December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Certificate proposal
by patrick＠Verity.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > I may not have been clear: the certificate I was referring to was the one > from Egghead, the one which I will use to make sure that I have a valid > key for Egghead. Such a certificate would of course not have my credit > card number; it would probably have some information related to Egghead. > My rhetorical point was that information would most plausibly be a NAME > by which I would refer to Egghead. I am still trying to understand how > these proposals to take names out of the picture will apply to a > commonplace situation like this one. The certificate would identify the entity you're having commerce with. It doesn't have to have a name, the certificate would replace the need for a name. If you wanted a name, you could use the certificate to access it. The certificate would give you a public key that would be the central identifier. Associated with it might be many attributes of the key-entity. You might use the key to find out a name, and bank account number, or an ip-address to use to communicate with. Don't think of it as being a name, "Egghead Software", and this is the key associated with it. Think of the key as the central thing. Patrick _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Verity's (except by coincidence;). \ | (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Verity Inc. \\ Have | | patrick(a)verity.com 1550 Plymouth Street \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (415)960-7600 Mountain View \\/ Will | | FAX : (415)960-7750 California 94303 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________________________________________\)__________/

1 0

Council of Europe on Crypto: Finland
by Tatu Ylonen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

People have been digging the background of the Council of Europe recommendations here in Finland. It has turned out that Finland was represented an assistant director of the Criminal Police who is known as a supporter of extremely broad powers for the police. At the meeting, he has apparently presented his personal opinion as the official opinion of Finland; later the Council unanimously decided to recommend banning strong crypto. I hear a representative from Norway had apparently tried to speak some sense at the meeting, but had quickly been quieted by the others. It has also turned out that there have been studies on legislating cryptography and related issues in Finland during the past two years, but without concrete plans. The officials in charge of these issues were not aware of what was happening in Strasburg, and what Finland apparently has presented there certainly does not represent a concensus within the government. Things appear to be developing in promising directions, but much more work is still needed until things are on the right track. I strongly urge people in other European countries to contact their government officials, the press, and use other possible channels to dig out what exactly was happening and why, and make the officials and politicians understand the other issues that are related (computer security, universal surveillance, ability of independent political groups to function, trade secrets, etc). Professors and other persons in expert positions are important sources of information to the government in the preparatory process, and you should provide the officials with experts to consult on the issues. At least here it has turned out that preparations were being carried out with very few independent experts, input coming almost exclusively from the law enforcement side. Tatu Ylonen <ylo(a)cs.hut.fi>

1 0

Who knows the story on Elementrix OTP??
by MINITERS＠citadel.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aclaim is being made to having a technique for utilizing OTP with a spiffy key generation technique that requires no transmission over an unsecure link. Who knows the details of the approach and the particulars on the developers?

1 0

DOCKMASTER II is coming!
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 16:14 EDT Subject: DOCKMASTER II is coming! Forum-Transaction: [2279] in the >site>forum_dir>bb meeting Transaction-Entered-By: Lanenga.PILOT(a)DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL Transaction-Entered-Date: 22 Sep 95 12:47 EDT COMPUTER SECURITY, IT'S FOR YOU! The DOCKMASTER II Program Management Office, Y407, is pleased to post the first official notice concerning DOCKMASTER II, an NSA-sponsored information system in support of the INFOSEC community. DOCKMASTER II will provide an information sharing capability to its users. This will include the supporting functions of a data repository and information dissemination. The system will protect itself and the information it contains, which will range from Unclassified to National Secret, including Proprietary information. WHAT IS DOCKMASTER II? DOCKMASTER II provides a UNIX Open Architecture with electronic mail, bulletin boards, file transfer, and data packaging and sharing tools. The system is built on the Data General Operating System (UNIX System V) and utilizes the Informix On-Line/Secure Database. Both the operating system and database are currently in the Trusted Product Evaluation Process (TPEP) at the B2 level of trust. The system is comprised of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software, with some developmental software to provide user-friendly interfaces. A fast, flexible, and expandable hardware platform is implemented. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF DOCKMASTER II? -User-Friendly (Graphical, Menu Driven, or Command Line) Interfaces -E-Mail -Bulletin Boards (Forums) -File Transfer Protocols (FTP, Kermit, X-Modem, Y-Modem) -Connections via MILNET/INTERNET/TYMNET or Dial-in -Database (INFORMIX On-Line/Secure) -Reference Library -Document Publishing (Framemaker) -Project Management Tool (Autoplan II) -On-Line Tutorial -System-wide Help Facility -Provides infrastructure for multi-level secure access -Replaces the current unclassified DOCKMASTER system WHAT IS THE STATUS OF DOCKMASTER II? -System Requirements Review, and Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews have been completed successfully -System Evaluation is occurring -Software Integration & Test and System Integration & Test are occurring -Initial Operating Capabilty (IOC) - Unclassified and Proprietary data only is scheduled for Spring 1996 -Final Operating Capability (FOC) - Multilevel data up to Secret, is scheduled for late 1996. HOW TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DOCKMASTER II? The DOCKMASTER II Program Management Office offers a briefing to all interested organizations or individuals. DOCKMASTER II will have many capabilities to offer our fellow co-workers at NSA as well as their counterparts in Government and Industry. Please contact us to arrange a briefing; we are excited about sharing DOCKMASTER II's capabilities. Also please feel free to ask any questions about DOCKMASTER II. For briefings, please contact Daphne Willard (Willard at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) For questions: Devolyn Arnold (DArnold at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) or call the Dockmaster II Program Management Office at (410) 684-7276

1 0

Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details
by Rick Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry writes.... >My suggestion, which I made when Microsoft made a presentation at the >IETF meeting in Stockholm and then had the gall to say "oh, no, we >don't intend to publish an internet draft" is that you publish this as >an internet draft and try to shepard it through the IETF's >standardization process. You will, of course, be savaged, but that is >in the interests of everyone, including you. I talked to the two STT folks who were there. I've also read the minutes of that meeting as published by Amir. Politely, that particular meeting and the attempt to form a splintered variety of WGs was viewed by the two STT folks attending as a pretty wild affair characterized by a lot of 5-10 minute speeches and the slimmest directional concensus. A lot of great discussion, but low odds of coalescing into an effort leading to tangible results in a timely manner. That doesn't mean there isn't value in putting proposals into the IETF standardization process, and it wasn't the content or intent of those people to impart that. If we had other objectives we wouldn't have even bothered to go to Stockholm. >The belief that companies can make more money by following proprietary >solutions and imposing them on the world as standards is falling >away. Agreed...and not the content or intent of any comments made by the STT attendees at that meeting. >It is in Microsoft's interest that the standard that is adopted >for commerce be open, publically discussed at length, and brutally >critiqued. Losing a bit of control in exchange for actually getting >something that works out for you and your customers is in your interest. Also agreed. Want to pursue discussion in the internet community. Keep in mind, though, we're also obligated to deliver solutions to our customers in the very near term, and therefore publish the STT spec for those who wish to implement and interoperate with the systems we will deploy. Certainly, it's reasonable and rational to want to evolve from that point within the guidelines of the IETF. Based on what people's reaction to what we have put out for everyone to see, I'd be looking for comments from you all as to the most timely and beneficial course to pursue. Looking forward to your input.

1 0

CancelMoose = William Nagengast?
by nobody＠flame.alias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I did a little digging around, and came up with the following identity for the cancelmoose: > finger moose(a)panix.com [panix.com] Login Name: moose Full Name: William Nagengast Directory: /net/u/11/m/moose Shell: /usr/local/bin/psh Last login Wed Nov 9 17:21:18 on panix.com ttyq2 from ts3.nyc.access.n. No mail information available. Is this publicly known information?

1 0

Re: NSA Realists v. Nuts (Was: Re: Crypto APIs)
by jgrubs＠left.webcasters.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: > Learn to live with a new model for how you work now, and you will save > years of bitter and futile agony for everyone. Keep in mind that all they are really trying to save are their "lines" in the annual budget bill. Transfer them to another agency with the same pay and bennies, and we'll all be happier. The International Whaling Commission comes readily to mind. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: LIBERTY!! Use it or lose it!! iQCVAwUBMHWgu974r4kaz3mVAQFfGgP/SU52c5wCUYmyXx/qmVDbuhcncEicbDEG gYqg3XFaiZuMU+eeQ9IxoTay3qlzZrnKvEr3VhLeALvwq/sXs+CHO8cL6FgGwzOI 6B27VAdOWieAGmgr0lmCDJnmj7Lt9lEOg/dpl0IoZPI6Y6J9TDdmmjvBmbnRozqu mwkpDiNu+3g= =Fig2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)webcasters.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programming, Information brokering

1 0

Microsoft encryption
by Tim Philp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any information about the methods used to password protect Word documents and Access files? Is there a general way to decode these files? Thanks, Tim Philp =================================== For PGP Public Key, Send E-mail to: pgp-public-keys(a)swissnet.ai.mit.edu In Subject line type: GET PHILP ===================================

2 1

Picking Random Primes
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:24 PM 10/6/95, Patrick Horgan wrote: >Given the difficulty of finding primes, how likely do you think it is that >given one of the well known methods and finding the first 1024 bit prime >that pops out would give you an effective attack? What is the "difficuly of finding primes"? They are actually very easy to find. A few comments: First, the "1024 bit prime" is misleading. The 320+ decimal digit modulus used in RSA has two prime factors of roughly 160 digits each. Second, the process of finding the primes p and q involve avoiding "weak" moduli, such as where p and q are very close together. To avoid this, a common situation is for p to be roughly 159 digits and q to be 161 digits. Third, these are _really, really_ big numbers! There are about 10^158 primes between 10^159 and 10^161. roughly. (The rule of thumb, given by Sterling's formula, is that about 1% of all 100-digit numbers are prime, about 0.1% of all 1000-digit numbers are prime, etc.) As there are only about 10^75 particles in the entire universe, this gives about 10^83 primes for every particle in the entire universe! Fourth, the standard way to find the primes p and q is to pick a random number of the approximate starting size and then iterate up, testing for primality. As the above approximation shows, one doesn't have to make too many tests before a number is confirmed to be very likely to be prime. (I say "very likely" because the most popular primality testing routines have a very small chance of saying a composite number is prime, when it isn't. Cf. math books for details on this, and why it is essentially irrelevant to us.) Fifth, there are clearly some really good ways to pick a 150 or 160 digit number to start testing from. For example, a 10-sided die, or a pair of traditional dice (ignoring 11 and 12) could be rolled 150 times, with the resulting number used to start the process. Not bloody likely that any collisions in such a choice process will occur before the heat death of the universe. (There are faster ways, using the random sources we so often talk about, including keyboard poundings, mouse swirlings, audio input, radioactive decay, diode noise, etc., but I wanted to make the point with the rolled die so nobody will ask "Yeah, but what if people picked the same starting point?" They won't.) By the way, all of the "entropy" or "randomness" in the p and q primes lies in the initial seed for the search for the first prime larger than the seeds, as the algorithm is completely deterministic once the seed has been picked. (And fast, too.) --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

'net freedom of speech
by David A. Wagner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this might interest some of you here... Note the email address for Senator Feingold where you can thank him, without leaving your terminal! Article: 64508 of comp.org.eff.talk Path: cnn.Princeton.EDU!udel!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!panix!not-for-mail From: shabbir(a)vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar) Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.motherjones,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.wired,comp.org.cpsr.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex.senator-exon,alt.society.civil-disob,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.bbs.allsysop Subject: (ALERT) Sen. Feingold speaks up for free speech; thank him Date: 1 Oct 1995 01:46:07 -0400 Organization: Voters Telecommunications Watch (email vtw(a)vtw.org) Lines: 461 Sender: shabbir(a)panix.com Distribution: world Message-ID: <44l9uv$dmc(a)panix3.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com Xref: cnn.Princeton.EDU alt.activism:120876 alt.politics.datahighway:10012 alt.politics.usa.misc:46797 alt.privacy:29041 alt.society.civil-liberty:49866 alt.wired:20952 comp.org.cpsr.talk:6658 comp.org.eff.talk:64508 talk.politics.libertarian:46422 talk.politics.misc:369284 alt.censorship:66917 misc.legal:149492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:41505 alt.society.civil-disob:580 alt.sex.stories.d:15167 alt.bbs.allsysop:14512 ======================================================================== CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END) Update: -Latest News: Feingold releases letter to Committee members identifying First Amendment issues with CDA legislation. -What You Can Do Now: Send a letter to Feingold congratulating him for speaking up for free speech. Put your business or bulletin board on record as supporting free speech and opposing censorship for cyberspace! CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Oct 1, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL November 25, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS Distributed by the Voters Telecommunications Watch (vtw(a)vtw.org) ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Letter from Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Committee Chronology of the CDA For More Information List Of Participating Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Many people who have been following the attempts to censor the Internet may have seen the Senate floor debate. If you did, you were treated to the sight of Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Feingold (D-WI) passionately attempting to explain to 84 members of the Senate exactly just what the Internet was, and why passing laws against indecency are inappropriate in this medium. Both Senators spoke passionately, and for those that understand this technology, something clicked. The 16 members that voted against the censorship legislation will be rewarded by reminders to their voters about their rational, non-hysterical, positions on free speech at the end of the year. In the meantime, we believe that you should congratulate Senators Feingold on his stand for free speech, and for sticking up for the net. Quite often Senator Leahy gets most of the credit for this position. Let's be honest, he deserves it because of his long standing rational approach to our issues. However it's a big tent, and free speech can always use another defender. (Directions for contacting Feingold's office below) Last week Senator Feingold sent a letter to several committee members outlining the First Amendment problems with the measures passed by the Senate (the Communications Decency Act) and the House (the Manager's Amendment) and asked that these be deleted. A copy of that letter is enclosed below, and we thank Senator Feingold's office for making available an electronic copy (so we didn't have to type it in!). Remember, send Senator Feingold a thank you. He's earned it. [What comes below is unchanged from the last alert] The House and Senate have passed a total of four different pieces of legislation aimed at dealing with children's access to information on the Internet. Each of the four was profiled in BillWatch #13 which you can retrieve >from URL:http://www.vtw.org/billwatch/issue.13.html. Here are the four pieces of legislation and a short summary of each of them. HR1978: "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (Cox/Wyden) This bill takes the approach of encouraging industry to provide parents with tools to restrict their childrens' access to the net. It contains no new criminal provisions. This approach was affirmed by the House 421-4 on August 4, 1995. (Yes, that's a landslide) S314: "The Communications Decency Act" (Exon/Coats) This bill makes many types of constitutionally-protected speech (including lewd, lascivious, and indecent speech) criminal when used through a telecommunications device. This provision was affirmed by the Senate 84-16 on June 14, 1995. House amendment to HR1555: "Child Protection, User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study Act" (Klink/Leahy) This bill directs the Department of Justice to study and see if there are places in current law where existing obscenity laws are unenforcible on computer networks. This approach was affirmed by a committee voice vote. House amendment to HR1555: <unnamed> This amendment was submitted at the last minute through the Manager's Mark, a collection of several amendments to HR1555 that were voted on as a block. This amendment takes constitutionally-protected speech and criminalizes it when it is expressed online. Most legislators had no idea that they voted on this last amendment; the summary of the Manager's Mark did not mention these new criminal provisions. There was no applicable House vote on *just this* provision. The House-Senate conference committee now has the task of deciding which of these are allowed into the final Telecommunications Deregulation bill for the last floor vote. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. Send Senator Feingold a letter telling him you appreciate him standing up for free speech in cyberspace. Be polite and check your spelling. Most importantly, READ HIS LETTER FIRST before you send mail. He took the time to write it, shouldn't you take the time to read it? Email or paper mail are recommended, since they will have the least impact on the staff. Telephone calls are less desirable, but certainly appropriate if that is the only way that is convenient for you. The Senator can be reached at: P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== D WI Feingold, Russell 1-202-224-5323 na 502 HSOB russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov Washington, D.C. 20510 [This is from the last alert. We are still collecting signons to the letter though, and we don't have nearly enough Internet Service Providers. -Shabbir] 2. It's crucial that we tell Congress how their decision in the conference committee will affect businesses and bulletin boards in cyberspace. We're coordinating a letter from Internet businesses and bulletin boards to explain to Congress just what these poorly-drafted regulations will mean to them. Read the electronic business and bulletin board letter below. You can also find it at: Gopher: gopher -p1/vtw/exon gopher.panix.com WWW URL: http://www.vtw.org/cdaletter/ Email : Send mail to files(a)vtw.org with "send cdaletter" in the subject line. 3. If you work for a business that uses bulletin boards or public networks, convince the owners to sign onto the letter. Companies that should sign this include Internet service providers, Web designers (big and small), Internet consultants and trainers, Internet restaurants and bars, software companies that develop Internet-related software, companies that advertise or publish through the Internet or bulletin boards, writers who publish through the Internet, and many others! If you belong to a bulletin board, ask the sysop if he or she will sign onto the letter. 4. Ask the BBS sysop or the business owner to mail in the following information to vtw(a)vtw.org: Business name Owner or officer name Address Email address Phone number Description of business and anything else relevant Here's an example: $ Mail vtw(a)vtw.org My business would like to signon to the business and bbs letter. We are: Ed's Xcellent Online Node (EXON) J.J. Exon, Owner 2323 Decency Road, Nebraska 10000-0000 (402) 555-1212 jj(a)exon.net Ed's Xcellent Online Node is based in Nebraska and provides Internet service to many thoughtful and free-speech loving Nebraskans. We provide Internet access to over 1,500 residents and 400 businesses. We employ 35 full time employees. -James ^D Mail sent! $ 5. If you don't subscribe to a BBS or have an affiliation with a business that uses public networks, but belong to a professional organization or an advocacy group, consider sending Congress the ACLU letter included below with your local group's name on it. Simply replace the material in parentheses with your own information. 6. Relax! You just did a lot of good with only email as a tool. Isn't that great? ________________________________________________________________________ LETTER FROM SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI) [NOTE: This letter was sent to: Sen. Larry Pressler Sen. Fritz Hollings Rep. Thomas Bliley Rep. John Dingell House Committee on Commerce Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Technology All of these individuals have a hand in the shaping of the conference committee process that will define the outcome of the Telecommunications Deregulation bill, and therefore, the Internet censorship legislation. Each letter was identical, so we have only included one here. -Shabbir] Tuesday September 26, 1995 The Honorable Thomas Bliley Chairman, Committee on Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bliley, Soon your Committee will begin Conference deliberations on H.R. 1555 and S.652, telecommunications reform legislation, with members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. During those deliberations, I urge you to strike the potentially unconstitutional provisions regarding on-line indecency contained in both the Senate and House versions of this legislation. The Exon-Coats amendment, added to S. 652 on the Senate floor, included provisions which I believe would violate the First Amendment rights of Internet users and have a chilling effect on further economic and technological development of this exciting new form of telecommunications. Specifically I have objected to the indecency provisions of S. 652 for the following reasons: 1) Indecent speech, unlike obscenity, is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 2) An outright ban on indecent speech on computer networks is not the "least restrictive means" of protecting children from exposure to such speech on the Internet. There are a number of existing tools available today to allow parents to protect their children from materials which they find inappropriate; 3) A ban on indecent speech to minors on the Internet will unnecessarily require adults to self censor their communications on the Internet; 4) Since "indecency" will be defined by community standards, protected speech by adults will be diminished to what might be considered decent in the most conservative community in the United States and to what might be appropriate for very young children; 5) The "on-line indecency" provisions will establish different standards for the same material that appears in print and on the computer screen. Works that are completely legal in the bookstore or on the library shelf would be criminal if transmitted over computer networks; 6) The Supreme Court has ruled that the degree to which content can be regulated depends on the characteristics of the media. The unique nature of interactive media must be considered when determining how best to protect children. S. 652 ignores the degree to which users have control over the materials to which they are exposed as well as the decentralized nature of interactive technology which liken it more to print media than broadcast media. Section 403 of H.R. 1555, known as the Hyde amendment, raises equally serious concerns with respect to the First Amendment and appears antithetical to other provisions contained in the House Bill. The prohibitions against on-line indecency contained in the Hyde language will have a similar chilling effect on the on-line communications of adults. The Hyde amendment is also inconsistent with the more market-oriented and less intrusive provisions of Sec. 104 of H.R. 1555, the On-Line Family Empowerment Act introduced by Congressmen Cox and Wyden, as adopted by the House. Section 104 recognizes that First Amendment protections must apply to on-line communications by prohibiting FCC content regulation of the Internet. The Cox/Wyden provisions also promote the use of existing technology to empower parents to protect their children from objectionable materials on the Internet, and encourages on-line service providers to self-police offensive communications over their private services. In addition, the Hyde amendment is incompatible with Section 110 of H.R. 1555, which demands a report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on existing criminal obscenity and child pornography statutes and their applicability to cyber-crime. Sec. 110 also requires an evaluation of the technical means available to enable parents to exercise control over the information that their children receive on the Internet. Perhaps most significantly, Sec. 110 embraces the application of First Amendment speech protections to interactive media. H.R. 1555, while embracing the principles of restraint with respect to new criminal sanctions on protected speech and the promotion of a free-market parental empowerment approach, simultaneously ignores both of those axioms with the Hyde provision. By imposing new criminal sanctions on indecent speech and amending existing criminal statutes, the Hyde amendment rushes to judgement before the DOJ study has even begun. Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first-ever Congressional hearing on the issue of cyberporn. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, which included parents as well as victims of cyberporn, it became clear that the objectionable communications on the Internet are already covered by existing criminal statutes. The concerns raised at the hearing centered upon trafficking of child pornography, the proliferation of obscenity, and the solicitation and victimization of minors via the Internet. However, those offenses are already violations of criminal law. Indeed, recent press accounts indicate that law enforcement officers are already aggressively prosecuting on-line users for violations of criminal law relating to obscenity and child pornography. It is critical that we use law enforcement resources to prosecute criminal activity conducted via the Internet and not be distracted by the issue of indecency which has not been identified as a serious concern by users or parents. It was clear, during our recent Senate Hearing, that the witnesses' concerns about the Internet did not relate to indecent speech or the so-called "seven dirty words". It is incumbent upon Congress to wait for the results of the study required by H.R. 1555 before embracing overly restrictive, potentially unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional prohibitions on indecent speech contained in both versions of telecommunications reform legislation. I urge the Conference Committee to reject the Exon/Coats and Hyde provisions during your deliberations and to maintain the Cox/Wyden amendment adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. If the United States is to ever fully realize the benefits of interactive telecommunications technology, we cannot allow the heavy hand of Congress to unduly interfere with communications on this medium. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Sincerely, Russell D. Feingold United States Senator cc: Members, Committee on Commerce ________________________________________________________________________ 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.FREESPEECH 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(a)vtw.org (put "send alert" in the subject line for the latest alert, or "send cdafaq" for the CDA FAQ) cda-info(a)cdt.org (General CDA information) cda-stat(a)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 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 * Human Rights Watch * 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 ========================================================================

1 0