- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CyberPromo responds!
by roy＠sendai.scytale.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A helpful cypherpunk provided a list of addresses for various postmaster and root accounts in cyberpromo.com. I am now sending my abuse response to wallace(a)cyberpromo.com cyberpr(a)ANSWERME.COM root(a)savetrees.com postmaster(a)savetrees.com root(a)answerme.com postmaster(a)answerme.com root(a)NS3.CYBERPROMO.COM root(a)NS4.CYBERPROMO.COM postmaster(a)NS3.CYBERPROMO.COM postmaster(a)NS4.CYBERPROMO.COM and it's actually generating responses. So far, Sanford Wallace has missed my point several times, assumed that I have been sending mail to the replybot when I have repeatedly stated the reverse, admitted that "someone is spoofing requests from your domain" and threatened to bill $1000 for "reviewing frivolous bills". It appears I at least have his attention. This is only slightly related to the list (via the redirection of the list to Wallace's replybot). If anyone wants to discuss CyberPromo tactics further, please do it via private mail. If enough of us want to talk about it, I'll set up a little list for the purpose. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy(a)scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey(a)scytale.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMmVrMxvikii9febJAQGvBwP/WwtrXXFNWvJLIXYcIkrm12ZAaJZwn76e T6xY4IeJw5zYD73iYYYBcU4k6iR4GQR4ZRyKKRDKSqLXuXD0iXcrXG0LWoAtl/9w nKjPe83hiNYPCQIDwryTb3BZTkXBltTLh9VWjFSTMx7AbYg89mxvNrEPhbtevkIC TRwGZ7q2WF0= =TN2R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

SPA's Press Release
by Sean Sutherland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Oct 16 17:11:03 1996 After researching the SPA's lawsuit for awhile, I figured I might as well post the SPA's press release regarding their lawsuit against C2 to see if it'll spur some more discussion on it. If it weren't for the seriousness of the matter, I would almost be amused by the SPA's lawsuit. Their term, "contributory infringement" is almost like suing the bartender because a customer got into a wreck while drunk. Note the "should have nown." Here's their specification for this, copied from http://www.spa.org/piracy/risk.htm. "Anyone who knows or should have known that he or she is assisting, inducing or materially contributing to infringement of any of the exclusive rights by another person is liable for contributor infringement. " ie - posting of serial numbers posting of cracker utilities linking to FTP sites were software may be unlawfully obtained informing others of FTP sites were software may be unlawfully obtained aiding others in locating or using unauthorized software supporting sites upon which the above information may be obtained allowing sites where the above information may be obtained to exist on a server Then there's their Vicarious Liability for Infringement by Another Person, outlined by: "Anyone who has the authority and ability to control another person who infringes any of the exclusive rights and who derives a financial benefit therefrom, is vicariously liable for the infringement of another person." ie - ISPs who have warez or pirate sites on their system ISPs who have pirates for customers sys admins for newsgroups or IRC where pirate activity takes place It's interesting to note that this web page is entitled "Theories of Copyright Infringement", and the only listing (which I didn't copy) which references a law (section 501(a) of the Copyright Act, to be exact) is direct infringement - -- the kind we all know and love. I'm curious, do the Contributory Infringment and the Vicarious Liability for Infringment By Another Person claims have any legal basis, or are they just the inane rantings they appear to be? In a fair world, this wouldn't stand up in court...but unfortunately, with juries today...you get the point. Anyway, here's their press release, again a direct cut from http://www.spa.org/piracy/releases/netpir.htm. - ---------- SPA Files Copyright Suits Against ISPs and End Users Internet Anti-Piracy Campaign Launched (Oct.10, 1996 --Washington, D.C.) -- The Software Publishers Association (SPA) announced today that it has filed five civil lawsuits for copyright infringement occurring on the Internet. Three of the lawsuits were filed against Internet service providers (ISPs), and the remaining two were filed against individual end users. Additionally, SPA launched its Internet Anti-Piracy Campaign, which includes education and enforcement components, in an effort to educate and work cooperatively with ISPs regarding copyright infringement. ISP lawsuits were filed on Oct. 7 and 8 against Community ConneXion of Oakland, Calif.; GeoCities of Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Tripod Inc. of Williamstown, Mass. The SPA members named as plaintiffs in all three suits were Adobe Systems Inc., Claris Corp. and Traveling Software Inc. In each case, SPA first contacted the ISP and requested that the infringing material be removed, but the ISP failed to respond and cooperate. SPA also filed suit against Jeffrey Workman of Auburn, W. V., and Patricia Kropff of Scottsdale, Pa, on behalf of Adobe Systems Inc., Claris Corp., Corel Corp., Datastorm Technologies Inc. and Novell, Inc. In each of these instances, SPA received reports of alleged copyright infringement on certain Web sites, and with the assistance of the ISPs, tracked the individuals responsible for posting the infringing material. "These lawsuits send a clear signal to ISPs and end users that neither direct nor contributory copyright infringement will be tolerated. The Internet does not provide a safe haven for these types of activities," said Ken Wasch, SPA president. SPA's Internet Anti-Piracy Campaign (IAPC), which is outlined at http://www.spa.org/piracy/iapc.htm, contains information explaining why ISPs may be liable for copyright infringement, the risks involved and seven warning signs that infringing activity may be taking place on the ISP's server. Additionally, ISPs may sign an ISP Code of Conduct to show they have adopted the operating practices encouraged under the copyright law. Upon receiving a report of alleged copyright infringement on the Internet, SPA confirms the unlawful activity and sends a letter to the ISP servicing the infringing user. In most cases, the ISP cooperates and remedies the situation. If the infringing user can be identified -- as alleged in the Workman and Kropff cases -- SPA may then choose to seek action against the end user. If the ISP is unwilling to stop the unlawful activity, SPA may choose to file suit against the ISP. "Our intentions are to work cooperatively with ISPs. A key element of the IAPC is the ISP Education Program devoted to alerting ISPs to their potential liability and providing them with the tools and guidance to protect themselves," said Joshua Bauchner, SPA's Litigation Coordinator. "The IAPC maintains SPA's traditional balance between education and enforcement. We first make contact in an effort to amicably resolve the matter, and only when absolutely necessary do we turn to litigation." An integral part of the cooperative effort between SPA and ISPs is the ISP Code of Conduct. This simple agreement asks that ISPs protect themselves from liability by stopping pirate activity on their systems. In return, SPA will attempt to contact the ISP if it receives a piracy report concerning it -- before initiating other action. Piracy has taken many forms on the Internet. These include making unauthorized copies of software available for download, the posting of serial numbers, cracker and hacker utilities and links to pirate FTP sites. Although many believe piracy is limited to "warez" or illegal copies of software, it extends beyond that narrow definition. Under the law, anyone who knows -- or should have known -- of the infringement and who assists, encourages or induces the infringement is liable for indirect infringement. In each of the actions SPA filed, at least two of the above infringements were present. For additional information please visit the Internet Anti-Piracy Campaign site at http://www.spa.org/piracy/iapc.htm. The ISP Education Program information is available at http://www.spa.org/piracy/ispinfo.htm. To report a case of piracy please contact SPA's hotline at (800) 388-7478, piracy(a)spa.org or complete an on-line intake form at http://www.spa.org/piracy/pirreprt.htm. SPA is the leading trade association of the desktop software industry, representing the leading publishers as well as many start-up firms in the business, home office, consumer, education and entertainment markets. Its 1,200 members account for 85 percent of the sales of the U.S. packaged software industry. SPA press releases are available through fax on demand at (800) 637-6823. - ---end bs - --- Sean Sutherland | GCS/C d- s+:+ a--- C+++ V--- P L E- W++ N++ PGP Key ID: E43E6489 | K- w o O-(++) M-- V PS+ PE++ Y++ PGP++(+) http://pobox.com/~seans | t--- 5+++ X++ Rb++ DI+ D+ G e- h! !r y In UNIX, no one can hear you scream. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMmVdeVZoKRrkPmSJAQHVQQf+O07bjV9CDzKPTzOcSpKNlmtUqE0dUD9R gM1nce4LkG+6xszwt81srAwEmMdFtxe2gF0udB95n1okI5ZYYf9YAqpStXKScdZZ QYb8LpaBoxQFlN1t66m6Hy5VXyx/EKjLYYWGWdvLxKIcxMqvvbx7wym3CHdj0iFq 1chg6s6MVFegFXT7l2EEOlHSkloz4/0fl8v63yXUZDyqd0H6PV05JsfC9vkGWVV1 yXC51nKq29ps5LB8Cm61intpfnDOYtq+ZN1EO91+9CDttDyLgJM1/HMA6HnbgGG8 CVc52Kw0JtahXi7cxKNmSuI1F9YEq00bNTqTqARzKAvha+5mWRZ8Iw== =AuZp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Q.E.D.
by IPG Sales 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some of you have sardonically written to say "Nihil Est Demonstrandum," N.E.D. because an OTP must be derived from a hardware source, that is, it must be a pure random sequence of limitless entropy. Accordingly, they unbashfully assert that an OTP generated by a computer program is not possible. How do they know that? Does the Bible tell them so, or the Koran, or do they get it from the Torah? Why not cite the source of their certainty instead of advancing an unsupported proposition. I do not mean to be rude, but excuse me, what scientific proof can they offer for that immovable avowal? There is no scientific proof whatsoever, none at all, except for the words and their steadfast, and maybe self serving, postulate. Accordingly, obviously it is they, not us, who are the ones that have "Nihil Est Demonstrandum," in this matter. There is not one scintilla of sustainable evidence to support such a doctrine. While the vast majority of people knowledgeable about cryptography have not heretofore believed that it is possible for software to produce an OTP, that does not make it a scientific fact, but merely means it is the consensus of scientific opinion that it is not possible. With all due respect to Bruce, and his exceptional work, Paul, Roy and many others who obviously know the subject matter of which we speak, I offer that history is replete with scientists supplying proof of the seemingly impossible. In support of their position, some have pointed out that John von Neumann, to paraphrase, stated that ARITHMETIC cannot produce random numbers, a thesis which I agree with; but where is that, in any way inconsistent with IPG's position on EUREKA? IPG has produced a system to generate software OTPs, albeit it within limited but but more than ample entropy, not software random numbers. We stipulate the obvious fact that the encryptor stream generated by EUREKA is a PRNG stream, though we do consider it gross denigration to castigate it as ONLY a PRNG stream. It is a PRNG issue that also happens to be an extremely well behaved OTP sequence, with limited but ample entropy, as well. It meets each and every criteria rationally established for an OTP in all reasonable aspects. Subjected to any and all statistical analyses, the EUREKA PRNG stream manifests itself as being random, though we know, as a scientific fact, that it is not. To substantiate that posit, and unlike the consensus of scientific opinion, obviously N.E.D., that believes that software cannot produce an OTP, IPG offers "Quod Erat Demonstrandum," Q.E.D. scientific proof that we can produce a humungous number of software OTPs sufficient to meet any and all current or future requirements. You do not need to be an Einstein, a Hawking, or a von Neumann, to understand the fundamental basis of the IPG EUREKA algorithm. Succinctly as I can , that is, given a truly random key of entropy N, and possibly truly random look up tables of combined entropy M, it is possible to generate up to N streams of characters of a length in this case of approximately 10^223, that manifest themselves as true OTPs. Think about that simple supposition for a moment. What do we mean by an OTP? We mean that an OTP is a stream of characters, or numbers, that cannot be derived in the absence of the key that was used to generate them, or alternately by trying all possibilities of that said key. Thus, when using the resultant as an encryptor stream, the only information derivable from the ciphertext is the determination of the maximum possible length. Furthermore, by using the exclusionary proof, you cannot preclude any possible message of that said length. If you think through that hypothesis, it becomes clear that such is not precluded by von Neumann's proffer, or by fundamental mathematical principles. The question then, is how can you go about doing that? That is all that IPG has done. We have figured out a mathematical certain way, ( Q.E.D.), of generating N number, or rather a number very close to N, of OTPs from a given key of entropy N, and we can prove it. Not only that, but you can prove it to yourself, Q.E.D. We maintain that it is discernible to any knowledgeable person who probes the algorithm, that the only analytical tack that can be mounted against EUREKA is brute force and that is patently impossible.. One of your Cpunk colleagues says he uses Triple DES, 168 bits, and he does not believe that it can be brute forced - I agree, 3-DES, 10^50+ possibilities, cannot be brute forced now, or in the foreseeable future - then what about the EUREKA's 10^34322 possibilities, 10^34271+ greater than 3-DES? No way, not now, not ever. Furthermore, EUREKA is an order, or more, magnitude faster than triple DES, easier to use, much more secure, etal. Another has suggested that if the key, and all the variables are hacked, then the system can be compromised. That is true, but again excuse me, does not that apply to any system, whether it be RSA, PGP, IDEA, and yes also a hardware sourced OTP. EUREKA's only edge in that regard is that built in means that facilitate safeguards which minimize such risks. EUREKA is not a panacea for all your encryption needs. RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines brightest is in two important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be largely eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is much faster, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for intranets, or mixed Internet/intranet systems. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis of changing files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. See for yourself. Prove it to yourself, Q.E.D. The IPG algorithm is available at: http://netprivacy.com/algo.html or a condensed version at: http://netprivacy.com/condalgo.html P.S. My resume can also be found there http://www.netprivacy.com/resume.html > ================================================================== > > Donald R. Wood > ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net >==================================================================== > > Some p[eople are more certain of their own opinions than they are of > facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle > > ---------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum ----------------------

5 4

CyberPromo sparks a new list
by roy＠sendai.scytale.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- There seems to be some interest, so I've started a list to discuss the CyberPromo ongoing abuse. The list is a simple exploder located at mail-abuse(a)scytale.com. For the present, I'm handling the list manually, so add/delete requests should be sent to me, roy(a)scytale.com. Personal referrals are welcome, but please don't publicize the list generally. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy(a)scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey(a)scytale.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMmWUABvikii9febJAQEPhQQAmMcPvTtAOptXvUbojCXpzWcupniPN+// z6W0/TEBPG5hvA42NiYXOUgvp2ESuKux1uOZfHp5jQb+FnZP6ac38e6mNQ9LxXAA 2iDA3NB2ZopfreIcnAzUt0uzXyQBUaZ1B/LTfyzs6u89nvTqg2cEcUfMm1MI4zDM wGh1KR0kXA4= =RsGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Re: SPA's Press Release
by Fred Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:10 PM 10/16/96 -0500, Sean Sutherland stood upon his soapbox and declaimed: >Their term, "contributory >infringement" is almost like suing the bartender because a customer got into a >wreck while drunk. Right or wrong, in some states, at least, you can not only sue a professional bartender, you can sue any individual who serves liquor at a private party and allows a guest to drive home under the influence, if the guest causes damage to you or your property as a result. Many people support this "vicarious liability" theory as it relates to drunk driving. Next time, pick a better analogy. You may have just given their lawyers the analogy they need to prove their case. Fred Goldberg WA2BJZ EMT-D

1 0

Q.E.D.
by cypher＠cyberstation.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some of you have sardonically written to say "Nihil Est Demonstrandum," N.E.D. because an OTP must be derived from a hardware source, that is, it must be a pure random sequence of limitless entropy. Accordingly, they unbashfully assert that an OTP generated by a computer program is not possible. How do they know that? Does the Bible tell them so, or the Koran, or do they get it from the Torah? Why not cite the source of their certainty instead of advancing an unsupported proposition. I do not mean to be rude, but excuse me, what scientific proof can they offer for that immovable avowal? There is no scientific proof whatsoever, none at all, except for the words and their steadfast, and maybe self serving, postulate. Accordingly, obviously it is they, not us, who are the ones that have "Nihil Est Demonstrandum," in this matter. There is not one scintilla of sustainable evidence to support such a doctrine. While the vast majority of people knowledgeable about cryptography have not heretofore believed that it is possible for software to produce an OTP, that does not make it a scientific fact, but merely means it is the consensus of scientific opinion that it is not possible. With all due respect to Bruce, and his exceptional work, Paul, Roy and many others who obviously know the subject matter of which we speak, I offer that history is replete with scientists supplying proof of the seemingly impossible. In support of their position, some have pointed out that John von Neumann, to paraphrase, stated that ARITHMETIC cannot produce random numbers, a thesis which I agree with; but where is that, in any way inconsistent with IPG's position on EUREKA? IPG has produced a system to generate software OTPs, albeit it within limited but more than ample entropy, not software random numbers. We stipulate the obvious fact that the encryptor stream generated by EUREKA is a PRNG stream, though we do consider it gross denigration to castigate it as ONLY a PRNG stream. It is a PRNG issue that also happens to be an extremely well behaved OTP sequence, with limited but ample entropy, as well. It meets each and every criteria rationally established for an OTP in all reasonable aspects. Subjected to any and all statistical analyses, the EUREKA PRNG stream manifests itself as being random, though we know, as a scientific fact, that it is not. To substantiate that posit, and unlike the consensus of scientific opinion, obviously N.E.D., that believes that software cannot produce an OTP, IPG offers "Quod Erat Demonstrandum," Q.E.D. scientific proof that we can produce a humungous number of software OTPs sufficient to meet any and all current or future requirements. You do not need to be an Einstein, a Hawking, or a von Neumann, to understand the fundamental basis of the IPG EUREKA algorithm. Succinctly as I can , that is, given a truly random key of entropy N, and possibly truly random look up tables of combined entropy M, it is possible to generate up to N streams of characters of a length in this case of approximately 10^223, that manifest themselves as true OTPs. Think about that simple supposition for a moment. What do we mean by an OTP? We mean that an OTP is a stream of characters, or numbers, that cannot be derived in the absence of the key that was used to generate them, or alternately by trying all possibilities of that said key. Thus, when using the resultant as an encryptor stream, the only information derivable from the ciphertext is the determination of the maximum possible length. Furthermore, by using the exclusionary proof, you cannot preclude any possible message of that said length. If you think through that hypothesis, it becomes clear that such is not precluded by von Neumann's proffer, or by fundamental mathematical principles. The question then, is how can you go about doing that? That is all that IPG has done. We have figured out a mathematical certain way, ( Q.E.D.), of generating N number, or rather a number very close to N, of OTPs from a given key of entropy N, and we can prove it. Not only that, but you can prove it to yourself, Q.E.D. We maintain that it is discernible to any knowledgeable person who probes the algorithm, that the only analytical tack that can be mounted against EUREKA is brute force and that is patently impossible. One of your Cpunk colleagues says he uses Triple DES, 168 bits, and he does not believe that it can be brute forced - I agree, 3-DES, 10^50+ possibilities, cannot be brute forced now, or in the foreseeable future - then what about the EUREKA's 10^34322 possibilities, 10^34271+ greater than 3-DES? No way, not now, not ever. Furthermore, EUREKA is an order, or more, magnitude faster than triple DES, easier to use, much more secure, etal. Another has suggested that if the key, and all the variables are hacked, then the system can be compromised. That is true, but again excuse me, does not that apply to any system, whether it be RSA, PGP, IDEA, and yes also a hardware sourced OTP. EUREKA's only edge in that regard is that built in means that facilitate safeguards which minimize such risks. EUREKA is not a panacea for all your encryption needs. RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and other systems fill very important exigencies. Where EUREKA shines brightest is in two important strategic user applications: 1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet communication privacy between two, or a group of, individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session encryption keys, and other work impediments of that genre can be largely eliminated. While applicable to everyone, this is especially true of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other non-techies. It is much faster, easier to use, and more flexible than other systems for this application. As such, it is ideal for intranets, or mixed Internet/intranet systems. 2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In this application it is unsurpassed because differential analysis of changing files is rendered impossible and it is extremely fast. See for yourself. Prove it to yourself, Q.E.D. The IPG algorithm is available at: http://netprivacy.com/algo.html or a condensed version at: http://netprivacy.com/condalgo.html P.S. My resume can also be found there http://www.netprivacy.com/resume.html P.S. Have any of you received the long: Phoenix arisen from the ashes posting that we made on 10-06-96 weird things are happening. > ================================================================== > > Donald R. Wood > ipgsales(a)cyberstation.net >==================================================================== > > Some people are more certain of their own opinions than they are of > facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle > > ---------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum ----------------------

2 1

Re: Comments on binding cryptography (1)
by Jim Miller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bert-Jaap Koops writes: > It does not want to solve the problem of > criminals using encryption. > Then he comments on binding cryptography. Then he concludes with: > I would prefer it if no such system were needed, but if it > helps in protecting me from criminals, I can live with it. > Feeling any cognitive dissonance, Mr Koops? Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

rival Clipper products
by scrappo.reverb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What somebody needs to do is make a rival for Clipper products. I propose that somebody with enough money should have a Clipper-type chip implementing Triple-DES or whatever developed and marketed. They should do the same things, except not be restricted by the government (obviously this wouldn't be for export) by the means of using weak crypto. These devices could probably be marketed to the same audience that Clipper products are aimed at, i.e. the general unsuspecting populace. The only problem I could see would be educating whoever buys into how the government is pulling the wool over their eyes. I'm sure with some funding from a major source, or some donation of time/supplies from a manufacturing company, it could be pulled off in grand fashion. Who said we can't play the government's little game? This along with some "Big Brother Inside" stickers massively propagated, and it might fly. Any insights?

2 1

re: Q.E.D.
by romana＠glamazon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You do not need to be an Einstein, a Hawking, or a von > Neumann, to understand the fundamental basis of the IPG > EUREKA algorithm. > ...they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Romana Machado romana(a)fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/ http://www.glamazon.com/

1 0

Societal Policing Association (SPA) Sues Sameer!
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: SOCIETAL POLICING ASSOCIATION SUES COMMUNITY CONNEXION!! To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Oct 16 Here's what I have learned about the SPA, the Societal Policing Association, a group supported by the CyberAngels, the Family Decency OrganizatIon, and the Association of Police Chiefs. NotE their term "contributory infringement" for anyone who fails to agree to report suspicious behavior. ("A citizen-unit who neglects to perform his societal-unit duties and who stands by as thoughtcrime is committed is just as guilty as the active member of the crime.") Details are in: http://www.spa.org/thoughtcrime/orwell.htm. "Anyone who knows or should have known that he or she is witnessing, inducing, applauding or tangentially contributing to infringement of any of the moral and decency rights by another person is liable for contributor infringement. " -- posting of views critical of authority -- linking to FTP or Web sites where unauthorized viewpoints may be obtained -- informing others of FTP sites were such views may be unlawfully obtained -- aiding others in locating or using unauthorized software supporting sites upon which the above information may be obtained allowing sites where the above information may be obtained to exist on a server Then there's their Vicarious Liability for Infringement by Another Person, outlined by: "Anyone who has the authority and ability to control another person and who fails to do so is vicariously liable for the infringement of another person." *** SPA Files Morality Suits Against ISPs and End Users Internet Decency Campaign Launched (Oct.10, 1996 --Washington, D.C.) -- The Societal Policing Association (SPA) announced today that it has filed five civil lawsuits for morality violations occurring on the Internet. Three of the lawsuits were filed against Internet service providers (ISPs), and the remaining two were filed against individual end users. Additionally, SPA launched its Internet Decency Campaign, which includes education and enforcement components, in an effort to educate and work cooperatively with ISPs regarding morality and decency violations. ISPs who immediately enroll their employee-units in decency reeducation programs and who agree to participate in SPA's program to stamp out illegal thoughts will receive immunity from SPA lawsuits and will receive a pro rata share of the collected loot from other ISPs sued by the SPA. ISP lawsuits were filed on Oct. 7 and 8 against Community ConneXion of Oakland, Calif.; GeoCities of Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Tripod Inc. of Williamstown, Mass. The SPA members named as plaintiffs in all three suits were the Christian Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith and the Million Aryan March. In each case, SPA first contacted the ISP and requested that the offensive thoughts be purged, but the ISPs cited the notoriously Communistic "First Amendment" and the anti-Christian "Electronic and Communications Privacy Act" and refused to cooperate. "These lawsuits send a clear signal to ISPs and end users that neither so-called "free thinking" nor failure to pay our protection fee will be tolerated. The Internet does not provide a safe haven for these types of activities," said Emmanuel Goldstein, SPA Reichsfuhrer. "Our intentions are to work cooperatively with ISPs. A key element of the IAPC is the ISP Political Reeducation Program devoted to alerting ISPs to their potential state of sin and providing them with the tools and moral guidance to save themselves," said Winston Smith, SPA's Reeducation Coordinator. --Keyser Soze, Political Reporter -- --

1 0