What about distributing a new helper-app that turns code numbers into dirty words by pulling them in from a foreign dirty word server?
For instance, the American server would transmit the following text:
"Just because I have a pair of /*12*/ doesn't mean I can't do the job." The helper-app (maybe called "Unmuzzle"?) would send "12" to a server in Finland or somewhere, and would get back "tits", and assemble the whole page as if it had come from a single server.
This would be a very low bandwidth consumer, so the foreign dirty word servers wouldn't become over-taxed. It would be pretty hard to ban the number "12", as it is a well-liked sponsor of Sesame Street episodes. ...
I've thought it through to the next stage- you'd need to set up an "internet wthin the internet" to make sure that you could always find a new foreign dirty word server if previous servers are shut down. You could also have "alternate letter dirty word servers" so that no actual dirty word would even travel over sacred American data lines. A server from Sweden would send "T-T-" and another server from Iceland would send "-I-S" and your computer would collate the word "TITS" without even the slightest occurance of transmission of a dirty word anywhere. If you know someone who wants to build this, I can help them a bit, though it's all actually pretty easy and obvious.
The idea can be extended to work with pictures, sounds, etc. You'd have a program that breaks images into two seperate pieces, each incomprehensible (this is actually a fun, non-trivial, problem). You store each piece on a different server, probably in a foreign country, and have them re-combined only in your home. In this way, once again, forbidden material hasn't passed over American datapaths. There could be a fine commercial business (for foreigners only, obviously) in reliably running "pirate" servers off the beaten track, outside of GATT-land, that store ONLY out-of-context illicit bits of communication.
With all these ideas, the citizen has NO iliicit material on hand before or after viewing; not even any kind of cryptographic key to unlock such material. Contraband communication is transmitted openly, unencrypted, and yet no one is ever "holding the bag". It's a ridiculously elaborate way to complicate the simple act of transmitting a message, but it would be dramatic and tie up the courts if anyone wished to try to find a way to prosecute. It's good cyber-theater.
What principle they're talking about remains a mystery, and > all the more so now that House Speaker Newt Gingrich has > delayed the bill for review before final approval by House > conferees. The process of writing this bill has been shaped > by so many competing political and commercial interests -- > each with its potent Washington representatives -- that > it's hard to believe that even its authors can recognize > any more which end of it is up. The product runs 281 pages > in its current version, and is of course so full of > tortuous compromise language that nobody, and least of all > the lawmakers who vote on it, will be quite sure of what's > been approved.
> To be sure, the telecom bill isn't all bad. It does achieve > the basic aim of reform-letting long-distance companies, > cable outfits and the Baby Bells compete against each other > (eventually). That alone would probably make even the > current bill worth supporting. In fact, if this were still > 1992 and the Democrats ran Washington, the legislation > would represent a great achievement.
> But it's 1995, and a year after a landslide victory, the
> Republican Congress should be embarrassed for producing
> such a watered-down product. The Democrats and the
> self-styled "consumer movement" are inordinately happy with
> the outcome. Vice President Al Gore said, "There's not a
> single provision of the bill we're not happy about. This is
> a terrific bill, a centrist bill for the 21st century."
> What's in this bill that causes Big Government types to
> cheer and many free-market advocates to cringe? Let's look
> at the specifics.
> The conferees decided to delay deregulation of "expanded
> basic" cable -- everything from MTV to ESPN -- for another
> three years. They dropped a provision that would have
> allowed some foreign ownership of American broadcast
> outlets. They approved onerous language limiting "media
> concentration" that will make it much harder for companies
> to collaborate in the data stream that will emerge at the
> convergence of the computer, telephone and cable
> businesses. And at the behest of AT&T lobbyists and Sen.
> Fritz Hollings, they gave the Justice Department a bigger
> say in determining when the Bells can enter long-distance
> markets -- a move certain to delay full-scale competition
> between the Bells and AT&T, MCI, et al.
> At the behest of a different constituency, the conference
> committee also adopted highly regulatory language on
> cyber-smut. Rejecting a free-market alternative favored by
> Mr. Gingrich, the conferees decided to inflict harsh
> criminal penalties -- two years in jail and a fine of
> $100,000 -- on anyone using "obscenity" on the Internet.
> They also dropped a House provision that would have
> prevented the FCC from regulating the Internet. In
> addition, the conferees mandated that every TV set
> manufactured in the future must contain a costly "v-chip,"
> intended to block out violence. Good intentions
> notwithstanding, these provisions give government authority
> along the I-Way, of course it will grow.
> Perhaps the telecom bill's greatest sin is the least
> publicized: It includes a multibillion dollar giveaway to
> broadcasters in the form of free digital spectrum,
> originally promised them for a stillborn advance in high-
> definition television. No other industry expects such a
> massive chunk of airwaves for free; providers of "personal
> communications services" paid almost $10 billion at auction
> for their spectrum. The current bill states that when it
> comes time to distribute licenses for digital channels the
> FCC "should" limit eligibility to incumbent broadcasters.
> To provide a fig leaf for this giveaway -- which may be
> worth up to $70 billion -- Sen. Larry Pressler added a
> provision to the budget that would delay the digital
> distribution until the FCC completes a study of the issue
> in six months.
> Given how Republicans have buckled under to broadcasters'
> pressure this year, though, Congress isn't likely to
> reverse itself next year, no matter what the FCC study
> says. The only way we can explain it is to quote Newt
> Gingrich's comment earlier this year: "Nobody" in Congress
> wants to "take on" the broadcasters. Presumably the Speaker
> and his colleagues fear that if they don't let broadcasting
> keep its handout, the network news divisions will pummel
> them nightly until their approval ratings sink to record
> lows. So here's a GOP Congress, desperately scrambling to
> balance the budget, making its job harder by voluntarily
forgoing billions in spectrum auction revenues.
According to latest reports, the final bill won't reach the
> floor until next month. More lobbying apparently lies
> ahead, but it's even conceivable the Republicans will use
> the Congressional holiday to do some thinking.
> [End]
>
The effects of this legislation (S 652) go far beyond the Internet, reaching into every aspect of American lives, undoubtedly influencing the shape of the democracy our children will grow up in. This telecommunications bill encourages the concentration of ownership of all news, entertainment, and communication media, institutes censorship provisions that will put online service providers out of business, cut off universities from the worldwide network, and turn American scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs into a nation of Net-morons in an increasingly online world. This bill allows rates to rise too high and too fast, is generous with megacorporations and stingy with education, and it completely ignores the widening gap between information-rich and information-poor.
Through months of committee debates and decisions, censors and monopolists have won every battle over the future of the Internet. By shamelessly exploiting legislators' and citizens' ignorance of the nature of the Internet, a small group who are intent upon imposing their brand of morality on everyone else,are about to silence a potentially powerful medium for citizen-to-citizen communication, cripple American industries trying to compete in global markets, and create a Federal bureaucracy with the power to determine what is decent for citizens to say. Congress will almost certainly send to the President a telecommunications reform bill that can send people to jail for two years and fine them $100,000 for mentioning the seven words that are forbidden from radio and television. Mention of abortion, condoms or safe sex are almost certain to be the next items forbidden. American universities, on the advice of their attorneys will turn off all Internet access for their students as soon as the law goes into effect.
American citizens don't have to be electrical engineers to understand the nature of the new communication media. But we do need to have the truth told and the complexities explained, and that has not happened. Computer BBSs, e-mail, citizen networks, mean that you no longer have to own a press to benefit from freedom of the press: every desktop connected to the Net is a printing press, a place of assembly, a broadcasting station. The idea that ordinary taxpayers should have the power to publish eyewitness reports, argue policy, distribute information threatens the old power structures. Politicians and corporations whose fortunes are based on control of mass media fear their power will erode to the citizens.
Legislators have failed to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution by pursuing such nonsense as flag-burning amendments to the Constitution while at the same time destroying the liberties that flag symbolizes. Internet censorship legislation is not about pornography on the
Internet (which will easily move offshore). It's about who will have the power and control to broadcast words, images, and sounds, to everyone else. Citizens? Or cartels?
A trillion-dollar pie is being cut up. We, the people, are getting cut out. Speak up. We still have the right to communicate with the President and demand that he hold the line. Tell him to send this back to Congress. We've been living for sixty years under the rules set forth in the Communications Act of 1934. Now the Congress is changing the rules again, determining the way our nation and its industries will communicate, educate, and do business for decades to come. We deserve better than this.
Tell Clinton to tell Congress to try again, to cut the citizens of this country into the deal, and to keep their hands off the Bill of Rights. Contact the White House right now: (202) 456-1414 Phone (202) 456-1111 Comment Line (202) 456-2461 Faxsmall
Net-based businesses. And we might not hand over a nascent native industry (the dominant industry of the twen download error ing legislators' and citizens' ignorance of the nature of the Internet, a small group who are intent upon imposin