Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 07 Issue 33
Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 26, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 33
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Desecrator: Emo Shrdlu
CONTENTS, #7.33 (Wed, Apr 26, 1995)
File 1--EPIC On Gov't Guidelines
File 2-- Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report
File 3--DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON INTERNET (fwd)
File 4--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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Apr 1995 16:32:35 -0400
From: "Marc Rotenberg" <rotenberg@EPIC.ORG>
Subject: FIle 1--EPIC On Gov't Guidelines
Electronic Privacy Information Center
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-9240
info@epic.org
* P R E S S R E L E A S E *
April 27, 1995
EPIC URGES SPECTER TO PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY
WASHINGTON -- In a letter sent today to Senator Arlen Specter,
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a leading civil
liberties organization, urged the Congress to proceed cautiously
in the wake of the tragic bombing incident in Oklahoma. EPIC
said that "any expansion of federal authority to investigate
political activity could have a profound impact upon
communication networks and the future of electronic democracy."
Senator Specter is holding hearings tomorrow on counter-terrorism
proposals.
The EPIC letter focused on the history of the Attorney
General guidelines which permit the government to conduct
investigations of domestic organizations. The original
guidelines were issued in 1976 by Attorney General Edward Levi.
The "Levi Guidelines," as they came to be known, recognized the
FBI's legitimate investigative needs while seeking to protect the
First Amendment rights of dissident politic organizations. The
Guidelines were promulgated in the wake of Watergate and the
revelations of the Senate's Church Committee investigation.
According to EPIC, the Levi Guidelines reflected the post-
Watergate consensus that the investigation of controversial or
unpopular political groups had at times been overzealous and had
violated fundamental constitutional rights.
In 1983 President Reagan's Attorney General, William French
Smith, issued a new set of guidelines that replaced the Levi
Guidelines. The "Smith Guidelines" were far less restrictive
than the Levi Guidelines. As President Reagan's FBI Director
William Webster said, the Smith Guidelines "should eliminate any
perceptions that actual or imminent commission of a violent crime
is a prerequisite to investigation."
The critical section of the Smith Guidelines cited in the
EPIC letter provides that "[a] domestic security/terrorism
investigation may be initiated when facts or circumstances
reasonably indicate that two or more persons are engaged in an
enterprise for the purpose of furthering political or social
goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or
violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States."
EPIC said that "the current guidelines provide the FBI with
ample authority to initiate investigations of organizations and
individuals similar to those alleged to have been involved in the
Oklahoma City bombing." EPIC noted that public information
concerning paramilitary right-wing organizations in general --
and the Michigan Militia in particular -- has been readily
available to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for some
time. EPIC also noted that former Attorney General Griffin Bell
and former Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing have
recently expressed the view that the FBI possessed sufficient
authority under the Smith Guidelines to investigate and monitor
the activities of this organization and affiliated individuals.
Finally, EPIC urged Senator Specter to give similar careful
consideration to any proposals for the modification of the
wiretap statute or privacy statutes that would diminish the
freedoms that all American currently enjoy.
Earlier this year, EPIC recommended that Congress not
appropriate $500 million for a national wiretap program developed
by the FBI. EPIC said that the program would increase the
vulnerability of the nation's communications infrastructure.
EPIC said today that it will continue to oppose funding of the
program.
-30-
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER
WASHINGTON, DC
INFO@EPIC.ORG
April 26, 1995
Honorable Arlen Specter
Chairman
Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Intelligence and Gov't Information
United States Senate
161 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Specter:
We write on behalf of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center ("EPIC"), a non-profit research organization concerned with
the protection of privacy and civil liberties. We are particularly
interested in the preservation of Constitutional freedoms in the
evolving communications infrastructure. Increasingly, the Internet
and other digital systems facilitate the expression of political
opinions and have, in effect, become the electronic town squares
of our information society. For this reason, EPIC believes that
any expansion of federal authority to investigate political
activity and/or expression could have a profound impact upon those
networks and the future of electronic democracy.
As the Committee begins its examination of the tragic events
in Oklahoma City, we urge careful and deliberate consideration of
any proposal that would alter current guidelines governing the
investigation and monitoring of domestic political activity or the
collection and use of personal information. The Congress must be
careful not to compromise fundamental constitutional values as it
seeks to address the obvious security concerns in the wake of
recent events. As Justice Powell observed in the Keith case:
History abundantly documents the tendency of Government
-- however benevolent and benign its motives -- to view
with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its
policies. [Constitutional] protections become the more
necessary when the targets of official surveillance may
be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political
beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where
the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept
as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the
difficulty of defining the domestic security interest,
the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest
becomes apparent.
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 314
(1972).
In order to assess whether it is necessary to make changes in
the current policies concerning the investigation of domestic
organizations, we believe it is necessary to look closely at the
history of federal investigative authority. As you know, the
evolution of the current requirements governing the FBI's conduct
of domestic security investigations dates back to 1976. In that
year, President Ford's Attorney General, Edward Levi, issued
"Guidelines on Domestic Security Investigation," which came to be
known as the "Levi Guidelines." This directive, which recognized
the FBI's legitimate investigative needs while seeking to protect
the First Amendment rights of dissident politic organizations, was
promulgated in the wake of Watergate and the revelations of the
Senate's Church Committee investigation./1/ The Levi Guidelines
reflected the post-Watergate consensus that the investigation of
controversial or unpopular political groups had at times been
overzealous and had violated fundamental constitutional rights./2/
Seven years later, in 1983, the Levi Guidelines were
superseded by the "Attorney General's Guidelines on General
Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism
Investigations," issued by Attorney General William French Smith
(the "Smith Guidelines"). The revised guidelines were generally
considered to be far less restrictive than the Levi Guidelines.
As FBI Director William Webster noted at the time of their
issuance, the Smith Guidelines "should eliminate any perceptions
that actual or imminent commission of a violent crime is a
prerequisite to investigation."/3/
The guidelines provide, in pertinent part, that
[a] domestic security/terrorism investigation may be
initiated when facts or circumstances reasonably indicate
that two or more persons are engaged in an enterprise for
the purpose of furthering political or social goals wholly
or in part through activities that involve force or
violence and a violation of the criminal laws of the
United States.
Smith Guidelines (reprinted in 32 Crim. L. Rep. (BNA) 3087
(1983)), Section III (B)(1). The standard of "reasonable
indication" is
substantially lower than probable cause. In determining
whether there is reasonable indication of a federal
criminal violation, a Special Agent may take into account
any facts or circumstances that a prudent investigator
would consider. However, the standard does require
specific facts indicating a past, current, or impending
violation. There must be an objective, factual basis for
initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient.
Id., Section II (C)(1).
Given the constitutional command that the government may not
suppress or punish statements advocating criminal activity unless
they pose an immediate and substantial danger to public safety,
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Smith Guidelines
afford the FBI considerable leeway in pursuing investigations of
potential violent crime. In a 1984 en banc opinion interpreting
the Smith Guidelines, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found
that the directive strikes an appropriate balance between First
Amendment rights and legitimate law enforcement. As Judge Posner
wrote for the court,
[the FBI] may not investigate a group solely because
the group advocates [an unpopular cause]; but it may
investigate any group that advocates the commission, even
if not immediately, of terrorist acts in violation of
federal law. It need not wait until the bombs begin to
go off, or even until the bomb factory is found.
Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007, 1015
(7th Cir. 1984).
Thus, the current guidelines provide the FBI with ample
authority to initiate investigations of organizations and
individuals similar to those alleged to have been involved in the
Oklahoma City bombing. In reaching this conclusion, we note that
a good deal of public source material concerning paramilitary
right-wing organizations in general -- and the Michigan Militia in
particular -- has been readily available to the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies for some time. For instance, a front page
article about the Michigan Militia in the Detroit Free Press last
fall reported:
Their goal is to keep the U.S. government in check,
through threat of armed rebellion if need be. Gun control
advocates, federal firearms agents and the United Nations
are among the perceived threats. ...
Federal officials are aware of these groups, but "we
are not monitoring their growth," said Stanley Zimmerman,
head of the Detroit office of the federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms. "It would be our preference that the
militia groups would use the power of the vote rather than
the threat of armed violent confrontation to accomplish
their goals."
"They Cite their Disgust with Government," Detroit Free Press,
October 13, 1994, at 1A.
Indeed, the Justice Department was specifically alerted to
the activities of the Michigan Militia. Morris Dees, director of
the Southern Poverty Law Center, disclosed in a recent interview
that:
We warned Attorney General Reno in a letter last October
concerning this Militia of Michigan, the one that's
involved in this case, and pointed out that they should
be checking on them. ... [T]hese people, like Mark Koernke,
are out actually advocating the overthrow of the United
States government with individuals who are practicing and
training with explosives, with assault weapons.
ABC News, "This Week with David Brinkley," April 23, 1995.
In recent comments concerning the adequacy of the Smith
Guidelines, former Attorney General Griffin Bell and former
Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing have expressed the
view that the FBI possessed sufficient authority to investigate
and monitor the activities of this organization and affiliated
individuals. This conclusion is consistent with the observation
of former FBI Director Webster, noted above, that the current
guidelines "should eliminate any perceptions that actual or
imminent commission of a violent crime is a prerequisite to
investigation." As you commence your review into this matter, we
strongly urge you to consider the views of many experts who share
the opinion of these former officials.
We urge you also to give similar careful consideration to any
proposals for the modification of the wiretap statute or privacy
statutes that would diminish the freedoms that all Americans
currently enjoy. Any such proposal must be carefully drafted to
address specific and identifiable harms. We urge you also to
proceed cautiously in the area of electronic communications. Our
country is in the process of developing the communication tools
that will take us into the next century. While we share the
President's belief that irresponsible speech should be opposed by
responsible speech, we do not believe that enhanced surveillance
of lawful activity by American citizens will serve the country
well.
Political and associational rights form the foundation of our
democratic society. As the Committee and Congress examine the
nation's contemporary security needs, the temptation to find
expedient quick fixes must be resisted. Issues as fundamental as
the ones you propose to address deserve and demand a thorough and
open national debate. We look forward to working with you and the
Committee as you consider these difficult questions.
Sincerely,
Marc Rotenberg, Director David L. Sobel, Legal Counsel
cc: Sen. Fred Thompson
Sen. Spencer Abraham
Sen. Strom Thurmond
Sen. Herbert Kohl
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
==================================================================
Notes
/1/ See, generally, Final Report of the Senate Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. 755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976).
/2/ Although some critics maintained that the guidelines were
unduly restrictive, Attorney General Levi explained that they
authorized the initiation of an investigation on the basis of a
relatively benign statement such as "The rulers have set the time
for the party; let us bring the fireworks," delivered by a group
with no known propensity for violence. Alliance to End Repression
v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007, 1012 (7th Cir. 1984) (quoting
Congressional testimony of Attorney General Levi).
/3/ Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 561 F.
Supp. 575, 578 n.5 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (quoting internal FBI
memorandum).
====================
Marc Rotenberg (Rotenberg@epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org
Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 01:22:02 -0500
From: jim thomas <tk0jut1@CS.NIU.EDU>
Subject: FIle 2-- Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report
Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP95 Conference Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995 by Lorrie Faith Cranor. Permission to distribute this
report electronically is granted, provided you do not distribute it
for direct commercial advantage. This report is a description of
CFP95 as I experienced it. The unattributed opinions liberally
sprinkled throughout are, of course, my own.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I attended the Fifth Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy
(http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu/CFP95.html) March 28 through 31 at
the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel. Having thoroughly enjoyed
the previous two CFP conferences, I had been looking forward to CFP95
for quite some time -- and I was not disappointed.
The conference began on March 28 with a full day of tutorial programs.
I arrived too late to attend the tutorials, but in time to enjoy an
evening ice cream reception and meet some of the other attendees. The
informal discussions I began that evening and which I continued
between sessions throughout the conference proved to be as valuable as
the formal sessions.
The main part of the CFP95 program got off to a slow start on March
29 with keynote speaker John Morgridge, chairman of the board of Cisco
systems. Morgridge described the current status of computer networks
as "the era of use," in which we will have to address more difficult
issues than we faced while we were just concentrating on "the
plumbing." But he failed to shed much light on what these issues are
or how we might face them.
The next session, "Student Databases: For Education and For Life,"
proved more enlightening and quite controversial. Barbara Clements,
Council of Chief State School Officers, outlined the advantages of
electronic student records databases over the traditional paper filing
systems. She argued that electronic systems are more accurate, take
up less space, and are more secure. In addition, if these systems
follow standard conventions they can make it much easier for
information to be transfered between schools. But panelist Anita
Hoge, was quite critical of standardized student information
databases, especially those that contain information obtained through
standardized tests. She described an exam given to her son in a
Pennsylvania public school. Hoge said this "Educational Quality
Assessment" was designed to measure predispositions of students
towards certain types of behaviors. For example, the exam described a
hypothetical situation in which the student's friends were planning an
outing to spray paint graffiti around town. The student is asked
whether he or she would go along. A negative response is interpreted
as a predisposition towards anti-social behavior. According to Hoge,
the results of this exam can be used to identify students with mental
and behavioral disorders, classify them as special education students,
send this information to the government, and make the students
eligible for Medicaid. While most of the audience probably agreed
with Hoge that such exams are inappropriate, many people were not
convinced by Hoge's conclusion that the use of standardized exams and
standardized student information databases was the first step in the
government's effort to sneak socialized health care through the back door.
Stanford Law Professor Margaret Jane Radin gave an interesting lunch
time presentation that inspired fish jokes throughout the rest of the
conference. Radin described two property rights paradigms and
discussed the advantages and disadvantages of applying them in
cyberspace. Traditionally, intellectual property has been considered
a form of economic property that could be bought and sold in a free
market. However, land (especially the land on which the family home
is built) has been considered a form of property that has
personal value beyond the monetary value that can be obtained by
selling it. She also speculated that as more people flock to
cyberspace, the Internet may evolve into something similar to what
broadcast TV has become. She described the TV audience as "potential
customers delivered to advertisers for a fee." Thus, she explained,
the TV broadcast industry is a giant commercial fishing industry. "It
would be good if cyberspace doesn't turn us into fish," she concluded.
A panel discussion on Intelligent Transportation Systems raised some
important privacy considerations, but was not nearly as provocative as
the next two sessions of the day: "Transaction Records In Interactive
Services" and "A Case Against Computers." The transaction records
panelists debated a variety of issues including who owns personal
information records (the person who provides them or the organization
that collects them), the merits of "opt-in" and "opt-out" privacy
protection systems, and where the responsibility for privacy
violations should rest.
The Case Against Computers session, dubbed the "luddite session,"
featured four panelists critical of computer technology. Jerry Mander
began by reminding everyone that people used to get along just fine
without computers. He suggested that contrary to what electronic
activists claim, computers help people feel more powerful, but are not
actual instruments of empowerment. Rather, he argued, computers
enforce centralized power structures that take power out of the hands
of individuals. In addition he was critical of the fact that computer
professionals do not receive training on how to critique computers.
Finally, he expressed dismay at the way computers and other new
technologies have been accepted by the public without debate or
consideration of their downsides. Panelist Ted Roszak then discussed
the fact that most computer users are not computer experts -- and
don't wish to be. He urged computer experts to remember that when
designing computer systems. Panelist Chet Bowers gave a very academic
presentation that was probably lost on most of the audience. The
point of his presentation seemed to be that we were not properly
considering the cultural impact of computers. Richard Sclove, the
only panelist with an email address (or at least the only one who
mentioned it), reminded us that information technology effects
everyone, even people who don't use computers. Although the panelists
raised some excellent points, I don't think this panel did a very good
job of addressing their audience. The panelists came across as a
bunch of middle-aged (or older) academic luddites, a characterization
that won them little respect or credibility with the techies in the
audience. In fact, during the Q & A period one audience member (who
seemed to have missed the point of the presentation entirely) asked
the panel, "Are you guys not getting it? What are you missing?"
The day's panel discussions were followed by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (http://www.eff.org) Pioneer Awards presentation, an
EFF-sponsored reception, and dinner. At dinner each table was given a
question to discuss and answer, with prizes being awarded for the best
answers. Some tables took this quite seriously while others resented
being told what to talk about and submitted answers more humorous than
insightful (my own table taking the latter approach).
The next day of conference sessions began with a panel titled "Defining
Access Paradigms: Libraries, Rural Areas, and International Aspects."
While not particularly controversial, the panel addressed some
interesting problems. Karen Coyle of the University of California
described the free lending library as a product of the print
world. She explained that libraries generally purchase books but
lease electronic materials -- sometimes on a per-use basis. If
libraries had to pay per-use fees on all their materials, they would
likely have to pass some of these fees onto their patrons. In
addition libraries face problems in distributing electronic
information to patrons who want to take the information with them.
Panelist Christine Borgman's warning against causing a situation in
which only the elite have access to knowledge, led one audience member
to question whether technology really widens the knowledge gap. He
cited as evidence the fact that he as access to as much information as
a millionaire has. Apparently it didn't occur to this gentleman
(probably a member of the middle class) that he is a member of the
information elite, not the information poor.
The next session, "A Net for All: Where Are the Minorities?", featured
an interesting discussion of efforts to bring the Net to minority and
underprivledged populations. Art McGee of the Institute for Global
Communications described the famous New Yorker cartoon featuring one
dog introducing another dog to the Internet. The cartoon caption
reads, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." This led McGee to
comment that the second dog should have asked, "What's wrong with
being a dog?". He added that technology gives people the power to
express themselves in their own voices, without having their messages
spun by the media. But he reminded the audience that there are still
a lot of illiterate people and "all the computers in the world won't
help them if they can't read." Panelist Barbara Simons added that the
computer revolution has had a negative impact on uneducated people
because there are now fewer unskilled jobs.
An afternoon of discussion on "Freedom and Responsibility of Electronic
Speech" followed lunch, an address by Esther Dyson, and a panel
discussion on online activism. The electronic speech discussion began
with presentations from three individuals who have been involved in
freedom of electronic speech disputes. Brock Meeks, who was sued for
defamation because of something he posted as part of an online
newsletter (http://cyberwerks.com:70/1/cyberwire), discussed his case.
Because the case was settled out of court, it sets no legal precedent,
but Meeks proposed that people who enter into a discussion on the
Internet should be considered "public figures" who cannot be easily
libeled. He suggested the public figure characterization is
appropriate because Internet discussion participants have easy access
to the same public forum as those who might try to defame them. Jean
Camp (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/jeanc/www/home.html), a
doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University discussed CMU's
censorship of sexually explicit Usenet newsgroups
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/kcf/www/censor/index.html). Roger
Karraker, a journalism professor who maintained an electronic
conferencing system at Santa Rosa Junior College, described a case in
which a female student filed a sex discrimination complaint against
him after hearing that derogatory remarks had been made against her on
a men-only discussion group. Karraker said one of the mistakes he
made with the conferencing system was in describing it as an extension
of the student newspaper, because newspaper publishers are responsible
for their content. Karraker said individuals should be responsible
for their own speech in electronic discussion groups.
The second half of the electronic speech discussion took the form of a
"Socratic forum" (somewhat like a TV talk show) led by Stanford Law
Professor Kim Taylor-Thompson. Taylor-Thompson described hypothetical
situations and posed questions to the nine panelists. The discussion
was animated and brought out some interesting ideas. However, too
much of the debate was between the lawyers on the panel. CMU student
Donna Riley -- whose introduction as the founder of the feminist
Clittoral Hoods
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/kcf/www/censor/misc/clitoral-hoods-announ
ce.html)
organization brought a startled reaction from the audience -- and Ira
Kaufman of the Anti-Defamation League could hardly get a word in.
The second day of the conference concluded with a dinner speech by
Roger Wilkins and an evening of Birds of a Feather sessions. Probably
the most well-attended BOF was the public forum on cryptography
policy. Members of the National Research Council cryptography
committee listened and took notes as conference attendees expressed
their concerns.
The final day of CFP95 began too early in the morning with an 8 am
talk by Willis Ware. The audience was sparse and sleepy from two
nights of BOFs which ran until midnight (followed by informal
discussions which ended early in the morning). Most of the conference
attendees had dragged themselves out of bed in time for the next
session: Can We Talk Long Distance? Removing Impediments to Secure
International Communications. This panel was of particular
interest to many of the audience members. While most of the
discussion centered around issues which have been brought up
repeatedly over the past few years, Cypherpunk Tim May summed things
up nicely by characterizing the encryption controversy as a debate
between those who feel that their communication is "none of your
damn business" versus those who ask, "What have you got to hide?".
A session on copyright and the Net included an interesting discussion
about how copyright should be enforced in cyberspace. In response to
often-repeated claims that it is not possible to enforce copyright
laws on the Net, Attorney Lance Rose pointed out that intelligent
software agents that can be programmed to search the Net for certain
types of news can also be programmed to search the Net for copyright
infringements. Michael Kepplinger of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office and Law Professor Pamela Samuelson debated the "Green Paper"
produced by the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights.
Samuelson criticized the Green Paper authors for assuming that there
will not be any useful content on the Internet until Congress passes
strict intellectual property laws. However, she said that people are
already finding useful information on the Internet. She was also
critical of the Green Paper for suggesting that online service
providers should be held strictly liable for copyright infringement.
Kepplinger denied that the Green Paper included strict liability
language. Brad Templeton of ClariNet Communications Corp. followed up
by asserting that most people respect copyright, regardless of whether
or not it is enforced. Templeton, whose company provides Associated
Press and other news feeds over the Internet, said that ClariNet
has been profitable under the current copyright laws.
Lenny Foner (http://foner.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/), a graduate
student at the MIT Media Lab and the winner of the CFP95 Student Paper
Competition, presented his research on agents during lunch. Foner
described a "matchmaker" system he is developing that is designed to
demonstrate the feasibility of a large scale distributed system in
which it is essential to build in privacy. Lenny's research is
interesting for its technological goals as well as its political
goals.
By the afternoon of the last day of the conference, a large portion of
conference attendees had migrated from their chairs to the floor in
the back of the conference hall. Students, journalists, long-haired
hackers, and libertarians camped out with backpacks and laptops on
the audio platform and the surrounding floor space. One gentleman
fell asleep, but was woken by a journalist when he started to snore.
At one point Conference Chair Carey Heckman pointed out that there
were plenty of empty seats towards the front, but nobody in the back
moved forward.
A session titled "It Oughta Be a Crime" kicked off an afternoon filled
with some of the most interesting sessions of the conference. Scott
Charney of the Justice Department opened his remarks by reminding the
audience that "there is always a percentage of the population up to no
good." Although only a small percentage of those up to no good are
currently computer literate, 30 years from now everyone is likely to
be computer literate, he said. He added that there are some types of
behavior -- such as extortion and wire fraud -- that is clearly
criminal conduct, however, there are other types of behavior that fall
into grey areas. For example, some people don't think breaking into a
computer system to look at files should be considered criminal if the
intruder does not change or remove any of the files. However, Charney
pointed out that companies that discover break-ins end up spending a
lot of time checking all their files to make sure none have been
changed or removed. This can be both inconvenient and quite
expensive. Santa Clara District Attorney Ken Rosenblatt discussed
statements by some people (including writer Bruce Sterling) that
police have no business on the Net because electronic conflicts are
more a "cultural war" than criminal behavior. However, Rosenblatt
said that all laws are an expansion of cultural norms. Panelist Mark
Traphagan of the Software Publishers Association concluded the session
with a discussion of copyright infringement. He claimed that China
has a 99 percent piracy rate making it "virtually a one-copy country."
This session brought much disagreement from the audience members, some
of whom interrupted the speakers. This prompted CFP founder Jim Warren
to remind the audience that all sides need to be heard.
Many conference attendees anticipated that the session titled "Who
Owns the Law? The Debate Over Legal Citation Form and What It Means"
would only be interesting to lawyers. However this session proved to
be the most animated of the entire conference. After the four
panelists gave their opening statements, Glenn Tenney of Fantasia
Systems Inc. gave each of them five minutes in which to question the
other panelists. This format provoked a lively debate about the
U.S. legal citation system. Jamie Love of the Taxpayers Assets
Project complained that West Publishing's page numbers must be
used when citing most court opinions. Because one cannot determine
the West pagination from the official court documents, one must visit
a law library or pay online charges to West to find the complete
citations. With an increasing amount of legal research being
conducted online, this can get very expensive. However, West argues
that they spend a lot of time verifying the accuracy of the opinions
they publish and should be compensated for their work. Besides, they
say, it is not their fault that the courts do not provide accurate
copies of their opinions that can be cited in legal proceedings.
The final CFP95 session featured several presentations about
anonymity, pseudonyms, and the technologies that make such things
possible. To illustrate the use of pseudonyms, some of the panelists
replaced the names on their name badges and exchanged name cards.
Leading moderator Roger Clarke to introduce panelists Gary Marx and
Kent Walker as "Kent and or Gary." David Chaum described the
electronic cash products being developed by his company, DigiCash.
Writer Steven Levy then gave an excellent presentation on anonymous
remailers. Science Fiction Writer David Brin wrapped things up with
some thoughts on the conference as a whole. After this session, the
chairs of all five CFP conferences commented on the past and future of
CFP.
Plans are already underway for CFP96 (http://web.mit.edu/cfp96) to be
held March 27-30, 1996 in Boston.
-- Lorrie Faith Cranor (lorracks@cs.wustl.edu)
April 3, 1995
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Lorrie Faith Cranor Engineering and Policy, Computer Science
Washington University http://dworkin.wustl.edu/~lorracks/
1 Brookings Dr Box 1045
St. Louis, MO 63130 "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
lorracks@cs.wustl.edu nothing is going to get better. It's not." -Dr.Seuss
Look for the Crossroads special issue on computers and society,
available May 1 from http://info.acm.org/crossroads/
Students: Are you doing interdisciplinary research related to
computers and society? Are you interested in joining an
online discussion group to exchange ideas with other students?
Send me email for more information.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:10:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: FIle 3--DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON INTERNET (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
DEATH ROW INMATE GETS HOME PAGE ON THE INTERNET
Illinois death row inmate Girvies Davis, who is scheduled to
be executed by lethal injection on May 17, 1995, has become the first
death row prisoner in the United States to take his case directly to
the people on the Internet. Girvies' home page went online April 24,
1995.
For the first time since Illinois re-enacted the death
penalty in 1977, the State is faced with the very real likelihood of
executing a man for a crime he did not commit. Internet users can
learn more about the facts surrounding Girvies' conviction and death
sentencing by accessing his home page at:
http://www.mcs.net/~bkmurph/girvies.htm
Girvies was convicted and sentenced to death in 1980 for a crime
in which -- in all probability -- he had no involvement at all.
Girvies' home page contains links to his clemency petition to the
Governor, articles written about his plight, "evidence" that Internet
users can examine for themselves, pictures and audio of Girvies, and
the e-mail address of Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, who holds Girvies'
fate in his hands.
For more information, contact Mr. Davis' attorneys via
electronic mail at bkmurph@mcs.net or contact Brian Murphy or David
Schwartz at (312) 222-9350.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: FIle 4--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 #7.33
************************************
