Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 4, 1996 Volume 8 : Issue 64 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, #8.64 (Wed, Sep 4, 1996) File 1--Sep 20th SF C'punks meeting: ITAR on trial File 2--National ID Card Web Pages File 3--Bernie S. attacked in prison File 4--Anon.penet.fi is closed! File 5--Press Release on anon.penet.fi closing File 6--"Wired UK" response to Observer Article File 7--London Observer replies (9/1/96) (fwd) File 8--British Hacker ("The Squidge") Arrested (fwd) File 9--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: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 1--Sep 20th SF C'punks meeting: ITAR on trial ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Fri, 06 Sep 1996 03:51:20 -0700 From--John Gilmore To--cypherpunks-announce@toad.com We're having another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Friday, September 20th. Meet at the Federal Building in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, at 11:45AM, in high-quality business drag. [There will also be a regular Saturday meeting this month, on Sep 14.] It's been eleven months to the day since our first hearings in Dan Bernstein's lawsuit against the NSA and State Department. At this hearing, starting at High Noon, we hope to convince Judge Marilyn Hall Patel to declare that the ITAR (export regulations) and AECA (export law) are unconstitutional. We are asking her to order the State Department to immediately stop enforcing them with respect to cryptographic software. Simultaneously, the government is asking her to declare that their actions have been completely legal and Constitutional, and to throw out our lawsuit. Judge Patel has asked both sides to fully explore all the legal issues in the case for this hearing, leaving aside any unresolved factual questions (like exactly how many people have had their exports denied). She plans to decide the questions: * Should the government's actions be examined under the "strict scrutiny" appropriate when they attempt to restrict speech, or under a looser "O'Brien" test that applies when the government seeks to restrict conduct and only incidentally restricts speech? * Is the ITAR Scheme a prior restraint on speech? * Does the ITAR Scheme impermissibly punish speech after the fact? * Is the ITAR Scheme too vague to constitutionally regulate speech? * Is the ITAR Scheme so broadly worded that it unconstitutionally limits speech protected by the First Amendment? * Were the government's actions as applied to Dan Bernstein unconstitutional restrictions on his First Amendment rights? It's possible, but unlikely, that the judge will decide some of this then-and-there. Instead, we will get some insights into how she is leaning, based on her questions and comments. Her written decision will come out some weeks or months later. She then plans to certify the case for immediate appeal to a higher court (the Ninth Circuit, also here in San Francisco), to confirm or deny her legal analysis. >From there it will probably go to the Supreme Court. Watch the wheels of justice grind! Meet the intrepid lawyers who are working hard to protect our rights! Shake hands with one or more NSA representatives specially flown in for the occasion! Meet some journalists and be quoted talking about crypto freedom! We will follow the hearing with a group lunch at Max's Opera Plaza, a block away at Van Ness Avenue and Golden Gate Avenue. As background, Dan Bernstein, ex-grad-student from UC Berkeley, is suing the State Department, NSA, and other agencies, with help from the EFF. These agencies restrained Dan's ability to publish a paper, as well as source code, for the crypto algorithm that he invented. We claim that their procedures, regulations, and laws are not only unconstitutional as applied to Dan, but in general. Full background and details on the case, including all of our legal papers (and most of the government's as well), are in the EFF Web archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case. Like Phil Karn's and Peter Junger's cases, this lawsuit really has the potential to outlaw the whole NSA crypto export scam. We intend to make your right to publish and export crypto software as well- protected by the courts as your right to publish and export books. It will probably take more years, and an eventual Supreme Court decision, to make it stick. But this is the hearing at which we plan to convince our judge that these laws really are unconstitutional. Her order restoring our legal right to publish crypto source code could come out by Christmas! Please make a positive impression on the judge. Show her -- by showing up -- that this case matters to more people than just the plaintiff and defendant. Demonstrate that her decision will make a difference to society. That the public and the press are watching, and really do care that she handles the issue well. We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse. There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no photography, but the session will be tape-recorded and transcribed, and you can take notes if you like. The lobby guards will want to hold onto guns, "munitions", and even small pocketknives, before they'll let you go upstairs to the courtrooms. So, here's your excuse to put on a nice costume, take an early lunch, and pay a call on the inner sanctum of our civil rights. See you there! John Gilmore PS: If you can't come, you can still contribute. Join EFF's Legal Defense Fund; see http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/cyberlegal_fund_eff.announce. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 1996 13:52:18 -0500 From: "Dave Banisar" Subject: File 2--National ID Card Web Pages EXTENSIVE NATIONAL ID CARD WEB SITE IS NOW ON LINE The London-based human rights watchdog Privacy International (PI) has just opened an extensive web page on National ID cards. The initiative comes in the wake of pending efforts in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom to implement national ID card systems. The page contains a 7,000 word FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on all aspects of ID cards and their implications. Also included in the PI documents is a paper describing successful campaigns opposing to ID cards in Australia and other countries. The page also has links to numerous other sites and documents. PI Director Simon Davies said he hoped the page would help promote debate about the cards, "ID cards are often introduced without serious discussion or consultation. The implications are profound, and countries planning to introduce them should proceed with caution." "The existence of a card challenges important precepts of individual rights and privacy. At a symbolic and a functional level, ID cards are often an unnecessary and potentially dangerous white elephant. They are promoted by way of fear-mongering and false patriotism, and are implemented with scant regard for serious investigation of the consequences." he said. The URL is : http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/ PI has also set up an auto response function for the FAQ document. Its address is: idcardfaq@mail.privacy.org Privacy International is an international human rights group concerned with privacy and surveillance issues. It is based in London, UK. For further information contact the Privacy International Washington Office at +1.202.544.9240 or email pi@privacy.org. PI's web page is available at: http://www.privacy.org/pi/ David Banisar (Banisar@privacy.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Privacy International Washington Office * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.privacy.org/pi/ Washington, DC 20003 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: File 3--Bernie S. attacked in prison COMPUTER HACKER SEVERELY BEATEN AFTER CRITICIZING PRISON CONDITIONS TARGET OF CAMPAIGN BY U.S. SECRET SERVICE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE A convicted hacker, in prison for nothing more than possession of electronic parts easily obtainable at any Radio Shack, has been savagely beaten after being transferred to a maximum security prison as punishment for speaking out publicly about prison conditions. Ed Cummings, recently published in Wired and Internet Underground, as well as a correspondent for WBAI-FM in New York and 2600 Magazine, has been the focus of an increasingly ugly campaign of harrassment and terror from the authorities. At the time of this writing, Cummings is locked in the infectious diseases ward at Lehigh County prison in Allentown, Pennsylvania, unable to obtain the proper medical treatment for the severe injuries he has suffered. The Ed Cummings case has been widely publicized in the computer hacker community over the past 18 months. In March of 1995, in what can only be described as a bizarre application of justice, Cummings (whose pen name is "Bernie S.") was targetted and imprisoned by the United States Secret Service for mere possession of technology that could be used to make free phone calls. Although the prosecution agreed there was no unauthorized access, no victims, no fraud, and no costs associated with the case, Cummings was imprisoned under a little known attachment to the Digital Telephony bill allowing individuals to be charged in this fashion. Cummings was portrayed by the Secret Service as a potential terrorist because of some of the books found in his library. A year and a half later, Cummings is still in prison, despite the fact that he became eligible for parole three months ago. But things have now taken a sudden violent turn for the worse. As apparent retribution for Cummings' continued outspokenness against the daily harrassment and numerous injustices that he has faced, he was transferred on Friday to Lehigh County Prison, a dangerous maximum security facility. Being placed in this facility was in direct opposition to his sentencing order. The reason given by the prison: "protective custody". A day later, Cummings was nearly killed by a dangerous inmate for not getting off the phone fast enough. By the time the prison guards stopped the attack, Cummings had been kicked in the face so many times that he lost his front teeth and had his jaw shattered. His arm, which he tried to use to shield his face, was also severely injured. It is expected that his mouth will be wired shut for up to three months. Effectively, Cummings has now been silenced at last. From the start of this ordeal, Cummings has always maintained his composure and confidence that one day the injustice of his imprisonment will be realized. He was a weekly contributor to a radio talk show in New York where he not only updated listeners on his experiences, but answered their questions about technology. People from as far away as Bosnia and China wrote to him, having heard about his story over the Internet. Now we are left to piece these events together and to find those responsible for what are now criminal actions against him. We are demanding answers to these questions: Why was Cummings transferred for no apparent reason from a minimum security facility to a very dangerous prison? Why has he been removed from the hospital immediately after surgery and placed in the infectious diseases ward of the very same prison, receiving barely any desperately needed medical attention? Why was virtually every moment of Cummings' prison stay a continuous episode of harrassment, where he was severely punished for such crimes as receiving a fax (without his knowledge) or having too much reading material? Why did the Secret Service do everything in their power to ruin Ed Cummings' life? Had these events occurred elsewhere in the world, we would be quick to condemn them as barbaric and obscene. The fact that such things are taking place in our own back yards should not blind us to the fact that they are just as unacceptable. Lehigh County Prison will be the site of several protest actions as will the Philadelphia office of the United States Secret Service. For more information on this, email protest@2600.com or call our office at (516) 751-2600. More information on this case can be found on the following web site: http://www.2600.com. 9/4/96 -30- These are the people responsible for keeping Ed Cummings imprisoned. Name/Address Phone Fax Bucks County Correctional Facility 215.325.3700 215.345.3940 1730 South Easton Road Doylestown, PA Director: Mr. Nesbitt (warden equivalent) Chief: John Henderson (had Cummings thrown into maximum security for receiving a fax from a reporter - later told Cummings he had "no right" to speak to the press) Lehigh County Prison 610.820.3270 38 North Fourth Street Allentown, PA 18103 Warden: Ed Sweeney 610.820.3133 610.820.3450 Haverford Township Police Department John Morris 610.853.2400 610.853.1706 (original arresting officer who believed Cummings was involved in a drug deal because he was observed selling electronic components to a vehicle occupied by African Americans) Northampton County Probation Department Scott Hoke (parole officer) 610.559.7211 610.559.7218 (as Cummings' parole officer for a minor infraction years earlier, Hoke had told Cummings that parole was a waste of time for such a trivial offense. However, after being interviewed by the Secret Service, Hoke did an about face and began referring to Cummings as a very dangerous criminal who needed to be in prison for a long time.) Harrisburg Parole Office Ralph Bigley 717.787.2563 717.772.3534 Mr. Bigelow 717.787.5699 Northampton County Courthouse (main) 610.559.3000 Judge Panella 610.515.0830 610.515.0832 US District Court, Philadelphia (main) 215.597.2995 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Judge Marjorie Rendell 215.597.3015 215.580.2393 Judge Jay C. Waldman 215.597.9644 215.580.2155 Judge Charles B. Smith 215.597.0421 215.597.6125 Assistant U.S. Attorney Anne Whatley Chain, Esq. 215.451.5282 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Special Agent Thomas L. Varney U.S. Secret Service (main) 215.597.0600 215.597.2435 Room 7236 Federal Building 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (Varney was the key factor in having Ed Cummings imprisoned since March of 1995. It was he who convinced Det. John Morris that Cummings' possession of electronic components and certain books and magazines made him a danger to society. His testimony stands out in its incredible assessment of Cummings as nothing short of a terrorist and his ability, as a representative of one of the nation's most powerful agencies, to convince others in law enforcement that Cummings belongs in prison with the most dangerous and most violent of criminals.) Every one of these people has the power to do something. Please contact them and convince them to take an interest! Pennsylvania Elected Officials Governor: Tom Ridge (717) 787-5962 governor@state.pa.us Senators: Arlen Specter (R) (202) 224-4254 senator_specter@specter.senate.gov Rick Santorum (R) (202) 224-6324 senator@santorum.senate.gov Representatives: 1st District Thomas Foglietta (D) (202) 225-4731 2nd District Chaka Fattah (D) (202) 225-4001 3rd District Robert Borski (D) (202) 225-8251 4th District Ron Klink (D) (202) 225-2565 5th District William Clinger (R) (202) 225-5121 6th District Tim Holden (D) (202) 225-5546 7th District Curt Weldon (R) (202) 225-2011 curtpa7@hr.house.gov 8th District James Greenwood (R) (202) 225-4276 9th District Bud Shuster (R) (202) 225-2431 10th District Joseph McDade (R) (202) 225-3731 11th District Paul Kanjorski (D) (202) 225-6511 kanjo@hr.house.gov 12th District John Murtha (D) (202) 225-2065 murtha@hr.house.gov 13th District Jon Fox (R) (202) 225-6111 jonfox@hr.house.gov 14th District William Coyne (D) (202) 225-2301 15th District Paul McHale (D) (202) 225-6411 mchale@hr.house.gov 16th District Robert Walker (R) (202) 225-2411 pa16@hr.house.gov 17th District George Gekas (R) (202) 225-4315 18th District Mike Doyle (D) (202) 225-2135 19th District Bill Goodling (R) (202) 225-5836 20th District Frank Mascara (D) (202) 225-4665 21st District Phil English (R) (202) 225-5406 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 96 15:47:45 +0300 From: daemon@ANON.PENET.FI Subject: File 4--Anon.penet.fi is closed! Due to both the ever-increasing workload and the current uncertain legal status of the privacy of e-mail in Finland, I have now closed down this service until further notice. For now, you can still mail NON-ANONYMOUSLY to existing anXXXXX@anon.penet.fi users using the naXXXXX@anon.penet.fi address convention, so that you might establish another way to communicate with people you only know by their anon.penet.fi address, but news postings and anonymous mail is not supported. To use the non-anonymous forwarding service, you have to modify the anon address by swapping the first two letters (an to na, standing for Not Anonymous), so that an123456@anon.penet.fi becomes na123456@anon.penet.fi. But remember that your address will *not* be removed - this method is only intended as a stop-gap to enable you to establish another way of communicating with the people you only know by their anon.penet.fi addresses. If you feel that the service has been valuable, you can send a letter of support to support@anon.penet.fi, and likewise, if you feel it is a good thing the remailer has gone off the air, you can use the address against@anon.penet.fi to outline your reasons. As people always ask me why anyone would need a service such as anon.penet.fi, I am collecting case stories at why@anon.penet.fi. I have now maintained this service for over 3 years, and as there have appeared a number of other similar, reliable and well maintained servers, I feel we have reached a situation where the current anon.penet.fi server can be retired. Thank you for a very interesting time on the net! Julf P.S.: More info and the full press release on http://www.penet.fi/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 08:34:37 -0500 From: Charles Stanford Subject: File 5--Press Release on anon.penet.fi closing PRESS RELEASE 30.8.1996 Johan Helsingius closes his Internet remailer Johan Helsingius has decided to close his Internet remailer. The so-called anon.penet.fi anonymous remailer is the most popular remailer in the world, with more than half a million users. "I will close down the remailer for the time being because the legal issues governing the Internet in Finland are yet undefined. The legal protection of the users needs to be clarified. At the moment the privacy of Internet messages is judicially unclear." The idea of an anonymous remailer is to protect the confidentiality of its users' identity. The remailer itself does not store messages but serves as a channel for message transmission. The remailer forwards messages without the identity of the original sender. Finland is one of the leading countries in Internet usage. Therefore all decisions and changes made in Finland arouse wide international interest. "I have developed and maintained the remailer in my free time for over three years now. It has taken up a lot of time and energy. Internet has changed a lot in these three years - now there are dozens of remailers in the world, which offer similar services. I have also personally been a target because of the remailer. Unjustified accusations affect both my job and my private life", says Johan Helsingius. The closing of the remailer will raise a lot of discussion among the Internet community. "Remailers have made it possible for people to discuss very sensitive matters, such as domestic violence, school bullying or human rights issues anonymously and confidentially on the Internet. The closing of anon.penet.fi will make it harder to discuss these matters.", says Helsingius. Child porn claims proven false Last Sunday's issue of the English newspaper Observer claimed that the remailer has been used for transmitting child pornography pictures. The claims have been investigated by the Finnish police. Observer's claims have been found groundless. Police sergeant Kaj Malmberg from the Helsinki Police Crime Squad is specialized in investigating computer crimes. He confirms that more than a year ago Johan Helsingius restricted the operations of his remailer so that it cannot transmit pictures. "The true amount of child pornography on the Internet is difficult to assess, but one thing is clear: We have not found any cases where child porn pictures were transmitted from Finland", Kaj Malmberg says. Basic rules need to be clarified There are several significant projects going on in Finland at the moment that deal with the impact of information technology. Johan Helsingius is a participant in both the [1]TIVEKE project run by the Ministry of Communications and the [2]Information Society Forum project run by the Ministry of Finance. These projects assess the political and social issues of networks and the impact of information technology. However, these projects need the support of practical, down-to-earth work to highlight current problems and suggest possible solutions. Johan Helsingius has taken an initiative to set up a working group to discuss the practical problems related to ethical and civil rights issues in connection with the Internet. "I will try to set up a task force which will include Internet experts together with representatives of civic organizations and public authorities. The group could suggest ways to deal with problems such as the lack of guidelines in applying the existing laws on the Internet. I hope that the results of this work will support the development of the network", he says. For further information, please contact Johan Helsingius Oy Penetic Ab e-mail: [3]Julf@Penet.FI ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 19:47:45 +0200 From: Hari Kunzru Subject: File 6--"Wired UK" response to Observer Article Review Editor, Wired UK, from Public Netbase, Vienna, Austria (www.t0.or.at) **** BEGINS **** Dear Will Hutton Your cover splash on paedophilia and the Internet last week was a disgrace to the traditions of liberal, intelligent journalism that I and others have always looked for in The Observer - a tradition of telling the truth and serving the public. It was a disservice to your readers, an affront to those of us who care about the future of the Internet - and a setback to the cause of fighting the brutalisation and molestation of children. Your piece implies that companies which provide full access to the Usenet newsgroups on the Internet - in particular Demon - are willing links in a chain of pederasty. It suggests that if the strictures being urged on these providers by the Clubs and Vice Unit of the Metropolitan Police were heeded, and these companies took data from various Internet newsgroups off their machines, then the problem would be eased. It does not mention that the Met's list of newsgroups is a mixed bunch, some of which (for example, alt.homosexual) are not pornographic. The truth of the matter is that such a change would achieve little if anything. Full newsgroup access is currently available from hundreds of machines all over the world, all of them accessible through all Internet providers. So as a pragmatic measure in the fight against child abuse, removing them from the computers of British companies is futile. It is hard to understand as anything other than a gesture - a threatening one, designed to show that the police can shut down newsgroups without any need to show cause or prove a case. The argument that Demon and many other Internet providers are making is that the law should recognise that they are not responsible for information that is accessed through their computers. In this, they ask for the same treatment that phone companies and post offices get. Your article quoted DCI French of the Clubs and Vice unit saying that "Morally you cannot adopt this position." If this is the case, why not put a director of BT on your front page with the caption "Millionaire behind the sordid phone sex business". Behind the Internet business, too, for that matter - the system uses BT's lines. Are you saying that BT is responsible, too? Obviously not. Paedophiles are responsible for paedophilia - not telecoms companies or Internet providers. But your article chose to ignore this and look elsewhere - at Demon and at Johan Helsingius, who runs a non-profit computer system in Finland which puts computer files on to the Internet without any sign of their original provenance. This is a service with many uses. It helps in anonymous counselling, it helps in whistle-blowing. You claim that it is used for 90% of the Internet's child porn - a claim for which I could see no credible support. Mr Helsingius stops messages going to newsgroups that have been brought to his attention as likely to carry child pornography. His system can be accessed by policemen who go to the trouble of getting a warrant (and the Finnish police do not think that there is a child porn problem in the system). It retransmits only short text files, extraordinarily poorly suited to imagery. And it cannot in itself be used, as your article suggests, to participate in anything "live" or "interactive". In short, the article on your front page and its companion inside are shoddy work. When evidence from the Internet is not available, they bring forward the use paedophiles make of videos and magazine photographs - thus underlining the crucial point that the Internet is not the cause of all this. The truth of the matter is that networks of pederasts existed prior to, and independently of, the Internet. Much of the current outrage comes from the fact that the Internet is revealing new aspects of this unhappy state of affairs. And those who look beyond a knee-jerk shoot-the-messenger response see that the Internet can in fact be used to fight the scourge. The Dutch police, rather than attacking the companies that provide access to the Internet, are using the Internet as a way of finding child pornography. They are establishing web sites and hotlines whereby people can help them in this work. When they find perpetrators in their jurisdiction, they prosecute. They are eager that other police forces work with them in exploring these avenues. The position The Observer took last week will not bring about an end to paedophile crimes. It will instead usher in a new era of arbitrary censorship and surveillance. You vilify Johan Helsingius for reposting anonymous messages. Presumably then you would applaud if he read all of the messages which passed through his machine and deleted those which he disapproved of? And you would encourage other media -- like Demon, the Royal Mail and BT -- to do the same? You vilify Demon for not immediately banning the newsgroups as requested by Scotand Yard. Presumably then you are happy that Scotland Yard should draw up lists of material which it deems unsuitable for public consumption and enforce them without judicial, political or public review? In your other articles, you document real evidence of real suffering caused by this disgusting trade. These offer real constructive ways of fighting this evil: combating child-sex tourism, tracking down paedophiles themselves, creating an intelligent debate about images of children in the mainstream media. In attacking Internet service providers you not only endanger freedom of expression on a nascent medium - a freedom about which many care passionately. You also take people attention away from the real problem, which is attacking the practising paedophiles. Mr Hutton, I'm not blind to the fact that people use the Internet to distribute revolting material the creation of which is clearly criminal. It is something that a lot of people, online as well as off, want to do something about. But it's not Demon's business or Demon's fault. It's not something that the Met's cosmetic censorship strategy will change. It's not why Mr Helsingius does what he does. And it's not something that journalism like this will stop. Sincerely Oliver Morton Editor Wired UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:36:28 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: File 7--London Observer replies (9/1/96) (fwd) From--mlissa3379@aol.com (Mlissa3379) Newsgroups--alt.censorship Subject--Re--Against PICS and Internet Censorship The Observer today published an editorial in response to their articles last week. Comment, for or against? The Observer, 1 September, 1996 Editorial comment In a philosophical tangle over the Net THERE ARE two substantial objections to the story and comment that we ran last week over the transmission of paedophile material on the Internet, which aroused a fierce response on both sides. The first is philosophical. No state or regulatory intervention can be justified in the free world of cyberspace. The Internet is the embodiment of individual liberty. The second is technical. The Observer betrayed a lack of understanding of the Internet - how it works and how impossible, even self-defeating, any form of regulation might be. Given the millions of transactions that occur daily across national boundaries, cyberspace cannot be successfully regulated. Worse, the anonymous servers that might be used by sexual deviants can also be used, for example, by victims of political persecution. This is much more complex than we indicated. The philosophical issue is comparatively simple. Freedom of expression in civil society is qualified by rules - over, say, incitement to racial hatred or sexual indecency. John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty, accepted the need for constraints of this type on individual freedom; even this ardent defender of liberty recognised it cannot be an absolute. The Internet is emerging as a major cultural and communications force; its freedoms must be protected even while it conforms to the same democratically established rules as apply in normal society. The effectiveness of intervention is more difficult. We report today on some ideas. Service providers can adopt codes of practice and patrol their web sites more intensively; regulatory agencies can establish hotlines to which users can report illegal material (such a scheme is already up and running in the Netherlands); and there is the international cybercop unit established last week by the World Congress against the sexual exploitation of children. New legal obligations might have to be accepted by service providers. The Observer is on the side of the Internet, but against the abuse that succours the sexual exploitation of children. Those who say taking such a position is absurd, because of the nature of the Internet, should pause. If so, what future is there for our civilisation? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:08:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Noah Subject: File 8--British Hacker ("The Squidge") Arrested (fwd) From -Noah ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:26:00 -0500 From--Frosty ------------------------------------------------------------------- C Y B E R - S P A C E P R O J E C T Email List / Instructions at the end ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nexus ::: bibble@madrab.demon.co.uk Cap'n B at Rabbit Solutions, UK ENGLAND: The Squidge was arrested at his home yesterday under the Computer Misuse Act. A long standing member of the US group the *Guild, Squidge was silent today after being released but it appears no formal charges will be made until further interviews have taken place. Included in the arrest were the confiscation of his computer equipment including two Linux boxes and a Sun Sparc. A number of items described as 'telecommunications devices' were also seized as evidence. Following the rumours of ColdFire's recent re-arrest for cellular fraud this could mean a new crackdown on hacking and phreaking by the UK authorities. If this is true, it could spell the end for a particularly open period in h/p history when notable figures have been willing to appear more in public. We will attempt to release more information as it becomes available. (not posted by Squidge) -- Brought to you by The NeXus..... * sotmesc@datasync.com aka ---* Frosty, ilKhan of the SotMESC * To send a submission, use this address with 'CSP' in the Subject line * Thanks to: Voyager, 2600, LOD, Knight Lightning, the Unabomber, etc * for supporting us with our scholarship fund and humanity award. * Finger SotMESC or http://www.datasync.com/sotmesc/gcms ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--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) 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 #8.64 ************************************