response 50 of 87:

Mar 7 15:40 UTC 1995

The Kamchatke Penninsula is north of Korea and west of the Aluetian islands
of Alaska.

response 52 of 87:

Mar 7 20:30 UTC 1995

FWIW, your e-mail can already be read by anybody whose machine it passes
through on the way to where it's going, although people probably don't
bother to do it much.  The only way to make your email completely secure
is to encrypt it.

response 54 of 87:

Mar 7 23:35 UTC 1995

PGP's name is slightly understated for a reason. The sophistication,
money, time, machine power and desire to crack open a PGP text
is just short of phenominal. CIA, spooks, FBI, Iraq/Iran etc types
would have great difficulty. And there are even ways to make
that more difficult. Send short, multiple texts, each encoded at
different times.
  
But, there is no good to be gained from S314, none. There is an
inherent evil in the concept whether or not you recognize that
somethng can actually be "evil."

response 56 of 87:

Mar 8 03:56 UTC 1995

Interesting article on the topic...56 lines...mentions the E-petitions! :D
--------------------
Online 'Decency' Bill Targeted (March 6)
 
  U.S. Sen. Jim Exon's proposed "Communications Decency Act" -- which would
impose $100,000 fines on anyone who uses computers "to annoy, abuse,
threaten, or harass" -- is being viewed with alarm by online free speech
activists.
  When the Nebraska Democrat introduced his bill Feb. 1, he said it necessary
to "extend the standards of decency which have protected telephone users to
new telecommunications devices." (A companion bill has been introduced in the
House by Rep. Timothy Johnson, D-S.D.)
  Associated Press writer Elizabeth Weise reports some computer users and
free speech activists are gearing up for a fight against what they fear are
the first in a "flood of U.S. laws designed to control access to the free-
wheeling global computer network," Internet.
  Says Weise, "while Exon wants to keep the Internet from becoming a red
light district, many computer users see his proposal as a misguided attempt
to control the global network of computer connections. ... As word of the
proposal spreads, just about every watchdog group on the Internet has come
together, circulating electronic petitions and urging computer users to lobby
Congress against the bill."
  Among the opponents are computer industry groups, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, the ACLU and People for the American Way.
  Says AP, "Many computer users acknowledge that some regulation of
cyberspace is necessary. And while some say the original creators of material
should be held liable for its content, most argue that responsibility lies
with anyone who takes the effort to obtain it from the Internet. After all,
they argue, the Internet is different from television or the telephone."
  Shabbir J. Safdar of the Voters Telecommunications Watch in New York told
the wire service, "It's not as if I'm sitting at home eating dinner and the
salesman calls me. I have to go looking for whatever I want to find. If it
offends me, I should stop going looking for it."
  Exon's bill would hold responsible anyone who "transmits or otherwise makes
available" the offensive words or images. Opponents argue that would make
universities, companies and other Internet access providers responsible for
screening everything from public postings to private email.
  Safdar said the proposed law "seems to make everyone in between liable as
well, not just the end points. Everybody there is sueable."
  And Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
said requiring U.S. providers of access to the Internet to police everything
that flows through their wires would violate the very freedom that has made
this global exchange of information so powerful.
  But Exon spokesman Russ Rader told Weise that's not the intention, and that
the senator is willing to refine the language of the bill (although that has
not yet been done).
  Still, the broader problem, say the opponents, is that lawmakers don't
really understand what the Internet is and how it works.
  Weise comments, "No one has quite figured out yet where the Internet fits.
The service providers who give access to it at times look like all three --
sometimes a phone company, sometimes a radio network, sometimes a magazine
publisher. Rotenberg also points out that the Internet is a global network.
If U.S. computer networks are required to cut off contact with overseas
systems which don't meet our standards for informational purity, America will
be left out of the global information exchange."
  --Charles Bowen

response 58 of 87:

Mar 8 04:49 UTC 1995

CompuServe's On-Line Today...OLT has around 8 computer-related stories
a day, basically rehashed from the AP and other wire services.

response 60 of 87:

Mar 9 20:27 UTC 1995

I signed.

response 62 of 87:

Mar 10 09:57 UTC 1995

i'm sending mine in righ after this.

response 64 of 87:

Mar 10 21:00 UTC 1995

As constituted, no friend of s314 could +ever+ be a friend of mine. Even
if there are two sides (at least) to an argument, all sides of s314
are abominable, totalitarian, dictatorial, offensive per se, disgusting,
and every other negative I can dream of.  Stalin/Lenin/&clones could
do no worse than s314.

response 66 of 87:

Mar 11 08:51 UTC 1995

I signed.

response 68 of 87:

Mar 13 22:47 UTC 1995

but children they are going to keep trying until they get it passed
and furthermore you KNOW it...

response 70 of 87:

Mar 14 00:25 UTC 1995

so, humdog, if you're getting raped, you think you shouldn't fight it just
because you lack the physical power to stop it, eh? just relax and accept
the inevitable?   a damn stupid argument to make, especially in a
condescending tone!

response 72 of 87:

Mar 14 22:55 UTC 1995

I sighed it a couple days ago before the meeting at UofM law school
That would be great if this bill just disappears like clipper chip did.

response 74 of 87:

Mar 15 16:16 UTC 1995

  It certainly couldn't be thoroughly enforced, but a major risk of
unenforcable laws is that they can be selectively enforced to further
various agendas of the enforcers.  For example, it could be enforced
just against certain political or religious groups.
 
  In a recent interview with AA's new police chief, who moved here
from Indiana, he said one of the things he wants to learn is what charges
local prosecutors don't generally pursue, so the police can focus their
efforts on crimes that do result in prosecution.  IMHO, if a law isn't
enforced, the legislature should seriously consider its repeal.