Computer underground Digest Sun June 22, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 48 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, #9.48 (Sun, June 22, 1997) File 1--Georgia Internet Regulations Ruled Unconstitutional File 2--Islands in the Clickstream File 3--Re CuD 9.46 - Blocking Software and Germany File 4--McCain speaks out on S. 909 File 5--New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet File 6--Response to "Purpose of CuD" File 7--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, 21 Jun 1997 00:16:03 GMT From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com Subject: File 1--Georgia Internet Regulations Ruled Unconstitutional Georgia Ruling available online now, New York summary available now and Ruling on the way at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/censor.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ACLU Wins First-Ever Challenge to a State Internet Censorship Law in Georgia FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, June 20, 1997 ATLANTA -- As the nation awaits a Supreme Court decision on Internet censorship, a federal district judge here today struck down a state law criminalizing online anonymous speech and the use of trademarked logos as links on the World Wide Web. Ruling simultaneously in ALA v. Pataki, another ACLU challenge to state Internet regulation, a Federal District Judge in New York today blocked the state from enforcing its version of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). In ACLU v. Miller, Federal District Court Judge Marvin Shoob today granted the ACLU's request to enjoin Georgia's statute restricting free speech in cyberspace and denied the State's request to dismiss the suit. The Court agreed with the ACLU, Electronic Frontiers Georgia and others that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it bars online users from using pseudonyms or communicating anonymously over the Internet. The Act also unconstitutionally restricts the use of links on the World Wide Web which allows users to connect to other sites. In the Court's decision, Judge Shoob noted that Georgia's law, "sweeps innocent, protected speech within its scope." He went on to say that it, "affords prosecutors and police officers with substantial room for selective prosecution of persons who express minority viewpoints. . . . [Moreover,] Georgia already has in place many less restrictive means to address fraud and misrepresentation." "The Court's order goes straight to the First Amendment flaws with the statute." said Scott McClain of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, cooperating attorneys for the ACLU. "Judge Shoob viewed the statute exactly as the Plaintiffs did: as a vague, overbroad, unconstitutional restriction on free speech and privacy on the Internet." "The Court recognized that anonymity is the passport for entry into cyberspace for many persons," said Gerald Weber, Legal Director of the ACLU of Georgia. "Without anonymity, victims of domestic violence, persons in Alcoholics Anonymous, people with AIDS and so many others would fear using the Internet to seek information and support." "We are very pleased with the Judge's decision," said Robert Costner, Executive Director of Electronic Frontiers Georgia. "This injunction clears the way for Electronics Frontier Georgia to release our anonymous remailer services on the Internet." Georgia's lawsuit was the first challenge to state cyberspace laws and statutes restricting privacy on the Internet. Today's ruling came as the nation awaits word from the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, the ACLU's challenge to Internet censorship provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). "Today's decisions in New York and Georgia say that, whatever limits the Supreme Court sets on Congress's power to regulate the Internet, states are prohibited from acting to censor online expression," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney and member of the legal teams in the New York, Georgia and federal cases. "Taken together, these decisions send a very important and powerful message to legislators in the other 48 states that they should keep their hands off the Internet," Beeson added. The Georgia lawsuit was filed on September 24, 1996, by the ACLU on behalf of 14 plaintiffs. The 14 individual plaintiffs and organizations named in the ACLU v. Miller are: American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia; The AIDS Survival Project; the Atlanta Freethought Society; Atlanta Veterans Alliance; Community ConneXion; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Electronic Frontiers Georgia; Rep. Mitchell Kaye; Ken Leebow; Bruce Mirken; Bonnie L. Nadri; Josh Riley; John Troyer; and Jonathan Wallace. ======== ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 06:06:33 From: Richard Thieme Subject: File 2--Islands in the Clickstream Islands in the Clickstream: Fractals, Hammers, and Other Tools (An Intellectual Fractal Puzzle) by Richard Thieme "Fractint" was one of the first computer programs I encountered that blew my mind. (It's still out there on the Internet. Download one if you want to try it.) Fractint generates fractals. Fractals are mathematical formulae that express complex realities with elegant simplicity. Before computers, you had to have a mathematician's mind to grasp the relationships expressed by fractals. Computers enabled those relationships to be represented pictorially. Fractint lets you generate images of fractals, then cycle through them in thousands of colors. The vision of a fractal in action is stunning. Fractals often resemble natural objects. Simple formulae using recursion generate images that look like branching trees, clouds, coastlines, or fern leaves. Seeing those images on a computer changed how I saw the natural world. The computer generated a different framework for looking at and comprehending the "real" world. Fractals are self-similar at all scales. If you magnify a section of a fractal, then magnify a section of the section, each one looks similar, like nested wooden dolls. You can keep magnifying smaller and smaller pieces until the image on your monitor is part of something so big that, if you spread it out, it would stretch from the sun to the orbit of Jupiter. My wife, who is not a techno-geek, looks up now as we walk through a forest or watch clouds move through the sky and says, "Fractals." This brave new tool, the computer, is programming us to see things in its own image, teaching our minds as well as our mouse- clicking hands how to use it. Fractint also taught me that intellectual property, as we have known it, is over. The concept of an "author" who owned "a work" was invented by the printing press. The printing press fixed words in text and created an illusion of permanence, of something solid "out there." Students are still surprised to learn that Shakespeare did not care to preserve his plays for future generations. "Writing for future generations" was a conceit thinkable only after we had fully internalized the world of text and thought of books as artifacts that would last. Fractint was built by "the Stone Soup Group," programmers who worked collaboratively online. Some of their names are known, but many are anonymous. A collective wrote the program, just as monasteries in the middle ages created illuminated manuscripts without a thought for the name of an "author" or owner of the "intellectual property." Cultural artifacts like laws (copyrights, patents) are tools too. The shape of those tools is determined by our information systems. After we use them a while, we forget that, and they become part of the background noise of our lives. Fractals are a metaphor not only for what I see "out there" but also for what I observe within myself. Every decade or so, I discover myself in transition to another developmental stage. Each stage includes and transcends everything that came before. My psyche is self-similar at all scales, just like a fractal. Civilizations too go through developmental transitions, and they too include and transcend everything that came before. Back to tools. It is said in the consulting business that "to the person with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Our tools structure our perception and frame our possibilities for action. I asked a number of engineers what tools they commonly use. All but one said "computer" first. Some added t-square, or architect's rule, or drafting board. Only one said pencils, although everybody uses them. Nobody said "words." We only notice the new tools in our kit, like computers. Those we were given by prior generations disappear into the background. I notice that most people mean by the word "technology" the technology that has been invented since they were children. The evolution of tools and the hands that hold them or the minds that think them is a cultural process. It's a chicken-and- egg kind of thing. Did we build more complex bridges and buildings because we had better tools, or did tools evolve that enabled us to build better bridges and buildings? Computers simulate what we call "reality" but that "reality" in fact consists of nested levels of symbols. Digital images are images of texts, texts are images of writing, writing is an image of spoken words. They are all artifacts, nested in levels of abstraction that are self-similar at all scales. Before human beings spoke, the artifacts or tools generated by language did not exist. We call those tools ideas, concepts, mental models. They are the building blocks of our maps of reality. Because they are modular, we can connect words and ideas in an infinite number of ways and build more ideas, more elaborate frameworks or architectures that enable us to build everything from bridges to religions. Like speech, writing, and print, the computer is a tool that shapes our perceptions into forms the computer can use. If we are to bring our ideas to the computer, they must be expressed in language the computer understands. To the person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To human beings who use speech, the only ideas we can think are ideas we can express in words. In a civilization transformed by interaction through networked computers, we will think only thoughts that can be simulated or manipulated by the single electronic network that mediates communication and the flow of information. The world looks to me like fractals because Fractint taught me to perceive the world as fractals. Engineers will build the kind of infrastructure that networked computers teach and enable them to see and think. The physical structures of civilization will be determined by how computers think. Everything is a flowing, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said. If only he'd had a PC and a program like Fractint! Then he could have seen that flowing in thousands of colors, fractals of unimaginable simplicity and complexity, self-similar at all scales. I bet it would have blown his mind. ********************************************************************** Islands in the Clickstream is a monthly column written by Richard Thieme exploring social and cultural dimensions of computer technology. Comments are welcome. Feel free to pass along columns for personal use, retaining this signature file. If interested in (1) publishing columns online or in print, (2) giving a free subscription as a gift, or (3) distributing Islands to employees or over a network, email for details. To subscribe to Islands in the Clickstream, send email to rthieme@thiemeworks.com with the words "subscribe islands" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, email with "unsubscribe islands" in the body of the message. Richard Thieme is a professional speaker, consultant, and writer focused on the impact of computer technology on individuals and organizations. Islands in the Clickstream (c) Richard Thieme, 1997. All rights reserved. ThiemeWorks P. O. Box 17737 Milwaukee WI 53217-0737 414.351.2321 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:51:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ulrich Mayring Subject: File 3--Re CuD 9.46 - Blocking Software and Germany Hello, just a quick note from a non-expert: Any screening and monitoring software is subject to privacy laws. Here in Germany most of the features of the monitoring software you are describing in cu-digest.946 would be illegal. To wit: Legal is: Recording whether an employee uses the Internet as part of his job or as a private person, PROVIDED the employer has the agreement of the employee to record such information. (How the software would know is quite beyond me, though). Illegal is: Recording exactly WHAT the employee surfing as a private person looks at. You can't record URLs, you can't record UseNet groups, you definetely can't snoop in on his email. It doesn't matter if the employee agrees or not - it is illegal to monitor anything of what an employee does as a private person. After all your employer is not allowed to read your paper mail either, should you bring it to the office. Most of what a monitoring software records is breach of privacy in Germany. Also, if the company has an organized union chapter (called Betriebsrat, which is very common in Germany), they have to be notified of any and all monitoring going on with or without the consent of the employee. I am not sure about other countries, but here in Germany "internet usage monitoring" by software is subject to the same privacy law (called Datenschutzgesetz) as are surveillance cameras and the like. For more information on this aspect of monitoring, I would recommend consulting a law expert, as I am only repeating what I read in a German computer magazine (the article was written by an attorney). Otherwise, keep up the good work with CuD, Ulrich Mayring ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:40:01 -0800 From: "--Todd Lappin-->" Subject: File 4--McCain speaks out on S. 909 Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu June 20, 1997 - 12:30 pm PST Just got off the phone with Senator McCain. Here are some highlights of our brief, 5 minute conversation -- a conversation during which he used the term "national security" repeatedly, and with strong emphasis. Against that backdrop, McCain repeatedly stated that he's willing and eager to negotiate on the provisions of the "Secure Public Networks Act." All are welcome to use this material, with proper attribution: --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ------------------------------------- McCain on the rationale behind S. 909 (with allusion to his wartime experience): "I've always said that national security is a primary concern -- and based on my own experience, I've had a lot of time to consider how important that really is." McCain on the software industry: "Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that the software industry would be so willing to downplay the dangers of child porn... This stuff is out there, and we can't allow child pornographers to hide by encrypting that material. "I'm astonished that any industry would consider their priorities to be so important that they override national security concerns." McCain on Pro-CODE: "I'm all for Pro-CODE -- except for it's impact on national security. McCain on the future: "I promise you, now that we've adopted this legislation, we will sit down and work this out with all the parties involved. As I've said before, from a practical standpoint, we can't override a presidential veto. With this bill, we've established that the President of the United States has authority over national security." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:16:03 GMT From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com Subject: File 5--New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet New York Judge Prohibits State Regulation of Internet FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, June 20, 1997 NEW YORK -- As the nation awaits a Supreme Court decision on Internet censorship, a federal district judge here today blocked New York State from enforcing its version of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA). Ruling simultaneously in ACLU v. Miller, another ACLU challenge to state Internet regulation, a Federal District Judge in Georgia today struck down a law criminalizing online anonymous speech and the use of trademarked logos as links on the World Wide Web. In ALA v. Pataki, Federal District Judge Loretta A. Preska issued a preliminary injunction against the New York law, calling the Internet an area of commerce that should be marked off as a "national preserve" to protect online speakers from inconsistent laws that could "paralyze development of the Internet altogether." Judge Preska, acknowledging that the New York act was "clearly modeled on the CDA," did not address the First Amendment issues raised by the ACLU's federal challenge, saying that the Commerce Clause provides "fully adequate support" for the injunction and that the Supreme Court would address the other issues in its widely anticipated decision in Reno v. ACLU. (The Court's next scheduled decision days are June 23, 25 and 26.) "Today's decisions in New York and Georgia say that, whatever limits the Supreme Court sets on Congress's power to regulate the Internet, states are prohibited from acting to censor online expression," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney who argued the case before Judge Preska and is a member of the ACLU v. Miller and Reno v. ACLU legal teams. "Taken together, these decisions send a very important and powerful message to legislators in the other 48 states that they should keep their hands off the Internet," Beeson added. In a carefully reasoned, 62-page opinion, Judge Preska warned of the extreme danger that state regulation would pose to the Internet, rejecting the state's argument that the statute would even be effective in preventing so-called "indecency" from reaching minors. Further, Judge Preska observed, the state can already protect children through the vigorous enforcement of existing criminal laws. "In many ways, this decision is more important for the business community than for the civil liberties community," said Chris Hansen, a senior ACLU attorney on the ALA v. Pataki legal team and lead counsel in Reno v. ACLU. "Legislatures are just about done with their efforts to regulate the business of Internet 'sin,' and have begun turning to the business of the Internet itself. Today's decision ought to stop that trend in its tracks." Saying that the law would reduce all speech on the Internet to a level suitable for a six-year-old, the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association and others filed the challenge in January of this year. The law, which was passed by the New York legislature late last year, provides criminal sanctions of up to four years in jail for communicating so-called "indecent" words or images to a minor. In a courtroom hearing before Judge Preska in April, the ACLU presented a live Internet demonstration and testimony from plaintiffs who said that their speech had already been "chilled" by the threat of criminal prosecution. "This is a big win for the people of the state of New York," said Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "Today's ruling vindicates what we have been saying all along to Governor Pataki and legislators, that they cannot legally prevent New Yorkers from engaging in uninhibited, open and robust freedom of expression on the Internet." The ALA v. Pataki plaintiffs are: the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the New York Library Association, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Westchester Library System, BiblioBytes, Association of American Publishers, Interactive Digital Software Association, Magazine Publishers of America, Public Access Networks Corp. (PANIX), ECHO, NYC Net, Art on the Net, Peacefire and the American Civil Liberties Union. Michael Hertz and others of the New York firm Latham & Watkins provided pro-bono assistance to the ACLU and NYCLU; Michael Bamberger of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal in New York is also co-counsel in the case. Lawyers from the ACLU are Christopher Hansen, Ann Beeson and Art Eisenberg, legal director of the NYCLU. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body. The Cyber-Liberties Update is archived at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. PGP keys can be found at http://www.aclu.org/about/pgpkeys.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:06 -0400 From: jay holovacs Subject: File 6--Response to "Purpose of CuD" ((MODERATORS NOTE: We did not realize that Mike Oar's original post was intended only for th CuD editors, because there was no indication that distribution was restricted, and his post seemed far more articulate than a simple "FWIW" note. We apologize to him for the misunderstanding and appreciate his good nature in other private mail.)) I feel compelled to address some of the comments made by Mike Oar in CUD 9.44 Oar says: [You may guess that I tend to draw a middle of the road perspective on censorship. I believe that participants (on-liners) need to be more civil than they now are, and that those that aren't continue to destroy the reputation and ability of the "real" users to use the information that is/could be out there.] There is *no* middle of the road on censorship. Either you support free speech or you don't. All else is just a matter of degree ("I approve of censoring the stuff I find too offensive"). And there will always be plenty of people wanting to control stuff you would find acceptable. The battle for free speech is always fought at the sleazy edges, because that is always what is attacked first. The internal publications of some of the organizations who are now claiming only to want to keep "porn" out of the hands of children indicate the eventual goal of restricting the availability of erotica to adults as well. Some of these same people favor government enforcement of their religious values. (By contrast, there is not much room for a hidden agenda to a free speech purist--Keep everything open--period) As has been pointed out before, the First Amendment was not written to protect innoffensive speech or speech approved by the majority (which normally needs no protection), but the right of the minority to contradict majority opinions and sensibilities. Oar expresses a legitimate complaint: the uncivil nature of some on the net. It is not quite so clear what he is proposing, though placing his reference in a paragraph on censorship implies possible government involvement: Perhaps "civility police"... can you spell "Singapore"? And who are his "real users" anyhow? The corporate commercial crowd who would like one more bland shopping mall? Or is it the individuals who finally have a chance at exercising a little free speech on their own soapbox (something long denied in the corporate moderated media)? Oar continues: [I also believe that while there's nothing inherently wrong with annonimity, it is often abused and used to cover up sick and disgusting acts by those who are simply too cowardly or perverse to reveal their true identity.] Is this a suggestion that anonymity be limited? If identity can be traced, then such anonymity is useless. If undesirable speech can be traced, then dissidents and government critics can be traced. Freedom can bring out the worst in people as well as the best. Should we oppose freedom? Governments do not like anonymity, and every one of them, from North Korea and Burma to the USA will assure you that *their* surveillance of citizens is responsible, and for the greater public good (though, of course, "other governents" may be abusing their own power). Oar: [There are real issues to deal with as technology becomes more readily available to the world. It's no longer the play ground of the select few who can learn how to program or spend endless hours on-line. . . snip... it begins to become the responsibility of those that create it to do all that they can to educate the users to it's proper use. snip... I think it is our charge as the creators of technology to promote and insure it's proper use...] Interesting mutiple references to "proper use." I suspect that concepts of proper use vary widely, and am deeply suspicious of any attempt to define "proper use" for the net. I doubt there is a more important function for the net anywhere in the world than political change and opening peoples' minds to alternative ideas. This is often controversial and confrontational. It cannot be accomplished in an atmosphere of (even relatively benign) state control. Keeping the net wide open is a top priority; if we give up this freedom even in the name of "community benefit", this power for change is lost. Sure, some of the dregs will come along with the flow, but that is the price of a free society. Barry Goldwater (with whom I disagree on many points) correctly said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice..." Jay Holovacs holovacs@mail.idt.net PS: Meeks *sometimes* uses vulgar language in his columns (often he does not), but there is a strong tongue in cheek flavor in those writings. You still have the right to disagree, but give your sense of humor a little slack. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--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 #9.48 ************************************