FYI (fwd)

["Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>]

This was forwaded from Gaynet, I have removed the posters's name to 
prevent outting someone what doesn't want to be.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 20 Apr 1994 21:40:21 GMT
From: XXX XXXX <XX@XX.XX>

Trust Congress? Not With This Unbelievable Lair of Slop
PC Computing, April 1994, page 88.
By John C. Dvorak

 When Vice President Gore began talking about the Information Highway,
 we all knew the bureaucrats would get involved more than we might
 like. In fact, it may already be too late to stop a horrible Senate
 bill from becoming law.

 The moniker -- Information Highway -- itself seems to be responsible
 for SB #040194. Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, it's designed to
 prohibit anyone from using a public computer network (Information
 Highway) while the computer user is intoxicated. I know how silly this
 sounds, but Congress apparently thinks that being drunk on a highway
 is bad no matter what kind of highway it is. The bill is expected to
 pass this month.

 There already are rampant arguments as to how this proposed law can
 possibly be enforced. The FBI hopes to use it as an excuse to do
 routing wiretaps on any computer if there is any evidence that the
 owner "uses or abuses alcohol and has access to a modem." Note how it
 slips in the word 'uses'. This means if you've been seen drinking one
 lone beer, you can have your line tapped.

 Because this law would be so difficult to enforce, police officials
 are drooling over the prospect of easily obtaining permits to do
 wiretaps. Ask enforcement officials in Washington and they'll tell you
 the proposed law is idiotic, but none will oppose it. Check the
 classified ads in the "Washington Post" and you'll find the FBI,
 National Security Agency, and something called the Online Enforcement
 Agency (when did they set that up?) all soliciting experts in phone
 technology, specifically wiretapping.

 It gets worse. The Congressional Record of February 19, 1994, has a
 report that outlines the use of computerized BBSes, Internet,
 Inter-Relay Chat, and CompuServe CB as "propagating illicit sexual
 encounters and meetings between couples -- any of whom are
 underage...Even people purporting to routinely have sex with animals
 are present on these systems to foster their odd beliefs on the
 public-at-large." A rider on SB #040194 makes it a felony to discuss
 sexual matters on any public-access network, including the Internet,
 America Online, and CompuServe.

 I wondered how private companies such as America Online can be
 considered public-access networks, so I called Senator Barbara
 Boxer's office and talked to an aide, a woman named Felicia. She said
 the use of promotional cards that give away a free hour or two of
 service constitutes public access. You know, like the ones found in the
 back of books or in modem boxes. She also told me most BBS systems
 fall under this proposed statute. When asked how they propose to
 enforce this law, she said it's not Congress's problem.  "Enforcement
 works itself out over time," she said.

 The group fighting this moronic law is led by Jerome Bernstein of the
 Washington law firm of Bernstein, Bernstein and Knowles (the firm that first
 took Ollie North as a client). I couldn't get in touch with any of the
 co-sponsors of the bill (including Senator Ted Kennedy, if you can believe
 it!), but Bernstein was glad to talk. "These people have no clue about the
 Information Highway or what it does. The whole thing got started last
 Christmas during an antidrinking campaign in the Washington D.C., metro
 area," Bernstein said, "I'm convinced someone jokingly told Leahy's office
 about drunk driving on the Information High and the idea snowballed. These
 senators actually think there is a physical highway. Seriously, Senator Pat
 Moynihan asked me if you needed a driving permit to 'drive' a modem on the
 Information Highway! He has no clue what a modem is, and neither does the
 rest of Congress."

 According to Bernstein, the antisexual wording in the bill was
 attributed to Kennedy's office. "Kennedy thought that technology was
 leaving him behind, and he wanted to be perceived as more up-to-date
 technologically. He also though this would make amends for his alleged
 philandering."

 Unfortunately, the public is not much better informed than the
 Senate.  The Gallup Organization, at the behest of Congress, is
 polling the public regarding intoxication while using a computer and
 online "hot chatting." The results are chilling. More than half of the
 public thinks that using a computer while intoxicated should be
 illegal! The results of the sexuality poll are not available. But one
 question, "Should a teenage boy be encouraged to pretend he is a girl
 while chatting with another person online?" has civil rights activists
 alarmed. According to Kevin Avril of the ACLU, "This activity doesn't
 even qualify as virtual cross-dressing. Who cares about this stuff?
 What are we going to do? Legislate an anti-boys-will-be-boys law? It
 sets a bad precedent."

 I could go on and on with quotes and complaints from people regarding
 this bill. But most of the complaints are getting nowhere. Pressure
 groups, such as one led by Baptist ministers from De Kalb County,
 Georgia, are supporting the law with such vehemence that they've
 managed to derail an effort by modem manufacturers (the biggest being
 Georgia-based Hayes) to lobby against the law. "Who wants to come out
 and support drunkenness and computer sex?" asked a congressman who
 requested anonymity.

 So, except for Bernstein, Bernstein, and Knowles, and a few members of
 the ACLU, there is nothing to stop this bill from becoming law. You
 can register your protests with your congressperson or Ms. Lirpa Sloof
 in the Senate Legislative Analysts Office.  Her name spelled backward
 says it all.