Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Shawn McCollum <Shawn_McCollum@*********.COM>
Subject:	[OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 11:58:32 -0400

Message no. 1 While out looking for some information about the upcoming Shadowrun
Assassin PC game, I came across a link to the Shadowrun Archive that I
had never seen before. When I clicked on it I got a message back from
my companies "oh so cool" (sarcastic) firewall blocking program that
read as the following.

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

403 Blocked Site

The requested URL http://151.99.226.3/users/paolo/sr2/ is blocked by
your site administrator because it falls into the following CyberNOT
categories:

* Militants/Extremists
* Illegal Activities/Gambling

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

From:	Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:12:31 -0400

Message no. 2 At 11:58 AM 10/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>403 Blocked Site
>
>The requested URL http://151.99.226.3/users/paolo/sr2/ is blocked by
>your site administrator because it falls into the following CyberNOT
>categories:
>
>* Militants/Extremists
>* Illegal Activities/Gambling
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------

:)

You do realize, of course, that the US FBI considers -all- Role Playing
Games to be "Subversive Literature." Its one of the reasons that SJGames
got hit a few years back.

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-

From:	Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:44:28 -0400

Message no. 3 At 12:12 PM 10/15/98 , you wrote:

>You do realize, of course, that the US FBI considers -all- Role Playing
>Games to be "Subversive Literature." Its one of the reasons that SJGames
>got hit a few years back.

I thought it was becuase they had a game called Hackers that dealt with
computer fraud and the FBI took it a little too seriously. Not that I don't
think that the FBI wouldn't have a policy like that. Although that makes
you wonder what they'll think about an RPG based on the X-Files...

Sommers
Homepage comming soon!

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 21:33:30 +0200

Message no. 4 According to Shawn McCollum, at 11:58 on 15 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> 403 Blocked Site
>
> The requested URL http://151.99.226.3/users/paolo/sr2/ is blocked by
> your site administrator because it falls into the following CyberNOT
> categories:
>
> * Militants/Extremists
> * Illegal Activities/Gambling

I have a feeling those are because a lot of the articles in the Archive
are about guns, violence, and related stuff, and because someone (somebot)
decided that any site about gaming had to be about gambling...

Which leads me to suspect how these rating systems are actually set up --
apparently by people without any knowledge of the things they're giving
ratings to. (That doesn't surprise me, BTW, but it does make me wonder.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Warning! Choking hazard -- small letters.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Mike Buckalew <mike_buckalew@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:13:10 -0700

Message no. 5 >You do realize, of course, that the US FBI considers -all- Role Playing
>Games to be "Subversive Literature." Its one of the reasons that SJGames
>got hit a few years back.

Here's the url for the full story on SJG's web site:

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/

Buck (Mike Buckalew)
buck@*********.com
Test Manager
FileMaker, Inc.

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:48:40 -0400

Message no. 6 At 09:33 PM 10/15/98 +0200, you wrote:

>Which leads me to suspect how these rating systems are actually set up --
>apparently by people without any knowledge of the things they're giving
>ratings to. (That doesn't surprise me, BTW, but it does make me wonder.)

A while back, while I was with a different PR agency, I worked on a
firewall account and with PGP (until whatsisname, the inventor/founder, his
head swole up with ego he couldn't fit through doors...), so I had to do
extensive reading on this basic subject for many months.

And the answer is for the most part, no, most of the sites blocked have
never been visited by anyone connected with the blocking software. To my
knowledge, most blocking programs simply search the sites for key offensive
words with specialized search agents and spiders.

And in some cases, blocking software will block sites purely out of spite
or politics. It's fairly well known that some blocking programs will block
abortion sites and that some sites have been blocked specifically because
they pissed off the software company. I'm thinking specifically of (*I
think this is the name*) CyberSitter.

So your basic fear/assumption is correct Gurth.

Erik J.

http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World

From:	Brian Wong <rook@*****.INFINEX.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:00:12 -0700

Message no. 7 > >Which leads me to suspect how these rating systems are actually set up --
> >apparently by people without any knowledge of the things they're giving
> >ratings to. (That doesn't surprise me, BTW, but it does make me wonder.)
>
> And in some cases, blocking software will block sites purely out of spite
> or politics. It's fairly well known that some blocking programs will block
> abortion sites and that some sites have been blocked specifically because
> they pissed off the software company. I'm thinking specifically of (*I
> think this is the name*) CyberSitter.

At a company I just left it was routine policy of management to block
our users from getting email from companies/domains the CEO or other
managers didn't like. Hidden under an anti spam policy that was used to
also block several spamming sites.

I hated having to explain it to users without truely explaining it...

What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is preventing it's
users from going out to certain sites. That sounds illegal. The blocking of
email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff that sits on your
machines. But blocking your own people from going out and getting things
when they are paying for access is something I doubt would stand up in court.

--
Rook ¿Õ ¿ë ±â WebRPG Town Hall Magistrate
townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
__ Super WebRing http://orion.supersoldiers.com/heroes/webring.html
/.)\ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html Super Hero Links
\(@/ http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/ Super Hero RPG Site

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 23:18:30 +0100

Message no. 8 And verily, did Brian Wong hastily scribble thusly...
|What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is preventing it's
|users from going out to certain sites. That sounds illegal. The blocking of
|email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff that sits on your
|machines. But blocking your own people from going out and getting things
|when they are paying for access is something I doubt would stand up in court.

It all depends. It might be that the bloke who was blocked was at work at
the time, and the company itself had blocked anything on the web that might
be construed as.... well.... FUN.

:)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

From:	"M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:42:58 EDT

Message no. 9 In a message dated 10/15/98 6:07:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rook@*****.INFINEX.COM writes:

> What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is preventing it's
> users from going out to certain sites. That sounds illegal. The blocking of
> email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff that sits on your
> machines. But blocking your own people from going out and getting things
> when they are paying for access is something I doubt would stand up in
court.

As in all things it depends on what the fine print is when you sign an
agrement, weather it is for access or for employment. Also it comes down to
how much justice one can afford.

Personally I do not see how an ISP/Company could rational not allowing access
to certin sites or domains, but I see it every day when I use AOL. I tried to
access a few web pages, (Shadowrun pages) and found the owner's ISP would not
allow me to access them beacuse I was on a AOL host.

-Bandit

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:53:36 EDT

Message no. 10 In a message dated 10/15/1998 11:05:26 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Shawn_McCollum@*********.COM writes:

>
> 403 Blocked Site
>
> The requested URL http://151.99.226.3/users/paolo/sr2/ is blocked by
> your site administrator because it falls into the following CyberNOT
> categories:
>
> * Militants/Extremists
> * Illegal Activities/Gambling
>
WHAT?!? Not Cyber??? Oh come on. Now as for extremists, well, yeah, I guess
some of us do sort of qualify there ;)

-K

From:	Penta <cpenta@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:03:12 -0700

Message no. 11 K in the Shadows wrote:

> In a message dated 10/15/1998 11:05:26 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> Shawn_McCollum@*********.COM writes:
>
> >
> > 403 Blocked Site
> >
> > The requested URL http://151.99.226.3/users/paolo/sr2/ is blocked by
> > your site administrator because it falls into the following CyberNOT
> > categories:
> >
> > * Militants/Extremists
> > * Illegal Activities/Gambling
> >
> WHAT?!? Not Cyber??? Oh come on. Now as for extremists, well, yeah, I guess
> some of us do sort of qualify there ;)
>
> -K

LOL. Why not hacking/misc computer crimes?:)

JP

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:11:01 +1000

Message no. 12 Ivan Upton writes:
> the reason SJG got raided by the FBI was Their GURPS Cyberpunk
> book. Apparently (this is second
> hand info an i got it long ago) SJG were using real hackers as
> resources to make things more
> realistic, and the FBI thought that the book was meant to be a
> manual for hackers.....

The real truth is that a hacker who was under investigation for computer
crimes managed the Illumanti BBS for SJG. As part of a major (and seriously
bungled) crackdown on computer crimes by the Secret Service in 1990, the
hacker was arrested. Under a seriously misapplied law for obtaining
evidence, ALL of the computers at SJG were confiscated for evidence.

The Secret Service seriously screwed this up. There were _multiple_
incidents of arrests being made by having 10 or more agents swarm in via
every door and window in the target's house, all the computerised equipment
(including in some cases answering machines, phones and fax machines) being
confiscated, the family of the target being hustled out of the house at
gunpoint, and the target (often a 10 year old boy) being taken away for
crimes that were basically juvenile curiosity.

There are several good books on the subject. One cyberpunk author whose name
I really should be able to remember but can't wrote one called "The Hacker
Crackdown" which he has made publicly available on the Internet.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:22:19 -0400

Message no. 13 At 03:00 PM 10/15/98 -0700, you wrote:

>> And in some cases, blocking software will block sites purely out of spite
>> or politics. It's fairly well known that some blocking programs will block
>> abortion sites and that some sites have been blocked specifically because
>> they pissed off the software company. I'm thinking specifically of (*I
>> think this is the name*) CyberSitter.
>
> At a company I just left it was routine policy of management to block
>our users from getting email from companies/domains the CEO or other
>managers didn't like. Hidden under an anti spam policy that was used to
>also block several spamming sites.

Well, the e-mail system at your company (or mine for that matter) is their
property. US Courts have ruled that they have the right to control how
this "business tool" is used, which means they have a right to block e-mail
from certain domains and to even read your private e-mail sent via your
company's e-mail system. Which is why it's good practice to delete
anything personal sent via your company e-mail as soon as you can.

>What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is preventing it's
>users from going out to certain sites. That sounds illegal. The blocking of
>email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff that sits on your
>machines. But blocking your own people from going out and getting things
>when they are paying for access is something I doubt would stand up in court.

This is illegal and is a violation of free speech; everytime CyberSitter
(or whoever it was/is) did this (they aren't an ISP, they sell parental
control software designed to keep children away from "naughty" sites) and
got caught, they had to back off under threat of litigation, lawsuits that
had good "legs" or validity to them. There was one political enemy of
theirs that kept getting blocked by them every few months or so, or at
least that was the cas through much of 96 and 97. Funny thing was, they
didn't start out as enemies; the web site was fairly harmless, but they got
rather irked by the nonsensical blocking of their site by the CyberSitter
software (or NetNanny or whoever, I'm horrible with names).

Now, if I'm at work, because I'm using their computer, their phone lines
(or at least phone time they are paying for), their ISP (internal or
external), they have every right to either block web sites or to track my
web site patterns. That's because I'm using their corporate property, as
an employee. As much as I dislike it, it's legal and has some
justification. The computer here at work is supposed to be a tool for
business, not for my personal amusement.

Now if I'm at home, using my computer and paying my phone bills, and my ISP
blocks me from a site, that has questionable legality. Of course, for the
most part, most sites/newsgroups that AOL blocks are hard-core porn sites,
so regardless of how many want to access them, you won't hear too much
about it. Like I'm going to risk public ridicule and humilation by
demanding to access a bestiality web page or something.

Now if an individual site decides on their own to block AOL users, or
Earthlink users or whatever, that's their own choice and while it's an
inconvenience, they have that right. Just as a webmaster can design their
site to be heavily optimized for Netscape Navigator or MS Internet Explorer.

Keep in mind however, that every nation has their own rules and guidelines
and all these laws are very young or still have yet to be written.

<political plug>
JD Falk's pet group, that I think he's a hardcore member of, is the
Electronic Freedom Foundation, which is a great group to get involved with
if you want to keep censorship out of the Internet. They seem to do some
solid work.
</political plug>

As for what this means for SR? Think about, Mitsuhama isn't going to want
their employees accessing Renraku sites or recieving e-mail from them.
Take that concept, mix with what else we've talked about such as the above,
and bingo, the 2060 "Internet."

Erik J.

http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World

From:	"Carlton B. Davis" <davisc74@***.ACS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:27:50 -0500

Message no. 14 On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Robert Watkins wrote:

<Snip bungled FBI busts>
> There are several good books on the subject. One cyberpunk author whose name
> I really should be able to remember but can't wrote one called "The Hacker
> Crackdown" which he has made publicly available on the Internet.
>
> --
> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
>
His name is Bruce Sterling.

Carlton

From:	Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:57:31 -0400

Message no. 15 Quoting M. Sean Martinez (ElBandit@***.COM):
> In a message dated 10/15/98 6:07:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rook@*****.INFINEX.COM writes:
>
> > What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is preventing it's
> > users from going out to certain sites. That sounds illegal. The blocking of
> > email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff that sits on your
> > machines. But blocking your own people from going out and getting things
> > when they are paying for access is something I doubt would stand up in
> court.
>
> As in all things it depends on what the fine print is when you sign an
> agrement, weather it is for access or for employment. Also it comes down to
> how much justice one can afford.

Like Bandit said...your ISP's only obligation is to provide you
the services specified in your service agreement. That's it. You're paying
for whatever they said they'd sell you, not for whatever it is you happen
to want...if there's something you want that they don't offer, it's your
responsiblity to find a merchant who'll sell it to you.
It'd be perfectly legal to sell email accounts that can't receive
mail from your competitor's users. It would be a really boneheaded idea,
business-wise, but it'd be perfectly LEGAL as long as that was the level of
service your customers had agreed to.
This isn't a free-speech issue. You're perfectly free, by US law
(if those of you from other countries will forgive a brief diversion into a
local topic), to SAY whatever you want, within the usual 'shouting fire in a
crowded theatre' rules...you're responsible for the CONSEQUENCES of your
speech. You can stand on the corner and shout political rhetoric to your
heart's content, but I'm not obliged to loan you a megaphone. And, if I
refuse to help you transmit your message, that's not censorship...it's
my own free choice in action, unless I have a legal agreement with you
that obligates me otherwise.
You can write any sort of letter you like to your local newspaper,
but they're not required to print them. I believe the courts have held
that in this context, ISPs are more like newspapers or publishers than they
are like the phone company.

> Personally I do not see how an ISP/Company could rational not allowing access
> to certin sites or domains, but I see it every day when I use AOL. I tried to
> access a few web pages, (Shadowrun pages) and found the owner's ISP would not
> allow me to access them beacuse I was on a AOL host.

That's probably because AOL is such a popular gateway for people
who are doing things they don't want tracked back to them. All of those
free account giveaways make it a wonderful anonymous gateway, and sometimes
it's used for some rather unwholesome activities.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:14:12 +1000

Message no. 16 On the subject of ISPS filtering sites... some ISPs run stuff like NetNanny
and CyberSitter on their servers as a _feature_ of their service. It allows
them to promote themselves as family friendly, because Ma & Pa (who rely on
their 10 year old to program their video) don't want Junior checking out all
that cyber porn that slams you in the face everywhere you go on the
internet...

Robert (who sees more pornography displayed at the newsagents than he does
when surfing the web casually)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:40:26 +0200

Message no. 17 According to Erik Jameson, at 17:48 on 15 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> And the answer is for the most part, no, most of the sites blocked have
> never been visited by anyone connected with the blocking software. To my
> knowledge, most blocking programs simply search the sites for key offensive
> words with specialized search agents and spiders.

Exactly what I thought, IOW... The company just puts a lot of "bad words"
into a database and the search engine does the rest without human
intervention. This is pretty bad, IMO.

> So your basic fear/assumption is correct Gurth.

Unfortunately, yes...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Warning! Choking hazard -- small letters.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	"M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:10:17 EDT

Message no. 18 In a message dated 10/16/98 3:33:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Starrngr writes:

> Huh? Never had this happen to me yet Bandit. Were you using the built in
> AO-Hell browser? (Even though I am a rather rabid supporter of AO-hell, I'm
> not THAT devoted... I use netscape myself)

I believe I was using the built in AOL Browser. I am not the only one who have
had this happy, another couple of frinds of mine also experienced this.

I also use started using netscape recently when I started having problems
accessing geocities pages. They would freeze up AOLs built in browser because
of the floating channel id logo.

-Bandit

From:	Kevin Langevin <kevinl@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:23:35 -0400

Message no. 19 > -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean McCrohan [mailto:mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 6:58 PM
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
>
>
> Quoting M. Sean Martinez (ElBandit@***.COM):
> > In a message dated 10/15/98 6:07:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > rook@*****.INFINEX.COM writes:
> >
> > > What gets me is that as it appears in this case an ISP is
> preventing it's
> > > users from going out to certain sites. That sounds
> illegal. The blocking of
> > > email is barely legal as you are blocking incoming stuff
> that sits on your
> > > machines. But blocking your own people from going out
> and getting things
> > > when they are paying for access is something I doubt
> would stand up in
> > court.
> >

Actually, it is legal, as other people have said in response to this post,
if they are fulfilling the letter of their agreement with you. I actually
know of a group of ISPs down here in South Florida, (and probably other
states) who met a couple of months ago and agreed to ban Yahoo's IP address.
*snap!* No more access to Yahoo. I'm not sure when it goes into effect,
but they're doing it because they all spent so much time and effort
promoting it asa free site, and now they've gone and signed a deal to resell
MCI as a service provider. They're all rather pissed. Don't know how
they'll explain it to their customers, but they're doing it.

-Kev

From:	Grahamdrew <mnemonic25@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Thought this was hallarious
Date:	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:16:55 -0400

Message no. 20 > Actually, it is legal, as other people have said in response to this post,
> if they are fulfilling the letter of their agreement with you. I actually
> know of a group of ISPs down here in South Florida, (and probably other
> states) who met a couple of months ago and agreed to ban Yahoo's IP address.
> *snap!* No more access to Yahoo. I'm not sure when it goes into effect,
> but they're doing it because they all spent so much time and effort
> promoting it asa free site, and now they've gone and signed a deal to resell
> MCI as a service provider. They're all rather pissed. Don't know how
> they'll explain it to their customers, but they're doing it.
>
> -Kev

Ok, this is horribly off-topic, but I just had to satisfy my curosity...

If I used said ISP above, that blocked Yahoo, would I still be able to
access a meta-engine that accessed yahoo? Since it would be the
meta-engine's server accessing yahoo's server, you wouldn't ahve any
interaction with yahoo's server, so everything would work out groovy,
right?

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer