ************************************