Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 42
Computer underground Digest Wed Jun 5, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 42
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, #8.42 (Wed, Jun 5, 1996)
File 1--(fwd) "Vertical Spamming" by the CoS action alert
File 2--Sun Microsystems sues for JAVA domain names
File 3--defamation threat by UWA
File 4--FW: American Reporter v. Reno
File 5--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: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 13:46:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 1--(fwd) "Vertical Spamming" by the CoS action alert
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From--noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Date--Tue, 28 May 1996 06:30:39 GMT
This post is to outline what I see as a major crisis now occuring on Usenet.
The crisis is a massive, ongoing, vertical spamming (*) of a Usenet
newsgroup never before seen at this scale, and its purpose is to
completely drown out regular discussion on a newsgroup of public
interest, alt.religion.scientology. The evidence points to the
"Church" of Scientology as being behind this massive, incessant,
carpet bombing.
(* Vertical Spamming, for those who don't know, is when somebody
posts a huge number of posts to a single newsgroup in a very short
period of time. It's purpose is usually to shut the newsgroup down
by making it useless to carry on any meaningful discussion.)
In the next few sections I'll outline what's currently happening and
provide the evidence -- you make up your own mind who is behind the
assault on the newsgroup, and its importance to you. No matter who
is really behind it, it is a crisis that needs to be dealt with by
everybody in the Usenet community because it concerns the important
matter of freedom of expression.
If we fail to understand the spam's long-term ramifications and fail
to take the appropriate action, we seriously risk losing our freedom
to express our thoughts and beliefs on Usenet. After all, if the
massive spam succeeds to shut down one newsgroup in order to stifle
critical discussion, then it will set a dangerous precedent and
embolden other organizations and groups that likewise cannot
tolerate open discussion to follow in the same path. We must
prevent this. We must draw the line clearly in the sand -- now!
And after reading this, if you agree with my assessment of who is
behind the spamming, and see the threat it poses to freedom of
expression, one thing you can do right now is to sign (via e-mail) a
statement of protest directed towards the "Church" of Scientology.
It is a very easy yet effective way to express your opinion.
Details for submitting your signature are given at the end of this
post. NOTE: I will NOT publicly release, nor send to the "Church"
of Scientology, the names or e-mail addresses of those who sign,
just tally the total count, verifed by an independent third party,
probably someone in the news media.
Please do consider signing the statement and ask others to do the
same. I'd like to get 10,000 sigs, but 1000 would send a clear
message to the "Church" of Scientology organization that their
actions towards Usenet and the Internet are totally unacceptable to
the Usenet community, and pose a serious threat to freedom of
expression on the Internet. (Note that many of the participants of
a.r.s. are former Scientologists who still want to practice the
*religion* of Scientology, but free from the iron control of the
current "Church" of Scientology organization -- thus one could
strongly argue that their freedom of religion is also being hampered
by the spam attack, so the issues go beyond freedom of expression.)
And do forward this post to anybody who may be interested, including
the news media. One of the best solutions to this crisis is media
attention.
THE SITUATION (as of 27 May 1996)
=================================
In the last week, there have been several thousand (and rapidly
approaching 10,000!) short posts swamping the newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.) by a person or persons unknown.
They are coming from several accounts, most of them forged or bogus,
and when the account is closed by its site administrator based on
complaints, the flood begins anew elsewhere. In at least one
instance a mail-to-news gateway has been used, necessitating the
administrator to close all posting to a.r.s. That one gateway has
received, last we heard, 886 attempted posts by the spammer within a
28 hour period (which fortunately never reached their intended
destination -- but thousands of others have.)
And at this moment, while you read this post, the spam continues
unabated from new accounts. Almost a thousand of the same type of
post have been made to a.r.s. within the last 24 hours. There is no
indication it will stop, and has actually stepped up the last two
days as the spam is now coming from multiple sources.
THE EVIDENCE WHO MAY BE BEHIND THE ROBO-SPAMMING
================================================
It is unknown the person or persons who are behind this. However,
the evidence strongly points to the "Church" of Scientology (CoS) as
the culprit. Here is the evidence:
1) All the posts are supportive of Scientology, and each one is a
short snippet taken from their copyrighted book "What is
Scientology", which has also been placed on their Web site.
2) They all use a similar "boiler-plate" format, including a
similar preamble: "Many falsehoods and inaccurate statements
regarding several aspects of the religion of Scientology have
been observed on ars..."
3) The use of semi-anonymous "throw-away" accounts somewhat follows
the same pattern used recently to cancel posts containing
portions of CoS' "secret" scriptures, and which used the
boiler-plate statement "Cancelled due to copyright infringement"
as the justification for the clearly illegal cancels.
4) Most of the materials being spammed have a prominent CoS
copyright notice. Since CoS has shown by their actions within
the last year to be very sensitive to unauthorized recopying of
their materials, their silence on what is now happening is clear
tacit approval of the massive spamming now taking place. In
essence, by their inaction to do or say anything to stop the
spam, they are thus tacitly *authorizing* the spam attack,
whether they instigated it or not (though I believe they did).
5) In the last 1.5 years, internal documents from CoS have been
revealed detailing such a plan to overwhelm the newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology with their own posts. CoS has not
disavowed or refuted these documents. They are in the file
'spamplan.txt', which can be downloaded via anonymous ftp from
ftp.netcom.com /pub/no/noring/spamplan.txt, or in URL form:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/no/noring/spamplan.txt
6) A recent post, supposedly based on intelligence information from
inside CoS, but so far unverified, stated that the spam is part
of a Scientology program to so overwhelm the newsgroup
'alt.religion.scientology' with 'theta' (their term for 'safe'
ideas) that it would be safe to allow loyal rank-and-file
Scientologists to begin accessing the Internet, particulary
their new Web site (up to now they've not been allowed to access
the Internet because of the 'entheta', their term for 'unsafe'
ideas.) Even if this turns out not to be one of the reasons for
the spam attack, it is entirely plausible based on assessment by
those who are knowledgeable with how the CoS organization thinks
and operates.
THE RAMIFICATIONS TO USENET IF THIS CONTINUES UNSTOPPED
=======================================================
Already, discussion on a.r.s. has been affected, and if it continues
without adjustment by the Usenet community, will seriously hamper
the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints on that newsgroup. The
ramifications of this to all of Usenet as a whole is clear: if the
spammers get away with this, then what will prevent other
organizations from anonymously using the same tactic to squelch
unfavorable discussion on other unmoderated newsgroups?
Thus, the Usenet community needs to be aware that the spam attack
has grave ramifications to freedom of expression to Usenet above and
beyond just the Scientology newsgroup. It should be considered as
serious a threat to free expression as the Exon CDA. And in some
ways it is even worse since it will also affect the integrity and
viability of Usenet itself. It is very important that we get
concerned and fight it any way we can. Get involved, even if you're
a lurker or a new person on Usenet!
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
=================
There are several things that can be done to handle the crisis.
Some of them are now being employed by concerned net citizens who
are in a position to do so. However, for the reasons I'll give,
they are not adequate enough, which makes this, in my opinion, a
crisis. If you have other ideas for how to deal with this, do post
them. Let's keep discussion level-headed and avoid silly ad hominem
attacks and the like. This is a serious situation. The following
are listed in no particular order of importance. Consider it a
partial list only.
1) IGNORE THE SPAM -- With most newsreaders, this is simply not a
solution. When there are 1000 spam posts in 24 hours, like we
saw today, the reader simply has trouble locating the discussion
threads, no matter how sophisticated the newsreader. And if the
reader doesn't locate the legitimate discussion, they will not
contribute to any discussion, and poof, no more discussion. New
subscribers to a.r.s., most of whom want to get all sides of the
issue, won't even participate when they see the huge numbers of
single-sided robo-posts with no discussion.
And for those who must download all the posts before reading them
(or even kill-filing them), the spam will most likely force the
user to unsubscribe from and no longer participate in the
newsgroup. Freedom of Expression has thus been curtailed because
of the massive spam.
2) KILL FILES -- The usual reply to a problem like this is "kill
files". However, it is clear that kill files will not work to
prevent grave impact on the newsgroup because:
a) Many users today don't even have kill file capability
(unix-based newsreaders are rapidly being pushed into the
minority), and for those who do, only a fraction of them have
the computer savvy necessary to implement it. And for those
who pay for their news one way or another, it becomes
expensive for the kill file to do its thing (this is
especially onerous for those who have to actually download all
the posts, several megabytes per day, through their modem
*before* they can even "kill file" them).
b) Kill files work by finding posts having certain identifiable
attributes in the header or message body, such as the From:
address -- but as the spam on a.r.s. shows, we've got a moving
target that will resist kill files. Any organization with
enough money can keep getting throw-away accounts that cannot
be traced to the organization. They can also alter the
wording to foil kill-files searching for words in the message
body. Thus, those using kill files will continually see
unwanted SPAM getting through their filters, requiring
constant modification of their kill files, which means their
kill files will get so unwieldy that they take longer to work
effectively. The end result is that it may cause many to
simply give up on the newsgroup rather than trying to fight
the onslaught using kill files. It's like using a spray
bottle to fight a raging forest fire.
And don't forget the new people in the future who will visit
the newsgroup. Unless they are unusually motivated or
knowledgeable, they will judge the newsgroup's purpose based
on the content of the spam and not the real discussion. Thus
kill files won't even be considered by them since from their
reckoning the newsgroup's purpose has already been decided
(and their kill files will be empty to start out!) Only those
already established on the newsgroup will consider using kill
files. Thus, those who flippantly believe that kill files are
adequate to solve the problem are being short-sighted and even
selfish, and not considering the effect on new subscribers to
the newsgroup. Free expression is destroyed when new
subscribers turn away because of the spam.
3) MODERATION -- There are many who believe that a solution to a lot
of problems on Usenet is to require all newsgroups to be
moderated. The arguments for this are many, but few realize that
moderation can have a profound stifling of free expression for
certain subjects. It also puts the burden on moderators, who are
now vulnerable to attack, and any organization which does not
like discussion on a certain moderated newsgroup can put pressure
on the moderator. This, of course, would be a threat to the free
expression we now enjoy on Usenet. And it would take a while for
moderation to be implemented even if the Usenet community decides
now that it should be done.
4) HUNT DOWN THE SPAMMERS -- This is being done, and should continue
to be done to make life miserable for the spammers, but at the
bottom line it so far has not reduced, and certainly not
eliminated, the spamming. The reason for this is that the
spammers seem to have a virtually unlimited supply of new
accounts. They are probably now acquiring new accounts as fast
as they are being pulled. There is no reason why this can't go
on for months or even indefinitely.
5) CANCEL THE SPAM POSTS -- This certainly should and is now being
done. However, because we have a moving target, and thousands of
posts, issuing cancels is not a trivial exercise. In addition,
many sites don't honor cancels. And, finally, the spammer can
simply overcome the cancels by continuing to repost over and over
again as fast as the canceler can do its thing. The delay time
between the arriving of a spam post and the effect of cancel will
guarantee enough posts will hang around to clog up the newsgroup
and render it nearly useless for discussion.
6) LAW-ENFORCEMENT/LEGAL ACTION -- This spamming is clearly a
disruption of electronic data communications, and in the U.S. may
be a Federal offense (if an organization is behind it, it could
also be RICOable or lead to a class action lawsuit). But the
DoJ/FBI will not investigate this until enough ISP's themselves
request it -- they've shown in prior complaints from individuals
to not be very interested in investigating. And legal action
cannot be taken until you get the conclusive evidence required to
take the spammers to court. Even though we're sure who's behind
the spam, it cannot easily be proven in court since you have to
first find the real people behind the accounts (which is not
easy, especially if they keep moving around -- it'd take the FBI
to do this), and then when you find them, to connect them to any
organization (this can also be very hard.)
CONCLUSION
==========
It is my opinion that the massive spamming on a.r.s. is a major
threat to Usenet, and the Usenet community needs to be very
concerned. The hopefully partial list of solutions I outlined above
(do you have more ideas?) may not be adequate to stop the spam and
protect a.r.s. from oblivion. However, if we as a cyber community
join together as one voice, we may be able to force a resolution in
favor of freedom of expression for all.
I offer one way in the next section by which you can raise your
voice, and it is as easy as sending a blank e-mail message. Of
course, I urge you to take other actions as well if you are in a
position to do so. Become involved on alt.religion.scientology for
starters! There's still good discussion taking place, though you'll
have to wade through the huge piles of spam.
SIGN (via e-mail) A STATEMENT PROTESTING CoS SPAM!
==================================================
If you are now concerned by what's happening, I offer one way by
which you can do something to show your concern. I've drafted a
short statement protesting CoS spam which you can sign via e-mail if
you agree with it. After a month or so, an independent third-party
(maybe someone in the news media) will verify my tally of the
signatures and the number will be posted, as well as sent to the
news media and possibly even law enforcement. Of course, CoS will
see the tally of signatures since their intelligence organization
continually monitors the Internet. Here's the protest statement:
"We, the undersigned, looking at the evidence, have concluded that
the Church of Scientology (or one of its many affiliated
organizations) is officially behind the massive, highly
disruptive and immoral spamming of the newsgroup
'alt.religion.scientology'. It is a serious and grave threat
to freedom of expression on the Internet. We therefore call
upon the Church of Scientology to immediately cease this
action, to publicly disavow it, and to work with the Internet
community to prevent this from reoccuring."
If you agree with this statement, send e-mail, no later than June
30, 1996, to:
*******************************
petition-1@netcom.com
*******************************
Before sending a message to the above e-mail address, you MUST read
ALL following "fine print". If you don't, your signature may be
lost or I simply cannot or will not use it. Also, if you forward
this post, please keep all the information (above and below) intact!
If you fear retribution for your signature, please read item #8
below -- you have nothing to fear as your signature will be kept
confidential.
1) This is NOT a vote. If you don't agree with the above
statement, your only recourse is NOT to send e-mail to the above
address. Or, to put it another way, sending an e-mail message
to the above address, no matter what your views or what you say
in the message, is an AUTOMATIC AGREEMENT with the statement.
You have been forewarned.
2) Each reply sent to the above e-mail address will be
authenticated by an automatic mailing back to you (it will also
emphasize point 1 above). This is to prevent forged e-mail
addresses being used to try to either inflate the tally or to
discredit the signature gathering process.
3) Leave the e-mail message blank -- I won't read what you write
anyway. If you have a point to make, it is better you post it
to the relevant Usenet newsgroups (and which I highly encourage
-- the more public discussion on this matter, the better.)
4) Note that in the signature e-mail address the character after
the '-' is a 'one' and not an 'ell'.
5) Your e-mail address will be extracted from the From: lines in
the header block of your message. So be careful which account
you use. It is recommended you avoid using any government and
military accounts -- using your work account may also be unwise
depending on your terms of agreement with your employer
providing the account.
6) Please only sign once (but do ask your friends to also sign it!)
7) The e-mail address to send your signature
"petition-1@netcom.com' is NOT the same as my personal e-mail
address. If you do send your agreement to my personal e-mail
address it'll probably get lost. If you don't get an automatic
reply within a few days of submitting your signature, it may
mean your signature got lost. And if you try to sign by simply
replying to this post in your newsreader without changing the
To: line to the e-mail address "petition-1@netcom.com", your
reply will not be sent to the right place!
In summary, be very careful which e-mail address you use -- it
MUST be 'petition-1@netcom.com' and not any other !!!!!
8) To protect those who do e-mail sign the statement, I will not
post the list of e-mail signatures, nor will they be released to
CoS nor any other party except the person who will independently
verify the tally, who will be sworn to secrecy on the matter (if
it is a person in the news media, they will be covered under
Press protection). I will keep the signatures triply
DES-encrypted on any media I store them on and the encrypted
list will also be kept by another person I trust (but who will
not have the decryption keys). I will only further reveal the
names on the list if I receive a valid court order to do so.
The list will not be used for any junk-mail, though I may e-mail
those on the list in the future should any *major* event occur
related to Scientology activity that has grave and profound
ramifications for the Internet, such as this spam attack.
--> AND DO ADD A LINK FROM YOUR WEB SITE TO THE SCIENTOLOGY CRITICS PAGES!
==========================================================================
There are many great sites on the Web that summarize the many
attacks so far on the Internet community by CoS, most of them
motivated, in my opinion, by a desire to suppress all discussion
critical of them. These sites also talk about Scientology in
general which makes for a very sobering "wake up" experience for
those not familiar with this controversial organization.
The primary Web site describing the attack on the Internet is by Ron
Newman:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
(You can also go to Scientology's official Web site from the above
link, so you can read the other side of the issues -- CoS refuses to
reciprocate, though.)
Also check out these other three Web sites which, in turn, have
links to many Web sites which discuss Scientology from many
perspectives:
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/misc/arshtml.htm (great index)
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
It is IMPORTANT if you do add a link to one or more of the above
sites, or any other Scientology-related site, to inform me when you
have done so. That way, at some future time, if the links change in
any way, I can quicky contact you with updated information. Our
goal is to get at least 10,000 links, and preferably 100,000,
world-wide -- please help us -- link to one of the above sites
today!
FINAL WORDS ===========
Hurry, please e-mail your signature to the protest statement right
now! And be sure to send it to petition-1@netcom.com, and NOT to my
e-mail address as seen in my .sig below!
Thank you.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: File 2--Sun Microsystems sues for JAVA domain names
[Really wacky stuff. --Declan]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date--Tue, 28 May 1996 22:39:11 -0400
From--Robert A. Costner <rcostner@intergate.net>
This is a copy of some information I found elsewhere.
In a misguided attempt to protect the 'Java' name, Sun microsystems has
apparently hired an attorney to send letters to certain businesses. Some
people might call this intimidation. Some people might say Sun doesn't have
a legal leg to stand on. Some people might even say that Sun is not really
to blame, this is just a case of misguided high priced attorneys gone amuck.
It seems a Mr. Javan of Memphis Tennesee has a small business that him and
his family have run for the past twenty years. Mr. Javan's Company also has
a web page under the domain of JAVANCO.COM. Seems they sell capacitors and
certain hard to find electronic items. Apparently Sun's attorney is fearful
that people will think that some of these components are in fact "object
oriented cross-platform programming technologies". (I know that I have
friends who can't tell the difference between such software and a capacitor)
I called Mr. Gibbons-Shapiro (please do not let his name allow you to
confuse him with a certain species of monkey) to get his side of the story.
Gibbons-Shapiro indicated to me that he seemed to recall such a letter to
Javanco of TN, but needed to get the file and get back to me. Apparently
Gibbons-Shapiro is having some trouble locating the file, my phone number,
or simply manipulating the buttons on his touch tone phone system.
I offer you a copy of the letter for your edification.
Letterhead:
Fenwick & West LLP
A limited liability partnership
including professional corporations
Two Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone (415)494-0600
Facsimile (415)494-1417
(There are two other addresses listed, one in S.F. and one
in Washington, D.C.)
May 17, 1996
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL --
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
JAVANCO
501 12th Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
Dear Sirs:
This firm represents Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"),
headquartered in California, which provides a wide range of
computer hardware and software products, including its new
object oriented, cross-platform programming technologies
marketed under an extensive family of JAVA-based trademarks
and trade names. To date, sun has registered or has filed
applications for numerous JAVA-based marks, including: JAVA,
HOTJAVA, HOTJAVA COMPATIBLE, JAVA COMPATIBLE, JAVASCRIPT,
JAVASTATION, JAVASOFT, JAVACHIP, ULTRAJAVA, PICOJAVA, JAVA-
ENGINE, MICROJAVA, JAVAONE, and JAVAWORLD.
It has come to Sun's attention that your company is
doing business under the name JAVANCO, and has registered
the domain name "javanco.com" for use in connection with
your World Wide Web site. Each of these uses of the JAVA
trademarks is likely to cause confusion with Sun's family of
JAVA-based marks.
Therefore, we ask that your company promptly cease
use of the "javanco.com" domain name and promptly change its
name from JAVANCO to a name that does not include any JAVA
trademark, adopting instead names that do not use the word
"JAVA" or any word or phrase that is confusingly similar
to Sun's JAVA family of marks.
Please confirm in writing no later than May 31, 1996,
that your company will immediately take the requested actions.
Sincerely,
[signature]
James Gibbons-Shapiro
cc: Scott Behm, Esq.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 1996 18:25:54 +1000
From: "Brian Martin" <Brian_Martin@UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: File 3--defamation threat by UWA
3 June 1996
I wish to inform you of an attempt by officials of the University of Western
Australia to inhibit access to information that is of public interest.
The information in question concerns the denial of tenure to Dr David Rindos.
Hugh Jarvis, a supporter of Dr Rindos, set up a web site which includes a
large number of documents about the case.
Letters of mine giving the address of the web site were published in Campus
Review (8-14 May, p. 8) and the Australian (8 May, p. 41). The former letter
is appended for your information.
On 15 May, I received a letter from the legal firm Freehill Hollingdale and
Page acting for UWA. Their letter states that the material on the web site
"contains statements which are defamatory of members of our client's [UWA]
academic and administrative staff, including the Vice-Chancellor and at least
one Professor. By publishing the address of the web site, you have both drawn
the attention of others to it and have provided the means by which the
defamatory material posted on the site may be viewed. That constitutes a
re-publication of the defamation." They stated further that unless I refrained
from publishing anything containing the web site address, UWA "will be forced
to consider recommending to its staff members that action be taken against
you". I understand that similar letters have been sent to the Australian,
Campus Review and the ABC.
If it is defamatory to refer people to a site that contains allegedly
defamatory material, then we are all in trouble. Referring people to a large
web site is similar to referring them to a section in the library. We couldn't
even recommend that students read the newspaper, since it contains defamatory
material. I know of no legal precedent for such an extension of defamation
law.
If you are concerned about this attempt by UWA officials to inhibit open
discussion, you can
* send a copy of this message to others who might be interested;
* send a copy to relevant groups or publications;
* set up a link from your web page to the Rindos web site, and inform
Professor Fay Gale, Vice-Chancellor of UWA (vc@acs.uwa.edu.au), of your
action.
Each of these actions has already been taken by several people.
Brian Martin
Department of Science and Technology Studies
University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
phone: +61-42-287860 (home), +61-42-213763 (work)
fax: +61-42-213452
email: b.martin@uow.edu.au
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin
*****************************************
[Reproduced from Campus Review, 8-14 May 1996, p. 8, under the title "Threat
to autonomy". It was changed in slight ways from the version submitted.]
The West Australian parliament has set up an inquiry into the events
surrounding the denial of tenure to Dr David Rindos by the University of WA.
It has been reported that the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee sees this
inquiry to be a threat to autonomy.
But sometimes "university autonomy" can be at the expense of other interests.
In the numerous cases of whistleblowing and suppression of dissent that I have
studied, internal procedures seldom have delivered justice. Universities are
little different from other organisations in this regard.
When an academic exposes some problem such as favouritism, plagiarism or
sexual abuse, it is common for senior academics and administrators to close
ranks and squelch open discussion. A more enlightened response would be for
the university to put its house in order. If the University of WA had set up a
truly independent inquiry, with experts from the outside, the present
parliamentary inquiry probably would have been unnecessary.
The Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases reported in
October last year. In relation to higher education, it commented as follows:
"The committee heard allegations of destruction of documents, alteration of
documents, fabricated complaints concerning work performance and harassment of
the individuals concerned. Such allegations raise concerns about the ethical
standards within institutions and attitudes to outside review. The committee
concedes that there is a need for outside review to be balanced against the
autonomy of academic institutions. However, autonomy cannot be allowed to
override responsibility to academic staff as well as students."
Since a web page has been set up about the Rindos case
(http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~hjarvis/rindos.html), readers can judge the
issue for themselves without relying on the AVCC.
Brian Martin
Department of Science and Technology Studies
University of Wollongong
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 21:25:32 PDT
From: Jonathan Blumen <us003275@pop3.interramp.com>
Subject: File 4--FW: American Reporter v. Reno
---------------Original Message---------------
American Reporter v. Reno -- The Final Arguments
The Importance of SLAC Value
NEW YORK (June 3)--The dark skies opened up and poured down on the
city as the lawyers for the American Reporter v. Reno met for the
final arguments in the massive federal courtroom on Pearl Street.
Although the proceedings fell flat in the shadow of a high-energy
finale in Philadelphia a few weeks prior, this parallel summation
had its moments--some enlightening, others interesting, and others
comic.
There were perhaps twenty or thirty people in the courtroom watching
as Randall Boe, the lawyer for the plantiff, battled it out with
government attorney William Hoffman. Boe began by stressing that
since there are no real ways to comply with the safe harbor
defenses, the CDA constiutes a flat ban on speech that is
constitutionally protected for adults. He argued that the definition
of indecency sweeps far too broadly, including works of merit such
as Joyce's Ulysses and Miller's Tropic of Cancer.
Judges Cabranes and Cote both asked Boe if he would concede the
statue's constitutionality with regards to commercial providers,
suggesting that they might decide to uphold just a part of the
statute. Boe responded that he didn't know if this was possible,
saying that the intentions of the government seemed to be clear--"to
eliminate all indecent material from the Net".
Boe then pointed out that the government tried to calm fears by
saying it would prosecute only those who "intend to shock or
offend". This does not offer much consolation, he argued, as
artists ply their trade with the explicit intention of shocking or
offending--"it is a part of the creative process. That is why," he
said "indecency has always been upheld by the First Amendment."
Judge Cote said that with regards to the tagging system proposed by
Olsen, "the government is asking us to make a leap of faith into the
future, by accepting this defense today." Boe responded that most
people don't look to the possibilty of being acquitted, but the
possibility of prosecution. And with no clear defense that actually
works, he argued, there will be a huge chilling effect as people
purge their servers. Boe continually hammered home the point that
tagging pages today does nothing.
He also discussed the problem of judging indecency according to
local communnity standards and declared that under this law a
national standard will indeed develop--based on the lowest common
denominator, the most restrictive community.
Hoffman started with an argument that was heard in Philadelphia--the
plantiff is overreacting. "The number of items for which the
government would prosecute which would cause a constitutional
challenge is small." He argued that the context of these items is
important. He also addressed Boe's assertion that the government
did not have a compelling interest, saying that these indecent
materials are easily accessible. "Children can get it. They can be
surprised by it."
Cabranes was intent on having terms defined. He asked if "patently
offensive" meant "indecent"; he wanted to know if "indecent" was the
same as "harmful to minors"; he asked if "sexully explicit" was
equivalent to "patently offensive." Hoffman danced around with
answers that could be translated as "sort of."
Boe then got up for his final encore and raised the point that even
the expensive, most effective means of determining age--credit card
and Adult ID systems--are useless in the huge and largely ignored
realms of the Internet such as Usenet and IRC. He then touched upon
the fact that pejoratively labelling one's speech may not even be
constitutional, reiterated that tagging systems do not even work
today, and concluded that there is no way for an average user to
avoid prosecution.
"The bottom line," he said, "is that it starts as a total ban for
indecent communications between adults. Then there are no real
defenses provided."
Not long after Hoffman started into his final arguments Cabranes
stopped him to ask him, "With the possible exception of email, there
is no way to be 100% sure that indecent material does not get to
people under 18?" Hoffman added something about limited membership
email lists, obliquely conceding the point.
Cabranes asked directly if the statute minus the defenses was
unconstitutional. Hoffman danced around then admitted that "given
the current state of technology it would be hard to argue that it's
not a total ban."
Cabranes followed, "The question is whether the affirmative defenses
can save the statute". Hoffman answered with something about the
Supreme Court's decisions concerning telephones and how this was
"not unprecedented".
Hoffman's argument was periodically distracted by a small,
distincive click, echoing throughout the massive hall. On the back
bench by the doors sat a large, bearded guard, slowly, deliberately
trimming his nails. He clipped away and Chris Hansen, lawyer for
the ACLU, finally turned his head and increduously whispered, "is he
clipping his fingers or his toes?" Hoffman was not distracted, but
talked about the government being compelled to action... *click*
... The guard was looking down into his hands, oblivious to the
important and high-minded arguments in front of him. And then
Hoffman was finished.
In his deep, raspy voice Cabranes then called Fred Cherry, who had
attended every day of the hearings in hopes of consolidating his
case. The chief judge looked at a paper and pronounced Cherry's
name again. Someone leaned over the seats and tapped Cherry. He
awoke, arose, gathered his plastic bags and umbrella and, wearing
his overcoat, approached the bench.
He walked straight to the microphone and rested his belongings at
his feet. Cherry started his hurried talk about how he "despised
the ACLU" and what he was there to discuss "goes all the way back 30
years." He cited "rule 54 B--'B'as in 'Benjamin'".
Cabranes finally interrupted to determine that Cherry did in fact
want to consolidate his case. Both parties agreed and that was
that.
"Can I give a little evidence here?" Cherry asked. He came
prepared, with lots of arguments and stacks of evidence.
"Not a little evidence," Cabranes responded. "Just a few comments."
Cherry offered a document into the record then referred to an email
message that was presented on the first day of testimony that
involved his comments. It was pulled from the "alt.christnet"
newsgroup and said something about "fags" and "jesus". Cherry
wanted to set the record straight and said he was going way back,
back to an early message posted by another that was titled, "What
Size Is Christ". He then lauched into a story about Christ,
appearing 900 feet tall, as compared to another one which was
supposedly 500 feet tall.
The nail clipping had disappeared and all that could be heard was a
strange, involved fiction, transparently suggesting Christ's penis
size and lewd acts of fellatio with the Lord and Orel Roberts. Some
were shaking with laughter; one lawyer at the plantiff's table
turned his chair and removed his glasses, wiping tears from his
eyes. Fred Cherry, the "connoi-ssewer of porn", summed up his
evidence and thanked the judges for the time to speak.
It was not clear whether Cherry intended to shock or offend. All at
once, it seemed all too apparent that it didn't matter--such speech
would be found indecent under the CDA, even though it does have
serious literary, artistic, or comedic value.
Mark Mangan
markm@bway.net
co-author,
Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace (Henry Holt, 1996)
http://www.spectacle.org/freespch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--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 #8.42
************************************
