Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 2, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 41 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, #8.41 (Sun, Jun 2, 1996) File 1--Response to Lance Rose (in re CuD 8.39) File 2--It's watermelon season on the Internet, cops alarmed! (fwd) File 3--Request: DC-ISOC Meeting Location File 4--Update on CDA, copyright, crypto (5/29/96) File 5--(Fwd) The Usenet/etc Stonewall over rec.music.white-power vote File 6--FW: American Reporter v. Reno File 7--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: 31 May 1996 02:35:14 GMT From: skg@SADR.COM(Keith Graham) Subject: File 1--Response to Lance Rose (in re CuD 8.39) Cu Digest writes: >Lance Rose <72230.2044@CompuServe.COM> writes: >How deeply are CDA opponents getting lost in the hype? Check this >out: One of their arguments against the CDA is that it wrongly >seeks to impose the "indecency" standard from television -- a >"pervasive" medium -- on the supposedly non-"pervasive" Internet. >[....] Whoa -- >let's circle back to the top now. Isn't an indecency standard of >some sort very much in place for television today? And isn't >television a hugely popular mass medium, at the very center of U.S. >and other societies? Cable TV channels, such as HBO, not to mention the various "Adult" channels, do not adhere to this standard. TV is "pervasive" because it is broadcast and there are TV's in most homes. BROADCAST TV is also a scarce resource (in that only so many TV channels can operate in a given area), so the government has an interest in keeping it of the highest possible quality. (Please no comments on their success or lack thereof. :-) Your argument is fundamentally flawed. TV is scarce and pervasive; cable eliminates the scarcity, and is so not restricted. The Internet eliminates the scarcity and possible the pervasiveness, and therefore argueably should not be restricted. On Encryption: >[....] It is used to hide >a message right in someone else's face. [cops and robbers >"scenario" deleted] The problem is, discounting the subject of Key Escrow, encryption is used to keep the operator of the chat system I might want to use from listening in when I talk to my wife when I'm travelling on business. There are lots of people with network sniffers that have access to my messages; why should I not prevent them from doing so if it might be even vaguely important? (For example, the fact that I'm on the road might be useful if someone wanted to assault my wife.) Encryption is, usually, not about cops and robbers. As to Key Escrow, why should I cripple my encryption system to allow the government to access my historical communications? It is a fact of life that some tools in the law enforcement regime become outdated due to advances in technology. Wire taps, in their pure form, will probably be one of these outdated technologies. In exchange, they gain access to lists of sites you connect to; electronic financial records; online police databases; and secure police communications between officers and command and control facilities not to mention DNA analysis and the rest of the advantages of modern technology. Overall, the police's capabilities will be greatly expanding in the near term future; why give them yet another weapon in the arsonal when it will potentially greatly compromise American corporate security and citizen's privacy? >[Copyright] I'll leave this for a future discussion, but since we're all going to be coypright holders and publishers, I think the critically important thing will be for the laws to be reasonable, understandable, able to be followed, and fair. (Whatever all of those mean.) Right now, copyright law is so out of touch with how the Web (or Usenet news) works, that we are all probably breaking the law. I think we need to make sure that whatever changes are added to the law are in everyone's best interest; and some of the changes I've seen aren't. For example, if I "copy" a program to my hard disk, and then run it by copying it into RAM 50 times, how many copies have I made? 1? 50? If the program cost $1000, and the answer is 50, then I am liable for huge civil fines and possibly jail time under criminal "mass copyright violation/piracy" laws. But if the answer is 1, then I'm subject to much smaller fines and no jail time. Which is, IMO, the intent of the copyright law. And what if I copy a program to my hard disk, but don't ever run it. Is that a violation of the law? In the meantime, some big media interests are also trying to increase the copyright term on existing works by 20 years. Unless you hold stock in one of these companies, that just means that it will be 20 more years before you can, say, get free copies of newspaper articles about WWI online. (Or use music, photos, art, and stories from the 1920's as backgrounds and accents to your Web page.) We won't mention the cost to church choirs, etc. that aren't in any way associated with the 'net. This looks like bad law. Keith Graham skg@sadr.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 20:27:18 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 2--It's watermelon season on the Internet, cops alarmed! (fwd) From--eye5@interlog.com (eye WEEKLY) Newsgroups--eye.news,alt.culture.internet,alt.journalism Date--22 May 1996 21:09:52 -0400 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eye WEEKLY May 23, 1996 Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EYENET EYENET BE AFRAID! IT'S WATERMELON SEASON! by K.K. "Fish License" CAMPBELL Over 20 years ago Monty Python's John Cleese warned citizens about violent criminals using fresh fruit as weapons. People only sneered. Today, Cleese has been vindicated with Edmonton's "Fruitabomber." Someone is blowing up the watermelons of Edmonton. And the Internet is to blame. Here's the lead from The Edmonton Sun story of May 17: "The culprit who blew apart a bus shelter with an explosives-packed watermelon detonated a second fruit bomb just moments later, city police revealed yesterday. "The so-called Fruitabomber has cops fearing a rash of citywide melon- bombings, and police are asking markets to keep an eye peeled for young men buying large pieces of fruit." Sun reporter Steve Tilley says the police warn this could just be the "beginning of a reign of exploding fruit terror." The Edmonton cops are "convinced" the Fruitabomber learned his Molotov Melon craft from the net. They don't reveal how they figured that out, unfortunately. They must read alt.bombs.watermelons. Then comes the standard crime sheet quote: "We certainly are very concerned about certain types of information available on the Internet, because it is so easily accessible to people who have a computer and that interest level." And easy access to watermelons, too. Don't forget that. On May 10, The Calgary Herald reported some 14-year-old moron living in a shithole Cowtown burb blew off the tip of his left thumb while fooling around with some explosives. The cops also immediately knew he got the recipe from the net. (They don't say if he also got the "gunpowder and carbon dioxide cartridge" from the net, too.) After being served this shocking story, causing middle-class Moms to clutch at their pearls, we are treated to unrelated Calgary bomb facts: on April 29, a parcel bomb exploded at the Calgary Jewish Centre; there were 14 bomb incidents in 1994, and 32 in 1995; and in 1995, four teens used a "home-made pipe bomb" (as opposed to a Radio Shack pipe-bomb, I suppose) to blow up a teddy bear. A teddy bear! On May 11, The Calgary Sun renewed its call for net.cops: "something" has to "be done" to the net. David Jones (djones@efc.ca), president of Electronic Frontier Canada, Canada's cyber-rights watchdog, is familiar with such press antics. "For some reason, reporters didn't call anyone at the Calgary high school near the explosions, where principal Del Hack says model rockets are used as a demonstration in science class," Jones told eyeNet. "It's easier to blame the Internet." Jones finds it particularly ironic to see these Champions of Child Morality scratching their scalps in bewilderment at just what could make teens want to make things explode. The powerful minds of the press corps can only conclude it has to be something about the net and they nod sadly at each other as they call for the cops -- while the sky above them lights up with Victoria Day rockets and firecrackers. You can find Jones' editorial comment at http://www.efc.ca/pages/pr/boom.html . EFC is at http://www.efc.ca . The EFC site also features the relevant articles from Alberta (using groovy ol' gopher to store them): gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/calgary-herald.10may96 gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/calgary-sun.11may96 gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/edmonton-sun.17may96a gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/edmonton-sun.17may96b I made clear my position on this issue in print (May 25 1995 -- http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet/1995/net0525.htm) as well as on TV. On May 16 last year, I was on CBC's Face Off and displayed an explosive recipe exactly like that used in the Oklahoma City bombing. I had just photocopied it from the Encyclopeadia Brittanica at the Metro Reference library. For a buck. eyeNet still embraces the slogan we raised then: "Allan Rock! Regulate Them Damn Libraries Now!" First anniversary congrats -- you dopes The most quoted/republished eyeNet was about the DeathNET website. It traced step-by-step how The Calgary Sun essentially fabricated a story about "suicide tips for teens" on the Internet. This wasn't the "Janet Cooke model" of news fabrication -- a straight creative-writing-class fantasy (she wrote an about an 8-year-old smack addict, was given a Pulitzer, then was revealed as a fraud); this brand of fabrication involves an editor getting a story idea, finding the story doesn't actually exist (outside his brain), and so scraping together vaguely related gunk, which he then bundles under a bold headline screaming his original story idea. It's supermarket tabloid journalism: papers whose headlines are always better than the actual stories. In the case of the DeathNET fabrication, it was picked up around the world as truth, making DeathNET webmaster John Hofsess a victim of shithole net journalism. The DeathNET story ran May 11, 1995 (http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet/1995/net0511.htm). To celebrate the anniversary of that story, on May 11, 1996, The Calgary Sun wrote an editorial calling, again, for censorship. The reason last time was the evil net was helping teens snuff themselves; now the evil net is helping teens blow themselves up. Blow themselves up real good. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright http://www.eye.net/eye Mailing list available eyeNET archive --------------> http://www.eye.net/News/Eyenet eye@eye.net "...Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 01:57:40 -0400 From: russ@NAVIGATORS.COM(Russ Haynal) Subject: File 3--Request: DC-ISOC Meeting Location Greetings from the DC Chapter of the Internet Society. ( http://www.dcisoc.org ) We have held several very successful events during our first 1.5 years. Our meetings have been attended by hundreds of people from industry, government and the academic sectors. These meetings have also featured top speakers, covered timely topics, and have always been free and open to the public. We are looking forward to expanding our activities to help support the Internet's successful growth, but we require your assistance. Specifically, the DC chapter of the Internet Society (DCISOC) needs one or more meeting sites for future events. Requirements/preferences include: seating for several hundred people convenient to major highways convenient/free parking Metro access quality projection equipment and facilities Internet access no charge for use by non-profit organizations ability to reliably reserve room several months in advance etc. Organizations offering meeting facilities would contribute to the Washington, DC Internet community and industry, and would host meeting(s) addressing local/regional/national/international Internet issues. If you know of any appropriate meeting locations (with a point of contact) please reply to Ross Stapleton-Gray at director@embassy.org, (ie. do not reply to this message) Thanks in advance, Russ Haynal (DC-ISOC Membership/treasurer) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:31:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 4--Update on CDA, copyright, crypto (5/29/96) ON THE CDA: Folks involved in the case expect a decision within the next week from the Philadelphia three-judge panel hearing our challenge to the CDA. The DoJ has a few weeks to appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose. ------------------------------------------------------- ON COPYRIGHT: Regarding the online copyright legislation, there's plenty of action on the Hill -- and contrary to what I thought a week ago, there's even a fighting chance that this bill will happen this year. So far, full Senate judiciary and the House judiciary intellectual property subcommittee have held hearings. The House has taken the lead here, and the tentative date for the subcommittee markup of HR2441 is June 5. (It was to have been last week, but was cancelled at the last minute when no agreement was reached.) The Senate seems to be waiting to see what the House does before making any sudden moves. General feeling is that the legislation was on a fast schedule but has been slowed down considerably because of ongoing controvery over OSP liability and (especially) section 1201. The big snarl is over 1201, and some alliances of convenience are breaking down. More to the point, libraries are finally mobilizing grassroots opposition. Brock has a piece about this in last week's Muckraker on HotWired. ----------------------------------------------------------- ON CRYPTO: The National Research Council's report on crypto policy will be unveiled tomorrow at the National Press Club at 1 pm in Washington, DC. I'm going to try my best to be there. From their web page at : The Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) has completed a congressionally mandated study of national cryptography policy. The final report, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society, will be released to the public on May 30, 1996 at a public briefing. A large number of the authoring committee members will attend. Thanks to John Young for this pointer to the original September 1994 announcement of the NRC National Cryptography Project at: http://www.wpi.edu/~ryant/ncp.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:06:11 GMT From: tallpaul Subject: File 5--(Fwd) The Usenet/etc Stonewall over rec.music.white-power vote The post below was originally sent privately to Mike Handler (the vote taker for "rec.music.white-power") and to David Lawrence of USENET.uunet on May 21. Almost simultaneously, Michael Handler announced that the vote on RMW-P was finished and had been sent to David Lawrence where he anticipated it would be "posted shortly." My original intent was to give people a week or so to respond in detail, preferably by finishing the vote counting and posting the results, basis for the results, and voters in the proper USENET/uunet form. That week has gone by and this has not happened. Worse, the vote results have still not been posted. Most votes are counted, tabulated, explained and posted within two or three days after the voting is over. The vote counting for RMW-P took over two months, and the results are still not posted even though a week has passed. In short, the stonewall over RMW-P continues. The process has taken so long, another proposal on nazi-ism has come up for discussion and is approaching the period when another CALL FOR VOTES could be published. People have a right to know why Dave Lawrence and others have delayed the announcement. People have the right to have Lawrence and others follow the fundamental procedures they established. And now people should demand to know why the stonewall occurred and to have access to the all of the data/discussions on the Unix Volunteer Votetaker discussion lists, by UVV forces, and by all others involved in any way with the RMW-P vote in the post-vote period. --tallpaul (Paul Kneisel) * * * To--handler@netaxs.com Subject--On the delay over "rec.music.white-power" From--tallpaul@nyc.pipeline.com(tallpaul) Cc--tale@uunet.uu.net X-PipeUser--tallpaul X-PipeHub--nyc.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS--(tallpaul) X-Mailer--Pipeline v3.5.0 Dear David and Michael, I am writing to you concerning issues raised in several hundred posts to the USENET new group "news.groups" concerning the lack of information on the vote for the creation of the news group "rec.music.white-power". As you know it has been over two months since the vote deadline and little to no information has been formally posted from either of you. The background to the RMW-P proposal was explicitly political on the part of the cybernazis. Before they submitted the initial REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) to create the group they had elsewhere announced their intention to move off of the "alt" USENET hierarchy into the more respectable news groups. The political background was further demonstrated when they published their original RFD to their STORMFRONT-L discussion list. Both of these actions struck me as the normal course of events. Any political group (regardless where on the political spectrum it resides) naturally tends to propagate their ideas. You are, I believe, aware that I played a major role in urging people to vote against the creation of RMW-P. Opposition to the group's creation was divided into two factions. One, exemplified by people like R. Graves, opposed the group on technical USENET grounds and disclaimed any political opposition to RMW-P. The other group of which I was a member openly opposed a political organizing effort with a political counter effort. These various efforts naturally produced a large voter turnout, even leaving aside the possibility of forged votes from any side (or any lone nut seeming to support one side or another.) The various organizing efforts also produced considerable controversy, as is to be expected in any political organizing effort. Issues like the Joe Fraud spam to inappropriate discussion lists like "CHOCOLATE LOVERS," and the confusion over the nature/identity of Mr. Fraud naturally increased the controversy. Under such circumstances, it seemed reasonable to me that you would make a *special* effort to avoid any sense of impropriety that could be interpreted as supporting either side. "Net loons" like Gruborsey already widely post libelous material about both secret and open cabals that somehow control the internet in general and USENET/uunet in particular. It is likely that other individual "loons" seeming to reflect the views of either Kleim, Graves, or myself would have come forward under any circumstances. But, had the normal proprieties been adhered to in the post-vote period the *vast* majority of net users would, I am sure, have dismissed all of the complaints as openly cranky. The need for strict adherence to regular USENET announcement procedures was also heightened by the recent strong more-than- appearance issue of massive vote fraud around the creation of the Kashmir news group. The failure to follow normal procedure and openly post the names of the people who voted in the Kashmiri RESULTS announcement further heightened concerns all around. But instead of making the *special* effort to avoid the appearance of any impropriety, you have stepped back, and moved away from even the past normal (and technologically obsolete) procedures. Normal results of the vote on the creation of new groups seem to be posted within two or three days after the vote deadline passes. I think most people involved in the RMW-P discussion, regardless of faction, knew that the vote turnout would be unusually large. You could have, after two or three days, formally posted messages to this effect on "news.groups" and elsewhere, letting people know that the formal results announcement would be delayed. You did not. You could have made routine posts to "news.groups" about your activities concerning the delayed result announcement. You did not. All of these things strike me as normal procedure in handling unusual administrative problems, whether occurring on the net or off. In particular, extra efforts could have been made before the vote deadline to facilitate vote counting. After all, when one house catches on fire the local engine company responds; when an entire city block catches on fire the local engine company calls for reinforcements. It does not try to fight the fire alone. As you know I do not like cybernazi Milton Kleim. On this 50th anniversary of the international war crimes tribunal I would cheerfully observe Kleim hanging from a gallows (after all of his legal rights under the war crimes laws were observed.) Should, though I can't imagine why in this space/time continuum it would occur, I ended up shaking hands with Kleim I would immediately count my fingers afterward. But I can recognize that Kleim has a certain human/animalistic quality. By this I mean that when sleepy he tends to sleep, when hungry he tends to eat, and when proposing a news group he wants to see the vote results. His concern over the vote results thus has a certain reasonable character to it. So does the concern of the others who have posted material to "news.groups" about the delay in the vote results. In effect you have ignored the concerns in the hundreds of posts presented to "news.groups" about RMW-P after the vote deadline passed. These concerns have also occurred in people who have not generally posted their concerns there. I have received a large number of messages via e-mail from people who voted against RMW-P and who were also concerned about the vote delay. I counselled patience on their part and suggested that they not post any additional material to "news.groups". But pressure on me was at times considerable. As we move into the third post-vote deadline month this pressure has increased. So, I think, has the concern of many other net citizens. It was once said that "Caesar can do whatever he wants but Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach." The informal "leakage" of information on the vote from the proverbial informal but "usually reliable sources" does not help. We first heard that some 10,000 votes were cast, then that the vote was close to a record-breaker, and finally that it broke the record by a factor of roughly two. But this information was not official. If inaccurate it will only increase the controversy when accurate information is posted. If accurate it will only increase the controversy about the refusal for so long to provide official information. And indeed, if inaccurate will nonetheless be taken as accurate by many and thus feed the already controversial speculation about vote fraud. In a sense, the long delay has moved some people from unreasonable speculation on the post-vote process to speculation that is very reasonable. Chief among the data here is Kleim's post citing the e-message he received from M. Handler the vote taker on April 16 that the vote had been virtually completed and would likely be sent off that night. (M. Kleim to "news.groups," May 1, 01:35.) Most reasonable people would, I believe, conclude that Kleim lies routinely on political matters, as I think R. Graves and others have documented. But Kleim is not the proverbial Cretin of Philosophy 101 logic lectures who *always* lies. I do not believe that Kleim lied in this matter nor invented/forged the post he cites. Consequently, the delay in the vote announcement coupled with the long formal refusal to respond to complaints, can only greatly exacerbate the various concerns and controversy I mentioned above. Indeed, the long official refusal to announce the vote results, announce reasons for the delay, or even respond to the post vote complaints threatens to do severe, perhaps even irreparable damage to a vote procedure long overdue for rehaul and to parts of the internet in general. I believe that all of the net citizens are due an explanation of what happened with the vote and what the vote takers have been doing during their period of long silence. I believe the explanation is, in fact, long overdue. The more-than-two-month period of official silence has created a controversy that will never die regardless of how detailed the explanation. The silence has, rather only increased the need for a far greater, more detailed explanation for the period of silence. Falling such an immediate explanation, I believe the controversy will only increase to the detriment of the internet, the "news.group" creation process, and uunet. Sincerely, tallpaul@nyc.pipeline.com (Paul Kneisel) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 21:25:32 PDT From: Jonathan Blumen Subject: File 6--FW: American Reporter v. Reno ---------------Original Message--------------- American Reporter v. Reno -- The Final Arguments The Importance of SLAC Value NEW YORK (June 3)--The dark skies opened up and poured down on the city as the lawyers for the American Reporter v. Reno met for the final arguments in the massive federal courtroom on Pearl Street. Although the proceedings fell flat in the shadow of a high-energy finale in Philadelphia a few weeks prior, this parallel summation had its moments--some enlightening, others interesting, and others comic. There were perhaps twenty or thirty people in the courtroom watching as Randall Boe, the lawyer for the plantiff, battled it out with government attorney William Hoffman. Boe began by stressing that since there are no real ways to comply with the safe harbor defenses, the CDA constiutes a flat ban on speech that is constitutionally protected for adults. He argued that the definition of indecency sweeps far too broadly, including works of merit such as Joyce's Ulysses and Miller's Tropic of Cancer. Judges Cabranes and Cote both asked Boe if he would concede the statue's constitutionality with regards to commercial providers, suggesting that they might decide to uphold just a part of the statute. Boe responded that he didn't know if this was possible, saying that the intentions of the government seemed to be clear--"to eliminate all indecent material from the Net". Boe then pointed out that the government tried to calm fears by saying it would prosecute only those who "intend to shock or offend". This does not offer much consolation, he argued, as artists ply their trade with the explicit intention of shocking or offending--"it is a part of the creative process. That is why," he said "indecency has always been upheld by the First Amendment." Judge Cote said that with regards to the tagging system proposed by Olsen, "the government is asking us to make a leap of faith into the future, by accepting this defense today." Boe responded that most people don't look to the possibilty of being acquitted, but the possibility of prosecution. And with no clear defense that actually works, he argued, there will be a huge chilling effect as people purge their servers. Boe continually hammered home the point that tagging pages today does nothing. He also discussed the problem of judging indecency according to local communnity standards and declared that under this law a national standard will indeed develop--based on the lowest common denominator, the most restrictive community. Hoffman started with an argument that was heard in Philadelphia--the plantiff is overreacting. "The number of items for which the government would prosecute which would cause a constitutional challenge is small." He argued that the context of these items is important. He also addressed Boe's assertion that the government did not have a compelling interest, saying that these indecent materials are easily accessible. "Children can get it. They can be surprised by it." Cabranes was intent on having terms defined. He asked if "patently offensive" meant "indecent"; he wanted to know if "indecent" was the same as "harmful to minors"; he asked if "sexully explicit" was equivalent to "patently offensive." Hoffman danced around with answers that could be translated as "sort of." Boe then got up for his final encore and raised the point that even the expensive, most effective means of determining age--credit card and Adult ID systems--are useless in the huge and largely ignored realms of the Internet such as Usenet and IRC. He then touched upon the fact that pejoratively labelling one's speech may not even be constitutional, reiterated that tagging systems do not even work today, and concluded that there is no way for an average user to avoid prosecution. "The bottom line," he said, "is that it starts as a total ban for indecent communications between adults. Then there are no real defenses provided." Not long after Hoffman started into his final arguments Cabranes stopped him to ask him, "With the possible exception of email, there is no way to be 100% sure that indecent material does not get to people under 18?" Hoffman added something about limited membership email lists, obliquely conceding the point. Cabranes asked directly if the statute minus the defenses was unconstitutional. Hoffman danced around then admitted that "given the current state of technology it would be hard to argue that it's not a total ban." Cabranes followed, "The question is whether the affirmative defenses can save the statute". Hoffman answered with something about the Supreme Court's decisions concerning telephones and how this was "not unprecedented". Hoffman's argument was periodically distracted by a small, distincive click, echoing throughout the massive hall. On the back bench by the doors sat a large, bearded guard, slowly, deliberately trimming his nails. He clipped away and Chris Hansen, lawyer for the ACLU, finally turned his head and increduously whispered, "is he clipping his fingers or his toes?" Hoffman was not distracted, but talked about the government being compelled to action... *click* ... The guard was looking down into his hands, oblivious to the important and high-minded arguments in front of him. And then Hoffman was finished. In his deep, raspy voice Cabranes then called Fred Cherry, who had attended every day of the hearings in hopes of consolidating his case. The chief judge looked at a paper and pronounced Cherry's name again. Someone leaned over the seats and tapped Cherry. He awoke, arose, gathered his plastic bags and umbrella and, wearing his overcoat, approached the bench. He walked straight to the microphone and rested his belongings at his feet. Cherry started his hurried talk about how he "despised the ACLU" and what he was there to discuss "goes all the way back 30 years." He cited "rule 54 B--'B'as in 'Benjamin'". Cabranes finally interrupted to determine that Cherry did in fact want to consolidate his case. Both parties agreed and that was that. "Can I give a little evidence here?" Cherry asked. He came prepared, with lots of arguments and stacks of evidence. "Not a little evidence," Cabranes responded. "Just a few comments." Cherry offered a document into the record then referred to an email message that was presented on the first day of testimony that involved his comments. It was pulled from the "alt.christnet" newsgroup and said something about "fags" and "jesus". Cherry wanted to set the record straight and said he was going way back, back to an early message posted by another that was titled, "What Size Is Christ". He then lauched into a story about Christ, appearing 900 feet tall, as compared to another one which was supposedly 500 feet tall. The nail clipping had disappeared and all that could be heard was a strange, involved fiction, transparently suggesting Christ's penis size and lewd acts of fellatio with the Lord and Orel Roberts. Some were shaking with laughter; one lawyer at the plantiff's table turned his chair and removed his glasses, wiping tears from his eyes. Fred Cherry, the "connoi-ssewer of porn", summed up his evidence and thanked the judges for the time to speak. It was not clear whether Cherry intended to shock or offend. All at once, it seemed all too apparent that it didn't matter--such speech would be found indecent under the CDA, even though it does have serious literary, artistic, or comedic value. Mark Mangan markm@bway.net co-author, Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996) http://www.spectacle.org/freespch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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/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 #8.41 ************************************