Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 33
Computer underground Digest Sun Apr 28, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 33
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #8.33 (Sun, Apr 28, 1996)
File 1--Kevin Mitnick Pleads Guilty to Hacking Charges
File 2--Scientology Lawsuits (Legal Bytes, Vol 4, No. 1)
File 3--The CDA's Silver Lining (from: Legal Bytes, Vol 4, No. 1)
File 4--Werd, be there or die -- (Summercon 96)
File 5--Amer. Fam. Assoc. Demands investigation of Compuserve
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:32:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Q*Bert <qbert@access.digex.net>
Subject: File 1--Kevin Mitnick Pleads Guilty to Hacking Charges
(originally from Rogue Agent ::: )
RETURN TO STATESIDE: Mitnick pleads guilty to hacking charges
Copyright (C) 1996 Nando.net
LOS ANGELES (Apr 22, 1996 10:01 p.m. EDT) -- Reputed
information highway bandit Kevin D. Mitnick, who has allegedly
violated some of the nation's most protected computer systems,
pleaded guilty Monday to hacking-related charges.
...................
The 32-year-old man, who the government once called a
"computer terrorist," also admitted to possessing other people's
drivers' licenses in the Raleigh, N.C. , apartment where he was
arrested. Pfaelzer also found he violated probation in a 1989
conviction. He is charged with 23 counts of computer fraud.
...................
Mitnick faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, but prosecutors
were loathe to speculate on how long he will actually serve,
saying it depends on how Pfaelzer interprets sentencing
guidelines. The sentencing is scheduled for July 15.
Prosecutors were hardly crowing about the plea, which had been
repeatedly delayed. There are other charges that could be filed
against him, said Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Schindler.
"This does not resolve this case entirely ... The investigation
continues."
If Mitnick pleaded not guilty, his case would have gone back
to North Carolina for trial. After the hearing, Mitnick was
led away in handcuffs by federal marshals. He is being detained
at a federal jail in downtown Los Angeles.
...................
He was later accused of causing millions of dollars in damage
to MCI, Inc., and also allegedly produced a false report stating
that the late Security Pacific Bank lost $400 million during the
first quarter of 1988. That was four days after the bank turned
him down for a job, because he did not inform them of his
criminal record.
Mitnick pleaded guilty in 1989 in Los Angeles to stealing
computer programs and illegally intruding into computer networks
in the U.S. and England. He was sentenced to one year in
prison.
...................
While the government has portrayed Mitnick as a threat to
national security, the pudgy, bespectacled man's grandmother,
Reba Vartanian, said prosecutors and others are out to "hyping"
her grandson's case.
The Las Vegas woman said there is a different side to his life
that the media has never reported. She said his reputation as a
computer hacker made it impossible for him to find work and to
have a normal life.
...................
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:41:17 -0400
From: PeteK1@AOL.COM
Subject: File 2--Scientology Lawsuits (Legal Bytes, Vol 4, No. 1)
Spring 1996, Volume 4, Number 1
__________________________________
By George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
114 West Seventh Street, Suite 1000
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 495-1400
(512) 499-0094 (FAX)
gdf@gdf.com
http://www.gdf.com
__________________________________
Copyright (c) 1996 George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P.
(Permission is granted freely to redistribute
this newsletter in its entirety electronically.)
___________________________________
David H. Donaldson, Jr., Publisher, dhdonald@gdf.com
Peter D. Kennedy, Editor, pkennedy@gdf.com
2. THE SCIENTOLOGY LAWSUITS AND LAWYER LETTERS: THE PROBLEM
FACED BY ON-LINE SERVICES WHO GET NOTICE OF USERS' ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS
The Jihad.
A fierce battle has been raging both on line and in courtrooms
across the country between the Church of Scientology and a handful
of its former members. Disillusioned with the church, these former
members have posted large amounts of the church's purportedly
secret and sacred texts on a Usenet newsgroup devoted to debating
Scientology. The church, claiming these texts are trade secrets
and copyrighted, has responded with a fierce litigation strategy
that has ensnared third parties from the Washington Post (which
printed portions of the texts) to the Internet access giant Netcom
(which distributed the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup
containing the texts).
The Scientology litigation -- brought in federal courts in
Virginia, Colorado and California under the name of the church's
parent corporation, the "Religious Technology Center" -- has
spawned the most extensive group yet of legal rulings concerning
the scope of on-line copyright protection. The Scientology church
claims that its litigation is redefining on-line copyright law, and
to a great extent it is right. Take away the controversial nature
of the Scientology religion and the reportedly silly nature of much
of its "scripture," and the Scientology lawsuits have concretely
raised core issues about the scope of copyright protection in the
new world of decentralized, democratized and vastly expanded
distribution and copying offered by the Internet, as well as the
responsibilities of the system administrators who facilitate
communications through interconnected computer networks.
This article does not attempt a comprehensive review of all
the questions raised by the Scientology cases, but rather discusses
two interrelated issues that have so far gained little attention --
(1) the competing tension between copyright and defamation law in
whether prior review of on-line content is necessary or wise, and
(2) what the proper response should be to a demand to remove
offending material from a system.
The sysops' old dilemma.
Prior to the Scientology litigation, case law directly
concerning on-line copyright liability was limited to two trial
court decisions, PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. FRENA and SEGA
ENTERPRISES, LTD. v. MAPHIA. The core holding of these two cases,
particularly FRENA, seemed to be a strong affirmation of the
principle of strict liability in copyright law. Under FRENA,
system operators would be liable for copyright infringement, even
if they were unaware of the infringing files on their system,
because their systems facilitated unauthorized copying and
distribution. See "BBS Sysop Liability for Copyright Infringement:
Let the Operator Beware!," Legal Bytes, Vol 2, No. 1. The FRENA
decision was criticized for not giving sufficient weight to the
sysop's denial that he knew about the offending images, but because
it was one of just two rulings on the subject, it carried
considerable weight. After FRENA and MAPHIA, the common wisdom
recommended a hands-on approach to avoid liability for copyright
infringement -- reviewing all files before making them publicly
available.
The hands-on approach to avoid copyright violations has been,
as lawyers say, "in some tension" with two well-known cases
concerning on-line services' liability for defamation. In 1991, a
New York federal court held in CUBBY v. COMPUSERVE that CompuServe
was not responsible for the content of a newsletter it carried,
because it did not review the newsletter and exercised no editorial
control over it. Because CompuServe acted as a conduit or
distributor, it was not actually "publishing" the newsletter. See
"Are Electronic Bulletin Board System Operators Liable for their
Users' Libellous Statements," Legal Bytes, Vol 1, No. 1. Four
years later, a New York state court ruled the other way about
another service, Prodigy, in STRATTON OAKMONT v. PRODIGY. Because
Prodigy, unlike CompuServe, had marketed itself as a family system,
had reviewed the content of postings and claimed the right to edit
them, it was a "publisher" and had to answer for the truth of
defamatory statements made by its users. Like FRENA, the PRODIGY
case has been criticized and may well be wrong, but like FRENA, it
has carried considerable weight because of a scarcity of precedent.
After CUBBY and PRODIGY, the common wisdom was that on-line services
should not review the content of messages passing through unless
they want to answer for their truth, which is not easy. Hands off.
Interactive services have thus been facing a real dilemma
about the content they carry that is provided by others, even
before anyone complains -- hands on (to avoid possible liability
for copyright infringement) or hands off (to avoid becoming a
"publisher" of defamation)?
Although it may seem glacial to those directly affected, the
law is actually moving with relative speed to address this
unworkable problem. On the defamation front, Congress has enacted
the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which for all the vitriol
directed to it, has a bright side: it contains a provision which
broadly protects interactive services from liability for libels
posted by others. See "The Communications Decency Act's Silver
Lining," in this issue. Under this new federal law, STRATTON
OAKMONT v. PRODIGY is overruled on-line services do not become the
"publisher" of on-line content they did not create, even if they
actively restrict access to "objectionable" materials.
On the copyright front, a recent decision may foretell a
relaxation of the harsh and potentially unfair results of the
strict liability rule as applied by the court in FRENA. While no
court will tolerate flagrant encouragement or participation in
copyright infringement, the FRENA court's conclusion that the
sysops' knowledge is entirely irrelevant will likely be eased. =
This step toward balancing copyright protection and on-line
communications is taking place in the Scientology litigation,
particularly in the decision from the California lawsuit involving
Netcom On-Line Communications Services.
Netcom avoids liability for direct infringement.
Using a local-access BBS, a disillusioned former Scientology
minister, Dennis Erlich, posted portions of the Scientology
religious tracts on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. =
The local-access BBS got its Usenet feed though Netcom On-Line
Communications Services, a national Internet access provider. When
the Church of Scientology learned of Erlich's postings, it sued him
in federal court in San Francisco, demanded that the local BBS and
Netcom cut Erlich's access off, and when they didn't, sued the BBS
and Netcom for copyright infringement. The church relied on the
FRENA case and argued that Netcom was liable because copyright law
is strict liability.
Because this case (and all the Scientology cases) involved
Usenet, rather than a small, dial-up BBS, the threat of strict
liability upped the stakes considerably. Usenet traffic carries
vast amounts of material, much of it encoded, only loosely
organized, all of it unsolicited by the system administrator and
overseen by no one. No Internet access provider could hope to
review Usenet for potential copyright violations before making the
20,000 or more newsgroups available. But the penalties for even
unintentional copyright infringement are draconian -- seizure
orders, injunctions, damages of up to $20,000 for each violation,
not to mention paying the other side's attorney's fees and costs.
In a long, carefully written opinion issued November 21, 1995,
Judge Whyte did not follow the logic of Frena to impose strict
liability. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER v. NETCOM ON-LINE
COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995). =
"Although copyright is a strict liability statue," he wrote, "there
should still be some element of volition or causation which is
lacking where a defendant's system is merely used to create a copy
by a third party." Netcom was not liable for direct copyright
infringement, because there was no such "volition" - the copyright
and distribution happened as a natural part of Usenet, without any
direct action by Netcom in relation to the offending messages. =
While Netcom escaped the claim of direct infringement, it did not
fare as well against the church's claim of "contributory
infringement," as we will see.
The sysops' new dilemma -- what to do about notice of an alleged
violation?
The holding in NETCOM that on-line services -- at least
Internet service providers -- are not liable for direct copyright
infringement for materials passing through their system, if adopted
broadly, will give interactive services some relief from what had
been an unknown and unknowable legal exposure.
A different issue arises, though, when an on-line service is
given notice of an alleged violation -- whether copyright
infringement or libel. There is a fundamental difference in on-
line publication from paper publication -- on line, the material is
continuously available thanks to the on-line service, while the
traditional print distributor delivers the publication and is done
with it. Can a lawyers' demand letter change the playing field,
and force a "hands off" on-line distributor like Netcom or
CompuServe to review its contents and decide whether to remove
offending postings -- upon pain of a civil lawsuit?
The Church of Scientology demanded that Netcom remove the
texts from its server. Netcom refused to remove the texts without
better proof of a copyright violation, and while the texts
automatically rolled off Netcom's servers after 11 days, this did
not happen until they had passed on to Usenet and thence around the
world. The church claimed that Netcom's inaction, if not a direct
infringement, still made it liable because it could have easily
prevented the world-wide distribution.
Judge Whyte was convinced, at least in theory. He ruled that
Netcom's inaction in the face of the church's demands could make it
liable for contributory copyright infringement. Netcom had made a
static argument -- that it should never be liable for copyright
infringement, because it can never know beforehand whether a Usenet
posting violates a copyright. But Judge Whyte took a more dynamic
view -- while Netcom is not responsible for infringement of which
it had no notice, he held that it cannot sit idly by once it is
presented with proof of a copyright violation. He thought that
Netcom's failure to cancel the postings after receiving the demand
letter was a "substantial participation" in the distribution that
invokes contributory liability, and that if Netcom "knew or should
have known" that the postings infringed the church's copyright, it
would be liable.
But what proof is enough to show that an on-line service "knew
or should have known" of an infringement? Judge Whyte held that
the church's demand letter and Netcom's refusal to even look at the
allegedly infringing material was enough evidence to send the case
to trial. This "knew or should have known" standard obviously does
not provide concrete guidance, particularly because the question is
whether Netcom "should have known" that Erlich's postings were
infringing the church's copyright is a really a legal one, and
hardly an easy one at that. However, the court's opinion does at
least allow a system administrator, ideally with help from a
knowledgeable lawyer, to focus on particular questions: Does the
notice of violation identify which materials are at issue? Does it
provide specific evidence of copyright ownership or just a vague
claim? Does the posting constitute fair use?
Demands to remove offending material are becoming commonplace,
and they put on-line services in a jam. Unlike traditional
publishers like Time or The Washington Post, on-line services are
not staffed to review materials for legal problems like libel,
invasion of privacy or even copyright infringement. On-line
services are in the access and distribution business; they create
relatively little content themselves. How much effort does an on-
line service have to put into evaluating these demands? While the
safest course would be always to accede to threats, doing so is
inconsistent with the traditional wide-open, robust debate that
makes the Internet what it is. The NETCOM case bears watching as
these questions have arisen, but have not yet been answered. It is
also not clear yet whether the CDA's broad protection from libel
lawsuits will protect on-line services after they are made aware of
offending statements. See "The Communications Decency Act's Silver
Lining," in this issue. Stay tuned; as sure as the sun rises in
the east, there will be more lawsuits over on-line services'
responsibility for their users' actions.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:41:17 -0400
From: PeteK1@AOL.COM
Subject: File 3--The CDA's Silver Lining (from: Legal Bytes, Vol 4, No. 1)
Spring 1996, Volume 4, Number 1
__________________________________
By George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
114 West Seventh Street, Suite 1000
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 495-1400
(512) 499-0094 (FAX)
gdf@gdf.com
http://www.gdf.com
__________________________________
Copyright (c) 1996 George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P.
(Permission is granted freely to redistribute
this newsletter in its entirety electronically.)
___________________________________
David H. Donaldson, Jr., Publisher, dhdonald@gdf.com
Peter D. Kennedy, Editor, pkennedy@gdf.com
3. THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT'S SILVER LINING
Until now, two court opinions -- CUBBY v. COMPUSERVE and
STRATTON OAKMONT v. PRODIGY -- have dominated any discussion about
whether interactive computer services are responsible for what
users say on line. See "The Scientology Lawsuits and Lawyers'
Letters," in this issue; "BBS Sysop Liability for Copyright
Infringement: Let the Operator Beware!," Legal Bytes, Vol 2, No.
1. The two cases (simplified) are seen as opposites: CompuServe,
the "hands off" network, escaped liability for a newsletter carried
on its system, while Prodigy, supposedly a "hands on" publisher
with control over its users' postings, was forced to answer for a
user's defamatory words.
All this has been changed now, and by a most unlikely law.
The very Communications Decency Act of 1996 which is reviled
throughout the on-line world for its controversial restrictions on
"indecent" communications, also includes a very broad protection
for on-line services from tort liability. Congress passed this
provision specifically to overrule the STRATTON OAKMONT ruling.
Section 508 of the CDA, which will be codified at 47 U.S.C.
15 230(c)(1), states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider.
The law defines "information content provider" broadly as "any
person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or the development of information provided through the
Internet or any other interactive computer service." 47 U.S.C.
15 230(e)(3). So long as the interactive computer service does not
create the content ("in whole or in part"), it cannot be found to
be the "publisher."
The CDA also prohibits a court from holding any provider or
user of an interactive computer service liable because it (1) makes
efforts to screen material; or (2) provides the means by which to
screen material. This attacks from another angle the STRATTON
OAKMONT ruling, where the Court considered Prodigy's "dirty word"
filtering software in concluding it exercised editorial control
over its users and so was a "publisher."
The CDA leaves no doubt that it is meant to pre-empt all state
tort laws: "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may
be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with
this section." 47 U.S.C. 15 230(d)(3).
Apparently, when the CDA was being drafted, the interactive
computer service industry objected to the "indecency" prohibition
because it might require the services to aggressively filter or
review on-line content, even if they had not been doing so. And
under STRATTON OAKMONT, this would make them the "publisher" of
everything their services carried.
Section 509 was added as an attempt to address this concern,
without removing the controversial "indecency" prohibition. Now,
under the CDA, an on-line service is no longer legally the
"publisher" or "speaker" of other people's words. Therefore,
federal law preclude a finding of an essential element --
publication -- in any defamation claim in any of the 50 states
against an on-line service, when the complaint is about someone
else's words (as in CUBBY and STRATTON OAKMONT). For the same
reason, the CDA would also precludes liability for any related tort
(such as "false light" and "disclosure of private facts") that
requires a finding of publication.
No doubt the CDA's breadth will be tested. For example, when
has an interactive service created content "in part" so that it
cannot take advantage of Section 509? And does Section 509
preclude, as its language appears to, defamation claims based on
the continued availability of on-line libel even after an on-line
service has been asked, but has failed or refused, to remove it?
In any case, discussions of on-line liability can no longer begin
and end with CUBBY and STRATTON OAKMONT -- Congress has profoundly
changed the landscape with Section 509 of the CDA.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Q*Bert <qbert@access.digex.net>
Subject: File 4--Werd, be there or die -- (Summercon 96)
Phrack Magazine and Cult of the Dead Cow proudly present:
The 1996 Summer Security Conference
"SUMMERCON IX"
June 15th, 1996
Georgetown Holiday Inn
Washington D.C.
This is the official announcement and open invitation to the 1996
incarnation of Summercon. In the past, Summercon was an invite-only
hacker gathering held annually in St. Louis, Missouri. Starting in
1995, SummerCon became an open event to any and all interested
parties: Hackers, Phreaks, Pirates, Virus Writers, System Administrators,
Law Enforcement Officials, Neo-Hippies, Secret Agents, Teachers,
Disgruntled Employees, Telco Flunkies, Journalists, New Yorkers,
Programmers, Conspiracy Nuts, Musicians, Nudists, and Rug Sucking Wannabes.
Senators Exon and Coats, and all the rest of the flaming assholes
who voted for the CDA will be ejected from the confrence if they
show their weasely faces. Censors for SOL.com, Deutsch
Bundestpost officials, and other flaming losers.
Piss off, We MADE CyberSpace, you just tried to BUY it.
LOCATION:
The Georgetown Holiday Inn
2101 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Washington, DC
The hotel is located in scenic Georgetown, close to the Mall
and the Smithsonian Museums as well as all the major tourist
attractions in D.C...
Georgetown itself is a major tourist area, with many fine shops,
restaurants, PUBS and NIGHTCLUBS located there. If you can't
figure out anything to do here, you need to get a life pretty badly.
DIRECTIONS:
from I66 coming east:
Just keep going east. Take the Key Bridge exit off of 66,
the bridge will be a left at the 3rd light after you take
the exit. It's hard to miss, keep left and you will be forced
over the bridge pretty much. On the other side of the bridge,
take a right on M street (right and left being the ONLY choices
possible.) keep right on the bridge and you will again be forced
onto M street. Go down M and take a left at the second or third
light. Go up 2-3 blocks and take a right (either or), and
proceed to Wisconsin Ave. Take a left on Wisconsin. There is NO
left turn from M st. onto Wisconsin, thus the diverse route.
(Hey welcome to DC, run by the U.S. Congress who act as if they)
(have been smoking crack, and Mayor Barry, who actually has.)
(You will soon discover the same logic that brought you the CDA.)
>From MD and 95 North:
Take 95 south to 495 towards Northern Virginia.
Take the George Washington Parkway South to Key Bridge.
Follow I66 East directions above rest of the way from Key bridge.
>From VA and 95 South:
Get on 395 North follow signs to National Airport.
At National Airport, turn around and follow directions to hotel
from National Airport below.
(No, we aren't fucking with your head, this is really the right way)
>From National Airport:
Tell the cabbie to take you to the hotel. OR
Take George Washington Parkway to the Key Bridge / Rosslyn Exit.
Follow I66 East directions from above from Key Bridge.
>From Dulles Airport:
Tell the cabbie to take you to the hotel. OR
Take the Dulles Access road back southeast away from the Airport.
This will dump you out on I66 eastbound. (See above) If you are trying
to get TO Dulles, take I66 westbound and get in the right hand lane
after the Sycamore St. exit, and veer to the right to take the next
exit to the airport. Get in the left hand lane, and stay there to
avoid being on the toll road. There is a parallel road that leads
to the airport, but it's a local toll highway, stay left and avoid
giving Virginia money unnecessarily.
Taxis:
The average airport fare runs around $20 from national, to $30 for
Dulles. Your mileage may vary however with local road conditions.
CONFERENCE INFO:
It has always been our contention that cons are for socializing.
"Seekret Hacker InPh0" is never really discussed except in private
circles, so the only way anyone is going to get any is to meet new people
and take the initiative to start interesting conversations.
Because of this, the formal speaking portion of Summercon will be
held on one day, not two or three, leaving plenty of time for people
to explore the city, compare hacking techniques, or go trashing and
clubbing with their heretofore unseen online companions.
If you are coming from out of town and want the full hacker/tourist
experience, we will informally meet in the lobby of the Georgetown
Holiday Inn Friday, June 14th, 1996, at 2pm. From there we will
have an informal hacker sight-seeing tour of DC, including the FBI
headquarters and other interesting (and legal) places to go.
The sight-seeing will converge with DC locals and mall security at
2600 in Pentagon City Mall Friday, June 14th, 1996, at 6pm. Although
this isn't the first Friday of the month, this is definitely an official
2600 meeting, and likely to be the biggest one ever. This informal
meeting will be held until about 8pm.
The formal conference will be held on Saturday, June 15th, 1996, from
10am to 6pm (with a break for lunch). There will be a variety of speakers,
panel discussions, demonstrations, and other events guaranteed to keep
everyone entertained.
No video or audio tapes will be allowed in the conference room.
No still photography will be permitted in the conference room without
prior permission of all those being photographed. Violation of these
policies expresses your consent for the aggrived parties to pound
you flat.
There will be no selling of t-shirts, disks, firewalls, payphones, etc.
in or around the conference area without prior permission of the organizers.
If you are interested in demoing or selling something, please contact us
at the address listed at the bottom. Violation of these provisions
expresses your consent for the organizers to pound you flat.
There will however be a charity wAr3Z drive, please bring your tax
deductible donation of pirated software on media you don't need
back, for deposit and free redistribution amongst the n33Dy.
We ARE what YOU want to BE.
SPEAKERS:
The speakers list for Summercon IX is still being finalized, but it is sure
to be even more dynamic and interesting than previous years. Speakers at
Summercon '95 included such people as ex-CIA agent Robert Steele, author
Winn Shwartau, Cypherpunk founder Eric Hughes, movie producer Annaliza
Savage, and numerous past and present minions of UUSoft Technologies.
Will the last cool UUSoft employee to leave please turn off the lights
and lock the door.
If you are an expert in some aspect of computer, network, or telco security
and are interested in speaking at Summercon, please contact us to discuss
the possibility further at the address listed at the end of this document.
We are also going to be having short speeches by real hackers or phreakers
giving their own perspective on some issue or insight into a new technology.
This is an open invitation for you hackers to be heard; just provide us with
a brief outline of the topic you will be covering and the amount of time you
will take (suggested: 5 - 15 minutes) at the address listed below.
COSTS:
Costs for SummerCon IX are as follows:
Secret Service / F.B.I. Rate: $500.00
Government / Institutional Rate: $ 80.00
Hacker / Individual Rate: $ 20.00
Members of the United States Secret Service, and anyone that has in the past
or currently is providing information or services to the Secret Service are
required to pay the 'Secret Service Rate'. Cliffy, PMF, Gail, Agent Steele,
this means you.
Employees of a local, state, or federal government, members and associates
of any L.E.O., and employees of any corporation working in the area of
computer security must pay the 'Government / Institutional Rate'.
Anyone that does not fit into one of the above categories is eligible for
the 'Individual / Hacker Rate'.
Due to historical lack of interest, there will not be pre-registration
for the conference. Registration will begin at 9am the day of the
conference, and will continue for the duration of the conference or until
the meeting facilities have reached their capacity. Since the latter
is likely to occur, it is suggested you don't oversleep, but hangovers
are OK.
No purchase orders, checks, money orders, foreign currency, stock certificates,
IOUs, or coins will be accepted for registration. Secret Service agents,
small unmarked bills only, please.
Sorry for this being a bit more expensive than last year for the hackers,
DC seems to be a more expensive place to hold a conference and the expenses
are several times what they were in Atlanta.
Bring money for t-shirts, they are cool, and if don't buy one you are
lame anyhow and don't fucking deserve it!
HOTEL INFORMATION:
Georgetown Holiday Inn
2102 Wisconsin Ave NW
Washington, DC
Phone Number: (202) 338-4600
The cost for a double occupancy room at the Georgetown Holiday Inn is $99.
There is no special conference rate, there is no need to mention you are
with a conference at all, the people in reservations probably won't know
what you are talking about anyhow. The $99 rate is however a a special
rate being held by Holiday Inn, so don't be afraid to tell them so if they
try to quote you a higher rate.
If the hotel is damaged in any manner, you are going to pay for it, and you
will probably end up in jail. And even if you are lucky enough to get away
with it, the rest of the hackers staying at the hotel will end up paying for
it, and I'm sure that's going to make you a well-liked and respected hacker,
especially among some of the bigger hackers who might feel tempted to inflict
bodily harm on someone who causes any damage to the hotel. Please act
responsibly, don't drink and drive, chew all your food before you swallow,
don't swallow your gum, and recycle.
CONTACTING SUMMERCON ORGANIZERS:
You can contact the Summercon organizers through e-mail. If you haven't
figured out e-mail yet, you probably shouldn't be coming to Summercon.
As a final note, if you are planning on coming to Summercon, we would
appreciate you sending e-mail to us with the subject of "GOING TO SCON"
or something similar, just so that we have a rough idea of how many
people are going to show up.
E-mail: scon@2600.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:39:43 -0800
From: telstar@wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->)
Subject: File 5--Amer. Fam. Assoc. Demands investigation of Compuserve
Although the courts are still debating the constitutionality of the
Communications Decency Act, the Cyberporn Witch Hunt of 1996 is already
getting underway...
On April 1, 1996, the American Family Association -- a fundamentalist group
based in Mississippi -- sent a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno
demanding that the Department of Justice launch a criminal investigation of
CompuServe.
The letter, signed by Patrick A. Trueman, Director of Governmental Affairs
for the AFA, reads as follows:
"I am writing to urge a criminal investigation of H&R Block, Inc. and
Compuserve for potential violations of the Communications Decency Act.
CompuServe, a division of H&R Block, Inc., as of Friday, March 29, 1996, is
offering pornography and other sexually oriented material on its on-line
service to its users, including children... I hope that you will have an
investigator review material available to children on CompuServe and take
appropriate action."
As Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU, explains in the
following article, "This just proves what we've maintained all along: This
law, this Communications Decency Act, is going to be a vehicle for the
radical religious right to impose its brand of morality on the rest of the
country."
(Many thanks go out to the kind folks at the San Jose Mercury News for
graciously giving me permission to redistribute the full text of this
article to you now.)
Read on for details, and of course...
Work the network!
--Todd Lappin-->
Section Editor
WIRED Magazine
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
COMPUSERVE CALLED INDECENT
CHRISTIAN GROUP SAYS ON-LINE SERVICE VIOLATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
By RORY J. O'CONNOR
Mercury News Washington Bureau
April 19, 1996
(Re-distributed by permission from the San Jose Mercury News:
http://www.sjmercury.com)
WASHINGTON -- A fundamentalist Christian group has demanded a federal
criminal investigation of the CompuServe on-line service, alleging that it
has violated anti-smut provisions in a recently enacted telecommunications
law.
The American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss., asked the Justice
Department to investigate in an April 1 letter to Attorney General Janet
Reno. The organization's letter is apparently the first complaint lodged
under terms of the Communications Decency Act, a controversial part of the
sweeping rewrite of U.S. telecommunications law passed in February. The law
makes it a crime to transmit ''indecent'' material via computer in such a
way that children might view it.
The act, largely crafted by Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., was bitterly contested
by computer users and civil libertarians. Proponents said the law would
make cyberspace a safer place for children. Opponents said it would chill
free speech on-line, criminalizing material that would be protected under
the First Amendment if it were printed on paper.
A group of plaintiffs, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the
Justice Department in February seeking to overturn the law as
unconstitutional. The case is still pending. The department has agreed in
court not to conduct formal investigations into violations of the law, or
to indict or prosecute anyone under it, while the case is pending, a
spokesman said.
The AFA maintains the Communications Decency Act is far too weak and was
gutted in Congress to placate computer industry interests. In the letter to
the Justice Department, the group alleged CompuServe offers ''pornography
and other sexually oriented materials . . . to its users, including
children.''
The group singled out a service called Mac Glamour, an adult forum that,
among other things, offers color photos of nude women. The service was
promoted on CompuServe's ''What's New'' screen when subscribers connected
at the end of March.
CompuServe clearly marks the forum as an adult area and gives instructions
to users how they can block the service from their computers. Among the
controls provided by CompuServe, the main subscriber in a household, who
must be an adult, can block access to adult sites from his or her account.
The Mississippi group says that isn't sufficient. In a household that
hadn't blocked the adult area, the invitation could have been seen and the
images viewed by a minor, it said.
''This is exactly the kind of incident that Congress, in drafting the bill,
anticipated,'' said Patrick Trueman, director of government affairs for the
AFA in Washington. ''The objection we had was that it was available to
children. If this isn't prosecutable, I don't know what is.''
CompuServe did not respond to repeated calls seeking comment. But an
industry group representing on-line service providers, the Information
Services Association, said the letter to Reno was designed to interfere in
the pending court case.
''It's clearly a publicity device during an important juncture in the
litigation,'' said Bob Smith, the association's executive director. He
called the law's language a ''vague and unclear standard that could make a
wide range of material, including medical information and certain
literature, illegal as well.''
The Justice Department said it had received the letter but wouldn't act on
it until the court case is over.
The ACLU called the letter an attempt to coerce commercial services to
remove otherwise legal adult material from their computers under threat of
the large fines and prison terms spelled out in the act.
''This just proves what we've maintained all along: This law, this
Communications Decency Act, is going to be a vehicle for the radical
religious right to impose its brand of morality on the rest of the
country,'' said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU. ''They
are going after Constitutionally protected images.''
Trueman readily acknowledged that the AFA considers the law too weak, and
if the CompuServe case isn't prosecuted, ''it's time for Congress to start
from scratch.'' He said on-line services should have to automatically block
all adult material from view unless a subscriber specifically requests
access to it.
But civil libertarians and privacy advocates reject that approach, which is
the subject of a New York court case concerning an adult public access
cable TV channel.
''It would cause a rather large collection of personal data'' about users
of adult services, said David Banisar, policy analyst for the Electronic
Privacy Information Center in Washington. ''It would be a particularly
explosive list that CompuServe could sell, with all sorts of
ramifications.''
=A91996 Mercury Center.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 Apr, 1996)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (860)-585-9638.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/CuD
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #8.33
************************************
