Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I just had an interesting conversation with a person who works for an ISP.
Basically their response if S.314 becomes law will be to preprocess all
incoming mail. If it is uuencoded or encrypted, into the bit bucket it will
go. They are still thinking about what to do with telnet and ftp.

This is starting to get very scary.

Sam

- --
==============================================================================
skaplin@skypoint.com                   | Finger skaplin@infinity.c2.org for
                                       | a listing of crypto related files
PGP encrypted mail is accepted and     | available on my auto-responder.
preferred.                             | (Yes...the faqs are there!)
                                       |
Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com for | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard
PGP public key.                        | outside a Roman brothel.
                                       |
Fax Number  +1 (612) 928-9771          | An UZI beats five aces every time...
==============================================================================
                 Be careful when playing under the anvil tree.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLzgMJ8lnXxBRSgfNAQG3Egf9HewkJYboCW6RNABZiQd8K8JVyw3As0S7
Gwno4Flp3L1y/izbCSgVnrNY+oK7vwB5J0OPq4y1TX7gIb/NPasVKkcW9eET1a5X
HJwjbfg7ZbUle5dcktuD1GLC1bZu5Mt39lV8eQKjqHiXYSxc3sWJT3xvtKQ45Pr+
FWsYNALI6Q9R7sBy0Zh0vg61fZHfnlSNi7SxEvE0GZ3e959L0y+AR44UE2HrI1KQ
zfDgFtWiQsDztbVsbReYb4cwCs34Vxv/7v7GjY29SVZIKbeR1aEarR2TJbuT/jry
dP+l4QIxOFv26OIGf5cHgPiWswf1KjosUkDso0Ps8fKf3Wafm5CH2g==
=0WR8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> I just had an interesting conversation with a person who works for an ISP.
> Basically their response if S.314 becomes law will be to preprocess all
> incoming mail. If it is uuencoded or encrypted, into the bit bucket it will
> go. They are still thinking about what to do with telnet and ftp.

Just use netnews for mail then.  We can divide up netnews into different 
regions pgp.us.ca.north  pgp.us.ca.south etc. and then just post pgp'd 
messages to the net.  Kinda like blacknet.  Ok so there's a high cost 
involved in it, granted.

Also writing a bot to search through net news daily for anything signed 
with your PGP key isn't too difficult.

> This is starting to get very scary.

Indeed citizen-unit.  Wait over in the corner for processing.

Ben.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:40:24 -0500 (EST), Ben <samman@CS.YALE.EDU> wrote:

> Just use netnews for mail then.  We can divide up netnews into different
> regions pgp.us.ca.north  pgp.us.ca.south etc. and then just post pgp'd
> messages to the net.  Kinda like blacknet.  Ok so there's a high cost
> involved in it, granted.

The problem is that providers will be responsible for all traffic coming in
and going out of their system. This includes usenet. I would imagine that
the same filters would be applied to news too.

I think we need to start lobbying now. I find it amazing that CPR and EFF
haven't picked this up yet.

- --
==============================================================================
skaplin@skypoint.com                   | Finger skaplin@infinity.c2.org for
                                       | a listing of crypto related files
PGP encrypted mail is accepted and     | available on my auto-responder.
preferred.                             | (Yes...the faqs are there!)
                                       |
Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com for | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard
PGP public key.                        | outside a Roman brothel.
                                       |
Fax Number  +1 (612) 928-9771          | An UZI beats five aces every time...
==============================================================================
         "Automatic" simply means that you cannot repair it yourself.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLzg6EclnXxBRSgfNAQEV3Qf+I/Cvkl/4qmCS9InIoECaMf0zqn9ou1G+
W9zB12a15WcbVa71DuToq1CJ8P4pTCwNObDY6L1asn+o5/aMxcSHDlBBBeGFCZBe
dtbKFoOPquQ4w+VWDorqDbZhDkQf38CyK325O5L7hkzEYiw6r2RIu8s6ZyHL6mIh
+h2qlW+HCn+34Q5JM/Ogek3V65kVc605bafkTELhPtMn1j6cLlzF/ZbXK7ecgphu
IBwKsxReOb/TNwZP3FacuM+gLxOtaQlIFTRJsFA6sNWqbbk8E3J7mc6Inoibi/DZ
LFeBIFZ2VNctYMUxZgOs6eJeU0kyEh0p637wga/NOvkge+cJZp8RGw==
=Szsj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote:
> I find it amazing that CPR and EFF 
> haven't picked this up yet.

Really?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In article <Pine.3.89.9502081135.A7848-0100000@netcom10>, you wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote:
> > I find it amazing that CPR and EFF
> > haven't picked this up yet.
>
> Really?

I had at least hoped that they would have their ear to the ground.
Unfortunately I was wrong. ;(


- --
==============================================================================
skaplin@skypoint.com                   | Finger skaplin@infinity.c2.org for
                                       | a listing of crypto related files
PGP encrypted mail is accepted and     | available on my auto-responder.
preferred.                             | (Yes...the faqs are there!)
                                       |
Finger skaplin@mirage.skypoint.com for | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard
PGP public key.                        | outside a Roman brothel.
                                       |
Fax Number  +1 (612) 928-9771          | An UZI beats five aces every time...
==============================================================================
  "A survey is being made of this":  We need more time to think of an answer.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBLzmux8lnXxBRSgfNAQFDMwf/WrbC5T+GG7HB9TfTqJGbucaqlZO7rIVe
R+xIYnG2feHT5vR43UpkpEVELLaMuiZBrQgEmBRY7U5EQcNqJQKcOZlZ4rUeFW29
ZMJtBFxmzx0SfRlx4YBMxNMnmFqlisXZuMzEoZbW5S+phskOeOMGbC/TtrIh1cJO
wNPa2CcpS71xr4P1nWvC2yJevsbcDz49zwPwNxMibKHTz8AgskCKGwbhH1D8nanc
z4Jl6g0bk9DkzQZgiU91FHfRLwmuvzhWa8hN0x6wNxzdt5GFCPR+Ju+i8silhw+u
IlJP61Cn3W+wGkpRXniYhXn8chBwfNvPIKUABMtylQPRRvDB6BCVPw==
=icAg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Samuel Kaplin wrote:

> In article <Pine.3.89.9502081135.A7848-0100000@netcom10>, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote:
> > > I find it amazing that CPR and EFF
> > > haven't picked this up yet.
> >
> > Really?
> 
> I had at least hoped that they would have their ear to the ground.
> Unfortunately I was wrong. ;(

It's a tough thing for them to be involved enough to know what's going
on, but not so involved as to be a partner in the process.

We mostly all criticized them roundly for the Digital Telephony Bill
(I did too). They seem to have somewhat backed off from this approach,
or so it now appears to many of us. (Caveat:  before this is read by
EFF folks and indignantly denied, I make no claims of what the causal
chain was, what Berman's departure has to do with this, etc. Hence the
"they seem to have" phrasing.)

Anyway, how can we expect them to know about upcoming legislation if
we also despise the "inside the Beltway" mentality?

Frankly, I'd rather have them on our side, helping to fight bad
legislation, than working on the inside of things and thus face
compromise by the whole process.

As scary as S.314 is, I'm not sure it's likely to pass. Unlike the
Digital Telephony Bill, which was on greased skids, this  one seems to
have come out of left field. I could be wrong on this, and maybe it's
got a lot of sponsors, but it sounds like just another Bill that will
die in committee or fail on the floor.

(This is where the D.C.-net people, those who are connected to the
political process, can tell us who's likely to support it and who's
not.)

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

> As scary as S.314 is, I'm not sure it's likely to pass. Unlike the
> Digital Telephony Bill, which was on greased skids, this  one seems to
> have come out of left field. I could be wrong on this, and maybe it's
> got a lot of sponsors, but it sounds like just another Bill that will
> die in committee or fail on the floor.

I would not count on this. The goal of the bill is to combat 
indecency/pornography/onscenity online - the kind of things pols LOVE to 
vote for.


- dog

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   Unlike the
   Digital Telephony Bill, which was on greased skids, [...]

As far as I have been able to puzzle out, the source of this claim
were the same parties that wanted to work a "compromise".  I have
never really trusted its veracity.

There was lobbying by the FBI, to be sure, but was there not also
lobbying for previous such bills (including S.266)?

Eric

Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing?  It sounds an awful lot like
the "modem tax" and other urban legends.


brad

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Brad Huntting wrote:

> 
> Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing?  It sounds an awful lot like
> the "modem tax" and other urban legends.
> 
> 
> brad
> 

Web over to: http://thomas.loc.gov

It's on the Senates web server. The bill is for real. I wish it was only 
a hoax.

Sam

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Brad Huntting wrote:

> 
> Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing?  It sounds an awful lot like
> the "modem tax" and other urban legends.

Here is everything T.H.O.M.A.S. had on it. (http://thomas.loc.gov)

 S 314 IS
 104th CONGRESS
1st Session
To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications
network and telecommunications devices and facilities.
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 1 (legislative day, January 30), 1995
 
          Mr. Exon (for himself and Mr. Gorton) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation A BILL
 
          To protect the public from the misuse of the telecommunications
network and telecommunications devices and facilities.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Communications Decency Act of 1995'.
 
          SEC. 2. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.
 (a) Offenses: Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
 
U.S.C. 223) is amended--
 (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
 (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
        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
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;' and
 (D) by striking out subparagraph (D) and inserting the
        following:     
        `(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
3
        the communication; or';
22), by striking `telephone facility'
and inserting `telecommunications facility'; 
(3) in subsection (b)(1)--
A) in subparagraph (A)--
      (i) by striking `telephone' and inserting
    `telecommunications device'; and
      (ii) inserting `or initiated the communication' and
    `placed the call', and
B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility'
and inserting `telecommunications facility'; and
(4) in subsection (b)(2)-- 
  (A) in subparagraph (A)--
      (i) by striking `by means of telephone, makes' and  
    inserting `by means of telephone or telecommunications 
    device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes  
  available'; and
      (ii) by inserting `or initiated the communication'
  after `placed the call'; and
  (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `telephone facility'
and inserting in lieu thereof `telecommunications facility'.
(b) Penalties: Section 223 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended--
4
(1) by striking out `$50,000' each place it appears and
inserting `$100,000'; and
  (2) by striking `six months' each place it appears and
inserting `2 years'.
(c) Prohibition on Provision of Access: Subsection (c)(1) of such
section (47 U.S.C. 223(c)) is amended by striking `telephone' and
inserting `telecommunications device.'
(d) Conforming Amendment: The section heading for such section is
amended to read as follows:
`obscene or harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and
facilities in the district of columbia or in interstate or foreign
communications'.
SEC. 3. OBSCENE PROGRAMMING ON CABLE TELEVISION.
Section 639 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 559) is
amended by striking `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'.
SEC. 4. BROADCASTING OBSCENE LANGUAGE ON RADIO. 
Section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking out `$10,000' and inserting `$100,000'.
SEC. 5. INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
Section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
        (A) by striking `wire, oral, or electronic communication'  
5
  each place it appears and inserting `wire, oral,     
    electronic, or digital communication', and
    (B) in the matter designated as `(b)', by striking `oral
    communication' in the matter above clause (i) and inserting
      `communication'; and
      (2) in paragraph (2)(a), by striking `wire or electronic   
    communication service' each place it appears (other than in the
  second sentence) and inserting `wire, electronic, or digital   
    communication service'.
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL PROHIBITION ON BILLING FOR TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE  
 CALLS.
  Section 228(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
228(c)(6)) is amended--
    (1) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (C); 
      (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and
    inserting a semicolon and `or'; and
    (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
 `(E) the calling party being assessed, by virtue of being
        asked to connect or otherwise transfer to a pay-per-call 
      service, a charge for the call.'. 
SEC. 7. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
Part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
6
551 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 640. SCRAMBLING OF CABLE CHANNELS FOR NONSUBSCRIBERS.
`(a) Requirement: In providing video programming unsuitable for 
children to any subscriber through a cable system, a cable operator
shall fully scramble or otherwise fully block the video and audio
portion of each channel carrying such programming so that one not a
subscriber does not receive it. 
`(b) Definition: As used in this section, the term `scramble' 
means to rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so
that the programming cannot be received by persons unauthorized to
receive the programming.'.
SEC. 8. CABLE OPERATOR REFUSAL TO CARRY CERTAIN PROGRAMS. 
  (a) Public, Educational, and Governmental Channels: Section
611(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 531(e)) is
amended by inserting before the period the following: `, except a  
cable operator may refuse to transmit any public access program or
portion of a public access program which contains obscenity,
indecency, or nudity'.
(b) Cable Channels for Commercial Use: Section 612(c)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 532(c)(2)) is amended by
striking `an operator' and inserting `a cable operator may refuse
to transmit any leased access program or portion of a leased access
7
program which contains obscenity, indecency, or nudity.

Uh oh!  Egg on my face.  Will someone explain to me how the amendments
in S.314 make owners of ISPs or other computer systems liable for
'bad' data?  I apologize for my previous uncalled for (so it seams to
me now) ranting.

j*blushing*'

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 jpp@markv.com wrote:

> Uh oh!  Egg on my face.  Will someone explain to me how the amendments
> in S.314 make owners of ISPs or other computer systems liable for
> 'bad' data?  I apologize for my previous uncalled for (so it seams to
> me now) ranting.

Sure, read on:

>    (a) Prohibited acts generally
>    
>    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, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication]
>    which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

Here's an important bit. "Transmits or otherwise makes available" is 
different from the earlier law. It DOES pleace a burden of responsibility 
upon the provider of service. NOTE that unlike other portions of the law, 
boths old and new versions, this part DOES NOT include the word 
"knowingly". Crucial, crucial point.

>    (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] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications
>    device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues,
>    without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse,
>    threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who
>    receives the communication;

No anonymous annoying! Does this mean we can't raid IRC channels anymore? 
Or flame people from anon.petit.fi (sp?) accounts?



- dog

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995 jpp@markv.com wrote:
 
> Uh oh!  Egg on my face.  Will someone explain to me how the amendments
> in S.314 make owners of ISPs or other computer systems liable for
> 'bad' data?  I apologize for my previous uncalled for (so it seams to
> me now) ranting.


 (A) by striking out `telephone' in the matter above
        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'; 

This appears to make ISP's responsible for content.

It makes them responsible for something that they cannot 
control without violating people privacy.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

In article <Pine.3.89.9502081213.A7848-0100000@netcom10>,
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com> wrote:
>  (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'; 
> 
> This appears to make ISP's responsible for content.
> 
> It makes them responsible for something that they cannot 
> control without violating people privacy.

Plus the processing cost would place a tremendous burden on the 'net.
Transmision goes both ways, not just from the posting machine to the
rest of the world.  Every site 'transmits' every piece of news posted
to the newsgroups they carry.  Every intermediate site, especially
the backbones, 'transmits' email even in not generated from or
addressed to that site.

--
America - a country so rich and so strong we can reward the lazy 
          and punish the productive and still survive (so far)

Don Melvin                  storm@ssnet.com                finger for PGP key.

Brad Huntting wrote:

> Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing?  It sounds an awful lot like
> the "modem tax" and other urban legends.
> 
> 

I wrote a post to comp.org.eff.talk in which I asked if "S.314" isn't
just the "Pi Bill," in which pi = 3.14 is mandated to be pi = 3.00.

S.314 I initially, for a minute or so, thought to be a put-on, a
spoof. But the text lacked other signs of humor and had the trappings
of a real bill. And then versions from reputable groups began to
appear, so I was of course convinced it was real.

If it's a spoof, it's too cute by half.

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Brad Huntting wrote:
> 
> > Can anyone confirm this S.314 thing?  It sounds an awful lot like
> > the "modem tax" and other urban legends.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I wrote a post to comp.org.eff.talk in which I asked if "S.314" isn't
> just the "Pi Bill," in which pi = 3.14 is mandated to be pi = 3.00.
> 
> S.314 I initially, for a minute or so, thought to be a put-on, a
> spoof. But the text lacked other signs of humor and had the trappings
> of a real bill. And then versions from reputable groups began to
> appear, so I was of course convinced it was real.
> 
> If it's a spoof, it's too cute by half.
> 
> --Tim May

I too thought it was a spoof initally. Hell, what Senator would be dumb 
enough to name a bill this way if it was real. If I were trying to pass a 
bill of this nature, it would be double-speak all of the way. But alas it 
is true...And I thought the DT bill was bad. 

Both of my congresscritters have been faxed and queried as to their 
position. I'll inform the group when they fax me back. I would urge 
others to do this. This will be unbelievably bad if we loose this one. 
The ramifications on this bill are still hammering me in the head.

Sam