Computer underground Digest Sun Aug 13, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 67
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.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
CONTENTS, #7.67 (Sun, Aug 13, 1995)
File 1--Who Else is Reading your Email?
File 2--Fighting obscenity on the Net
File 3--Communication*Human Rights*CfP (fwd)
File 4--pro-exon transcript (fwd)
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 19:25:49 -0400
From: kkc@INTERLOG.COM(K.K. Campbell)
Subject: File 1--Who Else is Reading your Email?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye WEEKLY June 29 1995
Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eye.NET eye.NET
WHO ELSE IS READING YOUR EMAIL?
Part 1 of a 2-part series on PGP
by
K.K. CAMPBELL
I recently conducted an overseas interview with a "computer security
person at a highly sensitive facility." Mr. Security explained that the
potential misuse of the computer resources of this site was a serious
concern, a danger to thousands. This instilled in him a peppery dash of
paranoia about who was using what machine for what purpose.
In discussing this, the name of a certain, rather net.famous individual
arose. I was surprised to learn this individual was well-known in
international security circles. This individual is considered a "risk."
I was informed that this person's email is "monitored."
To spell it out: people were reading and collecting all the email the
"risk" wrote. Without the target's knowledge. Without any form of
warrant.
Most netters think such intrusion involves someone "hacking a
password." Wrong. When you hit the "send" command for email, your
missive seems to (poof!) magically appear in the recipient's mailbox.
Person to person. The ultimate intimacy. Wrong again. Email is actually
passed through a number of computers. The operator of one of those
machines can effortlessly read your email. Any one who "breaks into"
such a machine can inspect your mail. Once in, they can tamper with
files so that all your email is copied to another location, without you
being aware of it.
But not everyone wants to "break into" a computer. In the above case,
email was copied "in transit." When email is transferred from machine
to machine, it is made readable. So if you intercept a copy (through
"sniffers"), you can read it. Everything this individual had written
over the last couple of years has apparently been intercepted and read.
His file is huge.
With Canada news media in a tizzy about "regulating the net," how long
before CSIS requests funds to start collecting posts with buzzwords in
the network data flow?
POSTCARDS
It should be the first lesson every newbie learns: email ain't secure.
An email is like a postcard: it travels through the many sets of hands
in delivery and any set of hands can read it if so inclined. Most
postal employees don't, for two reasons: there is so much mail they
haven't the time, and most postcards are so boring, who the hell wants
to?
The same goes with the system administrators who oversee the shunting
around of all your cyberscribbling. Most don't snoop, but some do. Need
I remind you that, er, sysadmins are not a monolithically
mature-and-well-adjusted breed imbued with highly developed moral
principles...
What can you, the lowly downtrodden, rights-less end-user, do? You have
three strategies:
-- no precautions: who cares if anyone reads what you write/receive;
-- minimal coding, easy to crack, but enough to stop casual snoops --
kind of like "virtual envelopes"; and
-- PGP.
PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy -- a humble title to be sure,
considering that the U.S. government/military wants to ban the thing.
And why? Because PGP has the power to thwart their zillion-dollar spy
efforts by imbuing everyday folk with the cryptographic might of the
best "puzzle palaces" around the world.
The elegantly powerful encryption device is the offspring of Colorado
resident Phil Zimmermann (prz@acm.org). He basically took all the (very
public) papers on cryptography, stirred it together and voil=E1: instant
"threat to democracy" -- if you buy the government/military propaganda.
(More on Zimmermann and the cryptographic spook backlash next issue
[below].)
What PGP does is solve that decades old spy/cryptography dilemma: How
can one send secure messages to absolute strangers over an insecure
medium?
PGP exploits two historical developments:
-- home computers gave commoners the computational power to use the
sophisticated cryptography algorithms; and
-- the advent of public key encryption in the late '70s bade
farewell to Ilya Kuryakin and Napoleon Solo.
Computers were originally designed (back in World War II) to be
sophisticated code breakers. Today, government/military bureaucracy
(especially in the U.S.) still operate with that attitude: computer
cryptography is a military weapon.
In those Cold War days, the only way to send secure messages over
insecure channels (telegraphs, phones, mail, etc.) was to first
deliver a "cryptographic key" via secure channels. The key was
something like a little code book; the secure delivery channel was
usually a dour-faced courier with a black bag handcuffed to his wrist.
"Deliver this or die doing so, 007..."
BE AN INTERNATIONAL ARMS DEALER!
Governments and mega-corps could afford to send satchel-toting couriers
overseas, but us proles had little hope of doing that. So citizens were
always vulnerable to mail-opening, phone-tapping spooks.
PGP uses two keys -- a public key and a secret key. Anyone can use your
public key to encrypt a message to you, and only you can then decrypt
it with your secret key. As long as your secret key remains secret, no
one can read that message -- not even the person who encrypted. The
idea is to spread your public key around in Key Exchanges, like phone
books.
For details on this complex subject, try _PGP: Pretty Good Privacy_ by
Simson Garfinkel (O'Reilly & Assoc., http://www.ora.com, $29.95 paper).
Or _The Computer Privacy Handbook_ (Peachpit Press,
http://www.peachpit.com/peachpit, $31.95 paper). Both go beyond
technical details and delve into the sociopolitical issues around
privacy.
Where can you get PGP? All around the world. PGP is freeware -- you can
use it endlessly without cost. But remember: The U.S. State Department
export restrictions classify cryptographic materials to be munitions.
Exporting it from the U.S. is a serious matter. For those uninterested
in becoming international arms smugglers, do an Archie search for "PGP"
or try Toronto's Interlog at ftp://ftp.interlog.com/pub/pgp . Read
newsgroups alt.security.pgp and sci.crypt for discussions.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 16:26:01 -0700
From: Alexander Chislenko <sasha1@netcom.com>
Subject: File 2--Fighting obscenity on the Net
As a father of a 12yo child I was very happy to see the Exon bill
pass. This finally prohibits indecent content and obscene words in
any computer messages and documents accessible to minors.
Being a good citizen I decided to be vigilant and assist the
government in identifying the sources of obscene messages on the Net.
The results of my research were horrifying!!!
I found that many supposedly innocent messages posted to unsuspecting
people contain VERY OBSCENE words.
For example, one message on the PUBLIC newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures"
enticingly titled "Take a look at this one" contains the following line:
MJ+5K!H+G7SHIT6[U75EFN=8N=3OM?T^\UZW$%QI^K>([B"WTIX/AF672?A;J
****
As you can see, the obscene foul word that can inflict serious
psychological damage upon innocent children and cause them to engage in
untimely physical activities, is put into the VERY MIDDLE of this message
and is even CAPITALIZED!!!
To my complete horror, I found lots of obscene words in the messages of
practically every "binaries" newsgroup. I also discovered them in many
executable files, object libraries, and graphics and movie files ON EVERY
COMPUTER I CHECKED!!!
As a computer professional, I suggest that censoring output filters
should be added to all existing compilers, graphic packages, encoding
programs, and random number generators, that would remove obscene words
from the output of these programs.
I expect that this measure would be very good for the economy, as it
should create thousands of new jobs in the computer industry.
I am sure that the resulting little glitches in functioning of software
are a small price to pay for the protection of the souls of our children.
Yours in Child protection,
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 01:02:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 3--Communication*Human Rights*CfP (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Journal of International Communication [June 1998 issue]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Special Issue on Communication, Human Rights and Civil Society
Issue editors: Howard H. Frederick and Naren Chitty
DEADLINE: Ongoing through December 1, 1997
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[KEYWORDS: Freedom of expression, opinion, press; Right to communi-
cate; Local cable/TV/radio; Computer networks and new multimedia tech-
nologies; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Global Information
Infrastructure; (tele)communication policy; Protection of human rights.]
Proposals and articles accepted in French, German, Spanish!
This special issue of the _Journal of International Communication_
commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights with a discussion of the evolving right to communicate
within the context of the emergence of global civil society. It is
devoted to an exploration of real-world and theoretical constructs,
policies, and practices. Articles that combine such kinds of
analysis, and also provide comparative or "global" perspectives, are
particularly welcome. Contributions are invited from across and among
(and outside) academic disciplines and will be refereed by at least
three referees.
The human rights of communication are central to national and
international law. Perhaps the oldest human right of all, FREEDOM OF
OPINION was first guaranteed in Ancient Greece. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
was enshrined only in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights. In 1789,
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution first guaranteed FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS. Now, in the Information Age, one crucial component may
be missing in the law: the RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE, or access to media
distribution channels which are controlled by markets and governments.
Possible foci include, but are not limited to, the following
questions:
** What is the impact of global NGO/citizen/community communication
networks via computer on the protection and evolution of human
rights?
** What is the relation of civil society and human rights within the
dominant marketplace and government systems?
** What is the right to communicate? What are the points of
difference among theoretical standpoints?
** How do the human rights of communication help us interpret
(demystify?) the new global communication order? Globalization
process? New forms of social movements and global politics? Old
forms of international relations?
** How does the concept of "global civil society" help us theorize
about contemporary global flows of cultural products?
** How does NGO/citizen/community communication defend and protect
other human rights? Contribute to global solidarities? Local
politics? National identities?
** What are civil society's own forms of communication networking,
and how effective are they?
** What role is communication and civil society in helping us to
envision and construct global futures? In this respect, how does
global civil society communication influence, modify existing
actors or help create alternative actors, in global affairs, to
states, international regimes and organizations, non-governmental
organizations and transnational corporations?
Howard Frederick, Emerson College, USA hfrederick@igc.apc.org
Proposals and Abstracts may be sent to and "Notes for Contributors"
requested from the Guest Editor at hfrederick@igc.apc.org (Emerson
College, 100 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02116. Fax: +1-617-578-8804)
Completed articles should be sent, in the form described in "Notes..."
to the Managing Editor at the address provided below.
The Journal of Communication is a refereed journal. The JIC Editorial
Advisory Board currently includes: Hussein Amin (Egypt); Sarath
Amunugama (Sri Lanka); Kwame Boafa (UNESCO); Ron Burnett (Canada);
Kuan- Hsing Chen (Taiwan); Naren Chitty (Australia); Leonard Chu
(Australia); Chua Siew Keng (Australia); Eddie C. Y. Kuo (Singapore);
David Crookall (USA); Simon During (Australia); Howard Frederick
(USA); George Gerbner (USA); Peter Golding (Britain); Shelton
Gunaratne (USA); Cees Hamelink (Holland); Hyeon-Dew Kang (South
Korea); Youicho Ito (Japan); Alex Ivaanikov (Russia); Karol Jacobowicz
(Poland); Meheroo Jussawalla (USA); Michael Kunczik (Germany); Tuen-yu
Lau (USA); Glen Lewis (Australia); P. Eric Louw (South Africa); Ernest
Martin Jr. (Hong Kong); Armand Mattelart (France); Jose Marques de
Melo (Brazil); Tom McPhail (USA); Bella Mody (USA); Frank Morgan
(Australia); Hamid Mowlana (USA); P. Murari (India); Lalita
Rajasingham (New Zealand); Colleen Roach (USA); Roland Robertson
(USA); Everett Rogers (USA); Florangel Rosairo-Braid (Philippines);
Brian Shoesmith (Australia); John Sinclair (Australia); Colin Sparks
(Britain); Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi (Britain); P.Subramaniam
(India); Gerald Sussman (USA); Majid Tehranian (USA); Luke Uche
(Nigeria)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
MANAGING EDITOR: Dr N. J. Chitty; ADDRESS: c/o International
Communication Program, Media and Communication Department; Macquarie
University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, AUSTRALIA; E-mail:
nchitty@pip.engl.mq.edu.au Voice: 612-850-8725; Fax: 612-850-8240.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 01:31:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 4--pro-exon transcript (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Beverly LaHaye Live
"A Ministry of Concerned Women for America"
Monday, June 12, 1995
As heard on KCIS AM-630
Seattle, Washington
BEVERLY LAHAYE: BL
JIM WOODALL: JW
PATRICK TRUMAN: PT
BL: Pornography is an $8 billion a year industry with more outlets in America
than there are McDonald's. But now they've gone high-tech in their attempts
to reach a wider audience. Our guest today has valuable information on how
you can protect your family. So stay with us.
[Intro music]
BL: And thanks to the Information Superhighway, pornography could be
invading your home without you even knowing it. The challenge for parents
today is finding ways to keep their children from being exposed to these
vulgar influences.
JW: Here today with us to give us some helpful advice is Patrick Truman,
he's the director of government affairs for the American Family Association.
BL: And welcome Patrick Truman to our program today.
PT: Thank you, Beverly and Jim.
BL: It's a delight to have you; I can't say it's a delight to discuss what
we have to discuss, but we're happy to have you here to talk about it.
PT: Thank you, and I think it's an issue that parents need to know about.
BL: Absolutely. Any parent that hears about this - and many for the first
time - are just appalled that this has been going on _in their homes_ and
they've had no idea. Well, let's start at the beginning here; is
computerized pornography really that big of a problem, and how widespread is
it?
PT: Well, it's a very big problem; I would say this. I spent seven years at
the Justice Department in the office that prosecuted pornography. And
earlier this year, we got lots of pornographers, the big names; Al Tumbarger
in jail, Farris Alexander, Ruben Sturman, etc., many of them are still out
there, a lot of work needs to be done; but a few months, Beverly, Senator
Exon introduced a bill to control pornography on the Internet, and I didn't
know anything about the Internet. So I took it upon myself to learn how you
get this stuff, so that I could help craft the bill because I had met with
him, and said I would. But, when I found out how easy available [sic] it is
to anyone with a computer, even children, I realized that everybody we did
for seven years at the Justice Department was for naught; the future of
pornography isn't the seedy, smut-filled shops; it is your home computer.
BL: And how many homes have computers, how many children today are computer
smart?
PT: Much better than their parents...
BL: That's right! And they know how to get at that, and they teach one
another. Well, we all hear about the development of an information
superhighway, and do you expect that this will become a bigger issue in the
days ahead?
PT: Yes, and I think it's a much bigger issue than people are aware of
today, I mean, the people who understand the computer are for the most part
all on the Information Superhighway. If you have a rudimentary knowledge of
computers, it's very easy to get on the Information Superhighway, and what
is that? Well, it's a highway, literally, from your computer to _every other
computer in the world_. A pedophile who would sexually molest a child, his
computer is similarly equipped; a pornography shop in the Netherlands is
similarly equipped; it's just a means of getting anywhere in the world, via
computer, which is hooked to a phone line.
BL: What kind of pornography is really available through the Internet?
PT: Well, I was shocked. I've been in the worst pornography shops in
Manhattan, downtown New York, on investigations, and anything I saw there
was available on the Internet. And it's not only pictures, which come to
your screen in television and movie quality - and of course if you have the
right equipment, you can print it off on your color printer - but it is
also videotapes, it is sexual sounds, it's hard to believe that people would
record sexual acts and put them on the Internet, and you can download them,
you can bring them to your computer if your computer has sounds, which most
do; it is anything. Animal sex, group sex, Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler all
have areas on the Internet where you can dial in and look at all their
pornographic images.
BL: You know we've just recently heard in the news some examples of what's
happening to children as a result of this kind of porn on the computers.
PT: Children are being solicited by computer, and the one way they do it,
the pornography's available, the kids download or take from the Internet
this computer pornography, and then they talk back and forth with the person
who put it up there, and pretty soon the person says, "Hey, I've got a whole
collection, would you like to come over to my house, and you can have
whatever you want." The kid gets there, and he's molested.
BL: You know, a real example, is just recently, Daniel Montgomery, a
15-year-old boy from Seattle, Washington believed he might be gay, and
through America OnLine, an interactive Bulletin Board Service, he began
chatting with a homosexual man in San Francisco. And when this man sent him
a _bus ticket_, Daniel then ran away from home and was missing for _two
weeks_, and was found by the police and returned to his parents, this last
week; and this is because of the computer!
PT: Yes. And this is just a reported case. How many go unreported?
BL: Yes! Well, we've got another example, a 13-year-old little girl named
Tara Noble is presently missing from Louisville, Kentucky and police believe
she left to meet someone she was chatting with through America OnLine. This
man left sexual [sic] explicit messages for Tara, inviting her to come and
live with him.
PT: See, you're identifying a problem that is very much related to
pornography, it's these obscene conversations that you can have - worldwide
conversations, you can talk to someone in Australia, in the Netherlands,
wherever, and have a _terrible_ conversation. There are no age limits. And,
uh, it's all...
JW: Pat, address that person that's listening right now that says, well, I
may have a home computer, but I don't have access to that, I don't have a
modem, or, so, why, how's that going to affect my family. Why should I care?
PT: Well, of course, even if your computer is not equipped, your neighbor's
computer probably is, your school computer is, I had a high school librarian
in Seattle, Washington call me the other day because she dialed in, to - you
can get what's called the Internet Yellow Pages, you buy it, and it tells
you how to get to all these locations, and if you dial in the location they
tell you for US Government, Executive Branch, Clinton Cabinet, you dial that
in you get obscene work, after obscene work, after obscene work. She said, I
was getting this for the kids! It is so available, but, to address someone's
home computer, uh, I used to say, just watch whatever your kids are looking
at there, but now, after being aware of what's on the _Internet_ and how
people will _solicit_, and try to _take_ your _kids_, put all this vile
pornography on, _I_ tell parents, _don't_ have that computer located in a
place in the house where you can't readily see it, and _don't_ have it near
a phone line, because this is all transacted by plugging your computer into
a phone line. And every computer is equipped with that. But don't have it
near a place where you can plug it in unless you, as the parent, move it to
that location. But if you have this in your kid's room, in your den, in the
basement, and you're not there, your kids can likely get this material. And
here's what's important; the pornographers and the people who talk this way,
obscene ways on the computer, they want it that way. They _want your kid
alone_.
JW: And isn't that kind of normal? I mean, if you're going to use the
computer to be isolated someplace, is that, is that normal?
PT: Well, perhaps. People don't have it in their living rooms. I would
suggest the kitchen's a fine place for it. Unfortunately, until we get this
problem solved, and you're not allowed to _have_ this material...
BL: But see now the parent who doesn't have a computer in their home still
can't rest at ease, because, what about their child's friends?
PT: That's right.
BL: And they go over to Johnny's house to spend the afternoon, and Johnny's
got a computer and knows how to enter all this, and here these two boys
_play_ with this kind of _porn_!
JW: That, and the fact they can print it out, and take it to school and
distribute it to their [sic] kids!
BL: Well, the porn industry says the first amendment guarantees their right
to sell and distribute this kind of material; would you address that for a
moment, please?
PT: Well, when I was at the Department of Justice, I think we convicted, had
120 conventions, and they all said the same; I have a right to distribute
this. And they can say that in jail today. But the fact is the Supreme Court
has said that hard core pornography - that is, the material that is, uh,
well, I don't want to be very explicit here, but hard-core showing sex acts,
or lascivious exhibition of the private parts of an individual, that is not
protected speech. That is not protected speech. It never has been, and I
believe it never will be. Our constitution doesn't provide protection for
that, and it doesn't provide protection for child pornography. But you know,
it isn't just this hard-core material, or child pornography that is
available on the Internet. Material that is soft-core is very attractive to
children; Playboy magazine, they know that, Playboy knows that, and they put
theirs for free to the kids on the Internet. Not just the kids, but to
anyone, but they know it's the kids that are getting it.
BL: It was Attorney General Janet Reno who tried to undermine the Federal
law against child pornography; do you think we can expect to see the Clinton
Administration's help on this issue?
PT: Well, actually, on this issue of computer pornography, in the effort to
draft a good law on Capital Hill, the Clinton administration has a correct
position. And I attribute that to the staff of my old office, I don't take
credit, but the staff lawyers there who have taken this issue on and forced
this position in the Justice Department, and I credit all the people who
blasted Janet Reno a year ago when she tried to undermine the child
pornography - she's learned her lesson, Beverly, and your group is as much
involved as anyone else.
BL: Well, we did some programs on it here...
JW: So you're saying that Janet Reno's position is solid on this.
PT: Absolutely solid. Now they haven't done many cases, and I think they can
be faulted for that, although I am assured they will do cases, but I'm
really looking for getting the right law so that when the right people who
are very aggressive on this issue get back to the Justice Department - I
hate to say Republicans, since it isn't only Republicans - but if the [sic]
Republican administration got in, I think you'd see that war on pornography
start again. And this is the future of the pornography industry; it is the
Internet.
BL: Has anyone prosecuted a computer pornography case yet?
PT: Yes, there is one case, that this Clinton administration under Janet
Reno has prosecuted, down in Memphis, Tennessee. They used the current law,
which doesn't specifically spell out the computer pornography is illegal, it
just prohibits hard-core pornography, and the distribution of hard-core
pornography, and that law was used, and in fact, just recently, the - it's a
husband and wife team that were [sic] putting pornography on the Internet.
The husband got three years, the wife got two years and three months. So
it's serious business. But that's only one case; I'd like to see hundreds.
BL: Now, I know our listeners are saying, well, if this is out there, can't
we do something about it? Isn't there legislation that is going to protect
our families? You mentioned Senator Exon has proposed a bill to regulate
computer pornography, and you made a comment. Talk to us a little bit about
the Senator's bill.
PT: The Senator would, his bill would do two things, supposedly; it would
eliminate hard-core pornography from the Internet altogether; and it would
prohibit any pornography, hard or soft, from going to _children_. But the
reason I criticized the Exon bill, and I've worked with his office since he
first introduced it, is that he would give immunity from prosecution from
the major pornography _profiteers_, and so - it's a little difficult to
explain, but his bill - and I'll be happy to do it, should you want that -
but his bill wouldn't get the job done, it would be useless, I think.
BL: Then we want something that would get the job done. How about Senator
Cote's bill, he's got a proposed bill, is that right?
PT: That's right, Senator Dan Cotes, pro-family champion, his is the
pro-family champion, and it is as worthless as Senator Exon's bill. I've
analyzed it, the Justice Department has analyzed it, they've analyzed it
correctly, he does the same thing, and you have to understand how the
Internet works in order to understand why they're both bad bills.
JW: Well, why don't you take a second, can you tell us how that works?
BL: We don't want to leave our listeners right now in a state of
confusion...
PT: Well, the pornography that is available on the Internet is mostly free,
in a manner of speaking. That is, someone with a computer scans into that
computer - and that's a term many people don't understand, but if you have a
scanning machine, looks like a Xerox machine - and you put on that Xerox
machine, essentially, the pornographic image. And that will put it into your
computer. And then from there they put it on the Internet. They send it from
their computer onto a specific location in the Internet, the pornographic
locations, and there's hundreds of them. So now it is on the Internet. Now,
if I wanted to pull that off, I could do that. But to do that, I have to
have access to the Internet. You buy access to the Internet, with companies
like America OnLine, Prodigy, CompuServe, Netcom. Those are the four biggest
companies out there. I have Netcom. So I subscribe to Netcom. Now they
charge me a fee, based on the amount of time I use their service. And all
their service does is provide access to the Internet. So if I want to get on
my computer, and I click on Netcom, all of a sudden I'm on the Internet. And
then I just merely go to one of the hundreds of locations where there's
pornography, and I click on it, and it comes right to my computer screen.
The person who put that on the Internet didn't charge for it. But _Netcom_,
or America OnLine, or these others, _will_ charge you for the amount of time
that you view it. Or, if you would like to keep that image, you can press a
button and it comes directly into your computer, and then at any time in the
future you can draw it back. But it takes several minutes...
BL: So it stores it right there...
PT: It stores it right there. But it takes several minutes to store it. So,
I may pay in a month $50, $75 to Netcom, if I were interested in
pornography, just to view it. Some people spend hundreds and hundreds of
dollars viewing it, and some of those people are children.
JW: And you're saying that the people that are making the biggest money off
of this are the providers of the online services.
PT: The access providers. Yes. And as I told someone recently in a letter,
it used to be the names of the biggest pornographers in the world were like
Ruben Sturman, who was identified by the Attorney General's commission as
the top pornographer profiteer, the pornographer profiteers today are the
people who give you access to the Internet, Internet [sic]. And they know
that material's there, they know that's why thousands and thousands of
people subscribe every month to their services, that is in order to get
pornography. So the pornography profiteers today are the access providers,
like Netcom, CompuServe, etc.
BL: So you, ah, as I understand it, you would like to have legislation that
really goes after _them_, who are providing it.
PT: I would like legislation that merely says that those who provide the
pornography, or facilitate that, are guilty. And so that would have to be
not only the person who puts that pornography from his collection on the
Internet, but the access provider who gives access to that material. They
knowingly participate in this crime, and they should be prosecuted.
JW: Are there technological ways for them to provide that service, in order,
to, to keep that stuff from being on their network.
PT: _Yes_, there is, and it's sad to see someone from the pro-family
movement arguing the case that there isn't. [Typist's note; Orrin Hatch?]
But for example, the University of Chicago, and their computers, which are
used on the Internet for storage of material, they have found this kind of
material, and they have blocked it up. They will not store any pornography.
Prodigy has blocked out anti-Semitic comments in their chat lines. Well, if
they can block out words that are offensive to words, they can block out
obscene words as well.
BL: Sure they could, yes...
PT: And in any event, just recently, in the last month, there's a
development - and people in these companies have made a big deal about it -
that you can buy software as a parent that will block this material from
coming to your personal computer. So these access providers now say, if you
don't like it in your home, go buy something for 50 bucks that enables you
to block it out. And my position is, if you don't, we don't like it. So
_you_ provide the software that prevents it from coming into my home, or to
_every other_ home, unless someone subscribes to it. And then if it's
illegal material, you shouldn't get it.
BL: You know, Mrs. LaHaye, this sounds very similar to, up in New York, um,
if you order cable television, in your package are some of those pornography
providers for your television. And there's legislature being discussed right
now that would prevent them from doing that, because people don't want to
have to just have it, their choice is, they have pornography or they don't
have cable. And what some pro-family groups up there want to do is get that
stuff off the basic package, so they don't have to deal with it, and I think
that's a logical argument.
PT: Exactly right. But now, what some are arguing, is that these access
providers shouldn't be held liable, criminally liable, if they didn't create
the material, or if they've failed to block it - where does this come from?
I mean, if this is material that is harmful to our kids, where do they get
the right to distribute it? The porn shop of old is going to disappear. The
porn shop is now going to be the computer in your home. And we'd better make
laws that prevent the access providers from profiting off of it. Give them
incentive like we do in the current Federal child pornography law. In 1988,
Ronald Reagan proposed a law to Congress that prohibited child pornography
by computer. He didn't provide any defenses to these companies. And these
same companies, like Netcom, or America OnLine, when they hear about child
pornography that's available on their services, they block it, or they
report it to authorities. And why do they do that? The deterrent effect of
the law. They don't want to be held liable for distributing child
pornography. So it's very difficult to find child pornography out there.
Now, you can find it. But these access providers don't know about it. And
why should we tell them with hard-core pornography or even soft-core
pornography, well, we defend you, you don't have any liability.
BL: Isn't it a shame - I mean, I guess I'm an idealist - that something so
helpful and so new and high-tech as the computer and Internet, that is
serving well many people for good, has now, pornography has found a way to
use _it_, to bring in the evil and this deterioration of our society.
PT: It is terrible, and I've heard these access providers and others who use
the Internet say, well, if you tamper with it, by trying to restrict
pornography, you'll harm the _freedom_ which is on the Internet. But what I
think is a better response is that the more the Internet becomes a red light
district, the more polluted it becomes, the less parents will want their
kinds on it. I wouldn't want my child on it.
BL: No, I wouldn't either... well, Patrick Truman, thanks for being with us
today, to try to explain a very difficult situation and one that a lot of
families don't understand just yet. So I trust that this few moments of
describing it has been of great benefit to our listeners. Thanks for being
with us.
PT: That's for having me.
BL: You know, Concerned Women for America, is really trying to fight against
this kind of immorality, and we stand for decency for the family, and you
know down on Florida, our grass-roots leaders for CWA formed a group called
Citizens Opposing Pornography, so we are out there on the front lines.
JW: Well, all over America, our volunteers have targeted bookstores, X-rated
bookstores, topless bars, other adult-type business, and they've been
involved in the front lines of fighting against this type of thing that
invades communities.
BL: And here in the national office, our legislative staff are up on Capital
Hill encouraging Congress to pass legislation that will _really_ protect our
families and our children.
JW: And we put together an information packet that we're calling the [sic]
Protecting Family Decency. And we'd like to share that with you today,
absolutely free, all you have to do is call 1-800-527-9600.
BL: You know, this packet will give you information that will help you
protect your family from all types of pornography, and it will give you
specific suggestions if you have a home computer and how to protect your
kids. So the Protecting Family Decency packet gives vital facts on how the
porn industry is taking advantage of computers right in your home to spread
their evil message.
JW: It also gives you action items and steps that you can take to make sure
this kind of material doesn't come into your home. So call us right now at
1-800-527-9600 and ask for our free Protecting Family Decency packet.
And now with today's commentary, here's Beverly LaHaye.
[begin editorial music]
BL: Modern ministers have developed a new theology. They say sin isn't
wrong, it's simply genetic. Anglican Bishop Richard Halloway believes the
Church should not condemn affairs; he claims that adultery is caused by our
genetics. The Bishop's theology bears a striking resemblance to homosexual's
[sic] search for a gay gene. And the Justice Department is studying the
brains of prison inmates. They are trying to find a biological link to
violent crime. Doug Walston, a genetic researcher, finds this trend very
alarming, and claims that we should _stop_ this before it gets out of hand.
But it's already out of hand! Genetics has become the modern-day scapegoat
for sin! But God does not accept man's excuses for sin; theologians,
psychologists, and activists try to hide sin behind a genetic code, but God
still says, the wages of sin is death. But there is a way of escape. God
loved us enough to offer his son in payment for our sin. He has offered us
salvation and freedom from sin. All we have to do is repent and accept it.
The world tries to justify sin through genetics, but God brings us his
justification by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. This is Beverly
LaHaye, in Washington.
[end editorial music]
JW: Thank you, Mrs. LaHaye. You know, despite what they say, pornography is
_not_ a victimless crime. Families are being torn apart; the innocence of
children is being violated; women are being raped; and this is because of
pornography!
BL: And that's why Concerned Women for America is working hard to stop these
obscene influences. And when you receive your free Protecting Family Decency
packet, you'll be able to speak out against pornography, even in your
computers, along with us.
JW: [pitch for donations, reiteration of packet offer]
BL: Now let's face it Jim: pornography is destroying many, many young people
in America today. And we want to fight against it. Well, our thanks to
Patrick Truman for helping to draw attention to this very critical issue.
Tomorrow, we'll talk about more ways to defend your family against this
high-tech abuse of morality and decency. You won't want to miss it. From our
nation's capital, I'm Beverly LaHaye.
JW: And I'm Jim Woodall.
BL: Thank you for joining us today.
[End music and standard "out" talk by Janet Parchell - "Help make sure your
Christian Values are represented here in our nation's capitol"]
BL: Thanks to computers, pornography is more available now than ever before.
Does your child have access to porn? Find out tomorrow.
[End music climax and ends]
BL: It's been said that anyone with a home computer and access to the
Internet has a porn shop in their home. Tomorrow, on Beverly LaHaye Live,
we'll show you how to protect your family from these immoral influences.
[Out ad for Lifeline Long Distance, talking about how they do not promote
"special rights for homosexuals" and so on. Standard ad.]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.67
************************************