December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

We pay You if we can't get you a VISA/MC!
by 23908678＠17105.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! If you have bad credit, no credit, even bankruptcy, you can still obtain one or more VISA or MasterCards with NO SECURITY DEPOSIT or SAVINGS ACCOUNT REQUIRED! And NO CREDIT CHECK. Our Credit Matching service has helped hundreds of people become bankcard holders, and we can help you too! In fact, we if we can't get you approved!! This is that second chance you've been waiting for! Don't miss out! <A HREF="http://www.cybermaxx.com/visanow">CLICK HERE TO APPLY FOR YOUR UNSECURED CREDIT CARD!</A> You've nothing to lose! Our web page also provides you with a FREE LIST of companies offering merchant cards and banks that offer secured cards. (No monthly fees, no deposits, NOT MLM, and NO inquiries to your credit file). We thank you for your business! (This is a one time mailing. You won't hear from us again unless you request so) <<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<><< Tired of unsolicited email? Click here! <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><9><4><9><0>

1 0

RE: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is all nice and good, but the question is who is Chris Lewis, what is his connection to northern telecom, what the hell do you mean by forgery, are you implying the technology that entrust has in it's secure kernal is stolen? Keeping in mind that using public domain algorithms is not theft, and also keeping in mind that they have a patent license from public key partners, which allows them to use the "rsa" patents, and keeping in mind that a fully featured certificate system is much more than just a cryptography product. Is the law being broken here? Is there a breach of ethics at Entrust? To restate.....what's wrong with what entrust is doing? Everyone has had such a good time talking about spamming and cancels, but I'm really interested in how Nortel is somehow committing a forgery. Also looking around the dejanews stuff about lewis, he seems to be a spam cancel freak yes, but no pedophile. Dimitri, you seem to be a pretty smart guy...enlighten me on this whole thing. Do you mean that Nortel has a hand in the forging of spam cancels? Or do you mean that they have a hand in forging software? Chris DiBona -----Original Message----- From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM [SMTP:dlv@bwalk.dm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 6:22 AM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Subject: Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download > Entrust Technologies (www.entrust.com) has made Solo available for > download, free for 30-day evaluation & edu/non-profit. For Win95/NT. > A mere $49 Cdn (~35 US) for commerical usage... > > For e-mail / file encryption, digital signature > > Solo uses 128-bit encryption, which is CAST-128, the royality-free > algorithm invented at Entrust/NorTel. It also uses 1024-bit RSA public-key > cryptography and has DES, Triple DES available. > > Also follows FIPS 140-1 validated security kernel. It is compatible with > other Solo clients (of course), Entrust/Lite and Entrust. I ask everyone on these two forums to inform Northern Telecom Forgers / Bell North Forgery Research / Entrust that we will boycott their "security" products as long they continue to employ the child-molesting pedophile Chris R. Lewis - the biggest forger on Usenet. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

Thomas Leavitt on why online news sites should not self-label
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************ From: leavitt(a)webcom.com Subject: FC: CNET editor endorses self-labeling, "news site" standard (fwd) To: chris_barr(a)cnet.com Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Cc: declan Chris, What is your response to DeClan's comments? My own is that restricting use of the labeling system to "bona-fide" news sites is a self-serving action, consistent with a desire to create barriers to entry and establish restraint of trade, and would likely result in an organization co-opted by industry leaders, like other "regulatory" institutions. Furthermore, I think generic endorsement of the validity of rating systems, and of collaboration with government in encouraging them and other companies in making not having them result in invisibility (instead of merely presenting people with the option to choose filtered or unfiltered content from a search engine, perhaps based on a browser header or equivalent communication of intent/desire), is very threatening to the integrity of the 'net and free speech. In fact, the whole mania for ratings, the V-chip, tv ratings, etc. is extremely alarming to me. Look at how the Hayes' code crippled Hollywood, and the entire industry for decades. Ratings and censorship, etc., are very damaging to creativity and freedom of speech... media that endorse and accept them inevitably wind up being corrupted and failing to realize their potential. Ratings endorse (and provide a means for) the basic impulse to impose ones views about the appropriateness of content on another. Look at the nut cases parading around our local libraries, protesting that "Dangerous Addictive Materials" are being made available to children because the library refuses to install filtering software (every implementation of which I've heard about is horribly unselective and politically/culturally suspect). They reflect the same impulse that lead an elected member of Congress to state that "the Constitution is a barrier to religious freedom" (something which days later, still shocks me) since it prohibits granting religion access to state resources, in acknowledgement of the preferential treatment likely to be given to particular branches (and the inevitable conflicts that would result). Do you really want to get in bed with this kind of mentality? Is it appropriate for a journalistic institution to be making these kinds of judgements? I don't see the L.A. Times providing age and appropriate guidelines at the beginning of every story. The image of a child running down the road, skin burning with Napalm, is horrifying, and potentially traumatic, to a child. At the same time, how many careers, how many idealists and crusaders have developed as the result of seeing the unvarished truth, at a young age? Do you really want to be responsible for enabling a parent to deny their child the potential for this transformative event? Isn't there a conflict of interest here? What if you find that 40% of your content gets blocked by various filters, and the organization down the street has 5% of their content blocked, and as a result, is making more money that you are? Won't this produce a race to the bottom, a tendency towards "palatable", generically unoffensive content that is not affected by your self-imposed filters? Would a writer or editor whose interests/style/topics of choice result in 80% of his or her articles falling under broad layers of your filter have the same success as a writer/editor who wrote about nothing but happy puppy rescue stories? The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that journalists and media have no business involving themselves in any way shape or fashion with rating of content. This is a formula for pablum... network news is already bad enough. And your proposal, desire, etc., would impose this requirement on an entire industry. No "bona-fide" journalist would be free of this conflict of interest. Every article, report, photo, would be influnced by the question "how will this be affected by the filters... will I be able to sell this if it is... will I reach the audience I wish to reach with my message/story, if I present it this way". Is that what you really want? Regards, Thomas Leavitt [ Jesus, DeClan, this is far worse than I thought it would be when I started out writing this letter. ] > Since the Supreme Court said the online world should be > as free as print, and no self-labeling system exists > for magazines or newspapers, why should the Net be any > different? Why isn't the Net community opposing > "mandatory voluntary" self-labeling systems as > staunchly as newspapers and magazines would fight a > similar requirement? It's best to ask these questions > of Christopher Barr (chris_barr(a)cnet.com) editor in > chief of CNET, who endorsed such a proposal in his > column below. > > Barr says that he wants to ensure "that > only real news organizations claim [the] privilege" > of rating as news sites with RSACnews. But who decides > what's a news site? Is CNET? pathfinder.com? epic.org, > which the government treats as a news site when responding > to FOIA requests? The Drudge Report? How about the NAMBLA > News Journal? > > My report on the possible perils of such systems is at: > > http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html > > -Declan > > **************** > > http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html -- WebCom (sm) Thomas Leavitt--leavitt(a)webcom.com Voice: (408) 457-9671 x101 Executive Vice President WebCom Home Page <URL:http://www.webcom.com/>

1 0

free market services vs monopoly government
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote at the bottom of another post: > General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all? and Kent Crispin parried: : General rhetorical answer: Because people are the way they are. Kent you seem to harbor the belief that government monopoly is a good thing, or at least that government is somehow an unavoidable necessary evil. I doubt I'll convince you otherwise, but in case there are other people reading who still think governments the best way of doing anything, I'll try to explain why I think government monopoly is a bad thing. Are you opposed to free markets? Government holds a number of monopolies. These monopolies are not efficient. They result in resource wastage on a mind boggling scale. The USG has pretty much bankrupt your country, the US national debt being I understand at a level where US citizens collectively do not have the resources to pay it off. If a privately or publicly held company got to that stage the receivers would be sent in. The success that a country does enjoy is pretty much proportional to the degree of market freedom. Luckily for us our governments have left a bit of freedom in markets, or we would have food shortages, and rationing. In economies with extremely low amounts of market freedom, the readily observable inefficiency demonstrates my point. (eg Former Soviet Union communist economy). Governments tend to grow, and soak up larger tax percentages, and encroach into more aspects of life which were previously a question of free choice, or were previously purely market driven. The reason for this growth is due to the government as an entity unconciously promoting itself as an organism. A great huge cancerous growth which has us by the jugular. The reason governments as businesses can get away with their abysmal performance is because they have a near complete monopoly. A good start would be a choice in government, to generate some competition. So you can buy membership in a protection racket, hire the services of a private security firm, or buy insurance from an insurance group because of its benefits package, or go elsewhere if the offering sucks. You choose on an individual basis what package best suits you, and you choose the service providers who you consider as the best value for money. eg. I can go buy into Uncle Enzo's pizza delivery and protection racket because the protection is 5000% better value for money than the Feds deal. I can pick and choose the services I want to produce a mix which satisfies me. Double efficiency, people don't have services provided for them which they actively don't want, and I can buy services which the government attempts to prevent the market from providing, so my requirements are better met. As well as the increased efficiency obtained in provision of services which governments are currently holding monopolies on, the reduced taxation and regularatory burdens put on the economy would cause a boom. And your argument is? That people want government? Fine, let those sheeple that do want something even more oppresive and intrusive than the current government buy into whatever form of oppresive cult they want. Perhaps a sheltered perimeter gaurded enclave where all media is censored, there is capital punishment for spitting on the side walk, evil thoughts results in public flogging, etc, and where the taxation rate is 90% would suit them to a T. Great! We need some evolutionary pressures anyway. So which mix would you choose Kent? Or are you arguing that there are lots of stupid people, and that you are happy to let their ill-informed choices, and their willingness to go with the bankrupt corrupt status quo fuck your life up? Why should there be blanket decisions made and forced upon you as an individual. Free choice makes for much more efficiency in terms of economics, and in terms of individuals happiness. Here's a reading list for those interested in disbanding government and replacing it with services purchased on the free market: "Snow Crash", Neal Stephenson Snow Crash is a sci-fi novel giving a depiction depictions of life with choice in services, private law enforcement services competing with Uncle Enzo's pizza mafia. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a sci-fi novel giving a depiction of a wild-west like legal system. There are no laws, excepting individual responsibility. "Machinery of Freedom" 2nd Ed, David Friedman Machinery of Freedom talks about free market methods to provide services that have traditionally been provided by government. "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations is an interesting book despite being published in 1776. Didn't have his judgement clouded by this namby-pamby socialist/communist junk. Pure capitalism, examining why the free market is efficient. "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek Road to Serfdom explains in Hayeks view that socialism is a slippery slope leading to economic decline and communism. In context of Nazism after second world war. He makes the case that Socialism the root of much evil. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 4

Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Beck put this nicely: > Some people have been arguing that cancelling other peoples posts > based on their own subjective views is a good thing. > > It would seem that they are arguing that it is a good thing because it > saves bandwidth, and because it gives them satisfaction to silence > unpopular minorities. > > Foo on that. > > It's censorship. If you didn't write it, you have no business > cancelling it. Thank you for wording this yet another way. > A temporary fix for emails, or another approach, is to use hashcash. > Hashcash is a token of CPU time. It proves that the sender has > consumed a given number of seconds/minutes/hours CPU time. The > receiver sets their software to reject mail (bounce with explanation, > or put into potential spam folder) to squelch out spam. > A description of hashcash, and an implementation can be found here: While I don't know that I would use this yet, I applaud the author for an attempt to address the "spam problem" in a non-content-based manner. I will certainly investigate this more than briefly. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet "It is a dragon, destroyer of all," cried the ants. Then a cat caught the lizard.

1 0

Re: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:12:58 -6 > Subject: Re: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act > Here's a fun little thought experiment: A flawed one. > Considering the hairsplitting that takes place everyday > in courtrooms these days, an arguement could be made that > since virtually the entire net these days is optical fiber, > there are no 'electronic' communications taking place. > > Does the FCC charter mention photonic communications as > well? At what point does the charter allow them to > interfere? Here's some steps on the way... Photons are the vector boson for em radiation, in a wire or in the air. In the wire the photons go from electron and protons to other electrons and protons. This is what makes them want to 'move'. Despite popular vision, they don't go bumping into each other like a bunch of ping-pong balls in a pipe... As an aside, this is actualy where the heat comes from not friction. Some of the photons that are emitted are low frequency and not re-absorbed. (having taught electronics for several years I have grown to realy hate the hydraulic model) > Is this an electronic communication? Yes. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act (fwd)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Re: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act (fwd) > To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer) > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 13:39:12 -0500 (CDT) > Reply-to: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Forwarded message: > Peter Trei wrote > > > Here's a fun little thought experiment: [lots of snipping on both sides] > A flawed one. > > > Considering the hairsplitting that takes place everyday > > in courtrooms these days, an arguement could be made that > > since virtually the entire net these days is optical fiber, > > there are no 'electronic' communications taking place. > > > > Does the FCC charter mention photonic communications as > > well? At what point does the charter allow them to > > interfere? Here's some steps on the way... [amusing, not too serious arguments involving mimes deleted] > Photons are the vector boson for em radiation, in a wire or in the air. > In the wire the photons go from electron and protons to other electrons and > protons. This is what makes them want to 'move'. Despite popular vision, they > don't go bumping into each other like a bunch of ping-pong balls in a pipe... > > Is this an electronic communication? > > Yes. So when I look at someone's facial expression, I'm using photons, and the FCC can regulate this activity as an 'electronic communication'? This seems to be what you are suggesting. I have this niggling memory at the back of my mind to the effect that the FCC regulates nothing above a certain frequency (somewhere in the microwave region). I don't know if this is an internal rule, or something imposed on them by charter or congress. I'm not sure what the limit is. The highest frequency I've been able to find regulations for is 105 GHz, the upper edge of a band reserved for SETI research in Britain. The highest FCC reg I've seen tops out at 77 GHz. This is all far below the frequencies of light used in fiber optic networks. Anything above about 100GHz seems to be unregulated. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Anderson wrote: >>At 02:03 AM 7/31/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote: >>It's censorship. If you didn't write it, you have no business >>cancelling it. > Have you considered the actions of the news-admins that are auto-canceling > anything with more than a certain number of cross-posts, or posts with "Make > Money Fast" in the subject? (I think excessive posts to certain newsgroups > may also fall into this category. I think the big 6 get auto-covered by > this..) IMO, it doesn't matter -what- it is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet He who has made a door and a lock, has also made a key.

1 0

I THINK I OWE YOU SOME MONEY!!! I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME $$$
by 17096751＠18377.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> I THINK I OWE YOU SOME MONEY!!! I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME $$$ Dear Friend, No, there isn't an error in the subject line! I think I owe you some money! I found an amazing way to make money, and it's so great I think everybody should use this method to become financially independent! Would you like to get into the action and get some of that money? How does $5,000 sound to you? That is, up to $5,000 just for photocopying a page of the information I am about to give you each and every time you copy. Sound good? How about this, I'm going to give you three pages which can help you make an immediate $15,000. Here's the best part, the pages I am about to give to you which provides this EASY way to make MONEY can be yours for ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! Making $15,000 just for photocopying some information on three pages. It is definitely possible. There is ABSOLUTELY NO HARD WORK INVOLVED!!! Making money this easy shouldn't be legal, But I assure you, it's TOTALLY LEGAL! Why am I giving this incredible information for free? I know that these three free pieces of paper that I am about to send you can help stuff money into your pockets! I'm giving out these pages because I know that you'll be so impressed with this system, you'll want to order my other money making materials. Because I already know that you'll love this system and will order others, I've decided to just flat out give you these three pages. You have NO OBLIGATION to buy in the future. But I'm telling you, it'll be like Christmas every time you go to your mailbox. Also, I will include another piece of paper that may help you make up to $8000, $160000, or even up to $3,200,000. Again, all you have to do and press the start button on the photocopy machine. Besides that, I will also send you a phone card which provides a great rate of 19 cents a minute. From anywhere to anywhere in the US, any time of the day. No restrictions. You can use this card to call New York from Seattle, or call Miami from San Diego. From a pay phone at the airport, at a friend's phone, hotel room phone or even a cell phone. You can use this card and save with the great rate of 19 cents to anywhere in the US. You don't even have to change your long distance company. You will get all this ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! To get all these great money making and money saving items. Please send your name and address, as well as $5 (five dollars) cash. You are getting everything for FREE, but the money is to help cover the cost of shipping and handling, which unfortunately isn't free. Besides, you can make the money back in less than one push of the start button of the copy machine. And the phone card itself is worth more than that, in both savings and face value. So you have NOTHING TO LOSE!!! So please send everything (You name, Address <e-mail add. Optional> and $5) to:- Free Guide PO BOX 180 Cypress, CA 90630 I THINK I OWE YOU SOME MONEY!!! I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME $$$ Disclaimer:- Research shows that you maybe interested in this information. If you are not, you will not get this letter again. If so, we are sorry to have inconvenienced you. Dear Friend, No, there isn't an error in the subject line! I think I owe you some money! I found an amazing way to make money, and it's so great I think everybody should use this method to become financially independent! Would you like to get into the action and get some of that money? How does $5,000 sound to you? That is, up to $5,000 just for photocopying a page of the information I am about to give you each and every time you copy. Sound good? How about this, I'm going to give you three pages which can help you make an immediate $15,000. Here's the best part, the pages I am about to give to you which provides this EASY way to make MONEY can be yours for ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! Making $15,000 just for photocopying some information on three pages. It is definitely possible. There is ABSOLUTELY NO HARD WORK INVOLVED!!! Making money this easy shouldn't be legal, But I assure you , it's TOTALLY LEGAL! Why am I giving this incredible information for free? I know that these three free pieces of paper that I am about to send you can help stuff money into your pockets! I'm giving out these pages because I know that you'll be so impressed with this system, you'll want to order my other money making materials. Because I already know that you'll love this system and will order others, I've decided to just flat out give you these three pages. You have NO OBLIGATION to buy in the future. But I'm telling you, it'll be like Christmas every time you go to your mailbox. Also, I will include another piece of paper that may help you make up to $8000, $160000, or even up to $3,200,000. Again, all you have to do and press the start button on the photocopy machine. Besides that, I will also send you a phone card which provides a great rate of 19 cents a minute. From anywhere to anywhere in the US, any time of the day. No restrictions. You can use this card to call New York from Seattle, or call Miami from San Diego. From a pay phone at the airport, at a friend's phone, hotel room phone or even a cell phone. You can use this card and save with the great rate of 19 cents to anywhere in the US. You don't even have to change your long distance company. You will get all this ABSOLUTELY FREE!!! To get all these great money making and money saving items. Please send your name and address, as well as $5 (five dollars) cash. You are getting everything for FREE, but the money is to help cover the cost of shipping and handling, which unfortunately isn't free. Besides, you can make the money back in less than one push of the start button of the copy machine. And the phone card itself is worth more than that, in both savings and face value. So you have NOTHING TO LOSE!!! So please send everything (You name, Address <e-mail add. Optional> and $5) to:- Free Guide PO BOX 180 Cypress, CA 90630 </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

JD Lasica on labels/censorware as threat to Net, in Salon
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********* Subject: censorship story on salon Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:49:17 -0700 From: Joseph Lasica <jlasica(a)microsoft.com> To: "'declan(a)well.com'" <declan(a)well.com> Declan, Hey, thought you'd be interested in the lead story today in Salon, the one on the Ratings police. ********* [I've attached the first part of the story below. Visit the web site for the complete article; it's well worth a read. --Declan] http://www.salonmagazine.com/july97/21st/ratings970731.html RATINGS TODAY, CENSORSHIP TOMORROW The Net industry is rushing to embrace ratings systems for the Web. The technology will help parents keep their kids away from porn. It can also help anyone censor anything. BY JOSEPH D. LASICA A few years from now, when we look back at what crippled the Internet as a global forum for the free exchange of information, at least we'll know it was done with the best of intentions. Who, after all, could oppose Internet ratings if they create a "family-friendly" online world? And so, to make the Net safer for kids and to avert government regulation, the Internet brain trust has banded together to push rating, filtering and labeling technology -- a private-sector techno-fix to cleaning up the Net. President Clinton has signed on and has used his bully pulpit to jawbone companies that were wavering on the issue. And the news media have covered the president's initiative with the gusto of a pep rally. With all this firepower behind them, ratings are coming to a Web site near you -- in fact, to all Web sites, if proponents have their way. And a panoply of would-be censors -- from foreign despots to home-grown zealots and pandering politicians -- couldn't be happier. "What's happening now is a move toward the privatizing of censorship," says David Sobel, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "It's likely to destroy the Internet as it's existed up till now." There are a great many ironies here, but the greatest irony is that the censorship will be self-imposed -- we're doing it for the sake of family, parents, children. In truth, Internet ratings are being driven by the changing business interests of the major players involved. In the last go-around over muzzling the Internet, Net users, the computer industry, the media and civil liberties groups all united against the government's Communications Decency Act -- which the Supreme Court buried last month. This time around, the lineup is a lot more lopsided. On one side: the U.S. government, the high-tech industry, most major media outlets and a vocal cast of parents' organizations, child-safety advocates and anti-obscenity groups. On the other: the American Civil Liberties Union, EPIC, the American Library Association, a smattering of university scholars and that guy over there waving the "No ratings" sign. Why have the software companies and Internet firms gone over to the other side? Certainly, they're spooked by the specter of Congress passing a "son of CDA" bill. But it goes beyond that. Internet ratings dovetail nicely with big business's desire to make the Internet safe for God, apple pie and commercialism. The "dark side" of the Net -- hackers, foreigners, political extremists, geeks, "phreaks," porn purveyors, hate groups, people who SHOUT IN ALL CAPS AND USE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! -- will largely be banished to an unrated no-man's land where browsers and search engines fear to tread. So it was no surprise that the invitation list to the Internet summit at the White House on July 16 bore names like Netscape, America Online and IBM rather than names like geekboy or cybergrrrl. At the meeting, President Clinton announced a "parental empowerment" initiative that would give parents the tools to shield children from obscenity, violence and antisocial messages on the Net. Although every idea on the table is software-based, the administration couldn't resist dubbing the plan the "E-chip," a cousin of television's V-chip, which will block unsuitable programming. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0