From:    Mike Riddle                            Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Rob Buckman                             6 Apr 95 06:10:14
Subject: Exon Bill Passes As Amendment (fwd)    UpdReq 

In a message to Christopher Baker on Apr 02 95 at 20:43, Rob Buckman wrote: 
 RB> I haven't seen anything Constitutional about ACLU 
 RB> positions, unfortunately.  I am severely disappointed that 
 RB> EFF would take a position on this, as well.  They've now 
 RB> lost the non-partisan status I perceived them to have.
Without speaking to the merits of the basic idea in the legislation, i.e., 
that the federal government needs to legislate (regulate) cyberspace, 
particularly the "internet" and bulletin boards, in order to save us and our 
children from pornography, obscenity, lewdness, indecency, and filth, the 
bill as drafted has some serious problems.  It fails to:

-- sufficiently define many of its terms, therefore creating a due process 
   (5th and 14th amendments) problem that we don't know what it is we're 
   not supposed to create, make available, transport, etc.

-- related to the above, it does not define the relevant 'community' whose
   standards must be offended under the test established by _Miller v. 
   California_, ___ U.S. ____ (1973).

-- it fails to distinguish between telephones and the many different media 
   collectively known as the 'internet.'  The proposed legislation amends 
   telephone rules simply by deleting 'telephone' and substituting 
   'telecommunications device.'

-- it applies a broadcast model to modes of telecommunications that are not
   'broadcast' in the legal sense that allows regulation of indeceny, as
   distinguished from pornography.

-- it fails to distinguish between public fora and private communications
   between consenting adults on the 'internet.'
So even if one accepts the basic premise, that the government needs to control 
content and access for us all so some parents won't have to protect their 
kids, the bill has problems.
The earlier concerns by 'providers,' those who provide transport but do not 
exercise editorial control (hear that policy 4 and non-SMH freaks?) have been 
substiantially reduced by the changes made at mark--up, when S. 314 was 
rolled into the Telecommunications reform act.  The changes:
1.  Add 'knowingly' to the essential elements of the crime and define 
'knowingly' to not only know that one is providing the transport media, but 
also know the content of the message.  (Hint:  if this passes, do NOT have a 
policy of reviewing every message on your BBS!)
2.  Add a series of affirmative defenses that essentially boil down to "I 
didn't write the message, had no editorial control over it's content, and 
only transported it as part of an automated process.
Look for a copy of the latest CDT analysis for the changed language.
And finally, yes, since I'm in Nebraska, I *have* discussed all the above with 
Senator Exon's 'State Director,' both privately in my office and publicly in 
a forum at the UNL College of Law sponsored by the law student affiliate of 
the ACLU.
 


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Sean Sutherland                        Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Alan Pugh                               4 Apr 95 16:38:18
Subject: Re: Inquiry                            UpdReq 

 AP> know cryptography, i was wary as you are. i use 2.61 not because i
 AP> distrust 2.6mit. rather, i use it because it is a small act of
 AP> rebellion against those who would attempt to impost conformity. also,
    Where can I pick up a copy of 2.61?
SS


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Mike Riddle                            Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      John Stephenson                         6 Apr 95 06:07:36
Subject: Inquiry                                UpdReq 

In a message to Michael Babcock on Apr 03 95 at 19:03, John Stephenson wrote: 
 JS> If so, who developed RSAREF? MIT? Or PKP?
"R, S, and A" developed it.  Ron Rivest, et al (that covers up the fact that I 
don't have the FAQ handy  :-).
 They worked at MIT at the time and MIT thereby gained rights.  MIT later 
assigned many of the rights to Public Key Partners (PKP), of which MIT is one 
of the partners.  PKP then licensed it to RSA Data Security.
As I remember, the patent coverage expires soon. 1997 or 2007 or something 
like that.
 

201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Kevin Berry                            Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      All                                     5 Apr 95 14:31:52
Subject: PGPWave                                UpdReq 

Hello All!
Does anyone know of an FTP site where I can get PGPWave?  I would FREQ but my
current financial status disallows it.
Later Days,
Kevin
... But then again, what the heck do I know!


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718