
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Mon Sep 18 21:15:14 1995
by
1995
21:15:14 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:57:03 -0500
1995
15:57:00 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Sep 95 15:56:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 387

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (ssatchell@bix.com)
    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (Lon Lowen)
    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (Stephen Balbach)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (Andy Finkenstadt)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (Deacon Maccubbin)
    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (Robert Friedman)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (Ronell Elkayam)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (Willis H. Ware)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (p23610@email.mot.com)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (Nevin Liber)
    Re: FBI Arrests America OnLine Users (James Sweetman)
    Re: AOL and Expectations of Privacy (Mike Harpe)
    AOL Faces Court Order on User ID (Norm deCarternet)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the 
moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 500-677-1616
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

************************************************************************
*
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              
*
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    
* 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   
* 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-
*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.

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



The FBI proved itself "mostly clueless" during the NuPrometheus flap.
I was called into Reno (I live in Inclie Village, NV) for an
"interview" because my name was on a roster of conventioneers that the
FBI picked up.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And they proved themselves mostly 
clueless
this time around also. Imagine: Steve Case gives them about 120 names he
wants checked out; they go banging on doors all over the USA and come 
away
with a dozen out of more than a hundred. Ten percent?   PAT]

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



In article <telecom15.386.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, Daniel Rosenbaum
<drosenba@panix.com> wrote:

> This is a high-quality, high-signal group; you do a great job here, 
Pat. 
> Pleae don't raise the noise level by posting paranoia.

100% agreed.  Thank you.  Pat, I don't know what has gotten into
you ... but give it a rest.  You have yet to provide any documentation
that AOL initiated reading any private email.  All they stated is that
private email was forwarded to them.  Provide clear sources, or keep
your opinions just that -- opinions.  Since Pat is the moderator here,
I honestly expected a little more objectivity from him.


Lon Lowen   lllowen@netcom.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's what they said back in the 1950's
also: that anyone who claimed various private organizations cooperated
with federal authorities to root out communists had to be paranoid. Why,
everyone 'knew' back then that the news organizations did not supply the
FBI with information from confidential informants and the like. Just
like everyone knows now that CBS does not supply the government with
'outtakes' ... that is, video footage they are not going to use on the
air for whatever reason with stuff the government wants to know about.
No siree! They would not violate people's privacy like that and anyone
who says they would must be paranoid. And America OnLine is a fine
organization also.   PAT]

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



Child Pornography has no constitutional protection eg. if AOL was
found in knowing violation of the law they would NOT be protected by
constitutional rights of free speech.

Considering the existence of Guides and the existence of undercover
agents, AOL could not have claimed ignorance to the activities of
pornographers and as such was "under the gun" to come up with a list
of names for the FBI.

> How come Compuserve -- around three times as long, and just as large 
if
> not larger -- never seems to have ruckuses like this?    PAT]

That is question begging.  A ruckus is somthing you hear about, for
all we know it may have already happened but Compuserve elected not to
tell anyone about it.


Stephen Balbach   VP, ClarkNet    
info@clark.net  

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



In <telecom15.386.6@eecs.nwu.edu> richardm@cd.com (Richard F. Masoner) 
writes:

>> Although child pornography certainly is not allowed in public areas 
of AOL,
>> according to Ms. McGraw it 'usually is transmitted in email between 
users,
>> or in private chat rooms'. She did not indicate how AOL's 
interception of
>> email for the purpose of examining it for 'pornography' or their 
monitoring
>> of private conversations between subscribers could be reconciled with 
>> various privacy laws, apparently because it can't be. 

> Is this for real?  AOL reading private mail?  Where'd you hear this?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Her press release, printed by myself 
and
> lots of other newspapers said "It is not in the public areas. It is
> usually transmitted in email between users."  My question is, **how
> would she know that?** How do I know what email you send to someone
> else unless one of you reveals it (very unlikely) or I intercept it 
and
> read it.   PAT]

One possible legal method for explaining the press release:

AOL (nor any other online service that I know of, including my own,
GEnie) does not routinely monitor the contents of electronic mail.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) prohibits this
practice on any system where some expectation of privacy is present,
in practice usually by private mailboxes being in a separate "area"
from the public bulletin boards.

There are circumstances where an online-service is permitted to
disclose the contents of electronic mail, and circumstances where they
are REQUIRED to disclose the contents: (in brief, since my copy of
ECPA is at home) --

  1.  If during the course of routine maintenance contents which are
clearly illegal are observed, they must be disclosed to the
appropriate authorities (usually with corporate counsel doing the
contact).  I =doubt= this is the proximate cause for the monitoring.

  2.  If during an investigation of a complaint about the contents of
email sent to one or more subscribers the illegal contents are found,
they must be disclosed.

  3.  If you are under a search warrant or subpoena to produce
information related to Such-and-Such activity, you must comply or face
contempt charges.

Obviously one would hope that warrants or subpoenas are obtained under
probable cause, such as a complaint made by one recipient, followed by
investigation of the complaint, followed by the determination that
other evidence can be obtained based on this file (such as a statement
within the body stating "keep on trading..."), followed by routine
monitoring as required and permitted under the law.

I don't think that the "highly unlikely" situation of "one of you"
revealing it to the AOL administrators is so unlikely.  Many are the
nights that I have popped onto a room and suddenly been deluged with
pictures or sounds for "trade" MERELY because I was in the room.
Yick!  

I'm not worried about continuing to use AOL myself.


Andrew Finkenstadt | Engineer, Tailored Software Services | 
andy@tssi.com
Gaithersburg, MD   | GEnie Postmaster & Internet RT Sysop | 
andy@genie.com
301-340-4391 work  |              GEnie Internet Services | 
andyf9@is.ge.com
301-975-9890 home  |    <URL http://www.panix.com/~genie> | 
genie@panix.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I am not particularly 'worried'
about using it, I am just getting a bad taste in my mouth from it. Like
yourself, I have been on there and merely entered a chat area only to be
*immediatly* confronted with the 'morf question': Are you m or f? how 
old?
I have been immediatly been invited to chat with all sorts of people I
never knew, and that's fine, it is fun sometimes to meet new people on 
line
but I am very reluctant now to do it thinking that maybe the person on 
the
other end is an off-duty guide trying to earn some extra brownie points
or an undercover agent looking for some reason to bust someone.  And by 
the
way, since they have to, under the law, report illegal things they find 
in
the mail, I wonder how many times they have gone to the FBI with those
damnable chain-letters their users are always sending out?   Nah, that
doesn't count, does it?  PAT]

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



Reference is made to the TELECOM Digest Editor's article, "FBI Arrests
Dozens of America OnLine Users." Rarely have I seen more errors of fact 
in
something written to resemble a news article.

> Management of America OnLine has, over a two year period, supplied the 
FBI
> with the names and addresses of users 'suspected' of 'being involved 
in'
> child pornography and/or arranging sex with children.

AOL does supply that information, but only in response to authorized 
search
warrants. Failure to do so would, itself, be a crime.

> Pam McGraw, a spokesperson for America OnLine, based in Viennna, VA 
admitted
> that the company monitored email and private conversations seeking out
> persons who use their network to transmit pornographic material.

McGraw said no such thing, and AOL does not monitor e-mail or other
private communications themselves, a point that AOL (and McGraw) has
made repeatedly. They only become involved when a member of AOL
forwards e-mail or private communications to them with a complaint.
Otherwise, they do not concern themselves with the content of e-mail
or private communications.

> Ms. McGraw also discussed an online 'neighborhood watch' program in 
effect
> on AOL where users are encouraged to observe each other's activities 
and
> report on them to management of the online service.
 
This sounds terribly sinister ... until you realize that what is being
referred to here is an AOL release that tells members that pornography
and illegal activities are not permitted online, and that if they
receive messages dealing with such, they can forward their complaint
to AOL for action. The same thing happens on the internet, except that
there is no corporate entity to handle the intermediary role so
complainers simply forward the material directly to the FBI or other
law enforcement agencies.  And just as the FBI and others have people
surfing the internet looking for violations, they probably also have
accounts on AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy doing the same thing. But
these are actions of the agencies involved and NOT of the corporate
entities owning the services.

> [McGraw] did not indicate how AOL's interception of email for the
> purpose of examining it for 'pornography' or their monitoring of
> private conversations between subscribers could be reconciled with
> various privacy laws, apparently because it can't be.

Or, more truthfully, because they DON'T intercept anyone's mail, nor do
they monitor private conversations.

> We have known for some time that AOL was 'cooperating' with federal 
agents
> in their investigation of child pornography, but until the massive 
raids
> and arrests commenced on Wednesday followed by AOL's admission that 
the
> 'evidence' was found in email and private chat, we did not know the 
extent
> to which AOL was abusing their subscribers in the process of 
cooperating.

And it is apparent that you STILL don't know, since you've allowed
your overactive imagination to run away with you in ascribing to AOL
policies and actions that they do not have and do not take. No one at
AOL is snooping through your e-mail. How you jumped to that erroneous
conclusion is a mystery to me.

/s/ Deacon Maccubbin

* LAMBDA RISING BOOKSTORES <tm> - E-mail: lambdarising@his.com
* Every Gay/Lesbian Book in Print - Videos, Music, & Gifts, Too!
* FREE Catalog by Mail - Out-of-Print Book Search Service
* Visit our forum on America Online - use keyword GAYBOOKS


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mention that 'AOL does supply that
information, but only in response to subpoena ... '.  May I ask *how*
the government becomes knowledgeable enough of any given user's email
to know to ask for the subpoena which AOL will then graciously honor?

Let's say a user becomes offended at some other user whose only 
'offense'
is they happen to be gay -- like you for example. And that user happens 
to be very homophobic (not at all an unusual status on AOL), so he goes
to AOL and says 'I got a letter from this child molestor'. Now you know
and I know that 'gay' does NOT equal 'molestor'. But the homophobic user
still turns you in, maybe embellishes the story a little, etc. Now what
does AOL do at that point? Do they just go to their government contact
and say 'we have a new suspect, would you like to get a warrant for this
one so we can tap the mail'?  Or do they attempt any verification at
all of what some user complains about before going to the FBI?  If they
attempt any verification at all, how do they do this verification? Do
they get one of their own people to try and entice the suspect into 
further conversations/email?  

In other words, no matter which way they go on this, how can they help
but cause hassles?  If they pass the user's unverified complaint to the
FBI with an invitation to the FBI to supply the warrant (which is what
I suspect they do) then all sorts of innocent people get caught up in
this mess by and large because of the homophobic reactions of some 
users.
If on the other hand, AOL attempts to verify the complaint, how can they
do it without having to secretly monitor the user themselves for some
period of time?

It would be far better if AOL's posture was 'we are a common carrier 
with
no interest in the matter at all. If you have complaints about any given
user, then *you* take your complaints to the FBI. If/when the FBI then
comes to us with a warrant, we will respond. Until then, we respect the
privacy of our subscribers.'    

I'd think that you, as a gay person, would be very concerned about how
things pertaining to sex can get totally out of context as the result of
some homophobe. Haven't you seen it happen in the gay chat room there on
AOL?  Do you realize that out of the large number of raids which took 
place last week versus the tiny number of people actually arrested, that
quite a few of the ones hassled and raided and then released were gay 
and
had the misfortune of running into some homophobic person on line who 
said
'oh, there goes one of those child molestors' ... 

I can appreciate you wishing to stand up for and defend AOL. The service
has provided forums for gay people and done so in an open minded and 
fair
way. But when Steve Case decided to start making his list of alleged
child molestors, he blew it big time.  Maybe he listened to too many of
the homophobes there or too many of the teenagers with active 
imaginations.
Whatever ... a lot of the people who were scandalized last week and yet
completely innocent are not going to respond like the 1950's where folks
ran for cover hoping they would not be named again as 'communists'. This
time their response is going to be legal action against AOL, asking the
same goverment which visited them last week to now charge AOL with 
numerous
willful violations of EPCA. This in addition to legal action charging
defamation of character, etc.    PAT]

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



On Sep 14, 1995 14:44:42 in article <Re: FBI Arrests America Online 
Users>,
'Joshua Cole <jcole@access.digex.net>' wrote: 
 
> when you agree to their Terms of Service agreement when you
> subscribe, you also agree to abide by their code of conduct and the
> consequences of violating those codes.


                                         


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'Terms of Service' thing there is
> a joke. ...  you'll see that ever-present macro about 'Violation!

(Depending on the particular Guide on duty that night)

> Read Your Terms of Service' message time and again in the public chat
> areas.

> How come Compuserve -- around three times as long, and just as large
> if not larger -- never seems to have ruckuses like this?  PAT]
 
Earlier this year the NY Times published an article titled, "A Child's
Internet Sins Visited on the Parent."  The gist of the story is that
the subscriber's account was terminated because his 11-year-old
daughter was "guilty" of three TOS violations.  However, the parent
had never been informed of the *alleged* infractions and had no
opportunity to discuss the matter with his child or implement any
controls that he may have felt necessary.  To get reinstated, he
basically had to grovel.  The same situation befell one of his
colleagues, and I know at least two other parents (myself and a
friend) who were also cut off.
 
According to the article, AOL's Pam McGraw said "We're growing faster
than any other on-line service ... you're going to have some people who
violate the rules."  However, Compuserve's Daphne Kent said they have
expelled "probably less than ten people in the last couple of years."
Prodigy's Brian Ek said they have bounced "a handful over the years."
James Gleick, founder of The Pipeline, said he had bounced 1 of 10,000
subscribers, and that for repeatedly posting commercial messages.  He
also believes that using your real name, and not hiding behind screen
names, tends to discourage offensive or illegal behavior.
 
AOL would like to have its cake and eat it too.  Its role vis a vis
the law enforcement community is therefore suspect; they evidently
feel the end justifies the means.
 

Bob Friedman, NYC  <inwood@pipeline.com>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your final paragraph is where my feelings
lie. I don't support child porn and its purveyors. And people who read
my stuff long enough know I sometimes take a pretty narrow view of what
should be legitimatly private. It just seems like AOL has found a good
way to get the government to help them enforce their Terms of Service. 
It all just seems so cozy; as though they welcome undercover agents,
informers, snitches and spies to help them run things there. Someday it
would be nice to see Pam McGraw address the question of the 'rules'
where the constant barrage of junk mail which flows into Usenet from
AOL is concerned. Maybe Steve Case's next project can be to make a 
list of all the people who have committed mail fraud over there with
their chain letters, etc.  I logged in one day over there and had six
big humongous letters in my box over there (AOL mailbox) from users
who had cc'ed everyone they could think of -- hundreds of cc's on
each letter; screen after screen of cc names before you even got to
the letter itself -- with one of those 'this letter is sent to you for
good luck' things. You know, the one about the missionary in South 
America who started the chain going in 1947 and the letter has now
been around the world nineteen times, etc.   PAT]

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Her press release, printed by myself
> and lots of other newspapers said "It is not in the public areas. It
> is  usually transmitted in email  between  users."  My question  is,
> **how would she  know that?** How  do I know  what email you send to
> someone else unless one   of you reveals  it  (very unlikely) or   I
> intercept it and read it.  PAT]

According to a recent  article in the {Miami Herald} (they  caught two
pedophiles from South Florida  -- one a  Scouts leader), the way  they
did it was  by having undercover  "wanna-be-pedophiles" get the  filth
directly from the later-to-be-defendants.  

This probably  *did* happen, but *after*  AOL monitored the pedophiles
email activities and targeted them  specifically (trapped them to send
email to the feds).


W/love,

Ron    Miami, FL


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something no one has mentioned yet is the
'software improvement' AOL installed in their email some time ago. It
had previously been that when you finished reading a letter you could
erase it if you wanted to do so ... not any longer!  Now it is moved
automatically to a folder of 'mail read' and it stays there. If you try
to erase it completely, you get a system notice saying 'oh there is no
need to do that, we now automatically delete mail after XX days, so
we have removed the delete function on email since you don't need it
any longer.'  So now you get something -- nice, nasty, chain letter,
enticement mail from an AOL Guide or whatever -- in your mail you don't
want you CANNOT get rid of it until XX days have passed and it gets
deleted automatically.

Maybe the backlog of unread 'suspected pedophile mail' was getting so
huge AOL did not have time to read it all before the users were deleting
it, so they had to prevent further mail deletion.   PAT]

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



Pat:

In regard to the discussion about FBI, AOL, reading e-mail, etc., I'd
like to add some hopefully relevant discussion.  I am taking no
position about the matter, nor am I being critical of either side. I
am addressing the situation as one of importance in the future of
networks and their services.

1.  The AOL spokesperson is quoted as saying that AOL would cooperate
with law enforcement if a search warrant or subpoena were served.  By
implication, this may have happened but the AOL releases that I have
seen do not explicitly state this fact.  So, very much to the point,
is whether due process has been carefully followed in this incident
[e.g., was there a reasonable cause to expect that a crime had been
committed vs. a fishing expedition], whether relevant law [e.g.,
Electronic Computer Privacy Act] was followed, etc.  Perhaps AOL can
be persuaded to be more forthcoming in just exactly what it did, and
what the sequence of its interactions with law enforcement were.  In
the interests of reassuring its customer base, it would seem that AOL
should be willing to say more.  And it should certainly be up front
about stating its policy to present and potential customers.

For example, did AOL or the FBI make the initial approach to the other?
How were the suspects identified at the very beginning?  Was the
complete daily e-message traffic of AOL scanned?  Did the FBI, through
its other resources, have a list of suspects about whom there was
reasonable cause to suspect that a crime had been committed and only
the traffic of these suspects examined?

Some possibilities are more socially palatable than others, so let's
get the facts.

2.  The allegation is that AOL "read" e-mail.  The statement is
ambiguous because the casual interpretation would be that some person
scanned it, but the volume could have been so large that some
automated process "looked at" the mail.  If the latter, the simple
approach would have been a filter that triggered on suspect words and
identified "hits" that matched.

As the government found out when it started its computer matching of
databases and as subsequent Federal law requires, hits must be
manually verified before passing them onward for action.  If an
automated process was used by AOL, was there some manual [i.e., human]
verification that presumably suspect messages were in fact
pornographically related or was there a blind forwarding of everything
that the filter found?

For example, suppose one had been discussing with a professional
colleague the sexual activity and habits of dinosaurs, a perfectly
respectable topic which was discussed in a TV show not long ago.  I
can imagine that a filter would flag some or all such message traffic
as suspect.  So the questions become, if an automated process were
used:

    o Was the selection process well done, well thought out, properly
implemented?  Or was it some quickie software job that simply looked
for individual word matches?

    o Were the hits manually verified before passing to law
enforcement?  Might perfectly innocent people have been called to the
attention of law enforcement for innocent activity?

Why raise such questions?  This event is among the first to involve
the interplay of network service providers and law enforcement.
Similar events are going to happen again and in various contexts,
espcially as the country creates its NII.  We ought to get the legal
obligations, the legal status, the policy of responding to law
enforcement, etc. of service providers straightened out now and stated
before the situation gets out of hand.  And we should make sure that
the means for law enforcement to acquire such information is
consistent with law, with constitutional protections, with appropriate
judicial oversights, with proper accountability, etc.

And last, but not least, let's straighten it out at the Federal level
so that state and local law enforcement actions will follow suit.


Willis H. Ware     Santa Monica, CA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You ask which side made the first over-
tures to the other and it is my belief Steve Case made the first
overture. I believe he realized that violations of ECPA would land
the corporation in very hot water; yet it was essential that they be
able to read mail, etc. I think they encouraged their Guides and a 
few other people to specifically 'watch for this kind of thing' and 
turn over *mail addressed to themselves which they had already read*
for further examination. That kept them in the clear initially.  PAT] 

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



TELECOM Digest Editor <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> wrote:

> The FBI made dozens of arrests and searched 120 homes and personal 
computers
> on Wednesday as part of an investigation into child pornography on 
America
> OnLine. 

> Management of America OnLine has, over a two year period, supplied the 
FBI
> with the names and addresses of users 'suspected' of 'being involved 
in'
> child pornography and/or arranging sex with children. The raids on 
Wednesday
> marked the first time federal agents were called upon by an online 
service
> to investigate the behavior of their subscribers in private chat 
rooms.
> user-suspects have been located.

> I don't know about you, but I'm going to purge all the AOL sofware 
from
> my computer today. Child porn does not interest me in the least, but
> having AOL scanning my mail and checking up on my in private 
conversations
> with other users there is of great concern. It is hard for me to 
imagine
> how any online service could violate the trust of their users in this 
way,
> by getting into their email and personal files, regardless of the
intentions.

> We have known for some time that AOL was 'cooperating' with federal 
agents
> in their investigation of child pornography, but until the massive 
raids
> and arrests commenced on Wednesday followed by AOL's admission that 
the
> 'evidence' was found in email and private chat, we did not know the 
extent
> to which AOL was abusing their subscribers in the process of 
cooperating.

I'd imagine AOL covered their keisters with some legal "fine print"
included in the disclaimer clause of their sign-up. You know,
something like " ... use of this client software implies relinquishing
all rights of privacy ..."

OF COURSE they rolled over when sqeezed by the feds. AOL is a business
and only the very biggest of businesses can resist being squeezed (ie.
Microsoft).  A business exists to make money, and there's plenty of
money to be lost by protecting the rights of a tiny minority of their
clients rather than just spying on their clients and handing them
over. As they say in the mafia, "Nothing personal, it's just business."

The feds have chosen child pornography as The Issue to try to gain
control of the Internet in the USA. Our esteemed elected public
officials have discovered that the 'net is a powerful force of the
people. And politicians fear powerful forces that they don't control
(see the excellent article on this topic in the current issue of
{Internet World} magazine). I predict we'll be seeing more raids in the
months ahead as the feds go after other easily "painted" targets like
militias and encryption proponents. The Digital Telephony bill is now
law and will eventually give the feds fingertip access to every bit
travelling through US phone lines -- and the 'net is connected by -- you
guessed it -- phone lines. So they'll have the technology in place --
now they need the legal angle in place to broaden its use.

Enough ranting. Bottom line: those purveyors of smut were naive to
think a) nobody was listening, b) their service provider would protect
them. Idiots. But it does serve as a warning to the rest of us. "If
you don't want what you say to appear in tomorrow's local news, don't
say it on the Internet". And use PGP.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where PGP and 'easily painted targets'
are concerned, look at how they are crucifying Phil Becker right now.
That's a shame, it really is. 

Something that has never been totally clear to me also is the connection
between America OnLine and their division called Chicago OnLine. COL is
very big with the {Chicago Tribune}. The Tribune distributes the AOL/COL
software via large newspaper ads that run every week, and everyone who
writes in the Tribune has an AOL/COL email address. You can read the
entire paper on line each day. I think the Tribune parent company may
have some ownership in America OnLine. COL has two or three of its own
chat rooms as well. A very structured environment, the COL 'host' for 
the
day (like a Guide, only in this case they call them 'Host') sets the
topic of discussion and all must adhere to it or leave the room. No
unmoderated conversation allowed in the COL chat rooms. I wish I knew
more about the relationship between the {Chicago Tribune} and AOL.    
PAT]

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



For those people who weren't scared by PAT's original posting, here are 
a
few excerpts where all I did was change of few of the names to reflect 
an
earlier time in the history of the United States.

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

The FBI made dozens of arrests and searched 120 homes and personal
computers on Wednesday as part of an investigation into Communists on
America OnLine. 

United States Senator Joseph McCarthy spoke in support of the actions of
America OnLine and FBI agents, noting, "We are not going to permit
exciting new technology to be misused by the Red Threat."

She [AOL spokesperson] said they always provide the FBI with the names 
of
users suspected of involvement in communist activities.

Ms. McGraw also discussed an online 'neighborhood watch' program in 
effect
on AOL where users are encouraged to oberve each other's activities and
report on them to Committee on Un-American Activities.

Raids and arrests of other AOL subscribers 'suspected of being members 
of
the Communist Party will continue over the next few days until all the
user-suspects have been located.

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

Personally, I know better than to send anything via email that I 
wouldn't
write on a postcard.


Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799

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



Richard F. Masoner (richardm@cd.com) wrote:

> In article <telecom15.383.1@eecs.nwu.edu> you wrote:

>> Although child pornography certainly is not allowed in public areas 
of AOL,
>> according to Ms. McGraw it 'usually is transmitted in email between 
users,
>> or in private chat rooms'. She did not indicate how AOL's 
interception of
>> email for the purpose of examining it for 'pornography' or their 
monitoring
>> of private conversations between subscribers could be reconciled with 
>> various privacy laws, apparently because it can't be. 

> Is this for real?  AOL reading private mail?  Where'd you hear this?

> (You didn't give any citations of your sources; not that I don't
> believe, I'd just like to know where this came from)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Her press release, printed by myself 
and
> lots of other newspapers said "It is not in the public areas. It is
> usually transmitted in email between users."  My question is, **how
> would she know that?** How do I know what email you send to someone
> else unless one of you reveals it (very unlikely) or I intercept it 
and
> read it.   PAT]

As stated in the press reports here in DC, AOL's policy is thus:

They do not monitor private e-mail or chat rooms.  They do monitor 
public 
chat rooms.  When a user presents them with evidence that another user 
may be pariticipating in illegal activities, they pass that information 
on to law enforcement.  They cooperate with judicial orders (such as 
subpeonas) to monitor individual users.

Effectively, it works like this.  They're not going to monitor random 
user traffic (and they can't monitor it all, due to volume).  But, when 
a 
user sends them a message that came from another user with a potentially 
illegal file attached, they pass it on (since they would be on weak 
legal 
grounds to decide themselves what costitutes illegal pornography).  If, 
based on such evidence, a court orders that a user's mail be monitored, 
they comply (just as phone compaines do with wiretap orders.)  I see 
nothing nefarious in this, just responsible management for a large 
corporation.  Same thing with the "neighborhood watch" concept.  AOL has 
positioned itself as a "family-friendly" service.  They have the right 
to 
take whatever actions they feel are necesary to protect that 
environemnt.  And you have the right, if you don't like it, not to 
subscribe.  But do so based on facts, not an ASSUMPTION that they 
randomly monitor private e-mail.  


James R. Sweetman     sweetman@netcom.com
Arlington, VA   72120.3367@compuserve.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So a homophobic user says to the 
management
"I got paged by a child molestor" when what really happened was he got 
an
instant message asking if he was gay. **Still, an inappropriate question 
for
an instant message to a stranger, but it happens on AOL a lot**.  Now 
what
does management do with this complaint?  How do they act on it?

And it is funny you mention that 'AOL has positioned itself as a family-
friendly service' since no matter how you slice it, a lot of the chat
rooms are just plain filthy; hardly the sort of conversation that the
'American family' (as AOL would seem to define it, or certainly as our
illustrious congress would define it these days) would sit around having
in the evening.  PAT]


     


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



This is interesting.  I have an AOL account and I am continually
amazed at the amount of activity of a sexual nature on there.  There
are escorts soliciting men visiting larger towns, homosexuals
soliciting partners, and just ordinary straight people looking for
partners.  I am also amazed at some of the GIF pictures they allow
people to post.  I have personally received solicitations from all of
the above totally cold, no prompting at all on my part.  I could have
had a prostitute in a major city arrested had I wanted to.

My point is that they seem to cater to this crowd to a certain point.
AOL is making money off of sexual activity.  While no one supports
kiddie porn, I think this whole thing is a "cover their butts"
exercise designed to make them look wholesome and clean.  I think Pat
is probably correct in saying there will be a lawsuit.  Their method
of deciding who is dirty and who is not will never hold up in Court.
I am not surprised that the FBI is all over this, given the dreadful
failure of The War on Drugs.  They need some wins right now.  12
percent is not a good hit rate, though.  I would be interested to know
how THEY feel.  If the FBI could not find enough evidence (and they
generally don't need much) to make arrests, it must have been pretty
clear that nothing was wrong 88 percent of the time.  I am very
surprised the rate was that low.  They must not have done any of their
own research before pursuing this.

This will be around for a long time, I think.


Michael Harpe, Communications Analyst III          Information 
Technology
Internet: mike@hermes.louisville.edu               University of 
Louisville
(502) 852-5542 (Voice) (502) 852-1400 (FAX)        Louisville, Ky. 40292
WWW: http://www.louisville.edu/~meharp01

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



The following is an abstract done of an article off the AP and in
today's {St. Pete Times}.  Some errors and assumptions may be mine.

A Caribbean resort asked a Chicago judge to force America Online
to reveal an 'anonymous' userid in order to prosecute her for libel.

  - 'Jenny TRR' posted to an AOL scuba diving bulletin board;
  - she claimed a bad experience with an instructor at a resort.

o the resort was notified by another AOL user who was often a guest;
  - their pursuit of the claim determined it was false;
  - since much of their business comes from online, they felt injured;
  - their post to the bulletin board calling for apology went 
unanswered.

o ED: the article doesn't say if AOL was asked for, and denied, the 
name.
  - the  resort filed a motion in Cook County (IL) Court;
  - so far, no response, and no calls <by AP?> to AOL were returned;

o technology experts fear an onflood of court cases.
  - are computer users responsible for what and where they say online?

  "What this case brings up is the spectre of millions of libel suits
   every time there's a disagreement on the Internet.  I think it's a
   critical issue"  Daniel Weitzner, Ctr For Democracy & Technology dir.

  "The person who used this <sic> abused the privilege of being able to
   communicate with people worldwide on America Online.  This has
   serious repercussions in businesses" Lawrence Levin, plaintiffs 
lawyer.


Norm deCarteret


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's goofy about AOL is their total 
lack
of security. Screen names can be changed randomly; you can have up to 
five 
'screen names per account active at any given time; there is no real way 
for
other users to find out the absolute ID of mail they receive or chats 
they
are in, etc. 

Now on Compuserve, you can change handles at will in CB (unlike AOL 
where
you apparently have to log off entirely and log back in with a different
'screen name'), but at least the UID is always available if you wish to
turn on the display.  So I can be whatever name I want to be, and 
whatever
sex I want to be and whatever on Compuserve, but the sophisticated user
will do /who <jobnumber> or /pro <jobnumber> from time to time in the 
chat
to see the actual User ID (the 7xxxxx or 10xxxx number) of the person 
they
are chatting with. If you keep a little filebox of index cards near your
terminal as I do, or you keep files on your harddrive, then when 
approached
for a chat with 'Joe' you can look at your index cards under that UID 
and
note that last week 'Mary' with the same UID requested chat. So no 
matter
what the person wishes to say, there is an absolute identity to fall 
back
on, a lot like Caller-ID. I may not know who the person really is, but I
know where the chat or email came from.

On AOL, 'Joe10256' this week can be 'Joe65201' next week, or even five
minutes later if he logs out and changes screen names then comes right
back on line. "John Brown" today is "John A. Brown" tomorrow. There were
some users swept up in the raids last week who had nothing at all --
literally nothing -- to do with child porn. Their problem was their 
screen
name looked similar to another one. Kid goes crying to mommie that he
got a nasty message on line. Message scrolls off or gets erased somehow
before it is captured. Kid *thinks* it came from John Brown. Mother, in
her homophobic lust goes on line, finds a name that 'must be the one' 
and
gives it to AOL. AOL tells FBI, here is another one, etc ... one of the
raids last week wound up with someone whose account *had been hacked*. 
In
other words, it was not the account holder at all.  It was some company
with two or three AOL accounts. Granted they should have watched their
acocunts more closely. One of the accounts had been hacked and was being
used by someone. FBI goes to the real owner of account, he is astounded
to hear of any of this at all. 

Yeah, ten percent of the list is not a very good batting average, and I
suspect AOL and Steve Case are going to pay dearly before this is all
over and done with. I have not been on there in quite awhile myself but
a current subscriber said this whole discussion is being pretty well
squelched in discussions there. If it comes up in a chat room a Guide is
soon on hand to issue a TOS violation for 'disruptive behavior' for 
having the audacity to even bring the topic up. 

Remember how in the 'hacking' trial of Craig Neidorf in Missouri
things were going along with the government making their spiel and
all, based on what their 'good and reliable contacts' at Bell had told
them ... then someone pointed out that the 'thousands and millions of
dollars in 911 software' which had been ripped off from telco was 
actually
available for sale from Bellcore for a few dollars?   <grin> .... I 
think
we are seeing the same thing here. The FBI assumed AOL would be a good
and reliable source of information -- and I don't mean the {Chicago
Tribune} online -- and it turns out that the informant has axes of his
own to grind; but don't they all ... otherwise why would anyone filthy
their hands in this kind of stuff?  PAT] 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #387
******************************

                                                                                                                           
