F I D O N E W S -- Vol.12 No. 9 (27-Feb-1995) +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | A newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet BBS community | "FidoNews" BBS | | _ | +1-519-570-4176 | | / \ | | | /|oo \ | Small animal psychology and | | (_| /_) | Spiritual guidance Department: | | _`@/_ \ _ | Rev. Richard Visage 1:163/409 | | | | \ \\ | | | | (*) | \ )) | Editor: | | |__U__| / \// | Donald Tees 1:221/192 | | _//|| _\ / | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 | | (_/(_|(____/ | Tim | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: editors 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MORE addresses: | | | | Don -- don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Max -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Tim Pozar -- pozar@kumr.lns.com | | David Deitch -- 1:133/411.411, deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org | | | submissions=> editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies of fidonews or the internet gateway faq | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== 1. Editorial..................................................... 2 2. Articles...................................................... 2 Catholic Information Network [1:202/1613.0]................. 2 ** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE ***.............. 2 EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS.............. 14 No, Not Atheist-Only........................................ 18 Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol ( 19 From Russia with love....................................... 20 Dear Reverend Visage,....................................... 21 Subject: gii_expression_letter.announce..................... 23 Reply to the christian fanatic Mikhail Marendik............. 32 A Canadian reader amazed by ignorance in Russia............. 32 Subject: Russian objects to atheism in snooze ........ 34 I_UFO Forum: When Science Confronts Belief.................. 35 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 41 FidoNews 12-09 Page: 2 27 Feb 1995 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== We have a huge issue today, so I am going to skip the editorial and get on with the news. ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== Catholic Information Network [1:202/1613.0] Richard Walker (walker@starbase.neosoft.com) Catholic Information Network Access information A couple years I, on 1:106/960.0, acted as the fidonet gateway for this group of conferences, providing a feed for several folks here and there. About a year ago (more or less) , the originator and moderator (finally) got his system running under a compliant mailer and got nodelisted, at which time CIN switched to his node for the primary access point. This is *much* more effecient than having a secondary node do the gateing, for obvious reasons. As I have had periodic requests from different folks for CIN feeds recently, I figure their must be some old elists out there or something. This said, to anyone wanting a feed for the extensive, high-quality echos of the Catholic Information Network, please contact Mike Mollerus, at 1:202/1613.0. He'll be more than happy to help you out. As an aside, in response to Mikhail's article in v12.i7; there is no way in the world fidonet could be considered "atheist only", considering that I, as a hard-core, conservative, Latin Rite Catholic, have never caught any administrative flack for my beliefs or use of fidonet to publish and advocate those beliefs. I just don't see how it is possible to come to such a conclusion. Relax! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE *** From Eff This document is an electronic Petition Statement to the U.S. Congress regarding pending legislation, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) which will have, if passed, very serious negative ramifications for freedom of expression on Usenet, the Internet, and all electronic networks. The proposed legislation would remove guarantees of privacy and free speech on all electronic networks, including the Internet, and may even effectively close them down as a medium to exchange ideas and information. For an excellent analysis of this Bill by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), refer to the Appendix attached at the end of this document. The text to S. 314 is also included in this Appendix. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 3 27 Feb 1995 This document is somewhat long, but the length is necessary to give you sufficient information to make an informed decision. Time is of the essence, we are going to turn this petition and the signatures in on 3/16/95, so if you are going to sign this please do so ASAP or at least before midnight Wednesday, March 15, 1995. Even if you read this petition after the due date, please submit your signature anyway as we expect Congress to continue debating these issues in the foreseeable future and the more signatures we get, the more influence the petition will have on discussion. And even if Congress rejects S. 314 while signatures are being gathered, do submit your signature anyway for the same reason. Please do upload this petition statement as soon as possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area. If you have access to one of the major national on-line services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000 signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this petition to electronic freedom of expression. Here is a brief table of contents: (1) Introduction (this section) (2) The Petition Statement (3) Instructions for signing this petition (4) Credits (Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 (LONG but excellent) ****(2) The Petition Statement In united voice, we sign this petition against passage of S. 314 (the "Communications Decency Act of 1995") for these reasons: S. 314 would prohibit not only individual speech that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent", but would prohibit any provider of telecommunications service from carrying such traffic, under threat of stiff penalty. Even aside from the implications for free speech, this would cause an undue - and unjust - burden upon operators of the various telecommunications services. In a time when the citizenry and their lawmakers alike are calling for and passing "no unfunded mandates" laws to the benefit of the states, it is unfortunate that Congress might seek to impose unfunded mandates upon businesses that provide the framework for the information age. An additional and important consideration is the technical feasibility of requiring the sort of monitoring this bill would necessitate. The financial burden in and of itself - FidoNews 12-09 Page: 4 27 Feb 1995 in either manpower or technology to handle such monitoring (if even legal under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) - would likely cause many smaller providers to go out of business, and most larger providers to seriously curtail their services. The threat of such penalty alone would result in a chilling effect in the telecommunications service community, not only restricting the types of speech expressly forbidden by the bill, but creating an environment contrary to the Constitutional principles of free speech, press, and assembly - principles which entities such as the Internet embody as nothing has before. By comparison, placing the burden for content control upon each individual user is surprisingly simple in the online and interactive world, and there is no legitimate reason to shift that burden to providers who carry that content. Unlike traditional broadcast media, networked media is comparatively easy to screen on the user end - giving the reader, viewer, or participant unparalleled control over his or her own information environment. All without impacting or restricting what any other user wishes to access. This makes regulation such as that threatened by this S. 314 simply unnecessary. In addition, during a period of ever-increasing commercial interest in arenas such as the Internet, restriction and regulation of content or the flow of traffic across the various telecommunications services would have serious negative economic effects. The sort of regulation proposed by this bill would slow the explosive growth the Internet has seen, giving the business community reason to doubt the medium's commercial appeal. We ask that the Senate halt any further progress of this bill. We ask that the Senate be an example to Congress as a whole, and to the nation at large - to promote the general welfare as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution by protecting the free flow of information and ideas across all of our telecommunications services. *****(3) Instructions for signing the petition ====================================== Instructions for Signing This Petition ====================================== It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the requests made in the petition. If you do not agree with everything in this petition, then your only recourse is to not sign it. In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to FidoNews 12-09 Page: 5 27 Feb 1995 Congress, the President of the United States, and the news media. Including your full name is optional, but *very highly encouraged* as that would add to the effectiveness of the petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is highly discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers. Because this is a Petition to the U.S. Congress, we ask that you state, as instructed below, whether or not you are a U.S. citizen. We do encourage non-U.S. citizens to sign, but their signatures will be tallied separately. Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these directions EXACTLY: 1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement: SIGNED You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED' should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's not your full and real name. If you are a U.S. citizen, please include at the end of the signature line a 'YES', and if you are not, a 'NO'. All signatures will be tallied whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen *************************************************** Example: My e-mail signature would be: SIGNED dave@kachina.altadena.ca.us Dave C. Hayes YES *************************************************** 2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the special petition e-mail signature address. 3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me: 4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. We may also contact you again in the future should we need more information, such as who your House Representative and Senators are, which is not asked here as it is unclear whether such information is needed. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 6 27 Feb 1995 Thank you for signing this petition! *****(4) Credits The petition statement was written by slowdog , super.net.freedom.fighter. The rest of this document mostly collated from the net by Dave Hayes, net.freedom.fighter. Much help came from Jon Noring, INFJ and self.proclaimed.net.activist who made a few suggestions and will be tallying the signatures. Thanks to the EFF and CDT for the excellent analysis of the bill. (p.s., send your signature to s314-petition@netcom.com) ******(Appendix) Analysis and text of S. 314 [This analysis provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit public interest organization. CDT's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance Constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .] CDT POLICY POST 2/9/95 SENATOR EXON INTRODUCES ONLINE INDECENCY LEGISLATION A. OVERVIEW Senators Exon (D-NE) and Senator Gorton (R-WA) have introduced legislation to expand current FCC regulations on obscene and indecent audiotext to cover *all* content carried over all forms of electronic communications networks. If enacted, the "Communications Decency Act of 1995" (S. 314) would place substantial criminal liability on telecommunications service providers (including telephone networks, commercial online services, the Internet, and independent BBS's) if their network is used in the transmission of any indecent, lewd, threatening or harassing messages. The legislation is identical to a proposal offered by Senator Exon last year which failed along with the Senate Telecommunications reform bill (S. 1822, 103rd Congress, Sections 801 - 804). The text the proposed statute, with proposed amendment, is appended at the end of this document. The bill would compel service providers to chose between severely restricting the activities of their subscribers FidoNews 12-09 Page: 7 27 Feb 1995 or completely shutting down their email, Internet access, and conferencing services under the threat of criminal liability. Moreover, service providers would be forced to closely monitor every private communication, electronic mail message, public forum, mailing list, and file archive carried by or available on their network, a proposition which poses a substantial threat to the freedom of speech and privacy rights of all American citizens. S. 314, if enacted, would represent a tremendous step backwards on the path to a free and open National Information Infrastructure. The bill raises fundamental questions about the ability of government to control content on communications networks, as well as the locus of liability for content carried in these new communications media. To address this threat to the First Amendment in digital media, CDT is working to organize a broad coalition of public interest organizations including the ACLU, People For the American Way, and Media Access Project, along with representatives from the telecommunications, online services, and computer industries to oppose S. 314 and to explore alternative policy solutions that preserve the free flow of information and freedom of speech in the online world. CDT believes that technological alternatives which allow individual subscribers to control the content they receive represent a more appropriate approach to this issue. B. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF S. 314 S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency and harassment on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks. The bill would amend Section 223 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which requires carriers to take steps to prevent minors from gaining access to indecent audiotext and criminalizes harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines. This section, commonly known as the Helms Amendment (having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms), has been the subject of extended Constitutional litigation in recent years. * CARRIERS LIABLE FOR CONDUCT OF ALL USERS ON THEIR NETWORKS S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including telephone companies, commercial online services, the Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or other content carried on its network -- including the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting individuals. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 8 27 Feb 1995 Under S. 314, anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication" which is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent" using a "telecommunications device" would be subject to a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)). In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other content before transmitting it to the intended recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals and accessing content available on other networks. Electronic communications networks do not contain discrete boundaries. Instead, users of one service can easily communicate with and access content available on other networks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content generated by subscribers of other services. This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow of information throughout the online world and the free speech and privacy rights of individual users. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also violate current legal protections. * CARRIERS REQUIRED TO ACT AS PRIVATE CENSOR OF ALL PUBLIC FORUMS AND ARCHIVES S. 314 would also expand current restrictions on access to indecent telephone audiotext services by minors under the age of 18 to cover similar content carried by telecommunications services (such as America Online and the Internet). (Sec (a)(4)). As amended by this provision, anyone who, "by means of telephone or telecommunications device, makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under the age of 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication" would be subject of a fine of $100,000 or two years in prison. This would force carries to act as private censors of all content available in public forums or file archives on their networks. Moreover, because there is no clear definition of indecency, carriers would have to restrict FidoNews 12-09 Page: 9 27 Feb 1995 access to any content that could be possibly construed as indecent or obscene under the broadest interpretation of the term. Public forums, discussion lists, file archives, and content available for commercial purposes would have to be meticulously screened and censored in order to avoid potential liability for the carrier. Such a scenario would severely limit the diversity of content available on online networks, and limit the editorial freedom of independent forum operators. ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROVISIONS * AMENDMENT TO ECPA Section (6) of the bill would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2511) to prevent the unauthorized interception and disclosure of "digital communications" (Sec. 6). However, because the term "digital communication" is not defined and 18 USC 2511 currently prevents unauthorized interception and disclosure of "electronic communications" (which includes electronic mail and other forms of communications in digital form), the effect of this provision has no clear importance. * CABLE OPERATORS MAY REFUSE INDECENT PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAMMING Finally, section (8) would amend sections 611 and 612 of the Communications Act (47 USC 611 - 612) to allow any cable operator to refuse to carry any public access or leased access programming which contains "obscenity, indecency, or nudity". C. ALTERNATIVES TO EXON: RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE USER CONTROL CAPABILITIES OF INTERACTIVE MEDIA Government regulation of content in the mass media has always been considered essential to protect children from access to sexually-explicit material, and to prevent unwitting listeners/views from being exposed to material that might be considered extremely distasteful. The choice to protect children has historically been made at the expense of the First Amendment ban on government censorship. As Congress moves to regulate new interactive media, it is essential that it understand that interactive media is different than mass media. The power and flexibility of interactive media offers a unique opportunity to enable parents to control what content their kids have access to, and leave the flow of information free for those adults who want it. Government control regulation is simply not needed to achieve the desired purpose. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 10 27 Feb 1995 Most interactive technology, such as Internet browsers and the software used to access online services such as America Online and Compuserve, already has the capability to limit access to certain types of services and selected information. Moreover, the electronic program guides being developed for interactive cable TV networks also provide users the capability to screen out certain channels or ever certain types of programming. Moreover, in the online world, most content (with the exception of private communications initiated by consenting individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words, users must seek out the content they receive, whether it is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive. By its nature, this technology provides ample control at the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online services, Internet service providers) in most cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated by individual subscribers. CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving parents and other users the tools to select which information they (and their children) should have access to. In the case of criminal content the originator of the content, not the carriers, should be responsible for their crimes. And, users (especially parents) should be empowered to determine what information they and their children have access to. If all carriers of electronic communications are forced restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness of digital media for communications and information dissemination would be drastically limited. D. NEXT STEPS The bill has been introduced and will next move to the Senate Commerce Committee, although no Committee action has been scheduled. Last year, a similar proposal by Senator Exon was approved by the Senate Commerce committee as an amendment to the Senate Telecommunications Bill (S. 1822, which died at the end of the 103rd Congress). CDT will be working with a wide range of other interest groups to assure that Congress does not restrict the free flow of information in interactive media. TEXT OF 47 U.S.C. 223 AS AMENDED BY S. 314 **NOTE: [] = deleted ALL CAPS = additions 47 USC 223 (1992) Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] FidoNews 12-09 Page: 11 27 Feb 1995 OBSCENE OR HARASSING UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS" (a) Whoever-- (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE-- (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST, SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; [(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;] "(B) MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR UTILIZES A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATIONS ENSUES,WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS IDENTITY AND WITH INTENT TO ANNOY, ABUSE, THREATEN, OR HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or [(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] (D) MAKES REPEATED TELEPHONE CALLS OR REPEATEDLY INITIATES COMMUNICATION WITH A TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, DURING WHICH CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION ENSUES, SOLELY TO HARASS ANY PERSON AT THE CALLED NUMBER OR WHO RECEIVES THE COMMUNICATION, (2) knowingly permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more than $[50,000]100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO YEARS, or both. (b)(1) Whoever knowingly-- (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICCE, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two FidoNews 12-09 Page: 12 27 Feb 1995 years, or both. (2) Whoever knowingly-- (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone], makes BY MEANS OF TELEPHONE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR MAKES AVAILABLE(directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call OR INITIATED THE COMMUNICATION; or (B) permits any [telephone facility] TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than $[50,000] 100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] TWO YEARS, or both. (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation. (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $[50,000] 100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $[50,000] 100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either-- (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings. (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (c)(1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) from the telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in FidoNews 12-09 Page: 13 27 Feb 1995 writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such communication. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on account of-- (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) any access permitted-- (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation by a provider of communications that communications provided by that provider are communications specified in subsection (b), or (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to restrict access to communications described in subsection (b). (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider of communications services to which subscribers are denied access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such action shall be limited to the question of whether the communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the category of communications to which the carrier will provide access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access. ********************************************* NOTE: This version of the text shows the actual text of current law as it would be changed. For the bill itself, which consists of unreadable text such as: [...] (1) in subsection (a)(1)-- subparagraph (A) and inserting `telecommunications device'; (B) by striking out `makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication'; (C) by striking out subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: `(B) makes a telephone call or utilizes a [...] See: FidoNews 12-09 Page: 14 27 Feb 1995 ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new, s314.bill http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Bills_new/s314.bill http://www.phantom.com/~slowdog Stop the Communications Decency Act! ------- Message 2 >From: lpd@aladdin.com (L. Peter Deutsch) >To: antryg@cs.nmt.edu >Subject: Re: FW: PETITION to Stop S.314 (fwd) I'm disappointed that the petition is couched primarily in terms of economic burden. S.314 is so blatantly at odds with (among other things) the First Amendment and existing principles of "common carrier" licensing and of freedom of the press that this would have been a great opportunity to make an argument based on principle too, not just an economic argument that I'm afraid could be nickel-and-dimed to death. I'll sign the petition, because I don't disagree with anything in it and it's important. I just wish it said more than it does. L. Peter Deutsch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS From: mech@eff.org (1:1/31) From: Stanton McCandlish EFF SUES TO OVERTURN CRYPTOGRAPHY RESTRICTIONS First Amendment Protects Information about Privacy Technologies February 21, 1995 San Mateo, California In a move aimed at expanding the growth and spread of privacy and security technologies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is sponsoring a federal lawsuit filed today seeking to bar the government from restricting publication of cryptographic documents and software. EFF argues that the export-control laws, both on their face and as applied to users of cryptographic materials, are unconstitutional. Cryptography, defined as "the science and study of secret writing," concerns the ways in which communications and data can be encoded to prevent disclosure of their contents through eavesdropping or message interception. Although the science of cryptography is very old, the desktop-computer revolution has made it possible for cryptographic techniques to become widely used and accessible to nonexperts. EFF believes that cryptography is central to the preservation of privacy and security in an increasingly computerized and networked world. Many of the privacy and security violations alleged in the FidoNews 12-09 Page: 15 27 Feb 1995 Kevin Mitnick case, such as the theft of credit card numbers, the reading of other peoples' electronic mail, and the hijacking of other peoples' computer accounts, could have been prevented by widespread deployment of this technology. The U.S. government has opposed such deployment, fearing that its citizens will be private and secure from the government as well as from other vandals. The plaintiff in the suit is a graduate student in Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley named Dan Bernstein. Bernstein developed an encryption equation, or algorithm, and wishes to publish the algorithm, a mathematical paper that describes and explains the algorithm, and a computer program that runs the algorithm. Bernstein also wishes to discuss these items at mathematical conferences and other open, public meetings. The problem is that the government currently treats cryptographic software as if it were a physical weapon and highly regulates its dissemination. Any individual or company who wants to export such software -- or to publish on the Internet any "technical data" such as papers describing encryption software or algorithms -- must first obtain a license from the State Department. Under the terms of this license, each recipient of the licensed software or information must be tracked and reported to the government. Penalties can be pretty stiff -- ten years in jail, a million dollar criminal fine, plus civil fines. This legal scheme effectively prevents individuals from engaging in otherwise legal communications about encryption. The lawsuit challenges the export-control scheme as an ``impermissible prior restraint on speech, in violation of the First Amendment.'' Software and its associated documentation, the plaintiff contends, are published, not manufactured; they are Constitutionally protected works of human-to-human communication, like a movie, a book, or a telephone conversation. These communications cannot be suppressed by the government except under very narrow conditions -- conditions that are not met by the vague and overbroad export-control laws. In denying people the right to publish such information freely, these laws, regulations, and procedures unconstitutionally abridge the right to speak, to publish, to associate with others, and to engage in academic inquiry and study. They also have the effect of restricting the availability of a means for individuals to protect their privacy, which is also a Constitutionally protected interest. More specifically, the current export control process: * allows bureaucrats to restrict publication without ever going to court; * provides too few procedural safeguards for First Amendment rights; * requires publishers to register with the government, creating in effect a "licensed press"; * disallows general publication by requiring recipients to be individually identified; FidoNews 12-09 Page: 16 27 Feb 1995 * is sufficiently vague that ordinary people cannot know what conduct is allowed and what conduct is prohibited; * is overbroad because it prohibits conduct that is clearly protected (such as speaking to foreigners within the United States); * is applied overbroadly, by prohibiting export of software that contains no cryptography, on the theory that cryptography could be added to it later; * egregiously violates the First Amendment by prohibiting private speech on cryptography because the government wishes its own opinions on cryptography to guide the public instead; and * exceeds the authority granted by Congress in the export control laws in many ways, as well as exceeding the authority granted by the Constitution. If this suit is successful in its challenge of the export-control laws, it will clear the way for cryptographic software to be treated like any other kind of software. This will allow companies such as Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Sun to build high-quality security and privacy protection into their operating systems. It will also allow computer and network users, including those who use the Internet, much more freedom to build and exchange their own solutions to these problems, such as the freely available PGP encryption program. And it will enable the next generation of Internet protocols to come with built-in cryptographic security and privacy, replacing a sagging part of today's Internet infrastructure. Lead attorney on the case is Cindy Cohn, of McGlashan and Sarrail in San Mateo, CA, who is offering her services pro-bono. Major assistance has been provided by Shari Steele, EFF staff; John Gilmore, EFF Board; and Lee Tien, counsel to John Gilmore. EFF is organizing and supporting the case and paying the expenses. Civil Action No. C95-0582-MHP was filed today in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. EFF anticipates that the case will take several years to win. If the past is any guide, the government will use every trick and every procedural delaying tactic available to avoid having a court look at the real issues. Nevertheless, EFF remains firmly committed to this long term project. We are confident that, once a court examines the issues on the merits, the government will be shown to be violating the Constitution, and that its attempts to restrict both freedom of speech and privacy will be shown to have no place in an open society. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from the EFF's online archives. The exhibits which contain cryptographic information are not available online, because making them publicly available on the Internet could be considered an illegal export until the law is struck down. We are still uploading some of the documents, including the main complaint, so please try again later if what you want isn't there yet. See: FidoNews 12-09 Page: 17 27 Feb 1995 http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case Press contact: Shari Steele, EFF: ssteele@eff.org, +1 202 861 7700. For further reading, we suggest: The Government's Classification of Private Ideas: Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Government Operations, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980) John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Memorandum to Dr. Frank Press, Science Advisor to the President, Re: Constitutionality Under the First Amendment of ITAR Restrictions on Public Cryptography (May 11, 1978). [Included in the above Hearings; also online as http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ ITAR_export/ITAR_FOIA/itar_hr_govop_hearing.transcript]. Alexander, Preserving High-Tech Secrets: National Security Controls on University Research and Teaching, 15 Law & Policy in Int'l Business 173 (1983) Cheh, Government Control of Private Ideas-Striking a Balance Between Scientific Freedom and National Security, 23 Jurimetrics J. 1 (1982) Funk, National Security Controls on the Dissemination of Privately Generated Scientific Information, 30 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 405 (1982) Pierce, Public Cryptography, Arms Export Controls, and the First Amendment: A Need for Legislation, 17 Cornell Int'l L. J. 197 (1984) Rindskopf and Brown, Jr., Scientific and Technological Information and the Exigencies of Our Period, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 909 (1985) Ramirez, The Balance of Interests Between National Security Controls and First Amendment Interests in Academic Freedom, 13 J. Coll. & U. Law 179 (1986) Shinn, The First Amendment and the Export Laws: Free Speech on Scientific and Technical Matters, 58 Geo. W. L. Rev. 368 (1990) Neuborne and Shapiro, The Nylon Curtain: America's National Border and the Free Flow of Ideas, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 719 (1985) Greenstein, National Security Controls on Scientific Information, 23 Jurimetrics J. 50 (1982) Sullivan and Bader, The Application of Export Control Laws to Scientific Research at Universities, 9 J. Coll. & U. Law 451 (1982) Wilson, National Security Control of Technological Information, 25 Jurimetrics J. 109 (1985) Kahn, The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York: FidoNews 12-09 Page: 18 27 Feb 1995 Macmillan (1967) [Great background on cryptography and its history.] Relyea, Silencing Science: national security controls and scientific communication, Congressional Research Service. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. (1994) John Gilmore, Crypto Export Control Archives, online at http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/export.html EFF Crypto Export Control Archives, online at ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No, Not Atheist-Only by John Passaniti, 1:2613/102, philjohn@eznet.net I was amused to read the rant offered by Mikhail Ramendik in volume 12, number 7. In it, he says he is "amazed" by atheism in Fidonews and open flames against Christianity. Maybe he wouldn't be so "amazed" if he understood that Fidonet is a pluralistic society of individuals, and that society includes-- non-exclusively-- both atheists and Christians. Fidonews is the weekly voice of Fidonet participants, and in it you will find all sorts of commentary, from every viewpoint imaginable. If Mikhail doesn't appreciate such diversity in Fidonet, he is welcome to find a network that reflects his views. If he finds the occasional excesses of language in Fidonews to be upsetting, he should consider the fine and respected tradition of samizdat publishing his country is known for: He should self-publish his own version of Fidonews that meets with his approval. Nobody is stopping him or anyone else from doing exactly that. I believe the root problem here is Mikhail is now learning what we as Americans often take for granted-- freedom of the press. As Americans, we have grown up in a culture that permits and encourages people to express themselves, and Fidonews is just an electronic extension of that. Our freedom of press has produced some of the greatest thoughts in the world-- and some of the most banal. In doing so, it reflects our true diversity, and thus, our strength. As this kind of freedom is probably relatively new to Mikhail, I'll assume his response is to the novelty of free expression of religious pluralism. I hope he gets used to it soon. Mikhail closes his article with a typical rant against atheism; he charges atheism with 75 years of his country's problems. Gee, I always thought those problems were because of a repressive government structure, a state-run economy, and a military build-up that America FidoNews 12-09 Page: 19 27 Feb 1995 only barely won. Thanks to Mikhail, we learn it was really because of atheism! Thanks Mikhail for your stunning insight! I'm glad to see that along with the democratic reforms and religious freedoms your country is moving toward, you are also adopting two traditions some American Christian Fundamentalists have been perfecting for years: historical revisionism and scape-goating. This atheist is happy as a democratic capitalist, and there is nothing intrinsic about atheism that I have ever come across which leads one to or intrinsically supports Communism. Communist governments seek to control the individual, and atheism is often used as a tool to displace non-government control (such as from clergy, or from the individual themselves acting on faith). That Mikhail confuses atheism as a philosophy and atheism as a tool used by a repressive government kind of surprises me. While it might be amusing to have Mikhail defend Christianity, I suggest Mikhail first examine the situation in context. Spend a weekend and read every back issue of Fidonews. If Mikhail does this, I think he will quickly learn that Christians are quite well represented in Fidonews (and Fidonet). Mikhail will find his Christian brothers and sisters offering everything from thrilling inspiration to sheer embarassment. Mikhail will also find displays of Christian "love," which in Fidonews has ranged from an open, unconditional style to some of the most hate-filled rhetoric ever published anywhere. Welcome to Fidonet, Mikhail. Can you handle it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:41:12 -0600 (CST) From: David Smith Subject: File 1--Finnish anonymity compromised by Interpol (fwd) From--an0@anon.penet.fi (The Anonymous Administrator) Organization--Anonymous contact service Reply-To--an0@anon.penet.fi Date--Sat, 18 Feb 1995 12:03:58 UTC Subject--Anon.penet.fi compromised! I am pretty shocked! Based on a request from Interpol, the Finnish police have gotten a search&seizure warrant on my home and the anon.penet.fi server, and gotten the real mail address of a user that has allegedly posted material stolen from the Church of Scientology. Fortunately I managed to prevent them from getting more than this one, single address. There is going to be a very high-level public debate on how it is possible that a country that prides itself on honoring human rights and privacy very strongly has allowed this to happen. Maybe we can use the publicity to stop this from happening again. But in this situation, I find it pretty understandable that some of FidoNews 12-09 Page: 20 27 Feb 1995 you might want all traces of your ID removed. I have now added the alias "remove@anon.penet.fi" to my server. If you want to be removed, just send a (possibly empty) message to that address. But I am hoping it won't be empty. I am hoping that you do outline *why* you have needed the server, and what you think about the actions of the Finnish authorities. The messages will be anonymized using the normal anon.penet.fi procedure, and used to support the demand for a re-interpretation of the privacy laws in Finland. If you *don't* want to be removed, but still want to send a comment, you can use the addresses anon-support@lists.otol.fi (if you are *for* keeping the server) and anon-against@lists.otol.fi (if you are *against* the server). If you want to be anonymous, use anon-support@anon.penet.fi and anon-against@anon.penet.fi. Julf (admin@anon.penet.fi) Daddy always said to kick the boy when he's down Rick Simms No Name No Slogan Acid Horse Don't just eat that hamburger, eat the HELL out of it. Bob Dobbs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From Russia with love. by Eric Rheinlander 3:350/114 From Russia with love. In response to the derision and critisism in Fido News Vol 12 No. 8 I say I feel sorry for Mikhail Ramendik for the way he copped it, twice in one session, from both the Rev. Shawn McMahon and Charles Herriot aka Doc Logger in Swamp Swine. Both seem to be a little confused about the need of usage of the F word. One of them, the dear old Doc is wondering how the Russian procreate without the activity this words meaning conjures to him, never even contemplating that one can engage in the very same activity and call it Love making without debasing it. Hence the saying "From Russia with love". :-) At the same time I am quite sure that having nailed a plastic Jesus to his monitor will cause less rage than if he would confess to having done the same with a rag doll replica of Muhammed. Confirming Mikhails observation with regards to the treatment of christian beliefs. My opinion is that all of them, Jesus and Muhamed and others deserve respect. And if one does not have that, at least one should grant it to the people to whom they mean something. Similarly the Rev. Shawn McMahon over revs his motor by jumping to conjections about all the dictatorial implications Mikhails comments may have and the terrible danger to our beloved dog with the disk in his mouth. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 21 27 Feb 1995 Now I am quite sure that our treasured and beloved canine will not wither on the [back] bone when one very mild Christian with a very difficult background voices his concern. I am very content with the way the net is and fully accede that everyone, in the words of Fredrik the Great of Prussia, should achieve her/his happiness in their own fashion, peculiar as it might be and believe in the rights of others to do their own thing as long as it is not forced on to somebody else. But there is another form of dictatorship which is the terrorism of words and the vehemence in which they are uttered and is called brow beating. It sounds great to proclaim the principles of personal freedom and use them to camouflage ones insensitivities and disregard for others, attacking the very essence of the doctrine they are believing to protect. I think, a little bit of gentleness to the Mr Ramendiks of the planet would have not gone astray. Greeting.....Eric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor-beings: Please indicate that the following was submitted by Charles Herriot (1:163/110) who has gambled his entire economic future on a GIANT Pumpkin growing contest. Roll da' flic, Sylvia.... Swamp Swine Magazine, Shuckmagosh, Ohio Dear Reverend Visage, I sense your malign influence in the fact that Bill Cassidy has suggested that I become his deputy Regional Coordinator should he sweep the current election. Bill is obviously deranged to make such a suggestion, particularly since I believe that all policy complaints should be settled by dueling at forty paces with brocolli jello. As a good and decent gesture, I recommend that we send Bill to Belgium. The Region 12 election has become a rich source of amusement. The Retentive Officer, Tony "Screamin' GMD Deathrottle" Bearman, has imposed rules that would make a legion of Ibogaine crazed lawyers beg for mercy. My fervent prayers go out to all of the sysop peasantry so that they don't colour outside the lines and spoil their ballots when casting a vote. The polling firm of Dubois, Shrunkel, Andjerson has put Clifford Morrison in the lead. In other news, we borrowed Bill "Ever been blown ashore, Billy?" Clinton for a few days. With Newts running amok in FidoNews 12-09 Page: 22 27 Feb 1995 Washington, Billy has become increasing irrelevant on the political scene so I am sure that he wasn't missed. Bill planted a tree and managed not to lose his lunch as he sat across the table from Sheila. Have you noticed that George Peace hasn't quite rendered a decision in the Stein vs. Kolin complaint? It must be a real bitch for George to stand there and watch continental drift race right past him. I am having a delightful semantic debate with the school board which controls my older rugrat's school. They apparently have a policy that children can be expelled for using profanity. As a deeply concerned parent, I have asked for a complete list of all the words deemed to be profane so that I can properly educate my son. Unfortunately, the school board wishes to dodge the issue by refusing to provide the list, relying upon what they tell me is a self-evident appraisal of offensive language. We are progressing slowly in our tortuous discussions and have already established that "gee whiz", even though it derives from the passage of liquid waste, is not profane. I must go Visage, the O.J. Voyeurism Show has come back on. After watching the witness sit down, I feel educated when the CNN announcer cuts in to tell me that the witness has sat down. Stunning and inciteful commentary like this is not to be missed and someone really oughta tell Greta that winter is over and she can take those walnuts out of her cheeks. Your secretary became hysterical when I told her that we could be watching this drama for months...possibly years. As a good and decent gesture I suggest that we send her to Arkansas. Regards, Doc Logger Trout Ranching Emporium, FlinFlon, Manitoba FidoNews 12-09 Page: 23 27 Feb 1995 Subject: gii_expression_letter.announce From: mech@eff.org (1:1/31) HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 485 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017-6104 TEL (212) 972-8400 FAX (212) 972-0905 Email: hrwnyc@hrw.org 1522 K Street, NW, #910 Washington, DC 20005-1202 TEL (202) 371-6592 FAX (202) 371-0124 Email: hrwdc@hrw.org TITLE: 2/16/95 Press Release on Letter to G-7 on Global Information Infrastructure For Further Information, Please Contact: Ann Beeson Human Rights Watch phone: 212-972-8400 x258 e-mail: beesona@hrw.org Marc Rotenberg Electronic Privacy Information Center phone: 202-544-9240 e-mail: rotenberg@epic.org HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS URGE GORE TO PROTECT FREE EXPRESSION ON INFO-HIGHWAY February 16, 1995 -- A coalition of leading human rights and civil liberties groups today urged Vice President Al Gore to carry the banner of free speech to Brussels where the G-7 will meet next week to discuss the future of the global information infrastructure (GII). The coalition alleges that the current U.S. agenda for the GII is incomplete because it fails to include core free expression principles. The Clinton Administration has stated that it wants to achieve support from the G-7 for five basic principles for building the GII: encouraging private investment; promoting competition; creating a flexible regulatory environment; providing open access to networks and services for providers and users; and ensuring universal service. The Administration gave a detailed description of these principles in a document released yesterday entitled "The Global Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation." The coalition asks the U.S. to add a "sixth principle" for adoption at next week's G-7 gathering that "explicitly recognizes a commitment to protect and promote the free exchange of information and ideas on the GII." The letter (a copy of which is attached) recommends that the Clinton Administration: -protect against censorship and promote diverse ideas and viewpoints on the GII. -support broad access to the GII by people of all nations. FidoNews 12-09 Page: 24 27 Feb 1995 -promote strong information privacy rights on the GII. The group points to the inevitable impact the GII will have on social, political, and economic life. If properly designed, the GII will "motivate citizens to become more involved in decisionmaking at local and global levels as they organize, debate, and share information unrestricted by geographic distances or national borders." The letter was signed by Human Rights Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, Article 19, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way, and Privacy International. Subject: ACTION ALERT: The Sixth Principle Dear GII folks, Below is an Action Alert regarding our letter to Al Gore on the G-7 Conference. PLEASE POST THIS WIDELY! Our letter has already generated a lot of attention from netizens, and this is their chance to become involved. Thanks for all your help-- Ann Beeson Bradford Wiley Fellow Free Expression Project Human Rights Watch (212) 972-8405 x258 Free Expression On The Global Information Infrastructure Is In Jeopardy Unless You Act Now! BACKGROUND: On February 25-26, the G-7 countries will meet in Brussels to make crucial decisions that will affect the future of the global information infrastructure (GII). The Clinton Administration wants support from the G-7 for five basic principles for building the GII: encouraging private investment; promoting competition; creating a flexible regulatory environment; providing open access to networks and services for providers and users; and ensuring universal service. ISSUE: These five principles will not protect online free expression! In a letter to Al Gore last week, nine leading human rights and civil liberties groups recommended a specific principle to protect free expression in cyberspace. (The full text of the letter is available at: FTP: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/OP/gii_expression_letter.eff Gopher: gopher.igc.apc.org, path: 1/int/hrw/expression, filename: 1, port: 5000 (menu path: Human Rights Organizations With an International Focus / Human Rights Watch (HRW) / Human Rights Watch Free Expression Project / general.952) FidoNews 12-09 Page: 25 27 Feb 1995 WWW: gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:5000/00/int/hrw/expression/1 ACTION: Send the Vice President a message by Internet e-mail at vice-president@whitehouse.gov (non-Internet users see end) before Saturday, February 25th urging the adoption of a "sixth principle" that protects and promotes free expression on the GII. (See the sample letter below.) Please use the subject header "Sixth Principle", and copy your message to: g7@hrw.org. NOTE: Because there is currently no guarantee that White House email is read and carefully considered in a timely manner, it is strongly advised that you *also* send your letter via postal mail and fax to: Vice President Albert Gore Old Executive Office Building Washington DC 20500 USA Fax: +1 202 456 7044 Please do also email it and cc g7@hrw.org. Join Human Rights Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, Article 19, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way, and Privacy International in the fight for free expression in cyberspace! ----------- cut here ------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Al Gore Vice President of the United States S212 Capitol Building Washington, DC 20510 e-mail: vice.president@whitehouse.gov cc: g7@hrw.org Dear Mr. Vice President: I am writing to ask that you add a "sixth principle" for adoption by the G-7 this week that explicitly recognizes a commitment to protect and promote the free exchange of information and ideas on the global information infrastructure (GII). I also support the specific recommendations regarding free expression principles for the GII that were provided to you in the February 16th letter from leading human rights and civil liberties organizations. The U.S. should carry the free speech banner as it shapes the development of the GII. Sincerely, [name] ----------- cut here ------------------------------------------------ FidoNews 12-09 Page: 26 27 Feb 1995 FidoNet users: send your email to the UUCP gateway for your area. It must be addressed "To: UUCP, ". The FIRST line of the message must be a second "To:" line - "To: vice-president@whitehouse.gov". The SECOND line *must* be a blank line - this formatting is required by the mail gateway. The THIRD line should begin the salutation and letter. To cc your message to g7@hrw.org, repeat this proceedure in a separate message for g7@hrw.org (some UUCP FidoNet<-->Internet mailgates may not support direct cc's in a single message - better to be safe than sorry.) CompuServe users: send your email to Internet:vice-president@whitehouse.gov or CIS ID 75300,3115. Other online services: Contact your system admins for instructions on how to send Internet email. [A letter from EFF and many other non-profits to Vice President Al Gore regarding GII priorities and freedom of expression.] February 16, 1995 The Honorable Al Gore Vice President of the United States S212 Capitol Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Vice President: We understand that you will be addressing the G-7 Ministerial Conference on the Information Society, which takes place in Brussels February 25-26, 1995. The undersigned represent leading human rights and civil liberties organizations dedicated to promoting free expression in the new information age. We write today to ask you to urge the G-7 ministers to adhere to international free expression principles in any international agreement regarding the development, content, control and deployment of the global information infrastructure (GII). Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims: *Everyone has the right . . . to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.* Since the Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948, the ability of individuals to exercise their free expression rights has been transformed by technological advances. Today, interactive communications technologies provide an opportunity to reinvigorate Article 19 by empowering citizens to seek, receive and impart information and ideas instantaneously, across the globe. The GII can motivate citizens to become more involved in decisionmaking at local and global levels as they organize, debate, and share information unrestricted by geographic distances or national borders. Increased citizen awareness and involvement FidoNews 12-09 Page: 27 27 Feb 1995 will contribute to the spread of democratic values. In particular, the GII has the potential to: * permit individuals with common interests to organize themselves in forums to debate public policy issues. * provide instant access to a wide range of information. * increase citizen oversight of government affairs. * decentralize political decisionmaking. * empower users to become active producers of information rather than passive consumers. Already, existing online networks empower citizens worldwide. Individuals in war-torn countries have used the Internet and other online networks to report human rights abuses quickly to the outside world. When traditional means of communication broke down and the war in Sarajevo made it impossible for civilians to leave their homes without risking their lives, many citizens used online technology to communicate with family members, the international press, and humanitarian relief agencies. People from across the globe are communicating online to fight censorship, scrutinize government, and exchange information and strategies on an endless array of subjects. However, the GII's inevitable impact on social, political, and economic life presents risks as well as opportunities. Although the extraordinary potential for a GII has been suggested by existing online communications networks, the present online community is still quite limited. Only countries with a sophisticated telecommunications infrastructure are able to take advantage of online technology. While the Internet has reached more than 150 countries, two-thirds of the Internet host computers are in the U.S., and the 15 countries with the most Internet hosts account for 96% of all Internet hosts worldwide. As a recent report noted, "the Internet's diffusion appears to be inversely related to the occurrence of humanitarian crises -- it is precisely those nations that lack a strong presence on the Net where wars, famines and dictators abound." Even in countries with advanced telecommunications infrastructures, only persons with access to equipment and training can take advantage of new information resources. General illiteracy remains the primary obstacle to computer literacy. And while the GII may foster an unprecedented sharing of cultural traditions, current users of online technology are primarily American, affluent, white, and male. Finally, some governments have inhibited online expression through limitations on the use of encryption technology, restrictive access practices, and content liability laws. Just as authoritarian governments control other forms of media, governments may restrict access to the GII out of fear that citizens will use it to undermine government authority. In India, exorbitant licensing fees operate to exclude many people from online services, and an archaic telegraph law requires online carriers to ensure that no obscene or objectionable messages are FidoNews 12-09 Page: 28 27 Feb 1995 carried on their networks. In Singapore, users of Teleview, the government's sophisticated public interactive information system, must agree not to use the service to send "any message which is offensive on moral, religious, communal, or political grounds." Even the United States has continued to impose restrictions on the free flow of technologies designed to provide users with greater privacy and to foster freedom of communication. The undersigned organizations have reviewed "The Global Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation." We understand that the U.S. hopes to achieve support among G-7 countries for five core principles as the basis for a global information infrastructure: encouraging private investment; promoting competition; creating a flexible regulatory framework; providing open access to the network for all information service providers; and ensuring universal service. We recognize the importance of these principles in providing a foundation for a GII and applaud the administration's support of universal service. However, we believe that the administration has failed to address some core free expression principles. Absent consideration of these principles, the current U.S. position on the future of the GII is incomplete. To reduce the risks of the GII and to maximize its potential to promote democracy, the GII must adopt and expand upon international standards of free expression. The following international rights and freedoms are of particular relevance to online activity: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) * Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." * Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." * Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence." * Article 18: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." * Article 20: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." * Article 21: "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country." * Article 27: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) * Article 19: The right "to hold opinions without interference" and "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers . . . through any media." FidoNews 12-09 Page: 29 27 Feb 1995 * Article 17: Freedom from "arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence." * Article 18: "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion." * Article 21: "The right of peaceful assembly." * Article 22: "The right to freedom of association with others." * Article 25: The right "to take part in the conduct of public affairs." * Article 26: "All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. . . . [T]he law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." All of the G-7 members, including the United States, are parties to the ICCPR. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights also contain important free expression standards which should be considered in developing the GII. In the strong tradition of free speech protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the U.S. should advocate for the universal application of two important free expression principles not yet codified in international law. First, the U.S. should advocate for an explicit prohibition against prior censorship. Second, the U.S. should promote an explicit prohibition against restrictions of free expression by indirect methods such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. Recommendations: The undersigned organizations have identified three principal areas of concern regarding free expression and the GII: content regulation, access, and information privacy. We recommend the following guidelines to address those concerns. Content Issues Recognizing the mandates of Articles 7, 18, 19, and 20 of the UDHR, and Articles 18, 19, 21, 22, and 26 of the ICCPR, we call on the Clinton Administration to protect the free exchange of information and ideas on the GII. * Prior censorship of online communications should be expressly prohibited on the GII. * Any restrictions of online speech content should be FidoNews 12-09 Page: 30 27 Feb 1995 clearly stated in the law and should be limited to direct and immediate incitement of acts of violence. * Laws that restrict online speech content should distinguish between the liability of content providers and the liability of data carriers. * Online free expression should not be restricted by indirect means such as the abuse of government or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other equipment essential to the operation of the GII. * The GII should promote noncommercial public discourse. * The right of anonymity should be preserved on the GII. * The GII should promote the wide dissemination of diverse ideas and viewpoints from a wide variety of information sources. * The GII should enable individuals to organize and form online associations freely and without interference. Access Issues Recognizing the mandates of Articles 7, 19, 20, 21, and 27 of the UDHR, and Articles 19, 21, 22, 25, and 26 of the ICCPR, we call on the Clinton Administration to support broad access by individuals and groups to the GII development process, to online training, and to the GII itself. * Governments should provide full disclosure of information infrastructure development plans and should encourage democratic participation in all aspects of the development process. * The GII development process should not exclude citizens from countries that are currently unstable economically, have insufficient infrastructure, or lack sophisticated technology. * The GII should provide nondiscriminatory access to online technology. * To guarantee a full range of viewpoints, the GII should provide access to a diversity of information providers, including noncommercial educational, artistic, and other public interest service providers. * The GII should provide two-way communication and should enable individuals to publish their own information and ideas. * To protect diversity of access, the GII should have open and interoperable standards. * Deployment of the GII should not have the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. * The GII should encourage citizens to take an active role in public affairs by providing access to government information. * Governments should encourage widespread use of the GII and should strive to provide adequate training. Information Privacy Recognizing the mandates of Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR, we call on the Clinton Administration to promote strong information privacy rights on the GII. Online FidoNews 12-09 Page: 31 27 Feb 1995 communications are particularly susceptible to unauthorized scrutiny. Encryption technology is needed to ensure that individuals and groups may communicate without fear of eavesdropping. Lack of information privacy would inhibit online speech and unnecessarily limit the diversity of voices on the GII. * Governments should ensure enforceable legal protections against unauthorized scrutiny and use by private or public entities of personal information on the GII. * Personal information generated on the GII for one purpose should not be used for an unrelated purpose or disclosed without the person's informed consent. * Individuals should be able to review personal information on the GII and to correct inaccurate information. * The GII should provide privacy measures for transactional information as well as content. * The Clinton Administration should oppose controls on the export and import of communications technologies, including encryption. * Users of the GII should be able to encrypt their communications and information without restriction. * Governments should be permitted to conduct investigations on the GII pursuant only to lawful authority and subject to judicial review. The G-7 Ministerial Conference on the Information Society will focus international attention on the development of the global information infrastructure. We encourage the Clinton Administration to use this opportunity not simply to promote free expression values in principle, but to secure these values through specific decisions regarding the development, content, control and deployment of the GII. We request that the U.S. add a "sixth principle" for adoption by the G-7 gathering that explicitly recognizes a commitment to protect and promote the free exchange of ideas and information on the GII. The U.S. is seen as the world's champion of the fundamental right of free expression, and it should continue to carry the free speech banner as it shapes the development of the GII. Sincerely, Gara LaMarche, Director Ann Beeson, Bradford Wiley Fellow Free Expression Project Human Rights Watch Marc Rotenberg Executive Director Electronic Privacy Information Center Ira Glasser Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union Judith F. Krug Director, Office for Intellectual Freedom American Library Association Sandy Coliver Law Program Director Article 19 International Centre FidoNews 12-09 Page: 32 27 Feb 1995 Against Censorship Jerry Berman Executive Director Center for Democracy and Technology Andrew Taubman Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation Arthur J. Kropp President People for the American Way Simon Davies Director General Privacy International cc: The Honorable Ronald Brown United States Secretary of Commerce ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to the christian fanatic Mikhail Marendik From: Daniel Hammarberg (2:205/433.2) Is Fidonet a home for religious fanatics? Christianity was made not to be criticized. If someone still protests against it, that person must be attacked, not his views. Oh no, someone used the ford 'fuck'. If people were allowed to do that, it wouldn't be very beneficial to christianity. Remember, criticizm is not allowed. So, we atheists are to blame for a fascist government? Well, then I'll better charge you for your opinions. During the crusades, as many as 10 million people may have been killed. And then the witchburnings. There's another genocide. Although no one has the bodycount(the christians didn't want people to remember their crimes), the estimated figures are between 0,5 million to 30 million people. Atheism is the enemy of christian oppression. The christians know that. So to stay in power, atheists and intellectuals must be killed. Talking about technical stagnation... How many years do you think christianity have slowed down progress? At least a 1000 years. Science was banned when the christians were really powerful. Scientists were harassed and imprisoned. Science is a great weapon against christian oppression, so it must be stopped... BTW, you should have drawn that cross upside down. You christians talk about satan being bad to justify your own oppression, when neither god or satan exists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A Canadian reader amazed by ignorance in Russia by Michael Hall, 1:3402/30 This article was written in response to "A Russian reader amazed by FidoNews 12-09 Page: 33 27 Feb 1995 atheism in snooze" by Mikhail Ramendik, 2:5020/261.10. In the article, Mikhail Ramendik cites: >ads of anti-religious echo conferences and even open flame >against Christianity. In addition: >The 'last bite' that made me write this was an article 'from Michael >Johnson' in No.5. The word 'f&^k' was actually used without special >characters, not only preventing SysOps from reading the snoozie to >their girlfriends, but openly insulting all the community! He then goes on to rail against "atheistic nonsense," believing it to be not only the source of Communism, but the stake through his country's heart until its recent "liberation" at the hands of drunken fools. To address the points in order: Whether there are anti-religious conferences in fidonet or not, they are an exercise of free speech, something not currently practiced in post-Communist Russia. There are also pro-religious conferences. Perhaps Ramendik does not understand the concept of freely writing what one thinks, and mistakes this for attacks on his personal form of religion. Secondly, issue is taken with one person's use of a word. Ramendik claims this word insults "all the community" (fidonet? Russia? certain religious people? -- he doesn't define this), but goes on in a sexist manner to imply all sysops have girlfriends. He ignores the fact that many female sysops might have boyfriends, likewise gay male sysops. But his point is somehow women can't comprehend a word like the one he cited. An alarming and completely sexist idea. Some churches may well believe using a word like fuck is anti-religious. Women driving cars are a sight offensive to Islam. At one time, black people were offensive to proper church-going people in South Africa. In my home province of Alberta, I watched in a court room as Jim Keegstra's father patted a book in his hand and whispered to his son that yes, indeed, Jews did indeed control the world's money supply -- it was all in the Bible right here. Religion was used by Hitler to support the Second World War that ravaged Russia. Atheism wasn't the cause of the war -- neither was religion, but it was used to carry it forward. Ramendik would use his beliefs to control others. This is not what fidonet is about. Unfortunately, it's what many religions actively practice and what Russia's current leaders are about. Electronic networks don't seek to emulate the past -- whether it be FidoNews 12-09 Page: 34 27 Feb 1995 still-repressive regimes like Russia's (where the news is still censored and not allowed to report the truth -- like the butchery the government is perpretrating in Chechynia), or repressive churches that seek to limit knowledge about the world, confining it to a single book like the Bible or the Koran. They're about a new future where ideas are disseminated, held up to the light, and scrutinized. If ideas fail, it's because they're no good. That must be the test. Thank goodness Ramendik doesn't make the rules here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Russian objects to atheism in snooze From: C I A (1:2623/71) A Russian reader amazed by atheism in snooze by Mikhail Ramendik, 2:5020/261.10,ramen@pccross.msk.su >The 'last bite' that made me write this was an article 'from Michael >Johnson' in No.5. The word 'f&^k' was actually used without special >characters, not only preventing SysOps from reading the snoozie to >their girlfriends, but openly insulting all the community! Hrmm, well, *I* don't have a problem with the word FUCK, and I am a woman. I don't know of too many mature adults offended by the word FUCK, EXCEPT christian fundamentalists.. >Otherwise I'd answer all the atheistic nonsense, because we >have heard it here from the Communist government for 75 years! >Atheism is indeed the source of communism, and communism acknowledges >this. So there is probably nothing the atheists can invent to attack >Christianity that the Russians do not know very well. Oh, if only >I had the feed... I find that hard to believe. I always pictured communism as being a RELIGION OF THE STATE rather then of a god. ya know, where the STATE is the supreme being. An atheist accepts NOTHIN higher then ones self - not state, not god, not nothin =) >So I'd like to know - is FidoNet officially atheist-only? If not, is >religious discussion in the snooze okay? If yes, I'll be answering the I sure as hell HOPE NOT! We get enuf of the religious SPAM everywhere all over every net! Lets keep it out of the snooze - >atheists there. For we in Russia have seen the consequences of atheism. >75 years of technical stagnation, millions of martyred people, and a >world war - this is what we paid for atheism! And personally I do not >want my fellow Fidonetters to pay the same price. Don't blame athiesm (the ABSENCE of faith) for communisms problems - Communism is a flawed ideology, which has its roots in CHRISTIAN FidoNews 12-09 Page: 35 27 Feb 1995 doctrine - not atheist!! Do atheists claim we are our brothers keeper? Do atheists demand obedience to some "authority" above ones own mind? Do atheists resort to force when an indivdual refuses to accept their ideas?? Only those perpetrating FRAUDS do that, such as christianity and communism... " The alledged short cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind" -Fellow (ex) Russian, Ayn Rand ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I_UFO Forum: When Science Confronts Belief From: Fredric Rice (1:102/890) Greetings, FidoNews readers. What follows might be of some interest to you. It has to do with the I_UFO forum which was advertised in FidoNews not too long ago and some of the mind set which one might expect in the forum which was never addressed. Since I have delinked I_UFO and have been asked not to participate, I've elected to respond to the moderator publically to air a little insight into what the forum is like. (I would like to solicit input from individuals around the network who have observed like-minded forums; it should be interesting to compile some notes and perhaps derive an article for publication in SKEPTIC Magazine.) A detailed examination into I_UFO isn't really needed so long as one gets a good look at the book titled "Turncoats and True Believers," written by Goertzel and published through Prometheus Press, 1992. The book explores the psychology of people who persist in beliefs which goes against objective evidence and actually covers the phenomena observed in I_UFO in great detail. (Two other books of notice are "Higher Superstition," by Gross and Levitt and "Questioning Technology" by Carnes.) How a group of individuals might desire the peace of mind that not having to think critically offers is covered well in the book, "The True Believer," by Eric Hoffer. The science-oriented educational organization referenced in this message (called CSICOP) is an international organization which solicits and reports upon scientific investigations into claims of the paranormal. Among the fellows are well known and highly respected professionals with a broad spectrum of credentials. Robert A. Baker, Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins, Martin Gardner, Stephen J. Gould, Philip J. Klass, Edwin C. Krupp, Paul Kurtz, Carl Sagan, Eugenie Scott, and Robert Sheaffer are but a few of the well known authors and populizers of psychology, zoology, astronomy, and anthropology. (Most college students will recognize Edwin C. Krupp from his hosting "Project Universe.") The number of professional magicians, wizards and conjurers which CSICOP employs to explain and demonstrate how perpetuators of the paranormal perform their tricks creates a constant irritant for those who would wish that their tricks be held secret. Among the magicians which FidoNews 12-09 Page: 36 27 Feb 1995 assist in ferreting out the hows behind alleged paranormal feats is Penn and Teller and Wizard James Randi. The level of discomfort caused by CSICOP is felt in I_UFO. There are periodic CSICOP-bashing articles who's authorship is at times difficult to pin down. When the misconceptions and out-and-out lies (seasoned with personal attacks) are addressed and corrected, the silence is usually, as they say, overwhelming. That's enough background. Let me address the letter sent to me by one of the moderators of I_UFO -- someone who calls himself "Bartoo." Mod> Fred I have had it! What ever could it be this time. (Rhetorical question.) Could it be the list of unusual events around the world I enumerated which self-professed "psychics" failed to predict? (No real "psychic" could have missed "foreseeing" Michael Jackson marrying Presley. No real "psychic" could have missed "foreseeing" the Soviet Union break-up, you know. The list of what "psychics" missed is nearly endless.) Is that what has got you upset? (I only listed some 20 items which "psychics" should have seen. I didn't even include the earthquake in Japan on my list, as I recall.) Does the fact that no self-professed "psychic" has _ever_ predicted _anything_ which wasn't already common knowledge or easilly predictable upset you? Is it the fact that I was so audacious as to enumerate but a few instances that "psychics" should have easilly seen but did not? Mod> I've given you every opportunity to by your Mod> own statements to back up your position. What posistion, _specifically_, do you think I didn't back up fully? And isn't asking someone to provide evidence for claims contrary to the dictates of the I_UFO forum? Doesn't the rules of I_UFO specifically state that no one is required to answer questions about the validity of their paranormal claims and that doing so is considered an ejectionable violation? Or do the rules only apply to believers in the paranormal? Mod> When a person claims to be the EXPERT and the one backing Mod> up their carrer field as our police officer and keeper of Mod> the dictate of a field of endeaver in it's respective Model, Mod> but refuses to give us the reason to accept that stance or Mod> role model that person becomes suspect. Like most of your posts, "Bartoo," that sentence is formatted so badly that the statement itself is far too ambiguious to address. It appears as though you think someone in the I_UFO forum is a police officer and it appears as though I have FidoNews 12-09 Page: 37 27 Feb 1995 asked said police officer to provide evidence for a claim he or she forwarded. I'm unwilling to guess at what you're talking about. Mod> A true Scientist is open to all aspects representative Mod> to the Field of Endeaver. A true scientist asks questions to test the validity of claims. I have constantly asked people to provide evidence for their claims and have been personally attacked for doing so with the demand that by asking "falsifying" questions, I'm insulting. A true scientist doesn't get his or her feelings hurt by having to admit that they have no evidence for their unscientific beliefs. Scientists are allowed to compartimentalize what they will employ science towards, certainly, yet they may not claim to be employing science when they're presenting unfounded conjecture. A true scientist examines the validity of claims and compares them with the known results of previous evaluations of the claims, checking to see if any new evidence has come to light to warrant another review of the claim. In every paranormal and outrageous claim I've seen in I_UFO, no new evidence is provided (indeed, demands for evidence results in claims of "you're insulting me!") for claims which have been debunked since the 1920's. I understand that there is a need for a forum which is for believers in the paranormal only and where believers are free from having their beliefs questioned. Yet don't call that science, "Bartoo." Call it science and you must expect to be questioned. State clearly the dictates of the forum in the rules which are posted so that people know that science is not to be discussed and you'll avoid having scientists check into the forum. Mod> A true scientist does not look down on unknown Mod> possibilities in a rapidly changing world. A true scientist provides evidence for his or her claims and does not hide in the I_UFO forum where the priesthood (i.e. the moderatorship) keeps them safe from having to do so. What you have in I_UFO are those who are resentful of scientific method as their deeply-held beliefs are not verifiable using scientific method. (They demand that science is a religion exactly equal to any system predicated upon faith rather than evidence.) It is filled with people who are not interested in reviewing the physics behind a claim and who want very much to believe that scientific method is flawed somehow simply because it doesn't support their beliefs. One can't be a scientist, "Bartoo," when one doesn't subscribe to scientific method. None of the paranormalists in the I_UFO FidoNews 12-09 Page: 38 27 Feb 1995 forum care one iota what science has to say about anti-gravity devices and "culminating harmonic frequencies converging at right angles to the cosmic Center" blather. Such nonsense provides comfort to believers and asking questions about the validity of such claptwaddle is very uncomfortable. It is why anyone who asks questions critical of claims are ejected. Mod> By refusing to change or open up to new Mod> possibility, is the reason for the purge. Straw man. By asking for evidence for outrageous claims I, as do the other scientists who venture into I_UFO, evidence the desire to examine the possibilities of all claims. Yet according to your dictates, asking for evidence for outrageous claims is contrary to the dogma of the I_UFO forum. Everyone who participates is requested to believe or keep their mouth shut. The irony of your claim is outstanding. Additionally, I started the SKEPTIC forum where believers in the paranormal could come and present their reasoning rationally and where the elements of their experiences and observed phenomena could be examined critically and scientifically. In SKEPTIC, believers in the paranormal state their beliefs and reasoning clearly and usually rationally and believer and skeptic alike learn from each other. The only thing not permitted are untestable claims of deities. Someone who creates a science-oriented forum and invites claims of the paranormal to discussion could hardly be claimed to be close-minded, "Bartoo." Mod> Sad but true IMO you fall into this group. I'm sure that all critically minded fall into your straw man group. Only the believers in the paranormal are desired in the I_UFO forum; individuals who question critically the validity of claims are defacto enemies of the near religious beliefs expressed in the forum and as such, straw man arguments must be contrived least it appear that the priesthood is dogmatically pulling the party line and close-minded. I_UFO is a "bully pulpit," much like call-in radio shows like Rush Limbaugh. Callers are allowed a short time to correct the misconceptions and outright lies whereafter they are talked over and hung up on. After the caller is gone, the bully pulpit then proceeds to attack the caller without any opposistion. Rational, scientific discussion is not desired as it contradicts beliefs held very dear. Any "caller," however rational and focused he or she is, is touted as "childish ranting." Some familure? FidoNews 12-09 Page: 39 27 Feb 1995 Mod> You stated you had seven hundred books Mod> in library, and huge data base. At _minimum_ my library contains 700 volumes. Of what topic are you refering to, specifically? Do you want references behind the physics of why anti-gravity is a physical impossibility (due to their being no anti-gravitron particle) rather than it being a technological difficulty? Will Stephen Hawking be enough or do you want to hear it directly from the gods rather than one step removed? Is that what your complaint is all about? I can provide a great many references by well respected physicists on any number of paranormal claims. Just ask. Unlike believers in the paranormal in the I_UFO forum, I'm willing to answer any and all questions. I can post any number of articles from peer-reviewed journals which discuss the physical impossibilities of anti-gravity rather than the technological difficulties. But then we have another problem about the I_UFO forum, don't we? A little problem about cross posting and posting articles having to be approved by the priesthood before hand else doing so is an ejectionable violation, remember? Or has that rule been dropped from the list of I_UFO rules? Mod> My question to you was are you willing to share? Do you want the titles of all of the volumes in my library? Or do you want the titles and ISBN's of just specific volumes which cover a specific topic? You're meandering again. What is it that you want? Also, wasn't my references already offered in I_UFO enough? Mod> I received no reply. Since I_UFO is a religious forum where asking questions is considered off-topic and where asking questions results in people believing that they're being insulted, I delinked the forum. For a month or so the moderatorship wished I would go away on my own, telling me that I was welcome so long as I didn't insult anyone. Then, every time I asked a question, I was called insulting. The last was the claim by the moderatorship that "science has elected not to review hard evidence" for claims of the paranormal. When I asked for what, _specifically_, this "hard evidence" was, I was told that I was insulting. And neither you, "Bartoo," nor the other moderator would tell me what, _specifically_, this "hard evidence" was nor even who these vague, undefined "scientists" were who were ignoring it. Sound familure? FidoNews 12-09 Page: 40 27 Feb 1995 I see no need to walk into a church and correct the priesthood. If you are actually favorable to allowing science in the forum, I would be quite willing to relink and continue to ask for evidence from people provided you don't continue to complain about it. Mod> I asked seeing as how you are our self proclaimed science Mod> cop, [...] Straw man again. The I_UFO forum has several critically-minded individuals who mostly keep their mouths shut simply because they follow the rules. During the last week of my visit to the forum various individuals commented about how my postings were a "breath of fresh air" and a "welcome change of reason." My network mail suggests that I shut-up least said reason be ejected from the forum due to violations of the rules. I can only wonder if that is actually why you're upset. 'The fact that since I started speaking up, others have begun to as well. The church no longer contains pews filled with believers. There are some warewolves hidden among the pious. Mod> Personally speaking I doubt anyone here wants or needs a Mod> CSICOP. Does CSICOPs very existance threaten you? Is that why you elected to adopt a confrontational and highly emotional defensive posture? Or is your complaint based upon my correcting the outright lies which were perpetuated in the forum about CSICOP? Each of the points addressed in my correction are easilly verified. (All issues of their peer- reviewed journal Skeptical Inquirer contain information which corrects several of the lies in the CSICOP-bashing article I addressed.) Just because there are organizations of scientists and magicians which evaluate and explain claims of the paranormal doesn't mean that they are personally out to "get" anyone. Educational groups exist for a variety of reasons yet few (if any) are out to "get" anyone. Additionally, the claims made in the I_UFO forum which were addressed (and soundly debunked) seven decades ago indicates that a great many people do indeed need organizations such as CSICOP. Mod> After being what I consider fair and spending more time on Mod> you than was returned or warranted I feel justified in Mod> asking you to leave. I'm not surprised. Indeed, I predicted it in my magazine article in SKEPTIC Magazine. I am happy to see that you have finally asked honestly for me to leave (even if you have to contrive straw men to justify it to yourself) rather than FidoNews 12-09 Page: 41 27 Feb 1995 continue to complain about how insulting my asking questions is. Mod> You are here by noticified your presence Mod> here is suspended in definitely. "Noticified..." Charming. -=- When science confronts claims of the paranormal, science always wins -- when science is allowed to have its say. In the I_UFO forum, however, adhearants to scientific method are ejected. This was expected prior to going in, obviously, and the experiment yielded predictable results. If anyone is interested in the SKEPTIC Magazine article referenced above, you may FileRequest SKEPTIC.ART from my system. I would like to solicit input from readers detailing their experiences with must-believers around the network. Additionally, IUFO.ZIP contains a few messages from various science-oriented participants and responses by the moderators. "We have a civilization based on science and technology and have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology." - Carl Sagan, 1994 Fredric Rice, The Skeptic Tank 1:102/890.0. (818) 335-9601 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== Fidonews Information ======================================================================== ------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ---------------- Editors: Donald Tees, Sylvia Maxwell Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello, Tim Pozar Tom Jennings "FidoNews" BBS FidoNet 1:1/23 BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS) more addresses: Rev. Richard Visage -- 1:163/409 Don -- 1:221/192, don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Sylvia -- 1:221/194, max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com (Postal Service mailing address) FidoNews FidoNews 12-09 Page: 42 27 Feb 1995 128 Church St. Kitchener, Ontario Canada N2H 2S4 voice: (519) 570-3137 Fidonews is published weekly by and for the members of the FIDONET INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR ELECTRONIC MAIL system. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews. Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is Copyright 1995 Donald Tees. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or the eds. Articles by Madam emilia may be retransmitted freely through cyber-space. OBTAINING COPIES: The most recent issue of FidoNews in electronic form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet. PRINTED COPIES may be obtained by sending SASE to the above paper-mail address, or trade for copy of your 'zine. INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org, in directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. Anyone interested in getting a copy of the INTERNET GATEWAY FAQ may freq GISFAQ.ZIP from 1:133/411.0, or send an internet message to fidofaq@gisatl.fidonet.org. No message or text or subject is necessary. The address is a keyword that will trigger the automated response. People wishing to send inquiries directly to David Deitch should now mail to fidonet@gisatl.fidonet.org rather than the previously listed address. SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it. "Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission. "the pulse of the cursor is the heartbeat of fidonet"... -- END