Computer underground Digest Wed Sep 3, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 66 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.66 (Wed, Sep 3, 1997) File 1--High Profile Detainee Seeks Legal Help File 2--Kevin Mitnick Press Release File 3--Strangelovian pronouncements from the Hudson Institute File 4--EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian File 5--On Media Hacks and Hackers (Crypt reprint) File 6--Digital Highway Robbery (fwd) File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:08:09 -0400 From: Evian Sim Subject: File 1--High Profile Detainee Seeks Legal Help September 3, 1997 Mr. Kevin Mitnick has been detained in Federal custody without bail on computer "hacking" allegations for over thirty months. Having no financial resources, Mr. Mitnick has been appointed counsel from the Federal Indigent Defense Panel. As such, Mr. Mitnick's representation is limited; his attorney is not permitted to assist with civil actions, such as filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. For the past two years, Mr. Mitnick has attempted to assist in his own defense by conducting legal research in the inmate law library at the Metropolitan Detention Center (hereinafter "MDC") in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Mitnick's research includes reviewing court decisions for similar factual circumstances which have occurred in his case. MDC prison officials have been consistently hampering Mr. Mitnick's efforts by denying him reasonable access to law library materials. Earlier this year, Mr. Mitnick's lawyer submitted a formal request to Mr. Wayne Siefert, MDC Warden, seeking permission to allow his client access to the law library on the days set aside for inmates needing extra law library time. The Warden refused. In August 1995, Mr. Mitnick filed an administrative remedy request with the Bureau of Prisons complaining that MDC policy in connection with inmate access to law library materials does not comply with Federal rules and regulations. Specifically, the Warden established a policy for MDC inmates that detracts from Bureau of Prison's policy codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. Briefly, Federal law requires the Warden to grant additional law library time to an inmate who has an "imminent court deadline". The MDC's policy circumvents this law by erroneously interpreting the phrase "imminent court deadline" to include other factors, such as, whether an inmate exercises his right to assistance of counsel, or the type of imminent court deadline. For example, MDC policy does not consider detention (bail), motion, status conference, or sentencing hearings as imminent court deadlines for represented inmates. MDC officials use this policy as a tool to subject inmates to arbitrary and capricious treatment. It appears MDC policy in connection with inmate legal activities is inconsistent with Federal law and thereby affects the substantial rights of detainees which involve substantial liberty interests. In June 1997, Mr. Mitnick finally exhausted administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Mitnick's only avenue of vindication is to seek judicial review in a Court of Law. Mr. Mitnick wishes to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his conditions of detention, and a motion to compel Federal authorities to follow their own rules and regulations. Mr. Mitnick is hoping to find someone with legal experience, such as an attorney or a law student willing to donate some time to this cause to insure fair treatment for everyone, and to allow detainees to effectively assist in their own defense without "Government" interference. Mr. Mitnick needs help drafting a Habeas Corpus petition with points and authorities to be submitted by him pro-se. His objective is to be granted reasonable access to law library materials to assist in his own defense. If you would like to help Kevin, please contact him at the following address: Mr. Kevin Mitnick Reg. No. 89950-012 P.O. Box 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90053-1500 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:13:29 -0400 From: Evian Sim Subject: File 2--Kevin Mitnick Press Release Press Release August 7, 1997 THE UNITED STATES V. KEVIN DAVID MITNICK I. Proceedings to Date With 25 counts of alleged federal computer and wire fraud violations still pending against him, the criminal prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is approaching its most crucial hour. The trial is anticipated to begin in January, 1998. In reaching this point, however, Kevin has already experienced years of legal battles over alleged violations of the conditions of his supervised release and for possession of unauthorized cellular access codes. A. Settling the "Fugitive" Question The seemingly unexceptional charges relating to supervised release violations resulted in months of litigation when the government attempted to tack on additional allegations for conduct occurring nearly three years after the scheduled expiration of Kevin's term of supervised release in December, 1992. The government claimed that Kevin had become a fugitive prior to the expiration of his term, thereby "tolling" the term and allowing for the inclusion of additional charges. After months of increasingly bold assertions concerning Kevin's "fugitive" status, evidentiary hearings were held in which the government was forced to concede that its original position in this matter was unsupported by the facts. B. Sentencing In June of this year Kevin was sentenced for certain admitted violations of his supervised release and for possession of unauthorized access codes. The court imposed a sentence of 22 months instead of the 32 months sought by the government. Since Kevin has been in custody since his arrest in February 1995, this sentence has been satisfied. We are currently preparing a request for release on bail. During this stage of the proceedings, the government sought to impose restrictions on Kevin's access to computers which were so severe as to virtually prohibit him from functioning altogether in today's society. The proposed restrictions sought to completely prohibit Kevin from "using or possessing" all computer hardware equipment, software programs, and wireless communications equipment. After arguments that such restrictions unduly burdened Kevin's freedom to associate with the on-line computer community and were not reasonably necessary to ensure the protection of the public, the court modified its restrictions by allowing for computer access with the consent of the Probation Office. Nonetheless, the defense believes that the severe restrictions imposed upon Mr. Mitnick are unwarranted in this case and is, therefore, pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. II. The Government Seeks to make an Example of Mr. Mitnick One of the strongest motivating factors for the government in the prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is a desire to send a message to other would-be "hackers". The government has hyped this prosecution by exaggerating the value of loss in the case, seeking unreasonably stiff sentences, and by painting a portrait of Kevin which conjures the likeness of a cyber-boogie man. There are a number of objectives prompting the government's tactics in this respect. First, by dramatically exaggerating the amount of loss at issue in the case (the government arbitrarily claims losses exceed some $80 million) the government can seek a longer sentence and create a high-profile image for the prosecution. Second, through a long sentence for Kevin, the government hopes to encourage more guilty pleas in future cases against other hackers. For example, a prosecutor offering a moderate sentence in exchange for a guilty plea would be able to use Kevin Mitnick's sentence as an example of what "could happen" if the accused decides to go to trial. Third, by striking fear into the hearts of the public over the dangers of computer hackers, the government hopes to divert scrutiny away from its own game-plan regarding the control and regulation of the Internet and other telecommunications systems. III. Crime of Curiosity The greatest injustice in the prosecution of Kevin Mitnick is revealed when one examines the actual harm to society (or lack thereof) which resulted from Kevin's actions. To the extent that Kevin is a "hacker" he must be considered a purist. The simple truth is that Kevin never sought monetary gain from his hacking, though it could have proven extremely profitable. Nor did he hack with the malicious intent to damage or destroy other people's property. Rather, Kevin pursued his hacking as a means of satisfying his intellectual curiosity and applying Yankee ingenuity. These attributes are more frequently promoted rather than punished by society. The ongoing case of Kevin Mitnick is gaining increased attention as the various issues and competing interests are played out in the arena of the courtroom. Exactly who Kevin Mitnick is and what he represents, however, is ultimately subject to personal interpretation and to the legacy which will be left by "The United States v. Kevin David Mitnick". ______________________________ Donald C. Randolph ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 17:48:41 -0700 From: Jonathan Wallace Subject:Ratings Systems for the Web (SLAC Bulletin fwd, 1 sept) SLAC Bulletin September 1, 1997 ----------------------------- The SLAC bulletin is a periodic mailer on Internet freedom of speech issues from the authors of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt 1996). For more information, contact Jonathan Wallace, jw@bway.net, or visit our Web pages at http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/. ------------------------------- RATINGS SYSTEMS FOR THE WEB by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net In our book, we supported self-rating of Web sites as good citizenship. Not long after the book came out, I had serious second thoughts about this; one of the first essays distributed to the SLAC list was entitled "Why I Will Not Rate My Site" (http://www.spectacle.org/cda/rate.html). Now, the issue of ratings systems has come to the fore again. The Supreme Court threw out the Communications Decency Act in June, and the same organizations that defended the CDA--Focus on the Family, Enough is Enough, The American Family Association--are out there arguing for ratings systems. President Clinton has supported this idea with some vague words about "a V-chip for the Internet." And Senator Murray of Washington, among others, has introduced legislation calling for mandatory self-rating and criminal prosecution for mis-rating of Web sites. This week in New York, a group of news organizations got together in New York and agreed that they would not rate their sites. This was an act of courage, possibly a major crack in the facade, as some of these organizations had previously been favorable to ratings. But how do you rate the news? It portrays violence every day, as it covers wars and revolutions around the world. Are photographs of starving children or massacre victims pornography? Do you want to prevent your children from reading news on the Web? Let's distinguish three possible approaches to ratings: third party ratings systems, self-rating, government rating. In the third scenario--unlikely--the government picks everyone's rating. Let's discard that one and talk about the other two. In a third party rating system, the American Family Association puts up its own server, which rates the Net according to the AFA's values. So do the People for the American Way (progressive-left organization), the Christian Coalition, the AFL-CIO, etc. etc. You use software which checks the server of your chosen organization to determine the acceptability of a Web site. All of this is free choice based on a free market; you are paying for the software; the government is nowhere in the picture. No-one has placed a rating on their own site; and anyone who chooses can avoid ratings systems entirely, choosing not to use any of the third party servers available. By contrast, self-ratings force us to a one-size fits all system. How do I select a rating for my own pages? When I wrote that I would not rate my own site, I was concerned about my Auschwitz Alphabet pages (http://www.spectacle.org/695/ausch.html) which contain explicit descriptions of human medical experimentation and upsetting photographs. Do I rate them the same way as Sexyweb.com? Will we create a rating system which is so fine-tuned it contains gradations for "Mindless violence", "news violence," and "Violence with redeeming social value"? If so, what parent is going to want to fine-tune browser software with hundreds of available choices? This problem exists before the government even gets involved--but is much exacerbated by the passage of laws against mistaken self-rating. Suppose I give An Auschwitz Alphabet the equivalent of a PG rating, and then a parent in Tennessee complains to the local prosecutor? Government enforcement of "voluntary" ratings will certainly engender these kinds of nightmares. If I refuse to rate my site at all, most of the software available under a self-ratings system will block it along with all other unrated sites. (Earlier this summer, there was a report, later denied, that the next release of Microsoft Internet Explorer would come configured, out of the box, to block unrated sites. Ironically, Microsoft's MSN is one of the organizations now refusing ratings.) Thus, I will eventually give up the majority of my monthly audience of more than 20,000 people. The problem with ratings is similar to the problems with computer software in general--you can have systems that are easy to use, or systems that are powerful, but not both. An easy to use ratings system would contain five or six ratings, like the Motion Picture Association of America scheme. But such a system would not have the precision necessary to distinguish An Auschwitz Alphabet from Sexyweb.com. A system capable of making very fine distinctions between works of entertainment value appealing only to prurient instincts and works entertaining for other reasons, between works of news, historical, cultural, scientific and artistic value, would have to contain thousands of gradations. And who is qualified to judge? The work of rating literary works has been going on since there have been literary works--we call it "criticism". If you can't get, say, Edmund Wilson, Alfred Kazin et al. to agree on the value of a particular work, who else can you trust to do so? Will you trust the author himself, and then clap him in jail if his ego leads him to mis-rate? About a year and a half ago, a free speech activist in Canada carried out a successful April Fool's Day joke: he circulated a file calling for the rating of all library books with a bar code system. Many people took the mail seriously and reacted with horror. Not all of them were equally horrified about rating the Net. But what is the difference? Why is An Auschwitz Alphabet sacrosanct if printed on paper, but subject to rating if posted on the Web? Last night I watched a discussion on a show called The Web, a CNet production which runs on the Science Fiction channel. A representative of Enough is Enough debated the Webmistress of Sexyweb.com. The moderator asked smart questions, but the battle over ratings was lost at the moment the producer picked the guests. The owners of X-rated services are among the only content providers who will be happy to self-rate, and who will pick the most stringent possible ratings, to protect themselves against obscenity prosecutions if possible. They will still make their dollar. It is the rest of us--the amateur providers of serious, sometimes controversial content on the Web--who have the most to fear from a government-backed ratings system. If you want to support third party ratings servers on the Web, go right ahead. I'll ignore their existence. But I remain convinced that if we see a "voluntary" self-rating system backed by government enforcement, my only choice will be to refuse to rate my pages. And to disappear from the screens of most of my readers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:48:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Crypt Newsletter Subject: File 3--Strangelovian pronouncements from the Hudson Institute The declarations of think tank national security mandarins always make for good reading. The Hudson Institute, founded in 1961 by one of the prototypes for Dr. Strangelove -- Herman Kahn, is chock full of such individuals. And ex-NSA chief William Odom is its director of security studies. And so it is in this rarefied atmosphere that Mary C. FitzGerald, one of the institute's research fellows, a self-confessed "computer illiterate," came to write about a subject she called "Russian Views on Electronic and Information Warfare." The Russians, she wrote recently, are planning on using computer viruses delivered over the Net to smite their enemies in time of war. As proof of the veracity of the plan, FitzGerald cites the story of a computer virus, written by the U.S. military, that struck down the Iraqi air defense network in the Gulf War. The only trouble with this particular story is that it is, indeed, only that. In fact, it's one of the more persistent myths about computer viruses. This legend was the result of an April Fool's hoax run amok. Appearing in an April 1991 issue of Infoworld magazine, the Gulf War virus story was a cleverly written joke by reporter John Gantz who called it "totally a spoof." Gullible editors at US News & World Report bit hard and paved it over as a hot scoop. The news magazine subsequently immortalized it in its 1992 book on the conflict, "Triumph Without Victory." Since then it's also been passed on in a number of official U.S. Department of Defense documents. Unsurprisingly, FitzGerald refused to believe it was an April Fool's joke. The Russians believed it, she said. Experts from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory believed it -- she said. Officials from Northrop Grumman were coming to interview her -- she said. So FitzGerald insisted she believed it, too. Information warriors at the USAF's College of Aerospace Doctrine at Maxwell AFB in Alabama have coined the term "fictive environment" to describe what happens when bogus tales are spun to deceive the enemy during Net war. Ironically, FitzGerald is also an adjunct professor at Maxwell. At Crypt News, we don't call this "fictive environment." We call it being gored by your own bull. George Smith, Crypt Newsletter crypt@sun.soci.niu.edu Additional material on this topic of interest was/is published in current issues of the Netly News and Crypt Newsletter. http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:24:08 -0400 From: Marc Rotenberg Subject: File 4--EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian Press Release August 29, 1997 EPIC Opposes EHI / Experian The Electronic Privacy Information Center said today that Experian has misled consumers and ISPs about a new on-line service that will likely increase the amount of SPAM that Internet users receive. In an August 21, 1997 press release Experian claims that "EHI's program as been reviewed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). Both organizations approve of the program's respect for consumer privacy." Contrary to Experian claims, EPIC conducted no formal review of the program, did not approve of the program's practices, and did not consent to the use of EPIC's name in Experian's promotional statements. At a metting in Washington earlier this year, Experian's Ian Oxman was told repeatedely that EPIC would not and could not endorse this program. When word got out that Experian intended to include EPIC's name in the EHI press release, Mr. Oxman was instructed by an email to remove EPIC's name. Marc Rotenberg, director of EPIC, said that "the EHI program fails to uphold basic fair information practices. There is no opportunity for users to correct or inspect their data, nor is there any effort to control secondary use. EHI offers one model for controlling SPAM, but it is hardly ideal." "We are particularly concerned that ISP's would get into the business tracking preferences and sending SPAM to their own customers. The privacy implications are staggering." "We are also less than overwhelmed by Experian's recent success with on-line database management." "We urge ISPs that are want to maintain user trust and show support for consumer privacy not to back the EHI effort," Rotenberg said. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 97 00:36:12 EDT From: "George Smith [CRYPTN]" <70743.1711@CompuServe.COM> Subject: File 5--On Media Hacks and Hackers (Crypt reprint) Source - CRYPT NEWSLETTER 44 ON MEDIA HACKS AND HACKERS: THE TROUBLE WITH JOURNALISTS IS . . . THEY JUST WON'T STOP In as fine a collection of stereotypes as can be found, the Associated Press furnished a story on July 14 covering the annual DefCon hacker get together in Las Vegas. It compressed at least one hoary cliche into each paragraph. Here is a summary of them. The lead sentence: "They're self-described nerds . . . " Then, in the next sentence, "These mostly gawky, mostly male teen-agers . . . also are the country's smartest and slyest computer hackers." After another fifty words, "These are the guys that got beat up in high school and this is their chance to get back . . . " Add a sprinkling of the obvious: "This is a subculture of computer technology . . ." Stir in a paraphrased hacker slogan: "Hacking comes from an intellectual desire to figure out how things work . . ." A whiff of crime and the outlaw weirdo: "Few of these wizards will identify themselves because they fear criminal prosecution . . . a 25-year-old security analyst who sports a dog collar and nose ring, is cautious about personal information." Close with two bromides that reintroduce the stereotype: "Hackers are not evil people. Hackers are kids." As a simple satirical exercise, Crypt News rewrote the Associated Press story as media coverage of a convention of newspaper editors. It looked like this: LAS VEGAS -- They're self-described nerds, dressing in starched white shirts and ties. These mostly overweight, mostly male thirty, forty and fiftysomethings are the country's best known political pundits, gossip columnists and managing editors. On Friday, more than 1,500 of them gathered in a stuffy convention hall to swap news and network. "These are the guys who ate goldfish and dog biscuits at frat parties in college and this is their time to strut," said Drew Williams, whose company, Hill & Knowlton, wants to enlist the best editors and writers to do corporate p.r. "This is a subculture of corporate communicators," said Williams. Journalism comes from an intellectual desire to be the town crier and a desire to show off how much you know, convention-goers said. Circulation numbers and ad revenue count for more than elegant prose and an expose on the President's peccadillos gains more esteem from ones' peers than klutzy jeremiads about corporate welfare and white-collar crime. One group of paunchy editors and TV pundits were overheard joking about breaking into the lecture circuit, where one well-placed talk to a group of influential CEOs or military leaders could earn more than many Americans make in a year. Few of these editors would talk on the record for fear of professional retribution. Even E.J., a normally voluble 45-year-old Washington, D.C., editorial writer, was reticent. "Columnists aren't just people who write about the political scandal of the day," E.J. said cautiously. "I like to think of columnists as people who take something apart that, perhaps, didn't need taking apart." "We are not evil people. We're middle-aged, professional entertainers in gray flannel suits." +++++++++ ["Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier" by Suelette Dreyfus with research by Julian Assange, Mandarin, 475 pp.] Excerpts and ordering information for "Underground" can be found on the Web at http://www.underground-book.com . George Smith, Ph.D., edits the Crypt Newsletter from Pasadena, CA. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:17:37 +0100 From: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: File 6--Digital Highway Robbery (fwd) from The Nation Digital Edition http://www.thenation.com Digital Highway Robbery Where is the "competition" the Telecom- munications Act was supposed to provide? By Robert W. McChesney The 1996 Telecommunications Act has just marked its first year of existence. From Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich, the bipartisan proponents of the legislation promised it would unleash a "digital revolution," combining fantastic technologies with the genius of the unregulated market. At the very least, competition would improve products and services and lower cable and telephone charges for consumers. In the long run, the Telecommunications Act would usher in the Information Age, an era of unprecedented human freedom and economic prosperity. None of the above promises have materialized, nor is there any reason to believe they will. Here's what has happened: In early February, the Federal Communications Commission began allocating the digital spectrum to the existing commercial broadcasters. Without any public debate or competitive arrangement, the largest media companies in the world are being handed what could become the equivalent of at least five new channels in every market where they currently own one. This near-secret process virtually guarantees that Disney/Cap Cities, Time Warner, General Electric, Westinghouse, Viacom, the Tribune Company and the News Corporation, among others, can maintain their rule over U.S. media for another generation or two. It is worth noting that The Washington Post estimated the value of this digital spectrum to run as high as $70 billion. The stench of corruption is so thick that The Wall Street Journal even ran a front-page article on March 17 deploring the giveaway, and Bob Dole followed suit in a New York Times Op-Ed two weeks later. As Senator John McCain puts it, broadcasters "are about to pull off one of the great scams in American history." Since the Telecommunications Act gave a green light to consolidation by lifting many media ownership restrictions and advising the F.C.C. to eliminate the rest as soon as possible, its passage was like firing the gun to launch the Oklahoma land rush. In telephony, the seven regional Baby Bells will soon be reduced to five because of the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX and PacTel-SBC Communications mergers. MCI is joining with British Telecom, and almost all industry analysts expect even more consolidation in the next few years. MCI president Gerald Taylor states that the probable outcome will be "four to six global gangs" dominating the world telecommunications market. The recent World Trade Organization telecommunications "liberalization" deal -- pushed for by the United States on behalf of its telecom firms -- almost assures that outcome. In broadcasting, the major networks are now permitted to own stations reaching up to 35 percent of the population, and there are loopholes that effectively make the percentage somewhat higher. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Broadcasting purchased the New World chain in 1996 and now has twenty-two stations reaching 40 percent of the population. Westinghouse's CBS, G.E.'s NBC and Disney's ABC are all shopping to expand their holdings to the legal limit. In radio, the restrictions were loosened even more, and the past year has seen a wave of unprecedented consolidation. The two largest radio chains now control some 180 stations between them; one, Westinghouse, captures 40 percent of all radio revenues in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston. In cable television, as Variety notes, "mergers and consolidations have transformed the cable-network marketplace into a walled-off community controlled by a handful of media monoliths." To communications companies, then, the act has been a big success. The U.S. commercial media system is currently dominated by a few conglomerates -- Disney, the News Corporation, G.E., cable giant T.C.I., Universal, Sony, Time Warner and Viacom -- with annual media sales ranging from $7 billion to $23 billion. These giants are often major players in broadcast TV, cable TV, film production, music production, book publishing, magazine publishing, theme parks and retail operations. The system has a second tier of another fifteen or so companies, like Gannett, Cox Communications, Dow Jones, The New York Times Co. and Newhouse's Advance Communications, with annual sales ranging from $1 billion to $5 billion. That the 1996 Telecommunications Act's most immediate effect was to sanctify this concentrated corporate control is not surprising; its true mission never had anything to do with increasing competition or empowering consumers. Among other things, it was about getting the issue of fundamental communications policy-making off the Congressional and public agenda and safely installed in the hands of the F.C.C. and other administrative agencies, where special interests duke it out for the best possible deals with minimal or nonexistent public involvement. It was also about having a statute that rejected the notion that there was a public interest in communication that the market could not satisfy. The only debate concerned whether the cable companies, the broadcasters, the Baby Bells or the long-distance carriers would get the most breaks. A few crumbs were tossed to "special interest" groups like schools and hospitals, but only when they didn't interfere with the pro-business thrust of the legislation. Why did Congress give the act such overwhelming bipartisan approval? Most members of Congress are very comfortable handing issues over to big business, especially when the corporate cause is encased in the approved jargon of "choice," "competition," "free markets" and the like. Also, the debate was framed in terms of technocratic issues that few members could possibly have understood. Finally, one need only look at the strength of the broadcast, cable, computer and telecommunications lobbies. The National Association of Broadcasters, for example, is generally regarded as one of the two or three most dominant lobbies in Washington, if not the absolute leader. The N.A.B.'s PAC alone -- not to mention member companies and executives -- has increased its contributions to Congressional races fivefold over the past decade, to nearly $1 million by 1996. The phone companies are every bit as lavish. By any known theory of democracy, such a concentration of control over media into so few hands, especially hands that have distinct self-interests that are often at odds with the needs of a democratic political culture, is a severe problem. Yet the sponsors of the Telecommunications Act said not to worry. If their beloved "free" market didn't introduce competition and break up the corporate media monopoly, digital technology and the Internet would. Yet it is with the Internet that the Telecommunications Act reaches tragic proportions. In keeping with the model the corporate giants prefer, the key decisions on the Net's future will be made by the F.C.C. and other administrative bodies, and these decisions, unbeknown to the general public, will probably determine its future course. Guided by the dictum "Whoever makes the most money sets the course," the Internet has already turned dramatically away from the noncommercial, nonprofit, independent and open public sphere that it promised to be just a few years ago. The media, telecommunications and computer giants are doing everything within their power to see that the Internet is drawn into their empires. The outcome is still very much in doubt -- and the Internet will likely remain a tremendous and even revolutionary asset in many respects -- but there is little reason to believe that digital technology unaided by social policy can miraculously overcome the power of the media and communications conglomerates. As Frank Beacham, one of the Internet's earliest and most fervent advocates, lamented last year, the market-driven Internet is shifting "from being a participatory medium that serves the interests of the public to being a broadcast medium where corporations deliver consumer-oriented information. Interactivity would be reduced to little more than sales transactions and e-mail." The most disastrous consequence of the Telecommunications Act, however, may well be the F.C.C.'s new policy to convert broadcasting from analog to digital formats. The telecom law advised the F.C.C. to institute such a policy and to favor the existing broadcasters (surprise, surprise), though otherwise it provides little instruction on how best to proceed. With the switch to digital television, the technical quality will improve, the number of channels will have the potential to increase by a factor of at least five and television sets will likely become a primary means for Americans to access the World Wide Web. This will be a communications revolution on the level of the introduction of AM radio in the twenties and VHF television in the forties and fifties. "Everything will be different" with digital television, F.C.C. chairman Reed Hundt proclaims. "The change is so extreme that many people have not grasped it." The White House and Hundt claim that handing out new licenses is no giveaway, because while they will allow the existing commercial broadcasters to use chunks of the digital spectrum at no charge (as is the current practice) the F.C.C. will also require them to do some "public interest" broadcasting for as much as 5 percent of their airtime. An inkling of just how rigorous Hundt's new "public interest" standard might be came last summer when the F.C.C. instituted a new policy whereby commercial broadcasters are required to do three hours of children's "educational" programming per week. The only catch is that these shows will all be advertising-supported, which means that the basic problem is not eliminated. The Wall Street Journal observes that many advertising agencies regarded the deal as providing a "marketing bonanza" for Madison Avenue, which is always on the lookout for new ways to carpet-bomb the "littlest consumers." The most "radical" public service proposal by Senator McCain, Hundt and the Clinton Administration is to require some free airtime for political candidates, whereas "moderates," like The New York Times, merely ask that the broadcasters be required to speed the conversion to digital format. Regardless of the final deal, when the dust clears the commercial broadcasters will be sitting in the catbird seat. What is being negotiated now are the terms of the surrender. Indeed, by proceeding with the spectrum allocation before determining a public interest standard, the F.C.C. is effectively giving away whatever leverage it might have. The F.C.C.'s digital TV plan is a ripoff, pure and simple. Instead of six to ten "free" channels in every market we may have forty to a hundred, but they will be owned by the same corporations, all mimicking one another to provide the tried and true commercial fare. Or the media giants may attempt to use the spectrum for nonbroadcast applications, if that seems more profitable. We are told by countless P.R. flacks that the commercial broadcasters will "give the people what they want," but the truth is that they will, as always, give advertisers and their shareholders what they want. "We're here to serve advertisers," CBS C.E.O. Michael Jordan recently stated. "That's our raison d'=EAtre." In all these areas -- media and communications corporate concentration, the Internet and digital television -- it is imperative that we have the public debate that the corporate interests have done so much to prohibit. There are lots of ideas floating around outside the corridors of power. Why not lease the spectrum and use the proceeds ($2 billion to $5 billion annually) to subsidize all forms of noncommercial broadcasting? Why not require broadcasters to provide advertising-free news and children's programming every day, and why not have the decisions for this programming made by kids' TV producers and journalists, insteady of by Rupert Murdoch and other corporate chieftains? Why not tax advertising and use those funds to subsidize kids' TV and noncommercial journalism? Why not make sure that there are dozens of digital TV channels for public access, community groups and noncommercial utilization? Why not require as a licensing condition that broadcasters not televise any political advertising? It is not enough to give free airtime; we need to abolish the entirely bogus, anti-democratic practice of TV political ads. What we need then is another Telecommunications Act, but one that reflects the full intelligence and interests of our population, not the needs of a handful of super-powerful corporations. There has been a groundswell of media activism in the past year or two, with the founding of the Cultural Environment Movement and the Media & Democracy Congress, and the renewed interest by organized labor in media policy issues. Moreover, Representative Bernie Sanders and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have earmarked breaking up the media as a key issue for democratic politics. But we have a long way to go. The lesson for activists of all stripes is clear: As long as we have the current media system, progressive social change is going to be vastly more difficult, if not impossible. It is incumbent upon all democratic activists to incorporate media politics into their agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert W. McChesney teaches journalism at the University of Wisconsin. He is the author of Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (Seven Stories) and co-author, with Edward S. Herman, of The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism (Cassell). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join a discussion in the Digital Edition Forums. Or send your letter to the editor to letters@thenation.com. The Nation Digital Edition http://www.thenation.com Copyright (c) 1997, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved. Electronic redistribution for nonprofit purposes is permitted, provided this notice is attached in its entirety. Unauthorized, for-profit redistribution is prohibited. For further information regarding reprinting and syndication, please call The Nation at (212) 242-8400, ext. 226 or send e-mail to Max Block at mblock@thenation.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #9.66 ************************************