Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 08 Issue 31
Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 17, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 31
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, #8.31 (Wed, Apr 17, 1996)
File 1--ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE 4-15-96
File 2--CDA Court Challenge: Update #8 (Last Day of Testimony)
File 3--"LolitaWatch" Available (caution to the humor-impaired)
File 4--(fwd) CFP 96 Report
File 5--U of Iowa "hacker" Arrested
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: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:29:02 +0100
From: hauman@BB.COM(Glenn Hauman)
Subject: File 1--ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE 4-15-96
ACLU v. RENO: TRIAL UPDATE
o Government Witness: Censor First, Ask Questions Later
o Plaintiffs Waive Rebuttal of Government Testimony
o Oral Arguments Moved Up to Friday, May 10th
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Whitfield
Monday, April 15, 1996 212-944-9800, x426
PHILADELPHIA--Testifying on the last day of trial in ACLU v. Reno,
government witness Dan Olsen told a three-judge panel that the best way to
comply with the censorship law would be to block all possibly "indecent"
words and images, until "questionable" material could be reviewed and
labeled for adult consumption. That process could take weeks or months,
he told the court.
Using this triage approach, as Olsen described it, Internet content
providers would have to virtually shut down their sites until they could
complete the task of self-censoring using his "-L18" system. The proposed
system requires content creators to determine whether their words or images
are "indecent" or "patently offensive," and if so attach an electronic
"-L18" label.
Olsen, a professor of computer science at Brigham Young University,
returned to the court today conclude his testimony in the last day of a
trial that could well determine the future of free speech in cyberspace.
The consolidated cases of ACLU v. Reno and ALA v. DOJ challenge provisions
of the Communications Decency Act that criminalize making available to
minors "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech.
"When the government forces you to censor your expression of words or
images or face jail time, that's a pretty clear violation of the First
Amendment," said Christopher Hansen, who conducted cross-examination of the
witness for the ACLU.
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter questioned Olsen closely on the effect
the censorship scheme would have on Internet sites containing "a great deal
of material not offensive to anybody," that would have to be blocked for
review. "Can you think of any time in history when we have blocked
access to material in advance?" Judge Sloviter asked.
The judges also wondered how the labeling scheme would apply to speech
in other Internet forums such as e-mail or chat rooms. Posing a
hypothetical question, Judge Stewart Dalzell asked Olsen whether an
18-year-old discussing the censorship law in a chat room with minors would
have to "label" a phrase such as "Fuck the CDA" before transmitting his
words. Yes, Olsen replied, if he wanted to be protected from prosecution.
In his testimony on Friday and today, Olsen acknowledged that PICS
(Platform for Internet Content Selection), an alternate system described by
plaintiff witnesses, would allow parents to control their children's
Internet viewing without requiring broad censorship.
According to MIT expert Dr. Albert Vezza, who testified Friday on
behalf of plaintiffs, expected industry-wide acceptance of the PICS
standard will enable any number of third-party organizations such as the
PTA, the Christian Coalition or the Boy Scouts of America to rate content
for parents and other Internet users. As early as this summer, he said,
Microsoft Corporation plans to issue software embedded with the PICS
protocol, and other corporations are expected to follow suit.
In addition, plaintiff lawyers pointed out, unlike Olsen's "-L18"
system, PICS would allow users to block all "untagged" Internet content
from the receiving end, instead of requiring the providers to censor their
material. This feature is especially important because overseas Internet
providers are not subject to U.S. laws.
By contrast, said ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen, user empowerment software
like PICS can block a site regardless of its origin. "The government's
proposal -- and the law itself -- does not take into account the global
nature of the medium," Hansen said. "If the censorship law is upheld,
minors will still be able to access any foreign site without restriction."
The key to the PICS system, and to keeping the Internet a free medium
for users of all ages, Hansen added, is parental empowerment. "While there
will always be objectionable material in any communications forum, the
responsibility -- and the tools -- for guiding children's interaction
should remain with the parents."
At the conclusion of today's trial phase, plaintiff's lawyers informed
the court that they would waive the option to rebut the government's
testimony. After a short scheduling conference, oral arguments were moved
up to Friday, May 10, instead of June 3, and the April 26 rebuttal day was
canceled.
Under procedures for oral arguments, each side will have two hours to
make its case and answer questions from the judges. Plaintiffs and
defendants are required to submit briefs and proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law to the judges by April 29. After a ruling by the
three-judge panel, under expedited provisions, any appeal would be made
directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the ACLU appearing before the judges are Christopher
Hansen, Marjorie Heins, Ann Beeson, and Stefan Presser, legal director of
the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
http://www.bb.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 2--CDA Court Challenge: Update #8 (Last Day of Testimony)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CDA Challenge, Update #8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Declan McCullagh / declan@well.com / Redistribute freely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this update: BYU/CMU's Olsen testifies that "-L18" won't harm the Net
Judges realize Olsen is a weasel
Chief Judge Sloviter's incisive questions
Who is Donna Rice? A DoJ attorney can't stop laughing...
Closing arguments now set for May 10
April 18, 1996
PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Department of Justice doesn't like the way
the Communications Decency Act is written.
During the the testimony that ended April 15 in Philadelphia's Federal
court, we've started to see the DoJ's legal strategy emerge -- and it
includes attempts to redefine the CDA.
The DoJ's star witness was the amazingly prudish Dan "I'm offended by
four-letter words" Olsen, who said that his plan to have service
providers card users and tag 'em as adults or minors is a fabulous way
to go. But this shifts the burden of protecting kids from smut onto
ISPs, a proposal that Congress rejected when they included "good
faith" defenses in the law.
Olsen, who will fit in just fine when he takes a job this summer as an
administrator at censorhappy Carnegie Mellon University, also kept
pushing the other half of his plan that would require all "patently
offensive" online content be tagged "-L18."
On Monday, the DoJ's very own attack-ferret Jason Baron asked Olsen:
"Your proposal would not have an adverse effect on the Net as a whole?
Olsen deadpanned: "Absolutely not!"
This isn't surprising. To Olsen, the Internet is just a bunch of geeks
who want to keep everyone else out of their own little world.
When U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter
asked him if his "-L18" system would develop side-by-side with PICS,
Olsen replied: "If technical people were left to themselves, it would
be likely to happen. I don't think this is true here. Internet people
don't like other people telling them what to do. They're afraid of the
FCC. They don't want anyone else messing in their pond."
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
JUDGES REALIZE OLSEN IS A WEASEL
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
Even the judges could tell that Olsen is a weasel.
The three judges hearing our challenge to the CDA were unsympathetic
to the Brigham Young University computer scientist and pinned him down
for almost an hour as he tried to slime away from direct questions.
Judge Stewart Dalzell is the most net-savvy judge on the panel and the
only one with young kids, so I'm guessing they're helping him to grok
the Net. He asked Olsen what would happen if U.S. citizens
automatically cache overseas material, including "indecent" files.
Again Olsen tried to weasel away from the hypothetical, but Dalzell
would have none of it: "You assumed away my question."
The DoJ witness grumpily admitted: "I'd turn the cache off."
Some of Dalzell's questions were stellar: "Assume a chat group is
talking about the CDA -- students from 13 to 18. In the course of the
chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it
your proposal that he should tag that '-L18?'"
Not hesitating, Olsen said: "Yes."
On the fight-censorship mailing list I maintain, Mark Stein writes:
Judge Dalzell was paraphrasing closely from Cohen v. California, a
seminal case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of
a man who was arrested for wearing a jacket with "Fuck The Draft"
painted on the back. This Olsen fellow's a government witness, you
say? Sounds like he's working for us.
Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally fab: "If in one issue
of the Economist the word 'fuck' appears, the library [putting it
online] would have to go through the entire text of the issue?"
Olsen replied: "Somebody would have to make this screening. Somebody
would have to make this judgement." (Later he invented the idea of
libraries banding together to pool resources to make these decisions.
I could feel the hackles of the American Library Association folks
rising. I swear, Olsen makes up these mind-fucks on the fly.)
Remember Judge Buckwalter? I wrote about him in my first CDA Update,
saying that he was the least comfortable with our cybersuit:
In an incomprehensible decision last month, Judge Ronald Buckwalter
granted us only a _partial_ restraining order preventing the Feds
from enforcing the CDA. Now he's justifying his original mistake by
taking a critical stance during this hearing...
Buckwalter has come around. Last Friday his comments indicated he was
starting to understand the issue. His questions to Olsen on Monday
showed that he finally "gets it":
Q: If the creator of the material doesn't buy into your system, it
creates a big problem... Does this mean plaintiff's proposal makes
more sense?
A: No. There are different types of proposals...
Q: On your declaration, determining which are adults, you don't
address economic claims?
A: I only address if it's technically possible.
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
CHIEF JUDGE SLOVITER'S INCISIVE QUESTIONS
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
Chief Judge Sloviter's questions were the most incisive -- like
Dalzell, she admitted to doing a bit of out-of-court net surfing. She
asked Olsen if "children would be blocked from accessing parts of
museum collections?" Olsen admitted they would.
Some other questions from Sloviter:
Q: Would [your -L18 proposal] contain the seeds that the government
can do the blocking? Once everything is tagged as -L18, would
that facilitate any one entity saying this material should not
go out on the Internet?
A: Possibly.
Q: Can you think of any time in our history where we have blocked
material in advance?
A: Yes, every editor in every newspaper does this every day.
Q: But in an organized manner?
A: Every editor in every newspaper does this every day.
The EFF's Mike Godwin says:
That Sloviter asked this question is incredibly important -- it
shows that she recognizes that compliance with the Communications
Decency Act would amount to a complex system of prior restraints.
Even among those who disagree strongly about the scope of the First
Amendment, there is little disagreement about the general
prohibition of prior restraints on publication -- the only generally
acknowledged exception to this prohibition is the "national
security" exception (publication of troop movements during time of
war and the like). In previous obscenity/indecency cases, it has
long been established that prior restraints on publication are
impermissible.
The strangest point of the day came after Olsen testified that a
PICS-style third-party rating system would "slow the flow." (This was
a snide reference to Vanderbilt Professor Donna Hoffman's testimony
about how uninterrupted "flow" was important while web-surfing.)
Sloviter then asked him how an adult would show -L18 tagged materials
to a mature child. Olsen replied that a "teacher or parent could log
on." Sloviter parried: "Wouldn't that slow the flow?"
At this point, Olsen began to discharge a series of short, staccato
bursts of high-pitched giggles, sounding like a rabbit being tortured
to death. Damnedest thing I ever saw. The audience stared in horror.
Basically, the DoJ fucked up with this witness. Olsen was such a
censorhappy nut and so delighted with his "-L18" scheme that the court
realized it went too far -- that it was obviously unconstitutional.
In other words, he was our best witness.
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
WHO IS DONNA RICE? A DOJ ATTORNEY CAN'T STOP LAUGHING...
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
I would have loved to have been in Washington, DC when Grey Flannel
Suit -- AKA AFSADAFOSICCI* Howard Schmidt -- was deposed on April 1.
Imagine an entire business day filled with nothing but talk of
cyberporn, with everyone trying to be serious and lawyerly. Some
representative samples, from page 244 of Grey Flannel's deposition:
A: The next one, the same [screen] with panties.jpg reflects the
image that appears on the screen after clicking on Panties.
A: The next one, the same [screen] with boobs.jpg reflects the image
that appears on the screen after clicking on Boobs.
A: And the next one is cunnilingus.jpg, which reflects the image
that comes onto the screen by clicking on Cunnilingus.
But my fave part was when former party girl and ex-No Excuses jeans
model Donna Rice-Hughes was mentioned. In the past year, Rice-Hughes
has leveraged her fame from the Gary Hart presidential campaign into a
budding career as a morality crusader at the anti-porn group "Enough
is Enough!" Read on for an excerpt from page 282 of Grey Flannel's
deposition...
Q: Are you acquainted with Kathleen Cleaver?
A: No, I'm not.
Q: Have you ever heard that name?
A: It does not ring a bell, no.
Q: Are you acquainted with Bruce Taylor?
A: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q: Are you acquainted with Donna Rice?
A: The name Donna Rice rings a bell it seems, but I don't know from what.
[The ACLU attorneys and Pat Russotto from the DoJ can't stop laughing.]
DoJ's Tony Coppolino: "I'll explain later."
ACLU's Margorie Heins: "It's a honest answer."
ACLU's Chris Hansen: "Even Pat couldn't remain serious through that."
DoJ's Tony Coppolino, trying again: "I'll explain later!"
* AFSADAFOSICCI = Air Force Special Agent, Director of the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations, Computer Crime Investigations
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
CLOSING ARGUMENTS NOW SET FOR MAY 10
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
The closing arguments for our case now are scheduled for May 10, with
April 29 as the deadline for submitting our findings of fact and
conclusions of law -- a lengthy collection of documents that will
include everything we believe we've proved in our case. (Closing
arguments were pushed up to early May since we didn't feel a need to
call any rebuttal witnesses. After all, we had Olsen!)
Our attorneys and the DoJ each will present two hours of closing
arguments on May 10, though the timeframe is flexible. The three-judge
panel likely will issue a decision three or four weeks later, and
appeals will go directly to the Supreme Court.
What will the Philly court decide?
Bruce Taylor, the president of the National Law Center for Children
and Families, told me that he's "confident" the court will uphold the
indecency portions of the CDA. However, the former Federal prosecutor
said he's "worried that the court may accept some of the technical or
infeasibility arguments" against the law.
I'm sure we'll talk more about it on May 9, when I'll be on a panel
at the University of Pennsylvania with Taylor and Cathy Cleaver.
Fortunately, one of the strongest aspects of our case is that we're
correct.
Stay tuned for more reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're back in court on May 10 for closing arguments.
Quote of the Day: "We teach them proper principles and let them govern
themselves." -Prophet Joseph Smith
Mentioned in this CDA update:
CDA Update #6, with details on Dan Olsen's "-L18" proposal:
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2143>
Brock Meeks on 4/12 and 4/15 hearings:
<http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/16/index1a.html>
Mark Eckenwiler's report on the recent CDA forum at Cornell University:
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2226>
CDA forum at the University of Pennsylvania, scheduled for May 9:
<http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~fatf/cda-forum.html>
IETF draft of "Internet Philosophy" article:
<ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-iab-principles-02.txt>
Net-Guru David Reed's article: "CDA may pervert Internet architecture":
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=2093>
Censored by the CDA <http://www.iuma.com/Cyborgasm/>
Dan Olsen at BYU <http://www.cs.byu.edu/info/drolsen.html>
Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>
BYU's censorship policy <http://advance.byu.edu/pc/releases/guidelines.html>
Rimm ethics critique <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/>
Int'l Net-Censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/zambia/>
CMU net-censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kcf/censor/>
University censorship <http://joc.mit.edu/>
Grey Flannel Suit <howardas@aol.com>
Carl Kadie's CAF site <http://www.eff.org/CAF/>
Blue Ribbon T-Shirts <http://www.fqa.com/romana/blueribbon.html>
This report and previous CDA Updates are available at:
<http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/>
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/EFF_ACLU_v_DoJ/>
<http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/>
To subscribe to the fight-censorship mailing list for future CDA
updates and related discussions, send "subscribe" in the body of a
message addressed to:
fight-censorship-request@andrew.cmu.edu
Other relevant web sites:
<http://www.eff.org/>
<http://www.aclu.org/>
<http://www.cdt.org/>
<http://www.ala.org/>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:43:31 -0400
From: tallpaul <tallpaul@pipeline.com>
Subject: File 3--"LolitaWatch" Available (caution to the humor-impaired)
--fwd--
To--cypherpunks@toad.com
From--tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject--LolitaWatch
Sunnyvale, CA. Nubility, Inc. is pleased to announce the availability of
"LolitaWatch," a filter program for the Web and Net which alerts users
about the presence of nubile, young teens (and even younger!). LolitaWatch
operates by checking the federally-mandated "age bit."
No longer will you be frustrated in trying to contact that 12-year-old
girl, only to eventually learn she's a 44-year-old male playing mind games.
The President of Nubility, Pete Ofeil, said "Hey, the government says that
they have to wear a sign announcing their age...all we're doing is offering
a service to our customers."
(There is still the problem that the girl may be a boy, or vice versa,
depending on your preferences, but this is likely to be solved as the
"Fairness to Women and Other People of Color Protection Act," which
mandates that a "gender bit" be set.)
"LolitaWatch allows me to cut quickly to the chase, screening out the
hags," says Roy G. Biv, appreciator of young girls. "I've even rigged up my
copy of LolitaWatch to automatically alert me when one of these nubile
young things enters an IRC chat room!," he added with a sly grin.
LolitaWatch is available immediately for Windows and Macintosh. No Unix
version is planned because Unix users are, well, unix.
[END T.C. MAY INSERT]
[BEGIN ANON INSERT]
Date--Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:10:40 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id--<199604180610.IAA27184@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Subject--GNU Version 0.01 (alpha) of KiddieFind is now available
To--cypherpunks@toad.com
From--nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Organization--Replay and Company UnLimited
I am going ahead and releasing an alpha version of KiddieFind a free
Unix implementation of LolitaWatch. Everything is under the GPL, so
the source code is free, hack on it all you want ...
KiddieFind is an enhanced free version of Nubility Inc.'s LolitaWatch
for Unix. It works by locating network packets that have the US
federally mandated Under18 bit set, and then uses publicly accessible
databases to map them into a street address and phonenumber.
The networked version works as follows, using the provided plug in
module (a version is provided in 0.01 for AOL, I'm working on a
CompuServe version and will have it ready in a week or so) to connect
to a major online service. Once connected it goes into the equivalent
of promiscuous mode and scans all traffic for the age bit, and
forwards the information back to your system.
After collecting all this information, it scans a number of publicly
accessible databases to turn the information into a street address.
The geographical location can be approximated by running a traceroute
on the IP address of the originating packet and works backwards until
a host with reliable geographic data can be located. KiddieFind only
requires state-wide granularity, and this only to narrow the later
phonebook search.
Once a geographic location has been determined, it's not likely that
the child has her own phone. Therefore the parents must be found. A
search is done through the any number of the available on-line
telephone books. By this stage KiddieFind should have a manageable
number of candidate numbers. If real names are being used, than it's
easy to isolate the correct phone number. Hopefully the Denning
geographic information will be mandated soon, thus eliminating nearly
all sources of error isolating the correct neighborhood.
If there are still too many candiate numbers a number of other mostly
automated searches can be done. The parents' home web pages can be
searched for personal information, etc.
Once you have the system tuned, all you merely have to do to locate a
street address and phone number for any number of children is just
login and poke around a bit. Everything else is done in the
background. You don't even have to think about it.
I've obtained the address and phone numbers of over 5,000 children so
far, but I expect this will become easier after all the kinks in the
system are worked out.
GNU archives are located throughout the world, pick the one closest to
you for downloading.
[END ANON INSERT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:30:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 4--(fwd) CFP 96 Report
To: Computer Underground Digest <tk0jut2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Lorrie Faith Cranor's CFP96 Conference Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996 by Lorrie Faith Cranor. Permission to distribute this report
electronically is granted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Freedom and Privacy '96 was held March 27-30 at the Cambridge,
Massachusetts Hyatt Hotel. This year the (mostly) single-track conference
was excellently chronicled by the CFP96 newsletter volunteers; thus I will
dispense with my usual session-by-session description of the conference and
instead focus my annual essay on a few conference highlights and my personal
reactions to the conference. Notes and audio recordings for most sessions
are available from the CFP96 web site (http://web.mit.edu/cfp96/).
I arrived late Wednesday night, after the day's tutorials and the evening
reception, but in time to join the group of CFP regulars at the hotel bar.
Before retiring for the evening I continued several conversations started at
CFP95, explained my dissertation research to a handful of CFPers who were
actually interested in hearing about the details of my esoteric work, and
collected a long list of web pointers and book titles which said listeners
recommended. As usual, informal networking proved to be a valuable part of
my conference experience.
As the main part of the conference got started the next morning, I noticed
that law enforcement officers and hackers were largely absent from the
attendance list this year. Perhaps that's why CFP96 lacked some of the
intrigue of previous conferences. There were no arrests, no attendees taken
in for questioning, and no groups of young people clustered around the pay
phones. Actually, there weren't too many young people at the conference at
all. Perhaps due to the expensive venue (and no easy way to find roommates
to cut down on expenses) there seemed to be fewer students than usual in
attendance.
As the CFP audience seemed to have matured from previous years, so did the
tone of the discussions. At CFP93 (my first CFP) the panels explored the
strange new worlds of the electronic frontier with speakers presenting
information which really surprised many of the participants. There were so
many new ideas -- so much to disagree with -- that there were loud protests
at the end of each session from those who didn't get to have their say
before time ran out. At CFP94, most of the attendees (while probably still
in much disagreement on many topics) were for the most part so much in
agreement that the Clipper Chip was bad, that all other issues seemed much
less significant. A year later, the Clipper crisis had blown over, allowing
CFP95 to proceed with more diverse discussions. At CFP96 there were new
crises to rally around: the Communications Decency Act and the threat of
restrictive encryption legislation. But for the first time at CFP, I heard
audience members other than Dorothy Denning and thployed by the
government acknowledging that these issues might not be all black and white.
Denning's "International Developments in Cryptography" panel exposed a lot
of important issues surrounding the cryptography regulation dilemma and
featured one of the most controversial speakers of this year's conference --
Michael Nelson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Those who put aside their outrage long enough to listen to what Nelson had
to say, seemed to find themselves agreeing with much of his analysis, while
disagreeing with some of his fundamental assumptions. What set Nelson's
perspective apart from the views held by most CFP participants was his
belief that the potential consequences of unregulated cryptography
(especially non-key-escrow) would be more harmful than the potential
consequences of regulating cryptography. Nelson kept repeating that if
nothing was done to regulate cryptography, terrorists will use it to pull
off a major disaster and "people will die." As long as the administration
assumes that the risk of disaster due to unregulated cryptography (which may
not be insignificant) is an unacceptable risk, no solution that cannot
eliminate that risk will be acceptable. The problem is we don't really know
the magnitude of the risk, nor do we know whether people find this sort of
risk acceptable. Certainly our society has determined that some risks are
acceptable and we find it preferable to live with these risks than impose
the regulations that would reduce them significantly. On the other hand, we
have decided that other risks are more than we wish to bear. But these
determinations have come about after long debate, and even after regulations
are established they tend to get changed frequently as our knowledge about
the magnitude of the risks and the public attitude towards these risks
change.
This topic was discussed again in an excellent session, "Before the Court:
Can the US Government Criminalize Unauthorized Encryption?" organized by
Andrew Grosso. Remembering the confusing mock trial held at CFP93, I was a
bit skeptical about this moot court. But I was pleasantly surprised to watch
a thoroughly researched debate over a fictitious statute outlawing
unescrowed encryption. Although most of the participants were opposed to
this hypothetical statute, those assigned to represent the government
defended it convincingly. I was also impressed with the questions asked by
the panel of real Federal judges who presided over the court. Written
arguments on both sides are available from the CFP96 web site.
Another controversial speaker, Bruce Taylor, President and General Counsel
of the National Law Center for Families and Children, participated in the
late night Communications Decency Act session which began at 9:30 Thursday
night. As Taylor debated with CDA opponents, I noted that the discussion was
more about semantics and what the law really means than anything else.
Taylor attacked opponents' statements that the CDA is unconstitutional
saying that it does not really restrict the behavior that opponents say it
does. He failed to comment on whether such restrictions would be
unconstitutional, rather he insisted that such restrictions were not a part
of the law. Examples of materials Taylor claimed would not be restricted
(but opponents said would be restricted) include dirty words and graphic sex
education materials. The root of the disagreement surrounded the
interpretation of the vague language of the legislation and the significance
of explanatory documents which Congress voted not to include in the
legislation. Audience discussion of this issue continued well past midnight,
when the hotel staff asked us to move our conversation out of the ballroom
so they could lock up for the night.
The following evening, the New England Aquarium was the delightful setting
for the EFF Pioneer Awards presentation and reception. The ever squawking
penguins repeatedly interrupted the speakers, adding a bit of levity to the
event. Many attendees commented that watching the fish swim gracefully round
and round the central tank was a fitting contrast to all the high tech talk
of the previous two days.
Other highlights of the conference for me included being a panelist on David
Chaum's "Policy Implications of Privacy Technology" lunch panel along with
Phil Zimmerman, Esther Dyson, and John Gilmore; playing a 70-year-old women
in one of Simpson Garfinkel's electronic cash scenarios; and meeting other
graduate students who are working on interdisciplinary research projects.
One topic I wish had been discussed more at this conference was medical
records privacy, especially in light of the "Bennett bill" introduced in the
US Senate last fall. One lunch workshop took a cursory look at medical
records privacy issues, but I was disappointed in the way the organizers
framed the discussion, focusing on philosophical questions rather than on
the actual issues that have proven controversial. This is a topic that has
been discussed at previous CFPs, but I think there's plenty more to discuss.
Maybe at CFP97?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Q*Bert <qbert@access.digex.net>
Subject: File 5--U of Iowa "hacker" Arrested
>From http://www.uiowa.edu/~dlyiowan/issue/v127/i177/stories/A0101F.html
UI hacker invades private e-mail
Computer pirate raided thousands of students' accounts
Ann Haggerty
The Daily Iowan
UI police arrested a UI freshman Friday after he allegedly broke into
thousands of e-mail accounts at the UI from his home computer.
The arrest came after public safety officials videotaped the student
illegally entering a conference room in John Pappajohn Business
Administration Building, Lt. Richard Gordon said. Officials believe the
student was leading a computer hacking group from the room.
If tried as an adult, the 17-year-old student faces up to one year in jail
and a $1,000 fine on electronic eavesdropping charges. Gordon declined to
release the student's name because he is a juvenile.
In addition, the student will be charged with three counts of criminal
trespassing and one count of criminal mischief, Gordon said, and public
safety officers are investigating the possibility he possessed drugs and
stole computer equipment.
..............
------------------------------
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 #8.31
************************************
