BBS in a Box 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ BBS in a Box 2 / BBS in a box - Trilogy II.iso / Files / MUG News / EFF / effector2.03 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1992-07-14 | 29.3 KB | 617 lines | [TEXT/EDIT]

########## ########## ########## | AMERICA ONLINE FLAP| ########## ########## ########## | A sensible position| #### #### #### | | ######## ######## ######## | COMPUSERVE| ######## ######## ######## | A sensible decision| #### #### #### | | ########## #### #### | SUN MICROSYSTEMS GRANT TO EFF| ########## #### #### | A new and improved eff.org in 1992| | THE EFF PIONEER AWARDS: CALL FOR NOMINATIONS | | =====================================================================| EFFector Online January 7, 1992 Volume 2, Number 3| =====================================================================| In this issue: THE AMERICA ONLINE FLAP SUN MICROSYSTEMS MAKES MAJOR EQUIPMENT GRANT TO EFF THE COMPUSERVE CASE THE EFF AND FREE ENTERPRISE EFF at SCAT THE FIRST ANNUAL PIONEER AWARDS:CALL FOR NOMINATIONS -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE AMERICA ONLINE FLAP Three weeks ago, Roger Dietz of Fremont, California, revealed to the media that he had received GIF files of sex acts via email to his account on America Online. The files apparently featured people who were underage. Dietz, an adult, had been posing as a gay 13-year-old boy in the public chat rooms of America Online for some time. His announcement that what appeared to be "kiddie porn" was sent to him caused a number of news organizations such as CNN, local and national newspapers, and Newsweek to follow up on the story. As many participants of the nets know, the "discovery" that computer networks contain and transmit adult material via email, and sometimes as files accessible to members of the network or BBS is something that recurs with some regularity on both the public and commercial systems. When it does, it poses severe problems for the managers of those networks. Although explicit sexual material has been part of the American scene for many years, the fact that it can be transmitted through computer networks is news to many people. When the material is reported to involve underage people, most people feel uneasy, mystified, and angry. Since the technology and legal nature of email is not well understood by the majority of citizens, many people wonder why the management of computer networks cannot actively police their systems to odious or potentially illegal material. Faced with this problem, Steve Case, President of America Online, said to Newsweek's John Schwartz: "People ask, 'How can you permit this? It's the same question that could be asked of the postmaster general." Going into more detail online, Case posted the following message to all members of America Online: ------------------------------------------------- Message to AO members from Steve Case: RESTATEMENT OF OUR POLICY I'd like to remind all of you that we have established rules regarding the use of this service, which we call "Terms of Service." These rules are posted in the online customer support area. Our goal is to foster the development of an "electronic community" that honors the principles of freedom of expression, while also recognizing that some community standards are needed for the service to grow. Recently two troubling problems have come to our attention. The first is a report that some members are using the service to commit illegal activities. A member has forwarded to us copies of messages he received which contained graphic files that may constitute child pornography. Because a member chose to forward these files to us, we were able to intervene and we are working with the authorities to pursue the matter. We obviously were unaware of this act until the files were forwarded to us, as our policy is that all private communications -- including e-mail, instant messages, and private chat rooms -- are strictly private, and we do not, will not, and legally cannot monitor any private communications. But if we are alerted to a potential offense and we are sent evidence, as we were in this particular case, we will vigorously pursue the matter. This first problem dealt with the illegal use of private communications. The second deals with the abuse by a handful of members of the public communications features. Recently, there has been an increase in online behavior that we -- and we think most members -- find to be offensive. This has included the use of vulgar language in public areas (chat rooms and/or message boards), the creation of inappropriate screen names and/or room names, and the sending of unsolicited, harassing Instant Messages to some members. Our desire is to trust the judgment of our members, and to err on the side of free expression. We don't want to aggressively police public areas to make sure everyone is abiding by the Terms of Service. However, we aren't going to let this type of unwanted behavior by a few ruin the service for us all. Let this serve as a warning to those few people who are creating the problem: shape up or ship out. Steve Case, President America Online, Inc. (reposted by permission of America Online) ------------------------------------------------- -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Reviving A Computer After A Fire If a computer's plastic casing has not been deformed by the heat, which begins to happen at 250 degrees F, then the computer will work. --Dean Sheridan, electronics technician and deaf actor, Torrance, California.** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- SUN MICROSYSTEMS MAKES MAJOR EQUIPMENT GRANT TO EFF We are pleased to announce that Sun Microsystems has awarded The Electronic Frontier Foundation a substantial equipment grant for 1992. This grant will enable us to go forward with a number of technical upgrades and other projects we have been putting off for some time due to the limitations on our equipment. For many months, the trusty Sun 4/110 (eff.org) which handles almost all our Internet traffic (including the EFF's anonymous ftp archives, the mailing lists we host, our USENET feed, and our WAIS server) has been pushed to its limits. In order to upgrade our systems and provide better service to the net and our members, we began last summer to pursue a grant from Sun Microsystems that would allow us to modify and upgrade our system. The major feature of the grant is a new SPARCStation 2, as well as an upgrade to a SPARCStation 2 from our current 4/110. With two machines, each more powerful than our current system, we will be able to provide more and faster ftp, WAIS, and mailing list service without making the system unusable for "normal work". In addition, we have been granted a SPARCStation IPX (to be used for software development), two SPARCStation ELCs, which will be used for administrator workstations (allowing us to run window systems, long compiles, and the like without bogging everything down), and a large amount of additional disk space (much of which will go to ftp archives, additional WAIS databases, and the like). We are making the final arrangements now, and hope to have the new machines phased in over the course of February. (People who have been using 192.88.144.3 or 'eff.org' for ftp or WAIS please note that that address *will change*. Use ftp.eff.org or wais.eff.org, respectively, instead, as those will always point to the right machine for the job.) The Electronic Frontier Foundation would like to extend its heartfelt thanks to all the people at Sun Microsystems for this strong vote of confidence in our mission and our work. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Brenner's Rule of Pausing Programmers If an expert pauses while testing a new program, that's where the beginner will fail. -- Norman Brenner, Fleetwood, New York ** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE COMPUSERVE CASE: A STEP FORWARD IN FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR ONLINE SERVICES. By Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) By now you may have heard about the summary-judgment decision in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, a libel case. What you may not know is why the decision is such an important one. By holding that CompuServe should not be liable for defamation posted by a third-party user, the court in this case correctly analyzed the First Amendment needs of most online services. And because it's the first decision to deal directly with these issues, this case may turn out to be a model for future decisions in other courts. The full name of the case, which was decided in the Southern District of New York, is Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe. Basically, CompuServe contracted with a third party for that user to conduct a special-interest forum on CompuServe. The plaintiff claimed that defamatory material about its business was posted a user in that forum, and sued both the forum host and CompuServe. CompuServe moved for, and received, summary judgment in its favor. Judge Leisure held in his opinion that CompuServe is less like a publisher than like a bookstore owner or book distributor. First Amendment law allows publishers to be liable for defamation, but not bookstore owners, because holding the latter liable would create a burden on bookstore owners to review every book they carry for defamatory material. This burden would "chill" the distribution of books (not to mention causing some people to get out of the bookstore business) and thus would come into serious conflict with the First Amendment. So, although we often talk about BBSs as having the rights of publishers and publications, this case hits on an important distinction. How are publishers different from bookstore owners? Because we expect a publisher (or its agents) to review everything prior to publication. But we *don't* expect bookstore owners to review everything prior to sale. Similarly, in the CompuServe case, as in any case involving an online service in which users freely post messages for the public (this excludes Prodigy), we wouldn't expect the online-communications service provider to read everything posted *before* allowing it to appear. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court case on which Judge Leisure relies is Smith v. California--an obscenity case, not a defamation case. Smith is the Supreme Court case in which the notion first appears that it is generally unconstitutional to hold bookstore owners liable for content. So, if Smith v. California applies in a online-service or BBS defamation case, it certainly ought to apply in an obscenity case as well. Thus, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe sheds light not only on defamation law as applied in this new medium but on obscenity law as well. This decision should do much to clarify to concerned sysops what their obligations and liabilities are under the law. ---------- Highlights of the CompuServe decision (selected by Danny Weitzner): "CompuServe's CIS [CS Information Service] product is in essence an electronic, for-profit library that carries a vast number of publications and collects usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications. CompuServe and companies like it are at the forefront of the information industry revolution. High technology has markedly increased the speed with which information is gathered and processed; it is now possible for an individual with a personal computer, modem, and telephone line to have instantaneous access to thousands of news publications from across the United States and around the world. While CompuServe may decline to carry a given publication altogether, in reality, once it does decide to carry a given publication, it will have little or no editorial control over that publication's contents. This is especially so when CompuServe carries the publication as part of a forum that is managed by a company unrelated to CompuServe. "... CompuServe has no more editorial control over ... [the publication in question] ... than does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would for any other distributor to do so." "...Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements." Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. (90 Civ. 6571, SDNY) -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Writing A Computer Program No good computer program can be written by more than ten people; the best programs are written by one or two people. -- Phil A. Schrodt, Associate Professor, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois ** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE EFF AND FREE ENTERPRISE by Mitchell Kapor [Over the past few weeks, there has been a thread in our Internet discussion group, comp.org.eff.talk, about the EFF's position regarding free enterprise and the future of the National Public Network. As can often happen in this volatile medium, there was some confusion over where the organization stands on this issue. To clarify this, EFF President, Mitchell Kapor, wrote the following response to the group.] I post this to clear up confusion about EFF positions which may have been created by posters imputing positions to the EFF. The EFF does not believe the U.S. government should own or control a national public network. We do not believe that the Internet or NREN should be extended by government fiat into everyone's home. In the context of the Internet, we would like to see a transition as speedy as possible to private ownership, management, and control of network facilities which serve or could serve competitive markets. If university access to networks is to be subsidized, it should be on the basis of direct grants to institutions which are to be used for the purchase of network services. What keeps the Internet glued together today is access to common network facilities provided through NSF-subsidized or free connections to a backbone network owned and controlled by a single private entity, ANS. The NSF recently announced that in 1993 it would begin a transition to a regime in which there would be multiple backbone awardees. This will bring affairs one step closer to a truly open regime. It should be pointed out that the NSF and other agencies are interested in stimulating the development of networking regimes (such as gigabit networks) which are at the leading edge of technology, hence pre-competitive state. This provides one principled rationale for government involvement. With respect to the public switched telephone network, over the next decade,or as soon as technology permits, we should move away from government mandated local exchange monopolies and toward competitive provision of local telephone service. After a period of time, if there is real competition,and we avoid the dangers of explosive decompression >from sudden removal of all government controls, it should be possible to deregulate. At the same time, development of the market for content-based information services could be spurred long before that with the deployment of a ubiquitous, affordable platform based on ISDN. We see no purpose in delaying this for either local loop competition or the development of a universal, national broadband network, both of which are far off (and both of which we support). To do so will likely require government action, through some combination of legislation and FCC and state regulation. It was in this narrow context and no broader one that we originally advocated the appropriateness of regulation to achieve these ends. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- The Professional Tools Rule Engineers and computer programmers need equipment equal to one year's earnings to work at top speed. Anything less slows them down. -- William Blake, engineering manager, New Haven, Connecticut** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- EFF at SCAT: Speaking to the Special Computer Attack Team by Mike Godwin [One of the jobs of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is to build bridges between different communities with an interest in computer-based communications. One of the most important communities is law enforcement. In December, Mike Godwin, staff counsel for EFF,spoke to a meeting of the Special Computer Attack Team (SCAT). This is his report.] The Special Computer Attack Team is a joint federal-state organization whose mission is to share information and resources in handling computer crime in that region. I met with them at their invitation in Indianapolis. I spoke for over two and a half hours, and we touched on most of the civil-liberties issues with which EFF is concerned. I told SCAT that perhaps the main things they'd heard about EFF is that it was a hacker defense fund and is suing some government agents and prosecutors. I explained that we *aren't* a "hacker defense fund," and stressed that being alert to the issues I would raise in my presentation is a way of minimizing the risk of a lawsuit in their cases. We discussed the issues raised by seizing equipment. "You can't seize equipment under a search warrant that you don't have probable cause to believe is evidence of a crime," I said. They responded by talking about forfeiture laws. "Can you seize forfeitable stuff that's not evidence under an *evidentiary* search warrant?" I asked them. They admitted that this was improper procedure. I went on to explain that the reason this improper procedure is almost never questioned is that, when law-enforcement agents engage in this kind of improper, overbroad search, the cost of litigation to recover invariably exceeds the cost of the equipment. At present the major remedy for overbroad searches is the Exclusionary Rule--the Supreme Court-imposed rule that says that improperly seized evidence can't be used in court. But the problem is that the Exclusionary Rule is *no remedy at all* in cases in which the government seized items that were *not* evidence. If you are a defendant your lawyer won't expend time and effort to seek suppression of the "evidence" of the illegally seized laser printer if the printer is not in fact incriminatory. These considerations left me with making what were essentially *moral* arguments that law enforcement should limit its seizures since from a legal standpoint, they have few risks. "Everyone in this room has sworn to uphold the law," I said. "Upholding the law means not seizing as 'evidence' equipment and other items that you don't have probable cause to believe *is* evidence." We also talked about searches of third-party non-targets.(Steve Jackson Games is a case in point about what can go wrong in a search of a third party). I said, "Imagine how it feels when, although you would have gladly cooperated with an investigation if asked, the police come and seize your BBS and shut it down." Even if they weren't worried about about legal action, I argued, they should worry about public faith in law enforcement when they run roughshod over law-abiding citizens. In addition, I pointed out that duplicate computer files are admissible as evidence under federal law, and using duplicate files is a way of making searches less intrusive. But it was clear from the discussion that ensued that most of the people at this meeting hated not seizing the equipment. They admitted that they found it "convenient" to take computers away to examine at leisure. When I became a bit angry about "convenience" trumping the right to a reasonable, particular search, one of the attendees "explained" that by "convenient" he meant "necessary in some cases." Finally, I told the SCAT members that the law shouldn't treat a third-party sysop differently than it treats IBM; if a subpoena is good enough to get computer records from IBM, it's also appropriate for a third-party sysop of a hobbyist BBS. They seemed to accept this. Overall, I came away from the Indianapolis presentation with two feelings. First, I was certain that we had made a good impression on them, that they'd found the presentation thought-provoking and informative, that we may had won some of them over on some issues. Second, I was depressed because I realized how few legal remedies there are for the victims of overbroad computer seizures, be they suspects or third parties. We have a long way to go here, complicated by the fact that most seizure and forfeiture decisions in recent years have been built on drug cases. I can only hope that as computer-based communication becomes more and more part of mainstream American life, policy makers will realize the need for new remedies and protections. -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Dealing with A Computer When dealing with a computer, a good rule to remember is to treat it as you would a small, retarded (but very obedient) child. -- Bob Horton, consultant and writer, St. Petersburg, Flordia ** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIRST ANNUAL PIONEER AWARDS CALL FOR NOMINATIONS (Attention: Please feel free to repost to all systems worldwide.) In every field of human endeavor,there are those dedicated to expanding knowledge,freedom,efficiency and utility. Along the electronic frontier, this is especially true. To recognize this,the Electronic Frontier Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards. The first annual Pioneer Awards will be given at the Second Annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C. in March of 1992. All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of outside judges chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking. There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the following guidelines apply: 1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications. 2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural. 3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the private or public sectors. 4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization. 5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however brief, on why you are nominating the individual or organization, along with a means of contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. No anonymous nominations will be allowed. 6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF staff members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards. You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per nomination. You may return the forms to us via email to pioneer@eff.org You may mail them to us at: Pioneer Awards, EFF, 155 Second Street Cambridge MA 02141. You may FAX them to us at: +1 617 864 0866 Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email address at which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why you feel the nominee deserves the award. You can attach supporting documentation. Please include your own name, address, and phone number. We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have made and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them, The Electronic Frontier Foundation -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation via email to: pioneer@eff.org or via surface mail to EFF 155 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 USA; or via FAX to +1 617 864 0866 Nominee:_________________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________ Company/Organization:____________________________________________________ Contact number or email address: ________________________________________ Reason for nomination:___________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Your name and contact number:____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Extra documentation attached: _______ -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------ -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Designing a Computer System Making a design change when a computer system is nearly complete will cost about ten times as much as making the change before the work has started. -- Clifton Royston, programmer/analyst, Nukualofa, Tonga** -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we need the financial support of individuals and organizations. If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by becoming a member now. Members receive our quarterly newsletter, EFFECTOR, our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member. Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible. Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students, $40.00 per year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish. Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you must actively grant us permission to share your name with other groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason. ---------------- EFF@eff.org MEMBERSHIP FORM --------------- Mail to: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second St. #23 Cambridge, MA 02141 I wish to become a member of the EFF I enclose:$__________ $20.00 (student or low income membership) $40.00 (regular membership) $100.00(Corporate or company membership. This allows any organization to become a member of EFF. It allows such an organization, if it wishes to designate up to five individuals within the organization as members.) [ ] I enclose an additional donation of $___________ Name:______________________________________________________ Organization:______________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ City or Town: _____________________________________________ State:_______ Zip:________ Phone:( )_____________(optional) FAX:( )____________________(optional) Email address: ______________________________ I enclose a check [ ]. Please charge my membership in the amount of $_____________ to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Number:____________________________________________________ Expiration date: ____________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:______________________ I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems appropriate [ ]. Initials:___________________________ -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Avoiding Mistakes When writing a software program, your chances of making a mistake double with each telephone interruption. --R.L. Liming, Indianapolis, Indiana** ** These "rules of thumb" are from NEVER TRUST A CALM DOG and other Rules of Thumb by Tom Parker (Harper/Collins, 1990). Reprinted by permission of the author. =====================================================================| EFFector Online is published by | The Electronic Frontier Foundation | 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 | Phone: +1 617 864 0665 FAX: +1 617 864 0866 | Internet Address: eff@eff.org | Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged | To reproduce signed articles individually, | please contact the authors for their express permission. | =====================================================================|