On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Brad Huntting wrote:

Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing? It sounds an awful lot like the "modem tax" and other urban legends.

Here is everything T.H.O.M.A.S. had on it. (http://thomas.loc.gov) S 314 IS 104th CONGRESS 1st Session To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications network and telecommunications devices and facilities. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 1 (legislative day, January 30), 1995 Mr. Exon (for himself and Mr. Gorton) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation A BILL To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications network and telecommunications devices and facilities. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Communications Decency Act of 1995'. SEC. 2. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934. (a) Offenses: Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(1)-- (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device'; (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication'; (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communications 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;' and (D) by striking out subparagraph (D) and inserting the following: `(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 3 the communication; or'; 22), by striking `telephone facility' and inserting `telecommunications facility'; (3) in subsection (b)(1)-- A) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking `telephone' and inserting `telecommunications device'; and (ii) inserting `or initiated the communication' and `placed the call', and B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility' and inserting `telecommunications facility'; and (4) in subsection (b)(2)-- (A) in subparagraph (A)-- (i) by striking `by means of telephone, makes' and inserting `by means of telephone or telecommunications device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes available'; and (ii) by inserting `or initiated the communication' after `placed the call'; and (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility' and inserting in lieu thereof `telecommunications facility'. (b) Penalties: Section 223 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- 4 (1) by striking out `$50,000' each place it appears and inserting `$100,000'; and (2) by striking `six months' each place it appears and inserting `2 years'. (c) Prohibition on Provision of Access: Subsection (c)(1) of such section (47 U.S.C. 223(c)) is amended by striking `telephone' and inserting `telecommunications device.' (d) Conforming Amendment: The section heading for such section is amended to read as follows: `obscene or harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and facilities in the district of columbia or in interstate or foreign communications'. SEC. 3. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION. Section 639 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 559) is amended by striking `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'. SEC. 4. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON RADIO. Section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'. SEC. 5. INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking `wire, oral, or electronic communication' 5 each place it appears and inserting `wire, oral, electronic, or digital communication', and (B) in the matter designated as `(b)', by striking `oral communication' in the matter above clause (i) and inserting `communication'; and (2) in paragraph (2)(a), by striking `wire or electronic communication service' each place it appears (other than in the second sentence) and inserting `wire, electronic, or digital communication service'. SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION ON BILLING FOR TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE CALLS. Section 228(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 228(c)(6)) is amended-- (1) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (C); (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting a semicolon and `or'; and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following: `(E) the calling party being assessed, by virtue of being asked to connect or otherwise transfer to a pay-per-call service, a charge for the call.'. SEC. 7. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS. Part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 6 551 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: `SEC. 640. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS. `(a) Requirement: In providing video programming unsuitable for children to any subscriber through a cable system, a cable operator shall fully scramble or otherwise fully block the video and audio portion of each channel carrying such programming so that one not a subscriber does not receive it. `(b) Definition: As used in this section, the term `scramble' means to rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so that the programming cannot be received by persons unauthorized to receive the programming.'. SEC. 8. CABLE OPERATOR REFUSAL TO CARRY CERTAIN PROGRAMS. (a) Public, Educational, and Governmental Channels: Section 611(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 531(e)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: `, except a cable operator may refuse to transmit any public access program or portion of a public access program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity'. (b) Cable Channels for Commercial Use: Section 612(c)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 532(c)(2)) is amended by striking `an operator' and inserting `a cable operator may refuse to transmit any leased access program or portion of a leased access 7 program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity.

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 jpp@markv.com wrote:

Uh oh! Egg on my face. Will someone explain to me how the amendments in S.314 make owners of ISPs or other computer systems liable for 'bad' data? I apologize for my previous uncalled for (so it seams to me now) ranting.

Sure, read on:

(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever -

(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications device -

(A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication] which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

Here's an important bit. "Transmits or otherwise makes available" is different from the earlier law. It DOES pleace a burden of responsibility upon the provider of service. NOTE that unlike other portions of the law, boths old and new versions, this part DOES NOT include the word "knowingly". Crucial, crucial point.

(B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues, without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;

No anonymous annoying! Does this mean we can't raid IRC channels anymore? Or flame people from anon.petit.fi (sp?) accounts? - dog

In article <Pine.3.89.9502081213.A7848-0100000@netcom10>, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:

(B) by striking out `makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, ^^^^^^^^^^ suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication';

This appears to make ISP's responsible for content.

It makes them responsible for something that they cannot control without violating people privacy.

Plus the processing cost would place a tremendous burden on the 'net. Transmision goes both ways, not just from the posting machine to the rest of the world. Every site 'transmits' every piece of news posted to the newsgroups they carry. Every intermediate site, especially the backbones, 'transmits' email even in not generated from or addressed to that site. -- America - a country so rich and so strong we can reward the lazy and punish the productive and still survive (so far) Don Melvin storm@ssnet.com finger for PGP key.

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

Brad Huntting wrote:

...

Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing? It sounds an awful lot like the "modem tax" and other urban legends.

I wrote a post to comp.org.eff.talk in which I asked if "S.314" isn't just the "Pi Bill," in which pi = 3.14 is mandated to be pi = 3.00.

S.314 I initially, for a minute or so, thought to be a put-on, a spoof. But the text lacked other signs of humor and had the trappings of a real bill. And then versions from reputable groups began to appear, so I was of course convinced it was real.

If it's a spoof, it's too cute by half.

--Tim May

I too thought it was a spoof initally. Hell, what Senator would be dumb enough to name a bill this way if it was real. If I were trying to pass a bill of this nature, it would be double-speak all of the way. But alas it is true...And I thought the DT bill was bad. Both of my congresscritters have been faxed and queried as to their position. I'll inform the group when they fax me back. I would urge others to do this. This will be unbelievably bad if we loose this one. The ramifications on this bill are still hammering me in the head. Sam

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:40:24 -0500 (EST), Ben <samman@CS.YALE.EDU> wrote:

Just use netnews for mail then. We can divide up netnews into different regions pgp.us.ca.north pgp.us.ca.south etc. and then just post pgp'd messages to the net. Kinda like blacknet. Ok so there's a high cost involved in it, granted.

The problem is that providers will be responsible for all traffic coming in and going out of their system. This includes usenet. I would imagine that the same filters would be applied to news too. I think we need to start lobbying now. I find it amazing that CPR and EFF haven't picked this up yet. - -- ============================================================================== skaplin@skypoint.com | Finger skaplin@infinity.c2.org for | a listing of crypto related files PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | available on my auto-responder. preferred. | (Yes...the faqs are there!) | Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com for | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard PGP public key. | outside a Roman brothel. | Fax Number +1 (612) 928-9771 | An UZI beats five aces every time... ============================================================================== "Automatic" simply means that you cannot repair it yourself. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLzg6EclnXxBRSgfNAQEV3Qf+I/Cvkl/4qmCS9InIoECaMf0zqn9ou1G+ W9zB12a15WcbVa71DuToq1CJ8P4pTCwNObDY6L1asn+o5/aMxcSHDlBBBeGFCZBe dtbKFoOPquQ4w+VWDorqDbZhDkQf38CyK325O5L7hkzEYiw6r2RIu8s6ZyHL6mIh +h2qlW+HCn+34Q5JM/Ogek3V65kVc605bafkTELhPtMn1j6cLlzF/ZbXK7ecgphu IBwKsxReOb/TNwZP3FacuM+gLxOtaQlIFTRJsFA6sNWqbbk8E3J7mc6Inoibi/DZ LFeBIFZ2VNctYMUxZgOs6eJeU0kyEh0p637wga/NOvkge+cJZp8RGw== =Szsj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <Pine.3.89.9502081135.A7848-0100000@netcom10>, you wrote:

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote:

...

I find it amazing that CPR and EFF haven't picked this up yet.

Really?

I had at least hoped that they would have their ear to the ground. Unfortunately I was wrong. ;( - -- ============================================================================== skaplin@skypoint.com | Finger skaplin@infinity.c2.org for | a listing of crypto related files PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | available on my auto-responder. preferred. | (Yes...the faqs are there!) | Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com for | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard PGP public key. | outside a Roman brothel. | Fax Number +1 (612) 928-9771 | An UZI beats five aces every time... ============================================================================== "A survey is being made of this": We need more time to think of an answer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLzmux8lnXxBRSgfNAQFDMwf/WrbC5T+GG7HB9TfTqJGbucaqlZO7rIVe R+xIYnG2feHT5vR43UpkpEVELLaMuiZBrQgEmBRY7U5EQcNqJQKcOZlZ4rUeFW29 ZMJtBFxmzx0SfRlx4YBMxNMnmFqlisXZuMzEoZbW5S+phskOeOMGbC/TtrIh1cJO wNPa2CcpS71xr4P1nWvC2yJevsbcDz49zwPwNxMibKHTz8AgskCKGwbhH1D8nanc z4Jl6g0bk9DkzQZgiU91FHfRLwmuvzhWa8hN0x6wNxzdt5GFCPR+Ju+i8silhw+u IlJP61Cn3W+wGkpRXniYhXn8chBwfNvPIKUABMtylQPRRvDB6BCVPw== =icAg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

As scary as S.314 is, I'm not sure it's likely to pass. Unlike the Digital Telephony Bill, which was on greased skids, this one seems to have come out of left field. I could be wrong on this, and maybe it's got a lot of sponsors, but it sounds like just another Bill that will die in committee or fail on the floor.

I would not count on this. The goal of the bill is to combat indecency/pornography/onscenity online - the kind of things pols LOVE to vote for. - dog