From: mcohan@crash.cts.com (Max Cohan)
Subject: Re: Imminent death of Usenet in USA predicted (was Re: DES encryption)
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.025622.11482@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <JIK.92Apr6225940@pit-manager.mit.edu>, jik@athena (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>>In article <JGJ.92Apr6150320@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>>   Between this and the posting of copyrighted pictures in
>>   the alt.binaries.pictures groups, I will be surprised if USENET is
>>   still around by the end of the year.
>>
>>"Imminent death of the USENET predicted.  Film at 11."
>
>OK, here's my stab at it:
>
>It'll just be a law requiring licensing of electronic publishing which
>must be implemented to fight the crime and unacceptable activity on
>electronic networks like the numerous copyright fraud, obscene speech,
>unAmerican activies, conspiratory action, credit card violations,
>child pornography, encouragement to drug use (alt.drugs,
>talk.politics.drugs), encouragement to violence (talk.politics.guns),
>threats to national security (sci.crypt, alt.conspiracy), sexual
>deviations (soc.motss, alt.sex.bestiality), computer criminality
>(alt.hackers, alt.security).  Expect it to appear in a generic
>anti-crime bill from your friendly administration which brought you
>the War on Constitution, civil forfeitures, FCC bans on radio waves
>and all the other things which are needed to fight crime.
>
>It will be a new law designed for the purpose of limiting unsupervised
>information exchange needed to limit increasing computer crime,
>copyright violations, child pornography, terrorism and credit card and
>wire fraud.  Perhaps it could be implemented by requiring reporting of
>editors responsible for the contents of any public electronic forums,
>requirements to have real names used everywhere, requirements of
>cleartext communications (already proposed), requirements to respect
>"community standards" on the media, requirements for "equal coverage"
>and other such good-sounding rhetorics.  Perhaps by some other means.
>
>Does that seem so impossible or improbable when looking at FCC content
>restrictions, the proposal circulating to require the telephone
>network to be built for the purpose of surveillance on everyone, the
>civil forfeitures, the proposed anti-cryptography bill, all of the War
>on Constitution legislation?
>
>[ note followup-to ]
>
>//Jyrki

 Interesting idea, hopefully we'll all be awake enough to fight any such laws our gov. tries to impose upon us (even if the sesup. court allows it to pass constitutional guidlines) the only PROBLEM with your article is that
ALT.HACKERS IS NOT A CRIMINALLY ORIENTED NEWSGROUP!
alt.hackers is devoted to the OLD art of hacking...not the media hyped 'hacking' ie it is POSITIVE not DESTRUCTIVE
so, if you'd spend a little more time looking into what you are actually saying your article might actually be informative (far fetched idea eh? an informative usenet article in which people actually THOUGHT before posting!!!   
nothing against you in particular...there are MANY people who don't see farther than the tip of their nose...and worse don't care or don't want to know any more than that. ThAT s the greatest danger to our democratic gov.