Diplomacy Zine -- EP #216 Chapter Seven From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 30 Dec 1990 03:23:04 +0000 Issue #216 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* TOP TEN WAYS TO GET HUSSEIN OUT OF KUWAIT From David Letterman November 2, 1990 show. 10. Ask really nicely. 9. Tell Hussein he's won tickets to Giants game. As soon as he sits down -- nab him! 8. Remind him that McRibs are for a limited time only. 7. Offer him Saudia Arabia instead. 6. Explain that what he's done is wrong. Then bomb him back to the Stone Age. 5. Threaten to sic Marion Barry at him. 4. Convince him it's senseless irrational thing to do. 3. Give him a congressional seat. 2. Tell him you heard they were giving out fudge in Pakistan. 1. Get Charles Bronson to "Clean House". ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE, GET SOME, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: REPUBLIC, BORODINO, JACAL, VERSAILLES, DRESDEN, KHAN And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha Chapter Three contains: DAWN PATROL, BERLIN, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY And is published by cwekx@htikub5.bitnet/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: OZARK, DEADLY DAGGERS, YORKTOWN, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME And needs a publisher. Chapter Five contains: DEF CON 5, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, YALTA And is published by jjcarette@watami.waterloo.edu/David Gibbs Chapter Six contains: TOKUGAWA, BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE And is published by mike@suna.computation.umist.ac.uk/Mike Reddy Chapter Seven contains: HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, GIBRALTAR, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, DEF CON 4, OPERATION DESERT SHIELD ------------- Chapter Seven ------------- Table of Contents: All articles in this issue are about the Electronic Frontier Foundation: The following was sent by apple!well!jef: We will shortly begin publishing regular on-line editions of EFF News to comp.org.eff.news. EFF News will contain news and information about the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well as selected discussions about the issues of the day on the electronic frontier. Representative topics will include censorship, privacy, the application of the Bill of Rights to digital media, the development of standards of responsibility for users and operators of networks, and the policies which should guide the development of national and global information infrastrctures. The group comp.org.eff.talk will continue to be an open and unmoderated forum on the same subjects. We will distribute editions of EFF News to the EFF mailing list, although we would prefer people read the newsgroup if at all possible. Send requests to be added to the mailing list to eff-request@well.sf.ca.us. Send submissions for EFF News to effnews@eff.org. And please bear with us as we continue to organize our networking arrangements. Mitch Kapor mkapor@eff.org When all else fails use the EFF voice telephone (617) 864-0665 The following was sent by Jim Cannell/Jim.Cannell@f21.n143.z1.fidonet.org: Tom Jennings FidoNet 1:125/111 usenet ...hoptoad!kumr!anomaly (anomaly@FIDONET.ORG) 24 Nov 90 The U.S. Constitution does not grant us rights. "Our" government does not grant us rights. They have nothing to give us, other than ostensibly services which it provides from our taxes. (I'll leave that one alone here.) The Constitution simply admits that, as humans, we have certain rights, and that the government recognizes this, and promises not to take them away. THAT was the revolutionary idea behind this government. This is an incredibly important difference, and one which our gov't doesn't like to emphasize. They want it to appear that they are the defenders of all that is good, when in reality they are one of the worst offenders. * * * * * Tim Pozar & I just got back from the Hackers Conference 6.0. (The Hackers' Conferences are an invite-only social event for the creative weirdos who make up at least part of the forces behind the (mostly) software frontier. When they were started in '84, the micro software industry was still somewhat laughable in large-industry terms (though given a lot of credibility (sic) by the IBM PC a few years before), and "hacker" usually meant more or less what "ham" did in amateur radio. I've been to four of them so far, 1, 2, 4 and 6. The first two were great, the 4th not so, in my peculiar opinion. It was too ... isolated. The whole trickle-down thing revisited. Like this -- "We're making the tools that will benefit the world" and all that rot, and if it only cost $500, everyone could buy one. (Forgetting that they themselves are 1% of 1% and $500 is an unthinkable figure for *most* US citizens -- and growing.) But this year was different. * * * * * The unix-based usenet network has many corporations that pay for telecomm costs, unlike us bums who pay for it ourselves, or on the sly where possible. Until a year or so ago, FidoNet was not considered a "real" network, whatever that is. Part of it was simple snootiness, but a big part was simply that we sprung up from a place no one was expecting, and even when the wilder of the "traditional network" bunch looked in the right direction, they weren't sure of exactly what it was they were seeing ... you have to admit we are a curious bunch. People don't just "build" networks. They are expensive, take all that expensive minicomputer hardware, and who takes care of all those user accounts? What user accounts?! Where's your VAX? Hey wait a minute ... * * * * * Some INTERNET nodes specialize in FTP'able (filereqestable) files; utilities, documents, that sort of thing, just like FidoNet nodes do. One specialized in .GIF picture files, including some of variously erotic content. The (gov't) sponsors of the net (in keeping with the current censorious trend) ordered the stuff "off". The Finnish offered to take the files, where they quickly became 70% of the traffic ... and indication of their U.S. popularity. Then the feds (I forget the branch) told the Fins: if you continue to provide those files to the U.S., we will cut all of your network connections. The Fins had no choice; survival comes first. * * * * * The Hackers Conference was in a ski-lodge in Tahoe City, starting Friday afternoon, ending Sunday afternoon. Sleep optional. Dinner served at midnight. (Us vegetarian types had to sludge through greasy sauce-laden meat and such. Where "mint tea" is some grim lipton-clone where I swear they simply held a mint-leaf over the mixing vat ...) After the usual preliminaries (beer, M&M's, 10,000 "hello"s, finding rooms, etc) the fun begins -- a 48 hr long bullshit session, interrupted with food, sleep and occasional not-well-organized "sessions". In one of the bigger sessions, someone asked "how many people had been interviewed recently by the FBI?" Fully 1/4th raised their hands. * * * * * The FidoNet is nothing if not contradictions -- independent, unpredictable, paranoid, decentralist, self-sufficient, flexible, reactionary, technically sophisticated ... Some wonder how we get anything done. I wonder how anyone ELSE gets things done! What appears to be a liability to the "rest of the world", our "lack of organization", lack of resources (90's code word for money) may be our long-term survival and later cause for rejoicing. Corporate "resources" don't come without strings, as the usenet may be about to find out. This past weekend, that bastion of liberalism (well, liberal capitalism; well, capitalism) Apple Computer just pulled the plug on the alt.sex.* newsgroups. (Their equiv. of echo conferences; ".*" means just what you DOS users might guess; it's a lot of conferences!) (Apple was a very big "backbone" distribution node.) Why? "Too controversial" or some such. I'm sure it's a "good reason". And of course they can do it, just like that. It is not unthinkable it will start a "run" on plug-pulling. Before we get too snooty ourselves, we have to keep in mind that we are just as vulnerable, maybe more so -- we don't have the resources to defend ourselves, nor the connections (yet) to the network community (though thanks to Tim Pozar we have ufgate (usenet/fidonet gateway) and INTERNET status). WE NEED THOSE TO SURVIVE. And we can do it while maintaining our utter and complete independence. And, the INTERNET will learn from us. * * * * * To a few people, the high number of (ahem) interviewees was not a surprise. Mitch Kapor and John Barlow both had funny (if it was fiction) and foreboding (because of the feds power and ignorance) "interviews". The story is quite interesting, and was available on The Well and in print. To make a long story short, they have formed the EFF -- Electronic Frontier Foundation -- to defend First, (protected speech) and Fourth, (unreasonable search/seizure) Constitutional Amendments, as well to monitor ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) and other violations, and to work with legislators to work out fair laws. What was most heartening to me, was the approach -- instead of defending only the "nice, upstanding", positive-image type cases, they went for the real issues -- the kids and families getting busted at gun point by the feds, where literally every piece of electronics removed from the house, no recourse, no reason, no charges filed. The Niedorfer case, where the claimed $70K "stolen file" is found to be a brochure available to anyone for under $14. (And the press still calls it "stolen 911 software".) Steve Jackson Games; computers seized because an employee allegedly had on his home BBS a copy of the E911 doc (they were confused as to the location of the BBS; they later claimed that S.J's cyberpunk games (role playing like Dungeons & Dragons) were actually instructions on how to break into real-life computers!) In another case, the FBI thought that (1) John Draper (aka Cap'n Crunch) was CEO of AutoDesk and (2) AutoDesk was involved in Star Wars research, because they worked with something called "hyperspace". Yup -- it's hilarious, only they have guns, secrecy, bureaucracy and the power to evade legal process and accountability. And, you get hung in the press because their version of "reality" is so ... heavy. It is so rare to find someone who acts "from the heart" in their life, politics and actions, willing to put reputations at stake and correctly defend the "undefendable" first, not last. I have nothing but good things to say about EFF and it's supporters. * * * * * This years FidoCon should be the best one yet. I'm actually looking forward to going, a rare event. (I'll drive out in my propane-powered '63 Rambler.) John Barlow, now of EFF fame, will be speaking. And you ought to listen -- not only is he an interesting speaker (and lyricist for the Grateful Dead!), the subject is Your Personal Future -- our governments actions against all too ordinary citizens, and what the EFF is doing, and what you can do as well. We all went through some internal hell these last few years, of which the growth and death of IFNA was merely a symptom. Look -- the FidoNet doubled in size every few months for years, and is still growing at a rate that is completely, bar-none, unprecedented. How many of you have broad-based communications skills or experience? How many of you had telecomm. and/or conferencing experience before FidoNet? Simple experiences of speaking in a large group of diverse people? And I mean as in communications with humans, not hacking. Very few of us, I'm afraid, and while it's been a serious problem, it (1) affords us a fresh perspective and (2) simply something we have to deal with. The fun is in the learning. I think we are heading for the fourth phase of FidoNet growth (innocent start, echomail, paranoid self-consciousness, ...). The timing is good -- we have some real work cut out for us. * * * * * So this year's Hackers Conference was different. How? Finally they reached my level of paranoia. There was an edge of stark reality in the air. A bit more tied to the planet. Personally, it completed a circle. Now, every single thing I'm involved in is officially disliked and under investigation and infiltration by police of one sort or another. I think those that though "well, you must have somehow brought it on yourself" are starting to see, it's not like that at all ... * * * * * By the way -- you might have heard about the nonsense at Prodigy -- the idiotic administrators using broadscale censorship (correct word) to squash dissent. What you probably don't know -- because the reports themselves were self-censored -- was that the original discussion, purged by Prodigy, was over gay rights and anything to do with gay people. This is what Prodigy claimed was "offensive material". FidoNews 7-48 Page 5 26 Nov 1990 Shame, shame, on the so-called liberal types who in their turn did not report that. It was not simply not including the gay angle; it was intentionally removed, a very different thing. Everyone suffers from that removal. * * * * * (1) The usenet is our ally. We need as many interconnections with it, and other networks, as is reasonably possible. We are all under attack. Besides, it's technically interesting. (2) Don't fall for what Pastor Martin Niemoller did; ("In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak because I wasn't a Communist...") We're all "commies" in that sense -- the brat hackers are simply the thin edge of the wedge. Criminals are criminals -- which is decided in a court of law, not with a sealed search warrant and intimidation. (3) Watch for EFF stuff in the net, or contact them directly. EFF Inc, 112 Second St, Cambridge MA 02142. voice (617)-864-0665, or usenet eff@well.sf.ca.us Bug 'em for an echo conference. Tell 'em you are from the FidoNet. (4) The First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy will be held 25 - 28 March 91 at the SFO Marriott. The goal is to open channels of communication between network and telecomm experts, info/datacomm providers, law enforcement, prosecutors, constitutional exports, computer users and civil libertarians. Attendance will be limited to 600 people. The event is sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and chaired by Jim Warren (of West Coast Computer Faire, amongst other notorieties). CFPconf, 345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062, FAX (415)-851-2814, or usenet jwarren@well.sf.ca.us * * * * * It is of more importance to the community that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished, and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, "It is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue is no security". And if such sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever. -- John Adams The following was sent by apple!well!jef: ************************************************************ ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00 (December 10, 1990) *** *** The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. *** *** Welcome *** ************************************************************ ************************************************************ Editors: Mitch Kapor (mkapor@eff.org) Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) REPRINT PERMISSION GRANTED: Material in EFF News may be reprinted if you cite the source. Where an individual author has asserted copyright in an article, please contact her directly for permission to reproduce. E-mail subscription requests: effnews-request@eff.org Editorial submissions: effnews@eff.org We can also be reached at: Electronic Frontier Foundation 155 Second St. Cambridge, MA 02141 (617) 864-0665 (617) 864-0866 (fax) USENET readers are encouraged to read this publication in the moderated newsgroup comp.org.eff.news. Unmoderated discussion of topics discussed here is found in comp.org.eff.talk. This publication is also distributed to members of the mailing list eff@well.sf.ca.us. ************************************************************ The EFF has been established to help civilize the electronic frontier; to make it truly useful and beneficial to everyone, not just an elite; and to do this in a way that is in keeping with our society's highest traditions of the free and open flow of information and communication. EFF News will present news, information, and discussion about the world of computer-based communications media that constitute the electronic frontier. It will cover issues such as freedom of speech in digital media, privacy rights, censorship, standards of responsibility for users and operators of computer systems, policy issues such as the development of national information infrastructure, and intellectual property. Views of individual authors represent their own opinions, not necessarily those of the EFF. ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Table of Contents *** ************************************************************ Article 1: Who's Doing What at the EFF Article 2: EFF Current Activities - Fall 1990 Article 3: Contributing to the EFF Article 4: CPSR Computing and Civil Liberties Project (Marc Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) Article 5: Why Defend Hackers? (Mitch Kapor) Article 6: The Lessons of the Prodigy Controversy Article 7: How Prosecutors Misrepresented the Atlanta Hackers ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 1 of 7: *** *** Who's Doing What at the EFF *** ************************************************************ The EFF has hired its first full-time staff member, Mike Godwin. Mike is serving as the EFF's staff counsel and will be coordinating the ongoing legal work of the EFF as well. Mike is a recent graduate of the University of Texas Law School. Previously he served as editor-in- chief of The Daily Texan student newspaper. He has been a frequent contributor to the discussions of computing and civil liberties on the net. Welcome, Mike. As the scope of EFF activities increase, we anticipate hiring another full-time professional staff person at EFF. The new position is in the process of being defined, but the responsibilities are likely to include involvement with our print and online publications as well as the administrative tasks associated with raising contributions and responding to our constituents. We have gotten settled in our remodelled quarters. Leila Gallagher has joined us as an office volunteer helping with duplicating, mailing, and other administrative matters. There are currently additional volunteer opportunities at the EFF's Cambridge office. Anyone with experience with PageMaker and FileMaker who is interested in helping us with our print newsletter and creating a inquiries database is encouraged to contact Mike Godwin. Gerard van der Leun (boswell@well.sf.ca.us) has volunteered to organize and edit the first issue of the EFF's print newsletter, the EFFector. He is getting lots of help from Dan Sokol and Rick Doherty. Look for a first issue this winter. Mitch Kapor is working full-time on public interest computing issues, including the EFF, where he is currently serving as Acting Executive Director. John Barlow (barlow@well.sf.ca.us) is actively engaged in writing and speaking about issues on the electronic frontier. Harvey Silverglate and Sharon Beckman (slvrgood@well.sf.ca.us) of the law firm of Silverglate and Good and Terry Gross (tgross@well.sf.ca.us) of the Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, and Lieberman are the EFF's litigation counsel. ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 2 of 7: *** *** EFF Current Activities - Fall 1990 *** ************************************************************ >>>LEGAL EFFORTS<<< The EFF is continuing to investigate legal opportunities for helping to establish the First and Fourth Amendment rights of computer users and sysops. We are closely tracking the known cases of BBS-related seizures and arrests that have arisen as the result of Operation Sun Devil and the computer-crime operation based in the Chicago U.S. Attorney's office. These cases may provide us with critical opportunities to defend the rights of computer users and BBS operators. We are continuing to track other cases of alleged computer-related crimes, many of which arose prior to the two federal operations mentioned above, but in which the EFF may be able to play some formal or informal role. The EFF has also been following the Prodigy case and has been investigating the cases in which universities may have been ordered by NSF officials to remove graphics files from their systems. We have been increasing our media presence through our cooperation with trade- publication and mainstream journalists, who now know to call the EFF offices for feedback on computer-related news items. We are increasing our contacts with attorneys around the country who are involved in computer-related cases. It is hoped that these attorneys may ultimately become part of a network of attorneys who associate with EFF for the purpose of taking on pro bono cases in which EFF has an interest. The EFF been working to provide the American Bar Association with input concerning judicial guidelines for the issuance of search warrants in computer- and BBS-related cases. >>> MASSACHUSETTS COMPUTER CRIME BILL<<< The EFF has drafted and is working for the passage of a computer crime bill, which has the backing of the Governor and Attorney General of Massachusetts. If passed, the bill will serve as model legislation in balancing property and free speech interests. Previously, a completely different version of the bill had passed both houses of the Massachusetts legislature and was sent to the Governor for his signature. Thanks to the efforts of the Governor's Office and the Massachusetts Software Council, the bill came to our attention and we were able to persuade the Governor that, as originally written, it had a number of fundamental flaws, not the least of which was the unproven assumption that a bill that broadly criminalized whole ranges of computer-related activities was even called for. In fact, the original bill appeared to operate from the same set of assumptions that we have seen too often in other EFF activities: an untested belief that more regulation is necessarily better and a disregard for the consequences of such an approach in stifling free speech and ordinary commerce. The result was a bill which was both unwise as well as unconstitutional. The preamble of the new bill explicitly recognizes that the integrity of computer systems must be protected in a way that does not infringe on the rights of users of computer technology, including freedoms of speech, association, and privacy. In its first provision, the bill makes it a crime to knowingly and without authorization access a controlled computer system with the intention of causing damage and actually cause damage in excess of $10,000. The second provision of the bill is identical to the one above except that it covers activities undertaken with reckless disregard of the consequences as opposed to intent to cause damage, and it carries a lesser penalty. The bill breaks new ground in the area of enforcement. Prosecutions may be brought only by the Attorney General and only after guidelines are established to assure that searches of electronic media do not unnecessarily infringe on speech and privacy rights. These guidelines must be consistent with the concerns stated in the preamble. The bill also establishes a 17-person commission charged with recommending future legislation in this area. Now that the Governor has sent the revised bill back to the Legislature, it is up to them. We have met with the House and Senate sponsors of the bill and are cautiously optimistic that the bill can be passed in the waning days of the current legislative session. >>>MEETINGS<<< On September 18 Mitch Kapor made a presentation about the EFF to the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Academy of Science and Engineering, of which he is a new member. The Board is constituted to advise the government on technological issues with great social impact and generally consists of department chairs of well-known computer science departments and vice-presidents of research at major corporations. The CSTB viewed the issues raised as extremely important and wanted to contribute to the advancement of the positions advocated by the EFF. Mitch is working on follow-up proposal ideas, including the CSTB conducting a national "strategic forum" on computing and civil liberties. This venue is potentially very important because recommendation of the CSTB carry a great deal of weight in the Congress. On September 26, Steve Jackson (Austin game publisher whose BBS and computer equipment was seized in a Secret Service raid), Terry Gross (EFF attorney), and Sheldon Zenner (the lawyer who represented Craig Neidorf) appeared on a panel at a general meeting of the Boston Computer Society to discuss computing and civil liberties. They were very well received by an enthusiastic audience. On September 27, Mitch Kapor and Sheldon Zenner made a presentation to the I4 group. This is a select organization of 50 large corporations who support a program in computer security research at SRI, which is run by Donn Parker. This was an important bridge-building session with the corporate world. Dorothy Denning participated in the panel discussion which followed the presentations. On October 3-4, Dorothy Denning and Craig Neidorf attended the National Conference on Computer Security, Washington D.C. On October 20th John Barlow gave a major address at the annual meeting of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility in San Fransisco on "Civilizing Cyberspace: Computers, Civil Liberties, and Freedom". On October 29, Harvey Silverglate and Mitch Kapor participated in a panel sponsored by Harvard's Office of Information Technology on "Electronic Communication and Political Freedom". Gene Spafford of USENET fame was also present. There was an audience of approximately 100 people. On October 30th Mitch appeared on a well-attended panel at MIT on intellectual-property reform. On November 7 Mitch spoke before the American Society for Information Science annual meeting in Montreal on EFF issues. John, Mitch, Steve Jackson, John Gilmore and Rick Doherty all attended Hackers 6.0, held this year at Lake Tahoe, on November 16-18. There was a very active session devoted to the EFF on Sunday, which generated much interest and converted a few skeptics. -end- ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 3 of 7: *** *** Contributing to the EFF *** ************************************************************ We have filed a 501c3 application with the Internal Revenue Service to qualify for eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. We expect to hear from the service within a few months. In the meantime, we can accept contributions now which will qualify for deductibility once our exemption is granted. -end- ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 4 of 7: *** *** CPSR COMPUTING AND CIVIL LIBERTIES PROJECT *** *** by Marc Rotenberg *** *** (marcindc@well.sf.ca.us) *** ************************************************************ >>> UPCOMING CPSR POLICY ROUNDTABLE <<< CPSR will host the first Computing and Civil Liberties policy roundtable on February 21 and 22, 1991 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC. The purpose of the roundtable will be to bring together leading experts to explore two issues: free speech and computer networks, and searches of computer bulletin boards. What speech restrictions currently exist? Should federal agencies or private companies be allowed to restrict the content of a computer message and, if so, in what circumstances? The second issue is the investigation of computer bulletin boards by law enforcement agents. Are there any restrictions on the ways that police may monitor computer communications and computer bulletin boards? If not, should such restrictions be developed? The conference is the first in a series of policy roundtables that will be held in Washington, DC and that are made possible with funding from the Electronic Frontier Foundation -end- ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 5 of 7: *** *** Why Defend Hackers? *** *** by Mitch Kapor *** ************************************************************ An all-too-common perception of the EFF that prevails in the computer industry and those who report on it--from John Sculley to the Wall St. Journal--is that the EFF is an organization that has "something to do with hackers." (They use "hackers" as a term not of approbation but of rebuke). Most of these sometime colleagues and associates of mine are puzzled as to why I would be doing such a thing. (A few think I've just become a loony.) Anyway, they've heard about the terrible problems caused by hackers who break into computer systems, they worry that I'm out to defend such practices, and they disapprove. But their disapproval is based on the pure misconception that the EFF's purpose is to defend people's right to break into computer systems. Let me clear up that misconception now. I regard unauthorized entry into computer systems as wrong and deserving of punishment. People who break into computer systems and cause harm should be held accountable for their actions. We need to make appropriate distinctions in the legal code among various forms of computer crime based on such factors as intent and the degree of actual damage. In fact, the EFF has drafted a bill that has the backing of the Governor and Attorney General of Massachusetts and that embodies these principles. But if the EFF isn't trying to advance the cause of computer hackers, you may ask, what is it doing and why? What is it that was sufficiently powerful to motivate me to help start a whole organization? As I began to find out the real story behind government raids and indictments last summer, I became incensed at the fact that innocent individuals were getting caught up in the blundering machinations of certain law enforcement agencies and large corporations. These were kids really, young people with whom I identified, who faced the prospect of having their lives ruined. Take Craig Neidorf, for example. Neidorf, a 20-year-old college student and the publisher of an electronic newsletter, was indicted on felony charges of wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property. Neidorf had published a document about administrative procedures used in the 911 emergency response telephone system that someone else had removed from a BellSouth computer. On the fourth day of the trial, the prosecution dropped the case after it became clear that the information in the "highly confidential" BellSouth document at issue was publicly available for less than $20. Justice was served by the government's decision to drop the case, but it was expensive justice. Neidorf and his family face $100,000 in legal bills, to say nothing of the disruption and suffering caused by the trial for an action that should never have been brought against him to begin with. And the prosecution has had a chilling effect on Neidorf, who has stopped publishing PHRACK. In a second case, the EFF continues to assist Steve Jackson, a game manufacturer in Austin, Texas, who has suffered substantial business losses after a Secret Service raid in early March resulted in the seizure of his BBS and of his forthcoming fantasy gamebook GURPS Cyberpunk. The seizure of Jackson's computer equipment caused him to lay off nearly half of his staff and threatened the survival of the business. As subsequent revelations have showed, there was no good reason for this raid. It never should have been permitted to occur in the first place. While helping defend the innocent is one role for the EFF to play, there is more at stake than trying to prevent individuals from being wronged. It is also a matter of rights for all of us. The actions taken against Craig Neidorf and Steve Jackson -- the prosecution of an electronic publisher and the seizure of a BBS and an electronically stored book-in-progress -- demonstrate governmental disregard of the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of speech I believe it is terribly important to extend to these new digital media the same strong First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of expression which we enjoy in our own lives and in the print media. The government should not be able to seize a bulletin board any more easily than they can seize a printing press. We must find ways for law enforcement to do its job in protecting the property interests of some of us without violating the freedom of speech of the rest of us. This is clearly a matter of protecting civil liberties and thus familiar to those who take an interest in upholding the Bill of Rights, but it is also more than that. These embryonic media of electronic mail, computer bulletin boards and conferencing systems, provide open forums of communication. They are a healthy antidote to the corrosive effects of the power of large, centralized institutions, private and public, and to the numbness induced by one-way, least-common-denominator mass media. In the physical world, our sense of community withers. Urban centers as places to live are being abandoned by all who can afford to leave. In the global suburbs in which more and more of us live, one's horizon is limited to the immediate family. Even close neighbors are often anonymous. In the realities that can be created within digital media there are opportunities for the formation of virtual communities--voluntary groups who come together not on the basis of geographical proximity but through a common interests. Computer and telecommunications systems represent an enabling technology for the formation of community, but only if we make it so. I believe it is urgent, as a matter of national policy, that we encourage and further stimulate the social experiments and developing infrastructure that are taking place on the Net every day. The ultimate mission of the EFF is to help articulate this vision and play a constructive role in the working out of the new legal and social norms which we are faced with developing. As John Barlow and I meditated together last June on the broader implications of the initial events --a meditation that catalyzed the formation of the EFF--we could see that what was at stake was not merely seeing justice be served in the case of a few individuals, nor simply the preservation of the civil liberties of all of us, although these goals are vitally important. The larger issue is how our society will come to terms with the onrush of transformative technology. If we take the right steps now--and EFF is working to take those steps--new and increasing access to information technology will enhance rather than inhibit the positive growth and development of individuals, of communities, and of society as a whole. -end- ************************************************************ *** EFF News #1.00: Article 6 of 7: *** *** The Lessons of the Prodigy Controversy *** ************************************************************ Many EFF supporters have asked what position, if any, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken with regard to the recent dispute between the online service Prodigy and a large, vocal subset of its users. Although EFF is not involved at the moment in any activities directly relating to the Prodigy dispute, we believe that the dispute touches some basic issues with which we are very concerned, and that it illustrates the potential dangers of allowing private entities such as large corporations to try and dictate the market for online electronic services. Although Prodigy, a joint project sponsored by Sears and IBM, has been available in some cities since October 1988, national availability of the service and a big advertising campaign only began this fall. New users who signed on during the membership push would receive, for a single monthly fee of $12.95, access to all Prodigy services, which included online shopping, a news service, and a flight-scheduling service. The flat monthly rate was a major selling point. Prodigy was originally intended to become an electronic shopping mall,, where consumers could directly order goods and services. While the top portion of a Prodigy user's computer display is dedicated to whatever information Prodigy is providing the user (an encyclopedia, say, or a summary of the day's news), an area along the bottom of the screen is devoted to advertising various consumer goods and services. Among the services Prodigy provides is a public conferencing system, analogous in some ways to a computer bulletin-board system (BBS), but national in scope. Users can carry on public discussions of topics ranging from politics to health issues. Prodigy management has hired editors "with journalistic backgrounds" to review messages for suitability before they are allowed to be publicly posted. The member agreement allows the management to limit public discussions of topics and to edit postings of individual members for obscenity or illegal content ... or for anything else, at Prodigy's discretion. The result of this broad management prerogative? One member is reported to have had his posting about population problems in Catholic countries censored, presumably out of the editors' fear that Catholic users would be offended. More significantly, some whole discussion topics, including a debate between Christian fundamentalists and gay activists, have been removed without warning from the conferences. But what bothers the Prodigy protesters is not just that particular topics are censored--it's that the censorship is capricious. "That's one of the most frustrating things--you can't even predict what's going to be censored and what isn't," says Henry Niman, a cancer researcher who later become one of the leaders of a user protest of Prodigy. The initial solution to the censorship problem was simple: Take the discussions to e-mail. Prodigy users began to rely on a mailing-list feature of the program to continue their (now-uncensored) discussions. But soon a crisis had brewed. The Prodigy users who had been told to take their no-longer-welcome public discussions to e-mail were now being told that they wouldn't be able to use the e-mail service at the flat rate any longer. Instead, each account would get 30 free messages per month, with a charge of 25 cents per message thereafter. This meant, in effect, the end of the mailing lists, since just a few mailings could exhaust a user's free-message quota and rack up sizable charges. And it was disappointing as well to many non-mailing-list users, some of whom are disabled, who rely on Prodigy as a major social outlet. The result of this policy change was predictable: irate Prodigy users began to protest, complaining on Prodigy's public boards about the new usage fee and attempting to organize a write-in campaign notifying Prodigy's management and--when management turned a deaf ear to their protests--its advertisers of their disaffection. Prodigy management responded by terminating the accounts of 12 of the protestors, claiming that the protestors had violated their membership agreements, which forbade "harassment." Prodigy management justifies the usage fees by arguing that their original hardware setup couldn't support the increases in electronic traffic. The new policies were adopted to curb what management perceived as flagrant abuses of electronic mail privileges by a tiny minority of users. And, a Prodigy spokesman insists, the time Prodigy customers spend in e-mail is time that they aren't buying from Prodigy's advertisers. (Prodigy claims that ads are not visible during electronic mail; Prodigy users say this claim is misleading, and that while ads are invisible at some points while editing and reading e-mail, they're nevertheless visible elsewhere during e-mail sessions.) Of course, in many ways the issue of the fees for e-mail is a superficial one. The only reason a significant fraction of users began to rely on mass mailings is that they were barred from public discussion of issues on Prodigy's public message bases. The Prodigy experience to date reveals a serious mismatch between the expectations of Prodigy's management and its customers. Here the market clearly seemed to want unrestricted public conferencing and electronic mail. But as demand for these features has mounted, the supplier, rather than trying to satisfy its customers, has cut back on the features' availability because it did not correspond to or fit with the company's view of the purpose of the service. To the extent to which this type of thinking is representative of the general way large commercial interests may offer on-line services, it clearly represents a turning away from the use of digital media as open forums of public communication. In the extreme case, in a situation in which Prodigy and its commercial competition all choose to censor and control communication on their services, the public interest will not be well served. "It is necessary to consider decisions that Prodigy is making carefully," Jerry Berman, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Information Technology Project, told the New York Times last month. "We have no comparable models in the computer era," he said, "but we should be concerned if systems such as Prodigy become the rule. Instead of expanding speech, we'll have electronic forums that are quite limited." It is clear that Prodigy management is uncomfortable with the notion of a free forum; they have chosen to describe their service as a "publication" rather than as a forum precisely because they want to have an editor's prerogatives to dictate, absolutely, what the content of the "publication" will be. We at EFF do not dispute that Prodigy is acting within its rights as a private concern when it dictates restrictions on how its system is used. We do think, however, that the Prodigy experience has a bearing on EFF interests in a couple of ways. First, it demonstrates that there is a market--a perceived public need--for services that provide electronic mail and public conferencing. Second, it illustrates the fallacy that "pure" market forces always can be relied upon to move manufacturers and service providers in the direction of open communications. A better solution, we believe, is a national network-access policy that, at the very least, encourages private providers to generate the kind of open and unrestricted network and mail services that the growing computer-literate public clearly wants. -end- Article 7 of 7 will be in issue #217. Publisher comments: Have a nice day. ****************************************************************************** To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers, and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com. ****************************************************************************** Up