Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 07 Issue 41
Computer underground Digest Tue May 23, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 41
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Goddess of Judyism Editor: J. Tenuta
CONTENTS, #7.41 (Tue, May 23, 1995)
File 1--Cyber-Liberty Alert #4: State Bills to Regulate Online Content
File 2--Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet (fwd)
File 3--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online
File 4--O'Reilly Releases WebSite Server
File 5--More Additions to the CuD archives
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ACLU Information <infoaclu@ACLU.ORG>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:43:28 -0400
Subject: File 1--Cyber-Liberty Alert #4: State Bills to Regulate Online Content
**ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT**
STOP STATE LEGISLATORS FROM CENSORING ONLINE CONTENT!
As more and more people sign on to the Internet and commercial online
networks, there is a growing panic that online networks are being
infiltrated by pedophiles and peddlers of obscenity and child pornography.
Legislators are proposing severe criminal laws in an effort to purge
online networks of these influences.
Many of you were first made aware of this threat to your civil liberties
by the pending federal legislation - the so-called "Communications Decency
Act of 1995", proposed by Senator Exon (D-NE) and recently approved by the
Senate Commerce Committee as an amendment to the massive
telecommunications reform act now pending in Congress.
But while online civil libertarians were distracted by their laudable
rally against the Exon Bill, state legislators were busy crafting similar
bills at home.
**These state bills, like the federal Exon Bill, raise serious First
Amendment and privacy concerns.**
Legislators are attempting to extend to the online context criminal laws
that restrict the following categories of sexually expressive material and
behavior:
-the distribution of "obscene" materials to adults
-the distribution of materials deemed "harmful to minors"
-the solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct
-the possession and distribution of visual materials produced
through the sexual exploitation of children
Through a lack of understanding about how new interactive technologies
work, legislators have managed to craft these laws to prohibit a wide
range of constitutionally protected material.
If enacted into law, these vague and overly broad bills could have the
following draconian effects:
* Prohibit communications with sexual content through private e-mail
between consenting adults, and inhibit people from making comments that
might or might not be prohibited.
* Require service providers to act as private censors to avoid
criminal liability for prohibited material produced by subscribers on
their networks.
* Prevent health care providers from posting sex education
materials to online networks.
To date, the ACLU has located and continues to monitor bills proposed this
year in twelve states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and Washington. The Oklahoma and Virginia bills were both voted into law
in recent weeks. Bills in Washington, Illinois, New York, and
Pennsylvania are moving rapidly through state legislatures.
ACT NOW:
* Contact your state legislators and urge them to oppose the state bill.
* Urge legislators to hold full public hearings to identify the problems
and to explore technological alternatives to censorship.
* Generate online discussion about the threats to civil liberties posed by
the state bill.
* Organize an online "grass roots" effort to stop the bill.
* Ask your online service provider to publicly oppose the state bill.
* Write a letter to the editor of your local paper in opposition to the
state bill. Discuss the liberating potential of online technology and
provide examples.
----------------------------
For more information on the pending state bills, visit our gopher site,
the ACLU Free Reading Room:
gopher://aclu.org:6601/1/issues/cyberspace/state
This subdirectory contains the full text of some bills, in addition to
ACLU legal analyses of, and letters written to oppose, particular bills.
=============================================================
ACLU Free Reading Room | A publications and information resource of the
gopher://aclu.org:6601 | American Civil Liberties Union National Office
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com /aclu
mailto:infoaclu@aclu.org | "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 22:41:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 2--Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Obscenity, Censorship & the Internet
By Eric J. Eden
r3eje@dax.cc.uakron.edu
Deciding whether or not pornographic material should be
censored on the Internet is a hot topic these days.
By glancing through the number of messages on different Usenet
newsgroups, it's obvious that alt.sex.stories and alt.sex are two
of the most popular discussion groups on the Internet. The World
Wide Web pages of Playboy and Penthouse are always overloaded with
users. Plus, you can get nude images on just about all of the
major commercial service providers -- America Online, Compuserve
etc.
For users who have been online for several years, this is
nothing new. There have probably been more Playboy centerfolds
seen on the Internet than in print. Since the Department of
Defense created the Internet in the 1970s, college students have
been storing thousands of nude images on mainframes. Last summer,
hundreds of users went into mourning when the Digital Picture
Archive at the University of Delft in the Netherlands was closed
down. (Sandberg, 1995)
Furthermore, adult oriented bulletin board systems have been
distributing sexual stories and nude images since the first 300
baud modems were sold more than 10 years ago. "In the online crowd,
stories about stockpiles of pornographic GIF (Graphic Image Format)
files are unlikely to inspire more than a yawn." (Godwin, a, 1994)
When you look at the big picture, none of this that surprising
when you consider that Adult Video News, a trade magazine for video
retailers, reported Americans bought two and a-half billion dollars
worth of X-Rated videos last year. (AP, b, 1995)
"As a new forum for public discussion, computer information
services will inevitably encounter many of the problems faced by
older communications channels, such as abusive language, libel, and
pornography." (Sergent, 703)
There is evidence that computer users do want access to sexual
material. For example, three of the top ten newsgroups on Usenet
are related to sexual topics. (Sanchez, 1995) "Many more of
these newsgroups would be on the Most Popular list if they were
allowed to exist at more sites." (Pointers to Sex Info on the Net,
1995)
But parents, law makers and other concerned citizens have
launched a campaign to stop the distribution of obscene,
pornographic, erotic and indecent material on the Internet.
Decisions made over the next year or two will probably shape the
future of free expression on the Internet. Some people say
regulating the distribution of sexual materials over the Internet
is censorship. But others say that the government needs to step in
to protect children from accessing nude images, erotic
conversations and discussions about bestiality. (Espinoza,
1995)
However, there are some difficult questions to answer before
the Internet can be regulated by law. Who will be responsible for
controlling the content of millions of messages? How will the law
be enforced? Will new laws regulating the content of messages take
away citizens rights to free speech and privacy? And since the
Internet is an international forum, what standards should users use
to decide what material is obscene?
The issue of censoring obscene or indecent pornographic
material is complex and controversial in many cases. Add to that
the fact that technical aspects of computer networks make the
controversy even more difficult to understand, and traditional law
more difficult to apply. (Sergent, 1995) Perhaps an analysis of
obscenity law will provide some insight on how the law could be
applied to the Internet in the near future.
What is Obscene?
"It has long been held that obscenity is not protected by the
first Amendment, but what qualifies as 'obscenity' has not always
been clear. After Miller v. California there has been no national
standard as to what is obscene." (Godwin, b, 1994). In Miller v.
California, Justice Warren Burger stated the three guidelines that
are used to determine whether a work can be declared legally
obscene. If all of the following are true, the work may be
considered legally obscene in the United States:
1. If the average person, applying local community standards, would
find that the work appeals to indecency, is unlawful or is sexually
suggestive -- or in legal terms, applies to prurient interests.
2. If the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct that is against state law.
3. If the work, as a whole, lacks serious artistic, literary,
artistic, political or scientific value.
(Overbeck, 1994)
These guidelines were established by the Miller v. California
413 U.S. 15 (1973). That case established the precedent that a
state can regulate the sale and distribution of obscene materials.
(Overbeck, 1994) Although people may have their own moral code as
to what's obscene and what is not, the above is the test the U.S.
Supreme Court uses. As Judge Richard Posner comments in the
October 18, 1993 issue of the New Republic "Most hard-core
pornography -- the pornographic depiction of actual sex acts or of
an erect penis is illegal -- even if it's widely available."
(Godwin, a) It's obvious that hard core pornography is obscene
under the Miller v. California guidelines, but a lot of graphic
images on the Internet fall into a gray area. Although some people
might consider the images on the Playboy or Penthouse WWW pages
offensive, they are not legally obscene as far as U.S. law is
concerned. Since they are not legally obscene, the Supreme Court
can't, in most instances, stop citizens from viewing the images.
"Thus the crucial issue in defining obscenity. If a work is
legally obscene, it may be censored and the producer may be
punished. If not, it is protected by the First Amendment and
cannot be censored." (Overbeck, 328)
However, in interest of protecting privacy, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in Stanley v. Georgia during 1969 that it is legal to
possess obscene material in you home, but this decision did not
give citizens the constitutional right to distribute or sell
obscene materials. (Sergent, 1994)
This is one reason why legal questions arise when users send
obscene material over the Internet. If users transfer obscene
files from their home to other users homes, they are not just in
possession of obscene material, they are distributing obscene
material. So if an Internet user in New York City starts
distributing nude images -- that are not obscene in New York -- to
a small, conservative city in Iowa, he or she could be breaking the
law in Iowa because the images might be declared obscene by a court
applying local community standards in Iowa.
The test defined in Miller v. California was developed so that
people who live in Las Vegas wouldn't have to live under the same
moral community standards as the people who live in Tallmadge,
Ohio. But since Internet users live in all parts of the world, the
trick question is which local community standards should Internet
users abide by? The standards of a red light district in L.A. or
the standards of a small farm town in Ohio? (Godwin, a, b, 1995)
Even the average user can see there are some problems with applying
the Miller v. California definition of obscenity to the Internet.
"Its weakness is obvious when viewed from the perspective of a
large information service provider attempting to determine what
community standards it should use. A large information service
will operate in every community in the U.S. and perhaps eventually
around the world." (Sergent, 703)
If obscenity law in the U.S. is applied to the Internet it's
possible that users could be prosecuted for transmitting obscene
material to remote locations over the Net. Robert and Carleen
Thomas were convicted on 11 counts of obscenity for distributing
sexual images over a computer bulletin board system to a virtual
community of users. (AP, b, 1994) Even though the Thomases lived
in California, they were convicted of violating obscenity law in
Tennessee. (Godwin, a, b, 1994) The case shows that, under current
laws, users can be held accountable for breaking laws in other
states. "It seems clear that by exploiting both the ambiguities of
the current obscenity law and the media's hunger for any crime
stories related to sexual materials, these social conservatives
hope to both chill the spread of sexual materials on the Net and to
establish a broad national scope for prosecutions of that
material." (Godwin, a, 1994)
So far the courts have refused to abandon the traditional
model of judging a work obscene by geographic community standards.
When, in fact, the community standards of the online service where
users meet and communicate with other users around the world should
be taken into consideration when deciding if a graphic image or
language is obscene. Since current law will not allow for that,
change in the U.S. obscenity law is needed. (Byassee, 1995)
(Godwin, a, b, 1994)
Global Standards
Yet another problem is that the Internet is an international
medium and what might be considered legally obscene in the U.S.
might not be considered obscene in France. The problems start when
different countries have conflicting laws. For example, pictures
of nude children on the beach in France could be sent over the
Internet to the United States. Then, anyone in the U.S. who has
possession of one of the pictures could be arrested because in
Osborne v. Ohio the court ruled that a person may be prosecuted for
having sexually oriented pictures of under age children. (Overbeck,
318) (Warren, 1995)
This, of course, doesn't mean that citizens in other countries
have to obey U.S. laws. So it is not possible for one U.S. law to
ban all child pornography on the Internet. Which means users in
other countries may be able to freely distribute child pornography
or other obscene materials on the Net. "If we agree to clamp down
in America, does the U.S. have troops to send to Finland or
Kazakhstan, to prevent people from putting pornography on their
local tributary of the Internet?" (Rheingold, 1995)
Since there is no international obscenity law, trying to get
all the nations who are connected to the Internet to agree on
what's obscene may be impossible. When the RAND Corporation
decided to create the Internet for the Department of Defense with
no central control center, the Net could theoretically continue in
its anarchial state for a long time. (Rheingold, 1995)
Indecent Laws?
On the Usenet news group misc.legal New Zealand Judge David
Harvey suggested that government regulation could stifle the growth
of the Internet in some countries. "There is currently before the
New Zealand Parliment a bill entitled the Technology and Crimes
Bill. One of its purposes is to prohibit telecommunications with
foreign telecommunications services whose programmes contain
objectionable images or sounds. It has been suggested that if it
becomes law, the main gateway to the Internet at the University of
Waikato will be closed, thus taking New Zealand off the Net."
Harvey also points out that Singapore has announced that the
Singapore Broadcast Authority (SBA) will start "policing" the
Internet for "Cybersleaze."
Although the FCC regulates indecent programs on TV and radio
in the U.S., Reed Hundt, Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission said in the October 1994 issue of the Internet Letter
that the FCC would not attempt to regulate indecent material on the
Net. "Unlike TV, a user must take affirmative steps to access a
pornographic site. 'There are a series of affirmative steps taken
to get to the content,' Hundt said. 'For one thing, you have to
subscribe to a service to get access to the network, then you have
to take your chances on what might be on the bulletin board. When
you're talking TV, you're talking about a free medium'." (Shepard,
1994)
But the U.S. Congress is jumping on the bandwagon to regulate
the distribution of sexual materials on the Net. In February
1995, Senator Jim Exon (D-NE) introduced the Telecommunications
Decency Act. The bill says that anyone who
"by means of telecommunications device makes, transmits or
otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion,
purposal, image or other communication which is obscene, lewd,
lascivious, filthy or indecent ... or knowingly permits any
telecommunications facility under their control to be used for any
purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 2 years."
(Warren, 14)
This bill has caused mass concern on the Internet. The Center for
Democracy & Technology, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, The
ACLU, The Electronic Messaging Association and many other groups
circulated petitions against the bill and announcements about the
bill on the Net. "It is questionable whether the prohibition of on
obscene or indecent communications, even if limited to non-
consensual communications, can be accomplished in electronic
communications without chilling the First Amendment." (Rosenblum,
1995).
Interactive Age reported in their April 10, 1995 issue that
during an interview with David Frost on PBS, House Speaker Newt
Gingrich (R-GA.) said, "that provisions to ban obscene material
from the Internet is 'probably illegal under our constitution'.
When Frost asked Gingrich about Sen. James Exon's (D-Neb.)
communications decency provisions included in the Senate's
communications bill, Gingrich said that Americans as a culture, not
as a government, can refuse to tolerate obscenity." (Interactive
Age, 5)
In the March 15, 1995 edition of the San Francisco Bay
Guardian, Michael Kangior, Exon's legislative aid, defended the
bill by answering concerns of Internet access providers by saying
that they would not be held responsible for the actions of their
users. "Pornography among consenting adults is perfectly legal --
it's protected by the constitution," he told the Bay Guardian.
"This (the legislation) should not apply to the carriers (online
service providers) but to the person who hits the send button."
(Espinoza, 19)
The passionate debate on how to regulate cyberspace will
probably continue for the next several years. In many ways,
technology is advancing but the laws that govern it are not.
"Evolution of the law is the result of the grinding process of
competing interests, each working to ensure that law is
appropriately adapted from the perspective of that particular
interest group." (Byassee, 220)
Real Law in the Virtual World
Although it is clear that the reform of traditional obscenity
law is needed, and new legislation is being purposed in many
countries, current laws are being applied to penalize some
offenders. For example:
-- The Detroit News reported that a Canadian man was charged by a
U.S. grand Jury for helping a University of Michigan student plan
the sexual assault of a young woman. If the Canadian Authorities
find the man who uses the alias Arthur Gonda, they will extradite
him to the U.S. for prosecution. (Ilka, 1995)
-- The Boston Globe reported that America Online, Inc., an online
service in the U.S. with over 1.5 million users, cancelled several
users accounts and reported them to the FBI for exchanging child
pornography over the online service. (Zitner, 1995)
These examples, in addition to the Thomases case mentioned
earlier, illustrate the point that even though new obscenity law is
being considered, Internet users still have to act responsibly
because they can be prosecuted for disobeying current obscenity
laws.
Conclusion
During the next several years, the Internet will probably
become more regulated because those opposed to the distribution of
sexual materials will demand that government authorities regulate
the online world. "some people who wish to regulate sexually-
related speech will be dissatisfied with any solution to this
problem which accommodates individual expression." (Sergent, 704)
However, the best way to protect children from exposure to
adult material and allow adult users the right of free expression
is probably not through legislation or government involvement.
Perhaps a way to accommodate everyone would be for access providers
to set up adult areas and keep all sexually related material
confined to those areas. (Sergent, 1994) This would also prevent
governments from having to make regulations and define obscenity.
It also allows non-consenting adults to avoid the indecent
material. Although some children may find a way to access the
adult areas, this is a better solution than banning all sexual
material on the Internet.
Furthermore, censoring obscene material on the Internet is
different than censoring obscene material in other forums like
radio or TV. As FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, pointed out, the user
must take specific steps to access pornographic material on the
Internet. (Shepard, 1995) You must sign on the Internet and seek
out the sexually oriented newsgroups and nude images. They are
rarely forced on a reader or accidentally accessed,
Unfortunately for advocates of free speech, the Internet will
probably become more regulated as it grows in popularity. Most
politicians are unwilling to face the PR nightmare of opposing
legislation that bans offensive material. And since it is also
unlikely that all the countries connected to the Internet will
regulate indecent or obscene materials the same way, users will
have to think twice before sending sexual stories or pictures over
the Net. Those who participate in online activities need to learn
what is legally obscene in the their country and use good judgement
when dealing with obscene material. It would also be wise for
users to remember that planning or committing crimes with the help
of the Internet can lead to prosecution. As pointed out earlier,
it is possible to be prosecuted and held accountable for your
actions in the virtual world just as you would be held accountable
in the real world.
Works Cited
Byassee, William S., Wake Forest Law Review V. 30, Spring 1995,
"Jurisdiction of Cyberspace: Applying Real World Precedent to the
Virtual Community" p. 197-220.
Associated Press, (a) "Jury Convicts Couple in Computer Porn Trial"
July 28, 1994.
Associated Press, (b) "The Porno Business is Booming", March 16,
1995.
Espinoza, Martin, "The Cybercensors", San Francisco Bay Guardian,
March 15-21, 1995, p. 19
Godwin, Mike, (a) "Virtual Community Standards", Reason, November
1994, Downloaded from the Electronic Newsstand on the World Wide
Web.
Godwin, Mike, (b) "The Long Arm of the Law", Internet World, 1994.
Ilka, Douglas, "U-M Student's Canadian E-mail Pal Charged in
Internet Kidnap Plot", Detroit News, March 16, 1995.
"More on Online Obscenity." Interactive Age April 10, 1995: Page 5
Overbeck, Wayne, Major Principles of Media Law Harcourt Brace
College Publishers, 1995
"Pointer to Sex Info on the Net." Distributed anonymously to
alt.sex on the Internet April 15, 1995.
Rosenblum, Shari, "EMA ANALYSIS: Censorship Act S314", Feb. 1995.
Downloaded from the Chicago-Kent College of Law mail list Lawsch-l.
Rheingold, Howard, "Why Censoring Cyberspace is Dangerous &
Futile", Tommorow, 1994, Commentary downloaded from the Gate.
Sandberg, Jared, "Electronic Erotica: Too Muich Traffic", Wall
Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1995.
Sanchez, Robert, "Usenet Culture", Internet World, Nov./Dec. 1994,
p. 38-41
Scheller, John C., The John Marshall Law Review V. 27, Summer 1994,
"PC Peep Show: Computers, Privacy and Child Pornography", p. 989-
1016.
Sergent, Randolph Stuart, The Journal of Law & Politics V. 10,
1994, "Sex, Candor and Computers: Obscenity and Indecency on the
Electronic Frontier" p. 703-738
Shepard, Robert, "FCC to Keep Hands-Off Policy: Hundt Sees No Plan
to Regulate Internet", The Internet Letter, October 1994.
Warren, Jim, "The Brave New Online World", San Francisco Bay
Guardian, March 15-21, 1995, P. 13-14
Zitner, Aaron, "AOL Red Over Porn Images", Boston Globe, Jan. 10,
1995
This work is Copyright 1995 By Eric Eden. All rights reserved.
For reprint permission, contact the author at
r3eje@dax.cc.uakron.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 20:12:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 3--(fwd) Christian American article on Pornography Online
CHRISTIAN AMERICAN
MAY/JUNE 1995
TECHNO-PREDATORS Computer Porn Invades Homes
Editor's note: Pornography victimizes women and entices young people.
This article contains graphic information about the growing
availability of pornographic pictures via computer bulletin boards
and the Internet. Christian American hopes this information will be
useful to parents and others who wish to safeguard their computers
from this growing threat.
By Jeffrey M. Peyton
Youth pastor Tim McNabb used to love browsing through the Internet, a
world-wide computer network, in search of electronic "pen pals."
"I've had some of the most stimulating theological discussions ever
with some people on the net," he said. "But more and more, I was
having to wade through so much garbage to find someone who really
wanted to talk."
One day McNabb was having a theological conversation with a young
woman who kept trying to turn the conversation in a
sexually-suggestive direction. McNabb, who is married with children,
was shocked. "It turns out she was only 16," he said. "I couldn't
believe it."
McNabb experienced a mild form of what some Internet veterans know as
cybersex, the electronic equivalent to talking dirty on the telephone.
Today McNabb, one of an estimated 30 million people dialing in from
his home computer, accesses Internet only when he has to, and his
communications software at home is password-protected.
Unfortunately, the experience that shocked McNabb is tame compared to
some material available on commercial dial-in bulletin boards and,
worse, free and easily through the Internet. Today, all anyone needs
to access hard-core pornographic photos is a computer, a modem and a
phone jack.
The technology revolution has led to a sudden explosion in illegal,
obscene pornography distribution - all right under the noses of law
enforcement and, in some cases, parents who unknowingly have given
their children the ability to access such information.
"Right now, people are operating in 'ignorant' mode," said Donna Rice
Hughes of Enough is Enough, a national organization dedicated to
stopping pornography. "They have no idea what's happening."
Increasingly, porn purveyors are re-distributing photographs through
"home pages" on Internet's world-wide web. This material is free for
anyone who knows where to look.
(Internet's public network is called a web because Internet forms an
electronic "web" connecting computers in cities around the world. If
one computer on the web is unavailable, information is re-routed
though another computer via the web. The home page, literally a
computer's address on the web, is the graphic equivalent to turning
the page of an electronic magazine.)
Some porno pages on the web deal mostly with pin-ups, along the lines
of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, but most offer images far more
disturbing. These photographs can be copied to computer disks or
printed on paper and permanently kept by the user or shared with
friends.
"Children can dial into the system and download anything," Hughes
said. "It's all available, subdivided into specific sections."
Illegal pornographic images are available to anyone with the right
computer equipment. Of particular concern to parents is the rampant
availability of legal pornography, since the law distinguishes between
pornography, which may be legal, and obscenity, which is illegal.
And, Special Agent Ken Lanning of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit
told the Associated Press, "as computers become less expensive, more
sophisticated and easier to operate, the potential for abuse
increases."
In order to test how easily accessible porn is to computer users, a
Christian American reporter accessed several menu selections arranged
by subject. Topics included bestiality (sex with animals),
torture/mutilation, snuff (killing a victim after sexually assaulting
her) and child pornography. Categories are sub-organized for
convenience - images under bestiality, for instance, are subdivided by
type of animal. Not all topics included photographs.
"This stuff would make a Hustler subscriber squirm," Hughes said.
"There are hundreds of options. They're all easy to get, and they're
all free for the taking."
No Control
Many parents feel better knowing their children are working on the
computer rather than watching television, but at least TV offers
control devices that can block objectionable channels. Now, with
Internet and other computer bulletin board systems, the same child who
is prohibited from watching MTV can see graphic sexual pictures on his
or her personal computer.
"You can see anything and talk to anybody," McNabb said.
Legal Briefs
Recent cybersmut incidents demonstrate that more law enforcement
patrols are needed on the information speedway.
The University of Michigan expelled a sophomore who posted email
messages - which he claims were pure fiction - that described the
rape, torture and murder of a classmate. The student, 20-year-old Jake
Baker, spent 29 days in jail after authorities charged him with
interstate transmission of a threat.
"Torture is foreplay," Baker wrote in the introduction to one of his
pieces. "Rape is romance, snuff is climax."
In Fresno, Calif., in 1993, Mark Forston was convicted of sodomizing a
16-year-old boy he had met and lured to his home via a computer
network. In Sacramento, William Steen was convicted on charges
stemming from sending pornographic computer files to two 14-year-olds.
National lawmakers are becoming aware of the growing need to regulate
computer porn and are struggling for realistic ways to do it.
Senators Jim Exon (D-NE) and Slade Gorton (R-WA) are sponsoring a bill
that would curtail transmission of obscene, indecent or harassing
telecommunications. Exon says the Baker case strengthens his belief
that a crackdown on a growing Internet "red-light district" is needed.
"When I see my 8-year-old granddaughter sitting at the computer back
in Nebraska, and I know stuff like what this student wrote is
available, I get upset. (Some Internet users) are trying to say
anything goes, and I think that is wrong."
No Boundaries
Because no one "owns" the Internet - its very nature defies boundaries
- many users feel there should be no limitations on what is available
through the system. Their protests raise difficult questions about how
Internet can be effectively policed.
What community standard should apply to a forum that transcends state,
even national, boundaries? Do laws apply based on the location of the
server (usually a mainframe computer that provides Internet access to
hundreds of users) or the location of the individual downloading
information?
For instance, in June 1994, Robert and Carleen Thomas, operators of an
"adult bulletin board service" in California, were convicted in U.S.
court in Memphis, Tenn., on obscenity charges because of images
downloaded in Tennessee.
Tens of thousands of Internet users have emailed petitions denouncing
the Exon bill to Capitol Hill and the White House, claiming that any
attempt to regulate the information super highway would be paramount
to regulating free speech.
Robert Knight, cultural studies director for the Family Research
Council, told the Washington Times that such doomsday wailing misses
the point.
"Obscene materials are not protected, no matter what the method of
transmission," Knight said. "The point is not to go after the
Internet, but to begin enforcing laws against obscene materials.
"If child pornography pictures are transmitted by Internet or by U.S.
mail, it shouldn't make any difference in terms of enforcement."
To encourage your senators to support the Exon-Gorton measure to curb
computer porn, write to them at the U.S. Senate, Washington D.C.
20510. Or call the Capitol switchboard and ask for your senator: (202)
224-3121.
For more information on computer pornography and what you can do to
safeguard your home, write to Enough is Enough! at P.O. Box 888,
Fairfax, Va. 22030, or call (703) 278-8343.
_________________________________________________________________
[IMAGE]
_________________________________________________________________
Copyright =A91995 by The Christian Coalition of this page and all
contents. All Rights Reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 17:08:37 -0700
From: Ellen Elias <elias@ora.com>
Subject: File 4--O'Reilly Releases WebSite Server
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 11, 1995
PRESS CONTACT ONLY: Ellen Elias
707/829-0515
elias@ora.com
SALES/PRODUCT INFORMATION
800/998-9938
order@ora.com
http://website.ora.com/
O'REILLY RELEASES WEBSITE (TM) WEB SERVER FOR WINDOWS NT
Feature-Rich Publishing Software Available at $499
SEBASTOPOL, CA--O'Reilly & Associates announced that it will ship its
new Web server WebSite on the target release date of May 15. The 32-bit
Web server runs on both Windows NT 3.5 and the current beta version of
Windows 95. WebSite is created in cooperation with Bob Denny and
Enterprise Integration Technologies, Inc. (EIT).
WebSite offers a completely graphical interface, from setup through
administration and Web building. The server is written by Bob Denny,
author of Windows HTTPD, a 16-bit shareware server for Windows 3.1 that
has been tested on over 20,000 sites. WebSite enhances its server with
a rich array of user-friendly features including WebView (TM), which
provides a tree-like graphical display of the servers documents and
links; icons that identify file type and broken links; logging
statistics; a graphical editor for enhancing images in Web documents;
wizards that automatically create common Web documents; and search and
indexing tools.
O'Reilly is using a variety of digital media to let customers preview
and purchase the product. A fully functioning, time-limited demo
version of WebSite will be available on WUGNET's Third Party CD Sampler
for Windows 95, which will be offered to the 400,000+ recipients of the
Windows 95 Preview Guide. A free online demo version will be available
from WebSite Central (http://website.ora.com/) in late May. Customers
can also order WebSite online through WebSite Central.
WebSite's advanced capabilities include support for Windows CGI, DOS
CGI, and Standard CGI/1.1. With Windows CGI, which is currently not
available on other NT servers, you can serve data from Windows programs
such as Excel, Foxpro, and Microsoft Access. WebSite offers security
through authentication and access control. Access to areas within a Web
can be restricted based on user name, group, or IP address. The program
allows a single server to support multiple domains with completely
separate or overlapping webs--each with its own set of users and
groups. The package includes Enhanced Mosaic 2.0 and a 350-page book
that provides complete documentation. O'Reilly is offering 90-day free
tech support for registered users. This Fall, O'Reilly will offer an
attractive upgrade path to WebSite Version 1.1, an update with full
cryptographic security (S-HTTP and SSL).
"We are very pleased to be shipping WebSite on time--it's a cutting
edge product, and our customers are anxious to get the software so they
can start making their own information available on the World Wide
Web," said Product Manager Gina Blaber. "O'Reilly is committed to
producing high quality, affordable tools that make the Internet
accessible to everyone. At a list price of $499, WebSite makes Web
publishing possible for a wide range of businesses, organizations, and
individuals."
About O'Reilly & Associates
O'Reilly & Associates is recognized worldwide for its definitive books
on the Internet and UNIX. Working closely with developers of new
technologies, O'Reillys editors are computer people who use the
software they write about. The companys planning and review process
links together authors, computer vendors, and technical experts
throughout the industry in a creative collaboration that mirrors the
strengths of the open systems philosophy itself.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
Subject: File 5--More Additions to the CuD archives
_Alive_, a computer virus research e-pub, reviewed in the last CuD, has
been added to the CuD archives at:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/CuD/Alive/
ftp.eff.org, /pub/Publications/CuD/Alive/
gopher.eff.org, 1/Publications/CuD/Alive/
Please use one of the many mirror sites if possible.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST <your name>
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.41
************************************
