* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, November, 1995 Edited by: Revolution ------------------- Hackers Forums ------------------- From the editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revolution Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hackers World Wide ------------------- Technology ------------------- Xterm hack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aftermath Beige Boxing in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aftermath Computer fraud laws in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aftermath ------------------- Politics ------------------- The Cyberangels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CuD #7.86 FBI National Wiretap System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim Warren Campaign to Stop the CDA . . . . . . . . . Voters Telecommunications Watch The End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revolution ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- copyright 1995 by Mike Scanlon All articles remain the property of their authors, and may be reprinted with their permission. This zine may be reprinted freely as a whole electronically, for hard copy rights mail the editor. HACKERS is published monthly by Mike Scanlon, to be added to the subscription list or to submit articles mail scanlonr@delphi.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #1 of 9 From the Editor Between carrying four honors courses, pledging a fraternity, working, and trying to go home every once in a while, its been pretty difficult getting this issue together. But here it is, and as you can see, I've changed the format a little bit. This was mostly done to try and split up the technology articles from the political articles, so that those of use who have more of an interest in one or the other will know basically what to scroll through. The other section, Hackers Forums, will consist of monthly columns. Right now all that consists of is this column, and for the first time this month a letters column. In the near future, hopefully by at least January, I'd like to add two more columns, a bug of the month column and a virus of the month column. I would like to see these two columns authored by someone other than myself, as I do not have the time to do either of these subjects the justice they should be done. In other words, I would like to increse the staff here at Hackers from one to at least two, perhaps three. Of course, I could give these authors no financial compensation, the only reward you would have would be seeing your work in a monthly publication. These authors would be required to come up with one virus or security flaw each month, and right a short piece on how it is written or exploited. If anyone is interested, please email me your handle, email address you can be reached at, a short personal bio, and a paragraph on why you deserve to be the virus/bug of the month author. Send all of this to scanlonr@delphi.com, as usual. Things at Hackers have been progressing, albeit slowly. The web page has been grossly neglected, I apologize to everyone for that. Soon Hackers will have an honest to goodness ftp site, thanks to daemon9, at onyx.infonexus.com. My lcoal ACM chapter is still trying to get the equipment to get that BBS up, that will definetly be going up within the next few monthes. So until next month, keep the articles and letters coming in, and hopefully Hackers will continue to grow. - Revolution * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * As always, the standard disclaimer applies. All of these articles are provided for informational purposes only, Mike Scanlon and the respective authors cannot be held accountable for any illegal acts they are used to commit. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #2 of 9 Letters Finally! A letters column! These letters have been accumulated over the past few monthes. I would like to have a letters column again next month, so if you have a question, or something to say about the mag, by all means, write in! From: IN%"I@NEED.YOUR.HELP" 11-OCT-1995 13:44:28.82 To: IN%"scanlonr@delphi.com" I have the following: Keara H. 59 Massari Pueblo Colorado Zipcode = 81001, USA U see I only have the *first letter* of the family name. In France with the street name I know how to get names and phone numbers of ALL THE PEOPLE living in that street I WANT KEARA'S FULL NAME: looks to me like the only way will be to get the phone book of zipcode 81001 and look at all the names beginning with the letter H until I find the right street addr, right? [I would call information at 555-1212, in whatever area code that happens to be, and simply ask the operator the number of that house, and then the last name. In Albany and Newark, at least, they have no problem with giving it out, assuming the number is not unlisted. -Revolution] >From ajs4283@hertz.njit.eduMon Oct 23 21:18:16 1995 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:04:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Anthony J Saunders To: michael r scanlon cis stnt Subject: Re: Hackers #3 BLLLEEEAAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!! BLLLEEEAAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!! BLLLEEEAAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!! BLLLEEEAAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!! BLLLEEEAAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!! just to let you know what I think of ur zine! [This commentary came from my roomate, who being a vegan refuses to eat any animal products. Apparently he has become extremely anemic and disoriented, and wouldn't know a good hacker mag if he fell over it. -Revolution] >From jmcmilla@cycor.caWed Nov 8 15:39:53 1995 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 23:01:19 +0000 From: James McMillan To: mrs3691@hertz.njit.edu Subject: Cool zine you run I am writing you concerning your e-zine HACKERS, I was wonderin what criteria you have to meet to get article in it? Is your e-zine the only hacking zine still in print? Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------- James McMillan jmcmilla@bud.peinet.pe.ca P.E.I. Canada "Don't forget to boogie" Bob "The Bear" Hite ---------------------------------------------------------------- [Just send it in. There aren't really any criteria, anything having to do with H/P will do. Look at back issues if you have any doubts. Check out Issue #2's Security resources article for information about other zines. -Revolution] From: IN%"cshink@lava.net" 24-OCT-1995 13:28:13.75 To: IN%"scanlonr@delphi.com" CC: Subj: Hackers Please add my address, "cshink@lava.net" to your HACKERS mailing list. It's really hard to get CURRENT H/P info, especially local (808) stuff. If you know of other zines like yours around, I'd appreciate it. _________________\|/__________________ ----====cshink@lava.net===---- /|\ [Hmmm...Phrack comes to mind right off the top of my head. At ftp.eff.org they have a good archive of older H/P mags. Check out Hackers #2, the article by Chris Klaus about security resources. As for local 808 stuff, I couldn't be certain. Try posting on your local boards. Which leads to a problem if you don't know of any local boards. How about this...anyone who runs a local H/P BBS, send in an add to be reprinted next month. If you know of anyone who runs one, tell them to send an add in. -Revolution] From: IN%"carbon@inforamp.net" 8-NOV-1995 21:23:45.46 Subj: Very bad shit in Canada I received this today from the "Prez", Very shitty stuff , and a taste of things to come???? I think this smells very bad....very bad indeed.. ---------- Bell Canada is Trying to Destroy ISP's: An open letter to Mr. John T. McLennan, President and CEO, Bell Canada Tuesday November 7th, 1995 Dear Carbon, As you are likely aware by now, Bell Canada is refusing to provide new Centrex III phone lines to Ontario and Quebec ISP's. Further, Bell Canada is attempting to void existing Centrex III agreements and is trying to force upon ISPs a solution that would increase phone costs by approximately 300%. Co-incidentially, Bell Canada intends to announce a rollout of its own residential Internet service within the next 3-4 weeks. If Bell is successful, the cost of Internet access for end users in Ontario and Quebec will likely rise by a minimum of 30% (this was the experience in BC when BC Tel voided contracts). This means that you will be forced to pay more money for Internet access without any incremental gain in value. I have mailed an open letter to Mr. John T. McLennan, President and CEO, Bell Canada expressing our concerns. If you wish to obtain a copy, it may be accessed from our main home page, http://www.idirect.com/belltext.html, and is entitled "John Nemanic's open letter to John T. McLennan, President and CEO of Bell Canada." It is not our intent to demonize Bell since I honestly believe that refusal to provide new Centrex III lines, attempts to dishonour Centrex contracts, and force inferior solutions at 300% of our present cost, is the result of a few senior managers promoting a policy without considering the full implications of their course of action. Generally, I have found that our Bell sales representatives, field staff and engineers to be of very high quality and extremely attentive to customer concerns. It is my fervent hope that they will not be unfairly grouped in with the actions of a few of their so-called 'superiors'. We are not requesting customers, at this time, show their displeasure by participating in the proposed 'Billion Dollar Boycott' of Bell long distance, cellular phone services, equipment etc. We want you to form your own opinion and towards that end, a newly formed ISP association will be mounting a PR and Web campaign to explain our point of view. Indeed, we hope that sanity will prevail and that we can continue to work with Bell Canada to deliver state of the art solutions at an affordable cost to our customers. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, John A. Nemanic MBA, President Internet Direct Canada Inc. ComputerLink Online Inc. Ph (416) 233-7150 E-mail: wolfmstr@idirect.com http://www.idirect.com Ontario's Leading Internet Access Provider and Internet Applications Software Development Firm. ------ _________________________________________________________________ __________ C | a | r | b | o | n | B | o | y My views are not neccesarily those of my ISP and are protected by the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS and Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter F.31] carbon@inforamp.net C o p y R i g h t 1 9 9 5 Member, *The Guild & EFC _________________________________________________________________ ___________ [Once again, big business attempts to take over the internet. I pray to the almighty hacker that it may never happen. - Revolution] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #3 of 9 Xterm Hack By: Aftermath [This file is a uuencoded version of a hack of the magic cookie xterm authorization scheme. Aftermath has informed me that CERT has gotten wind of this, so it may not work in the near future. -Revolution] begin 600 xdm.tar.gz.uue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end * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #4 of 9 Beige Boxing in Australia -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- By: Aftermath Disclamer: This documents, and all the ideas presented are all hypothetical, and for informational purposes only. The author cannot be held responsible for any results which occure from the "practice" and use of any ideas presented. That is to say, this document is only for your "better" understanding of how our telecomunications system works, and to illustrate how easy it is to "abuse" the current system. Notes: The actual process of building a beige box is extremely easy and the instructions are widely available, so rather than write them out myself, you can get them yourself. My recomendation is the one by Revolution. (The USA plans will work fine in Australia!). How To (Beige Box in Australia): This would have to be one of the most simple phield phreaking methods available, and if done correctly, probably one of the safest and with few hastles. The idea behind the beige box is simply to "wire into" someone elses phone line. Despite what you hear, this is VERY simple. In all essence, you are simply putting another telephone on someone's line. There are several ways to attain this goal. You can just attach your phone to the overhead wires (usually done from within trees), attach yourself at the houses socket (climb onto roof whilst the owners are away), climb into The Telecom underground Pits or as I prefure, to use one of the very convenient telecom inspection boxes. Here in is the instructions for the convenient inspection boxes, but it's pretty much the same for the other ways. What to Look For: You've probably all already seen these boxes before, but never given them a second glance (unless your like me). What you want is the little boxes located on some (NOT all) stobie poles (as per diagram 1.1). Their either black, white or cream with the telecom insignia stamped on them. From memory, they're approx 10cm across and 18cm high, and usually easily accessible (just above the ground or chest hight :). They're made of plastic, and the only thing holding the sliding lid shut is a single phillips-head screw. [Diagram 1.1] <--- Stobie Pole <-------- PVC Piping holding Wires Black, White or Cream Box -----> 0<-------- Telecum Insignia Single Phillips-Head Screw ------->. How to Connect your Box: Well, just grab your Beige Box and a phillips-head screwdriver (just a bit bigger than the ones used on computers) and go find a box (usually one per block, at least in my area anyway). After removing the lid (by sliding it upwards), you should see a mess of wires (red, green and black) which are paired together at the top of the box by small plastic clips (or sometimes just tape) and telecum (I fucking hate this jelly shit!). I still seriously want to know what this stuff is for! Extra lube for when the linesmen get bored????! Anyway, now you want to find two wires for the same line. Looking at all the wires, you can ignore most of them. The one your after is the big chunkey black one which splits into a red and a green wire in the middle of a clear plastic case. You should be able to work out which one it is. Like, it's thicker than the other wires. You can use the others, but they're not always connected and thus can be a waste of time. [Diagram 2.1] <----- Main Carrier (Thick Black Wire) __ / \ Clear Plastic Case ---> / \ \_/ Red -----> <---- Any Colour (Usually Green) <-.__ Subscriber's Line <---' Now the fun begins. If you havn't got a steady hand, your in for a little bit of vandalism here. You now need to strip the two wires you've found (not completely! just enough to clip the alligator clips on your Beige Box too!). To do this, I actually use the alligator clips, but it took a little practice to be able to do this. Some people use pocket knives etc. It doesn't matter, as long as you get some wire exposure on both wires. If you break a wire, you can either try and re-wire it (re connect, afterall their's heaps of slack), move to a new set of wires, or bolt and hope no-one's been watching you!). Ok, so now you've got two wires, with a little bit of each wire exposed. Now simply attack one alligator clip to one wire, and the other alligator clip to the other wire. You should now have a happy phone, with full capabilities. ie, dial away dude! If you find that there isn't a dialtone, try swapping the clips over. If this fails, then fuck! You've either messed up somewhere or the box is useless and you should move on to another box. Extra Cool shit: One other thing that I like doing is linking several phone lines together and creating a sort of tele-conference. To do so, you'll need quite a few bits of wire, and heaps of alligator clips. Note, you'll need to ring the participant before linking it to the conference. I'm sure you can work out the rest.. As an Afterthought: Whilst writting this article, I forgot that Telecom is now called Telstra. Don't let my use of Telecom confuse you, I am refuring to Telstra (not that is really matters). Also, after wiring into the phone, you may want to dial 1231 or 191231 to make sure it's not the phone number of anyone you don't want to bill (ie your own or a friends phoneline!). I have to admit, I'm not sure if this will still work. I always go to neighbourhoods where I don't know anyone so I've never had to check the line's number. If either number doesn't work anymore, I'm sure there's some other number you can dial to check. Enjoy your new found knowledge! If you wish to discuss these ideas, feel free to mail me Aftermath (fish@suburbia.net) /CCN Note: This article was origionally written on a 486. If your using a unix machine, diagrams may be distorted. This is not my fault. sorry for any inconveniences! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #5 of 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- The Law Concerning Unauthorised Access to Computer Systems in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- By: Aftermath Australia has some of the most comprehensive laws against computer crime in the world. They cover not only Commonwealth-owned computers, but those that store data on behalf of the Commonwealth (such as University machines) and any computers accessed via telecommunication carriers such as Telecom and Optus. This covers any machine connected via telephone line and modem, as well as all AARNet and Internet computers. A criminal act is committed as soon as a computer is accessed ``intentionally and without authority''. A more serious offence is committed if the machine is accessed ``with intent to defraud'', or if it is accessed intentionally and without authority and it is storing data which relate to the following categories (which cover almost any type of data that might be found on a computer). It is a further offense if, after first examining data listed in the following categories, someone continues to examine data on: * the personal affairs of any person * trade secrets * records of financial institutions * the protection of public safety * the enforcement of Territory, State or Commonwealth laws * security, defence, or international relations of Australia * confidential sources of information relating to the enforcement of criminal law * commercial information which could cause advantage or disadvantage to any person The most serious offences are: * destroying, erasing, altering, or inserting data * interfering with, interrupting, or obstructing the use of a computer * impeding or preventing access to, or impairing the usefulness or effectiveness of data The above definitions could cover simply using the CPU of another machine without authority to run a job, copy files, or just play games (`interfering with the use of a computer'). All University computing facilities may call upon the Computer Crimes Section, Australian Federal Police, to investigate illegal activity as above. Acceptable evidence in court includes computer printouts, and the sworn testimony of computing staff and specialists. Penalties range from six month to ten years imprisonment, and result in a criminal record. The above is a summary of the contents of the Crimes Act-Part VIA, Sections 76A, 76B, 76C, 76D and 76E. ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #6 of 9 CYBERANGELS: FAQ From CuD 7.86, 10/1/95 http://www.soci.niv.edu/~cudigest The Guardian Angels "CyberAngels" project is an all-volunteer Internet patrol and monitoring project started by senior members of the world famous "International Alliance of Guardian Angels", whose HQ is in New York City. We are a worldwide informal group of volunteers, whose mission is to be a Cyberspace "Neighborhood Watch". THE INTERNET IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD - LET'S LOOK AFTER IT! 1) How did the CyberAngels project start? The Cyberangels project was born in June 1995, after a discussion between senior Guardian Angels about the apparent lawlessness of the Internet world CyberCity. Guardian Angels leaders on the West Coast of the USA (Los Angeles and San Francisco) had been online for the previous 2 years, and when Guardian Angels Founder and President Curtis Sliwa himself went online in New York City and got his email address, we began a serious discussion about CyberCrime and how the Guardian Angels might respond to it. Curtis Sliwa has a daily talk radio show on WABC in the New York state area. Once he had an email address, he made the announcement over the radio, and his email box immediately started to receive letters telling stories of online harassment (stalking), hate mail, pedophiles trying to seduce children in live chat areas, and complaints from worried parents about the easy access their children had to hard core pornographic images. Realizing that there was a big issue at stake here, Curtis began discussing the Internet issues on his talk show, and as the debate raged daily, and the letters kept pouring in, we realized that perhaps we were being asked to DO SOMETHING. We sat down and discussed what we the Guardian Angels could do to help reassure parents and to make the Net a safer place for kids and others. The answer was simple - we should do what we do in the streets. The Internet is like a vast city: there are some rough neighborhoods in it, including "red light" areas. Why not patrol the Internet, particularly in these "rough neighborhoods" just like a Neighborhood Watch? Just like our own Guardian Angels Community Safety Patrols. And why not recruit our volunteers from the very people who inhabited this vast world CyberCity? Who better than to cruise the Net watching out for people's safety than members of the Internet community themselves? After all, who else could do it? Never an organization to blame it on, or leave it to the government, we decided to do something ourselves. So the CyberAngels program was set up - an all volunteer team, providing a CyberSpace Community Safety Patrol and an Internet monitoring service. Current CyberAngels Chief Coordinator is Colin "Gabriel" Hatcher. 2) What is the purpose of the CyberAngels project? The purpose of the project is a) To promote and protect the idea that the same laws of decency and respect for others that apply in our streets should apply also to the Internet. b) To protect our children from online abuse. c) To pressurize service providers to enforce their Terms of Service. d) To give advice and assistance to victims of hate mail, harassment and sexual abuse online. e) To watch out for users violating terms of service by committing cybercrimes and to report them to relevant authorities (Sysadmins, or even Police). f) To help to make unnecessary Government legislation by showing Government that the World Net Community takes the safety of our children and the well being of all its members seriously. 3) How does the project work? Volunteers send their information to Gabriel at ganetwatch@aol.com and we send them a copy of our FAQ. Each volunteer volunteers to spend a minimum of 2 hours per week cruising the Net and looking for places where they believe there may be unacceptable activity. It is up to each member where they go and what they look for, although sometimes we may send a bulletin to all members advising them to search a particular area. If a volunteer finds criminal activity on the Net, GANetWatch functions as a clearing house for information. We do encourage members to report violations themselves, but we ask that copies of all actions taken are forwarded to us. Members may choose instead to simply report the problem to us and leave it to our more experienced members to deal with. We keep our members informed via email, with a regular update on what's going on. 4) Why do we need volunteers? The Internet Community is huge - around 40-50 million people, and growing every day. There are hundreds of new Web sites each week. The more volunteers we have, the more effective we can be. And by giving a little of your time to looking after the welfare of the Net, you can make a real difference! WE NEED MORE VOLUNTEERS! Anyone can be a CyberAngel. The only requirement is that you commit a minimum of 2 hours per week to the project. No previous experience or special skills are necessary...although a computer and an Internet account would be useful! :) JOIN US NOW! LOOK AFTER YOUR CYBERCITY! We are anonymous in cyberspace. Noone cruises with a Cyberangels badge. And we do not encourage our volunteers to identify themselves online. We DO NOT advise our volunteers to challenge cybercriminals directly, neither by arguing in live areas, nor by flaming in emails, nor by counter-postings on message boards / newsgroups. Being a CyberAngel involves no risk or danger. You are volunteering only to be eyes watching the Net. 5) What should volunteers be looking out for? We are searching to uncover and prevent: a) Child abuse and pedophilia; b) The trading in images of child pornography; b) Sexual harassment; c) Hate crimes, including harassment; d) Fraud schemes operating on the Net (particularly credit card fraud); e) Software piracy; f) Computer virus developments; g) Terrorism, bomb-making, weapons trading etc. Activities between consenting adults (providing they are within the law) are not our concern. Searching for the above violations our volunteers are encouraged to visit: a) Live talk sites (Chat Rooms, IRC areas, MUDs etc); b) Kids and Teens sites of all types; c) Message boards, where visitors can leave postings; d) Newsgroups (particularly "alt." newsgroups); e) Any sites providing material / discussions / images / contacts of a sexually explicit nature (there are thousands!) These are unsupervised areas of the Net where children may roam. For example, parts of the World Wide Web are online porno stores with the doors wide open, and with no staff inside. Kids can easily surf by.... The only warning says "Don't come in here if you are under 18". But there is noone there to check what is happening. And naturally enough kids are wandering in and looking at the merchandise. This is not acceptable on the streets of our cities, and yet we are allowing this on the Net. When discovering suspicious or criminal activity, CyberAngels should record the date, time and place and nature of the violation and write down the user's full ID and InterNet address. Mail can be forwarded to ganetwatch@aol.com, or volunteers may copy and paste information to send. Please follow our advice and DO NOT attempt to challenge cybercriminals directly. Simply report the violations to us at Netwatch, and also to the System Administrators, or Service Providers, of the cybercriminal. Email can usually be sent to "Postmaster@..." or "Sysop@..." or "Sysadmin@...", or find out by writing to/calling the company (the cybercriminal's Service Provider) and asking them who you contact to report a violation. As far as Web Sites are concerned, w e are encouraging parents to use some of the new filtering software, that can screen out chosen areas of the WWW. Organizations like **"Safesurf"** are campaigning for Websites to register as "child friendly", and are on the cutting edge in helping to develop new software for parents to regulate their children's access to the Internet. We fully support Safesurf and are working together with them. Together we believe that CyberAngels and Safesurf will form an irresistible alliance for Good on the Net! 6) How will the project develop? The first stage of our project is to involve volunteers in pressurizing Internet Providers to enforce their terms of service. This involves the accumulation of information and the reporting of violations to Service Providers. The second stage of our project involves the Police. Information about crimes will be passed to the relevant Police authorities, particularly Sex Crime departments and Fraud departments. For the third stage of our project we will have a section on our Web Site where we will be offering rewards for information about various cybercriminals. There will be the equivalent of "Wanted" posters, asking for further information about people who have already been reported to us, and whom we have verified as cybercriminals. 7) Is this a US First Amendment Issue? What about Freedom of Speech? Don't people have a right on the Internet to express their views freely? Are the CyberAngels proposing censorship? CyberAngels support the First Amendment of the US Constitution. We are not trying to abolish free speech, but we believe that freedom of speech should not be exercised if by exercising it you are violating someone else's basic rights. For example I could claim freedom of speech to justify talking sexually and obscenely to a young child - but we all know that that is wrong. This is not a First Amendment issue. Breaking the law takes precedence over "freedom of speech". We are all granted our freedom, but not the freedom to hurt, corrupt, abuse or harass innocent people. The First Amendment was not written to protect pedophiles. No criminal can claim "freedom of expression" to justify a crime. Child pornographers on the Net are criminals and should be brought to justice. 8) The Internet is huge and unregulated. Surely such a project is an impossible task? The fact that the Net is impossible to maintain crime-free is no reason for us to do nothing. Each person does their part. If everyone picked up their own trash, there would be no need for garbage collectors. The same could be said of our streets. We are not naively hoping to eliminate crime from the Net, only to play our part in protecting the innocent majority from the violations of the tiny tiny minority. The Internet Community consists of millions of people. That is millions of potential CyberAngels. TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! 9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to see? a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In a riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers. b) We would like to see Websites registering as "Child Safe" or "Child Friendly", so that parents can use the new software to restrict children's access. We support Safesurf in their campaign on this issue. c) We would like to see Internet Service Providers enforcing their Terms of Service. d) We would like to see a worldwide blacklist of known cybercriminals, circulated to all Providers and regularly updated, so that these people could be denied access to Internet accounts. e) We would like to see the whole Internet Community united together to protect the Net from all crimes and violations. JOIN US, NOW! [ Vigilantes on the net. This has got to be the biggest joke I have seen in years. Please, boycott this group in every way possible. If they get what they want, the internet will never be free again. -Revolution] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #7 of 9 The FBI National Wiretap System By: Jim Warren The FBI has finally published the details of their half-BILLION-dollar NATIONAL WIRETAP SYSTEM -- a gargantuan threat to the freedom, privacy and civil liberties of every citizen in this nation. Once deployed, what politician would dare oppose or impeach an unscrupulous administration in control of such convenient, undetectable wiretapping -- that can listen FROM anywhere, TO anywhere, at a keystroke (e.g. Nixon/Watergate)? Once operational, what federal, state or local elected representative would dare question or oppose law enforcers (e.g., for the decades that J. Edgar Hoover ran massive wiretaps on politicians up to and including sitting Presidents and his own Attorney General, he got almost everything he asked for from Congress -- and from his Presidents -- and that was when wiretapping was *hard* to do). Once federal, state and local enforcers have everso-convenient wiretaps -- what Hollywood or television producer will dare create shows critical of law enforcement, much less documentaries of enforcement abuses (e.g., for the decades that J. Edgar Hoover wiretapped everyone from Desi Arnez to Elvis Presley, there were essentially NO shows or movies criticial of the FBI!) And just think of how entertaining and useful this system will be for every phone phreak, computer cracker, industrial espionage agent and foreign spy -- as each one of them learn how to crack the system, implemented by the nation's notioriously insecure telecommunications companies (if we are to believe the FBI's cracker horror stories and claims of billions of dollars of phone fraud). And finally, once this system is operational, what government whistle-blower would dare talk to a reporter? If there was ever a need for outraged, massive howls of opposition to "our" elected federal representatives -- and their replacement at the polls in 1996, if they fail to rescend this Orwellian mandate, much less if they fund it -- the TIME IS NOW! (Note: It is the Republicans who have been holding up this appropriation -- while FBI Director Louie Freeh has been pleading for it since early this year. Wonder who would support it and who would oppose it, if a Republican was in the White House? :-) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& We Knew It Was Going to be Bad -- But We Didn't Realize How Bad The FBI is demanding facilities to simultaneously wiretap 1 call in 100 in many urban areas; and a maximum no less than 1 in 400 for the entire nation! Even if they are following the time-honored bureaucratic practice of requesitioning 3-5 times what they actually want, this is MASSIVE! According to the FBI's notice to the nation and to our telecommunidations services providers, published in the Federal Register: "... The capacity figures in this notice reflect the combined number of simultaneous pen register, trap and trace, and communication interceptions that law enforcement may conduct by October 25, 1998. ... "Category I (the highest category) and Category II (the intermediate category) represent those geographic areas where the majority of electronic surveillance activity occurs. ... Other densely populated areas and some suburban areas, with moderate electronic surveillance activity, are grouped into Category II. ... "Category III (the lowest category) represents law enforcement's minimum acceptable capacity requirements for electronic surveillance activity. This category covers all other geographic areas. ... "The actual and maximum capacity requirements are presented as a percentage of the engineered capacity of the equipment, facilities, and services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications. ..." URBAN AREA WIRETAP REQUIREMENTS: MAXIMUM OF 1 CALL in 100; 1 in 200, *ACTUAL* "Category I "Actual Capacity - Each telecommunications carrier must provide the ability to meet ... a number of simultaneous ... interceptions equal to 0.5% [1 call in 200] of the engineered capacity of the equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications. ... "Maximum Capacity - Each telecommunications carrier must ensure ... communication interceptions equal to 1% [1 call in 100] of the engineered capacity ..." URBAN & SUBURBAN AREAS: 1 in 200 CALLS WIRETAPPED, MAXIMUM; 1 in 400, *ACTUAL* "Category II ... Actual Capacity ... communication interceptions equal to 0.25% [1 call in 400] of the engineered capacity ... "Maximum Capacity ... 0.5% of the engineered capacity of the equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications. MINIMUM FOR THE NATION: CAPABILITY TO SIMULTANEOUSLY WIRETAP 1 CALL in 400 "Category III ... Actual Capacity ... interceptions equal to 0.05% ... "Maximum Capacity ... number of simultaneous ... interceptions equal to 0.25% [1 call in 400] ... &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Up-to-Date Eaddrs for Congress Members & Congressional Committees Though the prodigious efforts of librarian Grace York (graceyor@umich.edu), there is a comprehensive list of congressional email addresses available on the University of Michigan Library Gopher. Gopher to the University of Michigan Library Gopher or telnet to una.hh.lib.umich.edu Login as gopher. Path: Social Sciences/Government/U.S. Government: Legislative Branch/E-Mail Addresses. Access is also provided through the Documents Center's web site: http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/Documents.center/federal.html and the ULIBRARY Gopher's web interface: gopher://una.hh.lib. umich.edu:70/00/socsci/poliscilaw/uslegi/conemail &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Clinton Admin & FBI Imply This Will Be Used Only Under Court Order - NOT SO! All of the law-n-order hype about this to congress-critters and the press has *implied* that it would only be used under court order. BULL SHIT! Let's ignore the *fact* that it *will* be abused by those in power who make unauthorized used of their authorized access to the system -- if history is any implication. The actual language of the 1994 authorizing legislation (titled, in true Orwellian double-speak, the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act," the CALEA) requires that: "[Every] telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of -- "(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government; ..." [there's *lots* more!] Notice the part: "pursuant to a court order OR OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORIZATION." *Which*, "other lawful authorizations?" Us peons -- who *Shall* Be Subservient to Big Brother -- don't know. Probably most members of Congress who so casually demanded that the nation's telecomm carriers inflict this on us, and authorized half a billion dollars to pay for it, don't know. Some "lawful authorizations" to wiretap are certainly classified -- and, of course, we victims can't be told about those secret authorizations. After all, then they wouldn't be secret. And I won't even get into what authorizations the President may have under all of the secret war powers that Congress has given to him over the decades, that have never rescinded. (Note that various Presidents have formally declared numerous wars -- "War on Drugs," "War on Poverty," "War on Crime," etc. -- and those declarations have never been withdrawn.) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& FBI Says This Is Just to Keep Level Playing Field - But It's MASSIVE Change! The FBI first attempted to weasel this into law in 1991, hidden in the post-Gulf-War Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Bill. It took them until 1994 to finally ram it through Congress, fast-tracked with no substantive hearings, no roll-call vote in the [Democrat-controlled] House, and unanimous consent vote in the [Democrat-controlled] Senate -- literally only hours before it adjourned so incumbants could rush home to campaign for re-election. It was quickly, and every-so-quietly, signed into law by ex-antiwar-activist Clinton ... who shoulda known better. (Wonder what the FBI has on Clinton in their files?) Throughout this, the FBI (as front-man for the numerous federal, state and local government snoop-n-peep agencies) whined that they needed this half-gigabuck any-place, any-time wiretap system, "just to keep the wiretap capabilities that law enforcement had 'always' had" (i.e., since the early 1900s). BULL SHIT! Government has never before had the ability to wiretap with so little effort. Government has never before had the capability to wiretap FROM anyplace. Government has never before had the capability to wiretap AT A KEYSTROKE. For the most part, Government has never before the ability to tap UNDETECTABLY. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Local and State Incumbents & Enforcers Can Play Peeping Tom, Too The statute includes this definition: "The term "government" means the government of the United States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any State or political subdivision thereof authorized by law to conduct electronic surveillance." Note that this means it allows ALL federal, state, county, city and other "authorized" agents and agencies to use this pervasive peeping tool. And just think about how much fun they will have on slow nights in the office, once we have widespread use of videophones. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Watergate, Joe McCarthy, HUAC, Cointelpro, FBI Library "Awareness" Program, J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Dirty Tricks, Lyndon Johnson If this system were installed in the 1950s, imagine what the red-baiting Joe McCarthy (and Senatorial side-kick Richard Nixon) could have done through a friendly law enforcer? Remember how many lives and careers were demolished by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)? Or the joy of the FBI's dirty-tricks program that successfully demolished various law-abiding anti-war organizations. Then there was the FBI's massive requests that librarians covertly monitor all materials being checked-out by various library patrons, and report it to agents. And good ol' Lyndon Johnson didn't hesitate to sic the IRS on his political opponents. And FBI Director Hoover ... hell, he used his FBI facilities -- that will now control the National Wiretap System -- to compile so much dirt on his political opponents that no would question him or his practices or budget demands, and President JFK and Attorney General Bobby K dared not remove him, even though they were just short of open warefare with him. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Wiretap Action Alert from Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Date: 2 Nov 1995 11:21:11 -0500 From: "Marc Rotenberg" Subject: FBI Unveils National Wireta To: "EPIC-News" [Please repost] The New York Times reports today that the FBI has proposed "a national wiretapping system of unprecedented size and scope that would give law enforcement officials the capacity to monitor simultaneously as many as one out of every 100 phone lines" in some regions of the country. ("FBI Wants to Vastly Increase Wiretapping," NYT, Nov. 2, 1995, at A1) The story follows the October publication in the Federal Register of the FBI plans to implement the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, the controversial "digital telephony" bill that was opposed by many groups last year but supported by an industry association called the "Digital Privacy and Security Working Group" after the government put up $500,000,000 to pay for the new surveillance features. (See EPIC Alert 2.12) The Times article also notes that there is now some question about whether the law will ever go into effect. A provision to provide funding was deleted last week after "several freshman Republicans, including Representative Bob Barr of Georgia, a former federal prosecutor, said he objected to the way the money for wiretapping would be raised and that he had concerns about how the FBI might use such a sweeping surveillance ability." The article also says that "The scope of the FBI plan has startled industry telephone executives, who said it was difficult to estimate how much it would ultimately cost to carry out the capacity increases." EPIC is urging the on-line community to object to implementation of the wiretap plan. More information can be found at our web page: http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/. Marc Rotenberg rotenberg@epic.org &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) Offers Comprehensive Wiretap Analysis Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:11:30 -0500 To: policy-posts@cdt.org From: editor@cdt.org (editor@cdt.org) Subject: CDT Policy Post No.26 -- FBI DigTel Surveillance Capacity Request Under this header, Washington's CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY circulated an outstanding, 34-kilobyte analysis and detail of the FBI's plan. Unfortunately, it said, "This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its entirety." Since I was loathe to inflict their 34KB plus the other items herein on unsuspecting GovAccess recipients, I will only provide these pointers to where to get this *excellent* CDT analysis, and the FBI's Federal Register notice that it references and includes: [Federal Register: October 16, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 199)] [Notices] [Page 53643-53646] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CDT POLICY POST LIST To subscibe to the policy post distribution list, send mail to "Majordomo@cdt.org" with: subscribe policy-posts in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank) The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Is Someone Already Watching All International Net Traffic? The following is the transcript of an actual communications trace that a friend ran, while I was sitting next to him, watching -- reprinted here with his permission. He did a "traceroute" of two messages that he sent from his machine in Switzerland (he'd telneted into it while we were at a computer conference in California). Traceroute automatically reports each Internet node through which a message passes, as it proceeds from origin to destination. He did two traceroutes. The first was from Switzerland to an addressee at Netcom in San Jose, California. The second was from Switzerland to an addressee in Israel. Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 02:54:58 +0200 From: kelvin@fourmilab.ch (John Walker) To: jwarren@well.com Subject: Traceroute > /usr2/kelvin> traceroute netcom11.netcom.com traceroute to netcom11.netcom.com (192.100.81.121), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 eunet-router (193.8.230.64) 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 146.228.231.1 (146.228.231.1) 326 ms 345 ms 307 ms 3 Bern5.CH.EU.NET (146.228.14.5) 447 ms 408 ms 364 ms 4 146.228.107.1 (146.228.107.1) 127 ms 37 ms 36 ms 5 Zuerich1.CH.EU.NET (146.228.10.80) 37 ms 38 ms 175 ms 6 (134.222.9.1) 65 ms 109 ms 252 ms 7 lp (134.222.35.2) 196 ms 179 ms 405 ms 8 Vienna1.VA.ALTER.NET (137.39.11.1) 191 ms 179 ms 313 ms 9 fddi.mae-east.netcom.net (192.41.177.210) 336 ms 204 ms 303 ms 10 t3-2.dc-gw4-2.netcom.net (163.179.220.181) 182 ms 251 ms 187 ms 11 t3-2.chw-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.186) 305 ms 586 ms 518 ms 12 t3-2.scl-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.190) 537 ms 693 ms 797 ms 13 t3-1.netcomgw.netcom.net (163.179.220.193) 698 ms 549 ms 754 ms 14 netcom11.netcom.com (192.100.81.121) 890 ms 1922 ms 1696 ms > /usr2/kelvin> traceroute jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il traceroute to jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il (192.114.21.101), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 eunet-router (193.8.230.64) 2 ms 3 ms 2 ms 2 146.228.231.1 (146.228.231.1) 933 ms 853 ms 874 ms 3 Bern5.CH.EU.NET (146.228.14.5) 1040 ms 450 ms 525 ms 4 146.228.107.1 (146.228.107.1) 453 ms 424 ms 188 ms 5 Zuerich1.CH.EU.NET (146.228.10.80) 64 ms 61 ms 47 ms 6 (134.222.9.1) 80 ms 312 ms 84 ms 7 lp (134.222.35.2) 270 ms 400 ms 216 ms 8 Vienna2.VA.ALTER.NET (137.39.11.2) 660 ms 1509 ms 886 ms 9 dataserv-gw.ALTER.NET (137.39.155.38) 1829 ms 1094 ms 1306 ms 10 orion.datasrv.co.il (192.114.20.22) 1756 ms 1280 ms 1309 ms 11 ... Notice that both messages went through an unnamed site -- 134.222.9.1 and then a strangely-named site, "lp (134.222.35.2)" -- then through the same Vienna, Virginia (USA) site ... and thereafter, on to their destination. I.e., the second message went through Virginia to get from Switzerland to Israel. The whois servers at the InterNIC and at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information report, ``No match for "134.222.9.1". '' and `` No match for "134.222.35.2".'' Now let me see ... which spy agencies are located in or near Virginia? --jim &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& [This is where I normally insert quotes or humor. This is not a quote.] While on a September lecture trip to Washington, I was invited to dinner with an "associate" Secretary of Defense [title purposely disguised] who's responsibilities include surveillance and security technology, including cryptography and the National Security Agency. GovAccess readers will be happy to know that the administration's "Clipper II" key-escrow proposal has little chance of being adopted, and also -- without exception, the NSA does not spy on nor evesdrop on U.S. citizens, foreign or domestically. I was assured of this. --jim warren Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren@well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored) with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr) For brief description of GovAccess, send the message: info GovAccess Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org: /cpsr/states/california/govaccess and by WWW at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/states/california/govaccess . Also forwarded to USENET's comp.org.cpsr.talk by CPSR's Al Whaley. May be copied & reposted except for any items that explicitly prohibit it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #8 of 9 CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END) By: Voters Telecommunications Watch Update: -Latest News: The Christian Coalition is pushing Congress to censor the net more heavily than even Sen. J.J. Exon ever imagined. There is the very real possibility that they may succeed. You should be very worried. We are. -What You Can Do Now: Follow the directions below and call House Speaker Gingrich and Senate Leader Dole. Implore them not to allow parents to make choices for their children, instead of government censors. Volunteer to join the fight by helping organize in your home town. CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Nov 2, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 1, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS _________________________________________________________________ _______ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now The letter from Ed Meese and the Christian Right Chronology of the CDA For More Information List Of Participating Organizations _________________________________________________________________ _______ THE LATEST NEWS Since the very first day that Senator J.J. Exon (D-NE) proposed censorship legislation for the Internet, the Christian Right has pushed for the most restrictive regulations they could think of. The Religious Right (which does not necessarily speak for all religious people concerned with this issue) recently tipped their hand in a letter to Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) and Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA) requesting a new and more restrictive net censorship proposal. There are essentially three new dangerous elements of their campaign to shut down cyberspace: INTERNET PROVIDERS, ONLINE SERVICES, AND LIBRARIES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR EXPRESSION ONLINE The Religious Right has proposed to hold anyone who provides access to the Internet or other interactive media, including online services providers, ISP's, BBS's, Libraries, and Schools, criminally liable for all speech carried on the network. In order to avoid liability under this provision, service providers would be forced to monitor user's electronic communications to be assured that no "indecent" material is transmitted across their networks. This proposal is MORE RESTRICTIVE than the Exon Communications Decency Act, or any other net censorship legislation currently in Congress. In their letter to Congress, the Religious Right says: [Providers] would simply be required to avoid KNOWING violations of the law. [emphasis added] However, the "knowing" standard is vague enough that the mere knowledge that such material exists could be sufficient to trigger criminal liability. A single complaint or even a news report could force a service provider to take down a web page, remove posts to chat rooms or other discussion forums, or shut down listservs in order to avoid going to jail and facing huge fines. A STANDARD FOR INDECENCY The proposals pushed by the Christian Coalition relies on the unconstitutional "indecency standard". Like the Exon Communications Decency Act, the Christian Coalition seeks to regulate all indecent speech online. Indecency is a broad category that includes everything from George Carlin's "seven dirty words" to such classic novels and "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Lady Chatterly's Lover". The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on indecent speech are Constitutional only if they rely on the "least restrictive means". Broad indecency restrictions on interactive media do not satisfy the "least restrictive means" test, because interactive media allows users and parents tremendous control over the information they receive. Any legislation which attempts to apply an indecency restriction to the Internet is unconstitutional on its face. The Christian Coalition's proposal that relies on an indecency restriction contemplates dumbing down every conversation, web page, newsgroup, and mailing list on the Internet to the level of what is not offensive to children. What kind of discussions between adults are possible in an arena where everything has been reduced to the level of the Lion King? UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER ONLINE SPEECH FOR THE FCC The Christian Coalition would give the FCC broad jurisdiction over cyberspace. It would allow the FCC jurisdiction over your online speech, and over the design Internet software, such as web browsers and filtering programs that parents can use to control their children's access to the Internet. The Internet has developed from a government project to a market-driven economic boom for thousands of businesses. Giving the FCC authority over this medium would significantly hinder the growth of this new industry. _________________________________________________________________ _______ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. The proposals from the Religious Right will literally destroy online speech as we know it. The odds of stopping this are not certain. There is a very real chance that this legislation will pass, and we will experience a period of uncertainty and chilling of speech while an appropriate test case attempts to reach the Supreme Court (should it even get there!) The Religious Right has a strong grass-roots network. We need to counter their energy and ensure cyberspace is not lost due to them. IMMEDIATELY CALL House Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) and Senate Leader Dole (R-KS) and urge them to oppose the Christian Coalition's proposal. Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ======================== ============== ============== R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952 If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following: Please oppose the recent proposal from the Religious Right to censor the Internet. The only effective way to address children's access to the Internet is through parental control tools outlined by the Cox/White/Wyden approach. or As a religious person and a parent, I oppose the Religious Right's attempts to censor the Internet. I am the best person to monitor my child's access to the Internet using parental control tools as outlined in the Cox/White/Wyden approach. 2. Join the online fight by becoming a volunteer for your district! Check to see if you're legislator is in the list below. If they are not, consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip Codes to Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at: URL:http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html The conference committee legislators are: House: Barr (R-GA), Barton (R-TX), Berman (R-CA), Bliley (R-VA), Boucher (D-VA), Brown (D-OH), Bryant (D-TX), Buyer (R-IN), Conyers (D-MI), Dingell (D-MI), Eshoo (D-CA), Fields (R-TX), Flanagan (R-IL), Frisa (R-NY), Gallegly (R-CA), Goodlatte (R-VA), Gordon (D-TN), Hastert (R-IL), Hoke (R-OH), Hyde (R-IL), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Klug (R-WI), Lincoln (D-AR), Markey (D-MA), Moorhead (R-CA), Oxley (R-OH), Paxon (R-NY), Rush (D-IL), Schaefer (R-CO), Schroeder (D-CO), Scott (D-VA), Stearns (R-FL), White (R-WA) Senate: Burns (R-MT), Exon (D-NE), Ford (D-KY), Gorton (R-WA), Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Pressler (R-SD), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stevens (R-AK) If your legislator is on the conference committee, you have a chance to influence their vote on this issue with your power as a constituent. Volunteer to help educate your legislator by sending mail to volunteer@vtw.org. A coalition volunteer will be in touch with you. You can starting working to help spread the word in your district by sending this letter to five friends. Ask them to call Dole and Gingrich as well. 3. The People for the American Way (PFAW) and the American Civil Liberties Union are organizing a letter from ORGANIZATIONS to the Conference Committee to oppose the censorship provisions. If you are a representative of an organization that would like to signon to this letter, you should contact jlesser@pfaw.org IMMEDIATELY. 4. We can't suggest relaxing at this point. The stakes are too high, and the risk is too great. Everything now hangs in the balance. _________________________________________________________________ _______ THE LETTER FROM ED MEESE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT October 16, 1995 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Larry Pressler, Chairman Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Re: Computer Pornography Provisions in Telecommunications Bill Dear Mr. Chairmen: We are writing to urge the conference committee seeking to reconcile the telecommunications bills passed by the House and Senate include in the final bill the strongest possible criminal law provisions to address the growing and immediate problem of computer pornography without any exemptions, defenses, or political favors of any kind accorded to those who knowingly participate in the distribution of obscenity to anyone or indecency to children. While there is no perfect solution to the problem of computer pornography, Congress could not hope to solve this problem by holding liable only some who are responsible for the problem. The recent Justice Department prosecution project targeting those who violated federal child pornography law using America On-Line is instructive in this regard. More than ninety individuals were targeted for prosecution although many others, perhaps as many as 3,000 according to one press report, were originally targeted by the Department of Justice as potential violators of child pornography laws. Apparently due to a shortage of investigative and prosecutorial resources, the project was limited. Since there are insufficient resources to investigate and prosecute but a fraction of those that are trafficking in child pornography by computer, then there will likely be even fewer resources available to investigate and prosecute those involved in obscenity and indecency. Thousands of individuals both in this country and abroad are regularly placing obscenity and indecency on the Internet. It is not possible to make anything more than a dent in the serious problem of computer pornography if Congress is willing to hold liable only those who place such material on the Internet while at the same time giving legal exemptions or defenses to service or access providers who profit from and are instrumental to the distribution of such material. The Justice Department normally targest the major offenders of laws. In obscenity cases prosecuted to date, it has targeted large companies which have been responsible for the nationwide distribution of obscenity and who have made large profits by violating federal laws. Prosecution of such companies has made a substantial impact in curbing the distribution of obscenity, with many such offenders going out of business altogether. So too will prosecution of access providers which _knowingly_ traffic in obscenity have a substantial impact, a far greater impact than just the prosecution of a person who places one or a few prohibited images on the Internet. Such a person could not traffic in pornography without the aid or facilitation of the service or access providers. Indeed, if Congress includes provisions protecting access or service providers in whatever bill is finally passed, it is likely that most in this country who are trafficking in indecency to children or obscenity would continue to do so since the threat of prosecution would be minuscule, given the numbers of those currently involved in this activity. It is also likely that those outside our country who are engaged in these activities would continue to do so since it would be nearly impossible to extradite them to the United States for prosecution. Thus, unless all who knowingly participate in such matters are subject to the law, the Internet will remain the same and Congress will have failed in its responsibilities to the children and families of America. Federal law has traditionally assigned equal liability both for those who commit a crime and those who aid and abet a crime. See Title 18 U.S.C. Code Section 2: "(a) whoever [sic] commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, councils [sic], commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principle [sic]." Service or access providers who knowingly participate in the distribution of indecency to children or in obscenity to anyone are aiders and abettors in the commission of those crimes and thus should have liability under any law Congress passes. Current federal law on child pornography provides no no exemption or defense for access providers. Thus, the child pornography law provides a strong deterrent against trafficking in child pornography for those who would otherwise knowingly participate in its distribution by computer whether pedophile or access provider. The changes in law which we support would not hold an access provider criminally liable for all illegal pornography on the Internet which their services may be used to obtain. Nor would it require that access providers check all communications to ensure that no violations of the law are occurring. They would simply be required to avoid knowing violations of the law. This is an obligation imposed on all citizens. Technology exists today for access providers, through a simple process, to target or flag and remove files containing objectionable material. We support the House-passed language insofar as it addresses obscenity by amendment Title 18, Sections 1462, 1465, and 1467 of the United States Code. The provision restricting transmission of indecency in the House-passed bill, an amendment to Section 1465, is inadequate, and we urge that it be substantially revised. Attached is the specific language we support which includes the House passed language on obscenity and includes revisions on both the House passed language on indecency, which would amend Title 18 and the Senate-passed language on indecency, which would amend Title 47. The combination of these provisions, we believe, would provide effective laws to curb obscenity and indecency on the Internet by establishing that all who knowingly participate in the distribution or facilitation of obscenity to anyone or indecency to children would be subject to the law. Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter. [signed] Edwin Meese III Ralph Reed Christian Coalition Donald E. Wildmon American Family Association Alan Sears, Former Executive Director Atty General's Commission on Pornography Phyllis Shafly Eagle Forum Beverly LaHaye Concerned Women for America Reverend Louis P. Sheldon Traditional Values Coalition Jay Sekulow American Center for Law and Justice Paul Weyrich Free Congress Foundation Paul McGeady Morality in Media Len Munsil National Family Legal Foundation Robert Peters Morality in Media Kenneth Sukhia Former United States Attorney, N.D., FL Former Chairman, Atty General's Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Child Exploitation and Obscenity -------------------------- Section 1465 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended to punish distribution by computer of indecent material to minors by adding at the end the following: Whoever knowingly communicates, transmits, or makes available for communication or transmission, in or effecting interstate or foreign commerce an indecent communication by computer to any person the communicator or transmitter believes has not attained the age of 18 years of age, knowing that such communication will be obtained by a person believed to be under 18 years of age, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. TITLE IV -- OBSCENE, HARASSING, AND WRONGFUL UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995". Sec. 402. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended -- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu of [sic]: ``(a) Whoever-- ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications -- ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly-- ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections: ``(d) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent communication in any form including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, or image, to any person under 18 years of age regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(e) Defenses to subsections (a) and (d), restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for persons providing information services and access to information services-- "(1) It is a defense to prosecution that a person has complied with regulations designed to restrict access to indecent communications to those 18 years old or older as enacted by the Federal Communications Commission which shall prepare final regulations within 120 days of the passage of this bill. Until such regulations become effective, it is a defense to prosecution that the person has blocked or restricted access to indecent communications to any person under 18 years of age through the use of verified credit card, adult access code, or adult personal identification number (PIN). Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat enhanced information services as common carriage." "(2) No cause of action may be brought in any court or any administrative agency against any person on account of any activity which is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section. (f) Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing laws and regulations which do not result in the imposition of inconsistent obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct not covered by subsection (d)(2)." (g) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), or (e) or in the defenses to prosecution under (e) shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law. (h) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act. Sec. 403. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION. Section 639 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and inserting "$100,000" Sec. 404. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO. Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting "$100,000". Sec. 405 SEPARABILITY "(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this Title of [sic] the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Title and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby." _________________________________________________________________ _______ CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications Deregulation bill Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652. Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains new criminal penalties for speech online) to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA. Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill (S 714) is not passed. May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it, thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications Decency Act is not attached to it. Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation (such as the CDA) is necessary. Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy and free speech. Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD) Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA). _________________________________________________________________ _______ FOR MORE INFORMATION Web Sites URL:http://www.vtw.org/exon/ URL:http://epic.org/ URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html URL:http://outpost.callnet.com/outpost.html FTP Archives URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.FREESPEE CH URL:ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ Gopher Archives: URL:gopher://gopher.panix.com/11/vtw/exon URL:gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/Alerts Email: vtw@vtw.org (put "send alert" in the subject line for the latest alert, or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ) cda-info@cdt.org (General CDA information) cda-stat@cdt.org (Current status of the CDA) _________________________________________________________________ _______ LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS In order to use the net more effectively, several organizations have joined forces on a single Congressional net campaign to stop the Communications Decency Act. American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch (Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities, not EFF chapters or divisions.) _________________________________________________________________ _______ End Alert ================================================================= ======= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -= H A C K E R S =- Issue #4, File #9 of 9 The End Once again, another issue of Hackers reaches its end. If you've got an article or letter, send it on in, if you would like to author one of those columns, make sure you get a hold of me. Next issue, be on the lookout for the X-philes, a damn good introduction to the phone system by the Xenon Foundation. And wherever you hack, may the ethic be with you! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *