From: TK0JUT2%NIU.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: Cu Digest, #4.46
Reply-To: tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu
Organization: the Computer Underground Digest gateway
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:19:00 GMT



Computer underground Digest    Sun Sep 26, 1992   Volume 4 : Issue 46

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivist: Dan Carosone
       Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdleau, Srr.

CONTENTS, #4.46 (Sep 26, 1992)
File 1--J Davis response on Piracy
File 2--Response to Davis/Piracy (1)
File 3--Response to Davis/Piracy (2)
File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace
File 5--EFF Analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal
File 6--Cap't Crunch Discusses Sneakers With Newsbytes
File 7--GATEWAY/WINDO ALERT
File 8--Model Letter in re S. 2813 / HR 2772
File 9--Police files conference

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on Genie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under
"computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and by
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au
Back issues also may be obtained from the mail server at
mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us
European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893.

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited.  Some authors do copyright their material, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 17:27:16 -0700
From: James I. Davis <jdav@WELL.SF.CA.US>
Subject: File 1--J Davis response on Piracy

Regarding Robert Woodhead's and Wes Morgan's response (in CUD 4.42) to
my earlier posting about software piracy and property rights, there
are a few points to which I would like to respond.  (As a disclaimer,
I am not trying to defend the right to bootleg software, that is, to
duplicate and _resell_ software. The discussion below deals with the
unauthorized duplication and sharing of software, where no money
changes hands.)

One common defense raised for intellectual property rights, and
against the unauthorized sharing of software, is that it injures the
creator by robbing him or her of some deserved reward. And on a
related note, the creator is entitled to compensation, and
intellectual property rights are required to guarantee that. [Mr.
Woodhead writes "[by unauthorized copying of software] you are showing
a lack of respect for the creative efforts of other people." Mr.
Morgan writes "If I pour 4 years of my life into the development of
Snarkleflex, I DESERVE to profit from it." Denise Caruso (now editor
of _Digital Media_) wrote a hilarious description a couple of years
ago in an _SF Examiner_ column: "Why would some genius programmer,
slaving away in a dark den redolent of cheese puffs and body odor, be
willing to work for years on a revolutionary new software design if he
or she didn't have any guarantee of being able to make money doing
it?"]

There are several fallacies in this argument.

First, the reality of software production in the late 20th century is
much different than this image. Most software production is NOT a
cottage industry. The industry has quickly matured in the past few
years into a typical monopolized industry. Most patent filings are by
corporations. Most software is not purchased from the individuals who
create the software, it is purchased from companies who have required
their engineers to sign away any rights to whatever they come up with,
AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. So IN MOST CASES, the creator has been
separated from the results of his or her creativity. But the image of
the sole-proprietor hacker is raised up as a shield by the software
industry -- the public can take pity on the "defenseless" hacker;
people don't take pity on a Microsoft or an IBM. After invoking the
"harm to the individual" argument, Mr. Woodward later says the
distinction between creator and financier doesn't matter -- the
software sharer is showing disrespect for the person who put up the
cash. ("They risked the money, they deserve the rewards.") Here we get
to the heart of the matter -- we're really talking about the "rights"
of software corporations here; not the hacker, not the consumer, and
not society.

Nowhere do I argue that the people who write software should not be
compensated for their effort. Of course people should be compensated!
The question is how, and how much. Paycheck dollars from a
corporation, a university, a cooperative or the government all spend
equally as well. But the social benefits from the programmer's efforts
are constrained by forcing them through the legal contortions of
intellectual property rights and private ownership. The model that we
have been using is private speculation for private gain, made possible
via exclusive monopolies granted by the government, enforced by law. I
am saying that other successful models exist and have generated useful
products. The subtext in the "I deserve a reward" argument is that
someone who comes up with a really useful idea should get a special
reward. Fine. I have no problem with public recognition of significant
contribution, even including a cash award. Again, this doesn't
_require_ intellectual property rights.

Third, to repeat my original point, property rights are NOT required
to ensure creative activity. Switzerland didn't have a patent system
until 1907, and the Dutch abandoned a patent system from 1869 until
1912. George Barsalla, in _The Evolution of Technology_, argues that
this did not retard their economic development or their
"inventiveness." Both countries eventually adopted patent laws because
of pressure from other industrial nations. Mr. Morgan says that
"*companies* create for financial gain" (which I certainly agree
with), but puts this forward as if the protection of *their* financial
gain somehow justifies the rest of us having to suffer under
intellectual property rights.  Corporations are not necessary for the
generation of the software we need.

Harlan Cleveland, former diplomat and dean of the University of MN's
HHHumphrey Institute of Public Affairs (I mean, he's a mainstream
guy), wrote in an essay that appears in _Information Technologies and
Social Transformation_ (published by the National Academy of
Engineering): "Is the doctrine that information is owned by its
originator (or compiler) necessary to make sure that Americans remain
intellectually creative?" He answers in the negative, citing the
healthy public sector R&D efforts in space exploration, environmental
protection, weather forecasting and the control of infectious diseases
as counter examples. He concludes the section with a warning. "The
notion of information-as-property is built deep into our laws, our
economy, and our political psyche... But we had better continue to
develop our own ways, compatible with our own traditions, of rewarding
intellectual labor without depending on laws and prohibitions that are
disintegrating fast -- as the Volstead Act did in our earlier effort
to enforce an unenforceable Prohibition."

Fourth, the notion of a solitary inventor is a popular falsehood.  No
one creates in a vacuum. The programmer's skills and creativity rest
upon past inventions and discoveries; publicly supported education;
the other people who produced the hardware, the manuals and textbooks
and the development tools; as well as the artists and accompanying
infrastructure who may have inspired or influenced the programmer. In
this sense, the developer's product is a social product, and
consequently should redound to the benefit of all of society. The
practical problem of compensation for effort and reward for
outstanding achievement can be addressed outside of "intellectual
property rights."

Mr. Woodhead dismisses my position as "welfare for hackers." This is a
rather cheap shot. First, there is nothing wrong with welfare. But Mr.
Woodhead means "welfare for hackers" in a pejorative sense (he adds
that he is being heavily sarcastic). No self-respecting hacker, Mr.
Woodhead suggests, would accept something from the public or the
government. "Any hacker worthy of the name would spurn it." What about
every programmer who works for the government, obtains funding from
the government (including the defense industry), all programmers who
go through school and college (they're subsidized by the taxpayer),
and all programmers who work in universities? Who's left? The public
is already heavily involved in software production, but as is too
often the case, the public finances something, and then turns it over
to private corporations to reap all of the profits from it.

The "welfare" charge also carries a divisive edge to it, implying that
hackers should sneer at welfare. This is a self-defeating position for
the programming community. There has been a mythology that programmers
are a privileged lot, and immune from the vagaries of the overall
economy. Sleeper, awake! All programmers should read the first chapter
of Edward Yourdon's new book, _The Decline and Fall of the American
Programmer_. He rings an alarm bell that big changes are underfoot in
software production. As a current snapshot of the industry, here are
some stats which I submitted to the current CPSR/Berkeley newsletter
(available in its entirety from the CPSR listserver,
listserv@gwuvm.gwu.edu): "40,000 jobs were lost in the electronics
industry in the first quarter of this year (compared to 90,000 in all
of 1991), including 9,100 jobs at computer component makers. For the
first time since the American Electronics Association started
reporting software industry figures, software job growth was flat, at
133,400 workers. Wang goes into Chapter 11, with 5,000 workers to be
laid off over the next 30 days... Besides Wang, Digital Equipment cut
20,000 jobs over the past two years, and will cut another 15,000 this
year; Data General now has 7,100 workers, down from a high of 17,000.
Even computer services employment has been dropping, down 7.3% from
its peak at the end of 1989. IBM now will probably cut 12,000
additional workers this year, on top of the 20,000 previously
announced. (But profits are up at IBM!).  Software maker Aldus is
laying off 100 workers, the Disney Park Design Unit is laying off 400
imagineers..." (And I've submitted similar figures for the previous
two quarterly newsletters as well.) The defense industry is expected
to fire 1.2 _million_ people over the next four years, many of them
highly skilled engineers. Programmers do get laid off. I know from
personal experience. I was glad that there was unemployment insurance.
No programmer should be so complacent as to say "it can't happen to
me." So be glad that there is a safety net there, and keep it strong.

Re: my point that intellectual property rights prevent intellectual
effort, including software development, from maximizing its social
benefit: If a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 does have use for people, and people
are prevented from using it (e.g., because of the price barrier), then
its potential benefit is constricted. (For an interesting discussion
of this see Natalie Dandekar, "Moral Issues Involved in Protecting
Software as Intellectual Property," _DIAC-90 Proceedings_, CPSR, Palo
Alto, CA, 1990.)

Mr. Woodhead claims that other users are hurt by the unauthorized
sharing of software, because they end up paying more for the software.
He is too charitable to the software companies. There is no reason to
believe that, in the absence of unauthorized duplication, software
prices would be reduced. The prime directive of capitalism is maximum
profit. That is what pushes the price upwards. He imagines that there
is a point at which the capitalist ("free-marketeer") is satiated and
retires from the feeding frenzy out there in the market. Maybe on
Mars. The capitalist can't say, I've made enough moolah, because he
knows that others are also grabbing for the goods, and whoever gets
the most wins, and drives the competition from the marketplace. His
claim that the purported $24 billion in lost revenue would have been
returned to the customer if the "pirates" didn't exist is absurd. What
does come out of the pockets of consumers is the cost of financing
legal battles between an Intel vs. AMD, or Apple vs. Microsoft, or
Ashton-Tate (RIP) vs. Fox, over who exactly does own a design or an
interface or a language (!).

Mr. Woodhead says that no companies specialize in educational
software. If this in fact is the case, then this only reinforces the
argument for the necessity of some sort of social or public or
community (or whatever you want to call it) funding of educational
software development. Just because there is no "market" for quality
educational software does not in any way mean that there is no _need_
for it. Woodhead blames the schools for sabotaging the educational
market by unauthorized duplication -- this, I would suspect, is more
the result of teachers trying to fulfill their professional commitment
of educating children, in the face of deep cuts in education spending
and the reluctance (or refusal) of vendors to negotiate affordable
site licenses. (See e.g., the 9/92 issue of _MacWorld_ for more on
this).

A similar argument _against_ the market, and _for_ public
participation in these matters is powerfully articulated in the work
of Prof. Herbert Schiller (most recently in _Culture, Inc.: The
Corporate Takeover of Public Expression_; for a briefer discussion see
his article "Public Information Goes Corporate" which appeared in the
October 1, 1991 issue of _Library Journal_).  He quotes ( in _Culture,
Inc._) a 1986 interview with the then president of database vendor
DIALOG that appeared in _Information Today_: "We can't afford an
investment in databases that are not going to earn their keep and pay
back their development costs." When asked  what areas were not paying
their development costs, he answered, "Humanities." The tag line above
the _LJ_ article says "a society is emerging in which only data with a
commercial value will be collected." One can extend this to software
-- only software with a commercial value will be commercially
produced.  Marginal markets will be ignored.

Re: Mr. Morgan's notion of more aggressively extending patents to
software: it's already taking place. I think this topic has been
addressed thoroughly by the League for Programming Freedom in their
"Against Software Patents" paper (available from
league@prep.ai.mit.edu. The interested reader should also look at
their "Against User Interface Copyright" paper). 17 years (typical for
patents) is an eternity in the evolution of software (as is 10 or 20
years, as suggested by Mr. Morgan). As a sidenote, even the SPA has
opposed software patents.

Re: fair use -- the point I was trying to make is that the concept of
"fair use" has EVOLVED and EXPANDED with increasing ability to easily
duplicate various media. "Taping of television programs for personal
use appears to have become accepted as fair use of copyright material.
This is not in accord with the historical interpretation of fair use,
since the programs are taped in their entirety. The use of the
doctrine in the past has usually been restricted to copying portions
of the work [for purposes of criticism, comment, research, etc.]. The
rationale of the court must have been the unlikely efficacy of trying
to put Pandora back into the box and the fact that no commercial use
of the tapes was either alleged or documented." (Anne Branscomb,
"Property Rights in Information", in _Information Technologies and
Social Transformation_). The point is that legal constructs like "fair
use" are not brought to us by Moses -- they are determined by the
balance of social forces through legal, political, economic and other
forms of struggle. And therefore they are something which we can
affect.

If the persistent reader has made it this far, allow me to conclude
with a quote from an interview with Bruce Sterling that appeared in
the Summer, 91 issue of the excellent and highly recommended print
publication _Intertek_ ($8/year, check payable to Steve Steinberg, 325
Ellwood Beach, #3, Goleta, CA 93117; steve@cs.ucsb.edu): "I think that
trying to commodify information -- trying to make it like buying a
chair from Sears -- is just deeply misguided... It looks good on paper
but as you go on year after year, trying to make it a reality, you
find it just doesn't work. There are just too many people, like
myself, who have very little respect for the idea of intellectual
property. I don't pirate software, not because I believe that
intellectual stuff is property, but just because I'm law-abiding.
Information does want to be free -- it doesn't want to be $5 a baud.
There's something stupid about that... I think we'll see a lot more
commodification before we see less. But the idea of information as a
commodity is just wrong. I mean, people say, 'if you could go into
Sears and steal chairs they wouldn't stay in business.' Well if you
had a device that could make infinite chairs for free, Sears would
never have come into existence."

Computer: Earl Grey tea. Hot.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 92 14:27:40 CDT (Tue)
From: peter@FICC.FERRANTI.COM(Peter da Silva)
Subject: File 2--Response to Davis/Piracy (1)

Re: Wes Morgan's article in CuD #4.43

I largely agree with most of his arguments, but I would like to point
out one mistake... he says:

	"The whole concept of copyrights ... is based on the notion
	 that the creator ... is entitled to some compensation for his
	 effort"

This is just not true. The whole concept of copyrights and patents in
the United States is based on the notion that by making intellectual
property a salable commodity subject to market forces, more and better
intellectual property will be created and it will be distributed more
freely.

And, you know what, it works. There's no better refutation, nor need
there be a better refutation, of the argument that piracy promotes
openness. It doesn't. It promotes encrypted software, dongles, and
trade secrets. It discourages publication. It reduces the incentive to
create viable products of commercial quality. These are not the result
of intellectual property laws, they're the result of the failure to
enforce intellectual property laws.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1992 08:45:30 -0800
From: "Michael Stack" <stack@STARNINE.COM>
Subject: File 3--Response to Davis/Piracy (2)

The two responses (CuD 4.43) to James I. Davis's provocative article
--"Software Piracy - The Social Context" (CuD 4..42) -- both make the
common fault of equating whats good for business with that which is
good for society as a whole.  They both seem to view copyright and
patents as a system guaranteeing a right to profit overlooking the
original constitutional intent to "promote the progress of Science and
the useful Arts."

Mr. Davis has difficulty with the way property rights are applied with
regard to software and information in general (as do I or I wouldn't
be writing this), yet both respondents base significant portions of
their counter-arguments upon the very object under contention.  They
use terms like "stealing" and that software/information is "property"
etc.  To be able to accuse someone of stealing or to claim something
as property (and to subsequently grant licenses on how this property
is to be used) implies there exists rights of ownership in the first
place.   The crux of Mr. Davis's article questions this right.  The
respondents by-pass this altogether.  Their articles are but
explanations of the existing order in case we didn't already
understand.

Neither mentions the recent alarming developments in the application
of copyright and patent particularly to software (see the literature
of the League for Programming Freedom or the recent Barrons "Software
Patents Block the Path of Computing Progress" article) which threatens
all software written outside the cubicles of major software
corporations.   The fact that "alls not well in the state of Denmark"
in itself punches large holes in the system the two respondents
defend.

Both belittle the spectre of "police state" raised by Mr. Davis.
Amazingly, this is done within the pages of a publication which has
spotlighted many instances of "police-state" behavior: doors
kicked-in in the early hours of morning, guns drawn, threats,
equipment confiscated (permanently?), "guilty till proved innocent,"
etc.

Some specifics on Mr. Morgan's piece:

--On the one hand you argue "If I pour 4 years of my life into the
development of SnarkleFlex, I DESERVE to profit from it"  but then you
append a caveat which undoes this assertion "(assuming that people
want to purchase/use it)."  Doesn't this condition make your
capitalized assertion self-destruct?  Do you deserve to be rewarded
for your work, yes or no,  or is it to be let dependent on market
caprice?

--You ask "Would you make a copy of Webster's Dictionary and give it
to a friend?" and you sport(!) "Xerox(tm)[ing] your entire printed
library for me..." "...would be just fine, right?"  Yes, it would --
if the library and dictionary were in a readily distributable form and
the copy cost me near nothing i.e. in digital form.  I'd be happy to
give you a copy.   I could give it to anyone.  As to how I'd have a
library in the first place we can discuss (perhaps outside of this
forum).

Michael Goldhaber in his book Reinventing Technology states "Since new
information technology includes easy ways of reproducing information,
the existence of these [intellectual property] laws effectively
curtail the widest possible spread of this new form of wealth."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 21:55:28 EDT
From: woj <@netmgr.cso.niu.edu:REWOICC@ERENJ.BitNet>
Subject: File 4--Studying Rights and Cyberspace

The following article is transcribed from "Clarkson Closeup", a
magazine sent to alumni and such. I thought that CuD might be
interested in the subject matter (and perhaps the EFF might be as
well). I'm fairly certain that Prof. Ross is reachable via the net.
No byline is given.

((MODERATORS' COMMENT: Professor Ross may be reached at:
SROSS@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU).

+++++

"Studying Rights and Cyberspace"

Susan M. Ross, assistant professor of Technical Communications, has
been awarded a $3,600 grant from the Canadian Embassy to study the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the U.S. Bill of Rights
with respect to computer-mediated communication. Her research
involves the study of cyberspace -- the "virtual" or imaginary space
within which computer data is stored.

Cyberspace can be entered though any computer connected in a network,
or via a modem. Within networks, "communities" are formed through the
ex-change of data and information.

Ross is analyzing the human rights issues within these cyberspace
communities to help define the rights of users connected to networks.
Her research also assesses the differences in legal structure,
regarding electronic communication, between the United States and
Canada. Currently, she is looking at specific legal issues which have
entered litigation.

Last year, for example, a network called CompuServe experienced
problems with obscene material posted by users. Courts ruled the
network was not responsible for postings by a private user.

Concerns have also arisen in both nations over guaranteeing "equal
justice" to those accused of committing computer-assisted crimes and
those accused of crimes in which computer technology in not involved.
Differences in the wording of the constitutions could affect the
pursuit of "equal justice." For example, the U.S. Constitution does
not explicitly extend constitutional protections (e.g. First Amendment
and Fourth Amendment rights) to citizens who employ or are affected by
technologies that its framers could not anticipate. In contrast,
Canada does guarantee, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication."

The research has applications for the Free Trade Agreement with
respect to computer information exchange across the border. It also
covers the evolution of constitutional civil rights for citizens who
enter cyberspace from the U.S. and Canada.

Ross received a bachelor of arts degree from Middlebury College,
master's degrees from Dartmouth University and the University of
Vermont, and her doctorate from Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute.

++++++++++

I'd be interested in hearing more about this CompuServe case if anyone
has any information on it - I seem to have missed it completely.
Also, I think that Prof. Ross should be made aware of CuD, EFF and the
telecom-privacy digest as I'm sure that she could find some
interesting material there (and possibly save her some work.)

Just another Clarkson alum...

Reply to: Rob Woiccak - rewoicc@erenj.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 19:15:01 -0400
From: Christopher Davis <ckd@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 5--EFF analysis of FBI Digital Telephony (wiretap) proposal

+=========+=================================================+===========+
|  F.Y.I. |Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation |Sep 17,1992|
+=========+=================================================+===========+

 JOINT INDUSTRY/PUBLIC INTEREST COALITION RELEASES WHITE PAPER OPPOSING
                   FBI DIGITAL TELEPHONY LEGISLATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), on
behalf of a coalition of industry, trade associations, computer users,
and privacy and consumer representatives, today released a white paper
entitled, "Analysis of the FBI Proposal Regarding Digital Telephony."
The FBI has proposed legislation which would require that all
telecommunications equipment be designed to allow law enforcement
monitoring and is seeking passage in the last few weeks of this
congress. The organizations that signed the paper believe that the
proposal would cost consumers millions of dollars, damage U.S.
competitiveness in the telecommunications marketplace, threaten
national security interests, and deny American consumers and American
businesses of much-wanted security and privacy on voice and data
communications.

"Basically, the FBI's legislative proposal is premature.  We hope that
the white paper demonstrates that there are too many potential dangers
inherent in the legislative proposal and that there are other means of
addressing this situation," said Jerry Berman, Executive Director of
the Washington office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Over the past decade a host of new digital communication technologies
have been introduced and more are being developed. New telephone
services, such as call-forwarding and last number re-dial, are now
being offered.  The FBI is concerned about the impact these services
-- and other digital communications techniques -- will have on its
ability to wiretap. In the future, the vast majority of computer
communications will also use this technology to transfer information
and documents.

Signatories included major telecommunications equipment manufacturers,
such as AT&T; computer manufacturers, such as IBM and Digital
Equipment Corporation; software producers, such as Microsoft and
Lotus; network providers, such as Prodigy and Advanced Network and
Services, Inc.; trade associations in the telecommunications, computer
and electronic mail businesses; and public interest groups, such as
the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a group of 955 members of the computer community,
has been coordinating an industry/public interest working group on
digital telephony.

The working group has met with the FBI over a number of months in an
effort to work out mutually-agreeable solutions to the challenge that
the development of new communications technologies poses to the FBI.
David Johnson, a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, drafted the
white paper for the working group and serves as its legal advisor.

"We have made significant progress and both sides better understand
the other's needs and concerns. The bottom line, however, is that
those who signed the paper do not see broad-based legislation as the
right approach to this challenge. We have worked with the FBI to
develop practical, technical solutions to the problems they are
anticipating and intend to continue to do so," said John Podesta, of
Podesta Associates, Inc., who coordinates the working group on behalf
of EFF.

                                 # # #

For a copy of the white paper, please call +1 202 544-6906, or use
anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, file pub/EFF/legal-issues/eff-fbi-analysis.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 17, 1992

For more information contact: John Podesta 202/544-6906
                              Jerry Berman 202/544-9237

+=====+===================================================+=============+
| EFF |155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 (617)864-0665| eff@eff.org |

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 07:06:00
From: John F. McMullen <mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: File 6--Cap't Crunch Discusses Sneakers With Newsbytes

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1992 SEP 18(NB) -- John Draper, author of
one of the earliest word processing programs, EasyWriter, and, under
his nomme de plume, "Cap't Crunch", one of the first known "hackers",
told Newsbytes that while he "really enjoyed Sneakers, people should
realize that there is an important message contained within."

Draper, who served time in prison for his "phone phreaking", was
considered the model on which the role of "Cosmo", played by Ben
Kingsley, was based. Cosmo, like Draper, served a prison sentence for
his activities and, while in prison, became a collaborator with a
nationwide criminal organization, becoming their technical wizard.

Draper accepts the identification with Cosmo and says that the movie
brings out the problems of technology transfer in prison. He said
"While I was in prison, I learned how to pick a master lock. I didn't
ask for the knowledge; it was forced on me. Someone would say 'Let me
show you this' so you would.

"They would wheedle things out of me -- you don't snitch or not go
along in prison. I showed them how to build a random code voice
scrambler as well as other things about methods of obtaining free
phone service. It bothers me that these methods are probably used
today by Columbia drug dealers.

"We have to be concerned about the fact that prisons are Universities
of Crime. We don't want criminals to have the benefit of knowledge
that our government doesn't have. We don't want a Robert Morris or a
Phiber Optik sharing a cell with a friend of Noreiga's. We should
learn from history and come up with procedures to insure that this
relationship between the computer underground and true criminals is
not allowed to flourish."

Draper also told Newsbytes that while he enjoyed the movie immensely,
he did not care for violent portions in which guns were used; he said
"I hate guns."

Draper became "Cap'n Crunch" when he found that whistles given away in
Cap't Crunch serial emitted the 2600 tone necessary to "fool" the
automatic billing and verification system of the phone companies.
Since his release from prison, Draper has written Easywriter and a
Forth compiler for the Apple II (while writing the software products,
Draper was known as "Cap't Software; he has since resumed Crunch).  He
has also been employed as a programmer and consultant.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/Press Contact: John Draper,
crunch@well.sf.ca.us (e-mail)/19920918)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:45:14 CDT
From: James P Love <LOVE%PUCC@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: File 7--GATEWAY/WINDO ALERT

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The federal government seems to require dragging,
kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.  On-line access to
federal information is *CRUCIAL* to an informed electorate, and we
URGE READERS TO WRITE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS))

                    Gateway/WINDO - SEPTEMBER ALERT

     ===========================================================
Re: S. 2813, the GPO Gateway to Government
     H.R. 2772, the GPO Wide Information Network for Data Online
          (WINDO)
     (two bills that would provide one-stop-shopping *online*
     public access to federal information systems and databases)
     ===========================================================

September 14, 1992

BACKGROUND

Congress is considering two bills (S. 2813; hr 2772) that would
require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide
one-stop-shopping *online* public access to federal information
systems and databases.  (For a fact sheet or copies of the bills, send
an email message to tap@essential.org).  Joint House and Senate
hearings were held on July 23, 1992.  To become law, the bills must be
approved by the House Administration and Senate Rules Committees, and
then be approved by the full House and Senate.

THE SCOOP

On September 10, the Senate Rules committee canceled a scheduled
mark-up of S. 2813, the Senate version of the Gateway/WINDO
legislation.  The official reason for the cancellation was the death
of Senator Burdick.  Unofficially, the problems have been attributed
to house republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, who have threatened to
oppose passage of a bill sponsored by Senator Gore, due to the
presidential campaign.  The alternative strategy is to the move the
house bill first, thereby deemphasizing Senator Gore's role.  If any
bill moves this year it is likely to be a substitute for HR 2772,
cosponsored by ranking republicans on the House Administration
Committee.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Clearly time is running out.  The most important thing that you can do
is contact your congressional representative and ask them to urge the
congressional leadership to move these bills.  It is particularly
important to contact members of the House of Representatives,
including the House leadership and republicans on the House
Administration Committee.  The names, telephone numbers and address
for key legislators are given below.

=========================
Congressional Target List
=========================

     Committee on House Administration,
     U.S. House of Representatives

Representative      State/District Phone     Major Cities

     DEMOCRATS

Charlie Rose        NC-7        225-2731  Fayetteville/Wilmington
Frank Annunzio      IL-11       225-6661  Chicago
Joseph Gaydos       PA-20       225-4631  McKeesport
Leon Panetta        CA-16       225-2861  Monterey/Salinas
Al Swift            WA-2        225-2605  Bellingham/Everett
Mary Rose Oakar     OH-20       225-5871  Cleveland
Bill Clay           MO-1        225-2406  St. Louis
Sam Gejdenson       CT-2        225-2076  Norwich/Middletown
Joe Kolter          PA-4        225-2565  Beaver Falls/Butler
Martin Frost        TX-24       225-3605  Dallas
Tom Manton          NY-9        225-3965  Sunnyside
Marty Russo         IL-3        225-5736  Chicago
Steny Hoyer         MD-5        225-4131  Landover/PG County
Gerald Kleczka      WI-4        225-4572  Milwaukee
Dale Kildee         MI-7        225-3611  Flint


     REPUBLICANS

Bill Thomas         CA-20       225-2915  Bakersfield/Pismo Beach
Bill Dickerson      AL-2        225-2901  Montgomery
Newt Gingrich       GA-6        225-4501  Atlanta
Pat Roberts         KS-1        225-2715  Dodge City/Salina
Paul Gilmor         OH-5        225-6405  Bowling Green/Sandusky
James Walsh         NY-27       225-3701  Syracuse
Mickey Edwards      OK-5        225-2132  Oklahoma City
Bob Livingston      LA-1        225-3015  Slidell/Metairie
Bill Barrett        NE-3        225-6435  Scotsbluff/Grand Island

     HOUSE LEADERSHIP

Thomas Foley        WA-5        225-2006  Spokane/Walla Walla
Robert Michael      IL-18       225-6201  Peoria
Richard Gephardt    MO-3        225-2671  St. Louis
Joe Moakely         MA-9        225-8273  Boston


Mail to House Members should be addressed:

The Honorable ______________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515



     Committee on Rules and Administration
     U.S. Senate

Senator             State     Phone

     DEMOCRATS

Wendell Ford        KY        224-4343
Claiborne Pell      RI        224-4642
Robert Bryd         WV        224-3954
Daniel Inouye       HI        224-3934
Dennis DeConcini    AZ        224-4521
Al Gore             TN        224-4944
Daniel Moynihan     NY        224-4451
Christopher Dodd    CT        224-2823
Brock Adams         WA        224-2621

     REPUBLICANS

Ted Stevens         AK        224-3004
Mark Hatfield       OR        224-3753
Jesse Helms         NC        224-6342
John Warner         VA        224-2023
Bob Dole            KS        224-6521
Jake Garn           UT        224-5444
Mich McConnell      KY        224-2541


     SENATE LEADERSHIP

George Mitchell     ME        224-5344


Mail to Senators should be addressed:

The Honorable ____________
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

=================================================================
James Love, Director               voice: 215/658-0880
Taxpayer Assets Project            fax: call
12 Church Road                     internet: love@essential.org
Ardmore, PA  19003

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 12:10:42 EDT
From: LOVE@TEMPLEVM.BITNET
Subject: File 8--Model Letter in re S. 2813 / HR 2772


Dear _________


We strongly support the GPO Gateway/WINDO (S. 2813; hr 2772)
legislation now pending before the Senate Rules and House
Administration Committees.  These bills will vastly expand public
access to information produced at public expense, and allow ordinary
citizens to benefit from billions of dollars in federal expenditures
on information technologies.  Citizen access to government computer
systems and databases through modems and computers is an idea whose
time has come.  These bills are strongly supported by the American
Library Association, academic organizations, and many others in the
research community, including citizens groups and large and small
businesses.  Please tell me what specific steps you take to obtain
passage of this important legislation.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:00:00 -0400
From: Nigel Allen <nigel.allen@CANREM.COM>
Subject: File 9--police files conference

Here is a press release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 National Criminal Justice Information Conference in New Orleans
 To: City and Assignment desks
 Contact: Stu Smith of the Office of Justice Programs,
          U.S. Department of Justice, 202-307-0784 or
          301-983-9354 (after hours)

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 23  -- A national conference on federal-state
criminal justice information sharing will be held from Wednesday,
Sept. 23, through Saturday, Sept. 26, in New Orleans, the Department
of Justice announced today.

   Jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the
Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA), the conference
participants will discuss "Federal and State Information Sharing to
Effectively Combat Crime and Ensure Justice."

   Specific topics that will be aired include "New Measures in the
Criminal Justice System," "'Weed and Seed' and New Drug and Crime
Prevention Initiatives," "Challenges and Reforms to the Justice System
in the 90s," "Uses of Incident-based Reporting Systems," "Recent
Developments in Criminal History Improvements" and various research
issues in corrections, prosecution and law enforcement.  Among the
approximately 250 people expected to attend will be officials from
state and local government and various federal agencies as well as
leading criminal justice researchers and scholars.  Other participants
will be the directors of State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) and
other members, associate members and guests of JRSA.

   BJS has provided funding to state justice statistics and
information systems through a network of SACs since 1972.  There are
currently SACs in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.  The SACs
provide a wealth of data about crime and the operation of the criminal
justice system to state and local governments, legislatures,

and Attorneys General for policy analysis and planning purposes.  This
 year is the 20th anniversary of the SAC program.  It also marks the
 beginning of a new initiative to establish a truly national system of
 federal, state and local government information-sharing and readily
 accessible data bases.

   Additional information about BJS programs and publications may be
obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, Box
6000, Rockville, Md. 20850. The telephone number is 800-732-3277.
+++
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #4.46
************************************
Newsgroups: comp.society.cu-digest