- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Java insecurity - long - argumentative - you are warned.
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote: > WARNING - THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS > A FLAME BY SOME READERS - IT IS LONG AND TEDIOUS - YOU ARE WARNED! > > 4.2 Security in the Java Environment > > > > Security commands a high premium in the growing use of the Internet > > for products and services ranging from electronic distribution of > > software and multimedia content, to "digital cash". The area of > > security with which we're concerned here is how the Java compiler and > > run-time system restrict application programmers from creating > > subversive code. [long list of important questions deleted ...] Essentially, I think that all of this will distill to a single issue, vis-a-vis Java or any other paradigm which wishes to represent itself as *secure*. Where is the security review role placed within the project development life cycle?? Is it at Design Concept? Or during Application Development? Or is it done last, after design completion, after all of the programming is complete and the production people are involved in operational turnover. Or is it done at all? This concept is not new, and should not present any problems to anyone in the industry. Even John Q. Public will understand it, if we use a simple construction analogy. If you want to build a secure house, your security doesn't start AFTER the house is built. It has to start at a very early stage. It starts before the blueprints are made, when you specify that you want a concrete windowless box located on a quiet street at the end of a cul-de-sac. That is simple and obvious. You certainly don't have *security* if after building a glass house on Main Street, if after the design is finished, the footings have been poured, and the key is about to be turned over to the occupant; if then, as an afterthought you put a single strong deadbolt on the front door to "secure" it. Anyone who can't or won't quite grasp this idea is either willfully attempting to steer gullible individuals astray, or is congenitally stupid. It's time to call a spade a spade. > What exactly does this mean? > > > While all this checking appears excruciatingly detailed, by the time > > the byte code verifier has done its work, the Java interpreter can > > proceed knowing that the code will run securely. Knowing these > > properties makes the Java interpreter much faster, because it doesn't > > have to check anything. Yikes!! I'll leave this for someone else to address. This sounds to me like a variation on virus scanning. I think that there are far more reputable virus experts than I who can comment and expand on *flaws* with that approach. > No runtime checking whatsoever. Get past the supposed verifier, and you > have free run of the machine. A single verifier bug or inadequacy, and > the world is unsafe for electronic commerce. As someone who *vividly* remembers October, 1987 and the near economic meltdown which was BARELY averted by the Fed, a near meltdown which occurred because of the interactions of systems far less intelligent or complex than those we routinely utilize today, systems which directly interface not only to each other, but have undocumented, non-predictable interactions with "soft and wet" systems, I might have some serious concerns. Then again, it is _only_ the economy, isn't it? > ASBESTOS SUITS MAY NOW BE REMOVED - FLAME OFF. > > P.S. > > When: Tuesday, November 7, 8AM > Where: The Hilton, Washington D.C. (the CSI conference) > The talk: 50 Ways to Attack Your World Wide Web Systems > > If you want a chance to heckle - be there. Drat ... I don't think that I'll be able to attend. I've already got a local presentation that I've pencilled in for tomorrow morning at some god awfully early hour. Then again, D.C. isn't quite my circuit. I was hoping though for some clarification. Are you THE Dr. Frederick B. Cohen?? The one who originally coined the phrase "computer virus" and who maintains the computer virus FAQ? Are you THAT Dr. Frederick B. Cohen, and are you speaking publically in Washington, tommorow as one of the keynote speakers? If you are, I'd be interested as to whether you'll talk about the recent gaping security hole in the existing installed Navigator code base which I detailed to this list's subscribers. The one posted this last Friday the Thirteenth, that questioned Netscape's wisdom in creating an experimental MIME object which does not follow the usual HTTP request/response paradigm, but instead allows a server to open and maintain a bi-directional communications channel from server to client. Effectively a non-password protected telnet into the heart of any system, a open exploitable connection which penetrates proxy servers and firewalls, and acts as an enhanced bi-directional delivery/recovery mechanism? I'd be very interested in the comments around that, especially since both Netscape and AT&T (who distributes the softwre under its own brand name) have made an explicit "no comment". I'd especially be interested in any post-session transcript. I also think that Elaine Garzarelli might be interested. Especially since she'll be addressing the nation and the public via the public television airwaves this Friday evening. Or at least ... uhmmm ... I _think_ that's when her electronic daytimer has her pencilled in ... Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

Earn $20 Per Signup
by Webmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Webmasters: Are you tired of wondering if the hits you are sending to your sponsors are being counted ??? Are you really sure whether the hit you sent was a RAW, a UNIQUE, or something else ??? Well MoJo Money eliminates those problems all together. We will pay you a flat rate of $15 for every FREE weekly membership you send and $20 for every other membership type !!! That's right... $15-$20 for EVERY signup !!! Check out our benefits to you: - No Raw/Unique hassles...You are paid for every signup you generate. - Your commission checks are prepared BI-WEEKLY by payroll processing firm ADP... No bullshit waiting for checks to be written by hand. And no minimum balance required. You will receive your check regardless of your commission. - You are offering a FREE membership to a GREAT site... Your signups will go through the roof with this program !!! - Real-Time on line stats! When a sale is approved you get INSTANT credit for it on your stats page. This is an actual stats page for one of our participating webmasters. Goto http://www.freshteens.com/mojomoney and see why over 600 webmasters have already joined the program !!!

1 0

Electronic-reply issues
by Stephen Whitaker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Key Words: public records; privacy; encryption; archives; Telecommunications Plan;] November 7, 1995 Mr. Geoffrey Commons Esq. Special Counsel Vermont Department of Public Service State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Commons: Thank you for your prompt reply to my document request. Yes, I will accept your electronic correspondence as your 'written' reply. However, this brings up several good points which I would ask that you follow up on: The receipt of an e-mail message does not, in and of itself, assure the recipient of the messages' authenticity, privacy or preservation. On the authentication issue, it is well known that the message headers are absolutely insufficient to authenticate the sender of a message. Digital technologies, using encryption, are required here. Other issues are the privacy of the message along it's long path between your desk and my office, and the records later availability, _in electronic format_, if requested. Regardless of the fact that we work only a thousand feet apart here in Montpelier, this message has probably traversed, _in clear text_, through Hartford CT., Albany NY., or Boston MA. prior to being exchanged between the so called 'gov-net' and sover.net. Your reply has also probably been backed up to a tape at the DPS, combined with other exempt public records dealing with current regulatory litigation or consumer complaints. These storage procedures, or lack thereof, could serve to impede future access to these and other records by the public. The original voice mail request and it's written reply take on some form of public records status where, by statute, records must be cataloged so as to be locatable if requested, and archived for a certain period of time pursuant to an approved records retention schedule. Those schedules are approved by the director of public records, John Yacavoni. It occurs to me that the DPS is required under the Vermont statutes governing the preparation of a Ten Year Telecommunications Plan, to analyze telecommunications technologies and the implication of their use in both the public and private arenas. The pertinent parts of the statute are included here for your convenience. *******************begin_included_document**************************** 30 VSA 202d * * * >(b) The department, through the director, shall prepare a telecommunications plan for the state. The plan shall be for a 10 year period and shall serve as a basis for state telecommunications policy. The plan shall include at a minimum: > (1) an overview, looking ten years ahead, of statewide growth and development as they relate to future requirements for telecommunications services, including patterns of urban expansion, statewide and service area economic growth, shifts in transportation modes, economic development, technological advances and other trends and factors which, as determined by the director, will significantly affect state telecommunications policy and programs; > (2) a survey of Vermont residents and businesses, conducted in cooperation with the agency of development and community affairs, to determine what telecommunications services are needed now and in the succeeding ten years; > (3) a study and evaluation of conversion to measured service as ordered by the board; > (4) an assessment of the current state telecommunications system and evaluation of alternative proposals for upgrading the system to provide the best available and affordable technology for use by government. > (c) In developing the plan, the department shall take into account the policies and goals of section 202c of this title, and the need for basic service at affordable rates, improved competition among providers, the needs of the state as user of telecommunications services, and future development of the state. *******************end_included_document*************************** It would then logically follow that a thorough analysis of these issues, which are not created by, but are certainly complicated by telecommunications technologies, should be included in the forthcoming Draft of that plan. The department would then offer the citizens and the business community an opportunity to recommend changes or elaboration on those draft recommendations. These should include, but are not limited to the use of digital signatures, authentication and encryption technologies, and last but not least EDI or Electronic Document Interchange. These technologies are relevant to the state as a whole as far as positioning our citizens and businesses to participate in the rapidly emerging era of electronic commerce (where absolute privacy protections are essential), but are also immediately relevant to the gov-net/ school-net implementation, and even to the workings of your Department of Public Service and the quasi-judicial Public Service Board in order to enable electronic filings, to expedite the backlog of dockets and to answer official document requests. As far as I know there is no other working group addressing these issues at present. Possibly your 'written' reply to my public records request, delivered via e-mail, will serve to catalyze such an effort in the context of a PSB-DPS working group (open to the public, of course) or in one of the amazingly effective forums in which your commissioner participates dealing with telecommunications. One more question: was the voice mail message which I delivered to you, which certainly constitutes a record "created or acquired in the course of agency business", retained, cataloged and archived? Or, if it was destroyed, was it pursuant to an approved records retention schedule? I recall the voice mail message to your Commissioner relating the Clyde River Dam negotiations which prompted a headline story and wish to emphasize the relevance of these new technologies and the management of public records. I look forward to your thoughtful reply, or that of your Commissioner, Richard Sedano. Now aren't you glad you use e-mail? Sincerely, Stephen Whitaker Design Access Network P.O.Box 1331 Montpelier, Vermont 05601-1331 whitaker(a)sover.net At 06:22 PM 11/7/95 EDT, you wrote: >November 7, 1995 > >Dear Mr. Whitaker: > > I have today received your request (left on my voice mail >yesterday, 11/6) to inspect certain documents. I understand your >request to be for access to all staff analyses and internal or >external correspondence regarding 9-1-1 costing or implementation, >prepared or received by the Department of Public Service during >calendar year 1995. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your >message. > > I have relayed your request to all DPS staff, and we are in the >process of collecting and reviewing responsive documents. Due to the >length of time covered by your request, as well as its breadth, it will be >a few days before I can be sure that I have collected and reviewed all >responsive documents. Therefore, pursuant to 1 V.S.A. sec. >318(a)(5)(B), I am advising you that I expect to make the requested >documents available no later than Tuesday, November 14. If I can >make them available earlier, or if unexpected delays are encountered, >I will let you know. Otherwise, you may inspect the documents at the >DPS, 112 State Street, Montpelier on November 14 as provided by >statute. > > Since you requested my reply by e-mail, I am assuming that this >message will suffice as "written notice" under the Access to Public >Records law. Please let me know if you would prefer a response by >ordinary mail. > > Thank you for your inquiry and continuing interest in these >matters. > Sincerely, > > Geoffrey Commons, Special Counsel > Stephen Whitaker /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ ESIGN _/ _/ CCESS _/ _/ ETWORK /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Design Access Network 802.479.6118 Post Office Box 1331 whitaker(a)sover.net Montpelier, Vermont 05601-1331 PGP public key available

1 0

Religious Right Threatens to Shut Down Net: Call NOW
by ACLUNATL＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are the advocacy instructions for individuals opposed to the Federal Online Indecency Legislation that we promised last week. ======================================================================== CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE EXON/COATS COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (SEE THE LIST OF CAMPAIGN COALITION MEMBERS AT THE END) Update: -Latest News: The Christian Coalition is pushing Congress to censor the net more heavily than even Sen. J.J. Exon ever imagined. There is the very real possibility that they may succeed. You should be very worried. We are. -What You Can Do Now: Follow the directions below and call House Speaker Gingrich and Senate Leader Dole. Implore them to allow parents to make choices for their children, instead of government censors. Volunteer to join the fight by helping organize in your home town. CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Nov 2, 1995 PLEASE WIDELY REDISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT WITH THIS BANNER INTACT REDISTRIBUTE ONLY UNTIL December 1, 1995 REPRODUCE THIS ALERT ONLY IN RELEVANT FORUMS ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now The letter from Ed Meese and the Christian Right Chronology of the CDA For More Information List Of Participating Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Since the very first day that Senator J.J. Exon (D-NE) proposed censorship legislation for the Internet, the Christian Right has pushed for the most restrictive regulations they could think of. The Religious Right (which does not necessarily speak for all religious people concerned with this issue) recently tipped their hand in a letter to Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) and Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA) requesting a new and more restrictive net censorship proposal. There are essentially three new dangerous elements of their campaign to shut down cyberspace: INTERNET PROVIDERS, ONLINE SERVICES, AND LIBRARIES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR EXPRESSION ONLINE The Religious Right has proposed to hold anyone who provides access to the Internet or other interactive media, including online services providers, ISP's, BBS's, Libraries, and Schools, criminally liable for all speech carried on the network. In order to avoid liability under this provision, service providers would be forced to monitor user's electronic communications to be assured that no "indecent" material is transmitted across their networks. This proposal is MORE RESTRICTIVE than the Exon Communications Decency Act, or any other net censorship legislation currently in Congress. In their letter to Congress, the Religious Right says: [Providers] would simply be required to avoid KNOWING violations of the law. [emphasis added] However, the "knowing" standard is vague enough that the mere knowledge that such material exists could be sufficient to trigger criminal liability. A single complaint or even a news report could force a service provider to take down a web page, remove posts to chat rooms or other discussion forums, or shut down listservs in order to avoid going to jail and facing huge fines. A STANDARD FOR INDECENCY The proposals pushed by the Christian Coalition relies on the unconstitutional "indecency standard". Like the Exon Communications Decency Act, the Christian Coalition seeks to regulate all indecent speech online. Indecency is a broad category that includes everything from George Carlin's "seven dirty words" to such classic novels and "The Catcher in the Rye" and "Lady Chatterly's Lover". The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on indecent speech are Constitutional only if they rely on the "least restrictive means". Broad indecency restrictions on interactive media do not satisfy the "least restrictive means" test, because interactive media allows users and parents tremendous control over the information they receive. Any legislation which attempts to apply an indecency restriction to the Internet is unconstitutional on its face. The Christian Coalition's proposal that relies on an indecency restriction contemplates dumbing down every conversation, web page, newsgroup, and mailing list on the Internet to the level of what is not offensive to children. What kind of discussions between adults are possible in an arena where everything has been reduced to the level of the Lion King? UNPRECEDENTED CONTROL OVER ONLINE SPEECH FOR THE FCC The Christian Coalition would give the FCC broad jurisdiction over cyberspace. It would allow the FCC jurisdiction over your online speech, and over the design Internet software, such as web browsers and filtering programs that parents can use to control their children's access to the Internet. The Internet has developed from a government project to a market-driven economic boom for thousands of businesses. Giving the FCC authority over this medium would significantly hinder the growth of this new industry. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. The proposals from the Religious Right will literally destroy online speech as we know it. The odds of stopping this are not certain. There is a very real chance that this legislation will pass, and we will experience a period of uncertainty and chilling of speech while an appropriate test case attempts to reach the Supreme Court (should it even get there!) The Religious Right has a strong grass-roots network. We need to counter their energy and ensure cyberspace is not lost due to them. IMMEDIATELY CALL House Speaker Gingrich (R-GA) and Senate Leader Dole (R-KS) and urge them to oppose the Christian Coalition's proposal. Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ======================== ============== ============== R GA Gingrich, Newt 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952 If you're at a loss for words, try one of the following: Please oppose the recent proposal from the Religious Right to censor the Internet. The only effective way to address children's access to the Internet is through parental control tools outlined by the Cox/White/Wyden approach. or As a religious person and a parent, I oppose the Religious Right's attempts to censor the Internet. I am the best person to monitor my child's access to the Internet using parental control tools as outlined in the Cox/White/Wyden approach. 2. Join the online fight by becoming a volunteer for your district! Check to see if you're legislator is in the list below. If they are not, consult the free ZIPPER service that matches Zip Codes to Congressional districts with about 85% accuracy at: URL:http://www.stardot.com/~lukeseem/zip.html The conference committee legislators are: House: Barr (R-GA), Barton (R-TX), Berman (R-CA), Bliley (R-VA), Boucher (D-VA), Brown (D-OH), Bryant (D-TX), Buyer (R-IN), Conyers (D-MI), Dingell (D-MI), Eshoo (D-CA), Fields (R-TX), Flanagan (R-IL), Frisa (R-NY), Gallegly (R-CA), Goodlatte (R-VA), Gordon (D-TN), Hastert (R-IL), Hoke (R-OH), Hyde (R-IL), Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Klug (R-WI), Lincoln (D-AR), Markey (D-MA), Moorhead (R-CA), Oxley (R-OH), Paxon (R-NY), Rush (D-IL), Schaefer (R-CO), Schroeder (D-CO), Scott (D-VA), Stearns (R-FL), White (R-WA) Senate: Burns (R-MT), Exon (D-NE), Ford (D-KY), Gorton (R-WA), Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Pressler (R-SD), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stevens (R-AK) If your legislator is on the conference committee, you have a chance to influence their vote on this issue with your power as a constituent. Volunteer to help educate your legislator by sending mail to volunteer(a)vtw.org. A coalition volunteer will be in touch with you. You can starting working to help spread the word in your district by sending this letter to five friends. Ask them to call Dole and Gingrich as well. 3. The People for the American Way (PFAW) and the American Civil Liberties Union are organizing a letter from ORGANIZATIONS to the Conference Committee to oppose the censorship provisions. If you are a representative of an organization that would like to signon to this letter, you should contact jlesser(a)pfaw.org IMMEDIATELY. 4. We can't suggest relaxing at this point. The stakes are too high, and the risk is too great. Everything now hangs in the balance. ________________________________________________________________________ THE LETTER FROM ED MEESE AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT October 16, 1995 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Larry Pressler, Chairman Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Re: Computer Pornography Provisions in Telecommunications Bill Dear Mr. Chairmen: We are writing to urge the conference committee seeking to reconcile the telecommunications bills passed by the House and Senate include in the final bill the strongest possible criminal law provisions to address the growing and immediate problem of computer pornography without any exemptions, defenses, or political favors of any kind accorded to those who knowingly participate in the distribution of obscenity to anyone or indecency to children. While there is no perfect solution to the problem of computer pornography, Congress could not hope to solve this problem by holding liable only some who are responsible for the problem. The recent Justice Department prosecution project targeting those who violated federal child pornography law using America On-Line is instructive in this regard. More than ninety individuals were targeted for prosecution although many others, perhaps as many as 3,000 according to one press report, were originally targeted by the Department of Justice as potential violators of child pornography laws. Apparently due to a shortage of investigative and prosecutorial resources, the project was limited. Since there are insufficient resources to investigate and prosecute but a fraction of those that are trafficking in child pornography by computer, then there will likely be even fewer resources available to investigate and prosecute those involved in obscenity and indecency. Thousands of individuals both in this country and abroad are regularly placing obscenity and indecency on the Internet. It is not possible to make anything more than a dent in the serious problem of computer pornography if Congress is willing to hold liable only those who place such material on the Internet while at the same time giving legal exemptions or defenses to service or access providers who profit from and are instrumental to the distribution of such material. The Justice Department normally targest the major offenders of laws. In obscenity cases prosecuted to date, it has targeted large companies which have been responsible for the nationwide distribution of obscenity and who have made large profits by violating federal laws. Prosecution of such companies has made a substantial impact in curbing the distribution of obscenity, with many such offenders going out of business altogether. So too will prosecution of access providers which _knowingly_ traffic in obscenity have a substantial impact, a far greater impact than just the prosecution of a person who places one or a few prohibited images on the Internet. Such a person could not traffic in pornography without the aid or facilitation of the service or access providers. Indeed, if Congress includes provisions protecting access or service providers in whatever bill is finally passed, it is likely that most in this country who are trafficking in indecency to children or obscenity would continue to do so since the threat of prosecution would be minuscule, given the numbers of those currently involved in this activity. It is also likely that those outside our country who are engaged in these activities would continue to do so since it would be nearly impossible to extradite them to the United States for prosecution. Thus, unless all who knowingly participate in such matters are subject to the law, the Internet will remain the same and Congress will have failed in its responsibilities to the children and families of America. Federal law has traditionally assigned equal liability both for those who commit a crime and those who aid and abet a crime. See Title 18 U.S.C. Code Section 2: "(a) whoever [sic] commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, councils [sic], commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principle [sic]." Service or access providers who knowingly participate in the distribution of indecency to children or in obscenity to anyone are aiders and abettors in the commission of those crimes and thus should have liability under any law Congress passes. Current federal law on child pornography provides no no exemption or defense for access providers. Thus, the child pornography law provides a strong deterrent against trafficking in child pornography for those who would otherwise knowingly participate in its distribution by computer whether pedophile or access provider. The changes in law which we support would not hold an access provider criminally liable for all illegal pornography on the Internet which their services may be used to obtain. Nor would it require that access providers check all communications to ensure that no violations of the law are occurring. They would simply be required to avoid knowing violations of the law. This is an obligation imposed on all citizens. Technology exists today for access providers, through a simple process, to target or flag and remove files containing objectionable material. We support the House-passed language insofar as it addresses obscenity by amendment Title 18, Sections 1462, 1465, and 1467 of the United States Code. The provision restricting transmission of indecency in the House-passed bill, an amendment to Section 1465, is inadequate, and we urge that it be substantially revised. Attached is the specific language we support which includes the House passed language on obscenity and includes revisions on both the House passed language on indecency, which would amend Title 18 and the Senate-passed language on indecency, which would amend Title 47. The combination of these provisions, we believe, would provide effective laws to curb obscenity and indecency on the Internet by establishing that all who knowingly participate in the distribution or facilitation of obscenity to anyone or indecency to children would be subject to the law. Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter. [signed] Edwin Meese III Ralph Reed Christian Coalition Donald E. Wildmon American Family Association Alan Sears, Former Executive Director Atty General's Commission on Pornography Phyllis Shafly Eagle Forum Beverly LaHaye Concerned Women for America Reverend Louis P. Sheldon Traditional Values Coalition Jay Sekulow American Center for Law and Justice Paul Weyrich Free Congress Foundation Paul McGeady Morality in Media Len Munsil National Family Legal Foundation Robert Peters Morality in Media Kenneth Sukhia Former United States Attorney, N.D., FL Former Chairman, Atty General's Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Child Exploitation and Obscenity -------------------------- Section 1465 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended to punish distribution by computer of indecent material to minors by adding at the end the following: Whoever knowingly communicates, transmits, or makes available for communication or transmission, in or effecting interstate or foreign commerce an indecent communication by computer to any person the communicator or transmitter believes has not attained the age of 18 years of age, knowing that such communication will be obtained by a person believed to be under 18 years of age, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. TITLE IV -- OBSCENE, HARASSING, AND WRONGFUL UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995". Sec. 402. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Section 223 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended -- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting in lieu of [sic]: ``(a) Whoever-- ``(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications -- ``(A) by means of telecommunications device knowingly-- ``(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and ``(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; ``(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or ``(D) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections: ``(d) Whoever-- ``(1) knowingly within the United States or in foreign communications with the United States by means of telecommunications device makes or makes available any indecent communication in any form including any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, or image, to any person under 18 years of age regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; or ``(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. ``(e) Defenses to subsections (a) and (d), restrictions on access, judicial remedies respecting restrictions for persons providing information services and access to information services-- "(1) It is a defense to prosecution that a person has complied with regulations designed to restrict access to indecent communications to those 18 years old or older as enacted by the Federal Communications Commission which shall prepare final regulations within 120 days of the passage of this bill. Until such regulations become effective, it is a defense to prosecution that the person has blocked or restricted access to indecent communications to any person under 18 years of age through the use of verified credit card, adult access code, or adult personal identification number (PIN). Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to treat enhanced information services as common carriage." "(2) No cause of action may be brought in any court or any administrative agency against any person on account of any activity which is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty, which activity the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section. (f) Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing laws and regulations which do not result in the imposition of inconsistent obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct not covered by subsection (d)(2)." (g) Nothing in subsection (a), (d), or (e) or in the defenses to prosecution under (e) shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law. (h) The use of the term 'telecommunications device' in this section shall not impose new obligations on (one-way) broadcast radio or (one-way) broadcast television operators licensed by the Commission or (one-way) cable services registered with the Federal Communications Commission and covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this Act. Sec. 403. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION. Section 639 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking "10,000" and inserting "$100,000" Sec. 404. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO. Section 1466 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting "$100,000". Sec. 405 SEPARABILITY "(a) If any provision of this Title, including amendments to this Title of [sic] the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Title and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby." ________________________________________________________________________ CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT Sep 26, '95 Sen. Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop Managers Amendment and the CDA from the Telecommunications Deregulation bill Aug 4, '95 House passes HR1555 which goes into conference with S652. Aug 4, '95 House votes to attach Managers Amendment (which contains new criminal penalties for speech online) to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Aug 4, '95 House votes 421-4 to attach HR1978 to Telecommunications Reform bill (HR1555). Jun 30, '95 Cox and Wyden introduce the "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act" (HR 1978) as an alternative to the CDA. Jun 21, '95 Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Jun 14, '95 The Senate passes the CDA as attached to the Telecomm reform bill (S 652) by a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill (S 714) is not passed. May 24, '95 The House Telecomm Reform bill (HR 1555) leaves committee in the House with the Leahy alternative attached to it, thanks to Rep. Ron Klink of (D-PA). The Communications Decency Act is not attached to it. Apr 7, '95 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) introduces S.714, an alternative to the Exon/Gorton bill, which commissions the Dept. of Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislation (such as the CDA) is necessary. Mar 23, '95 S314 amended and attached to the telecommunications reform bill by Sen. Gorton (R-WA). Language provides some provider protection, but continues to infringe upon email privacy and free speech. Feb 21, '95 HR1004 referred to the House Commerce and Judiciary committees Feb 21, '95 HR1004 introduced by Rep. Johnson (D-SD) Feb 1, '95 S314 referred to the Senate Commerce committee Feb 1, '95 S314 introduced by Sen. Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-WA). ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION Web Sites URL:http://www.vtw.org/exon/ URL:http://epic.org/ URL:http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/ URL:http://www.cdt.org/cda.html URL:http://outpost.callnet.com/outpost.html FTP Archives URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/policy/freespeech/00-INDEX.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 Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * Association of Alternative Newsweeklies * biancaTroll productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL * Voters Telecommunications Watch (Note: All 'Electronic Frontier' organizations are independent entities, not EFF chapters or divisions.) ________________________________________________________________________ End Alert ========================================================================

1 0

NOT_nok
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11-7-95. W$J, Page One lead: "The 'Intranet'. Internet Software Poses Big Threat to Notes, IBM's Stake in Lotus." Hundreds of firms are achieving similar groupware linkups with simpler, cheaper systems on the World Wide Web. Dubbed "Intranets," these private networks combine text, graphics and even video to distribute news, answer employee questions, update personnel records and connect far-flung workers. The Intranets link a total of about 15 million workers. These private networks are far different from what most Internet fans see -- the public "home pages." These setups reside on company-controlled servers shielded from the public Web by a security "firewall." The Web has an "open" design that all programming developers can use in common, as opposed to the "closed" and proprietary designs of Lotus Notes, Novell's Groupwise and Microsoft's Exchange. That lets Intranets accept traffic from incompampatible computers more readily, making it easier for customers and suppliers to tap in, and for users to draw data from old mainframes and minicomputers. NOT_nok (10 kb)

1 0

FUA - Has Open
by Freakazoid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! Freakazoid`s Undergorund Archive Is About to Open. Please Stop by. It`s cool. Hacking Phreaking Carding Undergorund And much, much moore http://freakazoid.simplenet.com /Freakazoid

1 0

Re: State of the Union Address
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Get a Chemisty 101/2 book. You must have been in the bone head chemistry >class. I think you mean `a bone head chemistry class.' My old college book doesn't have it either, and I took two semesters of the stuff...

1 0

RE: Announcement: RPK InvisiMail released on 12 Jan, 1998
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A bunch of us cryptographers would really like to attack RPK, but the documents on the website are slippery enough to make it difficult. There is enough unspecified for them to sneak away from any analysis. If someone were to reverse engineer the RPK cryptosystem from this product, I would really appreciate it. Bruce ********************************************************************** Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098 101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590 http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What was the URL again? I got that at work and want to re-visit site tonite at home.

1 0

Call For Papers - Conference on Redistributable Software
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'm hoping that we can get some papers on freely redistributable *crypto* and *security* software -- like PGP or PEM or SSL_eay or Kerberos or brute-force tools or SATAN or Java tools or whatever! I'm on the program committee and am trying to make the conference as broad as possible, not just focusing on "traditional" free software. Help! --gnu] CALL FOR PAPERS First Conference on Freely Redistributable Software Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation 2-5 February 1996 Cambridge, MA Over the past 15 years, free and low-cost software has become ubiquitous. This conference will bring together implementors of several different types of freely redistributable software and publishers of such software (on various media). There will be tutorials and refereed papers, as well as keynotes by Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman The Conference will be held at the Cambridge Center Marriott, 2-5 February 1996. Papers are invited on any aspect of GNU, Linux, NetBSD, 386BSD, FreeBSD, expect, PERL, tcl/tk, and other tools for which the code is accessible and redistributable. Extended abstracts are due on or before Thursday, 30 November 1995. Authors will be notified no later than 8 December. Full papers will be due Thursday, 4 January 1996. Program committee: Peter H. Salus, chair Robert J. Chassell Chris Demetriou John Gilmore Marshall Kirk McKusick Rich Morin Eric S. Raymond Vernor Vinge Abstracts of 350-750 words (in troff, PostScript, or straight ASCII, only) should be sent to conf96(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter H. Salus #3303 4 Longfellow Place Boston, MA 02114 +1 617 723 3092 -----------------------------------------------------------

1 0